PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT - Shalom … X51 520MHz vs. HP iPAQ hx2490 Why iPAQ hx2490 The...

P R E L I M I N A R Y D E S I G N R E P O R T

ponsors ▪

US DEPT. OF FORESTRY ▪ WINTEC ▪ CHANG INDUSTRIES ▪ USSOCOM HIEF

Dr. Karl Gugel REW ▪ Carolina Ramirez ▪ Adnan Rashid ▪ William Goh ▪ Rolando Estrella ▪ Zach Jacabson ▪ Andy Sciullo

S

C

C

of 24

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ANALYSIS OF COMPETIT IVE PRODUCTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CONCEPT SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

PROJECT PLAN, RESOURCES, SCHEDULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

BUSINESS CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

of 24

1 P R O J E C T A S S U M P T I O N S A N D O B J E C T I V E S B a c k g r o u n d I n f o Currently fire fighters working with the U.S. Department of Forestry carry only a two way RF

radio which they use for all communications in the field. There is currently no way for anyone in the field to know their current position and the position of others in the field. Likewise, those working away from the field have no way to know the position or communicate with one working in the field. The ability to communicate pertinent types of information would be advantageous in organizing, conducting, and completing objectives in the field and also provide a means for sending distress signals.

P r o j e c t D e f i n i t i o n Our project is to establish a Smart communication module between the FieldUnit and a

SmartNode, which would serve as a central communication point for groups in the field. Each SmartNode would then connect to a central database and or command center. Types of data to be sent between devices will include GPS location data, text messages, and distress signals. We will realize this project by developing:

i. A FieldUnit hand held device to communicate with a SmartNode ii. A SmartNode to be a medium of communication between the FieldUnit and a database

server iii. A database server to handle all incoming SmartNode communications and to connect

with a central command center S c o p e o f P r o j e c t The scope of this project is to use as much off the shelf technology as possible to design,

test and implement the concept of using a SmartNode to track and communicate with firefighters in the field. The scope of this project does not include developing any technology from the ground up or trying to replace the functionality of the hand held radios firefighters already carry.

M a j o r O b j e c t i v e s

i. Building devices that are easy to produce, carry and operate ii. Develop the SmartNode system adaptable to whatever the customers needs are or

may be iii. Use as much off the shelf technology as possible to keep costs and time of

development down iv. Develop working prototypes that serve as a proof of the SmartNode concept

P r o d u c t E x p e c t a t i o n s

i. RF data communications between the SmartNode and FieldUnits ii. Satellite communications between the SmartNode and the database iii. Have users at all levels be able to track the firefighters on a map iv. SMS between field units and the command center v. Have a panic button on the field units to send a distress signal vi. Device ruggedness and durability appropriate for use in the field

A n n u a l Q u a n t i t y Yet to be determined by the customer

of 24

2 C U S T O M E R R E Q U I R E M E N T S

Performance

Impact , water, and corrosion proof casing Temperature tolerance It has to be around less than 1lb for FieldUnit Preferably 2 miles signal range Ideally 72 hours of battery life Easy to use and cleanable

Serviceability

Long life span Easy to open and fix Flexible to change damaged parts

Features

Small dimensions Temperature tolerance Satellite link GPS Bluetooth technology Map Tracking software Text Messaging Voice Communication Emergency button Text reception RF modem communication Ease to use

Reliability

Stable Software (reset features) Impact resistance and water proof Long life and electrically protected (at least 5 years)

Cost

Low cost Off the shelf parts Parts easily replaceable

Safety/Security:

Electrically protected Impact proof casing

of 24

3 A N A L Y S I S O F C O M P E T I T I V E P R O D U C T S Through group thinking and research, we have established 3 different options of approach to the Field Unit and SmartNode for our project. The 3 options will be discussed in more details in Section 5. In the 3 options, Flamers plan to use different ranges of off-the-shelf products from PDA, laptops, Bluetooth GPS, and etc. Each product was researched for its best brand and fit in our application before purchasing them for testing. With that in mind, the following details outline the different brands of product that we searched as to why and why will it not fit our project.

i. PDA Options Dell X51 520MHz vs. HP iPAQ hx2490 Why iPAQ hx2490

The specifications, features, and price closely resemble the Dell X51. Both Dell and HP have government discounts for volume purchase. HP won because it has a rugged casing available through HP’s website.

