1 / 37

Shark Detection and Warning System

Shark Detection and Warning System. Michael Beeler Program Manager Miriam Lindhorst Webmaster Marino Angeles Planning Vincent Lieu Testing Andrae Marable Budget Nathan Reeves Marketing. http://www.cs.odu.edu/~cpi/fall2001/sdws/. Abstract.

diane
Télécharger la présentation

Shark Detection and Warning System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Shark Detection and Warning System • Michael Beeler • Program Manager • Miriam Lindhorst • Webmaster • Marino Angeles • Planning • Vincent Lieu • Testing • Andrae Marable • Budget • Nathan Reeves • Marketing http://www.cs.odu.edu/~cpi/fall2001/sdws/

  2. 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.

  3. Problem Ocean swimmers are concerned with the possibility of shark attack while swimming.

  4. The Solution?

  5. HF SONAR tracking • Environmentally friendly • Aesthetically pleasing • Safe • “Off the shelf” parts • Proven technology • Proven effectiveness

  6. Bottom Line • Schedule – 3 years • Budget – $3,000,000 • Profit – 3rd unit

  7. Why? • Why will the project take so long? • Why does it cost so much? • Why don’t we see profit until the 3rd unit?

  8. Ideal Location • Area with natural barriers • Single point of entry • Narrow opening • Coverage with 1 or 2 sensors

  9. Realistic Location • Long, straight beaches • Florida, north/south beaches • Requires sensor array • One mile sections to be effective

  10. Project Implementation Plan • Functional Specifications • Prototype and Funding Demonstration • Production / Installation of Unit 1 • Follow-on Production

  11. Phase I Preliminary Research: Start : 28-Aug End: 18-Sep 16 days Determine Feasibility: Start : 03-Oct End: 16-Oct 10 days Determine Milestones: Start : 17-Oct End: 08-Nov 17 days Gain Approval: Start : 09-Nov End: 06-Dec 20 days Develop Phase I Plan: Start : 19-Sep End: 02-Oct 10 days

  12. Phase II Finalize Specifications: Start : 07-Jan End: 18-Jan 10 days Build Simulation: Start : 19-Jan End: 15-Mar 40 days Test Simulation: Start : 16-Mar End: 30-Apr 32 days Funding Demonstration: Start : 07-Jan End: 30-Apr 92 days

  13. Phase III Final Management Plan: Start : 13-May-02 End: 01-Jul-02 36 days Software Development: Start : 02-Jul-02 End: 09-May-03 224 days Set up /Administer Contracts: Start : 02-Jul-02 End: 19-Mar-04 449 days Installation and Testing: Start : 01-Jul-03 End: 19-Mar-04 166 days Shift to Production: Start : 22-Mar-04 End: 12-Mar-04 38 days

  14. Budget

  15. 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 $3,000,000

  16. Production Schedule

  17. Contractual Aspects • Kongsberg Simrad Mesotech Ltd. • Purchase of five SM2000 multi-beam SONAR systems. • Mooring Systems Inc. • Purchase of five Bottom-mount instrument frames. • Site Specific Contracts • Horizontal Boring Services • Office Trailer Leasing

  18. Other Requirements • Control House Placement and Maintenance • Purchase and Placement of Audible Warning System • Purchase and Placement of Warning Flags • Purchase and Maintain Marker System • Implement Educational Measures

  19. Risk Management Plan • Inability to secure an investment • Not enough clients • Problems with Prime contractor • Competitors • Legal risks

  20. Corporate Management Plan

  21. Corporate Management Plan

  22. Module & Test case No. Criteria for Test Case Scenario Expected Outcome Test Case Actual Results Comments Date/Time Tester 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. Selected test input data will be provided. Pass Fail 90 kHz and 400 m range Ensure operating as specified Selected test input data will be provided. To provide ping rate up to 20/second Ping rate of 20/second or less Selected test input data will be provided. Pass Fail Test Plan

  23. Evaluation Plan • Program Design Review (PDR) • Critical Design Review (CDR) • Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) • Customer Acceptance Test (CAT)

  24. Marketing Plan • 420 years of data • United States and Australia

  25. Strategy • Direct Mailings • Radio • Trade Journals • Word of Mouth • Demonstrations • Internet

  26. Funding Plan (Corporate) • EDO Corporation • General Electric • Raytheon • Atlas-Krupp • Thompson Electronics • General Dynamics • Klein Associates Inc. • Lockheed Martin • Northrop-Grumman

  27. Funding Plan (Other) • State Task Force • CIT Group

  28. A school of fish approaching a net and avoiding it.

More Related