Once you learn a certain number of programing languages it becomes really easy to pick up new ones in the same style. Python, C, C++, Perl, Java, Ruby, etc. are all very similar and there's a point where you'll know enough that you'll just have to google the 'if' and loop syntax and you're good to go. After that you can learn different programming paradigms like functional programming or how assemblers work. And once you're there, you can pretty much pick up any programming language or API you need to use in a couple of days. It doesn't really matter where you start so long as you are committed to lifelong learning that's how you make the big bucks.
Mod parent up... although, as a Purdue alum, I can warn you that the Michigan student tend to be a bunch of arrogant fucks who talk too much shit about how great their football team is... But the Michigan alums that I work with tend to know what they are doing, and the small sat programs there are really cool... and SpaceX is full of a lot of Michigan people too.
Mechanical, aeronautical, electrical or computing. A good name school helps, but a 4.0 degree from a less stellar school is good too.
You learn much, much more from a top tier school. GPA is for schmucks. I'd rather have someone with a low GPA from a good school where they learned the theory behind stuff than a 4.0 from some middling school where they only know how to do cookbook problems. Space is full of hard problems, and if you want to make a difference in aerospace you need to seek out a school that will expose you to hard problems.
Don't go to Caltech for aerospace unless you just want to learn airplanes. I work at JPL and have a lot of interaction with CalTech students who complain about the lack of space stuff in the aero department... they don't even have an orbit mechanics class. MIT is ok if you want to do systems engineering, but generally their aero department doesn't do much space stuff either (last I heard, their orbit class was taught by a grad student who took it upon himself to have some sort of orbit class).
If you want to do SpaceX, I'd write them an email and ask for their advise, ask where they recruit from. They will probably want chemical prop and systems engineering people.
From what I've seen the best schools if you want to do space are Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, Colorado, UT Austin, Georgia Tech, Stanford, Michigan, UCLA, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Carnegie Mellon and Stanford have awesome robotics programs. Michigan and Caly Poly SLO have excellent cube sat programs. Michigan, Stanford, and UCLA have excellent electric propulsion. Georgia Tech and Michigan have excellent systems engineering. Purdue, UT Austin, and Colorado have excellent orbit mechanics. And Purdue has probably the best chemical propulsion program. Georgia Tech has a really amazing senior design class (best out of the 5 that I've advised as an industry person).
If you don't want to go to far, I'd recommend Michigan, Purdue, or CMU. But try to email SpaceX and see what they advise (but be aware that the person who responds will be biased towards their alma mater)
I had a quick look around, it seems that the European JIME mission is still on, Japan and Russia are interested in joining to provide magnetospheric study and a Europa lander, respectively. So it's not a total loss. I'd still rather see the US research community contributing though, saying that as a European myself. There's some serious expertise there.
Those missions were initially sold as being cooperative with the NASA Europa mission. Without the NASA mission it's going to be much harder to sell those missions to their respective national governments.
The plan was to have Cassini end its mission by flying between the planet and the rings to do essentially the Juno mission at Saturn. NASA's already paid for Cassini, it's a waste to shut it down early... Juno was $1B, and Cassini could do the same thing at Saturn for pennies on that dollar.
It would have been nice if the summary had stated what OMB stands for somewhere (Office of Management and Budget). I was trying to figure out if it was some wacky new term for Obama or his administration.
This has been modded "funny", but seriously, no-one outside the US is going to know this.
It's not the administration's fault, it's Congress. NASA HQ and the administration didn't even want to build SLS -- they wanted to bolster the commercial launch market instead -- and were forced to do it by the Congressional committee.
If there's someone Lou Friedman should be complaining about, it's Senators Nelson and Shelby and their fixation on providing pork to large aerospace contractors in return for bribes, I mean campaign donations.
I would have hoped that someone in his position would be better informed, frankly.
Congress shares the blame, but OMB is part of the White House, and they are the ones trying to scrap the Mars program to pay for the big rocket. NASA is unable to get the cost of the rocket down, so the White House had three choices: 1) ask Congress to send more money to pay for their rocket or remove the mandate, 2) tell NASA to change its ways and built the rocket more cheaply, or 3) through the robotic missions under the bus. #1 probably would have worked because it's asking the powerful Senators who designed the rocket to send more money to their home states, but it would require Obama sticking his neck out for NASA, and what President is going to do that in an election year? #2 makes the most fiscal sense, but would have made enemies in the Senate and Congress (they don't care if NASA goes anywhere, they just want the money spent in their home states). So they chose #3.