Why NOT Dell X51

The main reason – not readily available in rugged casing to protect it.

ii. Radio Transceiver Chips Aerocomm vs. Maxstream 9Extend vs Microhard Systems MHX920 vs GPSFlight Options that we looked at

Aerocomm AC4790 Maxstream 9Extend Microhard Systems MHX920 GPSFlight

20 miles LOS at 1W Low power Does peer to peer

connection, means longer range

Price range for 1 chip is $50 in volume

Development board is $199

Development board is flexible to test with USB and RS232

Handle a lot of users in 1 network

Each field unit can act as a repeater

40 miles LOS at 1W AES Encryption $175 each chip in

volume quantity Development board

for $399 Bottom line –

expensive compared to Aerocomm

Almost similar to Aerocomm

Too expensive to be listed ($700+)

Transmitter only or Receiver unit only. Not duplex

Why Aerocomm

Cheap, small, low power, long range, and serial interface. Why NOT others

Either expensive, short range, high power as highlighted above

iii. Laptops Not applicable yet as we can use our laptops for now to test.

iv. Bluetooth GPS

Garmin Bluetooth GPS 10 vs competitors Why Garmin

of 24

It is waterproof It is standalone and battery charged It has rechargeable batteries that last for 12 hours

Why NOT others They are not waterproof Short battery life

v. Operating Systems

Why Linux

Bob Roth prefers the use of Linux Operates efficiently and stable

Why NOT Windows Unstable operating system in critical environment situation

In conclusion, these products were taken into the concept selection category because it is the best fit for our application. They outshine their competitors in price, reliability, power efficiency, and ruggedness.

vs

of 24

4 C O N C E P T S E L E C T I O N In this section, the products analyzed in the above section were taken into the concept selection process. In order to better satisfy customer specifications and major product objectives, our team developed a hierarchical concept strategy. This approach allowed us to start from a general concept overview and later divide the concept selection into more specific categories. The more general of the concept categories is the general concept schematic which includes all the specific components that form the final product. This general concept schematic models the product definition outlined in section 2 of this report.

Figure 1 General Concept Schematics

Figure 1 shows the necessary communication links to connect all the subcategories that compose the general definition of the project. These subcategories are:

SmartNode (Hardware and Software concepts) FieldUnit (Hardware and Software concepts) Base Station (Software concept)

The concept selection process for these subcategories uses the technology described in section 3 in achieving the component connectivity as illustrated in the above schematic. Each of the subcategories includes two or three concept options with their advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, each of the subcategories presents a concept selection matrix where it is decided whether the proposed concept should be continued to the testing phase or be discarded.

of 24

SM A R TNODE HARDWARE CONCEPT OPTIONS In this subcategory, three concept options were proposed. Concept 1 introduces the Garmin Rino 530, a laptop computer, and the GlobalStar Satellite Phone. This concept is based on serial communication between the laptop and the Garmin module. Concept 2 is composed of a GlobalStar Satellite phone and a custom Bluetooth or Serial Module external to the laptop that provides GPS waypoint information for the SmartNode as well as RF packets coming from the field units that are associated to the node. Lastly, Concept 3 replaces the laptop in concept 2 with a PDA. Advantages and disadvantages on the proposed concepts are analyzed below.

