DOCSLIB.ORG

Project Apollo: the Tough Decisions / Robert C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

I-38949 Seamans BookCVR.Fin 4/26/05 3:31 PM Page 1 d PROJECT APOLLO National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of External Relations History Division Washington, DC 20546 : The ToughDecisions Robert C. Seamans, Jr. Robert C.Seamans,Jr. PROJECT APOLLO The Tough Decisions Monographs in Aerospace History No. 37 • SP-2005-4537 NASA SP-2005-4537 Robert C. Seamans, Jr. PROJECT APOLLO The Tough Decisions Monographs in Aerospace History Number 37 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of External Relations History Division Washington, DC 2005 On the cover: A Saturn rocket figuratively reaches for the Moon. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Seamans, Robert C. Project Apollo: the tough decisions / Robert C. Seamans, Jr. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Project Apollo (U.S). 2. Manned space flight 3. Space flight to the moon. I. Title. TL789.8.U6A581653 2005 629.45’4’0973—dc22 2005003682 ii Table of Contents iv List of Figures vii Acknowledgments ix Foreword 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Chapter 2: Eisenhower’s Legacy 11 Chapter 3: The Kennedy Challenge 57 Chapter 4: Johnson’s Solid Support 83 Chapter 5: NASA Management 107 Chapter 6: The Grand Finale 117 Chapter 7: The Aftermath 127 Appendix 1 131 Appendix 2 139 Appendix 3 143 About the Author 145 Acronyms and Abbreviations 149 NASA Monographs in Aerospace History Series 151 Index iii List of Figures Page 13 Figure 1 Results of a study commissioned on 6 January 1961 and chaired by George Low. These findings were available on 7 February 1961. Page 14 Figure 2 NASA Management Triad in the office of James E. Webb (center). He and Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr. (right), listen as Dr. Hugh Dryden (left) has the floor. (NASA Image Number 66-H-93) Page 15 Figure 3 Sergey P. Korolev, founder of the Soviet space program, shown here in July 1954 with a dog that had just returned to Earth after a lob to an altitude of 100 kilometers on an R-1d rocket. Page 21 Figure 4 President John F. Kennedy congratulates astronaut Alan B. Shepard, Jr., the first American in space, on his historic 5 May 1961 ride in the Freedom 7 spacecraft and presents him with the NASA Distinguished Service Award. (NASA Image Number 1961ADM-13) Page 22 Figure 5 Formation of USSR and U.S. space teams. Page 24 Figure 6 Launch of Friendship 7 on 20 February 1962 for the first American manned orbital spaceflight. John Glenn was on his way to becoming the first U.S. astro­ naut to orbit Earth. (NASA Image Number 62PC-0011) Page 29 Figure 7 An offshore launch facility, from the Fleming study. Page 30 Figure 8 A Vertical Assembly Building, from the Fleming study. Page 31 Figure 9 A potential launch site, from the Fleming study. (Declassified on 28 February 2005 by Norm Weinberg, NASA Headquarters.) Page 32 Figure 10 Layout of Launch Complex 39, from the Fleming study. Page 41 Figure 11 The author’s sons, Toby (right) and Joe inside one of the treads of the massive vehicle transporter (crawler) at Cape Canaveral on the day after the launching of Gemini 3, 23 March 1965. Page 50 Figure 12 Three cosmonauts: Gagarin, the first in space; Tereshkova, the first woman; and Leonov, the first outside a capsule. Page 52 Figure 13 Dr. Wernher von Braun explains the Saturn I with its hydrogen upper stage to President John F. Kennedy. NASA Associate Administrator Robert Seamans is to the left of von Braun. President Kennedy gave his approval to proceed with this launch vehicle at his first budget meeting with the Agency on 12 March 1961. (NASA Image Number 64P-0145) Page 61 Figure 14 On 3 June 1965, Edward H. White II became the first American to step out­ side his spacecraft and let go, effectively setting himself adrift in the zero grav­ ity of space. For 23 minutes, White floated and maneuvered himself around the Gemini spacecraft while logging 6,500 miles during his orbital stroll. (NASA Image Number 565-30431) Page 63 Figure 15 This photo of the Gemini 7 spacecraft was taken through the hatch window of the Gemini 6 spacecraft during rendezvous. (NASA Image Number S65­ 63221) Page 69 Figure 16 An aerial view of the Launch Complex 39 area shows the Vehicle Assembly Building (center), with the Launch Control Center on its right. On the west side (lower end) are (left to right) the Orbiter Processing Facility, Process Control Center, and Operations Support Building. To the east (upper end) are Launchpads 39A (right) and 39B (just above the VAB). The crawlerway iv stretches between the VAB and the launchpads toward the Atlantic Ocean, seen beyond them. (NASA Image Number 99PP-1213) Page 70 Figure 17 The Apollo Saturn V 500F Facilities Test Vehicle, after