Time | Item | Presenter | Notes |
|---|
| Recruiting Recruitment | Vann | Recruitment went well, group is standing at ~15 members. Solid recruitment of both lower and upperclassmen. Retention is not bad but could be improved.
|
| Materials Lab Ovenslab ovens | Ryan | |
| Test site design
|
Ryan
| It would be easy to, for example, want to put it as far away as possible but that would be inconvenient and may not be a requirement. Make sure to have a robust understanding of requirements and not arbitrability set things like standoff distance/LOS reqs. Also consider reaching out to Chambers Battery people/GPE for test site, while the actual test "enclosure" may not have overlap between groups we could still work together to improve the stalls/get utilities ran/running. Point being if our exact test need don't overlap we can still collaborate if it is beneficial.
|
| Livestreaming testing | Ryan | Consider livestreaming testing for both EHS and CPLC needs/desires. It is not very hard to stream to Yotube, it saves the recording on their servers and should not be hard given that testing happens on campus (internet connection + power).
|
| Consider building the lander now | Ryan | This is a big one but has some genuine backing. Firstly, the lander could be split between a top half (tanks, av bay, rcs, etc.) and a bottom half (landing structure and engine system (including plumbing and valves)), if necessary. This has two major benefits: 1. We get hardware on hand, this build momentum for the group as well as credibility, Tom can't hand wave so easily when the bottom half of a lander is sitting in the bay. 2. being hardware rich early could be highly beneficial. The scope of this may very well be lower than some, myself included, imagined. It could be done in a sprint of a few weeks. I'd like to discuss this and barring any major pushback will mention it in the rocketry callout meeting week 1.
|
| Onboarding projects → CPLC work | Ryan | |
| New meeting structure | Vann & Ryan | |
| Final notes | Vann & Ryan | |