2011 cdr team name critical design review university/institution team members date 1

47
2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

Post on 21-Dec-2015

220 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Team NameCritical Design Review

University/InstitutionTeam Members

Date

1

Page 2: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

User Notes

• You can reformat this to fit your design, but be sure to cover at least the information requested on the following slides

• This template contains all of the information you are required to convey at the CDR level. If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly:

[email protected] 720-234-4902

2

Page 3: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Purpose of CDR

• Confirm that:– The design is mature enough to move

into the fabrication phase– Final analysis on systems that weren’t

prototyped or needed further analysis is complete and accurate

– Results of prototyping suggest the system will meet project requirements

– Manufacturing plan is in place– Testing plan is in place and sufficient to

ensure system functionality and performance in-flight

– PDR risks have been walked down and to the left on the risk matrix (if possible)

– Project meets requirements of RockSat-X user guide

– The project is on track to be completed on time and within budget

3

gnurf.net

Page 4: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

CDR Presentation Content

4

• Section 1: Mission Overview– Mission Overview– Organizational Chart– Theory and Concepts– Concept of Operations– Expected Results

• Section 2: Design Description– Requirement/Design Changes Since CDR– De-Scopes/Off-Ramps– Mechanical Design Elements– Electrical Design Elements– Software Design Elements

Page 5: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

CDR Presentation Contents

5

jessicaswanson.com

• Section 3: Prototyping/Analysis– Analysis Results

• Interpretation to requirements– Prototyping Results

• Interpretation to requirements– Detailed Mass Budget– Detailed Power Budget– Detailed Interfacing to Wallops

• Section 4: Manufacturing Plan– Mechanical Elements– Electrical Elements– Software Elements

Page 6: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

CDR Presentation Contents

6

• Section 5: Testing Plan– System Level Testing

• Requirements to be verified– Mechanical Elements

• Requirements to be verified– Electrical Elements

• Requirements to be verified– Software Elements

• Requirements to be verified• Section 6: Risks

– Risks from PDR to CDR• Walk-down

– Critical Risks Remaining

Page 7: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

CDR Presentation Contents

7

• Section 7: User Guide Compliance– Compliance Table– Sharing Logistics

• Section 8: Project Management Plan– Schedule– Budget

• Mass• Monetary

– Work Breakdown Structure

Page 8: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Mission OverviewName of Presenter

8

Page 9: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Mission Overview

• Mission statement• Break mission statement down into

your overall mission requirements• What do you expect to discover or

prove?• Who will this benefit/what will your

data be used for?

9

Page 10: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Organizational Chart

• What subsystems do you have?• Who works on each subsystem?

– Leads?• Don’t forget faculty advisor/sponsor(s)

10

Project ManagerShawn Carroll

System EngineerRiley Pack

CFOShawn Carroll

Faculty AdvisorChris Koehler

SponsorLASP

Faculty AdvisoryEmily Logan

Safety EngineerChris Koehler

Testing Lead Jessica Brown

EPSDavid Ferguson

Riley Pack

STRTyler Murphy

Aaron Russert

DEPAaron RussertShawn Carroll

PMKirstyn JohnsonElliott Richerson

Page 11: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Theory and Concepts

• Give a brief overview of the underlying science concepts and theory

• What other research has been performed in the past?– Results?

11

Page 12: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Concept of Operations

• Based on science objectives, diagram of what the payload will be doing during flight, highlights areas of interest

• Example on following slide

12

Page 13: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Example ConOps

t ≈ 1.3 min

Altitude: 75 km

Event A Occurs

t ≈ 15 min

Splash Down

t ≈ 1.7 min

Altitude: 95 km

Event B Occurs

-G switch triggered

-All systems on

-Begin data collection

t = 0 min

t ≈ 4.0 min

Altitude: 95 km

Event C OccursApogee

t ≈ 2.8 min

Altitude: ≈115 km

End of Orion Burn

t ≈ 0.6 min

Altitude: 52 km

t ≈ 4.5 min

Altitude: 75 km

Event D Occurs

Altitude

t ≈ 5.5 min

Chute Deploys

Page 14: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Expected Results

14

• This is vital in showing you understand the science concepts

• Go over what you expect to find– Ex. What wavelengths do you expect to

see? How many particles do you expect to measure? How well do you expect the spin stabilizer to work (settling time?)? How many counts of radiation? etc

Page 15: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Design DescriptionName of Presenter

15

Page 16: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Changes Since PDR

16

• What major changes have you made since PDR?– Why were these changes made?

