The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 CHARLES STARK DRAPER October 2, 1901-July 25, 1987 BY ROBERT A. DUFFY CHARLES STARK DRAPER, a complex genius of the twentieth century, was truly a modern version of the Renaissance man. A teacher, scientist, and engineer by profession, but self-described as a ''greasy thumb mechanic,'' he was born in the American Midwest at the turn of the century, October 2, 1901. He grew up in the small Missouri town of Windsor, the son of the town dentist. He went through the town's public school system and entered college when he was fifteen years old at the Rolla campus of the University of Missouri as a liberal arts student. After two years at Rolla, he transferred to Stanford University from which he graduated in 1922 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology. Among all of the other things at which he excelled, "Doc" understood human beings and he understood how to challenge them. The psychology curriculum probably did no harm, but instinctively Doc knew how to lead and how to get people to follow towards a common goal. He naturally interacted well with people. He liked and was interested in his students and his colleagues, and his students and colleagues loved him in return. Above all; however, despite his empathy with and for people, he lived for his technology and his life became the technology he nurtured to useful maturity.

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 He often told the story of hitching a ride across the continent in September of 1922 with friends, as a lark really, following graduation from Stanford. Crossing the Charles River from Boston over the Harvard bridge the new MIT campus, on the Cambridge side, attracted his attention. His friends went on to Harvard. Doc not only wandered about MIT but got so interested in what was going on that he enrolled himself. In another four years he had earned a Bachelor of Science degree in electro-chemical engineering. Despite short defections, he essentially remained at MIT for the rest of his life. Legend has it that he took more courses at MIT than any one else has ever taken. He earned a Master's degree in 1928 and a Doctorate in Physics in 1938, both at MIT. There was another story Doc told about how he placed a numbered slip or chit in the back pages of each volume of his Doctoral dissertation. When he met with his examining committee in defense of his thesis, he asked for the chits from the reviewers, all of whom he'd worked with for ten years or more. Each chit authorized the examiner who had read that much of the thesis one bottle of scotch whisky; none were cashed. Doc was supported as a research associate at MIT for a dozen or so years after his bachelor's degree. A Sloan fellowship and a Crane Automotive fellowship, for instance, paid his way in the Taylor brothers' Aeronautical Power Plant Laboratory. As a research associate and with industrial support from the Sperry Gyroscope Company, he invented a number of interesting devices, one of which was an engine detonation or "knock" indicator. At that time leaded fuel additives were being developed by others. The measurement of detonation in the engine cylinder was difficult to do precisely. Draper devised the technology for that measurement using a simple cylinder head-mounted

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 accelerometer. His instrumentation permitted him in time to create a more comprehensive system involving multiple "knock" indicators. The system became vital in over-water flying years later. The resultant real-time engine analyzers, manufactured in large numbers by Sperry, were installed on multi-cylinder engines and allowed the aircrew to lean engine fuel-air ratios to the point where detonation just began to occur. Changing the mixture ratio slightly below that critical point eliminated "knock," regulated engine temperature, and minimized fuel consumption—a key at that time to over-ocean flight safety. Doc's involvement with MIT became convincingly more permanent by the mid-1930s when he became an assistant, then an associate professor of aeronautical engineering. By 1939 he was a full professor. It was during those early days, however, before advancing as a member of the junior faculty, that he tried and failed to become an Air Corps pilot. A tendency towards air sickness was revealed during simulated flight in a crude multi-axis dynamic simulator. Perhaps as a consequence of this rejection he enrolled in and quickly passed a civilian course qualifying him to fly. He acquired an airplane with an associate, and after some flying recognized the need to improve the pilot's flight instrumentation. He taught a course in aircraft instruments concurrently. To make his point about instrumentation inadequacies, he took Professor Jay Stratton, later to be president of MIT, up in his airplane and showed him how one used the flight instruments, indicating shortcomings he had perceived. He caused the airplane to perform stalls and spins over Boston's outer harbor. Professor Stratton was duly impressed by the inadequacy of the instrumentation and Draper's ideas about needed improvements. He did not fly again with Draper! In his memoirs Stratton remarked that one never knew

