Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager >> After Action Report



Message

CV60 -> Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/5/2015 12:32:49 AM)

Introduction
This BASPM AAR is to experiment using BASPM in teaching high school and college students about the space race. I am interested in comments from the community on this methodology and any suggestions for improvement, including but not limited to additional ideas for student deliverables, additional teaching objectives or other goals BASPM is suitable to illustrate. Please post any comments/observations/questions/suggestions in this thread.

My concept is to play a campaign game from 1955-1970 as both the US or USSR. The teaching objectives would be to
• Learn about the history of space exploration in the context of the "space race."
• Learn about basic principles of program management
o Setting an Objective/Goal
o Setting Strategy (Project Plan) to reach the objective
o Resource Allocation
o Risk Management and Mitigation Strategy

At the conclusion of the game play, the student deliverable would be to compare and contrast the BASPM campaign with this historical US/USSR space program, addressing the following questions:
• How were your BASPM campaign goals different from the historical US or USSR space program goals?
• How was the strategy you chose different from the historical US/USSR strategy? Why did you select this strategy?
• What was the outcome of your strategy? Did your strategy accomplish your goals at a reasonable cost?
The BASPM would be integrated into a semester-long course on the space program, with students encouraged to experiment with the game either before the beginning of the course, or on the first day. The actual game play would begin in the second week of the course. Students would play one game as the US and a second game as the USSR. Students would be required to play approximately 2 turns/day and record their observations in a log. I estimate that this level of play would take no more than 30 minutes/day. A proposed data log is below, and is loosely based on an OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop, with the addition of having the student record budget expenditures for further analysis for their deliverable:

Q1 1955
Expenditures/Budget (Available/Expenditure/Balance)
Actions
Events
Analysis

In terms of the game set up, I am using a game setting of “Normal” to maximize the ability to explore the maximum range of US/USSR Space activities.
Although the game can be played solitaire, if the instructor arranges for head-to-head play between students, I would use the following house rules, intended to allow the player some freedom in setting their own goals, and thereby have them think about the other possible national objectives in the space race. Using these house rules, a player could choose one of four possible goals:
1. Standard- The computer scores, based on existing game criteria


2. Military-The player must achieve an 80% reliability rating in the following rockets (the following is a US list. The USSR player would use the military-derived rockets from its program:
Jupiter or R-7
Atlas
Atlas-Agena
Titan
Titan 3C or Proton

Additionally, the player must successfully fly all missions in the following programs:
-X-15 or PKA space plane
-Mercury or Vostok
-Gemini or Soyuz 7K-OK

The US player must have at least 50% of the USSR's prestige and have spent only 33% of the USSR's budget at the conclusion of the game.


3. Science Oriented
The US/USSR player must successfully accomplish the following missions:
-All NEO
-Mars Flyby
-Venus Flyby
-Pioneer Solar (not required for the USSR player)
-All Lunar Probes
The US player must have at least 50% of the USSR's prestige and have spent only 1/3 of the USSR's budget at the conclusion of the game.

4. Political-The player must be the first in achieving 75% of the following goals:
• First Satellite
• First Man in Space
• First Man in Orbit
• First Spacewalk
• First Rendezvous
• First Docking
• First Lunar Flyby
• First Flyby of Mars
• First Flyby of Venus

Additionally, the player must conduct a successfully manned landing on the moon, although it does not have to be the first landing. The player must accomplish this at 75% of the USSR's prestige and have spent only 75% of the opposing player’s budget at the conclusion of the game.

The selection of the goal would be made in the 1Q 1958 turn or thereafter. The US player must announce to the USSR Player the US goal. The USSR player may keep his goal secret, or announce a false goal. Once set, the goal can only be changed one time, on or after the 1Q 1966 turn. If a player fails to set a goal in 1Q 1958, he must buy a Headquarters facility one level above the facility he currently owns (this cost of doing so is to simulate the inefficiencies from not having a goal).

Over the next few weeks, I will play a BASPM game using these rules and posting this AAR to this board to solicit any insight readers may share on how to improve this curriculum.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/5/2015 1:09:03 AM)

Goal Setting

The first order of business is to establish the goals for my space program. I will play the standard, computer-generated victory conditions. However, I am setting a personal goal of matching the US Space Program’s achievements. I am doing this to establish measurable goals to monitor the success of my program, as simply scoring a high level of prestige is a difficult standard to measure program success by. Accordingly, I have selected goals with the idea of them meeting the SMART criteria. In other words, I’m selecting goals that are
• S pecific
• M easurable
• A chievable
• R ealistic
• T ime-Bound
By establishing these clear goals, I hope to be able to guide my strategy and monitor the success (or failure) of my program.
My personal goals will consist of the following:

• Primary Goals
o Land a man on the moon and recover him by July, 1969 (3Q 1969 3Q)
o Not suffer more than 3 Astronaut Deaths in the total space program by 4Q 1970

• Secondary Goals
o Achieve a higher prestige score than the USSR and achieve firsts in 66% of the following goals
 First Lunar Landing
 First man in space
 First manned orbital mission
 First probe to the moon
 First probe to Mars
 First probe to Venus
 First Earth orbiting satellite
 First Spacewalk
 First Docking

