Objects of innovation in aerospace and defense

Objects of innovation in aerospace and defense 
The aerospace and defense industry has a proud history of creating innovations. For its first
75 years or so, these innovations were dominated by the quest of “higher, faster, farther”,
product innovations aimed at improving performance. Over the course of this run, the industry
introduced numerous new-to-the-world innovations, such as commercial air transport,
supersonic flight, and space flight, and then relentlessly perfected them. Many of these
innovations were embodied in large systems, such as aircraft, that perform a complex
function, like communications, air traffic control, or satellite navigation. These innovations
were the result of collective development efforts that combined numerous technologies from
multiple disciplines to create complex systems. Still today, portions of the aerospace and
defense industry are pursuing innovations for new, large-scale, complex systems. The Joint
Strike Fighter is a good example of a contemporary, large-scale, complex system. While
introducing some new-to-the-world technology such as its lift fan, JSF also will integrate a
host of functions and innovations into an avionics system that is reported to require 19 million
lines of source code. Innovation challenges of similar scale and complexity confront other
contemporary programs, such as the Airbus A380, Boeing’s 787, NASA’s Constellation
program, and the now defunct Future Combat System. It suffices to say that innovating within
the context of solving the challenges inherent in large complex programs is the hallmark of
this industry and remains an important customer need. Innovation in Aerospace & Defense
October 2009 Charles River Associates
However, that particular object of innovation—large, complex systems—is hardly
representative of all innovation the industry requires. Figure 1.4 conceptually depicts a wider
range of the objects of innovation in aerospace and defense, from simple, small innovations
that add only increments to a product’s performance to entire systems that are gargantuan on
all three dimensions of the array—complexity, scale/scope, and cost/schedule. For instance,
at the opposite end of the spectrum from large-complex systems are product improvements
that simply adapt or refine existing products/services or production/delivery systems. The
advance of turbine blade technologies, for example, represents such an incremental
improvement to a component technology. The realm of this array labeled integrated systems,
on the other hand, represents a diverse set of the complex systems that are commonplace in
aerospace and defense. These systems combine many elements together into subsystems
and vehicle platforms to perform relatively sophisticated multi-function missions. A list of good
examples of innovative integrated systems might include Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk
unmanned aerial vehicle, the several variants of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
ground vehicles, and Space Exploration Technologies’ Falcon 1 launch vehicle. The system
solutions realm typically combines less complex elements together to perform a particular
mission or function but over a very large scale or scope. An example of such an innovative
pursuit of system solutions would be the Department of Homeland Security’s BioWatch
program, which seeks to develop more advanced capabilities to monitor major U.S.
population centers for airborne pathogens.
Scale / Scope
Complexity
Cost / Schedule
System of Systems Integrated System Element
Large-Complex
Systems
Integrated Systems
Product
Improvements
System Solutions
FCS
787
Turbine Blades
Falcon 1 JSF
MRAP
BioWatch
Global Hawk
Figure 1.4—Diversity of Innovation Types in Aerospace and Defense
The point of this second framework is simply to underscore the diversity among innovation
objects and organize their comparative significance in terms of the different kinds of Innovation in Aerospace & Defense
October 2009 Charles River Associates
 Page 9
innovation that different customers value. Speeding up product development or imposing flybefore-buy mandates, for instance, may make sense for less complex or incremental
innovations, but may not be appropriate or even possible for some large-complex
innovations. Instead, there needs to be a more nuanced approach toward innovation that
reflects an understanding of how the dynamic interaction of complexity, scale/scope, and
cost/schedule frames the nature of the problem. A single, uniform approach to fostering
higher rates of innovation risks wasting money, or, perhaps worse, risks actually undermining
industry’s ability to achieve the innovations required to retain technological and economic
leadership.
Like Utterback’s model of innovation dynamics, this model of innovation helps put
observations of what’s actually happening in the market into an analytical context that
facilitates understanding. Consider, for example, the several provocative indications in U.S.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ statement accompanying the fiscal year 2010 budget. In
it, Secretary Gates emphasized a resolve not to “spend limited tax dollars to buy more
capability than the nation needs.” He then moved to terminate a number of programs “where
the requirements were truly in the ‘exquisite’ category and the technologies required were not
reasonably available to affordably meet . . . cost or schedule goals.”10 Seen through the
prism of the models of innovation dynamics and innovation objects, these statements can be
seen most generally as the kind of customer sentiment that is characteristic of an industry
that is proceeding through a relatively mature stage of its overall lifecycle. They signal a
significant change in the kinds of innovation Pentagon customers value, change that favors
tailored solutions at lower costs and less risks achieved by focusing pursuits in the realms of
incremental product improvements and integrated systems rather than large-complex
systems. Gates also signals that as regards integrated systems in particular, the objects of
innovation that customers value is shifting toward lower complexity “satisficing” solutions.
Companies that want successfully to pursue innovations responsive to Gates’s indications of
customer need might tend to focus on process innovations that enable the delivery of costeffective, rapidly responsive integrated system and system solutions, not clean-sheet designs
for all-encompassing large-complex integrated systems of systems.
http://www.crai.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/innovation-in-aerospace-and-defense.pdf

