| Table of Contents |
|---|
Mech W24 goals
Comp drone
Cabin
First rev parts made, sitting in the bay.
need to do peek machining
cargo compartment + seat designs missin
door, seats, cargo bay integrated separately.
Rev1 just the shell.
CF sheets on table in bay
Second revision to come out at some point.
CF ordered → to be iterated.
Weight projections tbd. 2-3 layer thick carbon fiber, quite thin.
heaviest part peek + rods.
seats + accessories will add weight.
Half-term goals:
Term goals:
cabin manufactured & existing on the drone.
second rev. of cabin with cargo + seats + doors + spares.
Flight test requirements:
flight test cabin & make sure no fundamental flaws
Not testing for cabin structural modes. Check for system modes + tuning / balance / flight characteristics.
crosswinds ?!
Timeline projections:
Rev1 ready to flight test end of january (small amounts of lathe work + assembly)
Rev2 timeline DNE. Ideally end of february / beginning of march would be next iteration.
Airframe Updates
Drone exists! Identified issues:
Landing gear is a bit wobbly, needs improvement.
Overall goal to lighten the airframe, started in CAD for pegasus 2.0 (updates later)
Continue support for airframe flaws
Optical flow vibration characterization, leg in fov
Waterproof drone frame
Backup center aluminum block. (To be addressed in pegasus 2.0)
Ideally will be more optimized, but original pegasus can be drop-in replacement.
Half-term goals:
Term goals:
Flight test requirements:
Optical flow sensors
Timeline projections:
Pegasus 2.0
Currently doesn’t exist
Small updates available in CAD (mostly right after integration of Pegasus 1.0)
Targetting pegasus 2.0 for comp
Trying to keep structure the same, other than landing gear.
Need to manufacture + Assemble
Half-term goals:
Term-goals:
flying pegasus 2.0
pegasus 1.0 remains mechanically viable as a backup option.
Flight test requirements:
Full qualification / acceptance tests for Pegasus 2.0 flight characteristics.
Timeline:
Best case ready to integrate late feb / early march.
latest possible to begin ATP start of apr.
Video System
No clue what we want on the drone for comp.
To be discussed in future meetings
Antenna Tracker
Needs to continue cad
need to design mounts for yaw servo, rc & video tower components
Timeline:
timeline TBD, looking assembled late feb to march.
will coordinate across different subteams to determine.
mech leads to follow up w/ Arjun about antenna tracker (what he needs)
non comp projects
trying to get ahod for comp projects
both of these carryover from past terms
Thrust testing rig
Almost done, parts machined, were some tolerance issues.
Re-manufacture alum block & assemble
Houston Upgrades
only 3 legs touch platform, bend angle incorrect?
parts to be re-manufactured, assembled.
Quick process
Waterproofing prototypes to be implemented directly on pegasus (bypass houston).
Thoughts on meetings
AEAC Sync
ran AEAC sync summer + fall 23. Do we need to continue running and what to get out of them?
May be valuable, but everyone needs to be paying attention.
Lot’s of repetition in questions (to other subteams) when conversations had occured multiple times already.
Subteams weren’t paying attention and had started work in separate (unique) directions which did not align.
Good idea to keep people updated.
Separate from leads meeting (leads seems more administrative, and this seems more like content for the drone).
Were AEAC sync meetings too technical in the fall term?
Should keep details because otherwise no way for subteams to talk about what they are doing
Only meeting that we talk technical things that’s not a subteam meeting.
Should we make decisions in AEAC sync?
might be better to have discussion meetings before AEAC sync and discuss the outcomes in aeac sync.
(decision doc meta)
Big discussion
try and have the only stakeholders present so as not to take time away from people.
Was going over updates in arch doc helpful?
Depends on size of change. (Long discussions curtailed)
Thoughts on divving aeac into multiple smaller meetings?
Not if it takes more time, only good if in same time-slot and socially acceptable to leave in between?
Leads meeting
Thoughts on combining leads & aeac sync (into the same meeting?) - leads meetings are about 15 minutes long and it feels like a waste of time to have leads meetings.
no - regular members join aeac sync, not leads.
no - will be skipping through the admin stuff & also skip through the comp stuff.
Thought leads == meeting where it doesn’t make sense to have everyone present; aeac == everyone encouraged to come if you have stake in the project.
Goals of aeac diff from leads?
Shorter meeting (updates) vs Long(er) discussions
as long as aeac sync is not brought into leads
people problem solving in leads.