PROGRESS REPORT I

2020

THE AUSTRALIAN
UNIVERSITIES ROCKET
COMPETITION
 1 INTRODUCTION
The first assessed deliverable for the AURC 2020 is Progress Report I. The purpose of this report
is to provide an overview of each team’s progression and to gain a better understanding of how
each rocket project is being managed and executed.

As per the AURC Competition Deliverables document, the maximum length of the progress
report is 20 pages. This page limit is from the introduction (p.1) to the conclusion; appendices
are excluded from the page limit but are not to be used for storing run-over from the report body.

If your report exceeds the page limit, content past the 20th page (excluding the appendices) will
not be marked. If completed in Microsoft Word or similar, the report must be written in size 12
pt Times New Roman, have ‘single’ line spacing and must be presented in a professional and
consistent manner, alternatively the use of or comparable typesetting software is also
permitted.

1.1 Required Information

This initial progress report is to contain the following information as a minimum, further detail
can be added as teams see fit. Marking allocation for each section is included in brackets and is
further outlined in section 1.2 and the marking rubric.

● Executive summary (5%)

● Introduction (2.5%)
● Design overview (10%)
○ Brief overview of the rocket, its planned subsystems and functions
● Planning, safety and design verification (30%)
○ Problem definition and system requirements
○ Overview of design methodology and process
○ Overview on how the rocket design is to be verified
○ Details on design choices to enhance system reliability and safety
● Team management and organisation (40%)
○ Overview of team management structure and responsibilities
○ Overview of communication and conflict management
○ Overview of project budget
○ Overview of project timeline, milestones and launch schedule
○ Team/org. SWOT analysis
● Conclusion (2.5%)
● Appendices

PROGRESS REPORT I AURC 2020 Version 1.1.19

Note that the presentation, formatting and language of the report will count for 10% of the total
mark. This includes (but is not limited to) spelling and grammar, appropriate use of figures,
concise explanations, referencing and well-presented layout. Standard (and critical) report
components such as the reference list, table of contents, list of figures, list of tables, and cover
page are also considered in this allocation of marks and should be included, they will not count
towards the page limit.

1.2 Further Information

All teams and organisations are run differently and as such have their own strengths and
weaknesses, do not fail to mention the weaknesses of yours, and how they can be addressed. Being
creative yet realistic in your problem solving is critical to performing well. Don’t be too generic,
think about how you will manage issues specific to your team, highlight how your teams strengths
will help you overcome threats. Ensure you explain why certain design choices, budgetary
considerations and contingencies are put in place.

For your overall approach to the challenge; use the resources provided! One of our industry
supporters, Shoal, has provided a systems engineering video for teams to utilise. It can be found
on our website under the industry support tab (www.aurc.ayaa.com.au/support).

As can be seen in the grading matrix, certain components are capped at 5 marks. Overall, we
would like to ask you to read it carefully. Don’t forget to provide research supporting your non-
technical decisions as well as your design.

Clear presentation is important. Do not confuse the encouraged brevity of components with the
amount of thought required. Research is vital in producing a high-quality report. Spelling,
punctuation, grammar and formatting errors will be heavily penalised. It is recommended that
you proofread your work thoroughly and ensure it is readable, logical, free from errors and
consistently formatted (e.g. dot point formatting is consistent).

Then finally: any academic referencing method is acceptable, but it must be applied consistently.
Read the provided Grading Matrix carefully and if you have any remaining concerns, or queries,
please contact aurc@ayaa.com.au or your teams coordinator.

1.2 Submission
You must submit your report as one consolidated PDF file through the submission portal on the
AURC website (www.aurc.ayaa.com.au/submissions) by 11:59pm AEST, Friday 13th December
2019. Your file naming convention must follow Team_X_Progress_Report_1.pdf where X is
replaced by your team number

PROGRESS REPORT I AURC 2020 Version 1.1.19

 AURC 2020 Progress Report 1 Marking Rubric
0 Marks 3 Marks 5 Marks 8 Marks 10 Marks Mark

Clear, concise and informative

overview of the rocket and
Poor or incomplete overview of the
competition category, the project’s
rocket, lack of understanding of
objectives and goals.
competition category.
Discloses the project’s (and payload)
Executive Unclear project objectives and goals.
No executive summary provided. design challenges and the team’s - -
summary
recommended approach.
Executive The reader cannot make an informed
Summary, judgement on the viability and
Provides sufficient information to
Introduction success of the project.
allow the reader to make an informed
&
decision of the project’s probability of
Conclusion
success.
(10%)

Fails to concisely summarise the Clearly summarises the background

No introduction and/or conclusion
project background or outline the of the project and outlines the
Introduction provided
purpose of the report. purpose of the report.
& - -
Conclusion
Too long or too brief to accurately Presents an overview of the team and
.
capture the contents of the report. its goals and projected milestones.