New In Aerospace

1. GRAND AWARD WINNER: LOCKHEED MARTIN/KAMAN  

2. RED BULL STRATOS PRESSURE SUIT

3. NASA GRAVITY RECOVERY AND INTERIOR LABORATORY

4.BOEING PHANTOMEYE

5.UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA NANO QUADROTOR ROBOTS

6.SOLAZYME SOLAJET

7.NASA JET PROPULSION LABORATORY ASTEROID ANCHORS

8.NORTHRUP GRUMMAN LONG-ENDURANCE MULTI-INTELLIGENCE VEHICLE

9. NASA PHONESAT

10.MARS CURIOSITY SKY CRANE

a detailed information u can get on the link below...

http://www.popsci.com/bown/2012/gallery/gallery-best-whats-new-aerospace-2012

Threats to International Space Station

2003 – Waste accumulation after the Columbia disaster

The Columbia disaster did not involve the ISS, but did impact the ISS construction schedule and maintenance.

The space shuttle columbia disaster on 1 February 2003 (during STS-107, a non-ISS mission) resulted in a two-and-a-half-year suspension of the US Space Shuttle program. Another one-year suspension following STS-114 (because of continued foam shedding on the external tank) led to some uncertainty about the future of the International Space Station. All crew exchanges between February 2003 and July 2006 were carried out using the Russian Soyuz spacecraft; a STS-114 visit in July 2005 was purely logistical. Starting with Expedition 7, caretaker crews of just two astronauts were launched, in contrast to the previously launched crews of three. Because the ISS had not been visited by a space shuttle for over three years, more waste had accumulated than anticipated, which temporarily hindered station operations in 2004. Automated Progress transports and the STS-114 mission were able to eliminate this waste build-up.

2004 – Air leak 

On 2 January 2004, a minor air leak was detected on board the ISS. At one point, five pounds of air per day were leaking into space and the internal pressure of the ISS dropped from nominal 14.7 psi down to 14.0 psi, although this did not pose an immediate threat to Michael Foale and Aleksandr Kaleri, the two astronauts on board.

Using an ultrasonic probe, Foale traced the leak on Sunday 10 January to a vacuum jumper hose connected to a multipaned window in the US segment of the station. The search for the leak had been hampered by noise emitted from scientific equipment on board. Successful identification and repair of the leak narrowly averted a planned lock down of the station in an attempt to isolate the leak, which would have affected station operations.

2006 – venting of gas

On 18 September 2006, the Expedition 13 crew activated a smoke alarm in the Russian segment of the International Space Station when fumes from one of the three Elektron oxygen generators triggered momentary fear about a possible fire. The crew initially reported a smell in the cabin. The alarm was later found to be caused by a leak of Pottasium hydroxide from an oxygen vent. The associated equipment was turned off, and officials said there was no fire and the crew was not in any danger.

The station's ventilation system was shut down to prevent the possibility of spreading smoke or contaminants through the rest of the complex. A charcoal air filter was put in place to scrub the atmosphere of any lingering potassium hydroxide fumes. The space station's programme manager said the crew never donned gas masks, but as a precaution put on surgical gloves and masks to prevent contact with any contaminants.^[3]

On 2 November 2006, the payload brought by the Russian Progress M-58 allowed the crew to repair the Elektron using spare parts.

2007 – Computer failure

On 14 June 2007, during Expedition 15 and flight day 7 of STS-117's visit to ISS, a computer malfunction on the Russian segments at 06:30 UTC left the station without thrusters, oxygen generation, carbon dioxide scrubber, and other environmental control systems, causing the temperature on the station to rise. A successful restart of the computers resulted in a false fire alarm that woke the crew at 11:43 UTC.

By 15 June, the primary Russian computers were back online, and communicating with the US side of the station by bypassing a circuit, but secondary systems remained offline. NASA reported that without the computer that controls the oxygen levels, the station had 56 days of oxygen available.

By the afternoon of 16 June, ISS Program Manager Michael Suffredini confirmed that all six computers governing command and navigation systems for Russian segments of the station, including two thought to have failed, were back online and would be tested over several days. The cooling system was the first system brought back online. Troubleshooting of the failure by the ISS crew found that the root cause was condensation inside the electrical connectors, which led to a short-circuit that triggered the power off command to all three of the redundant processing units. This was initially a concern because the European Space Agency uses the same computer systems, supplied by EADS Astrium Space Transportation, for the Columbus laboratory module and the Automated aerial vehical.Once the cause of the malfunction was understood, plans were implemented to avoid the problem in the future.

