Tag Archives: Space & Satellite Professional Training

ATI Features World Class Instructors for Our Short Courses

Washington, DC
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
“Even I Could Learn a Thing or Two from ATI”
“Even I Could Learn a Thing or Two from ATI”
Video Clip: Click to Watch
Since 1984 ATI has provided leading-edge public courses

and onsite technical training

The short technical courses from the Applied Technology Institute (ATI) are designed to help you keep your professional knowledge up-to-date. Our courses provide a practical overview of space and defense technologies which provide a strong foundation for understanding the issues that must be confronted in the use, regulation and development such complex systems.

The classes are designed for individuals involved in planning, designing, building, launching, and operating space and defense systems. Whether you are a busy engineer, a technical expert or a project manager, you can enhance your understanding of complex systems in a short time.

ABOUT ATI AND THE INSTRUCTORS

Our mission here at the ATI is to provide expert training and the highest quality professional development in space, communications, defense, sonar, radar, and signal processing. We are not a one-size-fits-all educational facility. Our short classes include both introductory and advanced courses.

ATI’s instructors are world-class experts who are the best in the business. They are carefully selected for their ability to clearly explain advanced technology.

For example:

Robert Fry worked from 1979 to 2007 at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory where he was a member of the Principal Professional Staff. He is now working at System Engineering Group (SEG) where he is Corporate Senior Staff and also serves as the company-wide technical advisor. Throughout his career he has been involved in the development of new combat weapon system concepts, development of system requirements, and balancing allocations within the fire control loop between sensing and weapon kinematic capabilities. He has worked on many aspects of the AEGIS combat system including AAW, BMD, AN/SPY-1, and multi-mission requirements development. Missile system development experience includes SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, Patriot, THAAD, HARPOON, AMRAAM, TOMAHAWK, and other missile systems.

Robert teaches ATI’s Combat Systems Engineering course

Wayne Tustin has been president of Equipment Reliability Institute (ERI), a specialized engineering school and consultancy he founded in Santa Barbara, CA, since 1995. His BSEE degree is from the University of Washington, Seattle. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of California. Wayne’s first encounter with vibration was at Boeing/Seattle, performing what later came to be called modal tests, on the XB-52 prototype of that highly reliable platform. Subsequently he headed field service and technical training for a manufacturer of electrodynamic shakers, before establishing another specialized school on which he left his name.

Based on over 50 years of professional experience, Wayne has written several books and literally hundreds of articles dealing with practical aspects of vibration and shock measurement and testing.

Wayne teaches ATI’s Fundamentals of Random Vibration & Shock Testing course.

Thomas S. Logsdon, M.S

For more than 30 years, Thomas S. Logsdon, M. S., has worked on the Navstar GPS and other related technologies at the Naval Ordinance Laboratory, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed Martin, Boeing Aerospace, and Rockwell International. His research projects and consulting assignments have included the Transit Navigation Satellites, The Tartar and Talos shipboard missiles, and the Navstar GPS. In addition, he has helped put astronauts on the moon and guide their colleagues on rendezvous missions headed toward the Skylab capsule. Some of his more challenging assignments have centered around constellation coverage studies, GPS performance enhancement, military applications, spacecraft survivability, differential navigation, booster rocket guidance using the GPS signals and shipboard attitude determination.

Tom Logsdon has taught short courses and lectured in thirty one different countries. He has written and published forty technical papers and journal articles, a dozen of which have dealt with military and civilian radionavigation techniques. He is also the author of twenty nine technical books on various engineering and scientific subjects. These include Understanding the Navstar, Orbital Mechanics: Theory and Applications, Mobile Communication Satellites, and The Navstar Global Positioning System.

Courses Mr. Logsdon teaches through ATI include:

Understanding Space

Fundamentals of Orbital & Launch Mechanics

GPS Technology – Solutions for Earth & Space and

Strapdown Inertial Navigation Systems

COURSE OUTLINE, SAMPLERS, AND NOTES

Determine for yourself the value of our courses before you sign up. See our samples (See Slide Samples) on some of our courses.