conducting the VAB stacking operations, rolls out of the VAB on its way to Pad 39A to perform crawler, Launch Umbilical Tower, and pad operations. (NASA Image Number 67-H-1187) Page 79 Figure 18 On 9 November 1967, Apollo 4, the test flight of the Apollo/Saturn V space vehicle, was launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39. This was an unmanned test flight intended to prove that the complex Saturn V rocket could perform its requirements. (NASA Image Number 67-60629) Page 89 Figure 19 NASA organization during the last days of the Eisenhower administration, 17 January 1961. Page 90 Figure 20 NASA organization as revised to conduct the manned lunar landing, 1 November 1961. Page 91 Figure 21 NASA organization as revised to strengthen Apollo and other project manage­ ment teams, 1 November 1963. Page 92 Figure 22 NASA organization following the consolidation of general management, 2 January 1966. Page 93 Figure 23 NASA procurement procedures. Page 95 Figure 24 Congressional budget history, NASA FY 1962. Page 97 Figure 25 Gemini master launch schedule on 10 December 1965, with Gemini 7 in orbit and Gemini 6 about to be launched. Five additional Gemini missions remained. Page 98 Figure 26 This chart shows a hypothetical mission experiencing major delay. This type of chart was used to focus management on unfavorable project trends. Page 99 Figure 27 Trend chart for Gemini’s 12 launches as of 31 October 1966, 11 days before the completion of the program. Page 100 Figure 28 The Project Approval Document for the Apollo spacecraft, 18 December 1961. Page 101 Figure 29 Project Approval Documents for the Apollo Program. Page 102 Figure 30 Management organization for Apollo Program. Page 103 Figure 31 Manpower requirements during the advancing phases of a program. Page 104 Figure 32 Apollo Review Procedures, the essential milestones. Page 109 Figure 33 This view of the rising Earth greeted the Apollo 8 astronauts as they came from behind the Moon after the lunar orbit insertion burn. (NASA Image Number 68-HC-870) Page 112 Figure 34 Astronaut Edwin E. “Buzz” Aldrin, Jr., Lunar Module pilot of the first lunar landing mission, poses for a photograph beside the deployed United States flag during an Apollo 11 extravehicular activity (EVA) on the lunar surface. (NASA Image Number AS11-40-5875) Page 114 Figure 35 President Richard M. Nixon welcomes the Apollo 11 astronauts aboard the USS Hornet, prime recovery ship for the historic Apollo 11 lunar landing mis­ sion, in the central Pacific recovery area. (Left to right) Neil A. Armstrong, INTRODUCTION v commander; Michael Collins, Command Module pilot; and Buzz Aldrin, Lunar Module pilot, are confined to the Mobile Quarantine Facility (MQF). (NASA Image Number S69-21365) Page 118 Figure 36 Comparison of the Soviet and U.S. manned launches during the period from 1961 through 1970. Page 119 Figure 37 N-1 on the pad with its umbilical tower, along with the umbilical arms that provided ready access. Page 120 Figure 38 Comparison of the Soviet N-1 with the U.S. Saturn V. Page 121 Figure 39 A photograph of the Soviet Lunar Lander and Return Vehicle taken at the Moscow Aviation Institute on 28 November 1989. The occasion was a visit by three Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professors—Lawrence Young (left center), Jack Kerrebrock (the photographer), and Edward Crawley (not pictured). Page 122 Figure 40 Soviet disaster: the N-1 explodes. Page 123 Figure 41 The Lunar Rover provided the astronauts with an opportunity to explore the landing area to distances of 10 miles. This capability was available for the final three lunar missions. (NASA Image Number AS17-147-22526) vi Acknowledgments ene, my bride, has been patient with me for many years, 63 to be exact. In the past, I’ve traveled extensively, and even when home, I’ve had deadlines to meet and weekend activities to attend. So last GJanuary, in retirement, I asked my daughters whether it was fair to embark on another major endeavor. I explained why I wanted again to put pencil to paper. They thought I should, but only if their mother was sympathetic. Gene was not just enthusiastic; she was supportive from then until now, even when I disap­ peared behind closed doors for countless hours. My output on foolscap is illegible to most, but somehow Julie Cleary, my associate, was able to inter­ pret and transcribe the contents. There were, of course, rewrites and additions, and then a table of contents, an index, and footnotes—this last the greatest hurdle of all. The final copy is a testament to her persever­ ance and skill. I also want to recognize Marie Doherty and the members of the Media Services Department in the Draper Laboratory for their assistance with three key illustrations.
Recommended publications
  • Progress Report on Apollo Program

