The following observations are contributed in support of the ABET 2000 process by a task team from the USAFA Association of Graduates Space Chapter, who represent professional constituents of the Astronautical Engineering program. These remarks are based on a brief oral review of the curriculum on November 10, 2000, and roughly follow the outline submitted in questionnaire form by the faculty.
The operational goals of the Astronautical Engineering program are consistent with the Air Force Academy's mission and the Dean's Educational Outcomes. However, it is important to note that an important part of the USAFA mission is to inspire cadets; this should also be a stated goal of the curriculum. The currently structured Astronautical Engineering program seems very inspirational. Moreover, the mission statement is aimed at producing leaders. Developing skills needed for leadership in AF space activities should be a high priority of the Astronautical Engineering program. For example, leadership requires a thorough understanding of the relationship between operational needs, mission objectives, and system requirements. The underlying skills needed to develop this perspective can, and we feel should be laid in an undergraduate education.
The operational goals of the Astronautical Engineering program are also generally consistent with the needs of the Air Force space community. However, there are a number of areas in which the goals could be more comprehensive, as indicated in comments below. In addition, goal #5 could be modified to specify the development of skills to address space engineering problems.
The Astronautical Program Curricular Outcomes are also consistent with the Air Force Academy's mission and the Dean's Educational Outcomes. However, the above comments related to inspiration and leadership apply here as well.
Since the operational goals of the Astronautical Engineering program are somewhat limited to the areas of ABET criteria, it is unlikely that a Second Lieutenant who has met these outcomes alone will have the necessary tools to thrive in the Air Force space community. Other special disciplines, including systems engineering, should also be addressed. Moreover, this course of study is aimed at preparing an officer for an engineering position, such as in AFMC (SMC, AFRL, etc). The AF space community is much broader, and a more comprehensive set of skills and experiences is needed to prepare for success. In particular, the areas addressed by the Space Operations program would better prepare most officers for involvement in the AF space community. A major need is that officers be able to see the big picture and be able to articulate requirements for AF space capabilities.
The USAFA Astronautical Engineering program adequately covers the technical disciplines specified by ABET. However, these criteria appear to inadequately address the needs of AF officers in space engineering jobs. In addition to the stated disciplines, we also feel that a background in space power systems (Astro 320/331?), thermal management (Astro 328/331?), remote sensing payloads (Geog 382?), systems engineering (Astro 331/332? Astro 423/433? Eng 433/434?) and test (Astro 433?) is also important. (The question marks in the preceding sentence indicate that although the courses indicated may cover these topics, we did not review them in detail.) Conduct of trade space analyses of end-to-end space systems is also a badly needed skill. In short, the ABET criteria are not comprehensive nor are they tailored to the needs of the Air Force.
We also offer the following observations in the technical areas required by ABET, as described to us:
Attitude Determination and Control and Orbital Mechanics. These topics appear to be more than adequately covered. Although we fully support the need of the Academy to be leader in special academic areas, care must be taken to not unduly overstress these two areas at the expense of other important disciplines.
Space Environment. In addition to the natural environment, attention must also be paid to the manmade space environment (space debris, RF interference, etc) which is becoming a major AF concern. Understanding the reentry environment is also important; for example, the Military Spaceplane program under consideration will require officers with a sound understanding of the reentry process. Finally, coverage of the effects of the space environment on crews in space appears lacking. At a time when the International Space Station is commencing operations, and cadets appear to be motivated by the idea of going into orbit, this seems to be a significant oversight, even though the future of military crews in space is still uncertain. Academy graduates can help resolve these uncertainties in the future. (Biol 345 or 350 may cover this material.)
Telecommunications. Although the task team didn't review this curriculum in any detail, it appears that a broader and deeper treatment of communication satellite systems, including user equipments and overall system-level design and architecture considerations, would be appropriate. Knowledge of interactions and basic trades between space and terrestrial communications systems is also important.
Space Structures. The continuing interest in aerospace vehicles may indicate a need to address the integration of space and air systems beyond what we found in the curriculum.
Rocket Propulsion. Non-chemical (e.g. electric or solar thermal) propulsion systems are also of interest to AF organizations. This is another area where system-level trades and analyses would be of value.
Orbital Mechanics. Other specialized topics which could be considered include special perturbations, low-thrust trajectories and tracking considerations, and reentry.
The team and other members of the Space Chapter also offer the following observations:
The Department's faculty and facilities appear to be especially strong.
The Falconsat program appears to be an excellent opportunity for hands-on experience in engineering and operations, as well as a useful framework for integration with other academic disciplines and involvement of non-Astro majors in space-related projects. The Department might also consider cooperation with other nearby universities which offer similar experiences, such as the University of Colorado in Boulder.
Exposure to the nature of space system operations, including satellite operations and launch operations, as well as manufacturing, provides an important context for a space system engineering education. Field trips can help provide such insights.
The Astro 331 course might not provide the right introduction to space systems and operations. A "survey of space" course may also be needed.
Understanding how space systems are used to address national security (not just USAF) and civilian needs provides a needed context for astronautical engineering.
Several breadth options also provide excellent opportunities to understand space systems and the context in which they operate (esp. Hist 376).
Instructors and cadets need to understand trends in AF space operations as indicated by documents such the AFSPC Strategic Master Plan.
Instructors and cadets should also have a high-level understanding of trends in civil government (e.g. NASA) and commercial space activities, and the types of problems faced by commercial firms using space systems. Civilian faculty could especially help in this area, as could guest speakers or lecturers.
The AIAA Student Section could play an important role in providing the context and understanding of trends in space activities which frame the application of academic disciplines.
Since exposure to space capabilities is important to all cadets, a similar review of the core curriculum from the perspective of needs of the Air Force could also be productive.
Although the Space Chapter was not asked to review the Space Operations major, the group has expressed significant interest in this program. The following comments are offered as a step toward helping strengthen this curriculum:
Cadets not pursuing Astronautical Engineering should be encouraged to take the Space Operations major, which appears to address a broad set of Air Force needs for space-savvy officers.
Although they may already be in the curriculum, the following specialty areas were specifically mentioned as important areas for inclusion in the Space Operations focus: space history, policy and law; space science; math; physics; intro to astronautical engineering; space environment; and military and commercial space applications.
Familiarity with computers (including programming) and simulation/modeling methodologies is also recommended.
Space Operations majors could benefit from an internship program at one of the Space Commands.
Completion of requirements for the Space Operations major should qualify a graduate for advanced placement in active duty space operations training.
Although Space Operations majors may enter the Space Operations career field, they should not be "pipelined" to missile duty more frequently than graduates with other majors.
The AOG Space Chapter submits these brief observations with the hope that they will be useful in strengthening the overall program of space education at the Academy. If a more in-depth review is needed, we would be pleased to participate. Obviously, we are very proud of the current Astronautical Engineering program and the significant contributions its graduates have made to the Air Force. We look forward to continued involvement with the Department and with the Academy.