[Input desired] Preparing a new college class for Fall 2017

[adsii1970]

To all those serious about spaceflight -

During the summer semester of 2016 I was approached by the university administration where I work and asked to develop a new history class on a subject I would like to teach. Of course, this is the perfect opportunity to bring two of my loves together - space exploration and history! So, what I am asking is for your input in deciding on where to start the class - mainly so i will know the type of textbook(s) I will need to look for as a required text(s).

I've created a poll to ask for your assistance in determining the starting point for the class. If you want to make comments or suggestions, please feel free to do so. Heck, who knows, I might even link this forum topic within the course's on-line materials so the students who take this course will know who to blame thank for assisting me with designing this course.

Please do not get quirky or give off-the-wall comments. I'm asking for help from you, the most likely demographic to take such a college class. If it were me, I'd prefer to start with the first documented interests mankind had with the stars, and that would be 2,500 B.C.E. But then again, I am a bit nerdy... And for this reason, this is why your input is needed.

Edited October 18, 2016 by adsii1970

[Shpaget]

Unless you are time constrained, I see no reason not to start with the earliest known observations and proposed models.

Of course, you will need to judge your audience and be ready to skip stuff or offer an abridged version if all they want to hear about is Apollo. I personally am fascinated by the invention of telescope and think the history of it would make an interesting class. It is probably not practical to offer night time observations, but you sure could arrange for a scope to be pointed at the Sun, it's just as interesting.

[monstah]

30 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

If it were me, I'd prefer to start with the first documented interests mankind had with the stars, and that would be 2,500 B.C.E. But then again, I am a bit nerdy... And for this reason, this is why your input is needed.

I can relate to that, but I'd skip this first part straight to Galileo, because I feel that's when we gained the conscience of those "dots" as being "worlds". There was already such a word "planet", but it had no resemblance with our current concept of a planet, so to me that's the start: when we realize those are places, which opens up the possibility of exploration.

Oh, and awesome! Congratulations on the invitation. Go get 'em, tiger.

(which is not to say I wouldn't mention us looking up, noticing changes and naming stars and planets since forever, but I wouldn't linger on it much as content)

[LordFerret]

21 hours ago, monstah said:

I can relate to that, but I'd skip this first part straight to Galileo, because I feel that's when we gained the conscience of those "dots" as being "worlds". There was already such a word "planet", but it had no resemblance with our current concept of a planet, so to me that's the start: when we realize those are places, which opens up the possibility of exploration.

I would disagree with that, as science has shown many very ancient civilizations had amazing knowledge of stars and celestial objects out there not even visible to the naked eye. It brings to question the possibility of lost science / knowledge / technologies that we only now seem to be rediscovering.

I don't think it would hurt any to brush over all the way-back stuff early on in such a course, but I would think adsii1970's main focus would more be on the active current exploration component, recent history which starts around the (pre and post) WWII era.

[Robotengineer]

I would start in the late 19th century with the very early ideas of what (at the time) real space exploration would be like (Verne and Wells might be a place to start). Then progress to the people who actually started seriously working on propulsion, astronautics and systems in the early 20th century, Goddard, Tsiolkovsky, and Oberth, From there I would go to Von Braun and developments in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as well as the early rocketry clubs of the 20s and 30s. Then cover the space race, maybe touching on Von Braun's plans for Mars (as shown in Das Marsprojekt and Colliers). I would spend the bulk of the course covering the unmanned science done since Apollo, especially the Voyager missions (I would recommend Stephen J. Pyne's Voyager book about the missions). 

Will this be primarily for history majors with an interest in space? 

[Bill Phil]

Well, if it's about space exploration in the broader sense, then ancient astronomy would be a good place to start. But if it's about actually going to space, then you should start with the first known stories about it (ancient sci fi, anyone?).

[Camacha]

On 07/10/2016 at 10:43 PM, monstah said:

I can relate to that, but I'd skip this first part straight to Galileo, because I feel that's when we gained the conscience of those "dots" as being "worlds". There was already such a word "planet", but it had no resemblance with our current concept of a planet, so to me that's the start: when we realize those are places, which opens up the possibility of exploration.

