P13231: UAV Ground Station
/public/

Planning & Execution

Table of Contents

Project Summary

One Page Summary

P13231 Summary

Team Members

Jeremie Snyder

Aurora Kiehl

Scott Neuman

Stephen Wess

Dennis Vega

Intellectual Property Considerations

This project is intended to be open source. There are no intellectual property considerations at this time.

Customer Needs

The list in Fig. P&E.3.1 compiles the needs set forth by the customer which our final design must satisfy. They have been ordered by importance. 9 = critical importance, 3 = moderate importance, and 1 = low importance.

public/Plan&Execution/CustomerNeeds.png

Figure P&E.3.1 (Click to enlarge)

Specifications

Figure P&E.4.1 lists the specifications which will be used to gauge the success of the final deliverable. The chart ties each specification back to the need which it is intended to meet.

public/Plan&Execution/Specs.png

Figure P&E.4.1 (Click to enlarge)

Team Norms & Values

Communication - It is important that team members openly communicate for the duration of the entire project. Team members are expected to communicate effectively verbally and through email. Emails should be responded to in reasonable time.

Punctual - Team members are expected to attend meetings and arrive in a timely manner. If a scheduling conflict arises, the team member should notify at least one other member of the absence. It is the absent team member's responsibility to confirm absence with team.

Ethics - Individuals are expected to perform tasks with integrity and honesty. Credit will be given where credit is due. Appropriate citations will be included in work documentation when outside sources are used.

Conflict Management - Project is a team effort. If conflict arises, steps should promptly be taken to reach a resolution. Confront the issue in team meetings or individually, seek outside assistance if conflict can not be resolved on an individual basis.

Decision Making - Input from each member of the team is welcomed. In order for decisions to be made effectively and in a timely manner, options will be voted on and majority rules. If there is no clear decision, seek guidance from subject experts.

Committed - Each member will contribute equally throughout the duration of the project.

Additional values from myCourses1:

  1. Reasonableness - Defusing disagreement and resolving conflicts through integration. Characteristics include seeking relevant information, listening and responding thoughtfully to others, being open to new ideas, giving reasons for views held, and acknowledging mistakes and misunderstandings.
  2. Responsibility - The ability to develop moral responses appropriate to the moral issues and problems that arise in one's day-to-day experience. Characteristics include avoiding blame shifting, designing overlapping role reponsibilities to fill responsibility "gaps", expanding the scope and depth of general and situation-specific knowledge, and working to expand control and power.
  3. Respect - Recognizing and working not to circumvent the capacity of autonomy in each individual. Characteristics include honoring rights such as privacy, property, free speech, due process, and participatory rights such as informed consent. Disrespect circumvents autonomy by deception, force, or manipulation.
  4. Justice - Giving each his or her due. Justice breaks down into kinds such as distributive (dividing benefits and burdens fairly), retributive (fair and impartial administration of punishments), administrative (fair and impartial administration of rules), and compensatory (how to fairly recompense those who have been wrongfully harmed by others).
  5. Trust - The expectation of moral behavior from others.
  6. Honesty - Truthfulness as a balance between too much honesty (bluntness which harms) and dishonesty (deceptiveness, misleading acts, and mendaciousness).
  7. Integrity - A meta-value that refers to the relation between particular values. These values are integrated with one another to form a coherent, cohesive and smoothly functioning whole. This resembles Solomon's account of the virtue of integrity.
1: [From‚“Ethics of Team Work" - Frey, William;“Collaborative Development of Ethics Across the Curriculum: Resources and Sharing of Best Practices" - NSF SES 0551779]