Adequate rocket design that captures Matured rocket design that captures
most elements of a rocket and the critical elements of a rocket and
provides enough detail for the provides sufficient detail for the
selection of a suitable motor. Will selection of a suitable rocket motor.
Rocket design is incomplete or is not
need extra work to achieve a model
flight worthy. Model needs significant
suitable for detailed design. Satisfactory motor selection.
work before deemed suitable.
Insufficient to no detail of rocket
Satisfactory motor selection. Appropriate recovery method
Brief overview systems for their intended functions Unsatisfactory motor selection criteria
selection with safe proposed descent
Design of the rocket, provided. and selected motor.
Adequate recovery method selection rates.
overview its planned Little to no overview provided.
which may be lacking in the required
(10%) subsystems System does not comply with (AMRS) Little to no payload overview. Little to
detail or could result in inappropriate Brief but informative overview of your
and functions regulations or competition no overview of avionics provided.
descent rates. payload and its intended purpose.
requirements.
Aspects of the design fails to comply
Brief overview of your payload. Concise but informative overview of
with the AMRS regulations and
Overview of avionics details provided. your current avionics details provided.
competition requirements.
System complies with all relevant Intended system complies with the
competition and AMRS regulations relevant competition and AMRS
but may have minor design flaws. regulations.

Problem
definition and Vaguely addresses the design Concisely identifies the design
Fails to identify the design problem
problem and fails to identify all problem and requirements of the - -
system and system requirements.
requirements of the system. system.
requirements

Poor outline of procedures and Details the design process of how the
processes to address design design problems and challenges are
Overview of challenges. addressed and validated
design No overview of design methodology
- -
methodology and process provided. Team demonstrates inconsistent or Details how the team approaches the
Planning, and process ineffective decisions-making problem and processes / procedures
safety and procedures and processes to to implement design decisions and
design implement changes. changes.
Verification
(30%)
 Concise details of the variety of
methods used to verify system design
and hardware.
Demonstrates a variety of testing and
Provides several testing and design verification methods.
Identifies the suitability of each testing
Little information provided on design verification method.
Overview on or verification method for various
verification and testing methods Adequately establishes the suitability
how the rocket systems.
No overview evident for rocket and Poorly details testing methods and of each testing method and
design is to be design verification Limited scope of testing methods provides few methods. verification for systems and hardware.
Delineates the importance of testing
verified different systems to different levels of
Poorly justifies testing methods. Satisfactory justification of various Provides a satisfactory level of detail
scrutiny.
verification methods and for testing and verification methods of
several systems and hardware.
Discloses details regarding testing,
proving hardware, justifying proven
hardware and method of testing.

Adequately identifies and defines Clearly identifies and defines at least

Poorly identifies or defines unreliable Poorly identifies or defines unreliable
unreliable and unsafe systems. 4 systems that are mission critical and
Details on and unsafe systems. and unsafe systems.
or are unreliable.
design choices Identifies at least 3 system that is
to enhance Identifies at least 1 system that is Identifies at least 2 system that is
No additional information provided on mission critical and or are unreliable. Justifies the system/s unreliability or
mission critical and or are unreliable. mission critical and or are unreliable.
system enhancing system reliability or safety. mission criticality.
reliability and Demonstrates that appropriate
Fails to adequately implement Poorly implements methods or
safety solutions or methods have been Demonstrates that appropriate
measures or describe measures to solutions to improve system reliability
utilised to increase system reliability solutions or methods are utilised to
enhance system reliability. and safety.
and safety. increase system reliability and safety.

Poor overview of team management

structure. Concise overview of team
Overview of management structure, roles and their
team Little to no overview of the team Lacks detail on the responsibilities of responsibilities for the project.
management management structure or various roles within the team. - -
structure and responsibilities. Demonstrates fair task allocation or
responsibilities Demonstrates an uneven task justifies tasks allocation for various
allocation or inability to adequately to roles.
distribute tasks.

