The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, November 1, 2017— 3A
proven to have the capability
to be much faster and use
significantly
less
propellant
than regular rockets.
“With
a
standard
conventional chemical rocket
the gas leaving the back might
be leaving at something like
4 or 5 kilometers per second.
Our systems can do 20, 30, 40,
even over 100 kilometers per
second of exhaust velocity. And
that translates into allowing the
spacecraft to go much faster,
anywhere from twice to 10
times as fast as a conventional
spacecraft can go,” Gallimore
explained.
With this technology, both
robotic systems and people have
the capability to be transported
from one place to another
in
space,
either
using
less
propellant than a normal rocket
or traveling there at a much
faster rate. Both possibilities
are of interest to NASA and have
been invested in through the
Next Step project, which has
allowed researchers to develop
these prototypes.
This technology is both 10
times faster than any engine
that is currently used in space
and has broken NASA’s record
for thruster speed made several
years ago.
The
next
step
for
this
research is to operate a thruster
at al least 100 kilowatts for 100
hours continuously. Gallimore
is optimistic that by 2018, with
minor
modifications
based
on what they have learned
from this round of testing, the
thruster will be capable of going
much more than 100 hours
continuously.
Gallimore
expressed
appreciation that his research
can coexist with his roles as
dean of Engineering and a
professor.
“One of the things I’m really
happy about is how research,
and the education of students
through research, is something
that the University of Michigan
does very well, in comparison to
many of our peer institutions. I
am really fortunate as dean to
be able to demonstrate this in
person by my own research that
I still do, and by the fact that I
have amazing students,” he said.
This
group
includes
Engineering graduate student
Scott Hall, who worked as a
research fellow with NASA
on this project and has been
offered a position to work at
center
where
he
conducted
research
after
getting
his
Ph.D. He explained the test’s
importance as the culmination
of his own work with aerospace
engineering.
“A pretty large team has
been working on the project
since well before I even came to
grad school. It was an amazing
experience to be a part of the
passionate,
dedicated
group
of engineers and technicians
at NASA that I worked with
to accomplish this test. I’ll be
defending my dissertation based
heavily on that experiment in a
few weeks,” he said.
MARS
From Page 1A
those outside of the University
of Michigan’s borders.
During the first few weeks
of
the
initiative,
Ashman
said, CSG paid for the buses
—about $800 per bus. With
this, they were able to provide
one shuttle every other week.
Eventually,
Meijer
noticed
high interest among students
using the shuttle and offered
to
pay
for
the
program
themselves,
which
allowed
two shuttles to run every
week.
This year, however, Meijer
discontinued funding as they
begin to join recent trends
to have groceries delivered
directly
to
homes
and
students, so as to compete
with other delivery services
such as Amazon.
“They didn’t see the value in
having a bus bring kids to their
locations when their real goal
was to have students order
the groceries and have them
delivered to them,” Ashman
said.
CSG,
unable
to
provide
funding
for
what
would
amount to $1,600 per week,
decided to cut the program
from their budget. This was
in order to continue paying
for other programs such as
Student Organization Funding
Commission — which helps
fund
student
organizations
— as well as financial aid
support.
“We tossed it around for a
bit and ultimately decided we
just couldn’t, we didn’t want
to start it and stop it and we
couldn’t eat that cost for a
whole semester or a whole
year,” Ashman said. “That was
going to impact a lot of other
stuff we wanted to do which
was
also
important
work.
We didn’t want to make that
commitment.”
Though CSG looked into
other ways to provide students
with a grocery shuttle, Ann
Arbor public buses The Ride
currently allow students direct
transportation to off-campus
grocery stores. Engineering
sophomore Olivia Sun used
these services last year, and
said because of the options
available to students she feels
the need for a specific shuttle
from CSG is not as significant.
“I heard about (the CSG
Meijer shuttle), but I never
used it,” she said. “I personally
don’t see (its discontinuation)
as an inconvenience to myself
just because I was already able
to take a (Ride) Bus to Meijer
… since that bus already goes
there I don’t see the need for
there to be a specific shuttle
just to go to Meijer.”
Addressing food insecurities
on campus was a large part
of the Shafer administration
platform and an issue included
as part of eMerge’s campaign
last spring. CSG committees
are currently working on other
means to combat the issue,
such as providing farmers
markets
on
campus
and
partnering with dining halls to
include fresh produce options
within University dining.