• Tertiary goals
o Successfully accomplish separate probe encounters with both Mars and Venus as well as a Solar probe by 4Q 1970
I will consider the failure of a primary goal to be a game loss, regardless of what my ultimate prestige score is.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/5/2015 10:54:37 AM)

Initial Strategy: Program Selection for Getting to the Moon

To get to the moon, I must first decide what program I will use to get there. Although I can change my plan and strategy as the game progresses, by having an initial idea of how I will get to the mood will assist me in making program decisions. BASP gives the US player one of three program choices to land on the moon. These programs are listed below with their associated costs (Figure 1):
• Gemini Direct Ascent-$41,136 +$3,909/quarter
• Apollo-$47,230 +$4,489/quarter
• Gemini EOR-$30,081 +$2797/quarter


At this point, I have no idea how long each program will take before I achieve a flyable system. At the start of 1955, SET personnel costs are $207 for 5 personnel, or $41.4 per employee. Assuming flight controllers and astronauts cost approximately the same, and assuming I need at least 16 SET personnel to do the various research projects required by the program, and further assuming the program is open for 4 years (16 quarters), before achieving a flyable system, program costs for the life of the three programs is as follows:

• Gemini Direct Ascent-$41,136 +$3,909/quarter+32 personnel (16SET, 13 controllers, 3 flight crew ) @ $41.4 each/quarter=$124,877
• Apollo-$47,230 +$4,489/quarter+35 personnel (16 SET, 15 controllers, 4 flight crew ) @ $41.4 each/quarter=$142,238
• Gemini EOR-$30,081 +$2797/quarter+ 35 personnel (16 SET, 13 controllers, 3 flight crew ) @ $41.4 each/quarter=$96,020
These figures are almost certainly on the low side. For one, they don’t include the cost of the infrastructure, or the costs for the actual necessary flights. Secondly, they give little room for error. For instance, it is possible to lose flight controllers due to accidents or attrition. Similarly, flight crew can be killed and need one quarter of rest after a mission. Therefore, to fly an ambitious flight schedule, I would anticipate having to have at least double the number of flight crew and 15% more trained controllers than the minimum requirements. However, for simply ranking the relative costs of the programs, the above figures are probably adequate.
Aside from the cost, there is also the risks and benefits each program provides. These are summarized below:

• Gemini Direct Ascent
o Possibly quicker achievement of initial operational capability, as it is based on Gemini program components
o Only 2 man crew, so it lowers human cost in event of failure
o Believed to have a moderate chance of success
o Needs a 46000 kg payload rocket for a lunar landing (Saturn V only)
o Moderate number of goals/prestige due to achievements (29)

• Apollo
o Possibly the longest Development time
o Believed to have highest chance of success
o 3 man crew, so it increases the human cost in event of failure
o Needs a 45207 kg payload rocket for a lunar landing (Saturn V only)
o Highest amount of goals/prestige due to achievements (24)

• Gemini EOR
o Possible riskiest approach
o Only 2 man crew, so it lowers human cost in event of failure. Further, during the lunar phase, only one man will be on the surface so has the overall lowest maximum human risk
o Needs the smallest rocket-only requires a 18393 kg payload rocket for a lunar landing ((Saturn V or Saturn 3C)
o Possibly the quickest development time-Like the Gemini Direct Ascent, it uses Gemini program components, but can fly on a smaller rocket.
o Lowest amount of goals/prestige due to achievements (22)

Figure 1


[image]local://upfiles/43164/B355038B32ED461BAFCF2D47DE84B752.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/5/2015 11:01:49 AM)

Program Analysis and Selection

After identifying the pros and cons of each program, I can do a cost/benefit analysis. Using an excel decision making tool available at:
http://www.idea-sandbox.com/innovation-tools/
I weight the risk to crew and chance of success as the highest priorities, as my goals are to successfully land on the moon suffering only 3 astronaut casualties. The actual development time and financial costs are ranked lower, as I can partially mitigate these factors, and failure will not result in me losing the game. The scores (highlighted in yellow) show that each programs are evaluated as exactly equal in terms of meeting my objectives, each receiving a score of 18.

Figure 2



[image]local://upfiles/43164/B0BA30A2F15D46BCB802286D91F3489C.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/5/2015 11:05:08 AM)

Program Analysis and Selection (continued)


Because of this tie score, I have to go back and revise my ranking criteria in light of my goals. Looking at my goals shows that they have a time criteria (land on the moon by 1969) and a safety criteria (loose only 3 astronauts) but no cost criteria. By eliminating the cost aspect, the Apollo program appears to be the best choice (Figure 3)

Figure 3



[image]local://upfiles/43164/A883563E92254608B3EDECE836BBBCA5.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/6/2015 12:32:31 AM)

Risk Mitigation

Risk Mitigation-The broad outlines of my risk mitigation strategy are to try to launch vehicles with at least 80% reliability for unmanned and 85% reliability for manned missions. Further, I will invest heavily in training both astronauts and flight controllers, to lower the odds of failure. Finally, I will not fly any superfluous manned missions. As I can lose no more than three astronauts, each manned mission will have to have to build directly towards the goal of landing on the moon. In addition to lowering costs and risk, this will have the added benefit of saving time.

Training will play a key part of my risk mitigation strategy. Because training of astronauts and personnel take time, I must hire controllers and astronauts early in my program, and begin an aggressive (and expensive) training program. I will also have to build both an astronaut complex and flight control complex early in the game to allow the hiring of the required astronauts and controllers and completion of their training program in time for the flight program.
I can also mitigate some risk in terms of time by hiring intelligent personnel. They train quicker, saving time in developing the space program and systems. However, they tend to be more expensive.

I will also manage some risk to my schedule by flying the Gemini program. This sounds counter-intuitive, as BASPM allows the player to go straight to Apollo, bypassing both the Mercury and Gemini programs, albeit with considerable risk. However, developing Gemini, leaves the option of developing either the Gemini EOR or DA lunar approach. This leverages prior Gemini R&D, potentially allowing for significant time savings. If Apollo proves to be too expensive or develops too slowly, these programs may still allow a lunar landing. Because of this, I will take the historic Mercury/Gemini/Apollo development route as part of my risk mitigation strategy.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/6/2015 12:39:09 AM)

Draft Flight/Development Schedule

A proposed flight and development schedule is below. It also includes training and booster milestones to help me manage and guide my program. Although it doesn't include all of my proposed activities, it shows the broad outlines of my proposed flight and development activities, and establishes timelines for beginning and ending programs and training objectives.



[image]local://upfiles/43164/9FA9232FFF694BA1B12690525B135FCF.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/9/2015 2:59:41 AM)

Q1 and Q2 1955

Expenditures/Budget (Expenditures/Available/Budget)

$974.5 $24353.5 $2025.5

Actions

I start by opening up the Explorer probe program, and building a Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) and Mission Control Center. They are both rapidly completed, and I hire my first batch of 3 controllers. These I will train for preparation for the Explorer launch. I debate delaying opening the Astronaut center because I want to save funds. However, I ultimately decide to open it, as the X-15 requires a well-trained astronaut to safely fly it. This, in turn, requires time in training, which necessitates opening the Astronaut center early. I also hire the maximum number of SET personnel I need to help rapidly develop Explorer. Based on the current employees, I am guessing that the probe will achieve the 80% reliability I set for Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in about 2.5 years, giving an earliest possible launch date of 3Q 1957. I’m confident that date will slip.

Events

USSR-The Soviets open up both Sputnik and the PKA spaceplane in Q1.
US-Nothing Significant to Report (NSTR)

Analysis

The USSR opening of the PKA spaceplane is a surprise. That is an expensive and difficult program to achieve an orbital capability. It implies an aggressive booster program. However, it also gives the US the opportunity to get into space first. The downside is that the USSR will be ahead in achieving the spaceplane goal. I may open up the X-15 program to compete with them, but only after getting the manned space program underway.

Notes: One of the differences between my game and the historical US program is that Explorer was not opened this early. In fact, the Explorer program really did not get started until 1957, although work was done on the ideas behind it earlier than that.
 


 

Q3 1955
Expenditures/Budget (Expenditures/Available/Budget)

$1707.5 $23054 $1292.5

Actions

The astronaut and VAB are completed. I hire four (4) astronauts to begin their training process, and begin studying what rocket program to open. I decide to open the Juno II. Although slightly more expensive and slightly more difficult to develop than the Jupiter C, it also give me the option of sending a small probe to the moon, whereas the Jupiter C is not useful after launching Explorer. That will hopefully save some development time and expense later. I put my two recently-hired engineers on the program. I expect to expand the R&D staff on Juno shortly, bur this is currently all the SET personnel I have available.
My budget has a surplus of $1300. Not much, but I will soon have to begin development of human rated rockets and spacecraft, which necessitates more SET staff. I begin an expanded SET center. That, and the additional SET employees I expect to hire will use up most of my budget surplus, so I will have to fund my programs out of the $23000 I have in currently available funds. Most importantly, my plan is to start the Mercury program in 1958, one year before I see an increase in budget, so I don’t want to cut very deeply into the $23000 of available funds, as I will need it to fund my expansion and operations in the near future.

Events

Opened Juno rocket program
Expand SET center

Analysis
The Explorer program is on schedule.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/11/2015 3:07:06 AM)

Q4 1955
Expenditures/Budget (Expenditures/Available/Budget)

$1707.5 23054 1292.5

Actions

SET Level 2 building is started

Events

The Explorer probe achieves a 62% reliability, while the Juno Rocket is now at 39%. I will shortly begin the Pioneer lunar probe and take SET personnel off of Explorer, to give the Juno program a chance to catch up.

