RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool

RE: 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 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 1:22:06 PM)
1-4Q 1963 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $21,742.6 $26,250.0 $18,736.6 1Q $39,179.2 $26,250.0 $18,736.0 2Q $55,098.0 $26,250.0 $18,663.9 3Q $45,781.2 $26,250.0 $17,216.6 4Q Actions 1Q Hire 3 astronauts for Apollo program 3Q Open Pioneer 2 Lunar Orbiter 3Q Gemini Uncrewed Suborbital Test 4Q Mariner 6 Mars Flyby Launch 4Q Gemini Uncrewed orbital Test 4Q Open Saturn 1B Program Events/Observations 1Q USSR conducts a lunar impactor (Luna 2) mission 2 Q The USSR conducts two crewed flights: an orbital flight of Duration Level 1 using the Soyuz, and a suborbital PKA flight. 2Q Pioneer Solar mission Completed 3Q USSR opens the Zond 5 circumlunar flight program 4Q The USSR successfully orbits the PKA space plane Analysis NASA successfully meets its prestige goals, giving it the maximum possible budget for the 1963-67 cycle. This will allow the aggressive Gemini and Apollo flight program be flown during this cycle. To prepare for Apollo, I hire three new astronauts, bringing the corps up to a total of ten, which will be the minimum number for the current schedule. The current year group of astronauts will not be sufficiently trained for the Gemini flights, but should be marginally capable for either later Apollo flights or duty as CAPCOM. In the second quarter, the Soviets again surprise me by flying two crewed flights: a suborbital PKA flight and a duration Soyuz orbital mission. This aggressive flight schedule indicates they have a trained mission control staff sufficient for lunar flights. The orbital Soyuz flight also indicates they can launch a circumlunar flight if they have a sufficiently powerful booster. The opening of the Zond 5 circumlunar program in the 3rd quarter indicates that the USSR is close to achieving a manned circumlunar flight. The Zond is simply an unmanned version of the Soyuz 7K-L1, so it will probably become operational quickly. The opening of this program further indicates that the USSR has almost finished development of a lunar-capable booster. The subsequent successful orbiting of the PKA spaceplane in the 4th quarter confirms the USSR has both a capable mission control staff and cosmonaut corps, and appears only lack the lift capability to get to the moon. Fortunately, there is no indication that the USSR has opened a lunar landing program yet, so even if they beat NASA to a circumlunar flight, the US may still beat them to the lunar surface. The pause in flying manned missions becomes a heyday for the NASA unmanned probe missions. The Pioneer solar program successfully completes its 18-month flight in the second quarter. The two-season duration Mariner 6 Mars mission launches in the fourth quarter. Additionally, the Pioneer 2 lunar orbiter program is opened, to gain experience for the subsequent experience for the Lunar Orbiter program, which is important for site selection for the manned Apollo landings. Because the Soviet successes, NASA accelerates the Gemini flight schedule. The Gemini/Titan system achieves 80% reliability in the second quarter. While not sufficiently safe for astronauts, an unmanned suborbital and orbital missions are flown in the last two quarters of the year to increase system reliability and to prepare for manned flights in 1964 (Image). The Saturn 1B program is opened to both shorten the development time of the Saturn V, and to provide an inexpensive booster for Apollo testing. Image [image]local://upfiles/43164/8BBAADAB67D148349C945F88F87403C3.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 1:44:04 PM)
Interregnum-Learning Objectives Addressed in BASPM from Mercury to start of Gemini 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. The student's strategy is now being tested, and they should have an idea of whether it will lead to them successfully accomplishing their goals, or whether alteration in their strategy is needed. Resource allocation, in particular, the impact of budgeting on their goals, and their success or failure on their budgets should also be evident. Finally, the student should begin to understand how the various manned programs complemented and built on its predecessor.