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 who was the instructor and who was the student with Doc in the class. Draper was so conscientious and so dedicated that he scrupulously worked every problem in great detail. Normally he came back able to tell the professor more about the problem than the professor understood. That is a trait that many have noted in Draper. He understood the details and he knew mastery of those details was vital. He stressed understanding the physical significance of what was going on in the process he was attempting to control, maintain, or teach. Once one grasped the physical principles of what was going on, the mathematics one applied to the problem became greatly simplified. The concept of understanding the physical significance of an event or process was so fundamental that most of his students never forgot it. They believed that Doc had so thorough an understanding of the subject matter that it was all right if he illustrated fine points in his lecture by telling magnificent stories about flying his Curtiss Robin. He was an entertaining lecturer. That took the mathematical magic and a lot of the mystery out of the instrumentation problems he sought to explain. Of course, there was always a day of reckoning. Later there would be an examination that would have been put together by Professor Sidney Lees, Professor Walter Wrigley, or Professor Walt McKay, all of whom were associates. The answer had to be stated, by the way, in Draper notation—Doc's self-defining mathematical notation, a noble experiment which never quite captured the hearts and minds of either the educators or the educatees. Draper really provided three major thrusts in his life's work: measurement of physical processes, primarily the instrumentation of dynamic geometry; the systems engineering of those processes in the larger context of new concepts; and finally, the education of the engineering profession. Following his early experiments with basic instruments he

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 used that knowledge to seek the solution of the dynamic geometry problems associated with gunfire control, both on fixed-wing aircraft-mounted guns and with deck-mounted anti-aircraft guns. The second major thrust was the systems study, analysis, and synthesis which came from using instrumentation to measure quantities which are part of a larger issue. Here his conceptualization and vision were applied to what we later termed the systems engineering process. The solution was usually implemented by some control means using intelligence from the sensory elements processed through what Draper termed the informetics of some computational element. Using that information to change, through a comparator, a state so that a new control function could be performed is the essence of, for instance, the aircraft flight control process—in effect a simple adaptive control. An effector moved or regulated so that a desired configuration of control surfaces resulted in new aircraft flight vector alignments is the example—much more complicated systems evolved combining vehicle controls with fire control. In the development of this process, Draper and his people, with Dr. Bob Seamans leading in the late 1940s and early 1950s, developed and demonstrated the first all-attitude adaptive autopilot. The system was installed in an early version of the two place Lockheed F94 jet interceptor. The aircraft was flown out of the Bedford Flight Facility of the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory on Hanscom Field. Draper had assembled there a mini-Air Force with his own air crews and maintenance personnel. Both Air Force and Navy aircraft covered the ramp in front of his hangar. Rocket and gunfire control systems, the early inertial navigation systems, and later the MIT student-built manpowered aircraft and the sailplanes of the MIT soaring society, all shared the same facility well into the 1980s.

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 Draper was also the entrepreneur who was capable of seeing a total problem and its solution as an harmonious amalgam of the sub-elements he knew in such detail. In this role his concept of automatic navigation and control for naval vessels and for aircraft and missiles suggested to him a whole new environment for military activities. Aircraft inertial navigators—SINS (the submarine inertial navigation system) and the ballistic missile guidance systems—were designed and prototyped in this country first by his laboratory. In the age of Apollo, the unheard of challenge of putting men on the moon safely and safely returning them to Earth appealed to Doc as a prime application for his technology. The creation of the guidance, navigation, and control elements of the Apollo program were inspired by Draper, although many others made fundamental contributions and younger, more energetic engineers in his unit actually implemented the designs. Underlying all of that was the third, and perhaps most important of all his interests, the education process that he created when he had both the MIT Aero Department and his Instrumentation Lab under his direct control in the 1950s. "Mens et Manus," minds and hands—the MIT motto—had real meaning in this context. The invention and creation of the elements that went with measuring and controlling complex functions and processes served as a superb environment for learning. This happy set of conditions pertained in both the Aeronautical Power Plant Laboratory and in the Instrumentation Laboratory, which Draper created at the time the fire control systems were coming into being. The people whom it took to understand his methodology and who were able to follow his brilliant leadership, he chose out of the academic side of his activity at the Department of Aeronautical Engineering. The Instrumentation Laboratory itself, the Department of Aeronautical