NODE HARDWARE CONCEPT 1



Laptop + Rino 530 + Sat Phone

Laptop + GPS + RF Link + Sat Phone

PDA + GPS + RF Link + Sat Phone

Pros • Voice between Field Units

and SmartNode • SDK & USB Drivers

available • Map apps already

available • Can choose OS • All hardware developed • Can hold up to 50 Rino

users in 1 SmartNode • Max number of SmartNode

is 38

Cons

• Rino can’t be modified • No panic button for Rino • Limited #users • FCC license required for

Long range comm. • Text messages cannot be

stored. • No Bluetooth interface

Pros • Good GPS reception • Highly customizable

Waypoints collection Text messaging Panic button Can choose OS

• RF design can be extremely flexible

• Can have hundreds of users • Software flexibility compared

to Rino • Flexible track mapping

software requirements • Bluetooth Interface

Cons

• No voice comm. • Power consumption can be a

problem.

Pros • Good GPS reception • Pocket PC ready • Lighter weight compared to 1

and 2 • Less power consumption

compared to laptop • Highly Customizable

Waypoints collection Text messaging Panic button

• Can have hundreds of users • Bluetooth interface

Cons

• Small screen • CPU not enough processing

power • No voice communication • Software for drivers needed • Not easy to interface to a

PDA for all the devices as PDA are much customized

• Not much versatility for software.

Table 1. SmartNode subcategory Hardware Concepts

of 24

SM A R TNODE HARDWARE CONCEPT SELECTION For the concept selection matrix of the SmartNode hardware we took the proposed concept options and ranked them according to how well they satisfy the selection criteria for this subcategory.

Selection Criteria 1 2 3 Has long RF signal range and clear reception for all terrain. 0 + +

I/O ports are accessible to custom application using data collection protocols and hardware level programming.

- + 0

Technology and production cost is low. - 0 0 Fast prototype development process. + 0 0

Consumes low power. + - 0 Allows for flexible GUI and Comm. high level applications. + + -

Unit is light weight and small in size. 0 0 + Easiness to package + 0 0 Allows for flexible Mapping high level applications. 0 + - FCC licensing not needed. - 0 0

Sum +’s Sum Same

Sum -’s

4 3 2

4 5 1

2 6 2

Net Score Rank

Continue?

2 2

yes

3 1

yes

0 3

No

Node Hardware Concept 1. Node Hardware Concept 2. Node Hardware Concept 3.

Table 2. SmartNode subcategory Hardware Concept Selection

As shown on the selection matrix above, concept option 3 will not be taken into the testing phase of the project due to the I/O and software resources limitations of a PDA when used for the SmartNode hardware.

of 24

SM A R TNODE SOFTWARE CONCEPT OPTIONS

The concept development for the SmartNode software was based on two general approaches governed by the operating systems Windows and Linux. Note that these concepts use the SmartNode hardware selection matrix to discard Mobile Operating systems since a PDA unit was shown to be limited.

The windows approach shows a mixed alternative where the hardware I/O and data collection are coded from scratch and the mapping layer is based on the MapPoint API available from Microsoft. The Linux approach builds on an already existing application that implements most of the product requirements and offers an open source C/Perl environment to fully customize the development. Below are the concept options pros and cons followed by the node software concept selection analysis.

NODE SOFTWARE CONCEPT 1

NODE SOFTWARE CONCEPT 2

- Microsoft Windows - Visual Studio 2005 - Microsoft MapPoint 2004 - MySQL Database

- Suse Linux - GTK + development - GNU tools and drivers - MySQL Database - GPSDrive

Pros

• Development experience • Flexibility for hardware • Most drivers available for external

devices • User friendly environment

Cons • No open source • Driver to database interface application

must be developed from scratch. • Mapping GUI application is limited to

MapPoint API’s scope.

Pros

• Full open source • Most of the features are already

developed. • Extensive documentation and forum

support • Fully Customizable GUI application

with mapping integrated

Cons • No experience with development

environment • Less user friendliness than windows • No experience with Perl programming • Drivers for external devices might not

be available • Limited flexibility for hardware • Operating system is generally not

factory installed for laptops

Table 3. SmartNode subcategory Software Concepts

of 24

SM A R TNODE SOFTWARE CONCEPT SELECTION

For the concept selection matrix of the SmartNode software we took the proposed concept options and ranked them according to how well they satisfy the selection criteria for this subcategory.

