Solid Rockets Technical Committee

Education SubcommitteeReport

David Poe

Subcommittee Chairman

Jan 2013

2

Membership

Name Organization

David Poe Aerojet-VA

Michel Berdoyes Herakles

Fred Blomshield NAWC WD

Franck Cauty ONERA

David Greatrix Ryerson University

Helmut Ciezki DLR

Russell Ellis Consultant

Jean Thepenier SNPE

Agostino Neri ?

Kimberly Norrie Bristol Aerospace

Wesley Ryan ULA

Charle Rousseau ?

Solid Rockets Technical Committee (SRTC) Education Subcommittee

Solid Rockets Technical Committee (SRTC) Education Subcommittee 3

2012 Short Course

• Overview:

– The course examined fundamental and advanced concepts related to solid rockets. Theoretical and practical aspects of the field were covered.

– Topics include: system design, component design, propellant, manufacturing, processes, testing, and failure analysis.

– Designed for engineers and scientists in the propulsion industry who desire a greater understanding of solid rockets.

• History/Schedule:– Course was given at the 2008 and 2010

JPCs (25 to 30 students each time).– 1 full day and one half day after the JPC.

Solid Rockets Technical Committee (SRTC) Education Subcommittee 4

2012 Short Course

• Instructors:

– International collection of 10 solid rocket experts from private industry, government labs, and academia. Many were involved in the UAH course.

• Students:– 17 students (from 6 countries) took the course. 9 responded to the survey.

Solid Rockets Technical Committee (SRTC) Education Subcommittee 5

2012 Short Course Survey

The course:Strongly

Agree Agree No opinion DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Met my expectations 6 3Will help my career growth 7 2Would recommend to a colleague 8 1Glad that I took this course 8 1

The instructors:Strongly

Agree Agree No opinion DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Very knowledgable about the subject 7 2Effective lecturer 5 2 2Well Prepared 7 1 1Enthusiastic 6 3Excellent discussions 5 4Used class time effectively 3 2 2 2Conveyed valuable information 8 1Synopsis description was accurate 8 1

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither Unsatisfied

Very Unsatisfied

Overall satisfaction 5 3 1Too

Difficult Difficult Just Right Easy Too easyDifficulty level 2 7

Comments- Overall response

from the students was very positive.

- Primary complaint was related to time management and running behind schedule. There is a lot of material for a day and a half course.

Solid Rockets Technical Committee (SRTC) Education Subcommittee 6

2012 Short Course SurveyWhat did you like about this course?The course provided a well rounded introduction to the development of solid rocket motors. The instructors were very knowledgeable and offered a vast array of opinions and ideas.I really enjoyed the discussion on Safety and the Challenger failure.One thing that makes the course invaluable is that you learn things that you may or may not learn on the job as you go about your day to day, but instead of having to work for years to come across some of the topics, they are gathered together and condensed. The videos and personal experiences. I loved Allan McDonald's speech.Instructors were incredibly knowledgeable in their respective fields, and it was nice to receive instruction from persons in the industry, not just academia.I appreciated the lecturers, their insight into their field of work and their profound background/ experience.Analysis section was very good

What didn't you like about this course?The time allowed for each instructor was not sufficient for their presentations. The course would improve by stretching the length to two full days.Some of the presenters went into a little too much detail and presented too much information for a summary. It was still ok, but the audience lost focus after an 1hr.I would have liked to have heard about a larger variety of nozzle materials, and also even more trade-offs for propellant additives.The length of presentations and the target/mark. Some of the lecturers did not adhere to time limits for their particular sections, causing the course to run late.I would have liked to have a 5 minute break between each unit. Interesting discussions during those breaks are also very beneficial.Multiple sections were redundant, covered the same material and seemed rather haphazard

7

Design Competition• University Design Competition

– The AIAA Student Activities Committee (SAC) provides guidelines and logistical structures for the technical committees to run university design competitions. • TC Responsibility: identify point of contact, select topic, and provide design

parameters. • Scope: Semester long paper design. Topic should address the design of a

system and incorporate both technical and economic parameters.• Student Level: both graduate and undergraduate.• Award: AIAA pays travel expenses for winning team to come to a conference to

present their design. TCs are asked to provide session space for presentation.

– Charle Rousseau volunteered to champion this effort and be the point of contact for the SAC competition this year.• Goal/objective ideas?

– Schedule: We are still waiting for AIAA to give us details about this years competition. They were supposed to finalize a plan in December. We’ll need to submit an abstract once we here from AIAA.

Solid Rockets Technical Committee (SRTC) Education Subcommittee

8

Professional Development

• 10-15 minute technical talks at SRTC main meetings.– Enhance “technical” aspect of technical committee.– Several topics have been presented at ASM and JPC meetings since

2010.– Accepting volunteers for future talks at either the JPC or ASM.

• Solid Rockets Text Book– David Greatrix has volunteered to champion this project.

• He submitted a proposal and has been approved by AIAA Publications to proceed with producing the text book.

Solid Rockets Technical Committee (SRTC) Education Subcommittee