NASA uses a lot of tax money and, with a population whose general impression of resemasearch is that it just giving money to boring nerds in labcoats (ignoring the economy generated by products of past research), they must do regular "America #1, Yihaaaa!" performances in order to keep the population from objecting too much against NASA funding.
I want to do Apollo Again! Apollo was very exciting. Everyone was excited.
I always hated OS X Server because I was brought up on the old UNIX boxes and I liked to do everything on the command line... but the #@$@#$ GUIs in OS X Server would clobber all of my config files (and they were not well documented either). I'm very glad to see OS X server go back to the command line and be more like Linux.
If I were you, I'd put the year-end bonus in a 6-mo CD, and get the tablet when the CD's term is up
Waiting 6 months might well be sensible. But the average CD yield is 0.63% (APR). So... $1000 in a 6 month CD will net him under $3.50.
Put the money into Apple or Google stock and buy a tablet when the profits are enough to cover it. That's how I paid for my first iPhone (and then some).
LH2/LOX engines will perform better than this new compound no matter what. The only way to get better performance than LH2/LOX (for a chemical rocket) is to change the oxidizer.... maybe liquid ozone... or Fluorine. Fluorine is the best oxidizer you can get. Problem is that it tends to oxidize its container and then oxidize you.... nasty, nasty stuff.
Most modern solid-fuel rockets use pretty much the same fuel as the shuttle SRBs. It's cheap, stable and reliable but it does produce a lot of goop and the ISP could be better. If this stuff is stable it might make an excellent replacement for ammonium perchlorate oxidizer.
Shuttle SRBs are more expensive and less reliable than equivalent liquid boosters. This is the main reason why SpaceX is only using liquid engines in the Falcon-9. ULA uses solid boosters for extra thrust on the Atlas V, but these solids are cheaper and more reliable than Shuttle SRBs. In addition, based on recent conference papers, I think they want to get away from solids in their next generation of rockets.
So why is NASA planning on using boosters based on the lower performing, more expensive, and less reliable Shuttle SRBs in their new Heavy lift rocket? This is because the Utah Congressional delegation is lobbying heavily for the company that makes the SRBs. The Utah senators inserted text into the continuing resolution that NASA is currently operating under that they claim prevents NASA from even doing trade studies to consider any alternatives to using the Shuttle SRBs.
Solids might have made sense in the 60s, but with current technology they are no longer needed except in a few specialized applications for robotic planetary exploration spacecraft.
C can be good for introductory programming classes at the college level because it also teaches you about how computers work.... but for kids I think a higher level language like python is a good starting point.
I personally don't like python for numerous personal reasons... but I'm teaching my son Python as his first computer language for the simple reason that there's a very good kid's programming book out there, and it uses python: "Hello World! Computer Programming for Kids and Other Beginners"
The link above has some sample chapters to look at.
I've also set him up with Ubuntu to learn with. Ubuntu has a lot of free educational software (with the edUbuntu bundle), runs very well on a cheap netbook, and the unix security model keeps him from installing tons of junk programs off the web that cripples his computer. Though it would be nice if ubuntu had some of the OS X parental controls... especially with email and chat.
I want to be able to open up the doors on the messed-up US immigration system and bring more talent into the US. Because that talent creates wealth, here in the US, where I live. I also want to open it up to unskilled laborers because hard work creates wealth too.
But on the other side I want to be able to move to other countries and have rights to own properties and have the same legal rights as natives there. I want to be entitled to basic human rights and rights to the property that I bring with me. In return, I'll bring money with me, when I retire, to places like Mexico. Or maybe I'll work from home and move south from LA to Baja and make my money go further. And I'll take that money that I bring with me, and I'll spend it. And if other Americans come with me, that will pump lots of money into depressed areas.
If we have free trade in goods with NAFTA, why can't we have free trade in labor??
Schools never teach basics like the difference between 7 and 7 cars or 7 feet or 7 songs. They don't teach what the number line really means and what the different kinds of numbers are. They don't teach the history of math and tell the great little stories about how the discovery of 'pi' really blew peoples minds at the time and how amazing it is that some numbers can't ever be expressed as fractions. They don't teach the things that point out the wonder in math but expect kids to find it on their own. They teach math as something that only has value in application... they teach kids that they only need to know enough to balance their checkbook unless they go into a specialized field.
A literature teacher won't accept arguments from kids that reading Mark Twain is something that they'll never use after school. And I think math and the beauty of numbers should be taught with the same reverence as Shakespeare.
But the problem is that most people learn math with the same understanding that a dead piece of silicon has. They teach it through drills and repetition designed to turn kids into little calculators.