I feel it is important to show that our understanding of what is out there is continuously evolving and adapting to what we know. That in turn helps people to understand that our current view is far from perfect and subject to change if the evidence leads us there. We know a bit about various objects, though far from everything. However, the relation between space and time, time itself and how they all behave around less intuitive objects like black holes and things like dark energy are subject of much confusion and debate. We do not even know whether time actually exists.

Of course, depending on who is listening, you might want to leave a lot of the latter out as not to confuse things too much. It will be good to prime the audience with the notion that everything can and should be questioned and that our path follows the evidence. Our understanding and exploration are intertwined. We learned a lot about the Moon's lopsided gravity when our early lander turned out to be off course.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Camacha

[KSK]

I voted for the first option - start from the beginning. If nothing else I think it's important to point out that a great many cultures (if not all) have had a fascination with the heavens. 

I agree with monstah though in that the concept of space as a place to explore probably came later. Comets, for example were viewed as heavenly messengers by some cultures, so whilst the ability to foretell them was extremely important, the idea of them as a place to visit probably wasn't. 

[tater]

My default would be from the beginning, assuming "exploration" is used in the broadest possible sense. The only issue is that if you mean it to be about space travel at some level, then any astronomy is really just backstory about how people have been fascinated with the sky from the earliest times.

Should you elect to start at 1, the Anasazi in the SW US also had some impressive astronomy. The "Sun Dagger" at Chaco Canyon, here in NM, for example.

If you were to start with rocketry, then I would start at the beginning of rocketry, which doesn't seem to be in the poll. In that case the backstory would be less about astronomy, and more about physics... so maybe your second item (Kepler, then Newton being the primary early players in this particular subject, I suppose).

 

[NSEP]

I should leave space exploration BEFORE the first space rockets small, since they werent exploring it, they where just observing it. They did not really explore, untill the space race came.

[Dman979]

As a current student, I would take this course.

That said, there are things i would suggest to make it more interesting to people who aren't space geeks.

1. Spread the work out evenly over the class. I am about halfway through my semester, but we've only done 30% of the work in the syllabus. That's a real pain, especially because all the classes are like that.

2. Don't spend a ton of time on the early space discoveries. I understand that they are fun, and I enjoy learning about them, but I feel that it could become boring for most students. I suggest spending 2.5 weeks out of 12 on them.

3. Don't make it into a class to only learn about rockets. I like the rocket equation, but I don't see it having any fun applications for most students.

4. That said, you should mention Newton and Kepler, especially their respective laws. But keep that simple. Most people don't need to know that a hyperbolic trajectory is a flyby, except the terminology, but they would need to know that most orbits are ellipses, i.e., not perfect circles. Tie that in to a story about Newton. I recall reading that two astronomers made a bet about the shape of orbits, but they couldn't solve who won. Later, on of them asked Newton what shape orbits would be if gravity decreased with the inverse square of distance, and he said, "Why, ellipses, of course."

5. Apollo is fun. Students will want to learn about that. Talk about Apollo, and then talk about Mercury and Gemini. You can tie in the technology from Apollo to the experimental nature of Mercury and Gemini. Then go into detail on the technology of Apollo, and how it has helped us here on earth

6. Most students hate writing papers, but the application of space-age technology to earth living should be more fun that some other topics. Talk about the cordless drill, computers, calculators, etc., and use that as a segway for the paper.

I hope this information is helpful.

[ZooNamedGames]

Basically your doing exactly what I'm about to do as a volunteer for my local school.

[Kerbart]

I wouldn't start with ancient astronomy as the class is advertised as being about space flight. The V1 (aside from being unmanned like the V2) had very little to do with spaceflight, but you could start with the rockets that were used in China, or the ones that the Brits used in the Anglo-American was ("star spangled banner"). From there, Tsiolkovsky, Oberth, Goddard, von Braun, and then on to the post-WW2 programs.