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 Engineering and its distinguished faculty, and the long list of his students, led by him into leadership positions, are as much his legacy as the magnificent systems capabilities he created. It is that story which makes Stark Draper the paragon he grew to be. One needs to keep in mind in all this that he was a very human character—one of many, many facets. Totally involved, he radiated energy and self confidence. The simple father image of a man of devotion and care for his extended family is not enough. His entrepreneurial spirit and verve, concepts like navigating in a "black box" so that a submerged vehicle can know its position and velocity without external reference, the creation of spacecraft and booster guidance systems, and a mathematical language—the unsuccessful Draper notation—optimalization as a control theory, the conceptualization (with Milton Trageser) of a Mars Mission in the 1950s, were as much a part of this genius as his care and concern for children and the young as students. He was dogged and of course at times dogmatic. He had friends in the Soviet technocracy whom he knew as the humans behind the official image. He flew with and chatted in a familiar fashion with President Lyndon Johnson. He knew the names of all or nearly all the technicians in his laboratory. Secretaries called him "Doc." If he missed on remembering their names, "darling'' sufficed and satisfied. He was their friend. Somewhat a gourmet, he frequently gathered a group of the secretaries and a few staff people and took the gathering to Locke Obers restaurant for lunch. On occasion a larger contingent would join him for dinner at the Athens Olympia or at one of the excellent Chinese restaurants in Boston's Chinatown. He had a grand manner about him during the meals. The restaurant proprietors appreciated him and the lab folks became more family. He really worked the laboratory interpersonal problems at those times. He was effective.

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 Draper's attention to detail and thorough knowledge of all factors governing the performance of the systems he designed or whose design he greatly influenced are best illustrated by the experience he and his laboratory had with the single-degree-of-freedom rate integrating floated gyro. It was developed in the 1940s in Draper's laboratory. Industrial organizations in this country and abroad following his lead. Although Draper's primary attention was devoted to this instrument, he did get himself deep into the development of the gyro accelerometer which, with other devices, was perfected at the Instrumentation Laboratory. Draper had experience from the early days of the fire control developments with unfloated instruments. They evidenced sensitivities to acceleration and vibration which would make them poor performers for the precision high dynamic environment applications he had in mind. He began with a program to understand the properties of the materials involved. Perhaps most fundamental was the structural material itself. The Draper gyros were cylinders floated in a narrow gap (a few thousandths of an inch) inside a cylindrical container. The long axis of the cylinder, used as the torque summing member, was the output axis of the instrument. Inside the cylindrical float and perpendicular to that axis was the spin axis of the gyroscopic wheel. The third axis, orthogonal to the other two, became the gyro's input axis. The basic performance equation of the instrument says that the torque on the output axis of the gyroscope is proportional to the angular momentum of the gyro wheel assembly and the rate of turning about the input axis. The plane defined by the input axis and the gyro wheel spin axis is the reference surface, and the wheel resists twisting motion out of that plane. Since the input axis was aligned either to ship coordinates, a major axis of an aircraft, or other inertial or vehicular reference, the resultant torque on the out-

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 put axis of the sensing instrument, balanced by the damping of the flotation, created an angular rotation of the output axis. The signal generator of the output axis generated a precise indication of the direction and rate at which the instrumented axis of the moving vehicle was turning. To minimize uncertainties on that torque summing member, it was important that no forces or torques appear inside the instrument that were not a direct response to the angular motions of the aircraft or the reference system in which the sensing gyroscope was installed. Magnetic suspensions were developed in time to refine the flotation of the sensing element. Invar, an alloyed steel, was the original forged structural material. Invar was strong, but it was heavy. Aluminum, much lighter, followed, and combinations of Invar and aluminum evolved in structures in the instrument industry of the day. Draper was not satisfied with the way these materials held their dimensions under acceleration and with changes in time, temperature, and pressure. He experimented with alternatives, and he particularly relied on the MIT materials scientists during the process. Slowly over the years he began to appreciate the dimensional stability of the powdered beryllium materials then being formed into structures by the Atomic Energy people. Les Grohe, a staff member in his lab, took the lead on this subject. The structures fabricated of beryllium were sintered and, therefore, had no preferred axis of strain. The resultant shapes were light and had strength properties very close to those of steel. The early material was not quite the ideal because it was notch-sensitive and therefore difficult to machine, and during machining operations there were potential health hazards to the operators. Draper got himself involved in industrial health medicine as a consequence. A very capable safety engineer at MIT, Alice Hamilton, collaborated with him.

