AC 2012-5044: INJECTING THE REAL WORLD INTO THE CAPSTONEDESIGN EXPERIENCEMr. David B. Kanipe, Texas A&M University A native Texan, David Kanipe attended Texas A&M University beginning in Sept. 1966, where he re- ceived a bachelor’s of science degree in aerospace engineering in May 1970, followed by an M.S. in aerospace engineering in Aug. 1971. He accepted a position with NASA at the Manned Spacecraft Cen- ter in Houston in Nov. 1972. He served as the Chief of the Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division in the Engineering Directorate at the Johnson Space Center until retirement in Dec. 2010. A month after his arrival at NASA, the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17, was launched. Obviously, that was exciting
the General Chair, Session Chair, TPC Chair, and Panelist in several IEEE conferences. He has served in numerous review panels. He is Senior Member of IEEE and member of OSA, SPIE, ASEE, and HKN. He is also a Profes- sional Registered Engineer in the state of Texas. He received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering in 1984 from University of Oklahoma.Dr. Thomas B. Morrow, University of Texas, San Antonio Thomas Morrow is an Adjunct Professor in the College of Engineering at UTSA. He has B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from Stanford University. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Virginia and Texas and has worked for E.I. duPont de Nemours (Textile Fibers Dept.) and Southwest
somewhat subjective. Designs are scored on technical merit(need identification, concepts of operations, requirements, constraints, design alternatives, designanalyses, alternative selection criteria, final design viability, and design presentation) and teamperformance. This decides the total number of points available for the team. Individuals withinthe team are allocated points from within the total number of points based on instructorobservations, TA observations, and peer evaluations. It is not at all uncommon for some teammembers to get high grades (A or A-) while others get grades at the B or C level. Once, therewere four (A to A-) level grades and one F grade for a team of five students.Interim Individual Progress Reports -- In spring 2012
propulsive efficiency (eta) in terms of the air tank pressure (P) and thelaunch tube diameter (d). The propulsive efficiency is intended to model all of the pressurelosses that may occur between the air tank and the launch tube, as well as losses from the air gapbetween the launch tube and fuselage.Eq 1: V b= 2 L T m −g Eq 2: T ≃ P d /2 2Students may use high-speed camera images to estimate the boost velocity for a givenconfiguration. Equation 1 can then be solved for the impulse thrust, while Equation 2 yields theresulting propulsive efficiency. Students may then adjust the fuselage air gap to increaseefficiency. Typical values for propulsive
brief, a disc shaped metal was placed over theAAO sample inside a heating chamber. The chamber was then vacuumed and heated up to themelting temperature of the metal (~230°C for Sn, ~160°C for InTl). Then, this metal inside theheating chamber was pressed using piston and a conventional hydraulic jack. The chamber wassubsequently cooled down to allow the molten metal inside the pores of AAO to crystallize.Then the residual metal was carefully removed from the top of the AAO film by peeling it off byhand. A detailed description of this method was presented by Chen et al13.Figure 1. Schematic representation of the fabrication process of the composite: (a) porous anodicaluminum oxide (AAO) and the Al substrate attached to the AAO, (b) set-up before
available on the first day of classes. This allows curiousstudents to watch the lessons ahead of time if they wish to do so. Page 25.705.4 Figure2. A screenshot of online communication on Facebook Figure 3. Screenshots of audio PowerPoint presentation (a) captured from Camtasia Studio 7.1 (b) captured from Adobe® CaptivateTMLab practiceFace-to-face lab practice time is used to augment the online content: students present questions(to the class or one-on-one with the instructor) regarding the content. Interaction with otherstudents provides both peer assistance and incentive to progress. Instructors are
before failure occurs? b. What is the influence of risk on cost and schedule? c. How to identify and mitigate risks? 4. Environmental Contributions to Mission Failure – An in-depth look at various environmental factors that contribute to the failure of a space mission is analyzed. Specifically, environmental factors influencing the success of a space mission during pre-launch (i.e. integration and test with the launch vehicle), actual launch of the rocket and on-orbit environmental conditions (like radiation, atmospheric conditions, plasma and neutral environment, etc.). 5. Failures in Design - Though the system engineering process requires design analysis, testing and
AC 2012-4719: INTEGRATING AEROSPACE RESEARCH MATERIALSINTO A PROJECT-BASED FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSEDr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston Univer- sity, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, taught at Northwestern for Fall 1995, worked at Ar- gonne National Lab, 1996-1997, Chicago State, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engineering @ Texas A&M since 1/03. His research is focused on compu- tational plasma modeling using spectral and lattice Boltzmann methods such as in plasma turbulence (http://www.worldscinet.com/cgi-bin/details.cgi?id=jsname:ijmpc&