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 2:15:28 PM)
1Q 1964 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $54,962.1 $26,250.0 $17,216.6 1Q Actions Launch manned Gemini Orbital mission Successful Mariner 6 Mars flyby (Image 1) Events/Observations NSTR Analysis The hiatus in manned flights allowed NASA to accumulate sufficient funds for the Gemini flight program. Although having $54,000 on hand sounds like a lot, I believe that opening the Apollo program and flying the Gemini missions will significantly cut into that pot of money. The successful launch of the manned orbital Gemini mission brings the Gemini/Titan reliability to 88%. This is sufficiently high to actively begin flying the Gemini R&D missions (Duration, Spacewalk, and Rendezvous). Image 1 (source:http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/history/hires/1969/mars_mariner6_7_collage.jpg) [image]local://upfiles/43164/DF3253E20B164CB0A19222BDFA88DF3B.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 2:44:20 PM)
2Q 1964 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $44,401.7 $26,250.0 $16,052.3 Actions Launch Gemini Spacewalk mission Launch Pioneer 2 lunar orbital flight Open Lunar Orbiter Program Open Saturn V Booster Events/Observations Pioneer 2’s retrorocket failed, resulting in the probe not entering lunar orbit. The Gemini spacewalk is successful Analysis The Gemini spacewalk mission is successful (Image 1). Although all components were at +85%, this is still a high-risk mission, so its success is a relief. Although Pioneer was at 85% reliability, it still failed. Its failure reinforces the importance of having qualified mission controllers on manned flights. While the controllers on Pioneer 2 were qualified, they weren't as qualified as those assigned to the Gemini spacewalk. They will receive additional training prior to being assigned to the Apollo flights. Image 1 [image]local://upfiles/43164/3F6A7A19B8284150ACAC6FC5D969BC7B.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 3:02:47 PM)
3Q 1964 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $47,962.0 $28,664.8 $18,467.1 Actions Launch Gemini Agena Rendezvous and Docking Events/Observations The Gemini Agena Rendezvous and Docking mission is successful Analysis NSTR Image [image]local://upfiles/43164/27F504DF398D43219A8D3171CF95AF00.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 3:17:15 PM)
Q4 1964 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $58,293.4 $28,664.8 $18,467.1 Actions Launch the Gemini Level III long duration flight. Events/Observations The USSR successfully flies a joint manned flight The Gemini Level III long duration flight is successful Analysis I fly the long duration flight last. In retrospect, this mission should have been flown earlier, before the spacewalk and rendezvous, as it is a safer mission, and would provide system reliability increases before engaging in the higher-risk rendezvous and spacewalk. In a departure from my usual practice of accomplishing all prerequisite flights to avoid the reliability penalties, in this case the mission in flown despite not having accomplished a duration II level flight. The penalty is only a -5% reliability hit. However, Gemini/Titan has an average reliability is 96%, so the flight should be safe. I take the risk simply to achieve a duration record ahead of the USSR. Accomplishing this duration flight is also the last mission profile needed before flying the Apollo missions without reliability penalties. The USSR's successful joint manned flight is not unduly concerning. The USSR space program appears to have stalled. The launch rate is significantly slower than the NASA's, and there is no indication that they have begun to fly a lunar capable booster.

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 9:15:08 PM)
1-4Q 1965 Expenditures/Budget (Available/Expenditure/Balance) $23,596.1 $28,664.8 $15,753.1 1Q $29,494.7 $28,664.8 $15,650.9 2Q $43,545.5 $28,664.8 $15,974.2 3Q $56,228.2 $28,664.8 $16,278.2 4Q Actions 1Q End Project Gemini 1Q Start Project Apollo 1Q Fly Pioneer 2 2Q End Pioneer 2 2Q Begin Surveyor 2Q Fly Lunar Orbiter 3Q End Lunar Orbiter 3Q Begin LEM sub-program 4Q Opened up Pegasus Satellite program Events/Observations 1Q Pioneer 2 successfully enters lunar orbit 2Q USSR Opens the Luna 15 soil sample return program Analysis In 1965, the US program hits its stride. Although no manned flights occur this year, two important lunar missions, Pioneer 2 and the Lunar Orbiter successfully orbit the moon, providing important photo reconnaissance of potential landing sites (Image 1). Project Gemini, having achieved all of its goals is closed and Project Apollo begun. In the third quarter, the Apollo LEM sub-program is opened to prepare for the lunar landing. Additionally, the Pegasus satellite program is opened as a means of testing the Saturn IB before beginning Apollo flights. The USSR program has been strangely quiet. There is no indication that it has developed a booster capable of reaching the moon, nor is there any indication it has opened a lunar landing program. It does open the Luna 15 program, but even if it is successful, it will not endanger NASA’s lead. Image 1 [image]local://upfiles/43164/3E01D1CAD5FB4822A6FF7E93887958E0.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/17/2015 9:49:01 PM)