Or check out the new ATI channel on YouTube.

After attending the course you will receive a full set of detailed notes from the class for future reference, as well as a certificate of completion. Please visit our website for more valuable information.

DATES, TIMES AND LOCATIONS

For the dates and locations of all of our short courses, please access the links below.

Sincerely,

The ATI Courses Team

P.S. Call today for registration at 410-956-8805 or 888-501-2100 or access our website at www.ATIcourses.com. For general questions please email us at ATI@ATIcourses.com.

Mark N. Lewellen
Consultant/Instructor
Washington, DC
240-882-1234

ATI’s Space Industry Professionals Weigh-In: Obama’s Decision to End NASA’s Constellation Program (Part 3)

Please click here for previous parts of this post Part 1 Part 2

Undecided explanatory comments of how this change will affect NASA and Manned space exploration:
________________________________________________________________________

“There are many who believe, some passionately, that most of NASA’s money spent on manned space flight has been a waste. Robotic space has high pay-offs, at far less bucks for the results. Manned (and even that term is not PC) space flight has been a massive make-work program for a few privileged companies. Romantic, yes. Eye-candy, yes. Spectacular, yes. Sometimes of political advantage, yes. Sensible, in the larger scheme of things? Now that would be worth serious debate.”


ATI encourages further participation from both the public and private sectors to continue this important and controversial debate.


ATI is planning a follow-up poll after the President’s April 15th conference on NASA’s future where he will outline his strategy for the next step in space exploration. Jenkins says, “It will be interesting to see if any opinions shift after the President details his strategy for the future of space, since those details have yet to be presented beyond his 2011 Fiscal Budget Plan.”


The Applied Technology Institute (ATI) specializes in professional development seminars in the technical areas of space, communications, defense, sonar, radar, and signal processing. For over twenty-five years, ATI has presented leading-edge technical training to defense and NASA facilities, as well as DoD and aerospace contractors. ATI courses provide a clear understanding of the fundamental principles and a working knowledge of current technology and applications. ATI has the unique capability to schedule and deliver courses in a matter of weeks. They offer customized on-site training at your facility anywhere in the United States, as well as internationally and over 200 annual public courses in dozens of locations. World-class design experts lead courses. To register or for an on-site quote, call (888) 501-2100, or visit them on the web at www.ATIcourses.com

ATI’s Space Industry Professionals Weigh-In: Obama’s Decision to End NASA’s Constellation Program (Part 2)

For Part 1 of this post please click here

Explanatory comments in opposition of how this change will affect NASA and Manned space exploration:


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“The new Obama space plan will definitely hurt manned space exploration. In this area, as in others, Obama is a leader who lacks vision.”


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“The Obama space plan doesn’t appear to be a plan at all. He apparently wants to eliminate existing plans to use the Moon as a staging area for future space exploration, while at the same time eliminating heavy-lift launch capability. That would be the death-knell for future manned space exploration.”
“Although unmanned scientific space missions would continue under the Obama plan, it is not clear how much support unmanned missions would receive in the future. Obama is of the opinion that the U.S. space program has had low return on investment. That notion is standard liberal poppycock. Estimates of the net loss in jobs (5000 – 7000 jobs lost) are probably low. The actual net job loss would likely approach 10,000.”


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“I believe we need to maintain the space program at this current level at the least. That includes launching, space science and the manned space program using our own launcher. I do not believe it is good policy to rely on the Russians to put us in space.
“No, I do not support that plan.”


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“No….I feel this will put an end to manned space flight outside of LEO for the US. Doesn’t bode well for servicing mission to the Webb Telescope (that would be a know need), let alone any further exploration and experience outside of LEO. There is no money in the budget to pursue both, technology leaps would have occurred if they were remotely feasible. It is a tremendous waste of taxpayers’ money and the skilled workforce will take a generation to recover if this in fact happens, as the Aerospace and NASA industry is already aging.”