[Dman979]

18 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I wouldn't start with ancient astronomy as the class is advertised as being about space flight. The V1 (aside from being unmanned like the V2) had very little to do with spaceflight, but you could start with the rockets that were used in China, or the ones that the Brits used in the Anglo-American was ("star spangled banner"). From there, Tsiolkovsky, Oberth, Goddard, von Braun, and then on to the post-WW2 programs.

That's a good point. @adsii1970, is the class about "The History of Space Exploration" or "The History of Space Flight?"

[Norcalplanner]

I voted for the first choice, but only for the sake of completeness.  I wouldn't spend more than one lecture on everything up to Goddard, with a bit more emphasis on Galileo discovering that the moon is a body with mountains and other features - like those we know about and live amongst on earth.  I would also spend some time on the role of space travel in popular fiction, since exploring the heavens has long been both an aspirational and inspirational activity.  Both of these factors have been critical to the long-term exploration of space, particularly manned spaceflight, which is difficult, expensive, and hazardous. 

[Camacha]

On 12/10/2016 at 6:14 PM, NSEP said:

I should leave space exploration BEFORE the first space rockets small, since they werent exploring it, they where just observing it. They did not really explore, untill the space race came.

I disagree. People were trying to find out more about the heavens all the time. The fact that their understanding of it was totally wrong does not change the fact that their hunger was the same. The advance of technology does not change much either. People wanted to understand, wanted to know, sometimes even go there in the metaphorical or physical sense. It is just that our capabilities only recently got to that point.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Camacha

[Green Baron]

1.) If you want to keep it historical:

I'm a European, i voted Galilei and the European renaissance and a little later. Until Immanuel Kant.

There are mountains of literature, much is available in english, historians have scrutinised every single word so you have a good chance of being able to anser every question that aries. Also you could give seminar-like tasks to your pupils, letting each one work on a subject or person, depending on the level.

Mayas, Aztecs etc. haven't influenced our (mine) culture and information is sparse. Too few facts, too much legend.

Asians ... well if you're an Asian ... is there enough literature to work on ?

German pre WWII ... nah ... let's keep it civil :-) I'm German, that's why i like Renaissance :-)

 

2.) If the focus is actual space exploration then of course the practical things, from Ziolkovsky via the first theoretical things to reaching orbit (side note WWII) and the moon. Commercial sattelites, and the new trend reusablity and private companies.

 

Enough to work on, no ?

:-)

 

[LN400]

For an introduction to the course, I would say start with the first star gazers. Even if they didn't know they were looking at planets orbiting the sun, and stars burning hydrogen, they were filled with wonder and curiosity. Those 2 words, wonder and curiosity, are the strongest forces known to drive exploration forward and it's those 2 words that I feel should fill the student, to drive the student forward.

[adsii1970]

Thank you all for replying. Last week I had to step out and go tend to some family things. Because of that, I have fallen behind in updating my threads, this one included. I'm going to try and answer the questions you all (or as we say in Louisiana, "y'all") have asked and even provide a few more details about what I am thinking of doing.

FIRST: I have great latitude in the creation of the course. In fact, my department chair wants something that can be built into a series, eventually. I have been asked by a few if the topic is actually space exploration or a history of spaceflight. To be completely honest, I see no real distinction between the two. Without space exploration there would be no space flight. I would like to borrow what @LN400 said so well...

On 10/17/2016 at 6:50 AM, LN400 said:

[T]hey were filled with wonder and curiosity. Those 2 words, wonder and curiosity, are the strongest forces known to drive exploration forward and it's those 2 words that I feel should fill the student, to drive the student forward.

Edited by adsii1970 for relevant content

My thoughts were for the first course to highlight that wonder and curiosity. Even though the Mayans, the Mexicali (formerly known as the Aztecs), Egyptians, and Chinese knew nothing of the science it would require to achieve spaceflight, no one can doubt they were serious about trying to understand the relationship between the cosmos and Earth. I agree with @LordFerret, @Shpaget, @Bill Phil, and sorta @tater as well. The only reason I say this is I get tired of students having no "relationship knowledge" of topics. Astronomy is space exploration, just you're firmly affixed to the ground. In the movie, Jurassic Park III, the character of Dr. Alan Grant (played by actor Sam Neill) said, (and I paraphrase) "there are two types of boys, those who want to be astronomers and those who want to be astronauts..." and there's a lot of truth to that statement.