1-4Q 1966 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $65,404.8 $28,664.8 $16,278.2 1Q $66,759.7 $28,664.8 $16,249.9 2Q $62,884.0 $28,664.8 $16,249.9 3Q $63,137.2 $28,664.8 $16,437.2 4Q Actions 1Q Fly Pegasus Satellite 1Q Open Apollo Lunar Spacesuit sub-program 2Q Close Pegasus 2Q Open Biosatellite 2Q Fly Apollo unmanned suborbital 3Q Launch Surveyor 3Q Launch Biosatellite 4Q Open Mariner 5 4Q Open Frog Oalith satellite 4Q Close Surveyor 4Q Close Biosatellite 4Q Fly uncrewed Apollo Orbital flight Events/Observations 2Q Apollo unmanned suborbital successful 3Q Surveyor lunar lander is successful 3Q Biosatellite is successful 4Q Uncrewed Apollo Orbital flight is successful Analysis Although flying no manned missions in 1966, the NASA program continues to speed towards the goal of landing on the moon The Pegasus satellite is flown early to both free up controllers for an unmanned Apollo test in 2Q, as well as test the Saturn 1B booster prior to use in the Apollo program. A 2Q unmanned test flight of the Apollo capsule is successful, In 3Q both the Biosatellite and Surveyor are successfully launched. Historically, the Surveyor mission was important, as it tested engineering concepts used in the manned LEM. Finally, an uncrewed Apollo orbital flight is successfully launched in 4Q. The Apollo capsule is now ready for crewed missions. However, the development of the LEM is lagging potentially delaying the Apollo landing. It is rated at only 60% reliability at the end of the year. Additional SET personnel are assigned to speed its development. [image]local://upfiles/43164/CD95276A37834AA7887E10E12C9598F3.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 11:29:28 AM)
1-2Q 1967 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $83,146.0 $43,750.0 $31,522.4 1Q $105,930.3 $43,750.0 $31,522.4 2Q Actions 1Q Launch manned Apollo Orbital flight 2Q Launch Mariner 5 (Venus Probe) 2Q Launch Frog Otolith satellite Events/Observations 2Q Launch manned Apollo Orbital flight is successful 2Q Frog Otolith satellite and Mariner 5 (Venus Probe) are successful 2Q USSR opens the 7K-OK (Earth Orbit) and 7K-L3 LOK Earth Orbit Analysis After two successful unmanned tests of the Apollo/Saturn system, NASA flies the first manned Apollo orbital test flight, which is successful. However, because of delays in LEM development (79% reliability) and the Apollo spacesuit (75% reliability), a pause in flying Apollo flights is ordered for 2Q. This pause should give these critical subprograms a chance to develop. Instead of flying Apollo missions, NASA launches a NEO “Orbiting Frog Otolith” satellite mission (image), and the Mariner 5 Venus probe in 2Q. The Frog Otolith mission is not necessary for the Apollo program. However, it is a low-risk mission, providing a minor level of prestige at little cost. More importantly, it will help train some controllers prior to the Apollo launch. The Mariner 5 Venus probe is likewise not a critical part of the Apollo program. Like the Frog Otolith mission, it is also low risk, and provides some training to controllers. If it is successful, NASA will have achieved visits to Venus, Mars and the Moon ahead of the USSR. The USSR’s opening of the 7K-OK and 7K-L3 LOK Earth Orbit programs provide a bit of relief. News that the USSR is only now opening the 7K-L3 shows that they are at least two years, and more likely three or four years behind NASA in landing a man on the moon. This takes a considerable amount of pressure off the Apollo flight schedule, allowing me to concentrate on safely getting to the moon, rather than making decisions based in part on keeping the US ahead of the USSR. Image [image]local://upfiles/43164/DE2FB1D02B334BFEB1F9ED2BE39CD8D9.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 11:59:22 AM)