    Progress Report on Apollo Program

    PROGRESS REPORT ON APOLLO PROGRAM Michael Collins, LCol. USAF (M) Astronaut NASA-MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER It is a great pleasure to be here today and to greet you hardy suMvors of the pool party. I will do my best to avoid loud noises and bright colors during my status report. Since the last SETP Symposium, the Apollo Program has been quite busy in a number of different areas. (Figure 1) My problem is to sift through this information and to talk only about those things of most interest to you. First, to review briefly our hardware, we are talking about two different spacecraft and two different boosters. (Figure 2) The Command Module is that part of the stack COLLINS which makes the complete round trip to the moon. Attached to it is the Service Module, containing expendables and a 20,000 pound thrust engine for maneuverability. The Lunar Module will be carried on later flights and is the landing vehicle and active rendezvous partner. The uprated Saturn I can put the Command and Service Modules into earth orbit; the Saturn V is required when the Lunar Module is added. Since the last symposium, we have flown the Command and Service Modules twice and the Lunar Module once, all unmanned. Apollo 4, the first Saturn V flight, was launched in November 1967. (Figure 3) The Saturn V did a beautiful, i.e. nominal, job of putting the spacecraft into earth parking orbit. After a coast period, the third stage (S-IVB by McDonnell Douglas) was ignited a second time, achieving a highly elliptical orbit.
  • Book Tribute to George Low –“The Ultimate Engineer”

    Book Tribute to George Low –“The Ultimate Engineer”

    Book Tribute to George Low –“The Ultimate Engineer” The Ultimate Engineer: The Remarkable Life of NASA's Visionary Leader George M. Low by Richard Jurek Foreword by Gerald D. Griffin From the late 1950s to 1976 the U.S. manned spaceflight program advanced as it did largely due to the extraordinary efforts of Austrian immigrant George M. Low. Described as the "ultimate engineer" during his career at NASA, Low was a visionary architect and leader from the agency's inception in 1958 to his retirement in 1976. As chief of manned spaceflight at NASA, Low was instrumental in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Low's pioneering work paved the way for President Kennedy's decision to make a lunar landing NASA's primary goal in the 1960s. After the tragic 1967 Apollo I fire that took the lives of three astronauts and almost crippled the program, Low took charge of the redesign of the Apollo spacecraft, and helped lead the program from disaster and toward the moon. In 1968, Low made the bold decision to go for lunar orbit on Apollo 8 before the lunar module was ready for flight and after only one Earth orbit test flight of the Command and Service modules. Under Low there were five manned missions, including Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing. Low's clandestine negotiations with the Soviet Union resulted in a historic joint mission in 1975 that was the precursor to the Shuttle-MIR and International Space Station programs. At the end of his NASA career, Low was one of the leading figures in the development of the Space Shuttle in the early1970s, and was instrumental in NASA's transition into a post-Apollo world.
  • Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris

    Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris

    r bulletin 109 — february 2002 Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris D. Mehrholz, L. Leushacke FGAN Research Institute for High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques, Wachtberg, Germany W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Darmstadt, Germany Earth’s space-debris environment tracked, with estimates for the number of Today’s man-made space-debris environment objects larger than 1 cm ranging from 100 000 has been created by the space activities to 200 000. that have taken place since Sputnik’s launch in 1957. There have been more than 4000 The sources of this debris are normal launch rocket launches since then, as well as many operations (Fig. 2), certain operations in space, other related debris-generating occurrences fragmentations as a result of explosions and such as more than 150 in-orbit fragmentation collisions in space, firings of satellite solid- events. rocket motors, material ageing effects, and leaking thermal-control systems. Solid-rocket Among the more than 8700 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbits, motors use aluminium as a catalyst (about 15% only about 6% are operational satellites and the remainder is space by mass) and when burning they emit debris. Europe currently has no operational space surveillance aluminium-oxide particles typically 1 to 10 system, but a powerful radar facility for the detection and tracking of microns in size. In addition, centimetre-sized space debris and the imaging of space objects is available in the form objects are formed by metallic aluminium melts, of the 34 m dish radar at the Research Establishment for Applied called ‘slag’.
  • Project Management © Adrienne Watt

