Sps supplement Rough Draft-endi2011 Alpharetta 2011 / Boyce, Doshi, Hermansen, Ma, Pirani

Leadership Turns DA’s

The Taliban or al-Qaeda can do little about America's space power except hide themselves from its intelligence-gathering satellites. But the Pentagon worries about what would happen if America came up against a major power, a “near-peer” rival (as it calls China and Russia), able to intercept space assets with missiles and “space mines”, or to disable them with lasers and electronic jammers. “There are a lot of vulnerabilities,” admits an American general, “There are backups, but our space architecture is very fragile.” The precise nature of these weaknesses is a well-guarded secret. But wargames simulating a future conflict over Taiwan often end up with the “Red Force” (China) either defeating the “Blue Force” (America) or inflicting grievous losses on it by launching an early attack in space, perhaps by setting off one or more nuclear explosions above the atmosphere. “I have played Red and had a wonderful time,” says the general, “It is pretty easy to disrupt Blue. We should not expect an enemy to play by established norms in space. They will play dirty pool.”

Kirk Woellert 09, Navy Intelligence Officer with space system experience. Graduate of Space Policy Institute, George Washingtion University. “Space Debris: Why the U.S. cannot go it alone” [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1373/1]

Leadership – Aerospace Update

Plan reinvigorates the industry - Aerospace workforce key to competitiveness

Muellner, 7 – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (George K, “A New Year’s Resolution for 2008,” Aerospace America, 12-07, Herm)

For the past several years, the long-term viability of the aerospace workforce in the United States has been a major concern. An aging workforce coupled with predictions of a looming shortfall of skilled professionals threatens the vitality of the aerospace industry and makes it difficult to maintain our competitiveness and technological edge in the world. A journalist described the problem as the “Crisis in Aerospace.” Congress responded to these issues by passing HR 758 in October 2005. This bill created a federal inter-agency task force on Aerospace Workforce Revitalization. Recently, the challenge of developing and sustaining a world-class aeronautics workforce became a specific principle of the National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy endorsed by Executive Order in December 2006. Revitalization of the aerospace workforce is a complex valuestream that starts with focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education, continues into college and graduate programs, and includes the education, training, and experience our professionals get when they enter the workforce. Maintaining our world-class aerospace workforce is a challenge that requires integrated actions at all steps in this process. Both inspiration and leadership are required to maintain the quality and quantity of aerospace professionals, and AIAA has a major role to play in this process. We represent today’s aerospace workforce and can, and should, assume a leadership role in insuring its vitality into the future. Events like “Education Alley” at the recent AIAA 2007 Space Conference & Exposition attracted many potential aerospace professionals, got them excited about what we do, and allowed many of you to dazzle them with your war stories. Your stories on connecting the world through advances in commercial aviation, providing for the National Security through military aircraft and space systems, and placing men on the moon and robots on Mars inspired another generation of aerospace professionals.
Aerospace industry key to economy – jobs and GDP

Herrnstadt, 8 -- Associate General Council of International Associations of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Director of International Policy (Owen E., “Offsets and the lack of a Comprehensive U.S. Policy,” Economic Policy Insitute Briefing Paper #201, 04-14-08, http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp201.html) // Herm