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“NO. The way forward is ill-advised. Many programs now mentioned in the President’s budget are low-hanging fruit, having been worked on within NASA for years and should now be given to the commercial world. NASA should keep in part Human Spaceflight (HSF) as a major infrastructure issue, not unlike highway and air traffic systems. The US government must stay involved for development in a safe and sustained way (when BIG government works best) without competing with commercial space market. It is good to have commercial know-how, but for the overarching system, the US government must provide goals and leadership in concert with the desires of the nation. The NASA budget is very modest compared to expenditures of recent Administration commitments, and a parallel manned system to commercial HSF systems is the way to maintain American manned access to space. The AF has assured access to space through EELV. Surely another government agency should ensure human access to space. It seems that NASA has now trepidation for the future of human spaceflight and space development, so perhaps another civil agency such as the FAA Office of Commercial Space should undertake this bold challenge (?) to balance both commercial and civil HSF systems ensuring our (US) economic growth in space. The US is the only country with budgets large enough to do the tough infrastructure development that lay the foundation for the economic development of space—from which later the American economy can be rewarded. There will be no quick ROI from space—more of long term growth, long term development (10-20 years), with funding consistency, like the utilities industry. And funding must remain predictable and consistent for commercial planning purposes. The question should be ‘Is NASA able to give consistent and solid leadership to continue our American heritage in space?’—manned, unmanned, and safe? And a question for later, how will the commercial development of space be protected from pirates, terrorists, space debris, sabotage, early warning of solar and radiation effects, which provide other opportunities for entrepreneurial developments. This year NASA is losing its importance as a global leader in space exploration at its own hand. Commitments made and not followed through, and a past history of elbowing the US industry out of ‘competition’ has hurt the NASA image. So less government commitment for space exploration is occurring as a solution. NASA should look internally to understand this failure. I am reminded of Apollo 13 and how failure then was never considered an option, against all odds. And yet here we are—NASA withdrawing in failure. Failure to stand up and fight for the budgets it requires to ‘do the hard things’. NASA in the past has competed with the commercial space launch business and industry scientists and PI’s, and would not fund commercial ideas—but they would take commercial concepts for their own without cutting out work for the originator of the idea . This created a reluctance to partner with NASA and dependence and reliance on NASA and only NASA–within the nation and world-wide—for programs which NASA could not deliver at costs they could not determine and later could not afford. NASA has defeated free market access and commercial enterprise interest in space development for years although persistence and unlimited private funding has begun to grow this market segment even before the Augustine panels and report. NASA created a dependence on solely themselves for manned access to space, access to ISS for the US and the world (solely through the Russians or NASA), SCRAMJET technology development through them, data from any sensors in solar system explorations and earth remote sensors only built by them and collected by them (JPL is NASA). With so much now depending on ‘them’, the President by advice of OSTP and NASA top management has decided to abdicate. NASA as an agency should have been in commercial partnerships all along. Now is not the time to withdraw from manned spaceflight leadership. We still need an alternative to the commercial spaceliners. And there was a successful demonstration on October 28, 2009 of a system that can parallel commercial market development. A major mishap will set back the commercial side of a manned program. Big government has to remain in the game to keep the manned space efforts filled with substance safely. These programs belong to the American taxpayer regardless of whether NASA funds commercial business or does it themselves. If anyone with an ‘inside the beltway’ address will be open to hear, maybe the taxpayer should decide the priorities for funding. For the billions of dollars in funding that NASA has received in the last 3 decades, there is little space transportation growth to show except for science projects to Mars and the outer planets. Manned spaceflight has been stuck in LEO. And it will take manned spaceflight to grow a viable economy in space. It will take NASA in partnership with the innovation of industry to ‘unstick’ us safely out of earth orbit in order to visit our solar system and learn more about potential threats outside of earth’s magnetosphere. And both NASA and the commercial space efforts need sustained and predictable funding for years to come to be successful.”