Analysis
 
My idea in giving Juno a chance to catch up with the Explorer program is to ideally have both reach IOC at almost the same time. That way, I can fly the missions and close the programs, saving money. This is a similar idea to what NASA did when it closed the Saturn I program, allowing it to divert the resources to Saturn IB.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/11/2015 3:48:23 AM)

Quarters 1-4 1956

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$23054 $1707.5 $1292.5 (Q1 1956)
$2444.5 $2431.5 $ 568.5 (Q4 1956)

Actions

In Q1, I hire two new astronauts and four SET personnel. I could hire more, but my programs cannot absorb them. I do not want to expand my space program too quickly, as that could result in inefficiently using its limited financial resources.
I cannot begin the lunar Pioneer probe because I have not yet orbited a satellite. I instead have several SET employees begin to train on manned spacecraft, in preparation for Project Mercury.

In Q4, I start the SET level 2 building one season early to try to get a head start on developing my controllers for Mercury. At the end of the 4th quarter, Explorer is at 83%, and Juno is at 79.9% reliability.

Events/Observations

The USSR opens the Sputnik 2 program in Q2.
At the end of the 4th quarter, Explorer is at 83%, and Juno is at 79.9% reliability.

Analysis

The Explorer/Juno program is progressing faster that I had anticipated. I had planned to have my controller team go through one more training cycle before launching Explorer. However, the fact that the USSR has started the Sputnik 2 program makes me concerned that the USSR may be closer than I thought in orbiting a satellite. Because Explorer and Juno have advanced more rapidly than I thought they would, I am planning to launch Explorer early, in Q1 or Q2 1957, to beat the USSR into space. I hope that the reliability of the Juno/Explorer systems will make up for the inexperience of my controllers.
My financial situation is okay. By Q4, there is a sufficient budget balance, but starting the Mercury program and doing the construction and hiring that is necessary will cut significantly into the budget in the next two years. Additionally, I have to leave a budgetary reserve in case failures require NASA to re-fly a mission.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/11/2015 1:23:03 PM)

Q1 and 2 1957

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$24,363.0 $3,003.5 -$3.5 (Q1)
$21,863.5 $3,003.5 -$3.5 (Q2)

Actions

At the end of Q1, the Explorer components have an average component reliability of 85.3% (Figure 1). Although two of my controllers are excellent, rating above 85%, the flight director is only marginally capable, with only a 60% score. However, the relatively high reliability rating of Explorer makes flying the mission now an acceptable risk.
Two of my SET engineers graduate from Crewed Spacecraft training. Although both are in the 70’s in this skill, I decide not to open the X-15 program, opting to instead increase their training in crewed spacecraft again to speed the development of the Mercury capsule.

Events

The Explorer 1 mission is successful in orbiting a satellite ahead of the USSR.

Analysis

My budget dips into the red slightly. I will have to begin to watch it, as I want sufficient budget to open Mercury in 1958.

Notes

In a deviation from the historical path that the US space program took, I decide not to develop the X-15 program, and put resources into manned spaceflight. My rational is that part of my strategy is to avoid unnecessarily risking my astronauts. Additionally, with the success of Explorer, I barely have sufficient prestige to allow the maximum level of funding after the budget review, so a failure in the X-15 program potentially could cost me in terms of budget during the 1959 review. A reduction in the NASA budget could in turn slow down both the Mercury program and delay the opening of Gemini, in exchange for relatively little gain.

For a student, this raises a potential paper or short essay topic: Did programs such as the X-15 detract from the US space effort and/or to the US manned lunar program, or did it assist these programs?

Figure 1



[image]local://upfiles/43164/C14EFFBFE9C648609F9DFF6D87EF1C60.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/12/2015 11:46:36 PM)

Q3 and Q4 1957

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$16,842.8 $3,097.8 -$97.8 Q3
$16,842.8 $3,097.8 -$97.8 Q4

Actions

Explorer Program Closed


Events/Observations

USSR-The Soviets successfully launch Sputnik in Q4

Analysis

My budget is now starting to concern me. My plan to open up Mercury in Q1 1958 and launch in Q1 1960 is threatened by this level of expenditure. With my prestige at 2000, my budget will be maximized at the budget review in Q1. This provides an incentive to not fly any more missions in this budget cycle, to avoid a failure that would either lower NASA’s budget or require additional capital outlays to fly a subsequent mission to regain prestige. Accordingly, the space program will go into a “training time-out” to train my controllers and conserve funds.

To further save money, I will close the Explorer program out, rather than fly the extended duration mission. Although the additional prestige would be nice, I would rather save funds and apply them to Pioneer and Mercury. Similarly, I decide to not open up the Thor-Able rocket program, and instead put my limited resources into Atlas and later into Atlas-Agena.

Although the US beat the USSR into orbit, the US program is only six months ahead of the Soviet program. This pressure means that the US program can not take too long of a break. Conversely, the US program can afford any failures that would set the program back, nor can it afford to run out of funds, which would delay the opening of Mercury. The NASA program must thread the needle between being to safe, and being too aggressive, both of which could cost it this narrow lead.



Nacho84 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/14/2015 6:49:55 AM)

Hello CV60,

This is all extremely interesting. I found the Excel decision making tool intriguing, I'll certainly dive a bit deeper into it.