Aerospace is an especially important industry for a nation's economic and physical security, and perhaps no other country has benefited more from the aerospace industry than the United States.⁹ The Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry states that the industry "contributes over 15 percent to our Gross Domestic Product and supports over 15 million high quality American jobs" (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 1-2). U.S. aerospace has been identified as a major source of "technical innovation with substantial spillovers to other industrial and commercial sectors" and "high-wage employment, which spreads the benefits of rising productivity throughout the U.S. economy.…" The Aerospace Commission also noted the industry's contribution to the nation's "economic growth, quality of life, and scientific achievements…." (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 1-2). Despite the importance of aerospace, the deterioration of the industry at home has continued at a dramatic rate. Nearly 500,000 jobs have been lost in the U.S. aerospace industry since 1990 (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 8-12; see also AIA 2007), and several hundred thousand more workers have lost their jobs in related industries. Sadly, the fact of these enormous job losses comes as no surprise. More than 10 years ago, in Jobs on the Wing, authors Randy Barber and Robert Scott predicted that "up to 469,000" jobs in the aerospace and related industries "could be eliminated by 2013 because of offset policies and increased foreign competition" (Barber and Scott 1995, 2). In a later study, Scott predicted that by 2013 the industry would suffer a loss of over 25% "of the total jobs in aircraft production in 1995" (Scott 1998). These gloomy predictions are apparently reinforced by U.S. government reports. According to the Department of Labor, the outlook for employment in the U.S. aerospace industry is not rosy: between 2002 and 2012 aerospace employment in the United States will "decrease by 18 percent" (U.S. Department of Labor 2004). The future health of the industry depends in large part on its ability to attract new workers, but the crisis in employment and the prediction that the crisis will deepen does not bode well for attracting new workers. In its final report, the Aerospace Commission summarized this concern: The U.S. aerospace sector, once the employer of choice for the "best and brightest" technically trained workers, now finds it presents a negative image to potential employees. Surveys indicate a feeling of disillusionment about the aerospace industry among its personnel, whether they are production/technical workers, scientists or engineers. The majority of newly dislocated workers say they will not return to aerospace. In a recent survey of nearly 500 U.S. aerospace engineers, managers, production workers, and technical specialists, 80 percent of respondents said they would not recommend aerospace careers to their children. (Aerospace Industries Commission 2002, 8-5) While the Aerospace Commission found that "U.S. policy toward domestic aerospace employment must reaffirm the goal of stabilizing and increasing the number of good and decent jobs in the industry," this policy has yet to be embraced, let alone implemented (Aerospace Industries Commission 2002, 8-12).
Aerospace competitiveness key to the economy

Augustine, 5 – retired chairmen and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., charied National Academics Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (Norman R., Aviation Week and Space Technology, “US Science and Technology is on a Losing Path” Pg. 70 Vo. 163 No. 17 10-31-05, LN) // Herm

This transition to a borderless economy provides great opportunities for companies that are prepared to take advantage, as the history of the aerospace industry amply demonstrates. But in any dynamic, technology-intensive industry, leadership can be lost very quickly. Thus, many other industries are now joining the aerospace industry in learning to compete in an uncertain and quickly changing world. Today, candidates for many jobs that currently reside in the US are just a mouse click away in Ireland, India, China, Australia and dozens of other countries. At first, manufacturing jobs were the ones most susceptible to moving overseas. I recently traveled to Vietnam, where the hourly cost of low-skilled workers is about 25 cents, less than 1/20th of the US minimum wage. But the competitive disadvantage is not confined to so-called low-end jobs. Eleven qualified engineers can be hired in India for the cost of just one in the US. At the same time, other countries are rapidly enlarging their innovation capacity. They are investing in S&T and encouraging their highly trained citizens who are working abroad to return home. Even more important, these countries are creating the well-funded schools and universities that will produce future scientists and engineers. The US is not competing well in this new world. Other nations will continue to have the advantage of lower wages, so America must take advantage of its strengths. But those strengths are eroding even as other countries are boosting their capacities. Throughout the 20th century, one of America's greatest strengths has been its knowledge-based resources – particularly its S&T system. But today, that system shows many signs of weakness. This nation's trade balance in high-technology goods swung from a positive flow of $33B in 1990 to a negative flow of $24B in 2004. In 2003, foreign students earned 59% of the engineering doctorates awarded by US universities. In 2001, US industry spent more on tort litigation and related costs than on R&D. A major factor determining US competitiveness is the quality of the workforce, and the public school system provides the foundation of this asset. But that system is failing specifically in the fields most important to the future: science, engineering and mathematics. In a recent international test involving mathematical understanding, US students finished 27th among the participating nations. In China and Japan, 59% and 66% of undergraduates, respectively, receive their degrees in science and engineering, compared with 32% in the U.S. In the past, the US economy benefited from the availability of financial capital. But today it moves quickly to wherever a competitive advantage exists, as shown by the willingness of companies to move factories to Mexico, Vietnam and China. One of America's most powerful assets is its free enterprise system, with its inherent aggressiveness and discipline in introducing ideas and flushing out obsolescence. But other nations have recognized these virtues and are seeking to emulate the system. The aerospace industry is especially susceptible to these broader economic trends. Without well-educated scientists and engineers, the industry will not be able to compete with well-organized programs in countries with abundant engineering talent. In addition, security issues in the industry highlight its reliance on homegrown talent, as opposed to importing its people from abroad. Troubles in the aerospace industry also could have implications throughout the US economy. In particular, the industry has been especially effective at making use of and producing systems engineers, some of whom eventually move to other industries. If aerospace were to decline, a considerable portion of these valuable individuals would be lost.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 0.84 Mb.

Share with your friends: