Catching up with
IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu
Eta Kappa Nu merged with IEEE in September of 2010. The merger
meant all kinds of adjustments, both for HKN and for IEEE. Fast
forward to 2014. What is the status of IEEE-HKN?
Operaonally, IEEE-HKN is part of the IEEE Educaonal Acvies
Department. The IEEE-HKN Board of Governors consists of 12 volunteers:
President
President-Elect
Past President
Five Governors represenng the IEEE Regions
Two at-large Governors
One Governor appointed by the IEEE Member
and Geographic Acvies Board
One Student Representave
These, and other changes, were made to the IEEE-HKN Operaons
Manual, and approved in June of 2013. The regions now align withIEEE regions. The addion of a Student Representave to the Board
will prove to be a valuable addion, serving a one year term starng
on 1 January of each year.

“The stability of working with IEEE
has improved service back to our
Chapters and members.”

The IEEE-HKN Operaons manual can be found on theIEEE-HKN website: www.hkn.org
As of the date of this publicaon, 181 of our chapters are acve. We
are inducng more than 2,500 students each year. We have installed
chapters in Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, and Qatar.
Our organizaon connues to grow in terms of chapters reinstang,
welcoming new chapters, and working with our dedicated faculty
advisors and the oﬃcers of each chapter. Our LA Alumni Chapter
connues to administer the Outstanding Student Award, and work
closely with chapters in southern California.
IEEE-HKN Chapter and IEEE Student branches co-exist at many
Universies. There are cases where the two cooperate on almost
all maers (except invitaon, inducon, and other rituals speciﬁc toIEEE-HKN), in some cases they work together on certain projects oreven compete (at ﬂag football), and some where they simply co-exist.
All models work and the model most suited is the one encouraged.

Members of the HKN 1947 Jury of Award:
L-R: R.W.Wilbrahamr, Chairman, J H. Foote, C. A.Powell,
N. S. Hibshman, W. B.Kauwenrhoven.

What the merger has done is include all of the addional opportunies of IEEE student membership to those invited to join IEEE-HKN.
The stability of working with IEEE has improved service back to our chapters and members. Processes have been streamlined, and the professional staﬀ supporng IEEE-HKN have been able to work with our Board of Governors, Faculty Advisors, Department Heads, IEEE student
program staﬀ, oﬃcers, and alumni to envision a future for IEEE-HKN that will allow us to connue the tradion established by our founders,
to recognize the scholasc achievements, character, and atude. Eta Kappa Nu is, as it was founded to be, “A Worthwhile Goal.”3

Leadership Letters

The IEEE-HKN “Highlights” issue of THE BRIDGE is comprehensive of theoriginal articles written for THE BRIDGE in 2013 and a review of the impact
and accomplishments of our Chapters and organization in recent years.

THE BRIDGE has been published since 1909, and under the editorship of Steve Watkins, this publicaon hasreached new heights of quality. We have moved to electronic distribuon which enables us to reach many more
readers with mely content, but for some purposes a paper publicaon sll meets a real need. We hope thatyou will enjoy reading this digest of some of our most signiﬁcant arcles from 2013.
As the academic honor society within IEEE, Eta Kappa Nu (IEEE-HKN) fulﬁlls a very important need. We strive
to develop complete, well-rounded students who transion to leadership in professional pracce and beneﬁtsociety over the span of their careers in IEEE’s technical ﬁelds of interest. Our ﬁrst step is to recognize students
who are performing exceponally well academically and then to engage in two acvies: ﬁrst, to help thosestudents grow professionally into the global leaders of our technological society, and second, to enable them toassist all of their fellow students to develop their own professional and technical skills. So service to others is a
key component of IEEE-HKN. This service connues aer graduaon through mentorship of student chapters,
and professional recognion connues via our young professional awards. All of this culminates with recognionof the most accomplished technical and professional contributors as Eminent Members of IEEE-HKN.

John Orr
President, IEEE-HKN
Alpha Chapter

I hope that through this publicaon your understanding of the value of IEEE-HKN, not just to its members, but tosociety at large, will grow.

This publicaon “Highlights” is the latest volume of THE BRIDGE magazine. The goals of the editorial board
have been to report on happenings within our organizaon, to celebrate excellent among our members andchapters, and to provide arcles that further the technical and professional knowledge of our readers. The
arcles have been a mix of original content and selected reprints from accomplished authors (most of whom
are HKN members!). Our issue themes were “Engineering for Space Applicaons” (March 2013), “Engineering
Ethics” (June 2013), and “Celebrang Engineering Accomplishment” (November 2013).
A parcular emphasis has been on the history of technology and the profession.

Steve E. Watkins
Editor-in-Chief,
THE BRIDGE
Gamma Theta
Chapter

The magazine is a collaborave eﬀort of Dr. Catherine Slater (Editorial Board), Dr. Stephen M. Williams (Editorial
Board), and Joanne Van Voorhis (IEEE-HKN Producon Manager and Features Editor) with the valuable supportof Nancy M. Osn (IEEE-HKN Director) and Amy Recine (IEEE-HKN Acvies Program Manager). The eﬀorts of
the arcle authors, the IEEE History Center, and other contributors are greatly appreciated. We are proud of
the quality displayed within these issues and will strive to make further improvements as we go into 2014.

We hope that the readers of the “Highlights” issue of THE BRIDGE and its rich content of the magazine and gain insights into the Eta
Kappa Nu organizaon. HKN began in 1904 with ten electrical engineering students who saw the need for a naonal organizaon which
would promote excellence and develop leadership within the profession. Their membership ideal is summarized in the iniaon ritual:“This is what we strive for as members of Eta Kappa Nu: to lead a balanced life, a life in which scholarship, character, and atude are
jointly developed.” They chose the Wheatstone Bridge circuit as an emblem to be a reminder of this balanced life ideal. They acknowledged the importance of the past through the name, using the ﬁrst, fourth, and last leers of the Greek word for amber or electron
HΛEKTPON. As the organizaon connues into its second century, the magazine is dedicated to this early vision.

IEEE-HKN is experiencing a renaissance. In the past two years we have seen renewed interest from our Chapters, potenal Chapters, Universies from aroundthe world and industry in IEEE-HKN. What we are hearing from members andinterested pares is a return to the core values that deﬁne Eta Kappa Nu; Scholarship, Atude and Character. The commitment to service and the value thatan IEEE-HKN Chapter brings to its university, department, the student body andthe community is evident in the hours dedicated to tutoring, exam prep, peerpeer counseling, lab sessions, tech talks and more. Learn about IEEE-HKN andthe diﬀerence it can make, email us at info@hkn.org.
Nancy M.Osn
Director, IEEE-HKN

4

What’s New with Our Chapters?

CHARACTER

IEEE-HKN Chapters are as vibrant and acve as ever. The Annual Outstanding
Chapter Award, once given to a single Chapter, is now presented to mulitple Chapters who disnguish themselves.
In bestowing an award, the standing commiee aaches less importance to thenumber of a Chapter’s acvies than to their nature and quality. Of crical concern to the commiee in judging a Chapter are acvies to improve professional
development, to raise instruconal and instuonal standards, to encourage
scholarship and creavity, to provide a public service, and generally to further theestablished goals of IEEE-HKN.

The Zeta Nu Chapter(University of Tulsa)
volunteered during an on-campus“Brownie Day” foryoung girls in thelocal community.

For example, for the academic year 2011-2012, twenty three (23)
Chapters were recognized and presented the Outstanding Chapter
Award. In just those twenty-three Chapters, over 50,000 hours ofcommunity service were performed.
That equals almost ﬁy (50) hours per student for the academic
year. That is 50 hours of tutoring, exam prep, peer counseling,
service, tech talks, career development, workshops, STEM outreachto high school students, robocs compeons, teaching, community
projects, department tours and so much more.
People oen ask, how is an IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu student or Chapter
diﬀerent from an IEEE student branch or other organizaon? The key
is SERVICE. One of the central ideals of IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu is character. How is your character developed? Our inducon ritual states,“do not make false assumpon that the world owes you a living. On
the contrary by virtue of your superior talents and extensive training,
you owe to your community to aid and assist them in whenever theyneed something that is in your power to give.” Community service isa crical element of the IEEE-HKN Chapter and individual.

Iota Gamma Chapter

This development of character is the guiding
principal to the goal of developing theindividual as the complete engineer or
professional.
5Outstanding Teaching Award

30 April

Outstanding Student Award

30 JuneDave Soldan
John OrrJohn DeGraw

Outstanding Chapter Award

15 October

Stephen Goodnick

Outstanding Young Professional Award

31 MayJon Bredeson

Karapetoﬀ Award

31 MayJim D’Arcy

Eminent Member

Rolling

Richard Gowen

Disnguished Service Award

31 MayEvelyn Hirt

1

2

4

3

5

1. Ashkay Gupta accepts the Outstanding Chapter Award from John Orr on behalf of Georgia Tech.
2. Eminent Member Ceremony for Dr. Faquir Kohli at MIT, October 2013
3. IEEE-HKN students from Rutgers, NJIT and Stevens at the Eminent Member Ceremony with
Martin Cooper (inventor of the ﬁrst hand held cell phone) November 2013.
4. Eminent Member Ceremony 2013 L-R seated: Jeremy Chang and Sharud Agarwal (University ofTexas Psi Chapter) Dr. John Orr, Nancy M. Ostin, Dr. Jung Uck Seo, Mrs. Seo L-R standing:
Dr. Stephen Goodnick, Cecelia Jankowski, Dr. Marcian Hoff, Mrs. Hoff
5. Plaques for the Outstanding Chapter Award.
6. Alan Lefkow, 2013 Chair of the Outstanding Chapter Award Committee.
7. Larry Martin (L), 2013 Outstanding Student Award recipient with his Faculty Advisor Wayne
Shiroma, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Delta Omega Chapter.

6

6

7

Student Leadership
Conference

The event includes professional and Chapter
development sessions, networking and minicompetitions, technical workshops and career fairs.

In 2013 the Student Leadership Conference went to Arizona State
University with the Epsilon Beta Chapter as host. From 15-17 March,over 112 students pre-registered for the event and 102 aended over
the three day program. Total conference aendance was 138 including speakers, VIP guests, and staﬀ. The keynote address was presented
by Past IEEE President Moshe Kam; the lunch speaker was David Alan
Grier of the IEEE-Computer Society. James Bates, IEEE-HKN member(inducted Kappa Epsilon – Brigham Young University) and Senior Vice
President and General Manager of Freescale was our featured dinnerspeaker. The program included a panel discussion hosted by Dr. Stephen Goodnick of three of the “Dream Jobs” professionals highlighted
in the February 2013 issue of IEEE’s Spectrum Magazine.

1

2

The 2014 Student Leadership Conference will be held in Ames, Iowa,
by the Nu Chapter (Iowa State University) from 14-16 March. The
event will focus on a “Do It Yourself” theme and is expected to aract
up to 150 student members. Due to a special funding source for 2014,
IEEE-HKN will oﬀer an addional travel spend to aending Faculty
Advisors. The Faculty Advisors at the meeng will not only assist inoﬃcer training and planning for future Chapter programs and acvies, but will also parcipate in a round table discussion of the futureof IEEE-HKN.
In 2015, the Conference will be held in California by the Mu Chapter(University of California, Berkeley). Due to the proximity of Silicon
Valley and access to many of the IEEE-HKN alumni who work, teach,own and/or funded their company in the area, combined with the
Chapter’s 100th anniversary occurring at the same me, the event
will connue the legacy of serving as an outstanding experience for all
who parcipate.

1. Dr. Moshe Kam, Past IEEE President, gave the keynote
address. 2. Students engaged in Q & A with David Alan
Grier, President, IEEE Computer Society. 3. Dr. Stephen
Goodnick and the “Dream Jobs” Panel.

In 2015, the Student Leadership Conference will be held in California by the Mu Chapter (University ofCalifornia, Berkeley), which will also be the 100th anniversary of the Chapter.
73

Installation & Induction Ceremonies

ATTITUDE

2
1

3

4

6

5

7

1. President John Orr presents the Chapter Charter to Steve Prince, President Lambda Xi Chapter 2. Signing the ofﬁcial
Chapter Signature Book is a tradition of IEEE-HKN 3. Lambda Eta Chapter Installation Ceremony
Chapter 4. Lambda Zeta Chapter 5. Board member Mark Lar presides over the re-installation of the Delta Phi Chapter
6. Former President Stephen Goodnick at the Lambda Eta Chapter 7. Lambda Omicron Chapter

8Installation & Induction Ceremonies

1

SCHOLARSHIP

2

3

5
4

6

7

8

9

1. Lambda Theta Chapter 2. Lambda Omega Chapter 3. Lambda Eta Chapter 4. Lambda Omicron Chapter 5. Lambda Mu
Chapter 6. Lambda Theta Chapter 7. Lambda Xi Chapter 8. Lambda Nu Chapter 9. Lambda Omicron Chapter

9Our Chapters on IEEE-HKN Founders Day

1

2

3

4

6
5

7

8

1. Delta Xi Chapter 2. IEEE-HKN ﬁst bump 3. Kappa Theta Chapter 4. Delta Omega Chapter 5. Lambda Rho Chapter
6. Gamma Zeta Chapter 7. Beta Chapter 8. Lambda Zeta Chapter 9. Lambda Zeta Founder’s Day Cake

109

Founders Day

28 October 2013

SCHOLARSHIP
IEEE-HKN celebrated our ﬁrst FOUNDERS DAY on 28 October, the109th anniversary of the founding of Eta Kappa Nu. We invited all
Chapters to join in fun, and celebrate locally to raise the visibility ofIEEE-HKN on their campus, to demonstrate the cohesiveness of our
mission around the world, to pay tribute to our history, rich in tradion and success, as well as to promote the IEEE-HKN of today andthe beneﬁts to each individual who is invited to join.
To honor our past, we digized the two ﬁlms created by HKN toencourage student to consider careers in engineering. These ﬁlms,
Engineering: A Career for Tomorrow (1954), and Engineering: A Challenge for the Future (1968), can be found on our website: www.hkn.
org. If you recognize yourself or anyone in the ﬁlms, please let us
know.
Collecvely, 22 Chapters hosted celebraons which impacted on
hundreds of people. From barbecues to introducing a troop of Girl
Scouts to engineering, the acvies were as diﬀerent as our Chapters. This celebraon did exactly as intended, bring our Chapters
together to spread our message and communicate our value, whilehonoring our past and celebrang our future.
“Thanks for the Founders Day kit and ideas. We held a
BBQ, it was great. Our Chapter has about 50 candidates
this quarter, which must be a UCLA record.”
Bill Goodin
Faculty Adviser Zeta Omega Chapter atUniversity of California, Los Angeles“Thank you forf theth FounderFd Day
D kit andd ideasdforf holdingh ldi IEEE-HKN
IEEE HKN foundersf
day event. HKN has a strong brand is an easily recognizable logo. Branding ourselves will provide us with the means to orchestrate larger events
than ever before, increase the recognion of IEEE-HKN on our campus, andstrongly encourage personal and professional development on a greater
scale than was previously possible.”
Jing Chen
Vice President
Beta Pi Chapter at City College of New York“The Founders Day celebraonwent extremely well. We had 77
students and faculty aend.”
Andrew Saunders,President
Lambda Zeta Chapter at Universityof North Texas“We received the Founders Day
materials on last Friday and decided to parcipate in this wonderful
event to share our Chapter’s experience and stories. Thank you.”