Selection Criteria 1

2

Hardware level IO data interpretation and formatting + 0

Logic level data collection + 0

Database data collection and formatting + 0 Offline map engine to interface to database and display data points - +

Flexible GUI to interface all the components - +

Sum +’s Sum Same

Sum -’s

3 0 2

2 0 0

Net Score Rank

Continue?

1 2

No

2 1

yes

Node Software Concept 1.

Node Software Concept 2.

Table 4. SmartNode subcategory Software Concept Selection

The windows portion of our research pointed many stand-alone products that partially comply with our specifications but none of them were complete, simple, or affordable. On the other hand, research showed that the GPSDrive application built for the Linux operating system meets these requirements. The Linux approach will be taken into the testing phase of the project.

of 24

F I E L D U N I T HARDWARE CONCEPT OPTIONS In this subcategory three concept options are proposed. Concept 1 introduces the Garmin Rino 530 as the All-in-One field unit hardware concept. Concept 2 is composed of a Garmin iQue M5 PDA with built-in GPS receiver, and an external custom Bluetooth RF module, which provides communication with other field units as well as communication with the SmartNode to which the unit is assigned. Concept 3 uses an HP iPAQ PDA and the custom Bluetooth module, which integrates a GPS receiver, and the Aerocomm RF chip to effectively communicate with all the other components that model the project definition. Advantages and disadvantages on the proposed concepts are analyzed below.

FIELD UNIT HARDWARE

CONCEPT 1

FIELD UNIT HARDWARE

CONCEPT 2

FIELD UNIT HARDWARE

CONCEPT 3

- Garmin Rino 530

- Garmin Ique M5 PDA with GPS - Custom Module: *RF Chip *Serial/Bluetooth Converter

- HP PDA - Custom Module: *GPS unit *RF Chip *Serial/Bluetooth Converter

Pros: • Can track other field units • Voice communication with

other Rino users • Don’t need to write

software for it Cons:

• Limited amount of users • Government license is

required for GMRS radio for longer range

• Can’t receive text messages

• No Panic button except voice comm.

• Government could not use Rino frequency range.

Pros: • Good GPS reception • Highly customizable • Waypoints collections • Text messaging • Panic button • Pocket PC ready • RF design can be

extremely flexible • Can have hundreds of

users • Software flexibility

compared to Rino • RF link can be external

and strapped with Bluetooth Serial interface.

Cons: • GPS antenna built in can

come lose or break • Packaging might be an

issue • No voice communication

Pros: • Better GPS reception • Highly Customizable • Waypoints collections • Text messaging • Panic button • Pocket PC ready • RF design can be

extremely flexible • Can have hundreds of

users • Software flexibility

compared to Rino • RF link can be external

and strapped with Bluetooth Serial interface.

Cons:

• Packaging might be an issue

• No voice communication

Table 5. Field Unit subcategory Hardware Concepts

of 24

F I E L D U N I T HARDWARE CONCEPT SELECTION For the concept selection matrix of the Field Unit hardware we took the proposed concept options and ranked them according to how well they satisfy the selection criteria for this subcategory.

Selection Criteria 1 2 3

Has long RF signal range and clear reception for all terrain. - + +

I/O ports are accessible to custom application using data collection protocols and hardware level programming.

- - +

Technology and production cost is low. + - 0 Fast prototype development process. + 0 -

Consumes low power. + 0 0 Allows for flexible GUI and Comm. high level applications. - - +

Unit is light weight and small in size. + 0 0 Easiness to package + - - Allows for flexible Mapping high level applications. - + +

FCC licensing not needed. - + +

Sum +’s Sum Same

Sum -’s

5 0 5

3 3 4

5 3 2

Net Score Rank

Continue?

0 2

Yes

-1 3

No

3 1

Yes

Field Unit Hardware Concept 1.