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 The result of this teamwork was that the initial cleanliness and safety standards for machining and handling beryllium were developed. Since the wheel of the gyro was spun on an axis normal to the torque summing or output axis of the instrument, it was important that the wheel not shift axially when loaded down by acceleration forces. Draper developed, to a state of perfection not seen elsewhere in the industry, the instrument class of ball bearing. These instrument bearings on the rotor axis were pre-loaded and caged separately to prevent axial shift. The materials for the races, balls, the lubricant, the cage, or separator, as well as the shaft, were carefully controlled and developed under Draper's long-term guidance. He was fascinated by the performance of the wheel itself, and never quite became comfortable with the gas sleeve bearings which finally evolved as the configuration of choice in the highest performance instruments that his own laboratory produced. He did not exactly fight the replacement of ball bearings by the gas instrument rotor bearings, but he certainly could never be termed their champion. He contended that the starting friction and particularly the friction during power-off rundown of the wheel, would damage the shaft and rotor surfaces of the gas sleeve bearing so that over the long-term the instrument would fail. Predictable characteristics for wheels equipped with either bearing type were empirically determined. One could, for instance, time the rundown of a wheel when power was removed, measure running amperage, measure start-up voltage, and measure power delivered to the wheel. From those quantities and the long history on bearing life that had been accumulated, an accurate prediction of the ball bearings' demise could be determined. The performance of these instruments was of such a nature that any conceivable mission at the time would fit well around the availability of the

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 Typical of such criterion was the provision for ''restart" in the guidance and control digital computer used in the command and service module and identically in the lunar landing module. The logical succession designed into the computer was such that flight-critical functions were performed with priority, and other functions were performed when the computer had time to accommodate them. In establishing the check list for lunar descent, a NASA functionaire did not demand that the rendezvous radar be in the "off" or a standby position for the landing operation. Apollo 11 caused some tense moments when in real time this provision for restart in the computer was proven to be a wise one. The computer receiving multiple pulses from the unneeded and unwanted rendezvous radar ignored them, but displayed alarms indicating it was overloading. Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and the ground control crew at Houston knew the computer design was such that the essential tasks for landing would be accomplished but it was a distraction to have the alarm and "restart" functioning at so critical a time in the lunar descent. Today's far more competent computers would easily cope with the capacity and speed problem which taxed the early designers but possibly would have permitted less stringent programming rules and more margin for error. At any rate, the conservatism built into the instructions the computer got before flight clearly saved the day—and reemphasized Doc's important design criterion to keep the design tolerant of the unknown unknowns. Dave Hoag, the systems engineer Draper chose to conduct the Apollo amalgamation, and the team he had developed for Polaris moved naturally and effectively into engineering control of the Apollo effort at the laboratory. Reliability, dependability, and adaptability to the situations likely to occur and, where possible, tolerance to those pos-

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 sible but unlikely to occur in a manned space environment were key design considerations. The Apollo inertial system was a take-off from the Polaris designs using the same instruments in a different gimbal system. An optical sighting capability, a sextant built into the structural base of the navigation system and referenced to the gyroscopic axes gave the system long-term autonomy. Since the system was manned and a communication link had to be available, the console permitted updated information from the ground-tracking net to be entered into the guidance system. All features of the Command Module's guidance capabilities had been tested in space by the completion of the Apollo 8 mission to circumnavigate the moon. The moon did interrupt the transmission path, of course, so Draper's claim for autonomy was met. Simulators were developed early on at Draper's laboratory in their primitive form. Later, much more elaborate simulations were assembled as NASA facilities. There were no significant surprises as a consequence. The actual landing on the moon during Apollo 11 was the proof test of the complete guidance and control system. Draper's philosophy as an educator was actually a near-perfect example of what the MIT motto, "Mens et Manus," was meant to extol. In this activity he was not always appreciated by the faculty where worries about a "trade school" reputation prevailed. The MIT administration vacillated in its support. One tower of strength early on was Nathaniel Sage, director of MIT's Division of Industrial Cooperation, who encouraged Draper during the tough early years of the Instrumentation Laboratory's formation and growth. Sage fought Draper's battles at the top. Later that task fell to Albert G. Hill, a Physics Department professor, who, after Radiation Lab experience during World War II, advanced to MIT vice president for research, a successor position to