• Do these change any of your mission objectives/requirements?

• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 17: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

De-Scopes and Off-Ramps

17

• Has the scope of your project changed at all?– i.e. have you eliminated any mission

objectives to complete the project on time?

• If there are portions of your project with lots of risk, do you have “off-ramps” in case you run into schedule/budget constraints?

• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 18: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Mechanical Design Elements

18

• Give me a brief overview of your final mechanical design

• You have a lot of freedom here– Present what you think is relevant

• Mechanical drawings should be included• Any stress/strain analysis?• Material choices?

– SLIDE COUNT: 3-5

Page 19: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Electrical Design Elements

19

• Give me a brief overview of your final electrical design

• You have a lot of freedom here– Present what you think is relevant

• Schematics?• Sensor specification relation to

requirements

• SLIDE COUNT: 3-5

Page 20: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Software Design Elements

20

• Give me a brief overview of your final software design

• You have a lot of freedom here– Present what you think is relevant

• Software flow diagram?• State diagrams?• Brief function overviews (input/output)?

– SLIDE COUNT: 3-5

Page 21: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Prototyping/AnalysisName of Presenter

21

Page 22: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Analysis Results

22

• What was analyzed?– i.e. Finite Elements Analysis, Aerodynamic

Loading, Boom Extension…

• What are the key results?• How do these results relate to the

project requirements?• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 23: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Prototyping Results

23

• What was prototyped?– i.e. electrical system bread boarded, boom

arm, payload foam mock-up…

– What are the key results?• How do these results relate to the

project requirements?• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 24: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Detailed Mass Budget

24

ExampleSat Mass BudgetSubsystem Total Mass (lbf)

STR 2DEP 8EPS 12PM 9…  …  …  …     Total 31Over/Under (1.00)

• Present your subsystem masses and total mass similar to what is given at right.

Page 25: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Detailed Power Budget

25

• Present your power budget (like above)

• I am most interested in total amp-hours since each payload space is allowed 1 Ah.

• Voltages and currents should also be included.

• Use whatever format makes sense to you.

ExampleSat Power BudgetSubsystem Voltage (V) Current (A) Time On (min) Amp-Hours

STR 0 0 0 0.000DEP 12 0.4 2 0.013EPS 28 0.3 20 0.100PM 28 0.9 8 0.120…        …        …        …                 

Total (A*hr): 0.233Over/Under 0.77 

Page 26: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Wallops Interfacing: Power

26

Power Connector--Customer SidePin Function1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  

• Fill-in the function side for your payload

• I will check for consistency with User Guide

Page 27: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Wallops Interfacing: Telemetry

27

• Fill-in the function side for your payload

• I will check for consistency with User Guide

Telemetry Connector--Customer SidePin Function Pin Function

1   20  2   21  3   22  4   23  5   24  6   25  7   26  8   27  9   28  10   29  11   30  12   31  13   32  14   33  15   34  16   35  17   36  18   37  19      

Page 28: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Manufacturing PlanName of Presenter

28

Page 29: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Mechanical Elements

29

• What needs to be manufactured?• What needs to be procured?• Present a plan/schedule to get it done in

time for testing.•Don’t forget margin!

• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 30: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Electrical Elements

30

• What needs to be manufactured/soldered?

• How many revisions of the electronics do you anticipate? (Be realistic!)

• What needs to be procured?• Present a plan/schedule to get it done in

time for testing.•Don’t forget margin!

• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 31: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Software Elements

31

• What discrete blocks of code need to be completed?

• Which blocks depend on other blocks?• Present a plan/schedule to get it done in

time for testing.•Don’t forget margin!

• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 32: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Testing PlanName of Presenter

32

Page 33: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

System Level Testing

33

• Consider system level requirements that need to be verified

• Present a brief overview of the tests you need to conduct to verify these requirements

• When will these tests be performed?• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 34: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Mechanical Testing

34

• Consider subsystem level requirements to be verified (mass/volume/vibration…)

• Present a brief overview of the tests you need to conduct to verify these requirements

• When will these tests be performed?• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 35: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Electrical Testing

35

• Consider subsystem level requirements to be verified (sample rate/deployment tests…)

• Present a brief overview of the tests you need to conduct to verify these requirements

• When will these tests be performed?• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 36: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Software Testing

36

• Consider how software and electrical depend on each other for testing

• Present a brief overview of what portions of the code need to be completed to test the electrical system at its various testing points

• When will these tests be performed?• SLIDE COUNT: Your Discretion

Page 37: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

RisksName of Presenter

37

Page 38: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Risk Walk-Down

38

• What were your biggest risks at PDR? (remind me)

• What have you done to mitigate them?• Hopefully you have

moved them to the lower left side of the risk chart as a result (walk-down)

Page 39: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Risk Walk-Down

39

• What are your NEW top 3 risks since PDR?

• Do you have plans to walk them down?

• Are there any risks you just have to accept?• Why?

Page 40: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

User Guide ComplianceName of Presenter

40

Page 41: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

User Guide Compliance

41

Requirement Status/Reason (if needed)Center of gravity in 1" plane of

plate?1.2" currently

Max Height < 12"  

Within Keep-Out  

Using < 10 A/D Lines  

Using/Understand Parallel Line Not Being Utilized

Using/Understand Asynchronous Line

9600 Baud

Using X GSE Line(s) 1 (per requirement)

Using X Redundant Power Lines 1 (per requirement)

Using X Non-Redundant Power Lines

2 (one extra)

Using < 1 Ah 1.1 (working on reducing)

Using <= 28 V 200 V (Will conformal coat)

Page 42: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Sharing Logistics

42

• Who are you sharing with?– Summary of your partner’s

mission (1 line)• Plan for collaboration

– How do you communicate?– How will you share designs

(solidworks, any actual fit checks before next June)?

• Structural interface – will you be joining with standoffs or something else (again, be wary of clearance)?

grandpmr.com

Page 43: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Project Management PlanName of Presenter

43

Page 44: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Schedule

44

• Your schedule should be VERY detailed at this point• When will you procure things?• Major tests listed• Major integrations listed• Next semesters interim reviews included• The more the plan for, the fewer surprises there will be!

• Format:• Gant charts• Excel spreadsheet• Simple list• Whatever works for you!

Don’t let the schedule sneak up on you!

Page 45: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

Budget

45

• Present a somewhat detailed budget (doesn’t have to be nut and bolt level)• A simple Excel spreadsheet will do

• Simply to ensure that you aren’t over budget going into manufacturing• It is suggested that you add in at least a 10% margin at this point

Margin: 0.10 Budget: $1,300.00 Last Update: 9/30/2010 11:50ExampleSat

Item Supplier Estimated, Specific Cost Number Required Toal Cost NotesMotor Controller DigiKey $150.00 2 $300.001 for testingPM LASP $0.00 1 $0.00 LASP mentor deserves shirtMicrocontroller DigiKey $18.00 3 $54.003 board revsPrinted Circuit Boards Advanced Circuits $33.00 3 $99.003 board revsMisc. Electronics (R,L,C) DigiKey $80.00 3 $240.003 board revsBoom Material onlinemetals.com $40.00 2 $80.001 test articleProbe LASP $0.00 1 $0.00  Testing Materials ??? $200.00 1 $200.00 Estimated cost to test system                                                                                                                         

Total (no margin): $973.00Total  (w/ margin): $1,216.25

Page 46: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

WBS

46

• Present a very top-level work break down schedule• One can look up the tree for large scope goals• One can look down the tree for dependencies• Help each subsystem “see” the path ahead

PMP EPS STR PM DEP

•Obtain PM from LASP

•EEF Proposal for funding•…•…

•Trade Studies

•Schematics

•Schematic Review

•ICDs

•First Revision of Boards

•…•…

•Trade Studies

•Order Materials

•Work Request Into Shop

•…•…

•Obtain PM from LASP

•EEF Proposal for funding

•…•…

•Obtain PM from LASP

•EEF Proposal for funding

•…•…

Page 47: 2011 CDR Team Name Critical Design Review University/Institution Team Members Date 1

2011

CDR

• Issues, concerns, any questions

Conclusion

47