Iota Upsilon Chapter

Yuko Huang,
Treasurer
Iota Upsilon
University of Washington

Founders Monument at the Alpha Chapter at
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

11Gamma Delta Chapter
Founder’s Day BBQ

The Strategic Vision

Strategic Goals 2014

Core Purpose
To realize IEEE-HKN’s potenal as a recognized leader inencouraging excellence in scholarship, technical achievement,
leadership, and service in the IEEE’s technical ﬁelds of interest.
IEEE-HKN Core Values• Recognize and promote disnguished scholarship.
• Recognize students and professionals for theirscholarship and professional achievement, and insll
an appreciaon of excellence.
• Promote the use of technology to beneﬁt humanityAn emphasis on the development of technology
which posively impacts on society, past and future.
• Inspire and develop leadership. Aract and develop
L to R: Dick Gowen, Chair Eminent
tomorrow’s leaders through leadership training andMember Committee. John Vig, former
opportunies.
President IEEE. Bruce Einstein,• Recognize and promote technical innovaon. Recogformer President IEEE-HKN
nize and promote excellence in technical innovaon,from early career through lifelong achievement.
• Build character. Provide opportunies for professional development with an emphasis on ethical behavior, posive atude, tolerance, and hard work.
2013 Graduation at ASU,
• Encourage and recognize service to the profession
Epsilon Beta Chapter, Niki Troyer
and to society. Develop a lifelong appreciaon and(Vice President), Breana Branham,commitment to service and volunteerism to the proKaitlyn Beaudet (Treasurer)
fession and to society as a whole.

What is next for IEEE-HKN?

Big, Audacious

GOAL

To be recognized as the premier global honorsociety that helps to develop well-rounded
students through excellence in scholarship,technical achievement, leadership and service,and transioning to professional pracce,beneﬁng society over the span of their careers
in the IEEE’s technical ﬁelds of interest.

For those of you who have been touched by Eta Kappa Nu, and for all thestudents and professionals to come, we invite you to be part of the envisioned future of IEEE-HKN.
We invite all alumni to consider how
they might like to contribute. There
are opportunies to serve on a commiee or the Board of Governors, Advisory Board, or Chapter Professional
Advisor. In addion, there are opportunies to speak, both at the chapter
and organizaon programs. We invite
alumni to consider becoming a mentor
to a student on a capstone or senior
design project.

You can decide on how much to be involved, but please be involved.

The PLEDGE

Kyle Everly at graduation
at Florida Institute ofTechnology, Zeta Epsilon
Chapter“I sincerely promise that I will live up to. . . In word and in deed. . . the principles for which IEEE-Eta Kappa Nustands. . . To the members now and to those to come aer . . . I bind myself to the faithful observance of thesepromises. . . I give my solemn word of honor.”

To sign up and learn more about volunteer opportunities forIEEE-HKN, visit us at www.hkn.org
IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu

12March Reprint13

123 Million Miles in Spaceand 12 Miles in LA Traffic
Engineering the Final Journey of the Space Shuttle Endeavour(Image Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls)

By Burton Dicht
THE FINAL JOURNEY

Today, more than thirty years later, those same engineers would have been impressed with the engineering eﬀort andand Los Angeles.
Endeavour,” rivaled any of its twenty-ﬁve space missions. Endeavour is about the size of a DC-9 jetliner, with a length

event."P R E S E R V I N G T H E S PA C E S H U T T L E L E G A C Y
Endeavour’s journey to the Science Center had its origins in a December 2008 announcement that NASA was seeking

14

Enterprise, which never ﬂew in space, was also available for display. (Five orbiters were constructed with Columbia
and Challenger lost in accidents.)
NASA administrator Charles Bolden announced that Endeavour would be displayed at the Science Center. Of the other-Hazy Center inSpace Museum in New York City.

TA K E T H E F R E E WAY O R S I D E S T R E E T S : D E T E R M I N I N G T H E B E S T R O U T E
In making the award, NASA assumed the responsibility formuseums. Each museum was then responsible for theﬁnal delivery of the orbiter to its own facility. Kenneth
Phillips, the Science Center’s curator for aerospaceorbiters were not addressed in the proposal to NASA.
Phillips added, “In fact, we didn’t even know whether
NASA would ﬂy the orbiter into LAX or Edwards Air Force
plan.”

LAX to Science Center Route.
(Photo Credit: Google Map Created by the California Science Center)
The Lockheed A-12 Blackbird, the Gemini 11 Capsule, theApollo-Soyuz Command Module and a United Airlines DC-8 passenger jet are several examples. The DC-8, with a 150

Beach in June 1984. With the wings and tail removed, the DC-8’s journey took about 6 hours. However, the challenges
Following the April 2011 award, the Science Center was required to submit a report to NASA within 45 days detailingand weight.

orbiter back to the transport trailer. The problem was, no system existed that was capable of carrying out those

only available in the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) located at the Kennedy Space Center. Once disassembled, itwould have been impossible to reassemble Endeavour to its original state.

15

the Psomas engineers reviewed sevenpossible routes that were later analyzed tolooking for grades that did not exceed 5%
and the minimum number of otherobstacles like power lines, trees and traﬃcand street lights,” says Phillips. The routethat was chosen would start at LAX andtravel over several major thoroughfares
including La Tijera Boulevard, Manchester
Avenue, over the 405 Freeway, Crenshaw
Boulevard before ending at the Science
Center.

Self-propelled Modular Transporters (SPMT). (Photo Credit: California Science Center)

THE OVERLAND
T R A N S P O R T E R , S P M Ts A N D A S S O R T E D I T E M S
Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, the orbiters had to be transported 35 miles on surface roads to Edwards Air Force Base(EAFB) for the ferry ﬂight to the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). NASA developed a specially fabricated frame called theorbiter ferry ﬂights.
was ﬂown directly from Plant 42 to the KSC and never used the OT. Luckily, the OT had been kept in storage in an EAFB

Endeavour could not be towed and instead they would rest on top of Self-propelled Modular Transporters (SPMT)
supplied by the Sarens Group.
-axle, computer-controlled wheeled vehicles. The-axle units at the front and two 6-axle units at the rear that were
coupled together side-by-mode steering together with a steering
angle of +130°/-

said, “This may not be the largest or heaviest object we have transported, but it is certainly one of the most importantmission in route to the California Science Center where it will be put on display for all to see.”In July 2011, a NASA team arrived to review the plans, scout the route and to meet with oﬃcials from the Science
Center. NASA also met with the Los Angeles World Airports, the managers of LAX, to alleviate concerns about the16

ORBITER TRANSITION AND RETIREMENT

orbiters safe and ready for public display and to remove selected hardware for possible use in future NASA
programs.
engines and remain the most advanced engines ever designed. NASA plans to use the SSMEs as part of the newSpace Launch System heavy-Control System (FRCS).
are called, are also very toxic. Exposure to humans would be very dangerous. To ensure the orbiters were safe forpublic display, the OMS pods and the FRCSs were sent to the White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, N.M. forcleaning and servicing. The FRCSs were returned to the KSC to be reinstalled into the orbiters. The OMS Pod nozzles
were replaced with realSpeciﬁcallyforEndeavour,

technicians

would be on display to provide the public
experience.
They included: 1) One ofEndeavour’s three fuel cell power plants,
which generated electricity from chemical
Galley, which gave astronauts the tools theyneeded to rehydrate and heat food; and 3)-gtoilet) that used air ﬂow to pull waste awayfrom the astronauts’ bodies and into the
The work to de-service and de-commission
Endeavour was completed in August 2012,
more than a year following its 25th mission,
which landed at the KSC on June 1, 2011.

SCA, away from the Mate -extremely well. Since its last ﬂight, we havebeen de-servicing the vehicle instead ofclose out the crew module. This was handled as carefully as it would have been for any space mission. “For ﬂight we
had to carefully make sure everything was in place for a mission. We are making sure everything is secured for
Endeavour’s ﬂight to the museum in California,” said Bobby Wright, a senior aerospace technician with USA.

fuselage that connect and secure the orbiter. NASA used a device called the Mateorbiter onto the SCA. The MDD is a structure that has a self-

17

P R E PA R I N G T H E R O U T E
As Endeavour was undergoing its T&R phase, eﬀorts were
through the city streets. The route, which had been
determined to best accommodate the orbiter’s dimensions
and weight was thoroughly reviewed for obstacles. The
Cordoba Corp. and David Evans and Associates, both from
Los Angeles, teamed up to provide highincluding: trees, traﬃc signals, light poles, street signs andparking meters. A team from Plump Engineering of Anaheim
storm drains that the orbiter would pass over.
During the move, the SPMTs would straddle each side of theboulevard medians to maximize the curb-to-curb clearance. In probably the most controversial aspect of the plan,
more than 390 trees had to be removed, the majority of which were located in the medians. Restoring theInglewood and Los Angeles, they made a commitment to plant four trees for every one that was removed. Anotherimportant task, performed by the workers from the Department of Water and Power and Southern California Edison,
tail passed through.

E N D E AV O U R ’ S F I N A L F E R R Y F L I G H T
planning, engineering and review,
Endeavour was ready to begin its ﬁnal
for Mother Nature. Rain along the ferryroute postponed the September 17
departure date. Delayed for two days,
to the air from the Kennedy Space Center
for its ﬁnal ferry ﬂight and a trip to its
new home atop the Boeing 747 SCA at
7:22 am EDT on September 19, 2012. It
began a 3-day, 2-night trip that included
a farewell tour to several NASA sites
across the country and would end in Los
Angeles, just 20 miles from the Downeyplant where Endeavour was designed.
The ﬁrst leg of the ferry ﬂight included aseries of 1500 foot ﬂyovers above(Photo Credit: NASA/Jim Ross)
Florida’s Space Coast, the Stennis Space
Center near Bay St. Louis, Miss., and the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. The ﬂight plan then took
Endeavour over Houston, Clear Lake and Galveston before landing at Ellington Field near NASA’s Johnson Space
Center. On September 20, following a refueling stop at the El Paso's Biggs Army Airﬁeld, the SCA did ﬂyovers of theWhite Sands Test Facility and Missile Range in New Mexico and Tucson, Arizona before landing at EAFB to spend thenight.
The last leg of Endeavour’s journey began on the morning of September 21 at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at
Edwards Air Force Base. The four-hour, 34-minute ﬂight included low-18

passes by Griﬃth Observatory, the Hollywood sign, Dodger Stadium, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Malibu, Santa
Monica, Disneyland, The Queen Mary, the USS Iowa, the Science Center, and several low-level ﬂyovers over Los

T H E F I N A L D E M AT E P R O C E D U R E
The next major milestone was to demate Endeavour from the SCA and place it on
the Overland Transporter. The MDD device used at the KSC was a ﬁxed structure
and only two existed, the other being at EAFB. In the event the orbiter did notlarge cranes, a sling similar to the one used in the MDD and four stabilizing masts
the orbiter in about 10 hours.
Several weeks before the ferry ﬂight, a NASA and USA team of 45 engineers andBy midmorning, Endeavour had been demated, placed on the OT and moved into
the Overland Transporter in the earlymorning hours of September 22, 2012,(Photo Credit: NASA/Paul E. Alers)

miles traveled in space, this was also the ﬁnal mission of the SCA.

three of the ferry missions to deliver Discovery, Enterprise and Endeavour, wasNASA’s Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), NASA 905 isnow slated to be on public display at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston

P R E PA R I N G F O R T R A N S P O R T A N D D I S P L AY
Inside the hangar, technicians had several major tasks to complete. The ﬁrst
was to remove Endeavour’s tail-cone, which was used on all ferry ﬂights to
reduce the aerodynamic drag and turbulence. With the tail-cone removed,
technicians reconﬁgured Endeavour’s SSME nozzles to a launch mode. They
had been gimbaled in a closereinstalled were the OMS pod replica nozzles to replace the originals, which
included entering the crew compartment, as the technicians conﬁgured theﬂight deck and mid-deck for display. (Disclaimer: None of the orbiters on
display will allow for entry into the crew compartment.)
An important decision made by the Science Center oﬃcials was to keep thelanding gear retracted and have Endeavour displayed on the overlandtransporter. To house Endeavour, the Science Center constructed the Samuel

19

Workers prepare to remove the tail cone

Airport, September 24, 2012. Photo(Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls)

Once the move was completed to the Samuel Oschin
Pavilion, the OT and Endeavour will rest on seismic
earthquakes. As curator Phillips noted, “This display
is only temporary as we are planning for a new facility
in 2017 that will enable us to display Endeavour in aboosters and an external tank.” For the future display,
the Science Center will use real solid rocket boosters
that are currently in storage at the Dryden Flight
Research Center at EAFB and they will construct a
replica external tank.

Self-Propelled Modular Transporter, moves out of the Los Angeles(Photo Credit: NASA/Carla Cioffi)

and strategy for ﬁve years . . . how do you handle theorbiter ﬁve years down the line without the NASA
with this move?” Having Endeavour’s landing gear

NASA’s assistance.
With the move to the Science Center set for October 12, a last minute requirement surfaced from city engineers.
There was great concern that the combined weight of the orbiter, OT and the SPMTs, which was more than 300,000
the most vulnerable parts of the roadway. The plates used were either 1 or 1 ½ inches thick and most were 8 feet by
10 feet. In all, they used about 2600 plates rented from almost every outlet on the west coast. This was just anotherand 3) Protect the city infrastructure.

A NEW HOME AND MISSION:A N O T H E R T W E LV E M I L E S T O G O
PDT on October 12, and moved onto the city streets for its 12 mile journey tothe new Samuel Oschin Pavilion. Accompanying the orbiter was a team ofalmost one hundred people that included several astronauts. Preceding
Endeavour was an advance team who had responsibility for clearing
obstacles. They removed light posts and traﬃc signals, trimmed trees andraised power lines in order to let Endeavour pass. More than 200 street
ﬁxtures were removed and 100 power lines were raised. Taking up the rear
was another team that replaced the removed street ﬁxtures and restored thethoroughfare to its original state.
The procession was designed to move no faster than 2 mph, but it wasapparent from the start that this would be an intricate technical ballet. The

Delivery Team was the Manchester Boulevard Bridge which passed over the
405 Freeway.
SPMTs on the overpass. So the delivery team had to perform a delicate

20Power lines are hoisted upwards by a craneEndeavour to traverse on its path to the
California Science Center, October 12, 2012
in Inglewood.
(Photo Credit: NASA/Carla Cioffi)

switch-over. Prior to reaching the overpass, a dolly was
support the OT. The SPMTs were moved out of the way and-up, which
towed Endeavour across the overpass. It was only a 100 yard
trip that took about 3 minutes, but the Tundra had goneload and performed its task eﬀortlessly. Once over thebridge, the process was reversed and the OT was placed
Center.
The original plan had Endeavour arriving at the Science
Center on the evening of October 13. Built into the schedule

A technician for the Overland Transporter signals how muchroom is available between a tree and the orbiter’s wing,(Photo Credit: NASA/Carla Cioffi)

and at Crenshaw Plaza. But just as with the intricacies andunexpected occurrences of space travel, Endeavour encountered similar experiences on its street travels. The

pm PDT on October 14, about 15 hours later than scheduled, Endeavour reached its new home at the California
Science Center’s new Samuel Oschin Pavilion.

years, and all of those who contributed to Endeavour’s ﬁnal journey, they can be assured that its legacy will bepreserved and cherished.