“We
certainly
have
not
forgotten about the issues of
food insecurity and access to
healthy foods on this campus,”
Ashman said.
MEIJER
From Page 1A
over the past two weeks, 85
percent of survey respondents
believe housing in Ann Arbor
is segregated by income level.
26 percent of the respondents
come from families making over
$220,000 annually, while the
second largest percentage was
the 22 percent of respondents
from families making $120,000
to $150,000 annually. Less than 11
percent of respondents come from
families making less than $60,000
per year.
In 2016, Michigan’s median
household income was $52,492
— a stark contrast to the median
household income of $154,000 for
University of Michigan students.
Additionally,
9.3
percent
of
students’ families make upwards
of $630,000 per year.
Willian further noted housing is
segregated by student preferences,
rather than solely by family income.
She emphasized how athletes often
choose to live by their practice
facilities, most commonly in the
Yost neighborhood, rather than
other neighborhoods off-campus.
“I would also say housing is
definitely segregated by where
students prefer to live in addition
to what they can afford,” she said.
“To my understanding, many of
the athletes live closer to where
their practices are held. I live on
South U near Central Campus,
in a location that is close to my
classes. I don’t really have to go
near the sports complexes besides
for on game day so I wouldn’t like
to live too far away from Central.
I also chose this location because
there are many other apartment
complexes in a close vicinity and
a lot of the friends I made last year
live in this area too.”
Engineering junior Siddharth
Ramesh
further
supported
this, stating though Ann Arbor
certainly has an issue with
expensive housing, he believes
housing is expensive across the
map — rather than segregated by
certain neighborhoods.
“When I first started the
search for a place off campus
I
was
astonished
by
how
expensive every place was. I
would say that yes, housing off
campus is segregated by price,
but I think the primary factor
is proximity to campus,” he
said. “Apartments and houses
closer to campus are a lot
more
expensive,
apartments
especially, and then they get
cheaper as you go farther out.”
Ramesh said his hunt for
housing was based around his
own personal preferences, as
he knew he would be paying a
large amount for monthly rent
regardless of location.
“Once I reconciled myself
with the fact that I was going
to be paying close to $1,000 per
month for housing, I think my
primary factors in determining
where to live was how far the
house was from where I studied
plus from where my roommates
studied plus area of common
spaces plus food options near
by,” he said.
The median rate for rent in
Ann Arbor increased 14 percent
from 2010 to 2015, reaching
$1,075 per month — even as the
amount of high-density housing
has jumped by 32 percent —
according to the U.S. Census
Bureau. However, this data is for
the entire city and may not be
reflective of the cost of housing
for students specifically, most of
which are clustered downtown.
In fact, the survey showed
the average monthly rent of
respondents to be approximately
$772.
Rather
than
living
in
a
neighborhood after freshman
year, many students choose
to instead live in one of the
numerous luxury apartments
scattered across Ann Arbor,
such as Landmark or Foundry
Lofts. However, with monthly
rates going for upwards of
$1,000 per person, depending
on the size of the apartment,
these apartments only cater to a
certain percentage of the student
body. As developers constructed
these high-rises in the center
of the city, they touted the
benefits of bringing an influx of
wealth to the area. Furthermore,
they
initially
believed
the
construction of such buildings
would cause rental prices for
houses further from campus to
drop — a phenomenon that has
not yet been proven.
In an interview with the
Ann Arbor News in 2012, local
commercial real estate agent
Peter Allen said though the
apartments are expensive, the
average University student can
afford to pay for convenience
and extra amenities.
“The profile of students can
afford these super ammenized,
very convenient locations,” he said.
HOUSING
From Page 1A
in all these areas but I share
the
frustration
effort
from
many students and also faculty
and staff that it’s just too slow.
Change isn’t fast enough.
TMD: Specifically to that
point,
there
was
Tabbye
Chavous,
the
director
of
the
National
Center
for
Institutional Diversity, who was
quoted back in February saying
that “this Fall will likely have
an appreciable difference on our
faculty (in terms of diversity).”
How are things on that front?
Schlissel: I don’t have faculty
numbers.
The
DEI
office,
SCHLISSEL
From Page 2A
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
I’m sure, does. But programs
are up and running in each of
the schools and colleges that
are designed to purposefully
increase the diversity of the
faculty, to use legal means, but
to purposefully look for scholars
that enhance the study of or the
environment for diversity and
inclusion on campus.