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Working in this industry here at Cape Canaveral Florida, I know the dedication of the work force and the passion for what is done. We follow in the legacy of the “Steely-eyed Missile Men” that achieve the greatest feat of the 20th Century, landing a man on the moon. Look at the technology that came from that effort in just a short 10 year time span. Technology that the planet runs on everyday. We created, built, and integrated that technology that achieved a goal landing in the Moon within a ten year period. Even though we may not be at the pinnacle of that feat now, we never the less still need to at least continue to provide our (the United States) own transportation to the International Space Station. Going back to the Moon may not be a high priority right now, so why not scale back Constellation to provide assured access to the space and keep our experienced work force intact to help build the future of human space flight. But to stop dead in your tracks and start all over is wrong and then to rely on the Russian to provide transportation to the Space Station, ironically in a rocket that traces it heritage back to Sputnik! Yes, the Russian have relied on ONE launch vehicle for human space flight over the past 50 years, even though they failed at a few others. The United States has used six different launch vehicles over that same 50 year period and by the end of this year we will have NOTHING to fly to space and no capability of resurrecting any of those past 6 vehicles to get up to orbit. Even though ARES-1 isn’t the best option, NASA should reorganize and expedite the ARES-1 and Orion development to become strictly an ISS transportation vehicle. Then build off of their lessons learned as to develop the future manned spacecraft and launch vehicles. I grew up with the space program, watching the Apollo missions on TV as a kid and it was those conquests and achievements that encouraged me to become an engineer. But now we’ll have nothing for the future generation to watch, admire, and to encourage them to pursue math and technology in school. Ask them who invented the technology for their fancy video games, they’ll say the Japanese. They don’t even now that the origins of integrated circuit is America’s Space Program. We need something for those kid to see and encourage them, watching a rocket the Americans designed and built flying to space will interest them more than some 100 page report from some PhD on the next manned spacecraft design, filled with “if we do this” or “if we do that” statements. Not sure what the future generation will want to be when they grow up, but chances are it won’t be mathematicians and engineers. So we’ll have to rely on the countries to fill those jobs just like we’ll rely on Russia to take US Astronauts to the ISS… BUT AT LEAST WE’LL HAVE HEALTH CARE!”
“White House plans to cancel the Constellation moon rocket program could jeopardize U.S. leadership in space exploration. Criticism, from both Republicans and Democrats, underscores the difficulty that President Barack Obama faces in convincing Congress of his plan, which would terminate Constellation and instead rely on commercial rockets or on Russia to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station. “It could leave our country with no human exploration program, no human-rated spacecraft and little ability to inspire the youth of America,” said U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Democrat who chairs the House subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.”


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The plan to go to Mars and abandon the moon will put manned exploration beyond low earth orbit behind by 2-3 decades. The VASIMR propulsion technology is decades away from being able to send any appreciable mass to the red planet. Nuclear reactors in space needed for the VASIMR plasma engine have been abandoned since the seventies and need to be reconstituted needing significant time to get to a working level for either test or even flight. Without Constellation there will be no capsules or other manned craft for an appreciable time. No heavy lift vehicle is even close to the drawing board as well. It is a presidential blunder of enormous magnitude – on scale with the unilateral decision to invade Iraq.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ATI encourages further participation from both the public and private sectors to continue this important and controversial debate.


ATI is planning a follow-up poll after the President’s April 15th conference on NASA’s future where he will outline his strategy for the next step in space exploration. Jenkins says, “It will be interesting to see if any opinions shift after the President details his strategy for the future of space, since those details have yet to be presented beyond his 2011 Fiscal Budget Plan.”