About the Author:
Burt Dicht is currently Director of IEEE
University Programs where he isprogramsforfacultyandstudents. During his career, Burt held

Systems
DivisionandNorthrop
Grumman. He has worked on projects
such as the F-5E Tiger II, the F20A
Tigershark, the F-18E/F Super Hornet,
the YFBurt is a member
Pavilion. (Photo Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls)of IEEE, AIAA, and an ASME Fellow. As amember of ASME, Burt was instrumental in having the Apollo Command/Service Module, the Apollo Lunar
Burt hasHe
currently serves as a volunteer exhibit explainer for the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York City.

21

The Mission
andEngineering
Challengesof the
James
Webb
Space
T e l e s c o p e By Jonathan Arenberg

Sunshield template. Image Credit: NASA

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is NASA's ﬂagship astrophysics mission for the next decade. I am with Northrop
must understand JWST's mission, its design, and the technical challenges it presents.

The Mission of JWST
the history of the universe — namely to see the earliest stars and galaxies
when the universe was only a few percent of its current age. Prior to thisﬁrst stars. These objects are over 13 billion years old and are receding.

galaxies throughout the universe. Its intra-solar planets, and objects within our own

anywhere in the sky, Figure 1.

members are located in the United States, Canada and throughout
Europe. NASA is partnered with the Canadian and European Space
Agencies to make JWST a reality.

22

Figure 1. JWST's sunshield allows it to pitch 5
degrees forward and 45 degrees backward, and360 degrees around the sun line. JWST sees
~39%. Image Credit: NASA

JWST's Mission Architecture
JWST is designed to be a highly eﬃcient, longLagrange point or L2, Figure 2. This will enable JWST to have an orbit that is
free from the destabilizing inﬂuence of the Earth's radiated heat, eclipses
to allow highused on the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Herschel/Planck mission. Thisorbit is aﬀected by the gravity of the Earth in such a way that even thoughapproximately one year. This means that the Earth is in approximately the
Figure 2. Lagrange points and JWST's orbit.
Image Credit: NASA

The Design of JWSTJWST consists of three segments. The ﬁrst, the ﬂight segment, contains theintegrated science instrument module, Figure 3. The second segment islaunch and is provided by ESA in the form of the Ariane V launch vehicle.

as the Hubble telescope is operated and its data are managed.

-red

Figure 3. Artists rendition of deployed JWST.
Image Credit: Northrop Grumman Aerospace
Systems

mirror consists of 18 hexagonal mirror elements each individually actuated(if required). The secondary mirror is also made ofberyllium and is also actuated in six degrees ofand is then sent to the ﬁne-steering mirror, which
directs the light into the instruments. The mirrors
are being delivered to NASA’s Goddard Space Flight
Aerospace in Boulder, Colorado has led the eﬀorts
to manufacture the mirrors, actuators and control
system, with major subcontractors Axsys, Tinsley

by a high-performance structure. This high-Figure 4. Six Primary Mirror Segment Assemblies ready for test aMarshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL. Image Credit: NASA23

performance structure, designed and built by ATK in Magnadimensionally stable to the order of nanometers per Kelvin.
The Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM), made byNASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, consists of a structure,systems, and electronics necessary to operate the instruments.
JWST’s suite of instruments comes from the United States,
Canada, and Europe. The Near Infrared Camera, NIRCam, isprovided by the University of Arizona with main industrial
imager and wavefront sensing instrument. The Fine Guidance
Sensor and Near Infrared Imaging Slitless Spectrometer, FGS/NIRISS, provided by the Canadian Space Agency, is theperformance and also oﬀers science capability. The Near
Infrared Spectrograph, NIRSpec, is provided by the European
Space Agency with main industrial partner EADS. This
instrument allows JWST to take hundreds of spectra in a single
instrument, the Midcooled instrument on JWST. MIRI provides the longwave, 5-27+
μm, capability for JWST, both as an imager and spectrometer.
by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) through a contract with
Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. The ISIM is beginning

Figure 6. JWST sunshield and a doubles tennis court. Image
Credit: NASAdark shadow in which the telescope lives, allowing it to radiate
its heat to space and achieve the necessary cryogenic
temperatures passively. For the sunshield to provide theincident on its sunward facing surface, ﬁve precisely shaped
membranes are used. These membranes must be stowed andrestrained during the turbulence of launch, and subsequent
approximately the size of a doubles tennis court, Figure 6.
The sunshield has been tested to demonstrate its thermal
performance using a one-third scale model that is over 22 feetin length and 12 feet in width. In this test, solar simulators forincident on the sunward side and the temperatures of themembranes facing the telescope were measured and comparedthat the design of the JWST sunshield will meet requirements.
Learning how to stow and deploy the membranes is a major
eﬀort requiring technological extremes. The ﬁnite element
models that predict the shape of the membranes under tension
are highly complicated, containing many hundred thousand
degree of freedom models that press the state of theare used as part of the restraints to manage the membranes
through launch is done using full-scale models. The holes mustline up when stowed, but they cannot line up when deployed
for control of stray light and thermal management. This kind ofanalysis is not easily done using current computer based tools,
so full scale mock-ups are needed.
In order to ensure that the membrane manufacturing processes

Figure 5. Northrop Grumman Lead Venting Analyst Dan
McGregor with a sunshield test article as it is placed in thevacuum chamber at Aerospace Systems' test facility inRedondo Beach, CA. Image Credit: Northrop Grumman
Aerospace Systems

template membranes are being manufactured by membrane
contractor Nexolve at their facility in Huntsville, Alabama. To
date, three of the ﬁve template membranes have been
completed. The sunshield structure — the large pallets that24

— are being designed and manufactured by Northrop
Grumman. The mid-booms that push the membranes
manufactured by Astro Aerospace, a Northrop
Grumman subsidiary, located in Carpinteria, California.

beginning the ﬁnal design phase ahead of its planned

as propulsion, electrical power, command and data
It also contains the room
-temperature electronics and compressors for the MIRI
challenges when designing a high performancestable and easy to manufacture. The JWST bus has thedump heat. The sunshield and temperaturetoward the cold side of the observatory, andfurthermore, the sunshield directs a large infrared load

Figure 7. Chamber A with door open, note people at bottom of door
for scale. Image Credit: NASArenovated Chamber A passed its ﬁrst vacuum and cryogenic
temperature tests earlier this year.

progress toward its planned review, and is being designed andmanufactured by Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems.

JWST is a complex mission with challenges for every engineer on
To build and test these extremely large ﬂight systems requires
the program, and promises to return ground breaking science.
similarly large and complex ground support and test equipment.
The JWST team is extraordinarily capable and is making excellent
success and looking forward to launch in late 2018.

in the clean room at GSFC has been built and delivered, see

About the Author:
robot arms that will be used to precisely install the primary
mirror segment assemblies and the secondary mirror have beendeveloped and are currently being tested. Both the assembly
stand and robot arms are being designed and built by ITT Excelisof Rochester, New York. JWST is also planning a system-level
test in vacuum at cryogenic temperatures, where light will go
workmanship. This test will take place at Johnson Space Center
Apollo environmental tests, Figure 7.
Bringing Chamber A up to date and making it a modern, clean
JSC. All of the 1960s era equipment in the chamber has been
removed, the air handling pipes and manifolds have been
the two-stage cryogenic shrouds have been installed. The

Jonathan Arenberg has been with Northrop Grumman
Aerospace Systems since 1989, having started with Hughes
and laser systems. Dr. Arenberg has worked on suchastronomical programs as the Chandra X-ray Observatory,
James Webb Space Telescope, and helped develop the New
Worlds Observer concept for the imaging of extra-solar
planets. He has worked on major highsystems, laser component engineering and metrology
issues. He is a member of the ISO subcomponents, SPIE, American Astronomical Society, and
AIAA. Dr. Arenberg holds a BS in physics and an MS and PhD inengineering, all from the University of California, Los
Angeles.
in a wide variety of areas of science and technology. He iscurrently the Chief Engineer for the James Webb Space
Telescope Program (www.jwst.nasa.gov) and is a Charter
Member of the Iota Gamma Chapter of Eta Kappa Nu.

25

June Reprint

26

Creatingthe IEEE
Code of
Ethics
The history behindthe process...
By Emerson W. PughA bst ract
In 1912 the AIEE adopted its first code of ethics. It was called the“Code of Principles of Professional Conduct.” Following the 1963
merger of AIEE and IRE that formed IEEE, a new code of ethics was
adopted in 1974 and revised in 1979 and again in 1987. In 1990 theIEEE Board of Directors voted to adopt a shorter code, with content
and wording more appropriate for a worldwide membership.

seeking a change in this point of view was Schuyler S. Wheeler,

ethics.

Principles of Professional Conduct
adopted. It was called the “Code of Principles of Professional Conduct”
and was published in the December 1912 issue of the. [See Figure 1]

27

Figure 1. Title page of theof AIEE, Dec. 31, 1912, in which the“Code of Principles of Professional Conduct”
first appeared.

fact that many AIEE members were self-employed. Major topics of the Code were “General Principles,” “Thewere a total of 22 speciﬁc canons.

In that same year, the Engineers Council for Professional Development (which had been founded in 1932 by sevenIEEE Seeks Its Own CodeThe IEEE chose to develop
its own code of ethics. As
an interim measure, it
endorsed the three
Fundamental Principles ofProfessional Engineering
Ethics, which were statedin the Canons of theEngineers Council ofProfessional Development
as follows: “TheEngineer . . . (1) Will be

his employer, his clients,
and the public; (2) Will
strive to increase theof the engineering
profession; and (3) Will
use his knowledge andskill for the advancementof human welfare.”1974 that a new volunteer-developed “IEEE Code of
Ethics for Engineers” wasapproved by the IEEE
Board of Directors, under
the leadership of IEEE
President John Guarrera.
Figure 2. Code of Ethics for Engineers as it appeared in
In early 1975 it was addedIEEE Spectrum of February 2, 1975, on page 65.
to the IEEE Policy andProcedures Manual andalso publicized in the IEEE Spectrumissue of February 1975. [See Figure 2]

Engineers aﬀect the quality of life for all people in our complex technological society. In the pursuit of their profession,
therefore, it is vital that engineers conduct their work in an ethical manner so that they merit the conﬁdence of28

colleagues, employers, clients and the public. This IEEE Code of Ethics is a standard of professional conduct forengineers.

As IEEE membership grew, many of the newer members were not trained as engineers, and they desired to beproperly recognized for their own professional status. In response to this desire, the opening phrase of the ﬁrst
sentence of the Code’s preamble was amended in February 1979. In the phrase, “Engineers aﬀect the quality of life for

Impact of a Dissident Member

Finding there was nothing in the IEEE Code of Ethics that speciﬁcally forbid this type of behavior, the IEEE leadership

1. Make no statement that the member knows to be false or with reckless disregard as2.

examine these charges, and to determine if any IEEE policies or procedures had been violated. The members of this ad
the process by which the Code of Ethics had been revised in 1987 was legal and in keeping with the rules of IEEE.
Nevertheless, we did recommend that all IEEE members be given an opportunity to review and comment on any futurechanges in the Code of Ethics before the Board voted on them.

Finding My Mission

the world. I was especially interested in this later goal because IEEE was growing more rapidly outside the UnitedStates than inside. By the end of 1987, 20 percent of IEEE’s 293,129 members lived outside the United States. Also, I
was IEEE President-Elect in 1988, and one of my goals was to increase the rate at which IEEE was becoming a-current Code, but it was much
shorter and had exactly ten canons. I liked the number ten because people throughout the world have ten ﬁngers, they

revered IEEE Code of Ethics.

29

Figure 3. President’s Column fromof April 1989.

Some were concerned that the more general wording of
the proposed code would make “enforcement” morediﬃcult. The idea that IEEE should enforce its Code ofwanted to provide ﬁnancial help to members who
suﬀered ﬁnancially by following the Code.

Ta k i n g C h a r g e a s P r e s i d e n t

Ethics with a group of well-respected IEEE leaders.
Based on these discussions, I made a number of minorchanges and one major change to the proposed code of
ethics.
The major change was to delete a provision that
admonished IEEE members “to report, publish, andand proprietary restraints” and replace it with one that
admonished IEEE members “to neither oﬀer nor accept
bribes.” Stephen H. Unger, especially, had urged that astatement against bribery be included, and I had
freely to others “subject to legal and proprietary restraints” would be interpreted so diﬀerently in countries
The, I published the proposed IEEE Code of Ethics at the end of my “President’s Column.” [See Figure 3.]
. The

30

the author found he could
not get government
contracts without bribing
government oﬃcials. In
my column, I pointed out
how this thirty-year-old
story related to problems
and how important it wasfor IEEE to have a code of
ethics that was easy toread and appropriate toIEEE members throughout
the world.
I asked readers to compare
the proposed simpliﬁedIEEE Code of Ethics at the
Column with the thencurrent Code, which wasprinted elsewhere in The, and I asked themto send me theircomments. Readers werealso advised that I had“asked Edward C. Bertnolli,
Vice President-Professional

responses.” Subsequently,
Robert Alden, William R.
Middleton, William R.
Tackaberry, and Stephen H.
Unger were appointed to

Seeking Broad
SupportFigure 4. The proposed new Code of Ethics and the old Code of Ethics
in February 1990.
published side-by-side in

more appealing to all members and also more likely to be approved by the IEEE Board of Directors. Of considerable
concern was the strong disapproval of the proposed Code of Ethics by some IEEE volunteers who had spent many
language so that each provision could be enforced. At least one of them was known to be lobbying members of theBoard of Directors to defeat the new Code of Ethics.
Also during my year as IEEE President, I discussed the proposed simpliﬁed Code of Ethics with IEEE members wherever
I went. I was especially pleased that the provision on bribery was most strongly supported by members in countries
were bribery was endemic. Previously, I had been concerned that members in such countries would reject the new31However, these members said bribery was a serious
believed that a code of ethics should record what
people aspire to do rather than what they may
actually do. Clearly they did not believe IEEE could,
or should try to, enforce its Code of Ethics – except
In February 1990 the simpliﬁed Code of Ethics wasfor comment by all
again presented in-by-sidewith the old Code. The old Code of Ethics had 591
words, whereas the simpliﬁed Code had 238. This
[See Figure 4.]
The comments received from members indicatedthat no signiﬁcant changes were needed.

throughout the document. In August 1990 the IEEE
Board of Directors approved the simpliﬁed IEEE Code1991.
Unlike the old Code of Ethics, this shorter version has
been broadly distributed and read throughout theworld. For example, it is prominently displayed in
the “IEEE Society & Special Interest Memberships &A Minor Change
The Code of Ethics remained unchanged for 15 years,
removed from the ﬁrst canon. This canon had said,in part, that IEEE members were “to accept
responsibility in making engineering decisions
Figure 5. “IEEE Society & Special Interest Memberships &consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the
public.” With the word “engineering” deleted, they
which is also prominently displayed in the current online version.
are now admonished, in eﬀect, to “accept
responsibility in making decisions (of all types)
consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” [See Figure 5.]
Bylaw 1-104 that opens membership to professionals who do not see themselves as engineers. Following thiswith its mandate to promote ethical behavior and to advise the Board of Directors on ethics policy and concerns.
that might be reworded or expanded. Fortunately, however, with the wise guidance of Theodore A. Bickart, the32

– including those who did not consider themselves to beeven in 1990.
As we saw it then, if we failed to insert the word “engineering” it would have suggested that the IEEE Code of Ethics
was being applied well beyond IEEE’s normal areas of interest – an unacceptable concept for many. However, using

By 2006 the environment had changed. No longer did it seem appropriate to limit the Code’s applicability to decisions
normally deﬁned as “engineering decisions” when the “safety, health, and welfare of the public” was at issue. Whenno suitable replacement for the word “engineering” could be found, it was simply deleted.

