Time | Item | Presenter | Notes |
|---|
| 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 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 | I (Ryan) strongly recommend entering a structure where you’re either a part of making a lander or you’re a part of making PB-1 hotfire. That being said, by winter quarter start, everyone should be able to ask themselves “what did I do this week that got us closer to [hotfire or lander]?” Start breaking the problem down into what is the bare minimum that is gating test (as well defined by a set of requirements) and work on those problems Lastly I recommend heavy documentation. Mostly because writing things down (e.g. minimum requirements to get to hotfire) gets you to think about them clearer. Also if someone signs off on a requirements set, it forces that person to commit and stand ground about decisions Winter quarter callout is soon, the request is for PM’s to present very briefly on group progress and focus more on what new members can work on.
|