2024-07-16 Competition Architecture Sync
Attendance
@Derek Tang
@Daniel Puratich
@Evan Janakievski
@Hardy Yu
@Jerry Tian
@Maxwell Lou
@Nathaniel Li
@Ryan Scomazzon
@Smile Khatri
@Tong Zhang
@Yuchen Lin
Pegasus 2 Assembly State
What was assembled in last week?
Harnesses
Motor soldering
Battery harness
What are plans for this week?
session tomorrow
video system
pixhawk mount this weekend
long term stuff
plan to label motors with label maker?
motor mount tab change?
don't wanna do a new layup
Tracking Antenna
Mech → no changes so far
discussed larger baseplate and more sensor mounts
compass and gps MPN should be selected
@Derek Tang add to Tracking Antenna Integration 2025 when part numbers are decided.
EE Board
first draft is done
@Daniel Puratich and @Nolan Haines to review schem
connectors, 2.54mm is chill for servo
IMACS
haven’t finalized hardware and monitors we want
needs to get locked in for mech to go for it.
@Nathan Green insight for next meeting to unblock this would be appreciated
software sync
we should have a sync to decide what we want interface to look
Try to get @Nathan Green and an autonomy lead present for this
CONOPs Preview
see link
getting people’s thoughts, reviewed the slides
not a lot of direct EFS involvement
gimbal?
CAN for servo module?
fixed wing or glider for task 1, small quad as backup in case we can’t finish before comp
water pump or water bucket?
Pegasus class for task 2
Why prefer fixed wing for task 1?
Better Range ← unsure how big of a deal this will be, preview didn't give info
Higher Speed
puts more strain on the detection system
harder to control so low confidence on using it
small quad is easier to control than a fixed wing
same airframe for
unsure how much agility we’ll get on fixed wing
small quad more control for hovering over specific spots
is doing a quick pass enough to just scan it?
more thoughts on fixed wing here
fixed wing more fun, reliability concerns with doing it
task 1 need a new IR camera
cannot use ML model for task 1, new detection algorithm
autonomy for task 2 is scary, hard to do autonomous actuation
imacs for map for task 1, need to have airside communicate data
for geolocation, more stability is better
acurate readings on telemetry and camera position are important
will need to see requirements for how to split airside and groundside, still biasing toward airside
geolocation no arch changes required
task 1, unusre if we need to hover, if so we need quad
if we need to land on same takeoff point for task 1 then quad better
Upcoming Flight Testing Plans
What do we want to test?
this weekend
Houston 2 bare drone, no extra weigh
@Yuchen Lin to create the thread, and test cards for this!
next week complete requests from:
autonomy wants to test obstacle avoidance and geolocation
gemini testing
When we have WRESTRC?
we have it for next two weeks, we have it on Saturdays
Schedule
try to prove everything by Friday night so the morning of goes smoothly