 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
ime
and again, fundamental engineering research — often driven by a faculty
member's curiosity or an exotic, seemingly insoluble problem — yields unexpected,
significant practical applications. This pattern holds whether the research
involves aerospace, bioengineering, materials science, information technology,
or other disciplines. Consider a few examples: GPS, which resulted from
research into using satellites to position troops, is now applied to minivan
dashboard directions to K-Mart, as well as to a new precision landing system
for aircraft. Composites, originally designed for the space shuttle, became
improved artificial hips. Optics research resulted in higher bandwidth optical
fibers that carry the exploding Internet traffic. Witnessing such leaps from basic engineering challenge to elegant tool for humanity is always exciting. I find it especially satisfying how often these "spin-offs" can trace their origins to the Stanford School of Engineering.
For decades now, our engineering faculty and students have defined and then exploited new paths in space-related research. First there was spacecraft and aircraft design, then composites and electronic integration, and now we've added flagship research centers in robotics, small satellites, and navigation guidance and control. Current faculty interests in several exciting areas are highlighted in this report.
I believe that Stanford excels in finding practical and unexpected applications because we not only press the technology, but we encourage students and faculty to apply the technology in prototypes — prototypes that demonstrate the potential for the technology. This interest in applications dates back to the founding of the School of Engineering when our first dean, Professor T. J. Hoover, a mining technology expert, set the tone for the School's practical bent.
Another element of the Stanford School of Engineering approach is openness to interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research activities. A good example is the Gravity Probe B project in which faculty from several disciplines collaborate to accomplish the project's mission. These collaborations are fostered by joint appointments for faculty in Aero/Astro and other departments. The lines between departments are fuzzy by design.
The four Stanford School of Engineering graduates profiled in this report are examples of the success of the School's approach: they were trained to build complex systems and to work in flexible cross-disciplinary teams. Vance Coffman and Clark Cohen, the two Aero/Astro graduates, have direct ties to the Gravity Probe B project. Ellen Ochoa (EE) and Louis Rosenberg (ME) both performed NASA research at Stanford (with Ellen later joining the roster of 17 Stanford-trained astronauts). Obviously, aerospace research yields not only great ideas and practical products, but fantastic engineers.
Aerospace research — in fact, all engineering research — is changing fast. Priorities are shifting, budgets shrinking, and new engineering disciplines and challenges are emerging. New technologies are needed. Stanford's researchers are hard at work.
I will be surprised if their research doesn't take us to unanticipated places.
John L. Hennessy
Dean
| |
|
|