The Applied Technology Institute (ATI) specializes in professional development seminars in the technical areas of space, communications, defense, sonar, radar, and signal processing. For over twenty-five years, ATI has presented leading-edge technical training to defense and NASA facilities, as well as DoD and aerospace contractors. ATI courses provide a clear understanding of the fundamental principles and a working knowledge of current technology and applications. ATI has the unique capability to schedule and deliver courses in a matter of weeks. They offer customized on-site training at your facility anywhere in the United States, as well as internationally and over 200 annual public courses in dozens of locations. World-class design experts lead courses. To register or for an on-site quote, call (888) 501-2100, or visit them on the web at www.ATIcourses.com

ATI’s Space Industry Professionals Weigh-In: Obama’s Decision to End NASA’s Constellation Program (Part 1)

Last week, Applied Technology Institute, a Space & Satellite technical training company for various NASA facilities, DoD and Aerospace contractors, surveyed their Space and Satellite clients and space industry expert instructors to find out how they feel about President Obama’s controversial decision to cut NASA’s Constellation Program. All survey participants are likely to be affected either directly or indirectly, by the shift in direction for the National and Space Administration as outlined in President Obama’s 2011 Fiscal Budget Plan.

ATI’s Technical Director, Jim Jenkins says he saw an opportunity to support a healthy debate among space professionals that the public may be interested in hearing. “The Constellation controversy has been covered by varying viewpoints from different news sources, but we think people want to hear the opinions of those actually working in the space industry—those who have the technical knowledge and space industry expertise to understand how this decision may affect the space industry long-term,” he says.

ATI’s survey asked the participants to weigh-in, expressing support or opposition to the President’s budget decision to cut the Constellation program in order to, “Build the Foundation for a Bold New Course for Human Space Flight, “ followed by an opportunity for them to explain their opinions as to how this change will affect NASA and manned space flight exploration.

ATI’s Constellation Controversy Survey Results Summary

A majority of 60% percent opposes the President’s decision to cut NASA’s Constellation Program while 32% percent expressed support. A few of the survey participants, 8% percent, are undecided. Nearly all participants explained their opinions in detail with regard to how the decision will affect NASA and manned space exploration.

Explanatory comments in support of how this change will affect NASA and manned space exploration:

“It is the only Obama policy I agree with. NASA needs to get out of the space business so that private industry can do something useful in space. NASA is, and has been, the major impediment to the industrialization of space. Why would someone develop a cost effective approach to space access and exploitation, when NASA spends billions to do what should cost millions (hint: look at all the progress)? If NASA made cell phones at least Apple would not be suing Google’s clients.
The only thing more foolish than keeping NASA as-is would be creating a socialized health care system…oh wait…
You are surveying the wrong folks. You should survey people who are trying to do something useful in space. People like Jeff Bezo, Elon Musk, Paul Allen, Richard Branson… Ask the real space industrialists and entrepreneurs what they think. I am guessing that they will tell you that NASA has held back space exploration and development for 40 years. Time to try another approach.”

______________________________________________________________________________________
“In my view, the new Obama space plan has a great potential to help the manned exploration of space. What the space program has needed all these years is an inexpensive way of handling large, manned and unmanned payloads from the surface of the earth into orbit – and beyond – at affordable rates. In short, we need “the DC-3 of space”.
The approach we have been taking has not even come close to producing such a flying machine. Gain cheap access to space, lower the logistics costs, and everything else will fall into place.
Come back with me to 1984. A typical GPS receiver of that era, the Texas Instruments 4100, cost $139,000 and we spent about $4000 to send one pound of payload into space using an expendable American booster.
Now fast-forward to 2010: GPS receivers are so cheap (about $100 each), we give them away in my classes! And how much does it cost today to send one pound of payload into space with an expendable American booster? Around $6000 per pound! In that same 26 year interval almost every available high-technology product has either become enormously cheaper or far more capable. Why not booster rockets?
So, should we just keep doing what we have been doing along the space frontier? Or worse yet, go back to reusing booster rockets that were developed 20 or 30 years ago? Surely we can do better! Maybe more free enterprise is the answer.
What should NASA be focusing on? Cheaper ways to put large payloads into space. Are robotics missions a better approach? Sometimes.
We keep about 2000 human beings in Antarctica year around and several thousand more in the summer months. Would it be more cost-effective to replace them with robots and teleoperators? Per unit of useful work, would it be cheaper? Maybe.
Do we want to make that replacement? I don’t think so.
In 1969 in my first book, I wrote about the funerals in which elderly Italian mourners were hired to wail and moan. As I asked at that time: “Wouldn’t it be cheaper to develop spring-wound mechanical mourners? Maybe so. But isn’t human presence somehow, in some cases, more special. If not, why does anyone ever go to a football game now that we have such excellent television coverage? Why do we go on vacation for that matter? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to stay home and watch travelogues?“

_______________________________________________________________________________________
“Yes, but only if something is done to continue manned U. S. presence in space. What he did does nothing but kill the U. S. manned space program and force the U. S. to rely on foreign governments for several years to come.”