Table 6. Field Unit subcategory Hardware Concept Selection As shown on the selection matrix above, concept option 2 will not be taken into the testing phase of the project due to the I/O and software resources limitations of the Garmin iQue M5 PDA when used as part of the Field Unit hardware.

of 24

F I E L D U N I T SOFTWARE CONCEPT OPTIONS The concept development for the Field Unit software was based on two general approaches governed by the operating systems Windows Mobile and Linux. Note that these concepts use the Field Unit hardware selection matrix to discard Garmin’s PDA unit, which has Garmin custom OS. Advantages and Disadvantages of these two approaches are outlined below.

FIELD UNIT

SOFTWARE CONCEPT 1

FIELD UNIT

SOFTWARE CONCEPT 2

- Microsoft Windows Mobile - Windows Mobile Developer kit - Microsoft MapPoint 2004 - Windows Mobile Database Application


Pros:

• Flexibility for hardware • Most drivers available for external

devices • User friendly environment

Cons: • No open source • Driver to database interface

application must be developed from scratch.

• Mapping GUI application is limited to MapPoint API’s scope.

Pros: • Full open source • Most of the features are already

developed. • Extensive documentation and forum

support • Fully Customizable GUI application

with mapping integrated

Cons:

• No experience with development environment

• Only selected PDAs run Linux • Only selected PDAs run GPSDrive • Less user friendly than windows • No experience with Perl programming • Drivers for external devices might not

be available • Limited flexibility for hardware • Operating system is generally not

factory installed for PDA

Table 7. Field Unit subcategory Software Concepts

of 24

F I E L D U N I T SOFTWARE CONCEPT SELECTION

For the concept selection matrix of the Field Unit software we took the proposed concept options and ranked them according to how well they satisfy the selection criteria for this subcategory.

Selection Criteria 1 2

Hardware level IO data interpretation and formatting + 0

Flexible to most PDAs + - Availability of Drivers for external hardware + - Flexible to mapping applications 0 + Logic level data collection + 0 Database data collection and formatting 0 0 Offline map engine to interface to database and display data points - +

Flexible GUI to interface all the components - + Sum +’s

Sum Same Sum -’s

4 2 2

3 3 2

Net Score Rank

Continue?

2 1

yes

1 2

no

Field Unit Software Concept 1.

Field Unit Software Concept 2.

Table 8. Field Unit subcategory Software Concept Selection As shown on the selection matrix above, Field Unit software concept option 2 will not be taken into the testing phase of the project due to limitations of the Linux operating system to be adapted to PDA hardware.

of 24

BASESTA TION SOFTWARE CONCEPT OPTIONS The concept development for the Base Station software was based on two general approaches Google Earth API and NASA’s Worldwind application. Advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches are outlined below.

BASE STATION

SOFTWARE CONCEPT 1

BASE STATION

SOFTWARE CONCEPT 2

- Google Earth - KML Builder - MySQL Database - Web Server

- NASA Worldwind - GPS Track PlugIn - MySQL Database - Web Server

Pros: • Short development process • Data from database easy to

interface with KML builder. • Higher resolution images available • Local storage not necessary since

images are cached from Google’s earth server.

Cons:

• A high speed internet connection is needed to download satellite images from Google’s www servers.

• No development experience • Mapping application not fully

customizable. • Not open source. Only Google API

calls are allowed for data collection and display.

• Requires 3D video processing hardware.

• Google Earth is a beta version and base station software development could not be stable.

Pros: • Full open source. • Plug-in available to interface waypoint

information to Mapping Application. • Images can be previously downloaded

and therefore cached locally by mapping application.

• Only dialup connection necessary to get information from SmartNodes.

• Mapping application fully customizable.

• Not dependent on status of NASA application. It can work as a stand-alone application.

Cons:

• Longer development process • Database and mapping application

interface must be built from scratch.

• No development experience • Local storage capacity requirement

is high. • Requires 3D video processing

hardware.

Table 9. Base Station subcategory Software Concepts

of 24

BASESTA TION SOFTWARE CONCEPT SELECTION For the concept selection matrix of the Base Station software we took the proposed concept options and ranked them according to how well they satisfy the selection criteria for this subcategory. Selection Criteria 1 2 Open source development - +

Application dependence to third party web servers - +

Base Station Internet connection speed requirements - +

Customizable mapping application - + Easy Interface between database and mapping application + -

Low local Storage Capacity + - Easy Waypoints import capabilities + - Flexible GUI to interface all the components - +

Sum +’s Sum Same

Sum -’s

3 0 5

5 0 3

Net Score Rank

Continue?

