• Dr. Bernd Chudoba
  • The University of Texas at Arlington
  • 118C Surge Building
  • 4:00 p.m.
  • Faculty Host: Dr. Rakesh Kapania

Abstract:  

The motivation for this presentation is best summarized in the words of Brockway McMillan, Undersecretary of the Air Force: "The gap I refer to is the planning gap -- our failure to answer adequately the question I just asked ... we don't spend enough time, energy, or talent in deciding how to deploy our technological resources -- in other words, in deciding what to develop out of the products of our research" (Aerospace Management, Feb. 1964, p. 62).

The development of subsonic to hypersonic aircraft and space vehicles starts with the strategic conceptual design phase. The conceptual design phase itself can be subdivided into three distinct sub-phases: (a) parametric sizing, (b) configuration layout, and (c) configuration evaluation. Of these phases, parametric sizing represents the domain of the strategist and forecaster. This key phase is often misunderstood thus underrepresented due to its abstract nature amongst the multi-disciplinary sciences. This early screening capability identifies the correct design mission thus business case, it is used to develop aerospace infrastructure architectures and technology roadmaps; finally it represents the primary product definition step. This parametric sizing mindset and toolset is employed in propriety future projects environments like Lockheed Martin Skunk Works/ADP, Boeing Phantom Works, Airbus FPO, and others. Since the important strategic and managerial decisions occur early during a project, the quality of the parametric sizing implementation is crucial.

Today, detailed design investigations of aircraft and space vehicles are conveniently performed by the ‘technologist’ with an emphasis on increasing the level of accuracy for a given point-design whilst consuming most of the budget and development time. In contrast, the primary vehicle design decisions during the earlier conceptual design phase are still made by the ‘integrator’, often using over-simplified analyses and heuristics in a short amount of time. Note that the integrator or conceptual designer is responsible for identifying the correct solution-space topography containing candidate point-designs. This presentation introduces the primary elements to be required by any competitive aerospace future projects team focusing on quality decision-making. The resulting 21st century aerospace product development capability delivers multi-disciplinary solution-space topographies to the decision-maker, integrator, and technologist, overall aimed at reducing cost, risk, and development spans.