Shark Detection and Warning System • Michael Beeler –Program Manager • Miriam Lindhorst –Webmaster • Marino Angeles –Planning • Vincent Lieu –Testing • Andrae Marable http: //www. cs. odu. edu/~cpi/fall 2001/sdws/ –Budget • Nathan Reeves –Marketing 1
Abstract Oceanfront resort cities in the United States have enjoyed steady growth in direct tourism revenue for the past ten years. This growth has resulted in greater numbers of ocean swimmers taking advantage of resort beach facilities. Unfortunately, this increase in swimmer activity has been accompanied by a proportional rise in shark attack incidents. Shark attacks during the twentieth century show a rate of increase which correlates with the population increase near the shore. Over the next three years, our team will research and develop the Shark Detection and Warning System (SDWS) to warn swimmers of possible attack and protect oceanfront revenues. The SDWS will provide resort city managers with a warning of shark presence and an accompanying probability of attack. 2
3
Problem Ocean swimmers are concerned with the possibility of shark attack while swimming. 4
5
The Solution? 6
HF SONAR tracking n n n Environmentally friendly Aesthetically pleasing Safe “Off the shelf” parts Proven technology Proven effectiveness 7
Bottom Line Schedule – 3 years n. Budget – $3, 000 rd unit n. Profit – 3 n 8
Why? n Why will the project take so long? n Why does it cost so much? n Why don’t we see profit until the 3 rd unit? 9
Ideal Location Area with natural barriers n Single point of entry n Narrow opening n Coverage with 1 or 2 sensors n 10
11
12
Realistic Location Long, straight beaches n Florida, north/south beaches n Requires sensor array n One mile sections to be effective n 13
14
15
16
Project Implementation Plan n n Functional Specifications Prototype and Funding Demonstration Production / Installation of Unit 1 Follow-on Production 17
Phase I Determine Feasibility: Preliminary. Milestones: Develop Phase Gain Approval: I Plan: Determine Research: Start : : 28 -Aug Start 17 -Oct 19 -Sep 09 -Nov 03 -Oct End: 18 -Sep End: 08 -Nov 02 -Oct 06 -Dec 16 -Oct 17 days 16 days 20 10 18
Phase II Funding Demonstration: Test Simulation: Finalize Specifications: Build Simulation: Start : : 07 -Jan Start 16 -Mar 19 -Jan End: 18 -Jan End: 30 -Apr 15 -Mar 92 32 days 10 days 40 19
Phase III Shift Management Installation and Testing: Set up Production: Contracts: Software Development: Final to/Administer Plan: Start : 13 -May-02 22 -Mar-04 01 -Jul-03 02 -Jul-02 End: 01 -Jul-02 12 -Mar-04 19 -Mar-04 09 -May-03 38 166 449 224 days 36 days 20
Budget 21
Phase I Resource/Office costs $61, 292 Phase II Resource/Office costs $45, 292 Phase III Resource/Office costs $208, 061 Phase III Hardware costs $1, 150, 000 Bottom Line $3, 000 22
Production Schedule 23
Contractual Aspects n Kongsberg Simrad Mesotech Ltd. n n Mooring Systems Inc. n n Purchase of five SM 2000 multi-beam SONAR systems. Purchase of five Bottom-mount instrument frames. Site Specific Contracts n n Horizontal Boring Services Office Trailer Leasing 24
Other Requirements n Control House Placement and Maintenance Purchase and Placement of Audible Warning System n Purchase and Placement of Warning Flags n Purchase and Maintain Marker System n Implement Educational Measures n 25
Risk Management Plan • Inability to secure an investment • Not enough clients • Problems with Prime contractor • Competitors • Legal risks 26
Corporate Management Plan 27
Corporate Management Plan 28
Test Plan Test Case Actual Results Comments Date/Time Tester Selected test input data will be provided. Pass Fail Ensure operating as specified Selected test input data will be provided. Ping rate of 20/second or less Selected test input data will be provided. Pass Fail Module & Test case No. Criteria for Test Case Scenario Expected Outcome Test case #1: Sonar Head with Transducer With version ranging from 60 to 180 degrees, Sonar head covers the specified degree with a maximum of 128 beams. Minimum of 60 degree coverage. 90 k. Hz and 400 m range To provide ping rate up to 20/second 29
Evaluation Plan Program Design Review (PDR) n Critical Design Review (CDR) n Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) n Customer Acceptance Test (CAT) n 30
Marketing Plan • 420 years of data • United States and Australia 31
32
Strategy n n n Direct Mailings Radio Trade Journals Word of Mouth Demonstrations Internet 33
Funding Plan (Corporate) n n n n n EDO Corporation General Electric Raytheon Atlas-Krupp Thompson Electronics General Dynamics Klein Associates Inc. Lockheed Martin Northrop-Grumman 34
Funding Plan (Other) State Task Force n CIT Group n 35
A school of fish approaching a net and avoiding it. 36
37
Скачать презентацию Shark Detection and Warning System Michael Beeler
bc86cea70eb975fe0a2f2afa9b4ce2a8.ppt