Getting Back On Track

Blog Post #2

ASCI 530 – Unmanned Aerospace Systems

Assignment 2.4 Research; Weeding Out A Solution

Getting Back on Track

   In spite of all the tools of the trade we have at our disposal throughout a systems development life-cycle, setbacks happen.  In the following hypothetical, we exam what can be done to get a project back on track when it’s encountered a problem.

    Unmanned Aerial Systems are designed to do jobs considered to be dull, dirty and/or dangerous.  Dispensing fertilizer is all three of those.  Employing a Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) to do that job is only effective if can do it better than current methods.  We are looking at two key requirements in this summary: doing more (dispensing more fertilizer) with less (fuel).   The specification are spelled out in the Request For Proposal (RFP).  Once contracts are signed in response to the RFP, a company’s reputation is on the line; they must do what they’ve said they will do.  Industry standards often dictate how standards should be met, but it’s up to each team how to effectively employ the many tools at their disposal.  In this case, we are looking at a fertilizer delivery platform able to deliver a specified amount of fertilizer over a specified area.  We are now contractually obligated to develop a system to meet those specifications.  Stakeholders include Business Development & Marketing, Mechanical Engineers, Software Engineers, Test Engineers, Production staff,  Quality Assurance, Project/Program Management (PM), and of course the customer.  System Engineering, as an advocate for the customer, ties everyone together and provides guidance to the other departments as well as facilitates dispute resolution.  The governing document is the Systems Requirement Specification (SRS) which now forms a part of the contract.

    Given the parameters of the SRS, a systems analysis can determine that our proposed platform with the currently proposed fuel capacity, and payload capacity  will be insufficient to meet those requirements.  The project timeline is immediately impacted and a new timeline will need to be established.  While it’s never an enjoyable conversation to have with a customer, they are a stake holder in the project and should be consulted when devising a solution to this problem.  If the system, as it is in this case cannot meet those specifications, it is necessary to gain a better understanding of the requirement and its degree of importance to the execution of the systems mission (Kossiakoff, Sweet, & Seymour, 2011).

    Analysis of the problem:

1.  The use of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) hardware has caused the system, as it  is designed, to be overweight.
2. The weight of the system, as currently designed, reduces the payload capacity.

    Solution:

1. With customer approval, revise the delivery timeline and rework the design to meet the SRS.
2. Alternatively, with customer approval, deliver the system as currently designed, and plan for future upgrades which would meet current specifications.

    Properly used, tools such as Microsoft Project, or other planning tools can keep projects on-time, and often under budget.  This hypothetical presents some unfortunate circumstances which could have been easily avoided if proper systems engineering practices had been used. 

 

References

Kossiakoff, Alexander, Sweet, William N., and Seymour, Sam. Systems Engineering Principles and Practice (2nd Edition). Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Interscience, 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 21 September 2015.

The Evolution of Unmanned Aerial Systems

Blog Post #1

ASCI 530 – Unmanned Aerospace Systems

 

The Evolution of Unmanned Aerial Systems

 

    Like so many boys growing up I had a keen interest in model airplanes.  Cutting little plastic parts, and gluing them together to marvel at a replica of an admired piece of engineering genius.  That led the way to fly by wire model planes, and the ever “cool” Estes model rockets with their solid propellant, size A, B, C, and D engines; some even double stage.  Later, when my budget allowed (or rather my parent’s budget would allow), I graduated to remotely controlled vehicles.  So went my evolution with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).  Today that interest carries over to my professional life where I get to research, and be involved in the development of real Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs), and the ground elements that are used to operate them remotely.

    As a kid I thought Radio Control (RC) was cutting edge technology, but if that were true I’d have to be over a 100 years old today.  For the record, I am not.  Several technological obstacles have stood in the way of the advancement of the UAS, guidance systems and control of those systems likely being the most obvious.  The United States first began exploring the utility of UAS during World War 1 but those efforts were plagued by the unavailability of a reliable guidance system (Zaloga, 2008, p 4).  In 1909, American inventor Elmer Sperry began designing gyroscopic devices to control the stability of aircraft.  That led the way for the modern Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) in use today.   (Zaloga, 2008, P6).

    Navigational systems is just one milestone in the evolution of the UAS.  Others have been the improvements in remote communications most notably through satellite communications which allow pilots to “fly” those aircraft from thousands of miles away, replacing the radio control first introduced to the United States Navy in the 1930s by Reginald Denny of the hobby industry, and his Radioplane company.  Mr. Denny developed several versions of his model, the RP-1 through the RP-19/OQ-19 over several years.  His Radioplane was acquired by Northrop Grumman and went on to form the core of one of the most successful of today’s UAV firms  (Zaloga, 2008, P 7).

    Greater distances between aircraft and control site necessitates an accurate reporting of the aircrafts location when beyond line of sight, usually via GPS reporting.  No matter how reliable a control channels may be, it’s absolutely imperative that some safety measures be in place in the event of a communications system failure.  A modern UAS needs some degree of autonomy.  In the more sophisticated aircraft, that is achieved through on board mission management computer systems which have flight plans loaded so if communications  are lost, the aircraft can still execute preprogrammed instructions, allowing it to Return to Base (RTB), land safely, or proceed to a preestablished way point in its flight plan in the hopes of reestablishing control and communications.    Many control agencies, including the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) already insist upon a Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) before they will allow an aircraft to transit over a populated area, or within their airspace.  That will surely extend to the UAS as well.  The mindset of “big sky, little bullet” is not, nor should it ever be, acceptable.   The refinement of existing TCAS is likely to further the advancement, and prevalence of UASs in the skies above us.  UASs have come a long way from Reginald Denny’s Radioplane, largely in part due to the advancement in satellite communications providing that means of control, as well as enabling the UAS to be a platform for various payloads including sophisticated Electro-Optical systems, such as that integrated in Boeing’s ScanEagle, initially designed for the commercial fishing industry, and later used by the military as an observation platform, proving UAVs have a much greater utility than as simple targeting drones (Boeing, 9/2015).

    To the uninformed, UASs present a danger to our population, but I would argue that the systems in use, and those in development today are, and will continue to be, tremendously valuable tools, furthering our ability to fight fires, conduct search and rescue operations, extend communications, conduct terrain mapping, and will have countless other uses.  One thing is certain; UASs will continue to grow within the aviation community and even today we can look at them as the next big thing in a rapidly developing and exciting industry.

 

 

 

References

Zaloga, S. J.  (2008) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Robotic Air Warfare 1917 – 2007.  Osprey

     Publishing/Random House Distribution Center, Westminster, MD 21157

(Boeing, 9/2015) ScanEagle Unmanned Aerial Vehicle [online]. Available: http://www.boeing.com/history/products/scaneagle-unmanned-aerial-vehicle.page