If you're not already onto it, there's still time to apply for some neat aerospace internships. Many have application deadlines at the end of January. Here's a couple I mentioned today on @aeroG:
Many of these opportunities are available at NASA centers and other locations across the country. On the other hand, the Masten folks are at Mojave, which is itself an amazing place (video, below).
I introduced AeroTweetsback in June. It's a great way to make connections with others in the aerospace field. Who knows what that could lead to- help with a school project, a new friend, or maybe even a job prospect? Twitter is also a great way to learn lots more about things than you could through traditional media.
When I look back, I think of so many opportunities missed, times when "if only I'd known about this then". An important part of your education is just learning about what's out there, what opportunities there are, and Twitter is an outstanding way to keep tabs with what's going on, whether it's a space project or even just the latest computer game update!
Now AeroTweets is following more than 1,300 NASA & industry engineers, pilots, astronomers, telescopes, spacecraft, etc. In fact it's pretty much become the norm that each new mission has its own Twitter account (and even an old mission, Lunar Orbiter – which is getting its photos enhanced and digitally archived – has got an account). Here's a few of the most interesting news & mission tweets you might want to follow:
Another thing you learn with experience is that relationships really are key. It's not just WHAT you know that matters, but also WHO you know. Maybe this doesn't seem fair, but in real life it's very hard to get anything done without trust, and trust comes from having known someone, preferably for a long time.
So it never hurts to start early working on building your professional network, even if you're still in high school. Here are just a few examples of the many interesting aero folks you can follow on Twitter (these guys are pretty busy, but who knows who YOU might be able to connect with, given time):
Finally, I've found a lot of folks are reluctant to sign up for Twitter, which is a bit surprising considering it's free and rather simple to use, but I really want to encourage you to give it a try. If you need a little more of a nudge, consider what a couple of other folks have to say:
So ... give it a try, and take a look at the AeroTweets list and some of these other accounts' following lists for interesting folks to listen to & learn from!!
If you're not on Twitter, you really should check it out. Maybe it's not for everyone - it seems like about a third of folks get the point right away, another third wander around and slowly find more value in it (as they find other interesting people to follow), and I guess another third maybe will only use it when they have to (like most every other computer technology).
Anyway, if you're not already following me at aeroG (see last post), you should check that out, it's my main Twitter where I tweet about stuff related to aerospace, research, entrepreneurship, etc.
Now I've made it even easier for you all, because besides the many interesting folks I'm following @aeroG, I've made a whole new Twitter account, AeroTweets that's collected HUNDREDS (over 500 currently) of aerospace twitterers. That's everyone from private, corporate, military and airline pilots to planetary scientists and spacecraft designers, independent rocket developers, many NASA engineers & web folks, and MUCH more!
Twitter's a great way to connect with folks and now AeroTweets gives you both a great way to get started on Twitter and a great way to connect to others in the aero field. To see the list of aero folks, just click on the Following link on the AeroTweets page.
Also, if you are in the aero field or a student, etc., let me know so I can add you on Twitter.
There's been a link at the bottom to my Twitter page, aeroG for quite some time, but if you haven't seen it, you should definitely check it out. I'm using Twitter to make quick and simple links to many aero articles and other valuable content. Here's just a sample of recent items:
It's a subtle question, but one we need to think about. Today is, of course, the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1 (right), and so of the start of the space age. It's a fitting time to think about both sides of this question.
Looking back, to 50 years ago, that achievement certainly qualified as what's called a "watershed event", something that led to a whole bunch of subsequent activity and change. Often such events are only appreciated later, but in some ways the importance of Sputnik was realized immediately. For a decade, science and engineering education got a much-needed surge of interest and emphasis.
The New York Times has given us two very nice gifts to celebrate this anniversary. First, it has produced a quite elaborate series of articles on Sputnik, the space age, etc. Second, it just recently announced that it will no longer be charging for access to at least most articles in its archives, so hopefully the links in this and other posts will keep working! If this example sets a trend for other publications, it could really do a lot for the accessibility of information on the internet.
One of the Times' articles is an interesting first-hand account of that period by Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev's son Sergei Kruschev, who was an engineering student who shared his father's zeal for technological progress.
Of course, likely none of the Soviet space spectaculars would have happened were it not for their program's Chief Designer, Sergei Korolev (at left). He, like his counterpart in America, German V-2 designer Wernher von Braun, had a vision for rocketry that extended far beyond military uses such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While von Braun had been pushing for years in the U.S. for manned exploration of space, it was Korolev who got the space race started, and ensured that there was a race.
The U.S. had already announced that it was going to launch a satellite into space, as a key part of its contribution to the International Geophysical Year, a concerted global research effort. That leisurely U.S. effort, however, oriented around the Navy's Vanguard program to orbit a very small satellite, ended up experiencing repeated launch failures. After Sputnik, the Army stepped in with von Braun (who, following Operation Paperclip, had been assigned to the Army's Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama) and its Jupiter Rocket.
