Historique de la page

...

• Summarize actual performance vs. requirements 
  Image Added
  
  • Which requirements were unmet, and why?
    • able Able to sustain through uncertain terrain of psyche
      • Complications with design not performing as expected during prototype testing.
      • The honeycomb crushable bottom did not perform as expected,  Unfortunately the Strengths lab tensile tester was broken all semester.  Our team planned on testing and obtaining the honeycomb material properties to update the simulation result prior to testing.  Due to this, the only option left was to leave the simulation as it was and test with the prototype honeycomb.  This did not result in the best comparison between the prototype testing and the simulation.
  • How robust is your final design?
    • Lander was able to withstand drops from 6ft at its weight of 9lbs on both surfaces tested. However, a set of the legs snapped off when we added weight to total the lander's weight to 16lbs instead of its own 9lbs and dropped it from the same 6ft height.  We added more weight to try to get the honeycomb to crush more in its vertical orientation.
  • Did you meet your project budget?
    • Our team was able to complete the project within the given budget from ASU and MSD. 
    • Budget limitations had limited our ability to test different honeycomb structure. If we had more budget we would have been able to buy more honeycomb structure and test the lander several more times. 
  • What was your customer's assessment of the work you delivered to them? Were they satisfied?
    • ASU seemed to be satisfied with our work and results.  Although we did not fulfill the original requirements of the mission, our customer wanted the focus to be on learning and experimenting with different landing methods.  Even though our project was not wildly successful, we learned a great deal about the behavior of crushable bottom honeycomb. 

• Compare your current project plan/schedule to your original plan/schedule.
  • Did the scope of your project change during MSD II?
    • Major change occurred by implementing a physical prototype and moving away from a simulation and MATLAB code only final deliverable.
  • How and why did your schedule change during MSD II?
    • The schedule changed because after meeting with Dr. Gomes about our dynamic analysis we determined that the MATLAB code would not be complete by the end of MSD. Therefore, we decided to design and build an actual prototype instead of simulating it.
  • What have you learned from these changes that you can apply to future projects?
    • Up-front research was important in choosing the final landing design.  
    • Consulting with SME's prior to the completion of the design phase is important in the future.

...

• All documents must be uploaded to your website in advance of the Gate Review - Complete 
• The team should not use gate review time to conduct a detailed examination of specific deliverables unless related to discussion items in the status review - Complete 
• Is prototype hand-off complete, is the team's workspace cleaned up, and have all tools been returned? - Complete (Prototype handed to MSD team) 

Lessons learned, etc.

...

• What advice would you give to future teams?
  • Vishvam: Obtain concrete customer requirements early saves a great deal of time early.  Having a data sheet is greatly important.
  • Kate: Simpler designs are preferred.  Once designs become complicated, greater risks follow.  Meeting with subject matter experts helps guide the design process.  Environments that we were not well acquainted with needed to be considered - such as a vacuum.
  • August:  Use your simulation results to plan for physical tests. Double check for shorts and other easy to miss but very troublesome issues. Think carefully about what components you might need to replace.
  • Sam: Begin the prototyping process and design process early.  Rapid prototyping prototyping is extremely important in design iteration.  A team would likely learn more with having several iterative prototypes than they would with one prototype where the design is frozen prior to testing.  
  • Brandon: Have a more realistic scope for the project to begin with.  Our scopr scope narrowed signifiantly between the significantly between the beginning of the first semester and what we ended up doing.  We initially started with researching communications, thrusters, and other components which we did not have the time to do.  We should have been more conservative when considering the number of employees on a team for NASA or SpaceX.