Team Norms and Values: Peer Assessment Rubric

Team Norms and Values: Peer Review
Value Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations
Communication Never communicates through emails and is difficult to contact via other mediums. Fails to add input at team meetings. Seldom communicates through emails and is difficult to contact via other mediums. Adds little input at team meetings. Communicates through email often and can be contacted via other mediums. Adds input at team meetings. Often communicates through email, both originating contact and responding to others. Can easily be contacted via other mediums. Adds significant input at team meetings.
Punctual Has missed 2-3 meetings. Is often late to team meetings. Does not notify other team members of absences. Has missed 2-3 meetings. Is occasionally late to team meetings. Rarely notifies other team members of absences. Has missed 1-2 meetings. Is rarely late to meetings without reason. Generally notifies team members of absences. Attends all meetings. Is always on time. Always notifies team members if an absence does occur.
Ethics Takes credit for work of other team members. Does not cite work used in project from outside sources. Makes unethical decisions in the design and testing of the product. Does not credit other team members. Occasionally cites work used in project from outside sources. Generally gives credit for work of other team members. Generally cites work used in project from outside sources. Always ensure credit is given where it is due for each team member. Always cites work used in project from outside sources. Ensures that other team mates also properly cite outside sources.
Conflict Management Constantly causes conflict within the team. Refuses to resolve issues within team, even with a third party mediator. Occasionally causes conflict within the team. Will resolve issues with team members or with third party mediator, but conflicts generally re-occur. Rarely causes conflict within the team. Does not consistently resolve other conflicts effectively. Never causes conflict within the team. Consistently helps resolve other conflicts effectively.
Decision Making Never offers solutions or ideas. Does not vote on ideas with the team and does not help in the decision making process. Never seeks guidance from subject matter experts when a decision needs further evaluation. Rarely offers solutions or ideas. Will generally vote on ideas with the team. Rarely seeks guidance from subject matter experts when a decision needs further evaluation. Often offers solutions or ideas. Always votes on ideas with the team. Will generally seek guidance from subject matter experts when a decision needs further evaluation. Always offers solutions or ideas. Always votes in ideas with the team. Will always seek guidance from subject matter experts if a decision needs further evaluation.
Committed Does not work on individual assignments or puts little to no effort into assignments. Will not help other team members with other project goals if help is needed. Works on individual assignments, but generally puts little effort into project assignments. Rarely helps other team members with other project goals if help is needed. Generally produces project deliverables of good quality. Generally helps other team members with other project goals if help is needed. Consistently produces project deliverables of excellent quality. Is always willing to help other team members finish other project goals.

Project Plans & Schedules

Gantt Chart


Gantt Schedule

Figure P&E.6.1 (Click to enlarge)

Week to week view of all action items.



public/Plan&Execution/MSD2_gantt2.png

Figure P&E.6.2 (Click to enlarge)

Month to month view of all action items.

Meeting Minutes, Notes, & Actions

11.30.2012 - Meeting w/ Dr. Kolodziej

Friday, Nov. 30, 2012 2pm - 2:45pm
Present: Aurora, Dennis, Jeremie, Scott, & Stephen

Summary:

Discussed the scope of the project and the desired outcome. Project will focus on controlling the UAV from the ground station, rather than having embedded control on-board the UAV. Previous groups have attempted this, with little success. No flight algorithms will be developed. At a minimum, the ability to manually control the aircraft through the ground station (by joystick, keyboard, or text input) is necessary. The ability to incorporate automated control is desirable.

The system need not be installed on the full size UAV due to testing difficulties. Ideally, the portion of the system integrated on the UAV would be small enough to implement and test on a smaller RC aircraft in flight. If this is not feasible, the system may be tested on the ground to demonstrate the ability to control the aircraft through the ground-station.

Action Items:

  1. Research past UAV projects and determine what our team may be able to make use of moving forward.

12.05.2012 - Meeting w/ Dr. Kolodziej

Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012 12pm - 12:45pm
Present: Aurora, Dennis, Jeremie, Scott, & Stephen

Summary:

Discussed the need to define specs and customer needs. It was suggested that the team move forward in defining specs without hard numerical values. As the project progresses specs will be defined and modified as needed. As the project is part of a large family of projects and a continuation of past projects, customer needs have already been well defined and latent needs are not an issue.

Discussed what was gleaned from the review of past projects. Projects P10231 and P11231 may be useful. These projects focused on the telemetry system and integrating ArduPilot with the UAV for sensing purposes. A subsequent search for hardware resulting from these projects did not yield much.

Action Items:

  1. Provide summary on projects P10231 & P11231.
  2. Locate the ArduPilot component previously used & determine whether or not it can be used in our solution.

12.07.2012 - Team Meeting

Friday, Dec. 7, 2012 1pm - 2pm
Present: Aurora, Dennis, Jeremie, Scott, & Stephen

Summary:

Discussed findings on the ArduPilot system. It appears that ArduPilot is capable of much more that it was used for on past UAV projects. ArduPilot may be a solution to controlling the UAV since it is open source and is capable of performing many of our system functions. It may be possible to use ArduPilot as an embedded controller and avoid many of issues that have plagued teams in the past.

A functional decomposition was generated and team values and norms were discussed.

Action Items:

  1. Generate a proposal to utilize ArduPilot to accomplish many of our system requirements.
  2. Schedule mid-week meeting w/ Dr. Kolodziej to review our current concepts.

12.12.2012 - Meeting w/ Dr. Kolodziej

Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2012 12pm - 12:45pm
Present: Aurora, Dennis, Jeremie, Scott, & Stephen

Summary:

Reviewed the capabilities of ArduPilot and the option to utilize its built-in embedded control. The project scope will be refined upon the teams decision to implement ArduPilot to include health monitoring of the UAV. Examples of health monitoring include detection of missing control surfaces or similar damage. Ideally, the ArdPilot GUI will be modified to included a damage indicator, used to alert the operator that the UAV has undergone a particular form of damage. The project will focus on implementing and testing ArduPilot on an RC airframe, purchased by the team. Stretch goals may include interfacing ArduPilot or some other control scheme with an existing imaging system.

