[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[todd@oddjob.utias.utoronto.ca: Re: [aer201s] Final Report]

Just for what it's worth...

----- Forwarded message from Todd Chisholm <todd@oddjob.utias.utoronto.ca> -----

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:58:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Todd Chisholm <todd@oddjob.utias.utoronto.ca>
To: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: [aer201s] Final Report
X-Mailer: Pine

Hi Tim,

> > What exactly is the "Acceptance Criteria" section of the Final Report
> > supposed to be?  A review of the original RFP?  Or something else?

I suppose that it is a review of the RFP.  Literally, what needed to be
done for the project to be accepted.

> How is the "Suggestions for Improvements" section in the "Common"
> category different from the "Suggestions for improvement of this
> section alone" section in the "Subsystems" category?  Should the former
> section have suggestions for wholly new subsystems or wholly new
> designs, relegating suggestions such as "The IR sensors should be less
> susceptible to noise" to the latter section?  Is there any bar by
> which to judge whether some given improvement belongs in one or the
> other section?
If the suggestion fits into any one of the subsystems, put it there.  In
the common category I would put things like integration methods and new

Todd Chisholm
University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies
Computational Fluid Dynamics Group

----- End forwarded message -----

Signature withheld by request of author.