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

[CV60]

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

[CV60]

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

[rommel222]

Greetings CV60,
The use of actual images in the AAR is fantastic both from BASPM and NASA archives.

[CV60]

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/det ... d=PIA03104

[CV60]

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

[CV60]

Thanks. Some of the NASA photos from that era still give me shivers, they are so awe-inspiring.

Greetings CV60,
The use of actual images in the AAR is fantastic both from BASPM and NASA archives.

[CV60]

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

[CV60]

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

[CV60]

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]

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.