2007 – Torn solar panel 

On 30 October 2007, during Expedition 16 and flight day 7 of STS-120's visit to ISS, following the repositioning of the P6 truss segment, ISS and Space Shuttle Discovery crew members began the deployment of the two solar arrays on the truss. The first array deployed without incident, and the second array deployed about 80% before astronauts noticed a 76-centimetre (2.5 ft) tear. The arrays had been deployed in earlier phases of the space station's construction, and the retraction necessary to move the truss to its final position had gone less smoothly than planned.

A second, smaller tear was noticed upon further inspection, and the mission's spacewalks were replanned in order to devise a repair. Normally, such spacewalks take several months to plan and are settled upon well in advance. On 3 November, spacewalker Scott Parazynski, assisted by Douglas Wheelock, fixed the torn panels using makeshift cufflinks and riding on the end of the Space Shuttle's OBSS inspection arm. Parazynski was the first ever spacewalker to use the robotic arm in this way. The spacewalk was regarded as significantly more dangerous than most because of the possibility of shock from the electricity generating solar arrays, the unprecedented usage of the OBSS, and the lack of spacewalk planning and training for the impromptu procedure. Parazynski was, however, able to repair the damage as planned, and the repaired array was fully deployed.^[12] Also, the OBSS will be left on the International Space Station because of its demonstrated versatility and ability to be left on the station for longer periods of time.

2007 – Damaged starboard Solar Alpha Rotary Joint 

During STS-120, a problem was detected in the starboard Solar Alpha Rotary Joint (SARJ). This joint, together with a similar device on the port side of the station's truss structure, rotates the large solar arrays to keep them facing the Sun. Excessive vibration and high-current spikes in the array drive motor were noted, resulting in a decision to substantially curtail motion of the starboard SARJ until the cause was understood. Inspections during EVAs on STS-120 and STS-123 showed extensive contamination from metallic shavings and debris in the large drive gear and confirmed damage to the large metallic race ring at the heart of the joint.^[13] The station had sufficient operating power to carry out its near-term programme with only modest impacts on operations, so to prevent further damage, the joint was locked in place,

On 25 September 2008, NASA announced significant progress in diagnosing the source of the starboard SARJ problem and a programme to repair it on orbit. The repair programme began with the flight of the Space Shuttle Endevour on STS-126. The crew carried out servicing of both the starboard and port SARJs, lubricating both joints and replacing 11 of 12 trundle bearings on the starboard SARJ. It was hoped that this servicing would provide a temporary solution to the problem. A long-term solution is a 10-EVA plan called 'SARJ-XL', which calls for the installation of structural supports between the two segments of the SARJ and a new race ring to be inserted between them to completely replace the failed joint.However, following the cleaning and lubrication of the joint, the results that have been noted so far have been extremely encouraging, to the point that it is now believed that the joint could be maintained by occasional servicing EVAs by resident station crews. Nevertheless, the data from the SARJ will require some time to fully analyse before a decision as to the future of the joint is made.

2009 – Excessive vibration during reboost 

On 14 January 2009, an incorrect command sequence caused the Zvezda service module orbital altitude maintenance rocket propulsion control system to misfire during an altitude re-boost manoeuvre. This resulted in resonant vibrations into the station structure which persisted for over two minutes.^[18] While no damage to the station was immediately reported, some components may have been stressed beyond their design limits. Further analysis confirmed that the station was unlikely to have suffered any structural damage, and it appears that "structures will still meet their normal lifetime capability". Further evaluations are under way.

2009 – Potential ammonia leak from S1 radiator due to damaged panel 

The S1-3 radiator has a damaged cooling panel that may require on-orbit repair or replacement, as the damage may have the potential to create a leak in the External Thermal Control System (ETCS) of the station, possibly leading to unacceptable loss of the ammonia coolant.

There are six such radiators, three on the starboard truss, and three on the port truss, each consisting of 8 panels. They appear as the large white pleated objects extending in the aft direction from the trusses, between the central habitable modules and the large solar panel arrays at the ends of the truss structure, and control the temperature of the ISS by dumping excess heat to space. The panels are double-sided, and radiate from both sides, with ammonia circulating between the top and bottom surfaces.

The problem was first noticed in Soyuz imagery in September 2008, but was not thought to be serious. The imagery showed that the surface of one sub-panel has peeled back from the underlying central structure, possibly due to micro-meteoroid or debris impact. It is also known that a Service Module thruster cover, jettisoned during a spacewalk in 2008, had struck the S1 radiator, but its effect, if any, has not been determined. Further imagery during the fly-around from STS-119 raised concerns that structural fatigue, due to thermal cycling stress, could cause a serious leak to develop in the ammonia cooling loop, although there is as yet no evidence of a leak or of degradation in the thermal performance of the panel. Various options for repair are under consideration, including replacement of the entire S1 radiator in a future flight, possibly with return of the damaged unit to ground for detailed study.

On 15 May 2009, the damaged radiator panel's ammonia tubing was mechanically shut off from the ETCS, by the computer-controlled closure of a valve. The same valve was used immediately afterwards to vent the ammonia from the damaged panel. This eliminates the possibility of an ammonia leak from the cooling system via the damaged panel.