What often makes it an 'impossible' job is that these kids aren't getting discipline or a work ethic at home. My wife teaches junior high math (in a good district) and she routinely gets parents complaining that she gives homework. These people think she's capable of regurgitating something in 50 minutes and the kids will magically know it. Yet, somehow, it's her fault when they fail a test after ignoring the homework assignments.
My kids got a ton of busy-work homework... starting at kindergarden. And this homework is geared to the slowest kids in the class, not to what a student needed to know.
They entered kinder already knowing how to add and read and were really excited to learn more... but all the had to do in kinder was color and do letter sounds. For a whole week they would get stupid worksheets on one letter at a time. When we complained to the school, we were accused of hot-housing the kids and told that we should give them the "gift of time."
Homework helps kids learn when it is difficult and they spend their time figuring it out. It is harmful to learning when it is just a giant mountain of stuff that they already know how to do. Unfortunately, most teachers in the US do not understand this at all.
How are you supposed to teach kids a work ethic when working hard gets them nowhere? The whole class is expected to progress at the same level, and teachers can be quite hostile to kids who want to go any faster.
sorry, I was tired and flubbed my zeros... the occurrence of the profoundly gifted in 1 in 1 million.
Until recently the total human population was only a few million so these people were much less numerous. But now that we have 6 billion people on Earth we should expect to have quite a few Newton level minds running around.
I have taught math concepts to several elementary and pre-school age children and they are fully capable of logic and deduction. Just look at the types of thinking needed to figure out many video games... most kids can do that at a young age. If you can figure out Mario, you can figure out math.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you learn a certain number of programing languages it becomes really easy to pick up new ones in the same style. Python, C, C++, Perl, Java, Ruby, etc. are all very similar and there's a point where you'll know enough that you'll just have to google the 'if' and loop syntax and you're good to go. After that you can learn different programming paradigms like functional programming or how assemblers work. And once you're there, you can pretty much pick up any programming language or API you need to use in a couple of days. It doesn't really matter where you start so long as you are committed to lifelong learning that's how you make the big bucks.
Lots of details are in the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS) study from last year. Not sure when NASA is going to release details about their version, but I bet it is pretty similar. http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf
Magnetically shielded Hall Thrusters, infused with badass: http://gcd.larc.nasa.gov/2013/03/magnetic-shielding-of-walls-from-the-unmagnetized-ion-beam-in-a-hall-thruster/
Mod parent up... although, as a Purdue alum, I can warn you that the Michigan student tend to be a bunch of arrogant fucks who talk too much shit about how great their football team is... But the Michigan alums that I work with tend to know what they are doing, and the small sat programs there are really cool... and SpaceX is full of a lot of Michigan people too.
Mechanical, aeronautical, electrical or computing. A good name school helps, but a 4.0 degree from a less stellar school is good too.
You learn much, much more from a top tier school. GPA is for schmucks. I'd rather have someone with a low GPA from a good school where they learned the theory behind stuff than a 4.0 from some middling school where they only know how to do cookbook problems. Space is full of hard problems, and if you want to make a difference in aerospace you need to seek out a school that will expose you to hard problems.
Don't go to Caltech for aerospace unless you just want to learn airplanes. I work at JPL and have a lot of interaction with CalTech students who complain about the lack of space stuff in the aero department... they don't even have an orbit mechanics class. MIT is ok if you want to do systems engineering, but generally their aero department doesn't do much space stuff either (last I heard, their orbit class was taught by a grad student who took it upon himself to have some sort of orbit class).
If you want to do SpaceX, I'd write them an email and ask for their advise, ask where they recruit from. They will probably want chemical prop and systems engineering people.
From what I've seen the best schools if you want to do space are Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, Colorado, UT Austin, Georgia Tech, Stanford, Michigan, UCLA, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Carnegie Mellon and Stanford have awesome robotics programs. Michigan and Caly Poly SLO have excellent cube sat programs. Michigan, Stanford, and UCLA have excellent electric propulsion. Georgia Tech and Michigan have excellent systems engineering. Purdue, UT Austin, and Colorado have excellent orbit mechanics. And Purdue has probably the best chemical propulsion program. Georgia Tech has a really amazing senior design class (best out of the 5 that I've advised as an industry person).