Concise overview of communication

Sound overview of team
Some information detailing team processes and procedures utilised to
Little detail regarding team communication strategies, with
communication strategies. ensure efficient communication within
communication strategies. mention of specific processes and
the team.
procedures.
Identifies few project stakeholders
Fails to identify key stakeholders in
and little information regarding Identifies and demonstrates
Overview of the project and strategies of Identifies various project stakeholders
strategies of engagement. appropriate communication with
communication No communication or conflict engagement. with moderate information regarding
various project stakeholders.
and conflict management overview provided. strategies of engagement.
Some details regarding team conflict
management Little detail or poor implementation of
Team management and mitigation Concise overview of team conflict
conflict management strategies Sound overview of team conflict
organisation strategies. management plans.
management plans.
(40%) Fails to identify mitigation approaches
Identifies a conflict management Identifies detailed conflict
for different conflict styles. Identifies some conflict management
approach for some conflict styles. management approaches for various
techniques for some conflict styles.
conflict styles.

A minimal budget is set out.

Clear issues and concerns are
Overview of identifiable.
No budget is set out.
project budget
Budget is not self-consistent.
Contingencies are not considered.
Budget set out has moderate errors
Budget is considerate of largely
pertaining to quantities. Budget is discerning in its set out and
considerate of the relevant costs -
is representative of any and all costs
omitting only few items.
Budget is largely self-consistent with relevant to the project.
little to no errors.
Contingencies are justified with
Contingencies are strongly justified.
minimal inconsistencies and errors.
Contingencies are not well-justified.
 Unreasonable timeline and milestones
All major competition milestones
are disclosed.
Overview of identified with a clear and well thought
project out plan of how and when they will be
Competition milestones do not align
timeline, met.
No timeline is disclosed. with project timeline. - -
milestones and
launch Reasonable project technical and
Lack of detail regarding launch
schedule management milestones are
opportunities and system preparation
disclosed.
.

Identifies few or misidentifies SWOT
pertinent to the project and team.
Poorly identifies impacts to team,
SWOT analysis No SWOT analysis conducted. project and stakeholders.
Fails to implement sufficient
minimisation/maximisation strategies
for impacts of SWOT
Identifies few SWOT pertinent to the
project and team.
Identifies and details their impact on
the team, project and stakeholders.
Briefly outlines sufficient
minimisation/maximisation strategies
for impacts of SWOT.
Identifies at least 4 strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and
threats to the project.
Details SWOT impacts on the project,
team and stakeholders.
Details processes to
maximise/minimise impacts of SWOT.
Identifies at least 6 strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and
threats to the project.
Details SWOT impacts on the project,
team and stakeholders.
Details processes to
maximise/minimise impacts of SWOT.

Set out of report is of a concise,

Report is inappropriately set out, has
Report is only repetitive on few consistent and logical nature -
no cover page, is inconsistent in
occasions. strongly aligned with common system
structure and frequently repetitive.
engineering principles of report
Structure, headings, subheadings, writing.
Report styles, headings and
etc. are with only minor and infrequent
subheadings are largely inappropriate
errors. All necessary information is both
in the field of engineering.
Formatting internally and externally referenced in - -
Labelling, referencing and titling is a concise, consistent and logical
Tables and figures are frequently
appropriate and errors are not manor.
referenced or labeled/titled
common.
inappropriately.
Headings, subheadings, etc. are
Contents of the report are outlined consistent, logical and concise.
Formatting Referencing and/or lists for figures
well - errors are not common
and and tables is insufficient.
Report is not repetitive.
Language
(10%)
Grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.
is frequency inconsistent and of a low Grammatical, punctuational and
Grammatical issues are few and far
and unprofessional standard. general linguistic technique is with
between.
little to no fault and consistent.
Frequent use of inappropriate
Punctuation is consistent with minimal
terminologies. Spelling is without error.
and infrequent errors.
Language - -
Report is not concise in neither Report is of a highly professional
Spelling errors are few and far
structure nor linguistic technique as a nature.
between. Spelling is appropriate
whole.
(Australian English) with little to no
Terminology is consistent and
error.
Frequent errors in spelling (Australian industry-aligned.
English).

Total /100