Wo r l d w i d e F o c u s a n d P e r s o n a l C o m m i t m e n t
The IEEE Code of Ethics adopted in 1990, and revised in 2006, necessarily has much in common with those of other
responsibility to other members and greater emphasis on a member’s responsibility to all people. Indeed, the IEEE

IEEE members live in many countries, each with its own heritage, culture, and economy. By the end of 2012, 52
percent of IEEE’s 429,085 members were living in countries other than the United States. The decision of the IEEE

diﬃcult to adhere to all provisions of the IEEE Code of Ethics. Nevertheless, it is a Code to which all members canaspire, and that is a good thing.
The structure, brevity and clarity of the IEEE Code of Ethics are important, but probably the Code’s most obvious
unique feature is the opening phrase: “We the members of the IEEE.” Many readers will recognize the similarity ofchose this opening phrase because it indicates a personal commitment to the IEEE Code of Ethics by each IEEE
member.

Acknowledgements

Secretary) prepared a report in 2001 and an updated report in 2006 on the History of the IEEE Code of Ethics. Her

About the Author:
a college physics text book and four books on the history of IBM and the computer industry. He is a long IEEE STARS Program on the IEEE Global History Network.

33-2005. Currently he is chair of theLessons
from
the
Storm
Hurricane Katrina and the Challenges ofEngineering Socio- Tech nical Systems(Photo credit: NOAA)

By Byron Newberry

Introduction
In his popular book To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design, Henry Petroski stresses theimportance of engineers learning from mistakes –Tacoma Narrows Bridge. But Petroski’s advice for engineers applies beyond just erroneous technical analyses, or the
failure of a single structure. Engineers of all types are frequently engaged in work on socio-technical systems –catastrophic –failures in socio-

from failures of socio-technical systems.
To illustrate some of these problems, we can look to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans anda socio-technical system. It employed a variety of technologies, including levees, ﬂoodwalls, barriers, gates, andU.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (SWBNO), the Orleans Levee

into the lives of the people who lived and worked in proximity to it every day.

34

Hurricane Katrina was a large scale disasterby any metric we might use: over 1800

billions of dollars of economic loss from
infrastructure; and, the need for copious
outside assistance in relief and recovery
eﬀorts. Further, Katrina was a complex
disaster. The potency of a natural hazard
intersected with and exposed the-constructedsystems. But the structural failures of levees,
which allowed ﬂoodwaters into the city, were
only proximal causes of the tragedy. In what
follows, we will explore some of theunderlying problems in more detail.

Figure 1. U.S. 90 Bridge in Biloxi, MS (Photo credit: NOAA)

Fa ilure Mod es-technical system failure—and the ones most readily associated withengineers—something can fail and then design to ensure such

failure are high. The Katrina case reveals a variety oftechnical problems associated with unaccounted-for
failure modes. One example is a series of bridge
failures along U.S. Highway 90 in coastal Mississippi,
just east of New Orleans. As seen in Figure 1, muchof the bridge decking was removed from its piers.
driven waves allowed the water level to reach thethe piers were not designed to resist such forces,
though they could have been.

New Orleans occurred along the canals thatpenetrate into the heart of the city. These breaches
contributed to the majority of ﬂooding in the city
and were among the most prominent images in the
media coverage of the disaster, such as seen in
Figure 2, where a helicopter works to plug a breach.

Figure 2. 17th Street Canal Breach(Photo credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

35Figure 3. Levee -Sheet Pile -Flood Wall System with Gap (Illustration Credit: Byron Newberry)

These failures were also due, in part, to problems of

uncertainty. In making such tradeoﬀs, it is incumbent

Along these canals, the earthen levees were topped with
—improving in performance or safety—is

sheet piles, which are corrugated metal curtains that
extend down into the centers of the earthen levees, as
shown in Figure 3. The design was intended to withstandwater levels up to the tops of the ﬂoodwalls. However,during Katrina the canal levees failed in several places
before the water levels reached that high.

But experience depends on having ﬁrst tried something.
between technological development and knowledge. This
fact dictates that engineers should exhibit a healthy
prudence when venturing very far into the technological

When water levels rose partway up the ﬂoodwalls, similar
pile rotated backwards slightly in many places.
allowing water to enter and exert pressure
directly on the face of the sheet pile,half of the levee then slid away from the canal-ﬁlledgap can be seen in Figure 4. This mechanismof failure was not envisioned during thedesign of the levees, and therefore was notdesigned against.

Incomplete Information
Engineering decisions are always made withfashion must be balanced against the risks of

Figure 4. Water -filled gap along London Avenue Canal(Photo Credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, IPET)

36

miscommunicated, misinterpreted, orconsequences.
For just one example, consider thewater-ﬁlled gap problem justproperly used. In the mid-1980s, theUSACE conducted a full-scale test of asheet pile/ﬂoodwall system. During theincipient failure at water levels below
those predicted in the design. It is likelythat the observed movement of thestructure caused the soil to separate
from the front side of the ﬂoodwall,
but there was no record of this being

Figure 5. Scour from overtopping along
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal(Photo Credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, IPET)

obscured the view of the base of the ﬂoodwall. Later, as
is exceeded), and excess capacity (margin of safety).
were developed which did consider the possibility of awater-ﬁlled “tension crack” in front of the ﬂoodwall. Thesescouring of trenches on the inboard sides of ﬂoodwalls
results appeared in both USACE technical reports and in
the peer-reviewed literature. But this new knowledge was due to water ﬂowing over the top of the wall. Figure 5

considering this failure mode.

Resiliency

due to the force of the water on the outboard face. The
fact that the ﬂoodwalls were overtopped at various

been described as a series system. A series system, like achain, is only as strong as its weakest component. For
example, the East Bank protected area of New Orleans—the heart of the city—ring of levees. A few localized breaches of the canals

exceeded by water levels at the peak of the storm surge.
But that alone would not have been disastrous. While
overtopping allows some amount of ﬂoodwater into
to the amount of water that can enter through a breach.
Overtopping abates as soon as the surge subsides,

to demonstrate resilience—i.e., the ability to tolerate local—even though it ishave passed. Resilient systems are characterized by37

water level drops. A levee that suﬀers a breach as a result New Orleans HPS project involved land subsidence . The
New Orleans HPS project had been ongoing for over forty—

throughout the New Orleans HPS, including possibly

some cases by several feet. This contributed tomeasurement errors and a progressive mismatch

IHNC.
performance. In some places levees/ﬂoodwalls
wound up a couple of feet lower thanintended.

faced with diﬃcult decisions. They could

an end result that, while looking correct

Figure 6. Floodwall with new splash pad, Orleans Avenue Canal(Photo Credit: John McQuaid)

components yet to be built. This would mean
they would take subsidence into account by
incrementally increasing new levee/ﬂoodwall

problems. First, it would have greatly increased
expense. Splash pads behind ﬂoodwalls, along with othertypes of armoring on the levees to prevent erosion
mechanisms, would have made the system much more

more costly. Second, it would have resulted in a nonuniform system, with component heights stair-stepping

worked to retroﬁt many levees with armoring, as shownin Figure 6.

Complex System Changes OverTime During the Design
frames, are subject to changes in physical, societal, and-built components to bring them up to
current standards. This would entail signiﬁcant added

and knowledge. This makes the design a challenge forengineers who, in general, would prefer to meet a ﬁxed

have been diﬃcult, and such neverwould have been a tough sell to local residents.

-

we might make an ethical argument that the Corps should38

course, because that was the only one with a chance ofduring Katrina due to physical interfaces—
Figure 7 shows a failure along the New Orleans East backlevee. This failure was typical of many failures throughout

hindsight, many observers said the Corps should havetaken. On the other hand, the ﬁrst course (and more orless the one actually followed) might be defended on the
grounds that it provided the quickest and least expensive

joined, the top of the bare levee was lower than the heightof the adjacent ﬂoodwall. When the storm surge
overtopped this area, the height mismatch at the point of—the water
behind the higher ﬂoodwall was funneled around thecorner where it joined the lower levee. The water current

engineering for the Corps’ New Orleans District gave justThis problem of change-with-term projects
back side of the levee. This caused the sheetpile tosuggests the need for adaptable designs. There are always
incorporated in the design upfront to account for a range
below the original levee crest.
down the road. As an example, a major source of future
uncertainty for society’s infrastructure is climate change.
Though there is much agreement that climate changes willcause challenges in the next century for water resources,

Orga nizational Inter fa ces

things, the great uncertainly associated with themagnitude of such changes makes the planning of
between structural elements such as ﬂoodwalls and gates.
engineered infrastructure diﬃcult. Thus, much research iscurrently being devoted to developing adaptable designs –in the ﬂoodwall where a rail line crossed the levee anddesigns that will not be economically wastefulfor the best-case scenarios, but which can beeasily adapted to worst-case scenarios ifneeded.

Physical Interfaces
As a longclasses, my experience has been that interfaces
are the most frequent source of problems forstudents trying to implement their designs.
designs into subsystems and then work
diligently to perfect each one independently.
subsystems into the larger system they ﬁnd that
there were important details that needed to beconsidered at the interface.

Figure 7. Transition failure along the New Orleans East back levee(Photo Credit: US Army Corps of Engineers, IPET)

There were many problems that occurred39

was also a roadbed that ran through the gap parallel tothe rail line, which provided access to canaloperated by the Port of New Orleans. In the event of astorm, the gap in the ﬂoodwall was supposed to be sealed
socio-technical systems.
before Katrina struck, the ﬂoodgate was damaged by atrain and had been removed for repair. As Katrina
approached, sandbags were piled in the gap, but these

Risk perception

major breach through which ﬂoodwaters passed. To makerepopulate the riskiest areas. Discussions of whether
certain areas should be repurposed for lower-risk uses

-erodable sands, unlike the denser
clays to either side, which resulted in considerable erosion
places and ways of living, or with economic drives toof the levee through the gap. The earthworks at thefeatures, not those responsible for ﬂood control.

interface problems can have on physical interface
problems. There were at least ﬁve agencies withrail company, the Port of New Orleans (responsible forshipping within the canal), the State Highway
Department, and the local levee board (responsible forlevee maintenance). Each of these agencies had diﬀerent
agendas with respect to the design,that plagues such discussions is the ability—or lackthereof—problem, including the massive physical scale of thesystem and its corresponding costs, a lack of awareness of

inadequate responses to risk.

maintenance of the site. But it was noteveryone is responsible, then no one is
responsible. The details of interface
performance, but unfortunately thesebetween the cracks. This is either
responsible for adjacent features do notnewer features are built adjacent toolder features without suﬃcient

Figure 8. Orleans Avenue Canal(Photo Credit: US Army Corp of Engineers)40

A false sense of security about levees is an endemic
problem, not only in New Orleans, but wherever levee
systems are built. Levees, like many other types oftechnologies, provide an impression of human control
decided there was some advantage for modern cars andover nature. For the people behind the levees, thisimpression has unfortunate consequences, since failuresof levee systems are a fact of life. On the one hand, people
can become vulnerable to disasters because they are naïve without some overriding impetus. This is an example of a
network eﬀect. When a technology grows into anhigh-risk areas without a true understanding of theinterdependent network (such as road systems, or
possible consequences. Figure 8 shows housingdevelopments in the shadow of the Orleans Avenue Canal. can make it diﬃcult to make fundamental changes without

by developing ﬂood-prone land in the pursuit of shortdevelopment that has been termed the levee eﬀect. The
levees designed to protect assets in ﬂood-prone areas
relevant.
In the case of New Orleans, if we could erase the slate andbegin planning the city and its ﬂood defenses fromﬂood defenses, which in turn serves to accelerate
scratch, we would likely come up with something thatlooks much diﬀerent from what now exists. In fact, we
defenses does not necessarily keep pace with the increase
might well locate the city somewhere else. But
in value of what is being defended. The levee eﬀect is a
-in for New
been called the safe development paradox, whereby
type of development in the face of serious hazards

years to grow the city while defending it from storms. The

future catastrophes.

H i s t o r i c a l c o n t i n g e n c y a n d l o c k- i ndesign of a new automobile is constrained width-wise by
the standard width of roadways. A car too wide for typicalamenable to being solved with any ﬁnality. Landsubsidence, loss of coastal wetlands, predicted sea levelrise, the inexorable ﬂow of the Mississippi River, and thehuman drive to preserve—and further develop—the city,ending, but likely everinterdependent with the city’s drainage system, as well aswith the levee system that constrains the ﬂow of theMississippi River, both in New Orleans and in locales
upstream. Contemporary decisions about ﬂood defenses
must contend with these network eﬀects, as well as with41

the legacy of countless previous decisions
going back to the ﬁrst levees built shortlyof New Orleans, which notes a "Bank tocity’s drainage canals, for example, are an
integral part of the current hurricane
Katrina played a prominent a role in thedisaster. Yet those drainage canals owe theirland going back to the early to mid 19th
Century.

Figure 9. 1759 Jefferys Map of New Orleans(Image credit: Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library)Conclusion

About the Author:

The more insight engineers, and engineering students,
Byron Newberry is Professor of Mechanical Engineering
at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. His background is inaerospace materials and structures, and he has worked

complex systems and projects, the greater the chancethat far-sighted planning can be brought to bear touse the Katrina case to highlight a number of issues thatpervade such engineering work. These include problems

mechanics of materials, structures, and machines, heteaches engineering design and engineering ethics toboth mechanical and electrical engineering students. He
is a licensed Professional Engineer in Texas, and is amember of IEEE, ASME, and ASEE. He serves on the

how the past constrains the present. As we have seen,
these issues intertwine, with the examples used for one

Ethics and is editor for the Springer book series
Philosophy of Engineering and Technology.

In a shady spot under a large Coonwood tree on thecampus of the University of Illinois our founders saw theneed for an honor society - one that by invitaon would
recognize scholarship, atude, and character. The visionof these inspired young men was to promote the highest
ideals of the engineering profession and form an organizaon where professionals and students help each other.
Our Founder’s Day, we invite our alumni to reconnect with Eta Kappa Nu. Visit www.hkn.org for more
informaon and to see how your chapter celebrang. Learn more about today’s IEEE-HKN, and ﬁnd opportunies to volunteer, parcipate, support, and stay involved.

800-408-2590
www.hkn.org • info@hkn.org

IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu
Scholarship, Character, Atude
42

Preparingfor High
E t h Byi cKarla lD. StephanStandards
Embracing ethics
and upholding
integrity whileat university......

