The VOrtex Ring Transit EXperiment (VORTEX) GAS project

Get Away Special (GAS) payload G-093, also called VORTEX (VOrtex Ring Transit EXperiment), is an investigation of the propagation of a vortex ring through a liquid-gas interface in microgravity. This process results in the formation of one or more liquid droplets similar to earth based liquid atomization systems. In the absence of gravity, surface tension effects dominate the drop formation process. The Shuttle's microgravity environment allows the study of the same fluid atomization processes as using a larger drop size than is possible on Earth. This enables detailed experimental studies of the complex flow processes encountered in liquid atomization systems. With VORTEX, deformations in both the vortex ring and the fluid surface will be measured closely for the first time in a parameters range that accurately resembles liquid atomization. The experimental apparatus will record images of the interactions for analysis after the payload has been returned to earth. The current design of the VORTEX payload consists of a fluid test cell with a vortex ring generator, digital imaging system, laser illumination system, computer based controller, batteries for payload power, and an array of housekeeping and payload monitoring sensors. It is a self-contained experiment and will be flown on board the Space Shuttle in a 5 cubic feet GAS canister. The VORTEX Project is entirely run by students at the University of Michigan but is overseen by a faculty advisor acting as the payload customer and the contact person with NASA. This paper summarizes both the technical and programmatic aspects of the VORTEX Project

Is Intent Relevant?

The role of intent in federal antitrust cases has been characterized as “unsettled” and “controversial.” Many lower courts, scholars, and practitioners recognize that intent evidence is relevant in antitrust cases. But jurists and scholars oriented by neoclassical economic theory disagree. Using the developments in the behavioral economics literature, this Article reexamines the relevancy of intent evidence in civil antitrust cases. The analysis is organized around two issues: First is intent legally relevant in civil antitrust cases? Second if intent evidence is relevant, for what purpose? Intent evidence, this Article concludes, is relevant. The behavioral economics experiments confirm what many have long accepted: intent matters. Greed does not always motivate us. Greed is not necessary for a market economy to thrive. Competition need not be zero-sum warfare. But the literature has two important implications. First, intent may be helpful, but to a lesser degree than some courts and scholars assume, in assessing the likely anti-competitive effects. Second, intent evidence can be more important than courts may otherwise assume under neoclassical theory. People rely on intent when coding and punishing behavior as unfair and unreasonable, which in turn can promote a market economy and overall societal welfare