    Project Management © Adrienne Watt

    Project Management © Adrienne Watt This work is licensed under a Creative Commons-ShareAlike 4.0 International License Original source: The Saylor Foundation http://open.bccampus.ca/find-open-textbooks/?uuid=8678fbae-6724-454c-a796-3c666 7d826be&contributor=&keyword=&subject= Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 Preface ............................................................................................................................2 About the Book ..............................................................................................................3 Chapter 1 Project Management: Past and Present ....................................................5 1.1 Careers Using Project Management Skills ......................................................................5 1.2 Business Owners ...............................................................................................................5 Example: Restaurant Owner/Manager ..........................................................................6 1.2.1 Outsourcing Services ..............................................................................................7 Example: Construction Managers ..........................................................................8 1.3 Creative Services ................................................................................................................9 Example: Graphic Artists ...............................................................................................10
  • Chapter 6.Qxd

    Chapter 6.Qxd

    CHAPTER 6: The NASA Family The melding of all of the NASA centers, contractors, universities, and often strong personalities associated with each of them into the productive and efficient organization necessary to complete NASA’s space missions became both more critical and more difficult as NASA turned its attention from Gemini to Apollo. The approach and style and, indeed, the personality of each NASA center differed sharply. The Manned Spacecraft Center was distinctive among all the rest. Fortune magazine suggested in 1967 that the scale of NASA’s operation required a whole new approach and style of management: “To master such massively complex and expensive problems, the agency has mobilized some 20,000 individual firms, more than 400,000 workers, and 200 colleges and universities in a combine of the most advanced resources of American civilization.” The author referred to some of the eight NASA centers and assorted field installations as “pockets of sovereignty” which exercised an enormous degree of independence and autonomy.1 An enduring part of the management problem throughout the Mercury and Gemini programs that became compounded under Apollo, because of its greater technical challenges, was the diversity and distinctiveness of each of the NASA centers. The diverse cultures and capabilities represented by each of the centers were at once the space program’s greatest resource and its Achilles’ heel. NASA was a hybrid organization. At its heart was Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory established by Congress in 1917 near Hampton, Virginia, and formally dedicated in 1920. It became the Langley Research Center. Langley created the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at Moffett Field, California, in 1939.
  • PEANUTS and SPACE FOUNDATION Apollo and Beyond

    PEANUTS and SPACE FOUNDATION Apollo and Beyond

    Reproducible Master PEANUTS and SPACE FOUNDATION Apollo and Beyond GRADE 4 – 5 OBJECTIVES PAGE 1 Students will: ö Read Snoopy, First Beagle on the Moon! and Shoot for the Moon, Snoopy! ö Learn facts about the Apollo Moon missions. ö Use this information to complete a fill-in-the-blank fact worksheet. ö Create mission objectives for a brand new mission to the moon. SUGGESTED GRADE LEVELS 4 – 5 SUBJECT AREAS Space Science, History TIMELINE 30 – 45 minutes NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS ö 5-ESS1 ESS1.B Earth and the Solar System ö 3-5-ETS1 ETS1.B Developing Possible Solutions 21st CENTURY ESSENTIAL SKILLS Collaboration and Teamwork, Communication, Information Literacy, Flexibility, Leadership, Initiative, Organizing Concepts, Obtaining/Evaluating/Communicating Ideas BACKGROUND ö According to NASA.gov, NASA has proudly shared an association with Charles M. Schulz and his American icon Snoopy since Apollo missions began in the 1960s. Schulz created comic strips depicting Snoopy on the Moon, capturing public excitement about America’s achievements in space. In May 1969, Apollo 10 astronauts traveled to the Moon for a final trial run before the lunar landings took place on later missions. Because that mission required the lunar module to skim within 50,000 feet of the Moon’s surface and “snoop around” to determine the landing site for Apollo 11, the crew named the lunar module Snoopy. The command module was named Charlie Brown, after Snoopy’s loyal owner. These books are a united effort between Peanuts Worldwide, NASA and Simon & Schuster to generate interest in space among today’s younger children.
  • Gemini 4 an Astronaut Steps Into the Void