3Q 1967 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $118,979.0 $43,750.0 $30,094.9 3Q Actions 3Q Open Apollo Lunar program 3Q Close Mariner 5-Venus 3Q Close Frog Otolith 3Q Close Atlas-Agena Rocket program 3Q Close Saturn IB program 3Q Open Mariner 10 Mercury 3Q Fly uncrewed Apollo Lunar Flyby test Events/Observations 3Q Mariner 5 (Venus Probe) successfully encounters Venus 3Q Successful uncrewed Apollo lunar flyby Analysis The LEM and Apollo spacesuit development subprograms still lag. However, it is possible to fly some useful circumlunar Apollo missions while waiting for these subprograms to catch up. In addition to increasing the capabilities of the mission controllers, these flights will also provide additional experience with the Apollo CSM and the untested Saturn V booster. Because the USSR’s program is far behind, and NASA’s budget is solidly in the black, I opt to adopt von Braun’s careful, systematic approach to the lunar missions, with the first circumlunar flight being an unmanned test. It is successfully flown in the 3rd quarter. The Mariner 5 probe has a successful encounter with Venus, and the program will be closed (Image). The Mariner 10 (Mercury probe) program is opened to replace it. The reliable Atlas-Agena and Saturn 1B booster programs are closed, as neither is needed at this stage of the space program. Image [image]local://upfiles/43164/7073B97A50344BB3B81E603EA36DBDDC.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 12:20:19 PM)
4Q 1967 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $135,933.3 $43,750.0 $30,094.9 4Q Actions 4Q Fly crewed Lunar Flyby test Events/Observations 4Q Successful crewed Apollo lunar flyby Analysis The Apollo spacesuit (78% reliability) and the LEM (83.7% reliability) development continue to lag. Ideally, I would save time and expense by skipping the flyby and simply doing a test of the LEM in lunar orbit, and skip testing the LEM in earth orbit. However, because of the delays in the LEM and spacesuit, I opted for a manned lunar flyby mission, which was successful. The primary intent of this mission was to both increase the reliability of the Saturn V, and secondly to end any chance of the USSR doing a manned circumlunar flight first. With luck, the LEM will be ready next quarter for testing. If not, I may opt for a lunar orbital mission before proceeding with LEM testing flights. At this point, the NASA flight controllers are highly experienced, and are ready for lunar missions (Image 1) Image 1 [image]local://upfiles/43164/AAA9C1B952A24D459FADB55303336A7E.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 1:39:07 PM)
Q1 1968 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $153,196.9 $47,913.3 $34,258.1 Actions Fly crewed Lunar orbital test Fly Mariner 10 Mercury mission Events/Observations The USSR flies the Zond 5 Bioscience lunar flyby mission and the Soyuz 7K-LOK suborbital test. Analysis The flight of the Zond 5 demonstrates that the USSR now has a booster capable of putting a manned craft on a circumlunar trajectory. However, there is no indication that they have either the ability to put a manned spacecraft in lunar orbit, much less land on the moon. To the contrary, they appear to be at least two years behind, NASA in developing this capability. However, the suborbital flight test of the 7K-LOK shows that the USSR is continuing to develop a lunar capability. A failure in the Apollo program at this point could possibly delay NASA’s program enough to allow the USSR to catch up. Building on the success of the earlier Mariner probes, the Mariner 10 Mercury probe program advanced very quickly. It achieves a 77% reliability, and is launched this quarter. Although I would like the probe to be more reliable, I opt for an early launch to free up controllers for the upcoming manned lunar landing. The LEM is still not quite ready for flight testing. Instead, NASA flies a lunar orbital flight, completing the last of the non-LEM flight objectives necessary for safely landing on the moon. (Image 1). LEM testing will begin next quarter, with a lunar landing tentatively scheduled by the end of the year. Image 1 [image]local://upfiles/43164/6F7D1DCD013C448ABC002FCCB9A5F82D.jpg[/image]

rommel222 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 1:54:57 PM)
Greetings CV60, The use of actual images in the AAR is fantastic both from BASPM and NASA archives.[sm=happy0065.gif]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 2:02:15 PM)