What I would like to do is to show that mankind's curiosity of space and the unknown is what compels man to go into space. While I do not want to spend too much time on studying the ancients, I think it is important to show that Neil Armstrong stood on the shoulders of Galileo, Ptolemy, Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Kelper, Brahe, Azophi, and literally hundreds of other ancient astronomers. All of a sudden Armstrong's "giant leap for mankind" got a whole lot larger when you think of it in that context. 

I am thinking about making it an A/B set of courses, with the first half ending with the Apollo program conclusion. If I do it that way, I also can take advantage of having two semesters to explore the great contributions of science fiction authors to our desire to explore space. If I added a second poll, think any of you would want to respond to it?

 

[LordFerret]

5 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

... explore the great contributions of science fiction authors ...

Just WOW.

I have always felt that such real sciences study should encompass this topic. They too (SciFi authors), after all, were 'dreamers'. This really rings a note with me because, 100 years ago in school, I was berated for including Arthur C. Clarke's (and a few others) envisionments of the future and future technologies in a finals report.

Go for it!

[Dman979]

21 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

If I added a second poll, think any of you would want to respond to it?

Why don't you poll us to find out?

My answer is yes.

[Matuchkin]

Since you usually have less than a year to do this, I believe it is better to start from Johannes Kepler. Otherwise, this will turn into an "early historical misconceptions of space" class, as you probably won't even have time to reach Johannes Kepler. You'll probably not even go past Aristotle.

On the other, hand, if you start from Kepler, you can teach orbital mechanics (Kepler's 3 laws, vis-viva equation, etc), propulsion and delta-V (Tsiolkovsky equation, processes inside engines, etc), and more. This will give many opportunities for, say, hands-on activities, such as planning basic space missions on paper and other such projects that will involve students. For example, last summer I attended the Da-Vinci Engineering Enrichment Program (DEEP) in the University of Toronto, where we tried to make model rockets (at least it's a start). Anyway, your class will teach about space travel, which to me is much more interesting than bogus ancient ideas about the night sky.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Matuchkin

[adsii1970]

On 10/17/2016 at 6:09 AM, Green Baron said:

1.) If you want to keep it historical:

I'm a European, i voted Galilei and the European renaissance and a little later. Until Immanuel Kant.

There are mountains of literature, much is available in english, historians have scrutinised every single word so you have a good chance of being able to anser every question that aries. Also you could give seminar-like tasks to your pupils, letting each one work on a subject or person, depending on the level.

Mayas, Aztecs etc. haven't influenced our (mine) culture and information is sparse. Too few facts, too much legend.

 

The Mayans, the Aztec (Mexicali) and the Egyptians actually had a lot of knowledge about our solar system. Many of their temples are aligned in exact astronomical phenomena. In fact, they were more advanced than most of Europe was until the Renaissance... to toss them to the side would be irresponsible history, to say the least.

Kant isn't that bad; he contributed to the body of inquisitive knowledge, particularly in psychology. Believe it or not, this is essential to understanding the psyche of human spaceflight. So not to sure why you're willing to toss him overboard so quickly...

On 10/17/2016 at 6:09 AM, Green Baron said:

Asians ... well if you're an Asian ... is there enough literature to work on ?

Nope, not Asian, but in trying to do some preliminary space flight, the Japanese and Chinese both have "ancient legends" similar to that of the Egyptians and Greeks about astronomy. Some of it goes into the realm of science-fiction and science-fantasy, but is still used to explain man's understanding of the cosmos.