2010 – Failure in cooling loop A 

Early on 1 August 2010, a failure in cooling Loop A (starboard side), one of two external cooling loops, left the station with only half of its normal cooling capacity and zero redundancy in some systems. The problem appeared to be in the ammonia pump module that circulates the ammonia cooling fluid. Several subsystems, including two of the four CMGs, were shut down. The failed ammonia pump was returned to Earth during STS-135 to undergo root cause failure analysis.

Planned operations on the ISS were interrupted through a series of EVAs to address the cooling system issue. A first EVA on Saturday, 7 August 2010, to replace the failed pump module, was not fully completed due to an ammonia leak in one of four quick-disconnects. A second EVA on Wednesday, 11 August, successfully removed the failed pump module. A third EVA was required to restore Loop A to normal functionality.

2011 – Near collision with space debris

On 28 June 2011, an unidentified object was seen flying near the space station. The object flew by at a relative velocity of 29,000 mph and a distance of only 1,100 feet from the station. The six-person crew immediately boarded the Soyuz capsules and closed the hatches on the station as well as on the Soyuz. They were near undocking when the all-clear signal was given, meaning that the danger has passed and the crew can reboard the station. This kind of incident has happened several times, and the crew would perform a debris avoidance maneuver should the situation arise.

2011-2012 – Failure of Main Buss Switching Unit #1 and Replacement EVA 

The four Main Bus Switching Units (MBSUs, located in the S0 truss), control the routing of power from the four solar array wings to the rest of the ISS. In late 2011 MBSU-1, while still routing power correctly, ceased responding to commands or sending data confirming its health, and was scheduled to be swapped out at the next available EVA. In each MBSU, two power channels feed 160V DC from the arrays to two DC-to-DC power converters (DDCUs) that supply the 124V power used in the station. A spare MBSU was already on board, but the Aug 30 2012 EVA failed to be completed when a bolt being tightened to finish installation of the spare unit jammed before electrical connection was secured. The loss of MBSU-1 limited the station to 75% of its normal power capacity, requiring minor limitations of normal operations until the issue was addressed.

A second EVA to tighten the balky bolt, to complete the installation of the replacement MBSU-1 in an attempt to restore full power, was scheduled for Wednesday, Sept 5.Yet in the meantime, a third solar array wing went offline due to some fault in that array's Direct Current Switching Unit (DCSU) or its associated system, further reducing ISS power to just five of the eight solar array wings for the first time in several years.

On Sept 5, 2012, in a second, 6 hr, EVA to replace MBSU-1, astronauts Suni Williams and Aki Hosihde successfully restored the ISS to 100% power.

2013 – Ammonia Leak 

On May 9th 2013, at around 10:30 a.m. CDT, the ISS crew reported seeing small white flakes floating away from the Station’s truss structure. Analysis of the crew reports and images captured by external cameras confirmed a leak of ammonia coolant. Two days later a spacewalk was undertaken in order to inspect and possibly replace a pump controller box suspected of leaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance

Challenges for Aerospace and Space Industries

# How would you assess the health of the military aerospace industry today?

Canada has a strong relationship with the U.S. defence industry and what affects them does affect us. So no doubt some of the difficulties we see south of the border with defence budgeting and sequestration will trickle into our own industry. The key in Canada is to have clarity as to how we should be setting and funding our defence priorities. The Canada First Defence Strategy provided a lot of positivity in the industry, and we look forward to seeing how the implementation of both the Emerson report recommendations and the recent federal budget measures surrounding key industrial capabilities will help us increase our global competitiveness.

# Given the percentage of Canada’s aerospace industry that is small- and medium-sized (SME) companies, do changes in the U.S. supply chain represent a major concern or an opportunity?

I would say both. We have around 700 companies and the lion’s share are SMEs, so AIAC has reprogrammed a lot of our services to focus on helping small business, on supply chain development and on market development programs that allow us to compete globally. We have a huge market access/market development program to help bring our members into other jurisdictions like Brazil, Russia and China. We fully understand that emerging markets are going to be building their own aerospace and defence industries, but there is a significant amount of work to be done in those jurisdictions and that allows for countries like Canada to play a role inside those emerging economies. Canadian small business has been focused and strategic in niche areas on developing products that can go on global platforms. But as we heard at our Canadian Aerospace Summit, we have to adapt more quickly. And that’s why you have David Emerson’s report and Tom Jenkins’ report.

# During his presentation to the Summit, Emerson painted a pretty challenging picture for Canadian SMEs as OEMs adjust their supply chains and emerging markets build their own sectors. What’s the takeaway from his report for AIAC?

If you want to compete globally, you have to be on the technology and innovation edge. And that’s where he based a lot of his recommendations. I think Industry Minister Christian Paradis and the government understand where we are and what we want to achieve. One of the things that we need to do – and David focused on this – is look at all those government programs and policies to see what we need to change to drive innovation, technology development and increase intensity on R&D. That then will allow us to position ourselves globally.

