Mach 30 #EngineerSpeak Hangout June 18, 2015

Discussion Topic:  Sprint 1 Stand Up 6 and Sprint Review

Attending: J, Aaron, Jeremy, Chris, Ethan

Start:  2205 Eastern

End: 

Minutes:

• Stand Up

• Aaron

• Did - responded to comments from Matt M. on the EC review
• Will do - n/a
• Blocks - none

• J

• Did - Finished report in MTK!  Selected 9 test cases from dissertation across a range of materials, pressures, and dimensions; passed all tests

• Chris - recommends adding an abstract to the report process

• Will do - n/a
• Blocks - none

• Jeremy

• Did - integrated python library into CAD model, including units in Pint; exported the geometry to STL and J printed it
• Will do - n/a
• Blocks -

• Juli

• Did -
• Will do - n/a
• Blocks -

• Sprint Review

• J - Posted known deliverables on forums
• Chris - playing the role of stakeholder, going through the PBIs one by one and having team report on the deliverable
• YVN-1: Formal EC Review of Yavin

• Aaron - as long as we stay with developing a test article, we remain clear of EC regs for this project; if we even move to designing for an application then EC regs come into play
• Chris - accepts delivery; anyone have any concerns?
• <all - no>

• YVN-7: Structural analysis of pressure vessel as a Python library. The library should be tested in MTK, producing a document verifying the library. The design should then be implemented in CADQuery.

• PressureVessel class

• Chris - clearly the class is working, do we have any concerns about the wall thicknesses (too small to print for instance) that we will really see in production thrusters?
• J - no, we plan to use very high FS values (like say 10!), so the wall thicknesses will be far larger than would strictly be required
• Chris - how will we enforce the FS?
• J - probably with strong warnings in the manuals and with fixed values in the end user run scripts

• Report in MTK

• Chris - clearly done, looks great (see previous comment about adding abstracts in the future)

• Hello World Chamber

• Chris - clearly works, it was even used to print a copy of the design on a 3D printer

• Chris - accepting this PBI as done

• YVN-8: Run a Mach 30 volunteer's 3D printer through at least 1 published calibration test and document results in a short report

• J - we are not claiming done on this PBI, no significant progress was made due to time conflicts and hardware issues for Juli

• Retrospective

• What we did well

• Ahead of schedule completion of the EC review. EC review went as expected, and seemed thorough
• Excellent quality of deliverables for YVN-7
• Team identified implicit tasks to be done for final approval, such as unit tests
• Completed all core PBIs
• The only PBI that wasn’t completed was due to forces out of the team’s control
• Matt’s EC process was thorough and would lend itself well to automation.
• Were able to prove our fundamental assumptions about CadQuery and MTK, and how they would be used in a tool chain.
• Team was appropriately bold in choosing the PBI’s, as well as accurate in choosing the right things, which made reaching the milestone of integrating CadQuery and MTK possible.
• Having weekly commitments to drive keeping on schedule
• Working on blockers @ #EngineerSpeak hangouts post Stand Ups to keep pace of progress
• 6-week length for the sprint was about the right length
• Documenting major accomplishments/communicating over forums

• What didn’t go well

• YVN-8 wasn’t completed
• Ran into issues with how Sage handles symbolic calculations around libraries
• Working distributedly with hardware was challenging, for example 3D printer issues
• EC Review:

• Questions in the EC review process could be more clearly phrased so that the answers would have the correct scope.
• The process is tedious, and requires a large quantity of time.  Automation would improve data integrity and speed.
• The standard initial questions must be completed by the project lead prior to an EC review beginning.

• Several weeks ended up waiting until Thur to do my work

• What can we do better next time

• Try to eliminate single points of failure - have people that can act as backups for workload.
• Dive into replacing Sage with iPython to resolve symbolic calculation handling issues in Sage
• Possibly ship replacement or otherwise known working parts to team members having hardware issues.
• Refine the EC review process, both in terms of automation and in terms of sequence.  None were major issues.
• Would prefer to not wait until the last minute (even just week to week) to do the committed work
• Weekly posts to P2 or the blog based on the stand ups