By Steve Starre
INTRODUCTION

ACADEMIC HONORS TAT E M E N T S

However, learning about professional ethics as related to
The Honor Pledge at Kansas State University is “On my honor, as
engineering work is necessary as well. Various Code of Ethics fora student, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on
this academic work.” The College of William and Mary has had astudent administered Honor Code that started in 1736. Theirengineers have to society and other standards of conduct.
Honor Code is very detailed and over 20 pages long. Texas A&M
These codes are typically presented as components of any ABET
University has a longaccredited engineering program and are content for the
Honor Code is “An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate
those who do.” Military academies have similar honor codes
components of ethics lectures, workshops, and courses
such as the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, “A cadet will
supplement the morals and ethical standards that students havenot lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” Some top-ranked
developed from their parents, childhood friends, adult friends.
schools, such as Harvard and Yale, do not have Honor Codes,-Eta Kappa Nu promote highethical standards as part of membership. The academic
standards in the classroom are yet another learning opportunity
code, Peter Schworm, Boston Globe, 4/6/13). The purposes offrom those that they will face in engineering work. College andindividuals that make up the community, and to deﬁne the
Honor Code or Honor Pledge. The university community (i.e.,
joint eﬀort with students and faculty working together) declares
expected academic integrity standards and then determines

community.
Last summer, I became the Director of the Honor and Integrity
System at Kansas State University. The Honor and Integrity

43been at Kansas State for about 19 years now, and as the Director
have an Honor Council that is made up of 27 students(undergraduate and graduate) and 27 faculty and staﬀ
members. Each college is represented on the Honor Council,
and the faculty senate and student senate approve of thevital resource for faculty and teaching staﬀ to ensure academic
integrity, it provides a valuable learning experience for those

excellent leadership experiences for those students on the
Honor Council. The decisions they make eﬀect lives, and thetheir peers that violate the Honor Pledge than the faculty
members are. They view academic dishonesty as a threat to the long-

IDEAS AND WORK AS A
STUDENT AND ENGINEER

University. The Honor Council student members will not standfor that.
The Honor and Integrity System oﬃce assists faculty inupholding academic integrity in their courses. When professors

concept of an individual upholding integrity to beneﬁt thegreater community is the same. Following are some of the more?

violator takes the Development and Integrity 1-hr course. For

This is when
the professor has declared that an assignment/exam/
project is to be done independently. For example, anassignment is to write a computer code independently.
Certainly students must learn how to create code fromothers (i.e., professors, teaching assistance, internet, peers,

needed such as grade changes, permanent XF, and they canrecommend suspension or expulsion to Provost.

another student to create a segment of code, copies codefrom another student (current or previous), copies asegment of code from the internet, has someone else write

There is a clear and detailed process available for a student who

process maximizes the learning experience for the students.
One of the most extreme cases over the 15 years of ourHonor and Integrity System is when a student posted acourse project on freelancer.com. The senior student
accepted bids on the project, selected a contractor, paid
contractor $350 to complete the project, and turned it inpermission to take a test early because of a conﬂict with othereventually, by the end of the semester, hundreds of students
working students of Kansas State University were outraged bydegrees. Correspondence from alumni poured into campus
expressing their strong concern. The message was clear,academic integrity is vital to Kansas State University and it must
be ensured.

by individuals on freelancer.com that a course project had
been posted to the site. This is not acceptable to thefreelancer.com community. The student also had previous?

There are currently over 25,000 students on three Kansas State
University campuses, so each semester, there are bound to besome individuals taking shortcuts on academic work. HavingAs

why engineers are compensated. Taking of other people’s
ideas or intellectual property without proper credit,

44

plagiarism in graduate courses. The student’s comments
undergraduate degree and a master’s degree from diﬀerent
schools. I have never before seen a university so interested
in verifying that assignment content was not plagiarized.”
The student was expelled.

By Karl D. Stephan“ Th e in t er n et has ma d e it so easy
to find kno wled ge about a nyth ing,
copy and past e it in t o an
ass ig n me n t do c ume n t , pr in t an dt urn it in for a grad e.”?

Plagiarism in an engineering career. Engineers write lots ofreports. Students do not like to hear that but its true.
There is easy access to knowledge online and its
inappropriate for an engineer to ﬁnd a similar report andcopy text. This type of conduct is against IEEE Code Ethics
item #9 and #3, “to be honest…”?

Unauthorized aid in the classroom.
manual can now be found online. Using references to learn
how to solve a problem is encouraged and is what engineers
them as original academic work, however does not
represent knowledge that a person possesses. Faculty are

acknowledgement or permission is against the IEEE Code of
Ethics Canon #9, “…avoid injuring others…”?

assess whether that knowledge has been learned if a

Plagiarism in the classroom. The internet has made it soeasy to ﬁnd knowledge about anything, copy and paste it
into an assignment document, print and turn it in for acollege, to learn skills and knowledge to apply in a career.
?

Unauthorized aid in an engineering career. The bid processcolleges. Middle schools and certainly high schools teachstudents how to reference materials properly. Students are
expected from their ﬁrst day on campus to understand how
gives them an unfair advantage then that is directly against
to reference and cite materials. Having said that, someIEEE Code of Ethics item #4, “to reject bribery in all its
instructors also believe plagiarism happens when structures
forms.”of papers or even paragraphs follow a source’s format andstyle too closely. This isn’t so widely taught in high school.
I do hear students say something like, “I won’t take shortcuts
like I do while in college when I start working.” These students
do not realize that a person cannot turn integrity on and oﬀ likea switch. Future behavior is naturally based on previous
as those at www.grammarly.com andbehavior and decisions. University students are developing andwww.plagtracker.com. There is also computer code

Many students have violated the Honor Pledge byplagiarizing something from the internet. Most are
requirement to take an academic integrity related 1-hr-story type
document. The student made a poor decision to copy ablog entry word for word and submit it as his life story. The

and for engineering students, their commitment to highengineering ethical standards. It is important for an engineer’s
development to maintain high academic integrity standards
while pursing an engineering degree. Ethical decisions andjudgment become second nature. There are many ethicalof high-technology devices. In brief, the following presents anidea on how to approach engineering ethical dilemmas.

45

D E V E L O P I N G P R O F E S S I ON A L
J U D G M E N T A N D S O LV I N G
ENGINEERING ETHICALDILEMMAS
People take a variety of approaches to solving ethical dilemmas.
Following are some ideas to consider:?

the end of my working
career, I believe thisstrongly.”

Consult IEEE Code of Ethics or other relevant codes. Usepressured to do something that is against the Code.

As students pursue?
?

they should be awarethat they are building
upon theirConsult with trusted and respected others about the?

integrity, the?

Take a webinar or a class on engineering ethics.

?

Consider what is best for most.

“P eop le tak e ava r ie ty o fapproa ch es toso lv in g e th ic a ld ile mma s …”

parents started. It isjust the beginning to a long and dedicated engineering career
upholding the safety, health and welfare of the public.

?
?

engineeringcommunity isn’t goingto accept the excuseof “My boss told me tokeep my mouth shut.”
You can always get
another job, but you
cannot get anotherConsider if people close and important to you fully

About the Author
your decision?

Years ago I gave an engineering ethics workshop to a group of
about 50 professionals at a very nice dinner club. I was in myearly 40s and was about the youngest person in the room. The
atmosphere was friendly, the food was excellent and there weremany friendships several decades in the making. I presented aproceed way up the chain-ofwas a major threat to public safety. His non-engineeringsupervisor did not think the safety issue was a crisis like theis Associate Professor of Civil Engineeringand Director of the Honor and Integrity
System at Kansas State University. Dr.
engineering from the Missouri Universityof Science and Technology, an M.S. and
Ph.D. in civil engineering from Iowa State
University. He has been on that faculty at
Kansas State University for 19 years. His
engineering. He also teaching engineering
ethics graduate level courses and serves

supervisor. I have a family to feed, you are asking to get ﬁred to

He is astated it so well. “You have to protect the safety, health andfounding member of the nearlyawful then someone is going to get injured or killed. The

with the American Society of Civil
Engineers.

46

November Reprint47

Bistatic
Radar
Looking Back...Looking Forward
By Hugh Griths

Bistatic Radar
Radar is a technology that is over 100
years old – the ﬁrst example of what wewould now call a radar was actually-located, has a‘Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it’. And that is just as true in engineering, not only inunderstanding just how things were conceived and made to work, but also in understanding ideas from the past whichmaybe did not work, but only because the technology was not then available. So the purpose of this paper is to look at– some of which have only just come to light – and to show how they
can help guide our thinking in present-day radar engineering.

Klein Heidelberg
In the years leading up to the Second World War, developments took place in several countries to try to devise a-engineered than in the UK.

48

some cases from captured
hardware, and quite
naturally they each devisedcountermeasures to jam
and otherwise upset the
opponents’ systems. This
was the origin of what we
now call Electronic
Warfare.
German radar engineers
realized that they could
exploit the transmissions
devised a system called
Klein Heidelberg which

Figure 1. The British Chain Home radar. The transmit antennas are suspended between thetowers on the left; the receive antennas are on the four wooden towers on the right, witheach tower initially operating on a separate frequency.

radar source [2]. The principle is very simple: theKlein Heidelberg receiver would receive the direct

receiver as the two focal points, on which thetarget must lie (Figure 3). A measurement of thethe target on the ellipse.
Of course, the big advantage of such a system wassignal of its own. The antenna was disguised, by
only that, but even if its existence was known it
was impossible to jam, since to do so would alsoof the Klein Heidelberg radars were built (though

Figure 2. Locations of the British Chain Home radars on thesouth and east coast of the United Kingdom (adapted from [1]).

49Figure 3. Geometry of the Klein Heidelberg system (adapted from[2]). The difference in delay between the direct pulse from the Chain
Home transmitter and the target echo defines an ellipse with thetransmitter and receiver at the two focal points. In this case thereceiver is at Oostvoorne in The Netherlands and the transmitter is
at Dover. Three other transmitters are shown as well.

Figure 4. Klein Heidelberg antenna, mounted on theback of a Wassermann -S tower (Conseil Régional deBasse -Normandie / National Archives USA).

– which would be regarded as

Radar Detection of V -2 Rocket Launches-2 rockets towards London [3]. The V-2 was thewas almost certainly the ﬁrst-

It showed that the low radar frequency of the Chain Home radar was quite well suited to this task since the radar
signature of the V-2 was quite broad in angular extent, which meant that it could be detected and tracked for atechniques form the basis of today’s counter-50

Figure 5. The V -2 rocket (adapted from [4]).

Figure 6. Principle of Passive Bistatic Radar. In this case a single PBR
receiver receives direct signals from three transmitters, plus echoes ofthe signals from all three transmitters from two targets.
From measurements of delay, angle of arrival and Doppler shift
it is possible to detect and track multiple targets.

B i s t a t i c R a d a r To d a y– as evidenced by the number of papers on thesubject in journals and at conferences. There are several reasons for this. First of all, the same advantages that wereenormous advances in digital signal processing power mean that processing that was previously very diﬃcult can now

Passive Bistatic Radar–-power and sited to give wide coverage. The hardware
required for an experimental system is usually simple and low-cost, and there are no licensing issues because the
not normally available for radar purposes, and where in a defense context there may be an advantage against stealthy51

Early PBR experiments were based on
analog TV or FM radio signals. It wassoon realized that such signals are
not quite ideal for radar, since their-varying anddepend on the instantaneous– so cacophonous rockleast) than a person speaking! Digital
respect, since the signals are morenoise-like, without periodic features
do not depend on the programcontent.
PBR systems based on TV or radioat ranges of 100 km or more (Figure
are being considered. It is well known
that the coverage of air traﬃc control
and air defense radars is aﬀected bywind farms. PBR may be used as a
low-cost gap-ﬁller to restore fullcontrol – though the need forcomplete coverage and reliability
represents a signiﬁcant challenge. At
shorter range, WiFi or WiMAX
transmissions can be used as thebuildings, or for border or perimeter
surveillance.

Figure 7. Passive Bistatic Radar tracking of aircraft using 98.0 MHz FM radiotransmitter in Johannesburg, South Africa, presented as Range -Doppler plots(upper: raw data, lower: target tracks), and showing tracking of aircraft at
bistatic ranges of well over 200 km. Image courtesy of Craig Tong and Mike
Inggs, University of Cape Town.

SI, to build prototype PBR systems. The market for the

The Intelligent, Adaptive
Radar Networkand to devise concepts that are more ﬂexible, of higher
performance, and yet more aﬀordable. We realize thatthe norm for so many years may not actually be the best
approach, and ideas have begun to emerge that point

Looking further into the future, there is therefore an52the ‘radar’ consists of a set of nodes, on ﬁxed or

In this respect there is much to be learned from natural,

intelligent manner. Such a scheme has a number of

The Future ...

?

?

So radar systems of the future may be rather diﬀerent to
the ones we are used to today, and may certainly take
The network has the same advantage of ‘graceful
think in new ways –lessons from the past at our peril. Today’s engineers
should not only understand and embrace all newtechnologies and techniques, but also devote adequate– and failures – fromthe past.

failure of one element of the array does not cause
catastrophic failure but only degrades the overall
performance slightly. In the case of the sensor
network not only may the loss of one node of the
network be tolerated, but also the network may bereconﬁgured accordingly in response.

References?

1. Neale, B.T., ‘CH –GEC
Journal of Research, Vol. 3 No.2 pp73-83, 1985.
2. Griﬃths, H.D. and Willis, N.J., ‘Klein Heidelberg – theIEEE Trans.
Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol.46, No.4,
pp1571–1588, October 2010.
3.
German V-2 rocket launches in WW2’, IEEE AESMagazine, Vol. 28, No.3, pp13-19, March 2013.
4. E. Pickup and L. Taylor, Visibility of BIG BEN to Radar,
TRE IIE/193/6/2, (AIR 20/10941), 27 August 1944.
-50490/5.
Passive_Radar:_A_$10_Billion_opportunity.htm
6. Griﬃths, H.D. and Baker, C.J., ‘Towards the intelligent

sensors can be used according to the requirement.
?

?

including the enhancement of target signatures thatcovert, and may operate closer to the target scene.

phased array radar – except that here the target is actually– 2 May 2013.

About the Author:
the behaviour of the targets within the scene.
All of this represents a bold vision, but there are many
issues to be resolved before such a system could genuinely

Hugh
hs (h
hs@ieee.org) is President of
the IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society
and holds the THALES/Royal Academy ofEngineering Chair of RF Sensors at University College
and books in the elds of radar, sonar and antennas.
He recently received the IET A F Harvey Researchnodes, and (iii) control and management of the network.