Q2 1968 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $142,544.5 $47,913.3 $34,258.1 Actions Apollo test flight with LEM and EVA in low earth orbit Events/Observations USSR performs an orbital flight with the Soyuz 7K-LOK Mariner 10 successfully encounters Mercury Successful Apollo test flight with LEM and EVA in low earth orbit Analysis I’m still not quite satisfied with the status of the lunar spacesuit. I combine the LEM low earth orbit test flight with an EVA to work out the bugs with the space suit, which is still below 85% reliability. While moderately hazardous, if successful this test flight should increase the reliability of the space suit to an acceptable level for a lunar landing. The “full dress rehearsal” LEM test flight in lunar orbit is scheduled for 3Q. The success of these two test flights will allow a manned lunar landing by the end of 1968. The USSR performs an manned orbital flight of the Soyuz 7K-LOK. However, the Soviet program is too far behind to catch up to the US at this point. Barring a catastrophic disaster in the next two Apollo flights, the US will conduct the first manned lunar landing. Mariner 10 successfully encounters the planet Mercury (Image). Image Source: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA03104 [image]local://upfiles/43164/FF2DC0CC1EEB43A78A77575C2EC5F20C.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 2:26:38 PM)
3Q 1968 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $137,492.4 $$13,655.2 $34,258.1 Actions Open Mariner 9 Orbiter Launch Apollo LEM test flight in lunar orbit Close Mariner 10 program Events/Observations Successful test flight of Apollo LEM in lunar orbit (image) Analysis The successful test flight of the Apollo/LEM in lunar orbit is the final step to manned lunar landing. All of the Apollo/SaturnV systems are at +87% reliability, and both the mission control and astronauts are highly qualified. Image [image]local://upfiles/43164/AC05B4E879254E57935358407CD733BE.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 2:41:52 PM)
Thanks. Some of the NASA photos from that era still give me shivers, they are so awe-inspiring. quote: Greetings CV60, The use of actual images in the AAR is fantastic both from BASPM and NASA archives.

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 2:51:54 PM)
Q4 1968 Expenditures/Budget( Available/Expenditure/Balance) $137,492.4 $13,655.2 $34,258.1 Actions Launch Apollo lunar landing Events/Observations Successful Apollo lunar landing (image) Analysis The Apollo lunar landing is virtually glitch-free, in large part because of the extensive preparation done in the flight and testing program in prior years. Image [image]local://upfiles/43164/0130AF4882E44337811D6801BF0666FC.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 3:13:36 PM)
POSTSCRIPT-Budget While playing BASPM, a student can record in an excel spreadsheet his budget expenses for further analysis. Here is a breakdown of NASA's expenses during this AAR. (Image 1) In total, from 1Q 1955-4Q 1968, I spent a total of $407,512.10 on my space program, and $383,576.3 from 1958-the lunar landing. For comparative purposes, my program was roughly equivalent to the NASA program from FY 1958-1969. During this period, NASA spent $253,254 million USD in constant 2014 dollars. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA ), so by applying a conversion factor of approximately 0.66, a student can (very roughly) compare their program with the historical program budget. (note: I made a mistake in recording my expenses in this AAR. I've corrected my errors in the spreadsheet below) Image 1 [image]local://upfiles/43164/BE0B48810DAD47E48742D78D47BF3069.jpg[/image]

CV60 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/18/2015 4:00:36 PM)
Conclusion and Request for Feedback At the beginning of this AAR I established the following teaching objectives: • 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 this AAR, the student could write either a paper or a series of short essays the strategy they selected and the reasons why. They could compare the success of that strategy in terms of safety, budget, and effectiveness in comparison with the historical NASA strategy. They could also discuss concepts such as "all up" testing, and compare and contrast the risks and benefits of von Braun's incremental testing approach with these more aggressive testing regimes. They would also have an understanding of the actual history of the space program, and how the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs built on each other. In a week, I will begin a complementary USSR space campaign. I will use some house rules in this campaign to illustrate some of the political influences that hampered the USSR space effort, and to demonstrate how an instructor can, outside the game engine, make modifications to illustrate political influences. If anyone has any suggestions on other ideas they would like to see illustrated, please post them in this thread.

rommel222 -> RE: Crowd-sourcing a curriculum: Using BASPM as a teaching tool (10/26/2015 12:41:37 AM)
Greetings to all, This forum is for the crowd to offer comments on the AAR. While I am a college Prof. you do not half to be in the education field to offer comments on the use of this AAR. I humbly ask for your thoughts/comments. CV60 has gone to long lengths to do this AAR.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625