    Gemini 4 an Astronaut Steps Into the Void

    springer.com Popular Science : Popular Science in Astronomy Shayler, David J. Gemini 4 An Astronaut Steps into the Void Details the first American spacewalk in a leap forward from the Mercury program Follows each detail of Gemini's extended duration flight, NASA's first, relying extensively on archives Continues the Pioneers in Early Spaceflight series which looks one-by-one at the Mercury and Gemini flights The flight of Gemini 4 in June 1965 was conducted barely four years after the first Americans flew in space. It was a bold step by NASA to accomplish the first American spacewalk and to extend the U.S. flight duration record to four days. This would be double the experience gained from the six Mercury missions combined. This daring mission was the first to be directed from Springer the new Mission Control at the Manned Spacecraft Center near Houston, Texas. It also revealed 1st ed. 2018, XXV, 378 p. that: Working outside the spacecraft would require further study. Developing the techniques to 1st 81 illus., 46 illus. in color. rendezvous with another object in space would not be as straightforward as NASA had hoped. edition Living in a small spacecraft for several days was a challenging but necessary step in the quest for even longer flights.Despite the risks, the gamble that astronauts Jim McDivitt and Ed White undertook paid off. Gemini 4 gave NASA the confidence to attempt an even longer flight the Printed book next time. That next mission would simulate the planned eight-day duration of an Apollo lunar Softcover voyage.
  • The Following Are Edited Excerpts from Two Interviews Conducted with Dr

    The Following Are Edited Excerpts from Two Interviews Conducted with Dr

    Interviews with Dr. Wernher von Braun Editor's note: The following are edited excerpts from two interviews conducted with Dr. Wernher von Braun. Interview #1 was conducted on August 25, 1970, by Robert Sherrod while Dr. von Braun was deputy associate administrator for planning at NASA Headquarters. Interview #2 was conducted on November 17, 1971, by Roger Bilstein and John Beltz. These interviews are among those published in Before This Decade is Out: Personal Reflections on the Apollo Program, (SP-4223, 1999) edited by Glen E. Swanson, whick is vailable on-line at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/sp4223.htm on the Web. Interview #1 In the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology, you are quoted as saying "It is true that for a long time we were not in favor of lunar orbit rendezvous. We favored Earth orbit rendezvous." Well, actually even that is not quite correct, because at the outset we just didn't know which route [for Apollo to travel to the Moon] was the most promising. We made an agreement with Houston that we at Marshall would concentrate on the study of Earth orbit rendezvous, but that did not mean we wanted to sell it as our preferred scheme. We weren't ready to vote for it yet; our study was meant to merely identify the problems involved. The agreement also said that Houston would concentrate on studying the lunar rendezvous mode. Only after both groups had done their homework would we compare notes. This agreement was based on common sense. You don't start selling your scheme until you are convinced that it is superior.
  • Apollo 13 Mission Review

    Apollo 13 Mission Review

    APOLLO 13 MISSION REVIEW HEAR& BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS SECOR’D SESSION JUR’E 30, 1970 Printed for the use of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 47476 0 WASHINGTON : 1970 COMMITTEE ON AEROKAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico, Chairman RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska STUART SYMINGTON, bfissouri MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona STEPHEN M.YOUNG, Ohio WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio THOJfAS J. DODD, Connecticut RALPH T. SMITH, Illinois HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Florida J4MES J. GEHRIG,Stad Director EVERARDH. SMITH, Jr., Professional staffMember Dr. GLENP. WILSOS,Professional #tad Member CRAIGVOORHEES, Professional Staff Nember WILLIAMPARKER, Professional Staff Member SAMBOUCHARD, Assistant Chief Clerk DONALDH. BRESNAS,Research Assistant (11) CONTENTS Tuesday, June 30, 1970 : Page Opening statement by the chairman, Senator Clinton P. Anderson-__- 1 Review Board Findings, Determinations and Recommendations-----_ 2 Testimony of- Dr. Thomas 0. Paine, Administrator of NASA, accompanied by Edgar M. Cortright, Director, Langley Research Center and Chairman of the dpollo 13 Review Board ; Dr. Charles D. Har- rington, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel ; Dr. Dale D. Myers, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, and Dr. Rocco A. Petrone, hpollo Director -___________ 21, 30 Edgar 11. Cortright, Chairman, hpollo 13 Review Board-------- 21,27 Dr. Dale D. Mvers. Associate Administrator for Manned SDace 68 69 105 109 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIOSS 1. Internal coinponents of oxygen tank So. 2 ---_____-_________________ 22 2.
  • JULY Roundup Working

