Weeding Out a Solution
Shannon Gibson
Unmanned Systems, Module 2, Assignment
2.4
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
As
a hypothetical Systems Engineer responsible for coming up with solutions to
difficult problems when designing a precision crop-duster, I would first look
at what is already available on the market to accomplish such jobs. After
careful consideration of what worked and failed for other companies, I would
then start with direction for my teams. My two teams are broken up by
subsystems; the first being guidance, navigation and control, and the second,
the payload delivery. My description to
them is inclusive of an executive summary describing the features that make
this system unique, what it is, and what it is intended to do as well as the
overall functions (Systems Engineering Fundamentals, 2001). I set them free at
this point to start brainstorming ideas.
It
appears during the validate and verify phase of this contract we have
discovered some issues such as architectural design which has a direct effect
on the physical testing phase which would validate this system (Beals &
Bonometti, 2015). Each teams designs
have gone over weight, and the weight cannot be changed for the specific type
of UAS we are building, the aerodynamic computations are fact. It appears I had
not been clear in my directions in assuring the entire system is built
correctly. For the guidance, navigation and control team, I had told them to
use off-the-shelf hardware since it is much cheaper than an original design.
This has caused their area of this project to be much heavier than expected. I
believe I’d research other off-the-shelf products that are lighter and see how
precise they are. I’d also see what it would cost to design a product that
would fit this need. There are times in the design process that the original
budget has to be changed to include unforeseen issues. However, in hindsight, I
see that with the weight limitations, I should have asked for more than one
plan and will now put more restrictions into the design.
The
second team, which was dedicated to the payload delivery, should look into
using a different system than originally planned. Although they are using an
off-the-shelf delivery system as I had instructed, they might be able to find
another one that is comparable in size but weighs less. I’d also like them to
provide me a quote on what it would cost to fabricate what we need. I am not willing to sacrifice fuel weight, as
my safety engineers have advised against this, and out company motto is;
“Safety First!” So after my meeting with the safety engineers, I have taken the
Technical Resource Budget Tracking computations, which include the part,
weight, quantity and mass total, and ensure both teams have it for reference. I
believe with the restrictions spelled out, they can make more accurate
decisions on parts to add for payloads (Beals & Bonometti, 2015).
When
a particular project moves into the verification process, this is where most
issues are discovered. Not only does this verify performance requirements, but
also costs and schedules are being met (Systems Engineering Fundamentals,
2001). After discovering issues, we then
go back to the proverbial drawing board sometimes, but fuel, weight and the
mission cannot be overlooked.
Beale B., Bonometti. (2015) ESMD
Course Material: Fundamentals of Lunar and
Systems Engineering for Senior Project
Teams, with Application to a Lunar
Excavator. Ch. 2: Systems Engineering-
The Systems Design Process.
System Engineering Fundamentals.
(2001). Department of Defense. Systems
Management
College. Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-
and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/readings/sefguide_01_01.pdf