While the Jupiter succeeded in orbiting the modest Explorer 1 satellite on January 31, 1958, resulting in the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, the Soviets continued to have a lead for a number of years. This lead was due to a number of factors, not least of which was the Soviets' possessing larger ICBMs, apparently necessitated by the greater "throw weight" of their early nuclear warheads. The Soviets were also a lot more willing to take risks, and many had already paid with their lives by the time Sputnik was launched.
Let us not forget that before Korolev were other pioneers who, as it's said, took the arrows. Most prominent are Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (left) and Robert Goddard. Tsiolkovsky was a prolific visionary who first set out many of the basic scientific and mathematic concepts of spaceflight and determined the rocket equation. While in 1920s-30s Germany, rocket pioneers such as Hermann Oberth would be treated almost like rock stars, Tsiolkovsky received little recognition or opportunity for collaboration with other scientists.
Goddard, who persevered for decades in the development of the liquid rocket engine technology (above right) key to spaceflight, was widely ridiculed early in his career (including, perhaps most notably, by the New York Times). He labored for years with little recognition and assistance beyond that of a few visionaries such as Charles Lindbergh and the Guggenheims, and died just before the advent of a more concerted American rocketry effort.
In the 1935 photo at right, Goddard (center) is flanked by Harry Guggenheim (left) and Lindbergh. To their sides are Goddard's brother-in-law and machinist Albert Kisk (far left) and his machinist N.T. Ljungquist (far right).
Looking forward, from Sputnik to 50 years later, it's clear that in many ways the importance of the event is still not widely appreciated or understood. Sputnik was the crossing of a huge threshold, much as was the Montgolfier brothers' balloon in 1783 and the Wright brothers' airplane in 1903. In some ways, it opened up an even far greater realm for exploration and development, at least the solar system and perhaps beyond.
I'll put off till another time lamenting that so few people even now "get it" about space, that it's a destination and a place to live, like discovering another continent, only so much more vast. Today, we need to be asking the right questions about what allowed such a momentous advance 50 years ago. One particularly interesting question is, "Why did Korolev and von Braun accomplish so much in just a few years?"
A large part of the answer, in my estimation, involved this: the recognition and support of talent. Korolev and von Braun got a lot of help that Tsiolkovsky and Goddard never did. So what does that say about the present and the future?
Today, I'm very concerned that we have lost in many fields the ability to recognize true talent and support it wholeheartedly. This is a subject I'll cover some other time in another place, but throughout our society we need to re-develop the ability to identify truly talented individuals. This proper measuring of accomplishment is a skill that must be taught. Though this skill involves many things, one key aspect is that we must look at how much someone accomplishes with what they've been given, and not just how big a budget they can spend.
Certainly today in our largest space programs, we have a desperate need for technically competent visionaries who can guide us forward, rather than just reinvent the wheel. More generally, we need to have more appreciation for talented folks outside the mainstream government and university programs. Real breakthoughs often - if not primarily - come from outside the cloisters of recognized "experts". It's easy to forget that just six decades ago, rocketry was so scorned in the U.S., that Caltech's Theodore von Karman decided to name his new facility the Jet - not Rocket - Propulsion Lab!
We also need to be looking to invest more in students with a passionate interest in a certain field. This last need is more generally acknowledged, but what is poorly understood is that this sort of thing must be done primarily by folks in that particular field. Researchers who are too busy to devote much effort to teaching and mentoring students may still be accomplishing much that is important, but must realize they're also denying many opportunities.
If nothing else, the story of Sputnik shows how it's not just big government programs, but ultimately individuals, that are important. The Soviet space program never recovered from its loss of Korolev (who may well have been pushed too hard by the elder Kruschev), and neither has the American program seen the kind of progress in manned flight and rocketry that it saw under von Braun. If we really want to see progress in space exploration and development, we must cultivate individuals, and not just budget line items.
Now, in this spirit, one more thing - today's also a special day because one of my children, who I've written about before, is having a birthday. OK, well ... yeah, of course I thought it was a cool day to have for a birthday!
It's a subtle question, but one we need to think about. Today is, of course, the 50th anniversary of the launch of 
One of the Times' articles is an interesting 
The U.S. had already announced that it was going to launch a satellite into space, as a key part of its contribution to the International Geophysical Year, a concerted global research effort. That leisurely U.S. effort, however, oriented around the Navy's Vanguard program to orbit a very small satellite, ended up experiencing repeated launch failures. After Sputnik, the Army stepped in with von Braun (who, following 
Let us not forget that before Korolev were other pioneers who, as it's said, took the arrows. Most prominent are 
In the 