If you don't want to go to far, I'd recommend Michigan, Purdue, or CMU. But try to email SpaceX and see what they advise (but be aware that the person who responds will be biased towards their alma mater)
The ice used to be part of the ocean... sample the surface ice and you same the ocean
I had a quick look around, it seems that the European JIME mission is still on, Japan and Russia are interested in joining to provide magnetospheric study and a Europa lander, respectively. So it's not a total loss. I'd still rather see the US research community contributing though, saying that as a European myself. There's some serious expertise there.
Those missions were initially sold as being cooperative with the NASA Europa mission. Without the NASA mission it's going to be much harder to sell those missions to their respective national governments.
It's worse, it looks like they want to shut down Cassini early: http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2011/10/updates.html
The plan was to have Cassini end its mission by flying between the planet and the rings to do essentially the Juno mission at Saturn. NASA's already paid for Cassini, it's a waste to shut it down early... Juno was $1B, and Cassini could do the same thing at Saturn for pennies on that dollar.
It would have been nice if the summary had stated what OMB stands for somewhere (Office of Management and Budget). I was trying to figure out if it was some wacky new term for Obama or his administration.
This has been modded "funny", but seriously, no-one outside the US is going to know this.
You could google, or maybe read the article
It's not the administration's fault, it's Congress. NASA HQ and the administration didn't even want to build SLS -- they wanted to bolster the commercial launch market instead -- and were forced to do it by the Congressional committee.
If there's someone Lou Friedman should be complaining about, it's Senators Nelson and Shelby and their fixation on providing pork to large aerospace contractors in return for bribes, I mean campaign donations.
I would have hoped that someone in his position would be better informed, frankly.
Congress shares the blame, but OMB is part of the White House, and they are the ones trying to scrap the Mars program to pay for the big rocket. NASA is unable to get the cost of the rocket down, so the White House had three choices: 1) ask Congress to send more money to pay for their rocket or remove the mandate, 2) tell NASA to change its ways and built the rocket more cheaply, or 3) through the robotic missions under the bus. #1 probably would have worked because it's asking the powerful Senators who designed the rocket to send more money to their home states, but it would require Obama sticking his neck out for NASA, and what President is going to do that in an election year? #2 makes the most fiscal sense, but would have made enemies in the Senate and Congress (they don't care if NASA goes anywhere, they just want the money spent in their home states). So they chose #3.
NASA uses a lot of tax money and, with a population whose general impression of resemasearch is that it just giving money to boring nerds in labcoats (ignoring the economy generated by products of past research), they must do regular "America #1, Yihaaaa!" performances in order to keep the population from objecting too much against NASA funding.
I want to do Apollo Again! Apollo was very exciting. Everyone was excited.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4J9uvhJQM0
(youtube video about how exciting Apollo was)
I always hated OS X Server because I was brought up on the old UNIX boxes and I liked to do everything on the command line... but the #@$@#$ GUIs in OS X Server would clobber all of my config files (and they were not well documented either). I'm very glad to see OS X server go back to the command line and be more like Linux.
If I were you, I'd put the year-end bonus in a 6-mo CD, and get the tablet when the CD's term is up
Waiting 6 months might well be sensible. But the average CD yield is 0.63% (APR). So... $1000 in a 6 month CD will net him under $3.50.
Put the money into Apple or Google stock and buy a tablet when the profits are enough to cover it. That's how I paid for my first iPhone (and then some).
Check out this link on how much money could be made by buying Apple stock instead of Apple products: http://www.kyleconroy.com/apple-stock.php
LH2/LOX engines will perform better than this new compound no matter what. The only way to get better performance than LH2/LOX (for a chemical rocket) is to change the oxidizer.... maybe liquid ozone... or Fluorine. Fluorine is the best oxidizer you can get. Problem is that it tends to oxidize its container and then oxidize you.... nasty, nasty stuff.
Most modern solid-fuel rockets use pretty much the same fuel as the shuttle SRBs. It's cheap, stable and reliable but it does produce a lot of goop and the ISP could be better. If this stuff is stable it might make an excellent replacement for ammonium perchlorate oxidizer.
Shuttle SRBs are more expensive and less reliable than equivalent liquid boosters. This is the main reason why SpaceX is only using liquid engines in the Falcon-9. ULA uses solid boosters for extra thrust on the Atlas V, but these solids are cheaper and more reliable than Shuttle SRBs. In addition, based on recent conference papers, I think they want to get away from solids in their next generation of rockets.
So why is NASA planning on using boosters based on the lower performing, more expensive, and less reliable Shuttle SRBs in their new Heavy lift rocket? This is because the Utah Congressional delegation is lobbying heavily for the company that makes the SRBs. The Utah senators inserted text into the continuing resolution that NASA is currently operating under that they claim prevents NASA from even doing trade studies to consider any alternatives to using the Shuttle SRBs.