Aerospaceengineering laboratory at Southern Polytechnic State University. The undergraduate researchhelped the students in gaining theoretical and practical knowledge for conducting and completingresearch. Through various research activities as part of the Peach State LSAMP program,students learned and improved their ability to think critically, solve engineering problems,trouble-shoot, and better understand engineering principles. Our students presented the researchat the Peach State LSAMP annual conference in Savannah, GA. Although the students havesubmitted their work, the apparatus needs to be improved and made more robust before it can besafely used in a laboratory environment.References 1. 1. T. Goodwin, B. Holmes, ‘Challenges of engaging in
AC 2012-3834: ARE WE UP TO THE TASK OF CONFRONTING A DE-CLINE IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE? A PANEL DISCUSSIONDr. Kathy Schmidt Jackson, Pennsylvania State University Kathy Jackson is a Senior Research Associate at Pennsylvania State University’s Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence. In this position, she promotes Penn State’s commitment to enriching teaching and learning. Jackson works in all aspects of education including faculty development, instructional design, engineering education, learner support, and evaluation.Dr. Mark D. Maughmer, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Mark D. Maughmer received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from the University of Illinois
AC 2012-3199: SPACECRAFT INTEGRATION AND TEST: AN UNDER-GRADUATE COURSE IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PRACTICEDr. Michael Swartwout, Saint Louis University Michael Swartwout is an Assistant Professor in aerospace and mechanical engineering at Parks College, Saint Louis University. He earned his Ph.D. in aeronautics and astronautics from Stanford University. As a graduate student, he led the development of the student-built satellite, Sapphire, which was launched in 2001. Starting at Washington University in St. Louis and continuing at Parks, Swartwout has been in- volved in four student missions on the space shuttle and numerous balloon-launched student experiments, as well as flights on NASA’s Microgravity University. His
-media devices e.g. cell phone, IPodtouch, Ipad, etc.Teaching ApproachesTo verify the hypothesis, study these approaches, collect data, and compare results, the followingdifferent styles of teaching are used in several different engineering classes of similar level. Case A: Traditional classroom style of teaching using Power Point slides, and white / blackboard is employed. The instructor does most of the talking and students listen passively. At the end of the study, students take a quiz. Case B: The instructor uses props to describe different concepts. Students listen, are encouraged to ask questions, and see and touch the model (prop) and then take the test at the end of the lecture. Case C: The
scale with 5-being Strongly Agree and 1-being Strongly Disagree. The survey questionsare given in Table I below:Table I: Student Survey1. The virtual flight test project enhanced my ability to better understand:(a) Aerodynamics Concepts (e.g. Lift Coefficient)(b) Stability & Control Concepts (e.g. static margin, neutral point, trim, elevator angle totrim)(c) Performance Concepts (e.g. interdependence of power setting, speed, altitude, true andindicated airspeeds)(d) Planning a flight test (e.g. altitude, speed, c.g. location, data collection)(e) Executing a flight test(f) Working in a team (Test Director, Test Pilot, Test Engineer)(g) Data Collection Needs & Analysis2. The virtual flight test project is a useful complement to the
. Other designs were preparedfor auxiliary structures such as the canister holding the payload, interfaces to the rocket skin and to therocket ports. The third phase centered on electrical circuit (schematic) design using SPICE and similartools, and PCB design using ExpressPCB, Eagle, and Altium. While some of these custom circuits werebased on RockOn designs and vendor and textbook examples, they evolved significantly over thesemester (Fig. 6). The mechanical and electrical drawings were presented along with other projectinformation in three major design reviews each fall semester: a) the conceptual design review, focusingon the experimental goals and representing subsystems as functional block diagrams; b) the preliminarydesign review
classroom,’ Retrieved: September 20, 2011. 15. Hou, Huei-Tse, ‘Exploring the Behavioural Patterns in Project-Based Learning with Online Discussion: Quantitative Content Analysis and Progressive Sequential Analysis,’ Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, v9 n3 p52-60 Jul 2010 16. Goldberg, Nisse A.; Ingram, Kathleen W., ‘Improving Student Engagement in a Lower-Division Botany Course,’ Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, v11 n2 p76-90 Apr 2011 17. Khalid, A., Nuhfer-Halten, B., Vandenbussche, J., Colebeck, D., Atiqullah, M., Toson, S., Chin, C., ‘Effective multidisciplinary active learning techniques for freshmen polytechnic students,’ Intellectbase International