On 10/17/2016 at 6:09 AM, Green Baron said:

German pre WWII ... nah ... let's keep it civil :-) I'm German, that's why i like Renaissance

This is where I get politically incorrect. Had it not been for German scientists from 1932 through the end of the war working on the V1 and V2 projects, our understanding of solid propellants would not have happened. I am not praising Germany's past, but am marveling at the technology that was used. There is a BIG BIG difference between the two. Many people do not know that the Confederate Army actually used metal body, solid propellant (wood dust mixed with gunpowder and kerosene) as a rocket propellant in some of the battles in North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. What amazes me is that 1920 German experiments in rocket design picked up where the Confederacy's research ended. Germans began playing with the types of bells used and the shape of the combustion chamber can determine the range and speed of a rocket. Even though the Germans were years ahead of the Allies and on the losing side of the war does not mean we discredit their work. In the words of the Star Trek II character, Dr. David Marcus (played by Merritt Butrick), "Scientists have always been the pawns of the military..."

On 10/17/2016 at 6:09 AM, Green Baron said:

2).  If the focus is actual space exploration then of course the practical things, from Ziolkovsky via the first theoretical things to reaching orbit (side note WWII) and the moon. Commercial sattelites, and the new trend reusablity and private companies.

Yes, but as I said before, a lot of hard research was conducted before the launch of Sputnik. To pick it up when you suggest would be like going into the theater half-way through a movie and expecting to completely understand what the movie is presenting...

 

[adsii1970]

57 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Since you usually have less than a year to do this, I believe it is better to start from Johannes Kepler. Otherwise, this will turn into an "early historical misconceptions of space" class, as you probably won't even have time to reach Johannes Kepler. You'll probably not even go past Aristotle.

On the other, hand, if you start from Kepler, you can teach orbital mechanics (Kepler's 3 laws, vis-viva equation, etc), propulsion and delta-V (Tsiolkovsky equation, processes inside engines, etc), and more. This will give many opportunities for, say, hands-on activities, such as planning basic space missions on paper and other such projects that will involve students. For example, last summer I attended the Da-Vinci Engineering Enrichment Program (DEEP) in the University of Toronto, where we tried to make model rockets (at least it's a start). Anyway, your class will teach about space travel, which to me is much more interesting than bogus ancient ideas about the night sky.

I do not intend to dwell on the ancients any more than about three lectures as a means to introduce the concept that mankind has always looked towards the heavens with curiosity and amazement. It's  a light introduction to hopefully show the modern student that space exploration has ancient ties. As I said in a previous post, most students of history will take a subject, say environmental history, and consider it as a separate part of the human experience. If anything, I want them to get to the point where they see the ISS and even Mars as simply a continuation of the ancients' fascination with the nighttime sky.

I do not want to spend too much time explaining the theories of orbital mechanics, propulsion, etc. because the scope is the human journey from then until now. I have thought about requiring KSP and certain assignments they'll have to complete as a means to illustrate the difficulties of space flight, once we get to Sputnik (hehehe, might give some of you the opportunity to design stock part only missions... ), then basically write a summary of their mission, parts used, etc.  Still working on the details but why make the class a little fun, right?

Space travel is only a small component of space exploration. In fact, if we take the little over 6,000 years of recorded human history, actual space flight only occupies less than 1% of man's recorded history on Earth (it's actually 00.98333%). It would be kinda hard to talk about where we are without knowing where we have been.

Edited October 18, 2016 by adsii1970

[Matuchkin]

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

I do not want to spend too much time explaining the theories of orbital mechanics, propulsion, etc. because the scope is the human journey from then until now. I have thought about requiring KSP and certain assignments they'll have to complete as a means to illustrate the difficulties of space flight, once we get to Sputnik (hehehe, might give some of you the opportunity to design stock part only missions... ), then basically write a summary of their mission, parts used, etc.  Still working on the details but why make the class a little fun, right?

You know a good idea? Teach them to work with realism overhaul, because there is a huge construction and design difference that occurs between rockets that function in stock and those that function in RO. This will let them actually understand space exploration, rather than play with unrealistic imitations. If not, you can always introduce them to Orbiter.