16.82 Flight Vehicle Engineering
Fall 2014
Instructors: Jennifer L Craig, Mark Drela, R. John Hansman, Douglas Hart, Michael Trice
TAs: Athanasios G Athanassiadis, Tony Tao, Jacqueline Leah Thomas
Lecture: TR2-5 (33-419)
Announcements
Comments on design of CDR
Hi all,What follows are stream of consciousness notes on the slide deck. Individual presenter comments came back via email.
Overall, I thought this presentation was strong. I noticed a 'dip' in consistency about half way through---style of slides changed, color use got very idiosyncratic and not always effective----and then the presentation recouped and got stronger again. These moments of inconsistency are common in collaborative writing and presentation, and they seem minor. However, they have an effect on audience, and the varying levels of content certainly affect audience comprehension.
Overall, tho---good job! Thanks for all your hard work.
Jennifer
slide 4: could have had more information on that slide (200 mi
off short, for example, or depth criteria
slide 5: requirements
slide 6: nice graphic
slide 7 and 8 : like the cartoons that tells the story. very
skillful
slide 9: like the way you surfaced this challenge
slide 10: good way to partition these requirements
slide 13: nice views of a/c
slide 14: just didn’t quite ‘get’ this slide
slide 15: good 3- view
slide 16: like the graphic and the video
slide 18: doing a super job of using the title space on each slide;
improves comprehension a lot
slide 20: like the way we see the flowdown
slide 33: impressive graphic, labels help, restraint in color is
good
slide 45: good use of graphics throughout
slide 57: use of color here seems random===and also inconsistent
with earlier slides
slide 60: not so effective especially compared to other slides.
Nick briefs it ok but it’s not easy to understand. why colors not
labeled?
slide 62: why is state control both green and yellow?
slide 64: color use is inconsistent; font changes to white; font
style changes, too.
slide 67: presentation is losing its consistency; text is white,
text is block, text is bold, text is not-bold. . . . .confusing.
good example of how small inconsistencies begin to roll up and
create a sense of incoherence.
slide 74—the slides about the docking—these seem ‘off’ to me. i see
what you’re trying to display but it just seems awkward and not
clear.
slide 92: style of slides is changing again
slide 104: weird colors creeping in
slide 105: good discussion of risk
slide 113: we seem to be back to standards earlier in the
presentation—graphics, use of color. Have lost some of clarity of
early parts of the presentation, tho.
slide 118: nice graphic but slide is empty. Good space for some
information. Same with 119
slide 124 and then an earlier slide——things are counterintuitive,
upside down. . . why? I don’t understand the way the line release
works. passing that little piece around doesn’t really show the
dynamics.
[presentation style and design got a bit weaker as we went
along]
slide 127: why such odd colors?
slide 132: why some boxes red and others not?
slide 139: don’t understand why 1 box red and others not
slide 140: why so bare? where is your takeaway message—why not use
that slide space more substantially?
slide 145: some of those colors are hard to read on those
backgrounds. Keep it simple. The color use is not well done in some
of these later slides and it’s inconsistent throughout the
presentation.
slide 147: again you’ve changed colors. here, they are legible, but
why? yellow on this slide means power that is idle, or consumed, or
active. . .so what am I to think?
Announced on 10 December 2014 2:57 p.m. by Jennifer L Craig
CDR Grade
We and the reviewers were very pleased with the CDR and how you presented.
I was particuarly happy to see a clear and consistent explanation of your design decisions based on the requriements drivers. Whoever came up with this structure deserves some credit.
Overall grade 9/10.
Jennifer will send out detailed comments on individual presenters.
I look forward to starting to build this over IAP.
Have a good break.
John
Announced on 10 December 2014 11:52 a.m. by R. John Hansman
Bird names continued
Yes,Albatross has a lot of negative associations. And evidently stormy petrels are also supposed to be harbingers of doom. Who knew?
That exhausts my knowledge about sea birds.
JC
Announced on 08 December 2014 4:07 p.m. by Jennifer L Craig
CDR Location Change and Final Comments
Due to a large expected attendence we have shifted the location of the CDR to 3-133. This is supposed to be a nice location with room for over 60 people.
Please bring at least 10 copies of the final slides for the reviewers.
Please have someone get to the room early with whatever computer you are planning to use and make sure that it works.
One thing that came up at the PDR and I am not sure that we gave you the feedback on is that the Navy really does not like the name Albatross. The Albatross is a symbol of bad luck for mariners. It would be good to have a different name for the system. It does not have to be something clever it can just be descriptive. The other thing to think about is including MIT in the name as the MIT brand is very effective outside of campus.
In the description of the airplane I would emphaize the STOL nature of your final design.
It is looking good.
Good luck
John
Announced on 08 December 2014 3:37 p.m. by R. John Hansman
For CDR, could you send Google doc link
Hi all,If you send the link to the Google doc of the final presentation, Michael and I can comment in real time.
Also, when you compile the slides, don't forget the slide numbers. Thanks!
Jennifer
Announced on 04 December 2014 3:16 p.m. by Jennifer L Craig