    JULY Roundup Working

    volume Number 43/7 One giant leap for mankind Roundup SPACE CENTER ROUNDUP Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt, Lunar Module pilot, is photographed next to the deployed United States flag during lunar surface extravehicular activity at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. The highest part of the flag appears to point toward our planet Earth in the distant background. This picture was taken by Astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, Apollo 17 commander. While Astronauts Cernan and Schmitt descended in the Lunar Module to explore the Moon, Astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules in lunar orbit. NASA AS11-40-5880 NASA AS17-134-20384 Space Center Roundup PRSRT STD One small The Roundup is an official publication of the U.S. POSTAGE “Here men from the planet Earth first set foot National Aeronautics and Space Administration, PAID Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, and is WEBSTER, TX step for upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We came in published by the Public Affairs Office for all Space Permit No. G27 peace for all mankind.” Center employees. The Roundup office is in Bldg. 2, Quote from the plaque affixed to the Lunar Module Rm. 166A. The mail code is AP121. Visit our Web site at: www.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/weekly/ man… and signed by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, For distribution questions or to suggest a story idea, Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin and President Richard Nixon. please call 281/244-6397 or send an e-mail to 35th anniversary coverage of the [email protected].
  • Identifying and Defining Relationships: Techniques for Improving Student Systemic Thinking

    Identifying and Defining Relationships: Techniques for Improving Student Systemic Thinking

    AC 2011-897: IDENTIFYING AND DEFINING RELATIONSHIPS: TECH- NIQUES FOR IMPROVING STUDENT SYSTEMIC THINKING Cecelia M. Wigal, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga Cecelia M. Wigal received her Ph.D. in 1998 from Northwestern University and is presently a Professor of Engineering and Assistant Dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC). Her primary areas of interest and expertise include complex process and system analysis, process improvement analysis, and information system analysis with respect to usability and effectiveness. Dr. Wigal is also interested in engineering education reform to address present and future student and national and international needs. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Identifying and Defining Relationships: Techniques for Improving Student Systemic Thinking Abstract ABET, Inc. is looking for graduating undergraduate engineering students who are systems thinkers. However, genuine systems thinking is contrary to the traditional practice of using linear thinking to help solve design problems often used by students and many practitioners. Linear thinking has a tendency to compartmentalize solution options and minimize recognition of relationships between solutions and their elements. Systems thinking, however, has the ability to define the whole system, including its environment, objectives, and parts (subsystems), both static and dynamic, by their relationships. The work discussed here describes two means of introducing freshman engineering students to thinking systemically or holistically when understanding and defining problems. Specifically, the modeling techniques of Rich Pictures and an instructor generated modified IDEF0 model are discussed. These techniques have roles in many applications. In this case they are discussed in regards to their application to the design process.
  • Through Astronaut Eyes: Photographing Early Human Spaceflight

    Through Astronaut Eyes: Photographing Early Human Spaceflight

    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Purdue University Press Book Previews Purdue University Press 6-2020 Through Astronaut Eyes: Photographing Early Human Spaceflight Jennifer K. Levasseur Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_previews This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. THROUGH ASTRONAUT EYES PURDUE STUDIES IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS James R. Hansen, Series Editor Purdue Studies in Aeronautics and Astronautics builds on Purdue’s leadership in aeronautic and astronautic engineering, as well as the historic accomplishments of many of its luminary alums. Works in the series will explore cutting-edge topics in aeronautics and astronautics enterprises, tell unique stories from the history of flight and space travel, and contemplate the future of human space exploration and colonization. RECENT BOOKS IN THE SERIES British Imperial Air Power: The Royal Air Forces and the Defense of Australia and New Zealand Between the World Wars by Alex M Spencer A Reluctant Icon: Letters to Neil Armstrong by James R. Hansen John Houbolt: The Unsung Hero of the Apollo Moon Landings by William F. Causey Dear Neil Armstrong: Letters to the First Man from All Mankind by James R. Hansen Piercing the Horizon: The Story of Visionary NASA Chief Tom Paine by Sunny Tsiao Calculated Risk: The Supersonic Life and Times of Gus Grissom by George Leopold Spacewalker: My Journey in Space and Faith as NASA’s Record-Setting Frequent Flyer by Jerry L. Ross THROUGH ASTRONAUT EYES Photographing Early Human Spaceflight Jennifer K.