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 that of "Nat" Sage earlier. His responsibility for Lincoln Laboratory, on campus research, and the Draper Laboratory included well over half of the institute's annual budget and gave him a commanding influence. Without Hill, the transition of the former Instrumentation Laboratory, which had been renamed The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, from a member of the MIT family to a distant cousin status might not have occurred so smoothly and efficiently and possibly not at all. Hill brought with him two superb administrators: Dave Driscoll performed spectacularly in managing the new company's at first nonexistent finances, and Joe O'Connor handled the laboratory administration. Draper had very little interest in either of these essential functions, but the lab as a stand-alone corporation would have sunk without these services. Draper produced an impressive group of graduates of his courses in aircraft instruments, the Aero Department itself where he served as department head between 1951 and 1966, and of course the Instrumentation Lab, its predecessor activities, and the subsequent C. S. Draper Laboratory. The latter is still connected to MIT by a Memorandum of Agreement sharing research and, significantly, joint education activities. It is appropriate in this treatment of Dr. Draper's professional life to dwell on this element of the story. A few examples can illustrate one more facet of this extraordinary individual's nature. During the 100th anniversary of the invention of the telephone celebrated at MIT in 1976, a distinguished graduate, member of the MIT Corporation, and former president of the Bell Telephone Laboratories surprised his escort during a tour of the just completed Draper Laboratory facilities by stating that he might have been Draper's first paid employee! Dr. James Fisk had been a research associate in the MIT Aero Department at the

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 Aeronautical Power Plant Laboratory where Draper had been his supervisor. The listing of distinguished proteges and students always risks the inadvertent omission of important personages. It is not attempted here. Despite that hazard it is estimated that four to five hundred active duty military officers came under Draper's influence in their professional education. They range from four-star flag officers through the ranks to second lieutenants and ensigns—and all services are represented in their ranks. Rivals of Draper's have complained that "he grew his own contracting officers." While there is some truth in the allegation, since many of those individuals did serve as key decision makers later in their careers, it can scarcely be claimed that this was to the disadvantage of the country. Draper himself remained a university professor and reaped no financial gain personally. His laboratory to this day remains a not-for-profit corporation whose assets are held in trust (by its charter) for the people of the United States. Many senior executives in industry today share a common background which includes undergraduate and graduate education at MIT in the Aero Department, or with research association to the Draper Laboratory. Every major aircraft corporation and most electronics organizations are seeded with his proteges. Government has been and still is sprinkled with graduates usually in senior engineering roles or in major executive roles where the agency has a technical mission. The academic world not only has his graduates in senior administrative roles from president through department heads but, the supreme accolade, in departments which copy his course content and his philosophy of "Mens et Manus" as well. During the fifteen years, 1951 through 1966, of Draper's tenure as department head at MIT's Aeronauti-

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 cal Engineering (later Aero and Astro Department), 1,642 degrees were awarded, approximately 100 doctoral level and 70 engineer level were included in that total. These statistics attest to his success on the third thrust of his professional life. James Killian, in his The Education of a College President, suggests the most difficult task facing the then-president of MIT in the late 1960s, Howard Johnson, was the consequences of the attacks being made on the Instrumentation Laboratory because of its association with the military services and the Defense Department. Draper's laboratory was essentially "on" campus. The shared overhead of the institute roughly proportionally split costs between the academic departments representing a quarter of the institution's budget and the lion's share of the remainder represented by Al Hill's area of responsibility—losing the Instrumentation Lab as a revenue source was a significant trauma to the fiscal managers. The overwhelming majority of the student body was not really concerned. There was, however, a very vocal and effective minority who did stage loud and flamboyant demonstrations. MIT has a subway stop on the Boston Cambridge red line, a convenience not lost on the organizers who imported like-minded sympathizers from the many other Boston area colleges and universities, and from some of the communes and special interest groups active at the time. Draper was never personally offended by the demonstrators. He frequently met and talked with them and on occasion was known to take a few to lunch. A goodly share of the faculty was perhaps most influential at the time the decision to divest the Draper Lab had to be made. It is, however, important to note that no vote of the faculty was ever taken on the issue. It is probably best for all concerned that the vote was not taken. Doc was hurt by the decision to divest his beloved creation. To the lasting

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 gratitude of the nation and particularly the military the separation was accomplished with a minimum of disruption. Al Hill made the personal commitment of his considerable talents to make the transition work, a task he accomplished with one foot in each camp. Draper maintained his poise and gained the respect of the MIT management by quietly devoting himself to the lab's success and maintaining the connection to MIT from which he had retired as an Institute Professor Emeritus. He did not join in any of the public clamor after the decision was made. He did defend the lab vigorously in faculty debate before the divestiture. MIT did not gain nor did it seek to gain financially from the decision. Draper died in the summer of 1987 on a Saturday night, the 25th of July. The MIT community (along with the Draper Laboratory) honored him in a memorial service during the fall academic session of 1987, when his long-term friends and colleagues had returned to the campus. MIT has two endowed chairs in his name (for junior faculty members) in the Aeronautics and Astronautics Department. The Draper Laboratory awards graduate fellowships at MIT in his name and supports military officers studying for graduate degrees at MIT, also in Draper's name. Dr. Draper was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and as a foreign associate member to the French Academy of Sciences. He was president of the Von Karman Foundation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the National Inventors Council. He had many academic honorary degrees and citations. The Board of Directors of the Draper Laboratory authorized an annual award in Draper's name to be administered by the National Academy of Engineering. The award honors the engineer who has contributed most to engineering