Something I'd like to add to the curriculum is a discussion of the 'von Braun paradigm'. This is something that I must confess I've learnt about when SPM's development was well underway. To spice things up, it would be interesting to ask the students if they think that skipping the step-by-step approach envisioned by von Braun and aiming straight for the Moon was one of the causes behind the lack of any human spaceflight activities beyond LEO since the early 1970s.

Cheers,



rommel222 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/14/2015 12:32:18 PM)

Greetings CV60 and Nacho84,
I have been following the excellent, structured, educational AAR and will reference it for my students in the Spring 2016 semester for History of Space Exploration Lab.The von Braun Paradigm lends itself well for teaching students a highly structured chronology of the space age from the U.S. side. It is a tortoise vs the hare race with von Braun taking the measured slow but steady pace. The U.S.S.R. seems to take the fast track under Korolev's leadership.This is what makes interesting strategies for students to follow historically or deviate from with BASPM.
This type of AAR has sound educational pedagogy and would make a good selling point to target middle and high schools trying to teach the NASA curriculum lesson plans for space education. Most of the lesson plans are to meet curriculum education standards in history, economics, politics and science. These are all part and parcel with BASPM. If you target public schools there are $$$ to be made. Another reason for more space mission: shuttle & space station would be good.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/15/2015 2:49:15 AM)

Interesting idea. In the AAR, I discussed a bit of my logic for the step-by-step approach, given one of my objectives was crew safety. For classroom use, I think allowing the players to set their space program goals gives them the opportunity to try more strategies and ultimately leads to a better understanding of why the space race developed as it did. The actual BASPM game structure allows for the player to set his own goals, albeit with an umpire or player instead of the game actually evaluating whether the player-generated goals are met. As you point out the game allows a direct Apollo program to the moon without Gemini (or even, I believe, Mercury). A player whose goal is to simply reach the moon first, regardless of losses, could take this approach. I've never had the intestinal fortitude to try it. Possibly I could do a second AAR as the USSR at the conclusion of this one to incorporate the direct path to the moon, AKA "no guts, no glory." As an aside, I think the computer (playing the USSR) was trying a variation of the direct path strategy in this game.

As far as the excel decision tool. I thought it illustrated a methodology for evaluating the different lunar approaches well, and makes a good jumping off point for class discussions regarding different methods for reaching the moon. I also considered bringing in some other management concepts such as Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) charts, but I'm not sure that would be appropriate for this class. Are there any other concepts that I might try to illustrate in this AAR?

quote:

This is all extremely interesting. I found the Excel decision making tool intriguing, I'll certainly dive a bit deeper into it.

Something I'd like to add to the curriculum is a discussion of the 'von Braun paradigm'. This is something that I must confess I've learnt about when SPM's development was well underway. To spice things up, it would be interesting to ask the students if they think that skipping the step-by-step approach envisioned by von Braun and aiming straight for the Moon was one of the causes behind the lack of any human spaceflight activities beyond LEO since the early 1970s.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/15/2015 3:05:49 AM)

1-4 Q 1958

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$13,507.5 $3,542.1 -$191.3 1Q
$7,666.3 $3,967.1 -$616.3 2Q
$6,250.0 $3,967.1 -$616.3 3Q
$5,033.7 $3,967.1 -$616.3 4Q

Actions

1Q Open Project Mercury
2Q Open Atlas rocket project.

Events/Observations

1-2Q Nothing Significant to Report (NSTR)
3Q The USSR successfully flies Sputnik 2 in the 3rd quarter giving them a slight lead in the space race.
3Q The Pioneer probe is at 80% reliability at the end of the 3rd quarter, so it will be ready to fly in 1Q 1959, after the budget review
3Q The Mercury and Atlas programs are progressing in tandem, with both at approximately 64% reliability at the end of the 3rd quarter.

Analysis

The Atlas rocket program opens in 2Q 1958, one year late. However, the Atlas SET personnel were trained during this period, which should mitigate some of the delay.

The astronaut and controller training is progressing satisfactorily. That, combined with the rapid progress in the Mercury program may allow for a manned launch two quarters early. Aside from the launch of Sputnik 2, there is no information about the Soviet program.

At the end of 4Q, NASA has only $5,033 on hand. This is almost the minimum reserve I estimate I need to allow the training and aggressive flying schedule I anticipate initiating in 1960.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/15/2015 3:15:05 AM)

Q1 1959

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$8,199.6 $3,967.1 $6,032.9

Actions

Launch Pioneer Lunar mission. The average reliability is 87%, so it is relatively safe. As with the Explorer flight, the flight director, with a skill of only 70.1 is still the weak link in the chain. All other controllers have skills in the 84-87% range.

Events/Observations

NASA meets its prestige goal, giving it a maximum budget of 10,000 for the 1959-1963 budget cycle.
The Pioneer mission was successful.

Analysis

If needed, I can take more risks with the flights early in this new budget cycle, as I have four years before my next budget review, which gives a lot of time to make up for any prestige lost in the event of an unsuccessful mission.



