Davis S. Lewis Associate Professor in the Georgia Tech School of Aerospace Engineering Page 26.1129.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Managing and Exchanging Knowledge Underlying Aerospace Engineering Design DecisionsIntroductionThe engineering design process is a complex, iterative process through which individuals andteams solve ill-defined, multidisciplinary problems by integrating domain-based technicalknowledge.1,2 Aerospace engineering integrates technical components from many differentdisciplines, such as aerodynamics, combustion, avionics
environment anunderstanding level of learning is expected. As students progress to performing project work, orcollecting flight test data in a student only event an application level of learning is expected. Forboth practical and written final exams a correlation level of learning is expected.Finding the proper level of student engagementMost students at USAF TPS are atypical for a university environment. Entrance to the school ishighly selective, and as such most students already possess at least one post graduate degree, haveadvanced study skills, are extremely competitive and motivated, are usually in their late 20’s orearly 30’s, and all have shown significant military career progression potential. Student pilots areconsidered experts in their
and ejection delay (3). The rocket was observed to be still climbing briefly before beginning its descend, but after the ejection charge. It is reasonable to assume that the remaining time (1.23 seconds) was due to that brief observation. There were 19 other team launches using A8-3 engine. Not all results were as close as the ones reported from this student team report.AVION FLIGHT 25 :Rocket: Avion Engine: B6-4 The model weight: 28.46 g (heavier than most due to optionalspray paint used). Total weight including engine (Wo) = 46.75 grams ,propellant weight (Wp) =6.24 grams Impulse (I) = 5.00 N-s , Thrust Duration (Δt) = 0.8 sec. 1. Average Weight to Burnout (Wb) a. b. Converted to Pounds: 2. Thrust
, intra-subject and inter-subject connections.Related WorkLearning objectives emerged in the literature in the late 1950s and 1960s primarily through thework of Benjamin S. Bloom and his colleagues.2,6,8 Literature in the 1970s and 1980s focusedmore on pedagogy than on outputs, but a renewed focus on the outputs of education in the 1990sdrove a new wave of literature based on learning outcomes and objectives.In contrast to the methodology used in the widely-cited successor to Bloom’s original taxonomy,this project focuses on learning outcomes rather than on learning objectives.1 Whileacknowledging the complexity of the debate,9,10,11 we agree with the assertion in Harden 2002that learning outcomes and learning objectives are distinct from each
tointroduce active manipulation for learning about, for example, aerodynamics, flight mechanics,and structural design. The radio-controlled airplanes, however, are often only available tostudents through clubs or student competitions. This paper will describe an active learning class,the Flight Vehicle Design and Fabrication Class (known by students as the Sailplane Class), inwhich student hands-on learning includes flying radio-controlled airplanes. BackgroundThe Sailplane Class has been at Penn State University since the early 1990’s and was originallysponsored with funding from the National Science Foundation through the Engineering Coalitionof Schools for Excellence in Education and Leadership (ESCEL
course, AAE418 “Zero-gravity Flight Experiment” who donate tosupport subsequent undergraduate team travel. In addition, three consecutive Department Heads Page 26.1287.12in the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics and three consecutive Deans in the College ofEngineering at Purdue University have been avid supporters of these educational endeavors.Bibliobgraphy1. Stern S. A., “Commercial Spaceflight Companies Will Revolutionize Space Science,” Scientific American, 308:69-73, 2013.2. Collicott, S. H., “An Undergraduate Project Course for the NASA Reduced Gravity Student Flight Opportunities Program,” 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
themselves with editing, saving, compiling, and executing the codes.Since its initial inclusion in the aerospace design course in 1999, the most time-consuming aspectof the design-build-test panel project has been the computer programming. Lack of appreciableprogramming experience, particularly in Fortran, means students have to devote considerabletime to resolve common mistakes that cause compilation difficulty, and develop an ability todebug a code to identify and eliminate the source(s) of error. Through consultation with theinstructor and teamwork, students gradually overcome the hurdle and complete the analysis andoptimization programming, which is essential before they can proceed with the fabrication and
-Steerable Phased Array for Wireless Power Transmission Using a Magnetron Directional Amplifier, 1999 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest, 1999. 3. Hat- field, M. C., Characterization and Optimization of the Magnetron Directional Amplifier, Doctoral Thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1999 4. Hatfield, M. C., W. C. Brown, and J. G. Hawkins, Design of an Electronically-Steerable Phased Array for Wireless Power Transmission Using a Magnetron Directional Amplifier, IEEE Proceedings on MTTTS, 1998 5. Hawkins, J. G., S. Houston, M. C. Hatfield, and W. C. Brown, The SABER Microwave-Powered Helicopter Project and Related WPT Research at the Uni- versity of Alaska Fairbanks, Space Technology and Applications
-boomers = a labor shortage? Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service. 3. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduate engineers leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 4. Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in college science and engineering education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 5. Adelman, C. (1998). Women and men of the engineering path: A model for analyses of undergraduate careers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 6. Eris, O., Chachra, D., Chen, H. L., Sheppard, S. D., Ludlow, L., Rosca, C., . . . Toye, G. (2010). Outcomes of a longitudinal