-2 2

no

2 1

yes

Base station Software Concept 1.

Base Station Software Concept 2.

Table 10. Base Station subcategory Software Concept Selection

As shown on the selection matrix above, Base Station software concept option 1 Google Earth will not be taken into the testing phase of the project due to its dependence to the Google’s API and the fact that it does not provide an open source flexibility.

of 24

CONCEPT SELECTION RESULTS SMART-NODE, FIELD UNIT, AND BASE STATION. The concept selection process yielded the following set of results for the three subcategories analyzed. All concepts selected will be the base of the next phase of our project which is testing and prototyping.

SUBCATEGORIES

SELECTED HARDWARE CONCEPTS

SMARTNODE

- Rugged Laptop - Garmin Rino 530 - Global Star Sat. Phone

-Rugged Laptop - Custom Module: *GPS unit *Aerocomm RF Chip *Serial/Bluetooth Converter

FIELD UNIT

Rino 530

- HP iPAQ HX2490 PDA - Custom Module: *GPS unit * Aerocomm RF Chip *Serial/Bluetooth Converter

Table 11. Selected hardware concepts for testing and prototyping phase

SUBCATEGORIES SELECTED SOFTWARE CONCEPTS

SMART NODE


FIELD UNIT

- Microsoft Windows Mobile - Windows Mobile Dev. kit - Microsoft MapPoint 2004 - Database Application

BASE STATION

- NASA World Wind - MySQL Database

Table 12. Selected software concepts for testing and prototyping phase

of 24

5 P R O J E C T P L A N , R E S O U R C E S , S C H E D U L E S

The Florida Flamers developed a comprehensive plan to integrate the tasks that need to be completed for the project to be successful with the resources and skills that each group member has at their disposal. Using this information along with what will be required to complete the project, we created the following Preliminary Project Plan. It is our proposed comprehensive schedule that we will be using throughout the project.

of 24

Along with this Project Plan, we assigned each task to either a team member or group of team members. We also determined potential risks and developed risk avoidance measures.

i. Major Checkpoints/Deliverables

a. Initial Project Planning b. First SmartNode Prototype c. Second SmartNode Prototype d. Handheld Unit Development e. Complete Integration/Final Tasks

These checkpoints were formed from our Project Plan.

ii. List of Activities See above Project Plan figures.

iii. Time Required to Complete

f. Initial Project Planning 5 weeks g. First SmartNode Prototype 5 weeks h. Second SmartNode Prototype 5 weeks i. Handheld Unit Development 12 weeks j. Complete Integration/Final Tasks 11 weeks

See above Project Plan figures for details. Also, please note that some stages overlap.

iv. Target Dates for Completion

k. Finish Initial Project Planning 10/24/2005 l. Finish First SmartNode Prototype 11/7/2005 m. Finish Second SmartNode Prototype 12/12/2005 n. Finish Handheld Unit Development 3/6/2006 o. Complete Integration 4/3/2006

We used the Project Plan to dedicate the proper amount of time for each activity. In addition, we left time between the second SmartNode and handheld unit to allow for debugging and any issues that cause delays.

v. Responsible Team Members

We assigned team members to assignments based on their strengths in each of the fields required to finish the project.