[image]local://upfiles/43164/C893239A1CE84421BE0CF18947AE8677.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/15/2015 10:40:33 AM)

One other concept that I do use later in the AAR is Mueller's "All Up" testing, where the rocket and payload are extensively ground-tested before flight. If I do a USSR AAR, I'll try to contrast this methodology with the more traditional von Braun engineering approach of flight testing.

quote:

As far as the excel decision tool. I thought it illustrated a methodology for evaluating the different lunar approaches well, and makes a good jumping off point for class discussions regarding different methods for reaching the moon. I also considered bringing in some other management concepts such as Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) charts, but I'm not sure that would be appropriate for this class. Are there any other concepts that I might try to illustrate in this AAR?



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 2:19:05 AM)

2-4Q 1959

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$10,911.3 $3,797.1 $6,202.9 2Q
$16,414.2 $3,797.1 $6,202.9 3Q
$18,427.1 $4,154.1 $5,845.9 4Q

Actions

2Q End the Juno and Pioneer Programs to save money
2Q Open the Pioneer Solar probe program
3Q Open the Atlas-Agena unmanned rocket program
4Q USSR-The USSR Opens the Soyuz 7K-L1 program.

Events/Observations

I open up Atlas-Agena booster program in 3Q 1959 to provide a launch vehicle for NEO satellites and for the Pioneer solar probe. Although Atlas-Agena opens nearly a year early, both the Atlas and Mercury programs are advancing rapidly. This means that potentially the Gemini program can start early. This, in turn, will require the Atlas-Agena for the docking portion of that program. Additionally, I can use Atlas-Agena for both the Pioneer solar program and several NEO satellite launches that I am planning to use as “gap fillers” on the flight schedule between the end of Mercury and the start of Gemini flights.

At the end of 4Q, both Atlas and the Mercury Capsule are at 84% reliability. Despite my flight controllers not being quite up to the standards I would like, it is probably safe to launch next quarter, especially since the initial flight will be unmanned. I also begin laying the groundwork for Gemini by taking some SET personnel from Mercury and training them in EVA suits, in preparation for developing that technology for the Gemini spacewalk.

Because of the work done on Atlas, the Atlas-Agena program progresses rapidly. At the end of Q4, it is at 75% reliability and will easily be able to launch the Pioneer solar probe when it is ready. The Pioneer solar probe is at 66% reliability, lagging the development of Atlas-Agena. However, it should be ready by the time the Mercury flight program ends.

The USSR Opens the Soyuz 7K-L1 program. This, combined with their opening of the PKA spaceplane indicates they are on a very aggressive manned program.



Analysis

At the end of the 4th quarter, I’m becoming concerned about the aggressiveness of the USSR’s program. The opening of the Soyuz 7K-L1 program gives them a potential path to a circumlunar mission. This, combined with their opening of the PKA spaceplane indicates they are establishing an aggressive manned program, and may be closer to orbiting a manned spacecraft than I assumed. Earlier in 2Q 1959, I had tentatively decided on delaying the Mercury flights until 3Q 1960, to train my controllers more. However, the aggressiveness of the Soviet program indicates that such a delay risks the USSR conducting a manned orbital flight before NASA. I would like my controllers to be better trained before risking a manned orbital flight. However, by 1Q 1960, both Atlas and the Mercury capsule will be at +85% reliability. As my controllers all are at approximately 80% capability, manned Mercury missions should be relatively safe, especially if I continue with the planned sequence of an unmanned sub-orbital flight, before beginning manned flights.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 11:10:22 AM)

Interregnum-Learning Objectives Addressed in BASPM from 1955-Start of Mercury

At the beginning of this AAR, I set out the following teaching objectives for using BASPM:

• Learn about the history of space exploration in the context of the "space race."
• Learn about basic principles of program management
o Setting an Objective/Goal
o Setting Strategy (Project Plan) to reach the objective
o Resource Allocation
o Risk Management and Mitigation Strategy

At this point in the game, a student has been partially exposed to each of these objectives. When combined with in-class instruction and reading, a student could address in a short paper or essay the US space goals in the late 1950s and the initial strategy for achieving those goals. They would have a good understanding of the major pre-Mercury milestones and how the US/USSR rivalry spurred or influenced US decisions. They would also have a basic understanding of the pros and cons of alternative strategies for achieving those goals.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled AAR….



rommel222 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 2:52:26 PM)

Greetings CV60,
You would be getting an A+ in my lab course for such a superb analysis. The Buzz-opedia already earns you an A+ in the online course. I upgraded to version 1.5 and have been trying out extreme fast track strategies for U.S.S.R. with mixed results (not unlike Marshal Nedelin's pressure for results leading to disaster).

Look forward to you getting back to the regularly scheduled AAR.[&o]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 5:19:01 PM)

Thanks!

quote:

Greetings CV60,
You would be getting an A+ in my lab course for such a superb analysis. The Buzz-opedia already earns you an A+ in the online course. I upgraded to version 1.5 and have been trying out extreme fast track strategies for U.S.S.R. with mixed results (not unlike Marshal Nedelin's pressure for results leading to disaster).

