Case 3 - Manhattan Project and ITER Objective: We have just seen how organizational structure and modern technologies

affect engineering design. During this part of the session we will turn our attention to the influence of politics and social acceptance on problem solving. Overview: The role of the government in the running of engineering projects has been and is far reaching and influential. One particular feature is the ability of governments to direct public funding in large amounts towards specific goals. This has allowed for monumental accomplishments, not possible otherwise. Two prime examples are the Manhattan project and the international thermonuclear fusion reactor. Background The Manhattan Project: In 1939 a letter from a physicist urged the then president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt to begin research into uranium for fear that the Germans were on their way to creating the most powerful weapon the world had ever seen, the atomic bomb. This physicist was Einstein and as we all know, the president headed the suggestions, despite the fact the Germans really werent that far along at all, and the Manhattan project was commenced. The Manhattan project was the code name given for the joint American, British and Canadian attempt to build the first successful atomic bomb. The project cost over 22 billion US dollars in todays currency and took a little over three years to complete. ITER: The second and more recent example is the ITER, which means The way in Latin is the international thermonuclear fusion reactor and has the goal of overcoming the hurdles of nuclear fusion to pave the way to clean and abundant energy. The international pursuit of fusion was born at the Geneva Superpower Summit of 1985, when the heads of state of France, England, Soviet Union and the United States met and agreed upon a joint effort. By 2005 the list of participants grew to include all 27 EU member states, India, China and Korea. The cost of the project is projected to be around 14 billion US dollars and will take approximately another 30 years to complete.

Now that you have an idea of at least one example from each era, it is time for a third discussion activity.
Conclusion As we can see, governments have and will continue to direct the advancement of human technologies. In addition we note that the level of collaboration has increased over time and this presents both advantages and challenges to future engineers and to the solving of the worlds problems.

We have now reached the end of this case study. Today we have examined organizational structure, evolving technologies and politics which are just a few of the pieces involved in understanding how design strategies and engineering will change with time. What we hope you got from these activities, and the reason for the historic and modern contrast was to allow you to get a feel for and to see the direction in which engineering strategies are headed to better prepare ourselves for the future. ~Thank you

Question #1
What influences a governments decision to invest in large projects? What should influence them? Is there a difference?

Question #1 - Facilitator
What influences a governments decision to invest in large projects? What should influence them? Is there a difference?

Fuel:

Consider that Manhattan project occurred during war Consider that Europe and in fact most of the World is running scarce of energy resources What drives us? Does this change? Generally Fear, Desire, vs specific fears....

Question #2
What roles do the societies have in this process? Are there times when a government is able to make a decision that at another time it wouldnt? Would the Manhattan Project have been possible today? Would the fusion reactor have been possible back then? (Ignoring technological gap)

Question #2 - Facilitator
What roles do the societies have in this process? Are there times when a government is able to make a decision that at another time it wouldnt? Would the Manhattan Project have been possible today? Would the fusion reactor have been possible back then? (Ignoring technological gap) Fuel: Consider the distribution of funds by NSERC Consider why it is so little compared to ITER and Manhattan Project

Question #3
What challenges do you believe, if any, will arise from larger international collaboration? What are the benefits? Given these, should governments work together? For example, should Canada join ITER?

Question #3 Facilitator What challenges do you believe, if any, will arise from larger international collaboration? What are the benefits? Given these, should governments work together? For example, should Canada join ITER? Fuel: Consider the difference that arises out of countries with different cultures working together. For instance the Manhattan Project involved essentially the English, whereas the ITER involves many different countries, what about the UN. What role can engineers play in this process?

project the questions?

EVIDENCE SHOWING LACK OF RESSOURCES! Pros

Promises significantly higher energy density to renewable sources such as solar and wind Inherently safe as in the event of containment breach the plasma is cooled and the reaction stops Promises to produce less waste than fission reactors Energy sources much more abundant No CO2, or atmospheric pollutant production Scientific Advances Jobs for engineers, scientists and suppliers cons Some believe, such as Greenpeace International, that fusion is dangerous and ultimately bound to fail Money could be used to invest in renewable sources of energy such as Solar and Wind Advantages of fusion are theoretical and not yet proven, and may never be Fear of radioactive waste and high maintenance and decommissioning costs, similar to fission reactors Other designs for fusion reactors exist other than those requiring tokamak, that may be on the order of 10x cheaper

Activity: Double Rotation: There will be 4 stations, each with a discussion question. Each station will allow for two students who will be able to discuss amongst themselves the proposed question. They will then write whatever their answer on the sheet provided. Then, after 2-3 minutes they will switch stations, one moving clockwise, the other counter clockwise. The number of switches can be increased from 1 (2 questions each), up to 3. At the last grouping, the pair at the station will share the main ideas with the group. Roles:
o

Depending on level of discussion place one member at each station to answer questions and promote further discussion, but short intervals so most likely well mediate the rotations Time-Line

0 - 2 min: Intro 2 - 5 min: 1st Station 5 - 8 min: 2end Station 8 - 15 min: Recap / Over run