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 in the opinion of the NAE-appointed selection committee. The award approximates the Nobel award in value, and is permanently endowed and may be awarded as frequently as annually. Draper's passing took from us an innovative, insightful, productive leader of very rare qualities. His warmth and humor lightened many a heavy discussion. He could get to the nugget of an argument rapidly and he saw elements of an issue most of us would miss. In his Wright Brothers lecture to the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, he surprised his audience by selecting the flight control contributions of the Wrights as their most significant achievement. He noted that they, unlike Langley and others, destabilized the aircraft by having the nose pitch down, except when the human operator exerted back pressure on the control column. Inertial navigation was another grossly different way in which to look at the process of getting from here to there. He was different. Dr. Draper is survived by his wife, the former Ivy Hurd Willard, and four children, James, Martha Draper Ditmeyer, John, and Michael. The Drapers lived for many years in Newton, Massachusetts, where Mrs. Draper now resides, remembered fondly for her strong support of Draper through many long years of extended separations, interminable Saturday sessions in her home, and memorable parties and picnics for Doc's students and colleagues.

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1935 Dynamic characteristics of aircraft instruments. J. Aeronaut. Sci. (March) :59. 1936 The new Instrument Laboratory at MIT. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 3(March):151-53. 1937 With G. P. Bentley and H. H. Willis. The MIT-Sperry apparatus for measuring vibrations. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 4(7):281-85. 1939 With G. V. Schliestett. General principles of instrument analysis. Instrum. 12(6):137-42. 1944 Theory of Gyroscopic Instruments. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Aeronautical Instrument Laboratory. 1945 With W. McKay. Instrument Analysis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Aeronautical Instrument Laboratory, 1945-46. 1947 With the staff of the Instrumentation Laboratory. Gunsight Mark 15 for the control of short-and medium-range anti-aircraft fire from naval vessels. Navord Report 3 47, 4 volumes, 8 parts. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Aeronautical Instrument Laboratory for the U.S. Bureau of Ordnance, 1947-49. 1950 With Y. T. Li. U.S. patent 2,628,606—control system. Assigned to Research Corporation, N.Y. 1952 With S. Lees and W. McKay. Instrument Engineering, 3 vols. Vol. 1:

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 Methods for Describing the Situations of Instrument Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1953 Methods for Associating Mathematical Solutions with Common Forms, vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1955 Applications of the Instrument Engineering Method, vol. 3, pt. 1: ''Measurement Systems." New York: McGraw-Hill. Flight control. J. R. Astronaut. Soc. 59(July): 449-78. Paper presented at the 43rd Wilbur Wright Memorial Lecture, Royal Institution, London, England, in May. 1958 Improved ball bearings will meet tomorrow's needs. Aviat. Age 30(2):52-59. Instrumentation aspects of inertial guidance. Instrum. Soc. Am. J. 5(11). 1959 With R. B. Woodbury and W. Wrigley. Principles of inertial guidance. In Advances in Aeronautical Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 524-62, London: Pergamon. 1960 With J. Hovorka and W. Wrigley. Inertial Guidance, International Series on Aeronautical Sciences and Space Flight, Division 7 (Astronautics), vol. 3, London: Pergamon. 1961 Development criteria for space navigation gyroscopes. Navigation 8(4):273-83. 1963 The contribution of instrumentation in aero-space engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 53(10):716-20. S. Lees, ed. Air Space and Instruments, Draper Anniversary Volume. New York: McGraw-Hill.

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 1965 Survey of inertial navigation problems in sea, air, and space navigation. Papers of the International Congress on Long-Range, Sea, Air; and Space Navigation. 1:26-31. 1969 With S. Herrick. Astrodynamics, pp. 1971-72. New York: Van Nostrand. 1971 The evolution of aerospace guidance technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1935-1951. AIAA Bulletin 8(10). Paper presented at the 5th History Symposium of the 22nd International Astronautics Conference, International Astronautical Federation, Brussels, Belgium, 20-25 September.

OCR for page 122
Biographical Memoirs: Volume 65 This page in the original is blank.