Look forward to you getting back to the regularly scheduled AAR.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 5:22:16 PM)

Before risking a monkey on a high-risk flight in space, I first test the effects of zero-g on lower forms of Vertebrates.[;)]

[image]local://upfiles/43164/CCDDB80EDC104E6487C6249D91AF58A2.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 5:35:23 PM)

Q1 1960

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$20,226.0 $4,154.1 $5,845.9

Actions

-Fly unmanned Mercury suborbital flight

Events/Observations

-The unmanned suborbital Mercury mission is successful, and "Ham," the astrochimp, enjoys his subsequent celebrity. (Image 1)
-One astronaut resigns to go to private industry.

Analysis

The unmanned suborbital flight is successful, increasing the Mercury/Atlas to approximately 87% reliability. Despite this high reliability, I'm still concerned about my controllers, as the Flight Director skill is still only around 75%, althought the rest of the MC staff is in the 85% range. To minimize risk, the next flight will be a unmanned orbital flight, which will hopefully increase the reliability of the Mercury/Atlas system and minimize the risk for the subsequent manned flights.

The resignation of the astronaut is unfortunate. Fortunately, NASA had seven astronauts in the training pipeline, so there will be a sufficient number available for Mercury and Gemini.

Image 1


[image]local://upfiles/43164/F1A6810095AA4EBEA3C5F7D0539D2D16.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 6:09:06 PM)

2Q 1960

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$14,905.9 $4,172.1 $5,827.9

Actions

-The unmanned suborbital Mercury flight is launched

-Mariner 6 is opened

-The Level 2 VAB and SET facilities are started in preparation for Project GEMINI. A astronaut is hired to replace the one that resigned.

Events/Observations

The unmanned suborbital Mercury flight is successfull, increasing the Mercury/Atlas to approximately 89% reliability.

Analysis

I’m still concerned about the relatively low (76%) capability of the Flight Director and CAPCOM. However, the remainder of the mission control personnel are at an acceptable levels of skill. (Image 1). Additionally, the Mercury/Atlas system will be at over 90% reliability next quarter. In the 3 quarters necessary to train the Flight Director to over 80%, the USSR could orbit a manned spacecraft. Because of these factors, I evaluate the risks as acceptable, and schedule a manned suborbital flight for 3Q 1960.

Image 1




[image]local://upfiles/43164/819F0FE276E54F71A61F87F5F9B458AC.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 7:43:44 PM)

Q3 1960

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$13,361.8 $4,393.6 $5,606.4

Actions

-Launch manned suborbital Mercury flight


Events/Observations

The sub-orbital Mercury mission is successful. However, on two separate occasions, there were glitches that risked the crew, despite the booster and capsule being at over 90% reliability.

Analysis

The series of glitches on this flight despite the high reliability of the systems are a warning of the importance of having both astronaut and mission control personnel as possible, at least on manned missions.
Aside from the successful manned Mercury flight, the next most important event is the significant depletion in my resources. Two quarters ago, NASA had a balance of $20,000. It is not $13,000. While not yet unduly alarming, this rate of burn is unsustainable, and risks the ability to open the Gemini/Titan program. Fortunately, the reason for part of this expenditure is the upgraded VAB/SET infrastructure, which is now paid for, so the dollar burn rate should decrease.

Image



[image]local://upfiles/43164/2BB723308FFE4A31A894A771943CD9A7.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 7:54:13 PM)

Q4 1960

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$14,721.2 $4,846.6 $5,153.4

Actions

-Launch the Manned Mercury Obital mission. The average reliability of the Atlas-Mercury system is now at 97.7%, so it should be relatively safe.


Events/Observations

Successful manned orbital flight

Analysis

The successful orbital flight gives me a lead over the USSR both in achieving a man in space and a man in orbit. Although I could fly an extended level Mercury mission and accomplish one of the pre-requisites for a lunar landing, I instead decide to close down the Mercury program. Primarily, this is to allow time to train the controllers before beginning to fly the Gemini missions. Additionally, it will save a small amount of money in the near term, which I will use to open the Gemini program.




[image]local://upfiles/43164/026D1E39C76E4D3F890F47703491582C.jpg[/image]



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/16/2015 8:52:05 PM)

Idea for a Student Paper/Essay

In my Mercury flights, I balanced need to beat the USSR into space with the requirement for crew safety. While I minimized the risk to the extent possible, I acknowledge that there were safety gaps in my operations scheme, primarily with my level of controller training. If a student in BASPM has a fatality in their program, ask them to review the following speech (available here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10176 ) by Gene Kranz and compare his philosophy with their decisions that led to their (virtual) fatality:

"Space flight will never tolerate carelessness, incapacity and neglect. Somewhere, somehow we screwed up. It could have been a design in build or in test, but whatever it was, we should have caught it. We were too gung-ho about the schedule, and we locked out all of the problems we saw each day in our work."
"Every element of the program was in trouble and so were we. The simulators were not working, Mission Control was behind in virtually every area, and the flight and test procedures changed daily. Nothing we did had any shelf life. Not one of us stood up and said, `Damnit. Stop.'"
"I don't know what the Thompson Committee will find as the cause, but I know what I find. We are the cause. We were not ready. We did not do our job. We were rolling the dice, hoping that things would come together by launch day when, in our hearts, we knew it would take a miracle. We were pushing the schedule and betting that the Cape would slip before we did."
"From this day forward, Flight Control will be known by two words, `tough' and `competent.' Tough means we will forever be accountable for what we do or what we fail to do. We will never again compromise our responsibilities. Every time we walk into Mission Control, we will know what we stand for."




CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 11:20:14 AM)

1-4Q 1961

Expenditures/Budget (Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$6,787.1 $5,933.6 $4,066.8 1Q
$10,853.5 $5,508.6 $4,491.5 2Q
$2,359.6 $6,959.4 $3,040.6 3Q
$2,359.6 $6,959.4 $3,040.6 4Q

Actions

1Q Close Project Mercury
1Q Open Titan II GLV (manned) and Atlas-Centaur (unmanned) rocket programs
1Q I send all astronaunts and MC personnel to training
3Q Open Project Gemini

Events/Observations

1Q USSR Opens Luna 2 Lunar Impactor
4Q USSR-The USSR successfully launches the Soyuz 7K-L1 on an uncrewed orbital flight test.

Analysis

In the first quarter, I close project Mercury. My budget is rapidly being drained, so I will be unable to start Project Gemini right away. Instead, I open up the manned Titan II Gemini Launch Vehicle (GLV) booster in preparation for the Gemini program. I also open up the Atlas-Centaur to both give NASA a booster for heavier scientific probes, such as Surveyor. An equally important reason to open this particular booster is that development of the by liquid hydrogen /oxygen fueled Centaur will help speed the development of the Saturn V, which I need for the Apollo program. While these systems are in development, all controllers and astronauts begin an intensive training program.

I will leave unchallenged the USSR’s opening of the Luna 2 impactor. Although I could probably get the Ranger probe to the moon first, my budget situation is such that I do not want to spend either the money or the time that could be used to train my controllers.

In the 3rd quarter, I have enough funds to open Project Gemini, and initially put all available SET personnel on capsule development. However, I will shortly have to begin development of both the Agena and an EVA suit to accomplish the rendezvous and spacewalk missions that are an important prerequisite for the Apollo lunar landing mission.

The launch of the Soyuz in the 4th quarter is a bit of a shock. I was confident that NASA was significantly ahead of the USSR. The successful launch of a Soyuz 7K-L1 on an unmanned orbital mission challenges that assumption. While the Soyuz is inferior to Gemini, is still sufficient to perform a manned circumlunar voyage, if the USSR has a sufficiently capable booster. I will continue to monitor Soviet developments. If necessary, I can shorten the NASA timeline to a lunar landing by either scrapping some missions, or by scrapping the Apollo program and developing Gemini EOR or Direct Gemini.



CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 12:16:45 PM)

1-4Q 1962

Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance)

$846.1 $6,959.4 $3,040.6 1Q
$3,824.8 $7,027.4 $2,972.6 2Q
$4,697.3 $7,027.4 $2,972.6 3Q
$3,069.9 $7,027.4 $2,972.6 4Q

Actions

1Q Launched Pioneer Solar mission
1Q Gemini EVA spacesuit sub-program opened
2Q Gemini Agena Target Vehicle sub-program opened
3Q Begin Construction on Astronaut Level 2 Complex

Events/Observations

1Q US loses an astronaut in a training accident (Random Event)
1Q USSR successfully drop tests the PKA space plane
2Q USSR finally has a man in space-They successfully launch a crewed suborbital flight on the Soyuz 7K-L1
3Q USSR conducts an uncrewed orbital flight test using the Soyuz 7K-L1


Analysis

In the first quarter, NASA launches the Pioneer solar mission (Image 1). This mission takes six quarters to complete, so it is a good “gap filler” to fly between major manned programs. It also allows NASA to use the Atlas-Agena booster and increase its reliability prior to using it on an expensive and time-critical Gemini rendezvous mission. NASA also suffers its first astronaut loss in a training accident. Of the original seven astronauts, only five remain. A Gemini flight takes a minimum of three astronauts, two to fly the capsule, and one as CAPCOM. Because of crew rest requirements, this means that a minimum of five astronauts are necessary to fly a constant one mission/quarter flight schedule. NASA now has only the minimum number of trained astronauts to fly the aggressive Gemini flight schedule, and an insufficient number to fly Apollo. Given the length of time it takes to train an astronaut, this shortage will require expanding the astronaut corps to approximately 10-12 astronauts soon to avoid an astronaut shortage affecting the flight schedule.

I am constantly surprised by the USSR. I had assumed the PKA space plane project was dropped, as the program was opened in 1Q 1955. The USSR is apparently having difficulty in developing spaceplane technology. The successful drop test indicates that they are near a manned orbital mission. This opinion is confirmed in the second quarter, when the USSR puts its first man in space, onboard a sub-orbital Soyuz 7K-L1 flight.

In the 2nd and 3rd quarters, NASA begins to develop both the Gemini EVA spacesuit and the Agena GATV. These will be used in the Gemini spacewalk and rendezvous missions, which are crucial steps towards a lunar landing.

Image 1


[image]local://upfiles/43164/A836EECE0AD24D55A78EEB90A14299FE.jpg[/image]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.375