FANDOM


Figures of Merit (FOM)Edit

  • Criteria that is important to NASA and UAH in selection of a design.
  • Every FOM needs to be defined in the form of a question.
  • Every FOM should have some form of preference (Do we like it better than another FOM?).

WeightEdit

  • 1 means low importance
  • 3 means medium importance
  • 9 means high importance

List of Custom FOMS Edit

Name of FOM Definition of FOM Weight of FOM
Durability How well would it survive the overall environment of Venus? 9
Size What is the total volume, does it fit within our requirement limits? 9
Weight What is the total mass, is it within our requirement limits? 3
Mobility How easily may the design traverse the surface of Venus? 1
Functionality What is the level of ability the design has to complete the science objective? 9
Versatility What is the variety of operations the design can perform? 1
Dependence How dependent is the design on the other UAH crafts and user control? 9


Definition of FOMS chosen by UAH and NASAEdit

Name of FOM Definition Weight
Science Objective How well can the design achieve the science objective? 9
Likelihood Project Requirement What is the likelihood of fulfilling project requirements? 9
Science Mass Ratio What is the total mass, is it within our requirement limits? 9
Design Complexity How complex is the design? 1
ConOps Complexity How many instruments does it use? 1
Likelihood Mission Success How likely is it that this design would succeed?  9
Manufactuarability What level of skill is needed to build this design? 3

Decision AnalysisEdit

  • Use the FOMS from above in this Decision Analysis chart below
Decision Analysis
Figures of Merit

Weight

1,3, or 9

Group 1 Design

Score relative to each FOM

Group 2 Design

Score relative to each FOM

Group 3

Design

Score relative to each FOM

Science Objective 9
Likelihood Project Requirement 9
Science Mass Ratio 9
Design Complexity 1
ConOps Complexity 1
Likelihood Mission Success 9
Manufacturability 3
Durability 9
Functionality 9
Mobility 1


Total Score of Group 1 Design Total Score of Group 2 Design Total Score of Group 3


Designs we are Analysing Edit

Model # Group Design # Picture
1 1
Basemodulars
4 2
B5
7 3
Bm5



Picture of Finished ChartEdit

Das











Description of Assignment AssessmentEdit

  • Science Objective: The first model received a 3 while the other two models received a 9 because the first model due to its ineffective modular configuration. Also models 2 and 3 have the same instruments and therefore are equally effective at using them to completing the science objective.
  • Likelihood Project Requirements: The first model received a 1,model two earned a 9, and the third model recieced a 3. The first model was too massive and therefore could not fit within restraints. Models 2 and 3 could possibly fit within the restraints, and use the same number of modules and have the same chassis so the scoring was particularly close. Model 2 was more likely to fufill project requirements than Model 3 because Model 3's hover fan's added additional mass.
  • Science Mass Ratio and Likelihood Project Requirements were judged exactly the same and therefore the scores are the same as well as the reasoning.
  • Design Complexity: The first design is too complex due to its number of modules and large instruments. Design 2 requires treads which are insanely difficult to engineer in CAD but the number of modules is significantly smaller than Model 1. Model 3 has the same number of modules as Model 2 but Model 3 uses hover fans which are difficult to construct and possibly more complex to engineer than treads.
  • Co-Ops Complexity: The first model received a 1 while the other two models received a 3 because the first models had lots of components to it and they could be done by the other two designs easily and with less components. The other two models received a 3 because they had less modules than the first design but they could fufill the objective more efficiently.
  • Likelihood of Mission Success: The first model received a 1, the second model received a 3, and the final model received a 9. The first model was too large and clunky to properly complete its mission. The second design was smaller but could fall victim to environmental hazards. The third design received a 9 because its small design and ability to hover grant it the ability to overcome environmental hazards and successfully complete the mission.
  • Manufacturability: The first model received a 9 because its design was simple and easy to manufacture. The second model received a 3 because it used treads which are difficult to design even in CAD. The third model received a 1 because it has treads and hover fans making it even harder to manufacture than design 2.
  • Durability: The first model received a 3 because it has additional modules. The second model received a 9 because it can better traverse terrain and better avoid danger. The third model has hover fans that are susceptible to damage which is why it recieved a 1.
  • Functionality: The first model received a 1 because of ineffectual instrumentation, while the second model got a 3 because of its tread supported all-terrain mobility and improved instrumentation, and the third design earned a 9 because of its ability to hover as well as traverse on all terrain and improved instrumentation.
  • Mobility: The first model received a 9 because of its ability to split into multiple modules allowing it to traverse multiple areas at once. The second model received a 3 because they are equipped with treads which allow them to traverse all terrain environments. The third model received a 9 because of it tread/hover versatility.

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.