# Technology development, innovation and market access feature prominently in his first 12 recommendations. What’s been missing to date?

David focused on several things and one was technology development and innovation. That links to industry’s commitment to R&D and more competitive government programs like SADI (Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative). Number one, he said we need to recapitalize it and, two, we need to change the terms and conditions to make it more competitive. He also talked about programs like technology demonstration – there is a huge competitive advantage for those countries that have them. Both of these things were included by the government in the budget, so we are very happy to see that they agree with the urgency of these issues. David also addressed export controls: 80 percent of what we manufacturer in Canada goes into exports, so how things are treated at the border and issues around export controls are critical to our success. Our ability to certify our aircraft and aircraft components and parts is another critical area.

On market access, he raised economic diplomacy. When you look abroad at countries like France and Germany going to China and other emerging economies, it is their political leaders who are helping sell their industries. Prime Minister Harper and his government have made significant strides in this area but we’ve got to be better because it is a key piece to being globally competitive. Then there are issues of upgrading and up-skilling our people. In every jurisdiction, the first question you get is how are you generating the skills and the people you need to be competitive? And it’s not just the aerospace industry: the Canadian Council of CEOs and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have recognized the importance of this.

# Where do you turn to enhance your skill set?

Academia is a major partner, so are the provinces and the federal government. One of the recommendations coming out of the aerospace people and skills working group report is the need for a national approach to how we deal with people and skills. There are some good pieces out there: NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) does good work, the universities do good work, some of the colleges are closely tied to the aerospace industry – some of their classrooms are in our facilities – but we need a national strategy for how we are going to move forward with the up-skilling and development of our people. It’s not just different entities doing their thing; we need to come together collectively to make sure we get this right. The money that countries like China and India are putting into developing engineers, for example, is huge. We do not have the same resources so we have to be more nimble, more focused and more strategic.

Both Emerson and Jenkins recommended establishing priority technologies and key industrial capabilities (KICs). Canada is already recognized for certain niche expertise. How would this change the sector?

You could say because we are seen globally as having world leading capabilities – in business jets, landing gear, simulation or small engines, and now on the environmental technology side – industry looks to Canada for certain expertise. But in terms of technology and prioritization, KICs are key because they help us identify and bring clarity to what the priorities should be. David suggested a list of priority technologies that is focused on where should Canada be in terms of the global supply chain. If we try to be all things to all people, then that is what it will look like. If we’re strategic in our key industrial capabilities, how that transfers into prioritization of technologies, then we’ve got a good opportunity to maintain our stature as a world leader. David recommended this because he clearly felt, with our limited resources for technology development, we need to make sure they go to the right kind of technology.

I think you’ll see Canadian industry continue to focus on those niche areas, to further refine and invest more in innovation and technology development. But I also think you’ll see us in new areas where we will be taking on a global leadership role – composites would be one, for example, with the work being done in Manitoba and Nova Scotia. What we are trying to do through our long-term projections is understand how to get in front of those technology developments. This is why programs like technology development and changes to programs like SADI are important – they are tools to get there.

# A number of high-profile aerospace projects are currently experiencing delays. In your view, are there fundamental problems with defence procurement?

I think it’s generally felt that people see our procurement process as broken and it needs to be fixed. I think government believes that as well or they wouldn’t have asked David and Tom to do the work that they did. We all agree – government, industry and other related stakeholders – that there needs to be change if we’re to be successful. David looked at procurement from an innovation and technology development standpoint, whether through industrial regional benefits (IRBs) or in-service support (ISS). AIAC believes we should be using ISS and IRBs to drive technology and help build Canadian industry capacity. I don’t think we put that ahead of the safety of our men and women in uniform, but there’s no reason why we can’t, as we are looking to procure the best equipment possible, also look at how we can build capacity. We believe there needs to be a long-term industrial strategy for how we are going to procure and, within that, how we ensure we are building Canadian capacity and maximizing industrial benefits.

# Is the current use of Secretariats – for CF-18 replacement and fixed-wing search and rescue – a viable solution or a short-term patch?

There is certainly some benefit to having procurement under one roof. But it depends on what kinds of capabilities you are going to put under that roof. You need the right people with the ability to make decisions in a manner that they need to be made. The [National Fighter Procurement Secretariat] has some excellent practitioners and we’re confident that they will be able to do the work. And the government has been clear that they have a plan for moving forward. We’ve been supportive of it but the devil is always in the details. But that’s a very specific procurement. I think we need to look at procurement under a larger umbrella and, whether it is land, air or sea, determine the best model for Canada and move on. You can look back and blame whoever you want, but that’s not going to get us very far. I’m prepared to look at any scenario that helps with the procurement process.

# Emerson recommends that OEMs partner with Canadian companies to provide the necessary intellectual property for in-service support. OEMs have generally been disinclined to do that and the government has generally declined to purchase the intellectual data rights for major weapons systems. AIAC represents both OEMs and SMEs. How do you balance that issue with your members?

I think we all agree on what the result needs to be. We need a stronger Canadian industry and more and better jobs. How we get there is where we are going to have differences of opinion. For AIAC, the transfer of necessary IP so that we can do high quality work and drive high paying, high skilled jobs is something we’ve always advocated. Our committees will look at how best to implement each of the recommendations, but we’re focused more on the outcome than the process. Whether it is Tom’s report or David’s, there will be disagreements about the process but I think we can agree on what it should look like at the end of the day. What we want is a procurement system that delivers IP transfer that allows us to work at a high skill level and allows us to have significant in-service support for our fleet, and from an IRB standpoint or technology benefits, allows us to drive technology exportation and innovation.

# The report also emphasized the need for stable funding and project scope for the Canadian Space Agency, and it has been argued at AIAC conferences that government needs to be a better first buyer. Has Canada been falling behind in space-related capabilities?

We’ve put a lot of emphasis on space because we believe there needs to be a change in how we do space business. As David said, industry feels it is at a crossroads. I think he has the right approach: what’s the governance around space and space decisions in Canada? How do we do prioritization? How does the prioritization get on the government agenda? And then how does government prioritize this? Once you get that structure and governance right, then you look at how we should support and resource industry. I think there is a lot in David’s report that if we are to undertake will make a huge difference in the space industry.

Like other jurisdictions, one of the biggest program funders in Canada is government. And where things get into trouble is when projects are over budget or delayed or not delivered on time – on RCM (RADARSAT Constellation Mission), we saw some companies lay off some of their best talent because we weren’t getting to a decision quickly enough. I understand government’s standpoint, that they have to do their due diligence and make sure that it is the right program with the right cost. A lot of what David is recommending helps us solve these issues. But I think we only have one chance at this. Canada has had a huge reputation as one of the leading space-faring nations. We were third behind the Russians and the U.S. in space travel and we are partner on the international space station – a Canadian is the current ISS commander. And through our partnership with NASA over the years and our role on the space shuttle program, we’re definitely punching above our weight. But all of this is at risk if we can’t right our space ship.

# The Canadian Forces have significant space requirements. What’s the future of the Canadian space industry if we don’t act soon?

If we don’t act relatively quickly and don’t do the right things that David has recommended, I think we are in big trouble. But I’d rather look at it the other way. If we get it right, which I think we can, there is reason to be very optimistic for the future of the space industry. I have faith in David’s recommendations and the initial feedback from government suggests they are very much committed to space. They recognize that if we are to open and develop the North, space will play a huge role. It is important to our sovereignty and security. We are the best in the world at communication satellites, at robotics, and our sensing capability is among the best in the world. We’ve got other jurisdictions wanting to partner with Canada because they see us as a leading space nation. So our opportunity is now, but if we don’t take advantage of it then I think we are in trouble.

http://vanguardcanada.com/crossroads-aerospace-and-space-industries-face-new-challenges-to-compete/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=crossroads-aerospace-and-space-industries-face-new-challenges-to-compete

FAQs About Working in the Aerospace Industry

# What sort of skills do you need for a job in the aerospace industry?

The skills vary according to the position you are seeking, but generally a vocational degree or higher is required. Being comfortable with computer technology is a must.

# Do aerospace jobs pay well?

Yes they do. Because of the high technology nature of the industry, aerospace jobs pay 50 percent greater than other manufacturing sectors.

# What parts of the country employ aerospace workers?

Aerospace workers are employed in virtually every state in the United States. There is a higher concentration of aerospace employees in the northwest, southwest, south, and northeast regions. U.S. companies employ workers internationally as well.

# What courses should I take in high school to prepare for a career in aerospace?

A well-rounded education is desirable with an emphasis on math and computer technology. Depending if you are headed for vocational school or off to college will determine what courses you should take. Check with your guidance counselor.

# Is aerospace a fun career?

Any career is what you make of it, but you can't beat aerospace for all the exciting products. Think about it � fighter planes, space vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and air taxis to name just a couple. The industry operates around the globe and is key to making our economy tick, our borders secure, and keeping our innovative spirit alive.

# Is the aerospace industry doing well economically?

Yes it is. Sales are projected to go over $200 billion by the end of this decade. The civil, space, and defense sectors are all growing with exciting projects on the horizon building a new air transportation system, returning to the moon, and developing products for the continuing war on terror. You can find out more about the industry by visiting www.aia-aerospace.org

# Will there be jobs available when I finish school?

Between the industry's sales growth and the retirement of many workers over the next few years, the industry is facing a shortage of qualified workers in all disciplines. Now is the time to chart your flight plan for a career in the aerospace industry.

# What subjects should I study in high school to prepare for a career in aerospace?

Math, science, and computer technology are the most important areas to study for most technical careers, but within a well-rounded education. Check with your guidance counselor on specific courses, depending on what you are most interested in.

# Which college would you recommend for an aerospace engineering?

There are many great aerospace engineering schools across the country (link here to our list). Your high school guidance counselor is a good resource to help you. Keeping your grades up and learning the curriculum is more important for landing your first job than the school you attend.

