## 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

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 | |

4 | 2 | |

7 | 3 |

## Picture of Finished ChartEdit

## 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.