53

A R PA N E T t o t h e I n t e r n e tIEEE Milestones: Birthplace of
the Internet, 1969
At 10:30 p.m., 29 October 1969, the ﬁrst ARPANET
message was sent from this UCLA site to the Stanford

digitally from this ﬁrst node of ARPANET launched the
The plaque can be seen at the UCLA Henry Samueli
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 405 Hilgard
Ave., Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
IEEE Milestone Plaque at UCLA
Image Credit: Courtesy of the Iota Gamma HKN Chapter
and the Computer Science Department, the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, October 2013

developments that led to the Internet as we know ittoday. The ARPANET was the ﬁrst global packetswitching based network, and allowed remote network

It also applied the concept UCLA was selected as the site of the very ﬁrst IMP(Interface Message Processor). The major reason for thisThischoice was due to the fundamental work anddevelopment was the key to allowing a diverse set of
involvement of UCLA's Professor Kleinrock with many
early developments of the ARPANET/Internet. His workin extending and applying queuing theory to data
traﬃc.
network design and his development of the network
robust technology for network access, the ARPANET
measurement technology were keys in the decision to
make UCLA the ﬁrst Internet node, and to serve as the
Network Measurement Center. Many further research
are fundamental diﬀerences between the Internet andprevious circuit switching based networks. It uses
growth were generated by the UCLA team.
network resources by dynamically sharing them among
The reigning switching technology of the 1960s wasmany streams. This leads to signiﬁcantly improved
circuit switching, which was suited to the long holding
eﬃciency and robustness of the network. The layering
Voice traﬃc was so dominant, andscheme it introduces has allowed the development ofcomputer-generated and related traﬃc was so sparse,that it was diﬃcult to see the merit of packet
switching. When packet switching technology was ﬁrst
ARPANET diﬀered from previous computer networks (e.g. suggested, the large networking companies consideredSAGE) in that those networks were specialized
the technology to be unworkable and unimportant. It
was necessary to overcome their dismissal of packet
similar type, whereas ARPANET was designed to allow
switching and develop it without their support.
© 2013 IEEE. Reprinted with permission from IEEE Global History
Network (www.ieeeghn.org), August 2013.

What are Milestones?

services, seminal papers and patents. Milestones are proposed by any IEEE member, and are sponsored by an IEEE
program. See “IEEE Milestones” link at the IEEE Global History Network (www.ieeeghn.org).

54

First Message on the Internet – “Lo[gin]” on 10:30 p.m., 29
October 1969
“The procedure was for us to type “log” with the system at SRI set up to be clever enough to complete the restof the command, namely, to add “in” and thus create the word “login.” Charlie and Bill Duvall, the programmer
at the SRI end, each had a telephone headset so they could communicate by voice as the message wasreply. We typed in the “o” and asked if they got it and received “Got the o.” UCLA then typed in the “g” andworked ﬁne! So, the ﬁrst message on the Internet was a crash, but more accurately, was the prescient word“lo” (as in “lo and behold!”).”
Leonard Kleinrock, “History of the Internet and Its Flexible Future,”, Feb. 2008, pp. 8–18.

D r. L e o n a r d K l e i n r o c kEminent Member of IEEE -HKN, Elected 2011at UCLA. Known as a "Father of the Internet", he developed theInternet as an MIT graduate student in 1961. His host computer at UCLA
became the ﬁrst node of the Internet in September 1969. He wrote the ﬁrst
paper and published the ﬁrst book on the subject; he also directed thetransmission of the ﬁrst message ever to pass over the Internet. Kleinrock's
Science, the highest honor for achievement in science bestowed by the
President of the United States. His other honors include membership in the
Academy of Arts and Sciences; he is an IEEE fellow and an ACM fellow.
Leonard Kleinrock received his Ph.D. from MIT in 1963. He has served as a
Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Los Angeles
since then, serving as Chairman of the department from 1991-1995. Hereceived his BEE degree from CCNY in 1957 and his MS degree from MIT in
1959. He has published over 250 papers and authored six books on a widearray of subjects, including packet switching networks, packet radio
networks, local area networks, broadband networks, gigabit networks,-to-peer networks. During his tenure at UCLA, Dr. Kleinrock has supervised theresearch for 47 Ph.D. students and numerous M.S. students.

Dr. Leonard Kleinrock with Internet
Message Processor
Image Credit: Courtesy of Computer
Science Department, the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, September 2013

Interactive Extras and More Information:?

Audio interview with Dr. L. Kleinrock?

IEEE Global History Network Resources?

The Kleinrock Internet History Center at UCLA?

DARPA Internet Resource Page?

Computer History Museum

Four-Node ARPANET in 196955

A Te c h n i c a l H i s t o r y o f t h e A R PA N E T
growth, and development.
1958

Eisenhower forms the Advance Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in response to the USSR's launch of Sputnik.

1966

December: The ARPA Computer Network (ARPANET) project begins.

1967
IMP.
1968

December: Contract to build the IMPs is won by Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (BBN). BBN designs the IMP (cf. BBN
1822).

1969

April: The discussion of the Host to Host Protocol begins with RFC 1. The Network Working Group (NWG) forms todeal with the task of HostSeptember: The ﬁrst IMP is delivered and connected to a SDS Sigma 7 computer at UCLA.
ﬁrst node of the ARPANET.
the network, and evaluate network performance.
SDS 940 Computer. The ﬁrst host-to-host message is sent across the network and received.
November: The third node of the ARPANET is installed at UCSB.
December: The fourth node of the ARPANET is installed at The University of Utah.

1970

to conﬁrm they are alive.
neighboring IMP.
1971

The ﬁrst host-to-host protocol is implemented, NCP (Network Control Program).
September: The Terminal IMP (TIP) is installed in the ARPANET, allowing direct terminal access to the network.

1972

March: SNGMSG and READMAIL allow the ﬁrst e-mail basic system on the ARPANET.

1973

1974

May: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), is speciﬁed. This protocol allowed for internetworking and eventuallyreplaced NCP.

1977
1978

March: TCP is split into TCP and IP, where TCP is the end-to-

1983

MILNET (Military Network) is split oﬀ of ARPANET, leaving the ARPANET with 68 nodes. The two networks areconnected by a gateway.

November: Domain Name System (DNS) is designed. (.com, .gov, .mil, .org, .net, .int)
1990
©

56

An Early History of
the Internet
By Leonard Kleinrock
IEEE -HKN Eminent Member

O b s e r v a t i o n s f r o m t h e o r i g i n s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e A R PA N E T

INTRODUCTION

drawing, or print.” Thirty years later, H. G. Wells

It is impossible to place the origins of the Internet in awhere knowledge and ideas are received, sorted,
summarized, digested, clariﬁed and compared.” These
ideas were followed by a 1945 essay [3] by Vannevar

logic, or even with the emergence of language itself. For
he called the memex, with which “Wholly new forms ofeach component of the massive infrastructure we call the encyclopedias will appear, ready-made with a mesh ofInternet, there are technical (and social) precursors thatrun through our present and our histories. We may seek
dropped into the memex and there ampliﬁed.”
to explain, or assume away, whatever range ofcomponent technologies we like. It is equally possible tonarrow Internet history down to speciﬁc technologies withcircumstances that formed our Internet emerged when
which we are the most familiar.
they did. Doing so is not possible from the scale of
There are also many individuals that may be said to have centuries or single individuals. This column’s focus is on“predicted” the Internet. In 1908, Nikola Tesla foresaw [1]a technology that would allow “a business man in New
technologies that were clearly not the Internet, from aappear in type at his oﬃce in London or elsewhere” andwould allow global access to “any picture, character,characterize our Internet, but were also built within it.
Thus, in this column we trace both the early history of the57

science and infrastructure that emerged as the ARPANET,
and the trajectory of development it set for the evenbroader construct that we now call the Internet.

THE RESEARCH THREAD
In January 19571 I began as a graduate student in electrical(MIT). It was there that I worked with Claude Shannon,
who inspired me to examine behavior as large numbers ofelements (nodes, users, data) interacted; this led me tointroduce the concept of distributed systems control andto include the study of “large” networks in my subsequent
thesis proposal. In that MIT environment I was surroundedby many computers and realized that it would soon beunderstanding, in which the extent of personal detail does
necessary for them to communicate with each other.
not imply a greater importance to the events presented. In
focusing on the work of individual researchers andInternet’s early history, I also oﬀer a personal account of
the same events, as an autobiographical element in thisstory. In doing so, I aim to further contextualize— my primary source
materials — with details from ﬁrsthand experience. This

the work of these individuals to link this story to thefactual historical record we will follow. There are, ofthat have yet to be told. The University of California at Los

research to solving this problem, and to develop thescience and understanding of networks that could

a magniﬁcent group of researchers and developers amidst“ The internet did notsuddenly appear as theglobal infrastructure it
i s t o d a y. . . ”

impact.

BEFORE THE BEGINNING: TWO
T H R E A D S T H AT M E E T
The Internet did not suddenly appear as the global
infrastructure it is today, and neither did it form

the late 1950s and early 1960s, two independent threads
were being woven. One was the research thread thateventually led to the packet switching networks of today’s
Internet. This thread followed three possible paths to thetechnologies that eventually emerged; the researchers
involved were, in chronological order, myself, Paul Baran, as is the case with circuit switching, would be extremely
and Donald Davies. Below we explore these three paths,
wasteful of those resources, whereas dynamic assignment
which were independently pursued in the quest to provide (I refer to this as “dynamic resource sharing” or “demanddata networking theory, architecture, andgrowth of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), as I sought to design a new kind of network. Its
technologies — a process that, as we will see, was by no
ARPANET. Once these threads merged, theeventually provide a structure for today’s packet-switched
networks.
This concept of resource sharing was emerging at that

other key contributors and successive stages ofcomputer power. Timesharing was based on the samedevelopment in Internet history. I present these threads
and phases chronologically so we can revisit the history as
demands, and thus expensive computer resources were
wasted when a computer was dedicated to a single user.
two earlier papers [4, 5].

58

1950s, the published literature contained almost no work

“I sought to develop amodel with dynamic
resource sharing,incorporating the factt h a t d a t a t r a ffi c w a s
unpredictable as wella s b u r s t y.”

this was the work by James Jackson, who published aclassic paper [8] on open networks of queues. As we see
below, I was able to apply Jackson’s result to represent
the data networks of interest by making serious
So the stage was set: There was a need to understand andthat could handle bursty data traﬃc, there was an
emerging approach based on resource sharing in-purpose
network that suggested it could be done, and there was abody of queueing theory that looked promising.

that while one user was idle, others would likely be busy.
This was an exquisite use of resource sharing. These ideas
had roots in systems like SAGE [6] and in the MIT-Sharing System (CTSS [7]), developed in model based on Jackson’s model to characterize a datasystems to be implemented). The principles andpurpose was to move data messages from their origin to-byhop fashion. Each channel
was modeled as a resource serving a queue of datasystems was accomplishing.

each other by links. The nodes receive, sort, store, andtransmit messages that enter and leave via the links….”
My underlying model assumed that the stream of
messages had randomly chosen lengths and, when applied

purpose data network that used resource sharing: thestore-and-forward telegraph network. The challenge I
faced was to create an appropriate model of general-turned out to be hopelessly intractable. I altered the2for such networks.

which tamed

To do this, I sought to develop a model with dynamic
was unpredictable as well as bursty. In order to clear up

measures of these networks. For example, I showed thatby scaling up the network traﬃc and bandwidth properly,

devote some space in the following paragraphs to discuss

network eﬃciency, and increase the network throughput,
all simultaneously [10].

ways to realize the former. The basic structure I chose wasthat of a queue since it is a perfect resource sharing
and does not wait for a message that is not there, but
Moreover, the performance measures one considers in

In the course of examining data network performance, it
became clear to me that it was important to explore theone introduced a priority queueing discipline on thetraﬃc. I chose to understand this inﬂuence in the case of asingle node ﬁrst and then to apply the results to the
1962, which turned out to be the ﬁrst paper [11] tointroduce the concept of breaking messages into smaller
ﬁxed-length pieces (subsequently named “packets,” as59

technology. I showed that these networks were eﬃcient,
this new network.3 Note that the ﬁxed length packets I
introduced did not match the randomly chosen lengths ofthe model, but fortunately, the key performance measure

Decades of important research on these topics have since
taken place around the world.
[17] on computer networks in 1964, the idea ofproperly reﬂected the behavior of ﬁxed length packets as
well.

contributor to packet switching was Paul Baran of thecommand and control systems during the early 1960s withthe goal of using redundancy and digital technology todetermining the network capacity assignment, thenetwork. He recognized the vulnerability of the telephone

control to one or a small number of nodes. This distributes
the control load (thereby not unduly loading any onenode), introduces the ability to change routes on the ﬂy“Packetization was anintegral part of a muchbroader body ofknowledge that had to
be developed to provethe case for data
networks .”the robustness of the network.
Whereas my focus was not principally on the engineering
details of packet networks, I did address engineering

conﬁrming the correctness of the theory. Theseexperiments included detailed message blocks (withnetwork due to its centralized architecture. In September
1962 he published a paper [18] on how “hot potato”
and more.4
of knowledge that had to be developed to prove the casefall under the “packet” umbrella, which will be addressed
below. His purpose was to create a network capable ofunderlying technology that led to ARPANET design

1964 he produced a set of 11 important reports [20]a core element of today’s networking technology, but it is
discovered the importance of going to digital networks
fundamental gain lies in dynamic resource sharing. It is
important to point out that there are many ways in which
dynamic resource sharing can be accomplished, withpacket switching being only one such method; othermethods include polling [12], message switching [13],(CSMA/CD) [15], and others.

packet switching for dynamic resource sharing, thus
providing the fundamental underpinnings for ARPANET

to convince them (presumably due to their analog
mindset). In 1965 RAND approached the Air Force toimplement it, but they deferred to the DCA5; at this point,further. Baran’s work was done independently of the workthat I had done earlier at MIT and, in many ways, theresults we achieved in addressing the problem of packet
networks were complementary.
The third early contributor to packet switching was Donald

60

United Kingdom. He began thinking about packet
networks in 1965 and coined the term “packet” that year.
In a privately circulated paper [21] dated June 1966, hedescribed his design for a data network and used myearlier theory to calculate its performance. Davies
lectured to a public audience in March 1967,
recommending the use of his technology for the design ofa public switched data network, and published an October
1967 paper [22] with his NPL group in which details of the“It was not enough to
put good ideas
forward, but it wasalso necessary to provethat the concepts were
quantitatively sound…”

the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry only

network design were described by the NPL team in 1968
[23, 24] and 1969 [25]; it is not clear where aan NPL packet-switched network was reminiscent of the

The work of Baran and Davies focused on the engineeringand architectural issues of the network design. My work

electronic computers.” This work envisaged a system “toenable men and computers to cooperate in making
inﬂexible dependence on predetermined programs”; he
SAGE system. Once again, we ﬁnd a forecast of what
— and Lick was
create that future were emerging. Although a visionary,Lick was not a networking technologist, so the challenge
was to ﬁnally implement such ideas.
In May 1962 Lick and Welden Clark outlined their views on
how networking computers could support social

showed that these networks were feasible. My trajectory
was more fortunate as the ARPA thread rolled out andadopted my principles for their design of the ARPANET,

and data [27]. This extended his earlier ideas of what henicknamed his group of computer experts “Thewere taken by Baran and then later by Davies, withLick was appointed as the ﬁrst director of ARPA’s newly

October 1962. He quickly funded new research intodragging of the U.K. government. It was not enough to put
advanced computer and networking technologies as wellgood ideas forward, but it was also necessary to proveas areas that involved mandistributed systems.
bring these ideas and designs to use.

