MADEFAST Objectives

Charles Petrie <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 21:21:06 -0700
From: Charles Petrie <>
Message-id: <199406230421.VAA18344@bimini.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: MADEFAST Objectives
Upon checking the documentation, I discovered that one of the many
important mail messages that have never made it to the madefast list,
and thus to the WWWeb-accessible hypermail archives, was a message
from Pradeep Pkhosla relayed through Pete Brown to Larry Leifer/Rich
Riesenfeld and then to me and others, but never to the whole list.  I
am sending it out now to rectify, belatedly, this omission before the
end of the project.

This message, sent in mid-April, defines the artifact to be built.
Though the ability of this artifact to function as described is
explicitly the "test of success" of the scenario, the objectives are
broader and clearly state that we must demonstrate our collaboration.

Rich & Larry,

  Enclosed is the copy of the Scenario Pradeep mentioned in his last
email. I am also including a copy of the mail alias I created here at
NIST ( Please call or email with questions
or comments, and let me know if I left someone off the mail list.


                            Peter F. Brown
Email:   National Institute of Standards and Technology
Phone: (301) 975-3513       Shops, Rm 142
Fax:   (301) 869-3750       Gaithersburg, MD 20899

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@  Scenario  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@



1. Demonstrate collaboration of MADE researchers.

2. Provide for access of MADE services and technologies over the Internet.

3. Describe and demonstrate improvements in design and build process
with the integrated use of MADE tools and services.

4. Identify technology gaps in a) accomplishing remote access to MADE
tools and b) functionality of MADE tools.


1. Design, build, and demonstrate a tracker brassboard prototype for
described scenario.

2. Document collaboration and design and build process through a)
white paper, b) engineering notebook, and c) multi-media presentation.


The test of success will be the ability to track a light through a
range of motion. The light source will be a laser pointer or some
other source with sufficient illumination. The source will be manually
scanned in a random direction around a wall of a conference room. The
demonstration will be held in a medium size lecture room (50x50 -
75x75). The tracker will need to track the source and display in some
fashion (i.e., if using a visible light camera, monitoring the video
out of the camera should show the results of the centerline of the
camera with the light source). Finished unit could rest on a small
cart (computer for control could rest below). A second test will
involve manually moving the tracker and tracking a moving light
source.  Open question remains about sustainable slew rates.

The tracker will acquire the light-source at a fixed point, and if the
signal is lost the tracker should return to this home point for

The emphasis of this exercise is to demonstrate the interaction of the
MADE tools and services, not the capability of the physical device
being developed. Low cost, short development time is key, as is
flexibility. Overall system should be designed for reconfiguration.
For example, redesign with additional space constraints, or with a new
sensor that might change the weight and require some redesign of
components, or for a larger production buy of 100 units. The design
should be robust enough to allow these scenarios. Low cost, commercial
components should be considered.
    Please remember we still intend to work with the IRFPA Brassboard
Integration problem. So this device could start off with a simple
camera (visible light) then migrate to a real IRFPA (including cooling

Project Flow/MADEFAST Results:

Plan for tracking and demonstrating MADEFAST progress and results

Tools - WWW/Mosaic (set up like an electonic design notebook).   
ISX Multi-media Presentation. 
SHARE Electronic Design Notebook? (What is status? Is it ready to be
used by all of the MADE researchers distributed over a WAN?)

Primary Personnel - SHARE (Stanford, EIT, Lockheed), WWW/Mosaic (ALL)

Preliminary Design Alternatives:

1. Overall Design of tracker prototype.
2. Specification for component parts.
3. Integration / interaction plans and requirements.
3. Design / Build / Purchase assessments and assignments for design
       * Meet functional specifications       
       * Design Alternatives that best demonstrate MADE tools and services 
       * May require design and build of more than one design.
     Tools - Alpha_1 (Utah), Partnet (Utah), EIT, Stanford
     Task Co-leaders: Larry Leifer, Sam Drake

Component Design Analysis / Qualitative Modeling
       (Part of both design alternative analysis and visualization.)
Tools/Personnel - CMU, MIT, MSU, KSL, Cornell

Product Realization (see MADEFAST Product Realization Process Flow)
  The chart produced a couple of weeks ago for this activity looks
good, with a mix of different fabrication options.

1. Catalog Parts Including Procurement Option - Partnet
2. Components Plan, Schedule *, Fab
     Alpha_1 (Utah), Composites (MSU), Layered Technology (CMU), 
     * Branch - scheduling for optional procurement (Texas A&M)

Assembly of Components and Test

Final Report
 1. Gaps in integration.
 2. Areas for future research.
 3. MADE tools/services improvements as a result of this exercise.
 4. Evidence that objectives were achieved.

....mail alias discussion omitted...