One of the programs that
I think is the most robust
is happening in our largest
college,
in
LSA,
there’s
a
postdoc
program.
Postdocs
are potential faculty members
who have already finished their
Ph.D. They’re not quite ready
necessarily for an independent
faculty position but they come
and work at the University for a
year or two, they do a little bit of
teaching, they continue working
on their scholarship, and if their
career progresses, we have an
assistant
professor’s
position
waiting for them. LSA began a
program as part of their diversity
plan to set aside quite a number
of these postdoctoral slots for
scholars that would help us
either with the study of diversity
or in building a more diverse and
equitable community. They’re
making good progress on that,
so that’s an example, but I don’t
have the numbers to share with
you.
There’s a lot of information in
this and I’m still absorbing the
information. We’ll have plenty
of time at the diversity summit
to actually discuss and answer
questions about the information,
and then the data will be made
available so that individuals can
look at the data and draw some of
their own conclusions.
TMD: One of the things we
wanted to address was your
support for undocumented and
immigrant students, specifically
at the Regents meeting earlier
this month. What has come out of
the immigration working group?
Has there been any progress on
requests from students, such as
liaisons, or financial aid? Where
are we with that?
Schlissel: This immigration
working group continues to
function.
It
interacts
with
both
individuals
and
then
organizations
representing
groups of individuals. It has
received a bunch of requests
most recently from students in
support of our DACA students,
and a number of these things
have been put into place. It’s
mainly making sure that our
entire community that is subject
to these changes in immigration
rules and regulations knows
where to turn for information
and knows where to turn when
they need help. So we continue
to improve our ways of making
it easier for people to reach out
and to know who to reach out
to. But the important thing from
the University perspective is we
wouldn’t be Michigan without
being a magnet for people from
all around the world — and at all
levels: faculty, staff and students.
For students, we’re committed
to all the students that are here,
helping them achieve their life
ambition. As a lifelong educator,
the notion that somebody wants
to make their life and their
family’s lives better by getting
educated — there’s nothing more
worthy of support than that.
We’re at the stage now, though,
where also our professional
organizations
are
lobbying
Congress to come up with a
more definitive solution to the
DACA situation. So the DACA
was a set of regulations that, you
saw from recent events, could
be overturned. The government
changes,
you
overturn
the
regulations. The hope is to turn
the DACA situation into a law —
an act of Congress — that will
give long-term assurance and
stability to young people that are
in the DACA category.
The other thing that really
weighs on me is 20 percent of the
Michigan faculty was born outside
the United States. Just think of
the advantage that our University
and our country has by being a
magnet for talent from all around
the world. Why would we want
to give that up? Why wouldn’t
we want talented, hardworking
people to come here and join our
country and contribute to our
shared wealth? So that’s why
the immigration issue is really
important for the University.
TMD: Shifting gears toward
C.C. Little. So there’s an advisory
committee for its renaming. What
progress has been made in that
committee, what have the main
considerations been, and what
does the timeline look like?
Schlissel: As you know because
you published this, there has
been a formal request, very well
documented, made by a group of
students with some faculty help —
or maybe for my faculty colleagues
I should say faculty with some
student help — making a request
that we consider removing the
name. C.C. Little, of course, is a
former president of the University
and it’s a big deal. A year ago,
we had a committee that has
existed for a while called the
President’s Advisory Committee
on University History go through
a discussion to advise us about
what are the criteria we should
use when these kind of questions
come up. So that was before we
ever got the C.C. Little question or
Winchill — another former faculty
member who has a hall named
after them — where the question
has also been raised over whether
that naming is appropriate. So
this committee spent a number
of months saying what are the
criteria we should use to judge
these cases, how do we even think
about a request to change a name?
They came up with a bunch of
recommended principles — those
are posted up on my website for
the whole community to see. And
they’re a very valuable guide for
how we deal with the proposal
that was raised with C.C. Little.
So what I did when I got the
request for the Little naming was
first look at the overall request to
make sure it seems serious to me
and detailed enough to forward
to the committee and I thought
it was and the committee agreed.
The committee has been working
on this request now for a few
months. What they’ve been trying
to do is apply their criteria to this
particular question.
For example, one of the more
interesting
and
challenging
criteria is: You can imagine there
are many ideas that in today’s
context seem ridiculous, that
they’re so out of step with our
current values and the current
social norms in our society that
they make no sense.