> home
> About
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

10.07

Sputnik I: 50 Years Later

by Terrance Malkinson

On 4 October 1957, the Soviet Union launched into Earth orbit the world’s first artificial satellite: Sputnik I. The launching of this 183 pound sphere of polished aluminum, containing two radio transmitters and four antennas, marked the start of the space age and changed our world forever. The event caught the collective imagination of people young and old around the world, causing many to pursue careers in science and engineering.

The United States was shaken out of its complacency. The fear of falling behind the Soviet Union mobilized increased spending for education; and for basic and applied research. Among many things, it led to the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). The United States caught up quickly; with the launching of Explorer I on 31 January 1958 ...... the space race was on.

What is not so well know is that Sputnik I was not the result of a well-planned Soviet strategy. Rather, it was a spur-of-the-moment gamble driven by a visionary Soviet scientist who understood how important space was [www.cnn.com].

Sergei P. Korolëv, the “father of the Soviet space program,” persuaded a dubious Kremlin to permit him to launch a satellite using the high thrust and payload capacity R-7 ballistic missile being developed for the Soviet long-range bomb program.

Creation of the Sputnik I satellite was fast-tracked and successfully launched 50 years ago. It transmitted for three weeks and circled the earth every 98 minutes for three months before plunging back to earth. As is the case with many extraordinary develops, its true significance was only appreciated later. At the time, and for many years after, Korolëv received no public recognition for his role. Only after his death, in 1966, did the world learn of this outstanding individual.

The decades-long rivalry in space between the Soviet Union and the United States was, in general, driven for military reasons. The resultant of best value was that activities and spin-offs from the space program moved mankind forward and will continue to do so. New knowledge, innovative technologies, industrial processes, and consumer products have improved the standard-of-living for everyone. Many careers in science and engineering emerged.

Other Bytes

Here are some of the things going on in and around the engineering community:

• BusinessWeek recently published its second annual ranking of the best companies for new college graduates to launch their career [BusinessWeek, #4051, pp. 49-60, 24 September 2007, www.businessweek.com]. A surprising revelation was the accounting firms dominated the first three places in the ranking (Deloitte & Touche, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Ernest & Young). The reason — strong demand for recent accounting graduates resulting from new legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley. Following this were three technology leaders (IBM, Google and Microsoft). In total 50 employers were listed. Five interesting insets in the article provide recruiter tips. A link is provided to in depth statistical portraits of employers and other on-line features related to this topic.

• The failure of organizations to pay overtime to those workers who are entitled to it is the subject of an article by Michael Orey in BusinessWeek [“Wage Wars,” #4052, pp. 51-60, 1 October 2007, www.businessweek.com]. Interesting statistics are provided on recent class action legal settlements for groups of employees with an estimate of more than $1B being paid out annually to resolve successful claims. Additional information in the article includes broader issues associated with overtime in today’s workplace including how new and modified job categories are affected. The author muses on whether “America’s decades old overtime laws make sense anymore?”

• Leadership succession is family owned business can often be challenging, particularly for the designated heir to a family business. In “The Tests of a Prince” [Harvard Business Review; pp. 92-101, September 2007, www.hbr.com], Ivan Lansberg discusses many of the issues facing a new leader of a family owned business. Stakeholders may not be convinced that the successor has earned the right to be the leader. This succession is much different from a situation where a number of people compete for the leadership position. In particular establishing credibility is quite different for a hereditary heir. The author goes on to describe four tests that stakeholders can use to make judgments about “would-be leaders.”

• Manufacturing, as is the case with many other sectors is facing a shortage of workers. In “Help Wanted” [IndustryWeek, vol. 256, pp. 37-39; August 2007; www.industryweek.com], Traci Purdum discusses how organizations need to proactively search for the next generation of employees. A listing of the ten hardest-to-fill jobs in the United States, as well as world-wide is provided.

• Measurement of intangibles related to human capital is important with the growing realization of the importance of human resources and their knowledge and experience as a source of competitive advantage. In “Measuring and Managing the ROI of Human Capital” [Cost Management, 21(4), pp. 5-15, July/August 2007], William Schiemann identifies some of the most important human capital intangibles and discusses ways in which they can be measured. Some human capital intangibles listed by the author include: leadership, productivity, culture, innovation, capabilities, values, alignment and engagement. The author defines the four most important outcomes and their relation to other important business outcomes. Nine drivers and enablers that will facilitate positive outcomes are discussed.

• The success or failure of a project team in today’s business world when teams are increasingly diverse requires proactive leadership. In “Bridging Fault Lines in Diverse Teams” [MIT Sloan Management Review; 48(4), pp. 22-29, Summer 2007, www.sloanreview.mit.edu/smr], Lynda Gratton, Andreas Voigt and Tarmara Erickson discuss how to recognize the potential for division and how to mitigate any issues that might arise. A four questionnaire survey tool is provided that you can use to rate your team on the probability of a fault line in your team.
  

Terrance Malkinson is a communications specialist, business analyst and futurist. He is an elected Senator of the University of Calgary, a Governor of the Engineering Management Society, international correspondent for IEEE-USA Today's Engineer Online, editor-in-chief of IEEE-USA Today's Engineer Digest, editor of IEEE Engineering Management, and associate editor for IEEE Canadian Review. He the author of over 300 publications and is also an accomplished triathlete. The author is grateful to the Haskayne School of Business Library at the University of Calgary. He can be reached at todaysengineer@ieee.org.