T H E A R PA T H R E A D
of which Lick was also unaware. These ideas would soon
Let us step back chronologically and now pursue theintersect and reinforce each other in a series of key events
second thread: the role of ARPA in deﬁning the need for a
between 1962 and 1969. I joined the UCLA faculty in 1963.
Lick passed the directorship of IPTO to Ivan Sutherland, an
to enable its development, and providing the funding
MIT colleague of mine, in September 1964. In that role
Sutherland wished to connect UCLA’s three IBM
J. C. R. Licklider (“Lick”) entered the story when hemainframes in a three-node on-campus computer
published his landmark 1960 paper [26] “Man-Computer network, which would have been easy to accomplish with61

However, the UCLA network was never realized due to
ARPA-funded network had now been sown.
Early the next year (1965), Sutherland awarded Larry
Roberts (another MIT colleague of mine who was quite
familiar with my networking research) a contract to create

discipline, reliability, robustness, and cost. The other wasto create the appropriate protocols to be used by the8so that they could properly
communicate with each other.

States. Later that year, Roberts accomplished this in
University of Michigan, where ARPANET planning was
discussed in detail. It was there that the basic
network than the telephone network oﬀered [28].
Meanwhile, at ARPA, Sutherland recruited Robert Taylor
to become associate director of IPTO in 1965. While there,

among us PIs. For example, Wesley Clark put forward the“ These were criticalsteps in Internet
h i s t o r y, f o r n o t e v e n i nthe post-war UnitedStates didtechnological progress
fl o w d i r e c t l y f r o m
i d e a s .”few large expensive research computers across thecountry. This would allow them to share each other’s
fashion.6 Taylor then dropped into the oﬃce of the ARPA
director, Charlie Herzfeld, to request funding for thiswho knew how to make a fast decision, and within 20
for the project. Taylor, who had since succeeded
Sutherland as IPTO director in August 1966, brought inRoberts in to manage the networking project turned out toconcept of using an unmanned minicomputer at eachto the coming success of data networking.
The research and ARPA threads had now merged, and the
project would soon become the ARPANET.

Processor (IMP). This would oﬄoad the networking

the post-war United States did technological progress ﬂow
directly from ideas. In contrast to refusals from the private
sector to fund the beginnings of the project, ARPA madeavailable the will and funding of the U.S. government.7
ARPA’s management and support fostered the early
culture of shared, open research that was crucial to thesuccess of the ARPANET program.

THE BEGINNING:T H E A R PA N E T L A U N C H
The commitment to create the ARPANET was now in play.
Roberts was empowered to develop the network concept

the network design from any speciﬁc host hardware andmeasure of reliability of the planned network; this we
speciﬁed by requiring that the topological design9 produce
a “two-connected net,” thus guaranteeing that no single
failure would cause any nonYet another requirement we introduced was for the
network to provide an experience as if one were

network; for this we speciﬁed that short messages shouldlinks underlying the network infrastructure, with thethis was to start out as an experimental network, I insisted
that appropriate measurement tools be included in the62Figure 1. 19-node ARPANET as shown in the original RFQ.
Scantlebury, Roberts decided [30] to upgrade thepassed across the network, taking of snapshots of the IMP backbone line speed from 9.6 kb/s to 50 kb/s for the
ARPANET design.
and a mechanism for controlling these measurements.

10This culminated in
March 1968 when Roberts and Barry Wessler produced

outstanding plan for the ARPANET design and presented it
as a paper [29] at a conference in Gatlinburg, Tennesseein October 1967. At this conference, Roger Scantlebury of June 3, 1968, the ARPANET Program Plan [31] waspublished paper [22] describing a local network they were approved on June 21, 1968. The ARPANET procurement
process was now oﬃcially underway.
as well as some details of the work by Baran at RAND. The
research by myself at MIT, by Baran at RAND, and by
bidders. The 19-node example to be delivered by the
Davies, Scantlebury, et al. at NPL had all proceeded
contractor is shown in Figure 1.
independently, mostly without the researchers knowing
The handling of data streams speciﬁed that the hosts
about the others’ work. There was, though, some crosswould communicate with other hosts by sending
networks in his work; as a result of discussions at thisIMPs, that these messages would be broken into packets
conference, Roberts adopted Davies’ word “packet” for(of maximum length 1024 bits each — thus, at most 8
the small ﬁxed length pieces I had suggested we breakmessages into, and which Baran referred to as “message packets per message) by the IMP, and that IMPs would
blocks”; its ﬁxed length was chosen to be 1024 bits for the communicate with each other using these packets. The
movement of packets through the subnetwork of IMPs
ARPANET design (both Baran and Davies had suggested
was to be controlled by a distributed dynamically updated
this same length); as a result of the discussion with63

in packet transmission between IMPs
retransmission. Packets were to bereassembled into their originalof individuals, including my own
research. Roberts had been well aware
where we were oﬃcemates, later11“In order to plan to spend
millions of dollars and stake mythat it would work. Without Kleinrock’s
work of Networks and Queueing
Theory, I could never have taken such aradical step.” [33]
The RFQ resulted in 12 proposals being-node ARPANET (1969).
missing were IBM and AT&T). As these
proposals were being evaluated at
ARPA, Roberts awarded a research contract to me at UCLA
was most likely the ﬁrst programmer on the Internet byin October to create the Network Measurement Center
virtue of having done code design for the IMP in their 1968
(NMC). The task of the NMC was to measure the behavior
response to the RFQ. Whereas members of the BBN team- IMP
its faults, performance, and outer limits (through the useof stress tests). I was fortunate to have a star team12 of
was diﬃcult to do in a laboratory environment; the true
graduate student researchers, developers, and staﬀ forbehavior was more properly tested in the deployednetwork with real traﬃc and with many nodes, which islater in this story. A week before Christmas 1968, Bolt,
exactly what the NMC was designed to do. Basically, BBN
was given less than nine months to deliver the ﬁrst IMP to
was awarded the contract to develop the IMP-to-IMP
UCLA by early September 1969. Their performance was13
subnetwork. The BBN team, supervised by Frank Heart,
outstanding. The ﬁrst IMP at UCLA was to be followed byproduced some remarkable accomplishments. This teamthe second IMP in October to SRI, the third IMP in
had selected the Honeywell DDP-516 minicomputer with
November to the University of California at Santa Barbara
12 kb of memory for the program to be the machine on(UCSB), and the fourth IMP in December to the University
which the IMP would be based; they were contracted to-516, to connect these IMPs to
These four sites were selected due to their ability to
long-haul 50 kb/s lines leased by Roberts from AT&T under provide specialized network services and/or support.
the DoD Telpak tariﬀ, and to deploy the subnetwork. The-7 HostBBN team developed an elegant host-IMP design that met computer) would provide the NMC (under my
BBN Report 1822 [34] by Robert Kahn, who was in charge would provide Doug Englebart’s Human Intellectof the system design at BBN (Kahn appears later in thisstory in some very signiﬁcant roles, as we shall see below). in his NLS system) as well as serve as the Network
One of the BBN team, Dave Walden, points out that he64exchange ideas through a very informal set of notes theyreferred to as “Requests for Comments” (RFC). The ﬁrst
Culler’s and Burton Fried’s supervision), and the University-10 host computer) would in April 1969. Crocker became the second Chairman of the
NWG early on.
provide advanced 3D graphics (under the supervision ofIvan Sutherland). The fact that Heart and his team at BBN
We now had the two main ARPANET development eﬀorts
succeeded in delivering this new technology with newunderway:-budget? A formal contract with BBN to create the IMP-IMP
fashion was incredible.
subnetwork
But this contract to develop the underlying network was? An informal group of programmers (mostly graduate
only the ﬁrst of the two key tasks that were needed to
students) who were charged with developing the Host
deploy a working packet-switched network. Recall that
-to-Host Protocol
the other task was to create the appropriate protocols toThings began to move rapidly at this point. The date of theﬁrst IMP delivery, scheduled to arrive to us at UCLA in
early September 1969, was fast approaching. Meanwhile,

could properly communicate with each other.
This second task was assigned to the four chosen
ARPANET research sites to ﬁgure out on their own. Thus

could predict performance of the network based on mycharacterized the ARPANET culture. This thread actually
begins in the summer of 1968 when Elmer Shapiro of SRI,

traﬃc loads that the host sites would present to the
network. Roberts and I contacted a number of the earlyprogrammers from among those ﬁrst sites that were to be sites and asked them how much traﬃc they expected togenerate and to which other sites. We also asked themconnected into the ARPANET. Their main charge was tohow much traﬃc they would allow into their sites; to mystudy and resolve the issues of host-tohost
surprise, many refused to allow any traﬃc from the
network to use their hosts. Their argument was that theirprogrammer from each of the ﬁrst four sites to receive
IMPs as follows: Steve Crocker (UCLA), Jeﬀ Rulifson (SRI),
customer base. Eventually they relented and provided
Ron Stoughton (UCSB), and Steve Carr (University ofUtah). This group, plus the many others who joined later, their expected traﬃc loads. That traﬃc matrix was used in
the July 1968 RFQ [32] and in a paper I published [36],were soon to be named the Network Working Group(NWG) with Shapiro its ﬁrst chairman.14 UCLA’s Jon Postel thereby sealing their commitment.
served as the Request for Comments (RFC) editor (a role
On July 3, 1969, two months before the IMP was due toarrive, UCLA put out a press release [37] announcing theoﬃcial charter against which to work, and so were
imminent deployment of the ARPANET. In that release I
aﬀorded the unique opportunity to invent and create as
described what the network would look like, and what
needed. There was no sense of qualifying membership; allparagraph as saying, “As of now, computer networks are-speciﬁc
protocols). Basically, this was a highly resourceful, selfformed, collegial, loosely conﬁgured group of maverick
graduate students who we (the ARPA PIs) had empowered
the emerging network. They took on the challenge weceded to them and created an enduring NWG structurethat later led to today’s Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF).15
Once the IMPthe spring of 1969, the NWG began to focus on the lower
level issues such as message formats. They decided toof web-based IP services, that the “electric and telephoneanywhere to an always on and “invisible” network, andthat the “individual homes and oﬃces” comment
the powerful social networking side of the Internet and its
rapidly growing impact on our society.

65Figure 3. The entry in the original IMP log, which is the only recordof the first message transmission on the Internet.

On Saturday, August 30, 1969, the ﬁrst IMP arrived atconnected via a 15-foot cable to the UCLA host computer,our SDS Sigma- 7 machine. This established the ﬁrst nodeof the ﬂedgling network, as bits moved between the IMP
and the Sigmasigniﬁcant moment in the Internet’s history.

the o?,” and received “got the o.” UCLA then typed in the“g,” asked “did you get the g?,” at which point the systemcrashed! This was quite a beginning. So the very ﬁrst
message on the Internet was the prescient word “lo” (asin, “lo and behold!”). This, too, is regarded as a verysigniﬁcant moment in the Internet’s history.

The only record of this event is an entry in our IMP log
In early October the second IMP was delivered by BBN to recording it as shown in Figure 3. Here we see that on
October 29, 1969, at 10:30 pm, we at UCLA “Talked to SRI
SRI in Menlo Park, California. The ﬁrst high-speed link ofwhat was to become the Internet was connected between Host to Host.”
those two IMPs at the “blazing” speed of 50 kb/s. Later in
In November and December the IMPs and hosts at UCSB
October, SRI connected their SDS 940 host computer totheir IMP.
-node network. Further IMP
The ARPANET’s ﬁrst host-to-host message was sent at
10:30 p.m. on October 29, 1969 when one of mythis four-node network, and test it we did. Among otherprogrammers, Charley Kline, and I proceeded to “login” to things, we were able to conﬁrm with measurements somethe SRI host from the UCLA host. The procedure was for us
to type in “log,” and the system at SRI was set up to bethroughput as presented by Gerry Cole [38].
clever enough to ﬁll out the rest of the command, adding
The ARPANET had now been launched. We now turn tothe story of its rollout through its ﬁrst decade.
and Bill Duvall at the SRI end each had a telephoneheadset so they could communicate by voice as the
THE FIRST DECADE: FOUR
typed in the “l” and asked SRI “did you get the l?”; “got the N O D E S A N D T H E N T H E W O R L Dl” came the voice reply. We typed in the “o,” “did you get

66

December 1969, Roberts (who had succeeded Taylor in
September to become the IPTO director) once again met
with the NWG and urged them to extend their reachyear, BBN slipped in a “minor” feature called electronic
mail. Electronic mail had existed since the mid-1960s for“Host Protocol.” This led them to develop a symmetric
Host-towas called the Network Control Program (NCP) and was
described by Crocker in RFC 36 in March 1970 [39]. This
protocol stack was to reside in the host machines
themselves and included a hierarchy of layered protocols
to implement more complex protocols. As NCP began
deployment, the network users could begin to develop

1971 at BBN, Ray Tomlinson added a small patch to it thatallowed the mail to pass between diﬀerent computersﬁlesharing network program called CPYNET. Once he sawthat it worked, he sent an email message to his group at
BBN announcing this new capability, and so “The ﬁrst useof network email announced its own existence.” [42]. This
capability went out as a general TENEX release in earlyon the ARPANET, later to be succeeded by TCP/IP. The
trajectory of protocol stack development touched on

ﬁling, forwarding, and replying to email messages. In lessthan a year email accounted for the majority of the
network traﬃc. The network’s ability to extend

led the way from the ARPANET as it evolved into theInternet.
-

nascent image of Lick’s vision.
Later that year, in October 1972, the ﬁrst public

networks were then added to the ARPANET. In May 1970,
at the AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference, a
now had been hired into ARPA by Roberts, organized thisThe reaction of thecomputer manufacturers
to this ARPANET
phenomenon was tocreate proprietary
network architectures
based on their own brandof computers.

of terminals in Washington accessed dozens of hostreliable fashion for the threeconference.
ARPANET phenomenon was to create proprietary networkarchitectures based on their own brand of computers.16
open network that was the ARPANET thrived.
the earliest of which were those whose origins came out

papers [40] regarding the newly emerging ARPANET
technology; these papers were packaged into a special
ARPA pamphlet that was widely circulated in the-current
technology that had been deployed. (Two years later, in
May 1972, another key session at the same conference
updated the ARPANET state of the art; this, too, waspackaged into a second special ARPA pamphlet.) In mid1970 the ﬁrst cross-country link was added with acontained 10 IMPs. The net grew to 15 IMPs by March
1971. In September 1971 BBN introduced a terminalinterface processor (TIP) that conveniently would allow aterminal to connect directly to the ARPANET without thewith these diﬀerent networks proved to be a feasible but
not seamless interoperability issue, and it received a greatreferred to as “internetworking” during the 1970s, aneologism from which the expanded ARPANET was
eventually renamed as the Internet.
Let us brieﬂy trace the work on wireless networking thatpointed out above, these networks were based onchannel is accessed by many users. By late 1970, Norm
Abramson had developed AlohaNet [43] in Hawaii, a 9600

67

In 1972 Roberts extended
the ARPANET to Norway
over a leased line that
ARPA had alreadyinstalled to receive
seismic data and thenextended it to London in
the United Kingdom. Thisw a s t h e A R P A N E T ’ s fi r s t
international connection.