Action Items (Due Friday, 12/14):

  1. Document customer needs to account for the change in the project's scope.
  2. Generate specs to ensure the customer needs are met.
  3. Show relationship between customer needs and specs (ex. House of Quality).
  4. Refine the functional decomposition to account for additional customer needs.
  5. Define risks associated with the project and methods for mitigating these risks (this/next week).

12.14.2012 - Meeting w/ Dr. Kolodziej

Friday, Dec. 14, 2012 2:15pm - 3pm
Present: Aurora, Dennis, Jeremie, Scott, & Stephen

Summary:

Reviewed the customer needs and specs and added to them as necessary. Briefly discussed the functional decomposition. Refined the function tree to better represent the new scope of the project that includes seeded fault detection. Reviewed the risk identification document. Discussed the option to include video streaming to a display on the ground as well as transmitting images to the ground station. These options are no longer critical needs now that the project will include use embedded control. This is separate from the future requirement to integrate the imaging system. Also discussed the needs of the trainer aircraft to include ailerons and throttle control as the full-size UAV does.

Action Items:

  1. Focus on concept generation.
  2. Refine Customer Needs & Specs.
  3. Attend ArduPilot test flight by the RIT Aero Club on Sat. 12/15.

12.21.2012 - Team Meeting

Friday, Dec. 21, 2012 11:10am - 12pm
Present: Aurora, Dennis, Jeremie, Scott, & Stephen

Summary:

Discussed work that needs to be done in preparing for the System's Design Review. Concept generation will be the main focus between now and the SD review. Investigated different options for the RC aircraft we will need to acquire. Discussion with Dr. Kolodziej narrowed the possible aircraft to those with a wingspan less than 5ft, electric powered, and that cost less than $350. Began brainstorming on potential failure types. Considered possible failures in the rudder (ex. severed rudder, ejected piece of rudder). Learned of an accelerometer that Dr. Kolodziej has come across. This may be able to be integrated in our fault detection system as a more refined fault detection sensor than a sensor with a simple 1/0 output.

Action Items:

  1. Update customer needs and specs. (Stephen)
  2. Top-level systems Pugh diagram. (Rory)
  3. Flight controls Pugh diagram. (Dennis)
  4. Fault type Pugh diagram. (Jeremie)
  5. RC aircraft Pugh diagram. (Stephen)
  6. Video system Pugh diagram. (Scott)
  7. Pick up the accelerometer from Dr. Kolodziej. (Scott)
  8. Put together systems design review powerpoint slides. (Dennis & team)

01.18.2013 - Meeting w/ Dr. Kolodziej

Friday, Jan. 18, 2013 10:45am - 12pm
Present: Aurora, Dennis, Jeremie, Scott, & Stephen

Summary:

Discussed using the Nexstar Mini EP as the RC aircraft platform for the project. The aircraft's size, features, and operation meet the needs of the project. The aircraft costs $200 RTF, has a separate servo controlling each aileron, and has adequate cargo space to accommodate ArduPilot. Reached agreement that this is the aircraft we will purchase. Also discussed purchasing a 9 channel radio for the aircraft. Having additional channels allows commands to be transmitted over the RC system (e.g. initiate fault command, take still image command). The cost of the radio is $70 and will most likely be purchased.

Team needs to focus on data logging the fault sensor output on board the aircraft and displaying some of the data on the ground. A still image capture system should also be developed to demonstrate the capability to process a "take image" command.

Designing the faults should also be a priority of the team, moving forward. The live video system is less critical at this point, but a cost analysis is still needed.

Detailed Design Review could possibly be held within the next two weeks.

Action Items (to be completed prior to DDR):

  1. Update customer needs and specs as needed
  2. Continue cost analysis of live video system
  3. Determine data logging capabilities of ArduPilot
  4. Investigate sampling rates of potential fault detection sensors
  5. Begin detailed design of seeded faults
  6. Compile feasibility analysis
  7. Update Risks
  8. Generate CAD drawings for aircraft modifications
  9. Purchase RC aircraft and ArduPilot

03.05.2013 - Team Meeting

Tuesday, Mar. 5, 2013 4pm - 5pm
Present: Aurora, Scott, & Stephen

Summary:

Discussed plan of action for coming week.

Action Items:

  1. Contact Dr. Kolodziej to set up weekly status meeting
  2. Set up meeting with Don McKeown from CIS to discuss potential cameras
  3. Install the recently received airspeed sensor
  4. Perform the connector swap so powered testing can be performed in the near future
  5. Implement faults on extra airframe prior to modifying the actual aircraft
  6. Order components needed for aileron failure circuitry
  7. Fabricate mounting system to secure ArduPilot in the RC aircraft cabin

Project Reviews

Project Review Page

Home | Systems Design | Detailed Design | Project Review | Fabrication | Testing | Manuals | Moving Forward | Photo Gallery