Solids might have made sense in the 60s, but with current technology they are no longer needed except in a few specialized applications for robotic planetary exploration spacecraft.
Tai D'oh!
Obviously NASA was supposed to be a technical organization, but now its just a MBA stepping stone.
There still is some good technical stuff... check this out: http://www.whitepapers.org/docs/show/2067
Human missions to asteroids without heavy lift... costs less per year than shuttle did.
Interesting, but it will never work... it wouldn't cost enough to pay for the lobbyists
If you want to teach someone something marketable for first language and there are plenty of .Net jobs out there, C# is much better choice.
Heh. If you want to teach them something that will make them rich, set them up with Objective-C and an iPhone :-)
C can be good for introductory programming classes at the college level because it also teaches you about how computers work.... but for kids I think a higher level language like python is a good starting point.
I personally don't like python for numerous personal reasons... but I'm teaching my son Python as his first computer language for the simple reason that there's a very good kid's programming book out there, and it uses python: "Hello World! Computer Programming for Kids and Other Beginners"
link: http://www.manning.com/sande/
The link above has some sample chapters to look at.
I've also set him up with Ubuntu to learn with. Ubuntu has a lot of free educational software (with the edUbuntu bundle), runs very well on a cheap netbook, and the unix security model keeps him from installing tons of junk programs off the web that cripples his computer. Though it would be nice if ubuntu had some of the OS X parental controls... especially with email and chat.
I want to be able to open up the doors on the messed-up US immigration system and bring more talent into the US. Because that talent creates wealth, here in the US, where I live. I also want to open it up to unskilled laborers because hard work creates wealth too.
But on the other side I want to be able to move to other countries and have rights to own properties and have the same legal rights as natives there. I want to be entitled to basic human rights and rights to the property that I bring with me. In return, I'll bring money with me, when I retire, to places like Mexico. Or maybe I'll work from home and move south from LA to Baja and make my money go further. And I'll take that money that I bring with me, and I'll spend it. And if other Americans come with me, that will pump lots of money into depressed areas.
If we have free trade in goods with NAFTA, why can't we have free trade in labor??
Schools never teach basics like the difference between 7 and 7 cars or 7 feet or 7 songs. They don't teach what the number line really means and what the different kinds of numbers are. They don't teach the history of math and tell the great little stories about how the discovery of 'pi' really blew peoples minds at the time and how amazing it is that some numbers can't ever be expressed as fractions. They don't teach the things that point out the wonder in math but expect kids to find it on their own. They teach math as something that only has value in application... they teach kids that they only need to know enough to balance their checkbook unless they go into a specialized field.
A literature teacher won't accept arguments from kids that reading Mark Twain is something that they'll never use after school. And I think math and the beauty of numbers should be taught with the same reverence as Shakespeare.
But the problem is that most people learn math with the same understanding that a dead piece of silicon has. They teach it through drills and repetition designed to turn kids into little calculators.
What often makes it an 'impossible' job is that these kids aren't getting discipline or a work ethic at home. My wife teaches junior high math (in a good district) and she routinely gets parents complaining that she gives homework. These people think she's capable of regurgitating something in 50 minutes and the kids will magically know it. Yet, somehow, it's her fault when they fail a test after ignoring the homework assignments.
My kids got a ton of busy-work homework... starting at kindergarden. And this homework is geared to the slowest kids in the class, not to what a student needed to know.
They entered kinder already knowing how to add and read and were really excited to learn more... but all the had to do in kinder was color and do letter sounds. For a whole week they would get stupid worksheets on one letter at a time. When we complained to the school, we were accused of hot-housing the kids and told that we should give them the "gift of time."
Homework helps kids learn when it is difficult and they spend their time figuring it out. It is harmful to learning when it is just a giant mountain of stuff that they already know how to do. Unfortunately, most teachers in the US do not understand this at all.
How are you supposed to teach kids a work ethic when working hard gets them nowhere? The whole class is expected to progress at the same level, and teachers can be quite hostile to kids who want to go any faster.
sorry, I was tired and flubbed my zeros... the occurrence of the profoundly gifted in 1 in 1 million.
Until recently the total human population was only a few million so these people were much less numerous. But now that we have 6 billion people on Earth we should expect to have quite a few Newton level minds running around.
I have taught math concepts to several elementary and pre-school age children and they are fully capable of logic and deduction.
Just look at the types of thinking needed to figure out many video games... most kids can do that at a young age. If you can figure out Mario, you can figure out math.