PARC built on this technology in eﬀorts to address thechallenges of internetworking. Implemented in 1974 andpublished in 1975, the PARC Universal Packet (PUP)
remained an internetwork architecture as late as 1979
improve on NCP, although as we see below, that role waslater taken on by TCP/IP. This is one of many stories thatcall out for more research into the histories and theindividuals involved.
Let us now return to the story of the above-

PUP). These technologies led to wireless networks thatheterogeneous networks.
The ﬁrst step was taken in December 1972, when an IMP
in California used a satellite channel to connect toAlohaNet through an ALOHA host in Hawaii. Thus, the-to-host Network
Control Protocol, NCP, was now connected to a groundof the involved packets from succeeding. This tolerance of radio packet network, the AlohaNet. This was the ﬁrst new
network to connect to the ARPANET. AlohaNet had its own
collisions was a departure from the more standard
protocol and was working independent of ARPANET, yet aaccess systems that used demand access methods
two. In 1972 Roberts extended the ARPANET to Norway
over a leased line that ARPA had already installed toreceive seismic data and then extended it to London in thecollisions). In 1973 Abramson calculated the capacity ofUnited Kingdom. This was the ARPANET’s ﬁrst
eﬃciency of 18 percent, and in 1972 Roberts calculated
built a gateway to connect the ARPANET to a network built[45] whose capacity was doubled to 37 percent. However,
was another case of diﬀerent networks “internetworking,”
access to shared channels: that they are fundamentally
unstable, and some form of dynamic control was needed focal point of ARPANET development, the network cameto be known as the Internet to reﬂect this growth. NCP
to stabilize them, for example, a backoﬀ algorithm to
was now handling the network- to-network
control the way in which collided transmissions are-access technique of random access. In thisscheme (unsynchronized) terminals transmit their ﬁxed

addressed by Lam and myself [46, 47].

access (CSMA) as another wireless access method. CSMA

basis for the original Ethernet development. Based onthese concepts, Metcalfe and David Boggs implemented
CSMA/CD on a coaxial cable network, which was up andrunning by November 1973. In sum, they created the
Ethernet, which is today perhaps the world’s mostpervasive networking technology [48]. Ethernet is crucial
to the story of NCP and TCP/IP, for researchers at Xerox

heterogeneous networks were becoming clear, andincluded the network-to-network protocol conversion
needed between any (and every) pair of networks thatwere interconnected. It was clear that the combinatorial
complexity of this pairwise protocol conversion would
networks scaled up. TCP/IP was soon to emerge as the
response chosen to address these problems.
At DARPA17 in early 1973, Kahn was the program manager
responsible for, among other things, the ground packet
radio network and the satellite packet radio network. He

68

unreliable transport in TCP came from Cohen, now joined
by John Shoch and Reed, and with involvement from
Crocker and Bob Braden. That is, they advocated(to which we refer the reader for more details). As a result

be supported alongside reliable data transport. Cohenconvinced Jon Postel of this, and Postel added a further

spearheaded by Roberts, was put forth that resulted in theupon protocol was based on virtual circuits — which was
to be the CCITT’s own equivalent of TCP — and was
adopted in 1976 [57]. During this period, the Network
Measurement Center (NMC) at UCLA was deeply involved

the principle of layering. Speciﬁcally we are trying to use
TCP to do two things: serve as a host level end-to-end
protocol, and to serve as an Internet packaging and

ARPANET. Bill Naylor and I published a summary of thetools used by the NMC as well as details of a weeklong

internetwork protocol is needed, and that TCP be usedstrictly as a host level end to-end-protocol.” [52] Postel
then went on to describe how to break TCP into “twocomponents: the hop-by-hop relaying of a message, andthe end-to-

1976 I published the ﬁrst book that described theground laid by NCP.

addressing and forwarding, from its transport-layer end-to
control, quality of service, retransmission, and more. TCP
Version 3 (1978) introduced the split into two
components, but it was only in TCP Version 4 (1980, withan update in 1981) that we see a stable protocol runningthat separated out the Internet Protocol (IP) from TCP(which now stood for Transport Control Protocol) and wasreferred to as TCP/IP. This version has come to be known
as IPv4. Along with the split into TCP and IP, the capability
to support unreliable transport (i.e., type 3 packet
unreliable transport support was the User Datagram
Protocol (UDP) [53].
In 1980 the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) declared[54] the TCP/IP suite to be the standard for DoD. In
January 1983, TCP/IP became the oﬃcial standard [55] for

did not comply with IPv4. Of course, Internet protocols
never stop developing, and the 1998 upgrade to Version 6“Of course, Internet
protocols never stop
developing, and the1998 upgrade to
Version 6 dramaticallyextends the address
space and introducess o m e s i g n i fi c a n t
securityenhancements.”

design, architecture, deployment, and detailed
measurements. A summary of the ARPANET principles andand measurement of packet networks; this paper was partcontains a number of key papers of that era [60]. One of
the ﬁrst measurements we made was to determine the-node
network shown in Figure 2; note that there are two paths
between these two nodes. Whereas only one path was
found that both paths were carrying traﬃc at the sameprocess of being deployed worldwide.
paths when the other path was tagged. Among the more
ARPANET and TELENET, other packet networks were being spectacular phenomena we uncovered were a series ofdesigned across the globe in this period. Peter Kirstein, in

69Nets,” RLE Quarterly Progress Report, MIT, Apr. 1962.
[12] J. F. Kurose, M, Schwartz, and Y. Yemini, “Controlling
Window Protocols for Time-produced unpredicted side eﬀects. These measurements

Oct. 3–6, 1983, pp. 75–84.
[13] G. R. Andrews, “The Design of a Message Switching System:

to inform us today. Moreover, it provided us, asEng., vol. SE-5, No. 2, Mar. 1979.

networks. In July 1975 responsibility for the ARPANET was-20: 603–609, June
1972.
[15] L. Kleinrock, Queueing Systems, Volume II: Computer

NMC had performed for almost six years, and was neveragain restored for the Internet.18
It is outside the scope of this column to address Internet
histories beyond those of its early period as the ARPANET.

and Delay, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.

abound, but I hope to have convinced the reader thatmany people contributed to its success. This early history Paper P-2626, Sept. 1962.
of the Internet, the ﬁrst decade of design and deployment [19] D. Hochfelder and P. Baran, An Oral History, IEEE History
Oral-

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Network,” unpublished memo, June 1966,

I want to thank Bradley Fidler, Mischa Schwartz, and thereviewers of this column and reprint for their helpful

Network

REFERENCES

Computers Giving Rapid Response At Remote Terminals,” ACM
Symp. Op. Sys. Principles, Gatlinburg, TN, Oct. 1967.

A partial list of selectedreferences[1] W. W. Massie and C. R. Underhill, “The Future of the
Wireless Art,” Wireless Telegraphy
and Telephony, 1908, pp. 67–71.
[2] H. G. Wells, World Brain, Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1938.
[3] J. Nyce and P. Kahn, From Memex to Hypertext — Vannevar
Bush and the Mind’s Machine, Academic Press, Inc. 1991
[4] L. Kleinrock, “History of the Internet and Its Flexible Future,”
IEEE Wireless Commun., Feb. 2008, pp. 8–18.
[5] B. Leiner et al., “The Past and Future History of the Internet,”Commun. ACM, vol. 40, no. 2, Feb. 1997, pp. 102–08.
[6] K. C. Redmond and T. M. Smith, From Whirlwind to MITRE:
The R&D Story of The SAGE Air Defense Computer, The MIT
Press, 2000.
Experimental Time-Sharing System,” AFIPS Conf. Proc., vol. 21,
1962 SJCC, pp. 335–44.

Network for Computers and Remote Peripherals,” Proc. IFIP
Hardware (Edinburgh1968) D1.
Design of a Message Switching Centre for A Digital1968) D26.
[25] R. A. Scantlebury, “A Model for the Local Area of a Data

GA, Oct. 13–16, 1969, pp. 183–204.
[26] J. C. R. Licklider, “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” IRE Trans.
Human Factors in Electronics, vol. HFE-1, Mar. 1960, pp. 4–11.
[27] J. Licklider, and W. Clark, “On-Line Man-Computer
Alto, CA, May 1962, vol. 21, pp. 113–28.
Network of Time-Shared Computers,” Fall AFIPS Conf., Oct
1966.

Research, vol. 5, no. 4, Aug. 1957, pp. 518–21.
Nets,” Ph.D. thesis proposal, MIT, May 1961.
Networks,” INFORMS-–Feb. 2002.

Principles, Gatlinburg, TN, Oct. 1967.
[30] See the fourth entry under “1967” in70

[43] N. Abramson, “The AlohaNet — Surﬁng for Wireless Data,”
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 47, no. 12, Dec. 2009, pp. 21–25.
[44] “The ALOHA System —[31] L. Roberts, “Resource Sharing Computer Networks,” June
load_djvu_applet.php?ﬁle=0/items/
ResourceSharingComputerNetworks/ResourceSharingComputerNetworks.djvu

1970, pp. 281–85.
[45] L. G. Roberts, “ALOHA Packet System with and without
Slots and Capture,” ARPA Network Info. Center, Stanford
ARPA Computer Network,” Department of the Army DBD/bj/OX Research Inst., Menlo Park, CA, ASS Note 8 (NIC 11290), June
51972.
DIGITAL_ARCHIVE/ARPANET/RFQ-ARPA-IMP.pdf
Satellite Channel,” AFIPS Conf. Proc., vol. 42, Nat’l. Comp.
SIGCOMM99_ﬁles/v3_document.htm
Conf., New York, June 1973, AFIPS Press, pp. 703–10.
Broadcast Channel: Dynamic Control Procedures,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. COM-23,Sept. 1975, pp. 891–904.
[48] R. Metcalfe and D. Boggs “Ethernet: Distributed Packetrfcs/rfc1.html
Switching for Local Computer Networks,” Commun. ACM, vol.
[36] L. Kleinrock, “Models for Computer Networks,” Conference 19, no. 5, July 1976, pp. 395–404.
Record, IEEE ICC, Boulder, CO, June 1969, pp. 21-9–21-16.
[49] D. R. Boggs et al., “Pup: An Internetwork Architecture,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., COM- 28, no. 4, pp. 612–24, Apr., 1980,
p. 26.
www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/LK/Bib/REPORT/press.html.
[50] V. G. Cerf and R. E. Kahn, “ A Protocol for Packet Network-22, V[38] G. C. Cole, “Computer Network Measurements;
Techniques and Experiments,” UCLA School of Engineering and 5, May 1974, pp. 627–41.
Applied Science, Engineering Report UCLA-ENG-7165 Oct. 1971. [51] D. Cohen, S. Casner, and J. W. Forgie, “A Network Voice
Protocol NVP-II,” ISI/RR-81-90, Apr. 1981.
[39] S. Crocker, RFC 36, “Protocol Notes”;[52] J. Postel, “Comments on Internet Protocol and TCP,” IEN 2,[40] Special session on the ARPANET in Proc.
1977.
Spring Joint Comp. Conf., AFIPS Conf. Proc.,[53] J. Postel, “RFC 768 — User Datagram Protocol,” 1980;
vol. 36, May, 1970, pp. 543–97:[54] G. P. Dinneen, “Host-toL. G. Roberts and B. D. Wessler, “Computer Network
Development to Achieve Resource Sharing,” pp. 543–49.
F. Heart et al., “The Interface Message Processor for the ARPA ien152.txt
Computer Network,” pp. 551–67.
Network Design,” pp. 569–79.
H. Frank, I. T. Frisch, and W. S. Chou, “Topological–
87.
S. Carr, S. Crocker, and V. Cerf. “HostProtocol in the ARPA Network,” pp. 589–98.
[41] Special session on the ARPANET in Proc. Spring Joint Comp.
Conf., AFIPS Conf. Proc., vol. 40, May, 1972:
S. M. Ornstein et al., “The Terminal IMP for the ARPA Computer
Network,” pp. 243–54.

[56] P. T. Kirstein, “The Early History of Packet Switching in theUK,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 47, no. 2, Feb. 2009, pp. 18–26[57] T. Rybcznski, “Packet Switching (1975–1985): A Canadianpp. 26–31.
[58] L. Kleinrock and W. Naylor, “On Measured Behavior of theConf., Chicago, IL, May 1974, AFIPS Press, pp. 767–80.
[59] L. Kleinrock, “Principles and Lessons in Packet–29.

Network —255–70.
-Oriented Protocols for the ARPA
Computer Network,” pp. 271–79.
-Computer
R. H. Thomas, D. A. Henderson, “McROSS —Programming System,” pp. 281–94.

66, no. 11, Nov. 1978.

ENDNOTES
1 Later that year on October 4, I experienced a widely sharedfeeling of surprise and embarrassment when the Soviet Union

Technology to a Hand Held Personal Terminal,” pp. 295–98.

President Eisenhower created ARPA on February 7, 1958 toregain and maintain U.S. technological leadership.

openmap.bbn.com/~tomlinso/ray/ﬁrstemailframe.html

2

.

71

3 One of the important advantages of using packets turned out 14 The names of some of the other key individuals whoto be that short messages would not get “trapped” behind long
Danny Cohen, Bill Duvall, Michel Elie, Jack Feinler, Jon Postel, andJoyce Reynolds.
4-kleinrocks-correspondence-course 15
have served the network community. In spite of the fact that they
-and-research-notes-1961-1972/oclc/263164964?
are loosely structured and involve large numbers of outspoken
referer=brief_results
professionals, they have been able to move forward on a number
5—
16 Among the proprietary networks were IBM’s SNA and DEC’s
DISA.
DECnet.
6
17 ARPA was renamed DARPA in March 1972 when the word
— and“Defense” was prepended.
specifically, Second Strike Capability— in the event of a nuclear
18
from BBN since it was they who controlled any changes to the
ARPA began work on the ARPANET, my work was used for the
discovered a lockup, hardware problem, or other measured
network problem, we alerted BBN so that they would take
This is not to take away from Baran’s accomplishments; indeed,

stepped back into the ARPA foray in 1974
–1975 to recommend

as have so many other technical advances over the course ofhistory. In this case I have called out three with which I was
beside the original research-driven network).
personally involved: AT&T's lack of interest in packet switching,
7 In sharp contrast to ARPA’s enthusiasm for networking, in the the researchers’ reluctance to connect to the early network, andearly 1960s, when I introduced the ideas of packet-switched
the abovenetworks to what was then the world’s largest networking
company, AT&T, I met with narrow-minded and failed thinking,and was summarily dismissed by them. They commented that
About the author
packet switching would not work, and even if it did, they wanted
8 A major challenge for such a network was that it would connect
9 To assist with the topological design, Network Analysis
in as a contractor.

internet are well -documented. Over the
span of his 50-year career at UCLA, he
has graduated 48 PhD students andtaught thousands more. He judges these10
Westervelt, Elmer Shapiro, Glen Culler, and myself.
11

University, Kleinrock has co -founded anumber of successful companies andenjoys biking, skiing, marathoning,karate and world travel. His webpage
can be found at www.lk.cs.ucla.edu.

12 Key members of my UCLA team included a research team(Jerry Cole, Al Dobieski, Gary Fultz, Mario Gerla, Carl Hsu, Jack
DeLoche, Charley Kline, Bill Naylor, Jon Postel), a hardware
engineer (Mike Wingfield), and others.
13 Key members of Heart’s team included Ben Barker, Bernie
Thach, Dave Walden, and others.

ne, August 2010.

72