________________________________________________________________________________________
“YES, but we should continue flying Shuttle until we have a demonstrated replacement capability operating. We should not look to other countries for our space taxi service. YES, I support decision to terminate Constellation program, but because it is not affordable and sustainable while performing any real exploration, e.g. spending all of our resources on the transportation system like we were in Apollo. This is the reason we terminated the Apollo Lunar program so that we could develop a reusable space transportation system that would bring down the cost of transportation. The Shuttle reduced the cost to ~ 1/3 of the cost using the expendable approach. We need to continue to develop and improve the reusable transportation system architecture to achieve this objective before we start considering a trip back to the moon or to mars. The shuttle cost reduction did not fully achieve the cost goal; however, we did not place any hard requirements on Life Cycle Cost controls during the DDT&E phase with a continuing cost reduction improvement objective.”

________________________________________________________________________________________
“Yes, I support the new plan for NASA. Newer technologies are clearly beneficial and the constellation was unsustainable.”

________________________________________________________________________________________
“The good news for sure is an increase of $6 billion over the next five years. It stresses new technology and innovation (to the tune of over $1.5 billion), which is also good. A lot of NASA’s successes have been from pushing the limits on what can be done. It also stresses Earth science, which isn’t surprising at all; Obama appears to understand the importance of our environmental impact, including global warming. So that’s still good news”


________________________________________________________________________________________
“We need to move beyond the shuttle. Specifically we should invest in a reusable first stage booster build using SOTA technology.”


________________________________________________________________________________________
“It help NASA determine their future course of action. Create jobs and advance our knowledge of Space.”
“Yes. Constellation was unsustainable without a major funding increase, which was not going to happen in this economic climate. Success in the new program is better than failure in Constellation.”


________________________________________________________________________________________
“Yes. It was stupid for NASA to have agreed to the previous administration’s request to go to Mars with a hugely expensive detour to the Moon, particularly with inadequate funding. Why not just purchase some Russian Soyuz capsules and rockets? The Russian system is reliable and not that expensive. And whether Constellation is cancelled or not probably won’t matter. I don’t think that many Americans give a crap about the space program anymore, and fewer still are interested in science research. People are too busy with Hollywood celebrities and sports figures, cable TV, etc.”

________________________________________________________________________________________
ATI encourages further participation from both the public and private sectors to continue this important and controversial debate.

ATI is planning a follow-up poll after the President’s April 15th conference on NASA’s future where he will outline his strategy for the next step in space exploration. Jenkins says, “It will be interesting to see if any opinions shift after the President details his strategy for the future of space, since those details have yet to be presented beyond his 2011 Fiscal Budget Plan.”

The Applied Technology Institute (ATI) specializes in professional development seminars in the technical areas of space, communications, defense, sonar, radar, and signal processing. For over twenty-five years, ATI has presented leading-edge technical training to defense and NASA facilities, as well as DoD and aerospace contractors. ATI courses provide a clear understanding of the fundamental principles and a working knowledge of current technology and applications. ATI has the unique capability to schedule and deliver courses in a matter of weeks. They offer customized on-site training at your facility anywhere in the United States, as well as internationally and over 200 annual public courses in dozens of locations. World-class design experts lead courses. To register or for an on-site quote, call (888) 501-2100, or visit them on the web at www.ATIcourses.com

To comment: Scroll to the bottom of the post and click ‘comment’.
To post anonymously, use “guest” or “anon” in the name field.
Your e-mail will not appear on the blog.
Please click here for Part 2 or Part 3 of this post.