# How important is education to getting a job in a good engineering firm?

Education is very important, particularly in the aerospace industry where peoples' lives depend on the products you develop. An aerospace engineering degree can equip you for many different positions in design, testing, verification, project management, or even sales. Complex products require knowledgeable people in many different roles.

# How satisfying is this job? Is it fun?

Aerospace careers can be very satisfying and exciting. It is amazing that humans can build and design such tremendous flight vehicles. Engineers conquered powered controlled flight over a century ago, but the vehicles have changed dramatically. It is the inquisitive and creative side of engineers that makes things faster, better, cheaper, more reliable, and safer. These qualities can serve an engineer in all facets of their jobs from designing new propulsion systems to finding a better way to store files on their computers.

Not all engineering work is hands-on, though. There can be quite a bit of paperwork involved in an aerospace project, but this is how you document how you solved problems. The paperwork is like a recipe for a chef. Without it, they can only make the cake once. With it, anyone who knows how to read the recipe can make the cake!

# I know that teamwork is necessary in most engineering jobs. How many people are usually on a team?

All complex products have teams with multiple disciplines. Think of a product like a jet engine. A wide range of skills structural analysis, fluid flow, thermal technology, mechanics, project management, production, and manufacturing are needed. Some companies use Integrated Product Teams to develop new products. These team usually have a member of each discipline assigned for the length of the project. There could be from five to 50 people on the team who might meet once a week.

# How long does it usually take to go from a starting Ph. D salary to a six-digit salary?

Success in aerospace engineering is not always about salary. If you enjoy what you do, you will succeed. Engineers can make six-figure salaries, but most will tell you that the satisfaction is in creating something that no one else has accomplished. Your salary might depend on where you live, what kind of project you're working, and what kind of technology you're handling. You can find current salary information in a variety of places on the Web at sites like www.salary.com.

# How many hours are spent inside and what is done during this time?

That depends on your job and your interests. If you prefer being inside, a position as computational fluid dynamics engineer is at a computer desk. A position as a test engineer would put you outside on location testing and verifying new designs.

# Are there many opportunities to travel around the world or are most projects local?

Today's economy is a global economy. American aerospace companies send their products all over the world. In 2006, the U.S. sold $85 billion worth of aerospace products to other countries. Additionally, most of the key companies in the aerospace industry have offices and manufacturing sites all over the world. People around the world need airplanes, power generation, locomotives, ships, and any other product you can imagine. Companies that create these products need engineers to create and service these products internationally. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.launchintoaerospace.org/resources/faqs.cfm

All Things Being Unequal- Women in Aerospace

Women may be woefully under-represented in aerospace, but there’s a fightback underway.

There is a dearth of women working in the aerospace sector. A recent survey by the Office for National Statistics found that only 16 per cent of people working in the aircraft, spacecraft and manufacturing industry were female. Which begs the question, why?

Early divide

The problem starts at school level: by the same principle that boys are given Lego to play with while girls sit in the Wendy house putting on a tea party for Barbie and friends, female students making decisions about their career are not looking at aerospace as an option, nor is it being suggested to them. Dr Jane Neal-Smith, acting subject group leader for civil aviation at London Metropolitan Business School, has done research into the subject. “Because girls tend to choose non-scientific subjects at school, they are disadvantaged in flying sponsorships which ask for science subjects,” she says. “Furthermore, in my doctoral research I found that many women received incorrect careers advice at school and were discouraged from flying as a pilot.”

Maggie Aderin head of optical instrumentation at Astrium – a European space company – has seen it first-hand. “When I go out to schools, which is something I do a lot, many of the girls say they can’t do a job in engineering because they don’t see any other female engineers, so it’s obviously not something that women do. They also don’t see many female engineers high up in the system, and I think that’s off-putting as well. A lot needs to be done.”

How to improve the situation

The good news is that there are organisations trying to turn things around. The UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC) has an agenda across those sectors – which of course includes aerospace – to provide the support and advice necessary to encourage women to enter the industry. “We’re coming from a perspective of choice and opportunity,” says Jane Butcher, assistant director of UKRC. “The profile of the engineering industry as a whole is of one that is ageing and not very diverse. The industry needs to be looking outside the box as far as their recruitment strategies and retaining the women that they do get. We’re doing all we can, along with the professional societies – we have to ensure that the right, positive messages are going out.”

Jenny Goodman, who studied a PhD in aerospace engineering at the University of Oxford, now works for the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. “In all the places I have worked I’ve felt that being female is a bonus rather than a hindrance. I’m much more memorable, which is great for networking, and I can add a fresh approach to the teams I work in.” However, one could argue that being memorable is a positive spin on what is the crux of the problem – being in a minority – and Goodman’s career has not been without discrimination. “The very few brushes with prejudice I have come across have been with blue-collar workers. I’ve never encountered prejudice from fellow engineers,” she says.

