Explicit modeling and concurrent processing in the simulation of multibody dynamic systems

The objective is to present the activities at TRW in developing the capability to simulate the behavior of large flexible multibody space structures. The features of the simulation tools are: (1) to accommodate all rigid/flexible body degrees-of-freedom which incorporate the control system models and external forces, (2) to provide the flexibility to incorporate engineering-defined models and to retain parameters of significance to the engineer, (3) to reduce the computation cost by one order of magnitude (two orders of magnitude compared to a CRAY 1S), and (4) to keep it versatile so that radical variations in anticipated space structures can be accommodated. The current computer tools to simulate multibody systems appear not only to be very costly and time consuming, but also do not produce the desired fidelity of the mathematical models. In summary, a multibody simulation tool will be developed in the near future which will allow solution of the dynamics and controls of the deployment of the LDR backup structure, or the problem associated with the robotic assembly of the structure. The tools will allow the engineer to define the modeling technique and solve problems in less time and at reduced cost

Semi-Contained Neutrino Events in MACRO

Updated results are presented of low-energy ($\bar{E_\nu} \sim 5 GeV$) neutrino interactions observed by the MACRO detector. Two analyses (of different topologies) are presented; individually, and especially in their ratio, they are inconsistent with no oscillations and consistent with maximal mixing at $\Delta m^2$ of a few times $10^{-3}$.Comment: Paper presented at DPF2000, the American Physical Society's Division of Particles and Fields conferenc

Why Health Lawyers Must Be Public-Law Lawyers: Health Law In the Age of the Modern Regulatory State

Health law is not often framed as part of the public-law landscape, and my goal is to explain why it should be. My aim is to convince the next generation of health lawyers, policymakers, and health-law scholars that they must see health law as a field that is intimately related to Congress, federal statutes, federal agencies, and federalism, in order to have an impact on it. I will then apply this public-law framework to some current events involving the 2010 health reform statute-the Affordable Care Act ( ACA )-to illustrate how shaping health law today requires an understanding of the central roles now played in the field by the quintessential players in the public-law domain: Congress, federal agencies, the states, and the federal courts

The Federal Common Law of Statutory Interpretation: Erie for the Age of Statutes

We do not have an Erie for the Age of Statutes. The Erie that we have addresses a world in which the common law dominated and in which federal courts could go ahout their daily work hy recourse to state-court-created doctrine,^ usually without creating federal common law. Those understandings do not fit an era in which federally made statutory law dominates the legal landscape and the primary role of federal courts is to interpret it. But the creation of federal common law remains discouraged, thanks to Erie\u27s continuing vitality and the durahility of the notion that Erie requires federal common law making to he limited and restricted. As a result, federal courts have spent the last century engaged in an under-the-radar enterprise of fashioning and appl5dng what aree arguably hundreds of federal common law doctrines to questions of federal statutory interpretation, without acknowledging that they are doing so and without explaining how their actions fit into the Erie paradigm

Imperfect Statutes, Imperfect Courts: Understanding Congress\u27s Plan in the Era of Unorthodox Lawmaking

Statutory interpretation often seems like a doctrinal and jurisprudential abyss. We didn\u27t need Obamacare to show us that, but it sure helped. The Court\u27s statutory cases over the past decades have had the feeling of being one-offs : the Court seems to careen from case to case, wielding literally hundreds of interpretive presumptions that have no hierarchy among them, no link to Congress, and that seek to impose a coherence and simplicity on modern statutes that those statutes cannot bear. It is nearly impossible to predict which of these presumptions - the so-called canons of construction - will control the next case. The Court\u27s dominant theorists, its textualists, defend these doctrines on the ground that Congress is incomprehensible and so these rules and a laser focus on text are the best that courts can do. And yet no modern court is going to read a thousand-page statute cover-to-cover. Sometimes the cases focus on a single word; it can feel like a game even though the stakes are incredibly high