Florida Flamers Team Member Assignments SmartNode Software RF Hardware and Field Unit Base station software Project Manager

Rolando Estrella William Goh Michael Kessler Carolina Ramirez Adnan Rashid Zachery Jacobson

Andy Sciullo

of 24

6 B U S I N E S S C A S E

Flamers’ project is essentially a proved-of-concept project. In accomplishing our project, the development time and off-the-shelf technology are used achieve the customer’s specifications. These specifications were specified in Section 3. Actual & Budgeted Expenditure

Item Description Part # Quantity Unit Price Extended Price Shipping Total

Aerocomm Development Kit w/ AC4790 1 199.95$ 199.95$ 199.95$ Aerocomm AC4790-100M 2 77.50$ 155.00$ 155.00$ Serial to Bluetooth 1 156.00$ 156.00$ 156.00$ Garmin GPS 18 1 104.49$ 104.49$ 104.49$ Garmin GPS 10 1 211.99$ 211.99$ 211.99$ Garmin Rino 530 2 413.00$ 826.00$ 826.00$ Targus USB to Serial 1 18.94$ 18.94$ 18.94$ Qualcomm GSP-1600 1 749.00$ 749.00$ 749.00$ Datakit for GSP-1600 1 69.99$ 69.99$ 69.99$ HP iPAQ hx2490 PDA 1 399.00$ 399.00$ 399.00$ Female Conn to Mate with Aerocomm SMM-110-02-S-D 4 2.29$ 9.14$ FREEPCB Board 10 50.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ other Bluetooth to serial brands 2 90.00$ 180.00$ 180.00$ Batteries 1 10.00$ 10.00$ 10.00$ Waterproof case for iPAQ 1 100.00$ 100.00$ 100.00$ Waterproof case for RF Transceiver 1 20.00$ 20.00$ 20.00$

-$ -$ Grand Total 3,700.36$

Budget $5,000Remaining $1,299.64

Actual Spend 2,890.36$ Glossary Actual Remainder $2,109.64Future allocated budget expenditure

Throughout the project, it is estimated that Florida Flamers will contribute approximately 2000 team hours. These hours will include the time needed to produce our prototype and testing. In estimation of the maintenance cost, Flamers broke down the cost for satellite minutes usage and the battery replacements. The satellite minutes are estimated using pre-paid cost for every minute, 100 minutes, and 1000 minutes. The battery replacements are based on how many units are constructed of the FieldUnit and SmartNode. Then, it is estimated that every two (2) years the battery has to be replaced due to the capacity of holding charge after a long period of time of

of 24

discharging. It is also estimated that the lifespan of the devices are approximately six (6) years before the technology is outdated.

7 I S S U E S

Drivers are not compatible with software environment or Linux OS. PDA software not flexible enough to satisfy product specs. Glitches found later with hardware or software application. Output from device is not accessible due to problem with hardware settings. Command center database not being able to connect to SmartNode. No issues with prototype testing.

# Risk Description Impacts On Status Response Overall Rating

HP HI LP LI

1 Parts shipment delay Scheduling/prototypingOrdered parts early, so that even if there are delays, these delays can be overcome. X X High

2 Garmin radios do not allow for modification Handheld Unit

Developing Pocket PC solution in parallel to mitigate risk. X X Medium

3 Drivers are not compatible with software environment or Linux OS. Handheld Unit

Planned time in schedule for driver issues. Purchased GPS unit that is Pocket PC compatible. Purchased RF and bluetooth that should communicate similarly to a COM RS-232 port. X X Medium

4 Command center database not being able to connect to SmartNode. SmartNode

Purchased satellite radio that works via RS-232 to connect to SmartNode. Also allocated time after second SmartNode testing to allow for debugging/repurchasing. X X Medium

5 PDA software not flexible enough to satisfy product specs. Handheld Unit Researching Linux OS for PDA. X X Low

6 Glitches found later with hardware or software application. Testing/Debugging

Planned ample time in schedule for debugging after second SmartNode complete and before handheld unit checkpoint in March. X X Medium

7 Output from device is not accessible due to problem with hardware settings. RF Unit

Purchased RF unit with many options to modify to assist with debugging. X X Medium

8 Other issues with prototype testing. Testing/Debugging Allocated time for thorough debugging. X X Medium

PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT - Shalom … X51 520MHz vs. HP iPAQ hx2490 Why iPAQ hx2490 The...

Documents

Transcript of PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT - Shalom … X51 520MHz vs. HP iPAQ hx2490 Why iPAQ hx2490 The...