Elizabeth Cain did a year’s placement at British Aerospace. “There was quite an even mix of men and women on the graduate scheme at British Aerospace, but most of the women worked in the offices. So, when I had a six-month stint on the shop floor, I was the only woman. I wouldn’t say I experienced prejudice over the whole year but it did reduce me to tears for the first week or so,” she says. Miranda Mills, vice president of sales in India for Airbus, is also disinclined to paint the industry in an entirely rosy light. “It can be quite a macho culture. I started my engineering studies when I was 16 so I’ve got used to prejudice. I can remember doing my first shop floor visit when I was still a student and being horrified by all the whistles and cat calls. Maybe now it doesn’t happen so much or I just don’t notice it – you get immune to certain things. Also, as you get more senior, people give you more respect.”

It’s possible to see that strides in the right direction are being made, but is it worth putting in the extra effort to achieve parity? Definitely, says Rosalind Azouzi, learning and development manager at the Royal Aeronautical Society. “We need to encourage women to not be afraid to stand up. At the RAeS, our annual Women in Aerospace and Aviation event aims to dispel myths, not by singling women out, but by showing that, despite low representation, there are many success stories which will inspire others. “Aerospace offers such fantastic opportunities: the chance to develop or use the latest technology, lots of support for professional development, the excitement of flying and space, and a complex network of companies with interesting ways to move laterally and vertically during your career. There’s something for everyone, women included!”

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/career-planning/getting-job/all-things-being-unequal-women-in-aerospace-823173.html

Flying Platform

i thought that why waste energy in walking daily to offices and all those highly traffic prone areas, so i have a great idea of "flying platform" which is that we can make a locomotive which would take Arial route instead of ground. so, the  traffic is not a big problem now a days. all we need is a Skate board,two industrial motors (3 phase) and of 1.5 kwh. u would also need some connecting wires . u just have to make a symmetric design such that motors are at equal position w.r.t the center line and these two motors will produce thrust and they have the power to lift a 70 kg body and so when the motors will start they will lift u and u will take an aerial route.u can also apply a concept of torque ion it and can move to and fro. the motor which is currently working at less speed, will produce less thrust and so will move down as compared to other motor and board will move in the direction the slow .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XzDMlhk4Sw

Various Parts of Airplane and their Functions

 Its becomes important to newbies , to understand various parts of aircraft and their uses , before jumping on various concepts and theories that actually formed the aircrafts.Displayed below, are the most important parts or basic parts , which are required to create a stable flight of an airplane in today's time..
Parts / Terms Description: 

1. Fin - Used to improve the balance or stability of the aircraft.

2. Rudder - Direction control of aircraft , in horizontal plane.

3. Tailplane - Small wing at back of the aircraft. It is fixed & thus mostly absent in military aircraft.

4. Elevon / Elevator - Part of tail-plane in aircraft, for vertical (altitude) climb and descent.

5. Fuselage - The main part of the aircraft. A cigar shape body to which wings, tailplane & fin are attached.

6. Aileron - A part of the wings, which are used for turning the aircraft in left or right direction i.e. control its roll movement. These are also moved up and down to control aircraft balance.

7. Flaps - Part of wings, which are moved up & down to control the altitude movement in sustained and gradual way unlike elevators which does in improper variations.

8. Leading Edges / Slats - The front or forward edge of the aircraft wings. These are generally slotted for generating proper air flow around the wing during take-off and landing.

9. Nose Cone - Front part of the fuselage, where RADAR and other navigation , control and avionics equipments are stored.

10. Cockpit / Flight Deck - Area at the front os a large plane where pilot, copilot sits to control the aircraft.

11. Canopy - The glass window or covering in fighter aircrafts. These are unbreakable, flexible , movable and sometimes have explosives embedded in them for emergency ejection time.

12. Engines - Main and heart of the aircraft. Classified usually as - Turbo Prop, Turbo Jet, Propeller and Pulse Jet. Gives power to aircraft's avionics as well as generates lift to fly the aircraft.

13. Engine Cowling - Metal covering for an engine.

14. Starboard Wing - Right side wing of the aircraft.

15. Port Wing - Left side wing of the aircraft.

16. Spoilers - It is a part of the wing and sometimes fuselage. As its name is, so is its work, it spoils the sustained flight by increasing the drag of the aircraft and reducing the altitude of the aircraft. It is also used as air-brakes and used in combination with flaps during landings.

17. Lift - Upward force generated by the flow of air around the airfoil/wing.

18. Drag - Resistive force experienced by the aircraft body by air due to its forward motion.

19. Thrust - Its the force experienced by the aircraft which helps it to move forward and fly.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGTJSqoi06zttfLXmK3vgX-p1CzFcTeQjoxqWQ75itkfhme9c1Qahuh4pmEatntLeFbpma9NFkJm8-LUt5W0J_OfSg4rZef-_yQalygtxWPXmmn8RJcrEJoilkahVEiMUj_ZAOQBOMV4SU/s1600/1324.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBT_oHYDr9Q