The last week was all about revision, revision, revision. Confident in our CDD architecture choices and approach method, we spent many hours together writing and rewriting.

We decided to compare possible configurations based only on quantifiable parameters. Instead of assigning "weights" or numbers based on a feasibility/desirability scale, we compared values such as drag coefficient, endurance reduction (%), additional mass, cost, and manufacturing time. The most difficult parameter we had was a complexity parameter of sorts. After much brainstorming, we finally landed on the idea of "design items"--how many parts had to be designed and fabricated from scratch for each configuration (for example: a folded-wing plane would not be available COTS, so it would count as a design item).

Filling in the values for this table took much of our time. Once we had all the data, we went through and found the best configuration for each parameter (which config. is the best for drag? mass?). After ranking all the configurations, were extremely excited to find that our team-favorite ended up at the top of the list: externally-mounted, non-compacted, uncontained Sub-Vehicle. Based on the rest of the data, our three chosen design options are as follows:

1. External, non-compacted, uncontained SV w/ passive, non-mechanical deployment system
2. External, non-compacted, uncontained SV w/ passive, mechanical deployment system
3. External, non-compacted, contained SV w/ passive, mechanical deployment system

With the CDD finished, the next step is PDR!

Posted by Kristina Wang