Shark Detection and Warning System

1
Shark Detection and Warning System

• Michael Beeler
• Program Manager
• Miriam Lindhorst
• Webmaster
• Marino Angeles
• Planning
• Vincent Lieu
• Testing
• Andrae Marable
• Budget
• Nathan Reeves
• Marketing

http//www.cs.odu.edu/cpi/fall2001/sdws/
2
Abstract
Oceanfront resort cities in the United States
have enjoyed steady growth in direct tourism
revenue for the past ten years. This growth has
resulted in greater numbers of ocean swimmers
taking advantage of resort beach
facilities. Unfortunately, this increase in
swimmer activity has been accompanied by a
proportional rise in shark attack incidents.
Shark attacks during the twentieth century show a
rate of increase which correlates with the
population increase near the shore. Over the
next three years, our team will research and
develop the Shark Detection and Warning System
(SDWS) to warn swimmers of possible attack and
protect oceanfront revenues. The SDWS will
provide resort city managers with a warning of
shark presence and an accompanying probability of
attack.
3
(No Transcript)
4
Problem
Ocean swimmers are concerned with the possibility
of shark attack while swimming.
5
(No Transcript)
6
The Solution?
7
HF SONAR tracking

• Environmentally friendly
• Aesthetically pleasing
• Safe
• Off the shelf parts
• Proven technology
• Proven effectiveness

8
Bottom Line

• Schedule 3 years
• Budget 3,000,000
• Profit 3rd unit

9
Why?

• Why will the project take so long?
• Why does it cost so much?
• Why dont we see profit until the 3rd unit?

10
Ideal Location

• Area with natural barriers
• Single point of entry
• Narrow opening
• Coverage with 1 or 2 sensors

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Realistic Location

• Long, straight beaches
• Florida, north/south beaches
• Requires sensor array
• One mile sections to be effective

14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Project Implementation Plan

• Functional Specifications
• Prototype and Funding Demonstration
• Production / Installation of Unit 1
• Follow-on Production

18
Phase I
Preliminary Research Start 28-Aug End
18-Sep 16 days
Determine Feasibility Start 03-Oct End
16-Oct 10 days
Determine Milestones Start 17-Oct End
08-Nov 17 days
Gain Approval Start 09-Nov End
06-Dec 20 days
Develop Phase I Plan Start 19-Sep End
02-Oct 10 days
19
Phase II
Finalize Specifications Start 07-Jan End
18-Jan 10 days
Build Simulation Start 19-Jan End
15-Mar 40 days
Test Simulation Start 16-Mar End
30-Apr 32 days
Funding Demonstration Start 07-Jan End
30-Apr 92 days
20
Phase III
Final Management Plan Start 13-May-02 End
01-Jul-02 36 days
Software Development Start 02-Jul-02 End
09-May-03 224 days
Set up /Administer Contracts Start 02-Jul-02
End 19-Mar-04 449 days
Installation and Testing Start 01-Jul-03
End 19-Mar-04 166 days
Shift to Production Start 22-Mar-04 End
12-Mar-04 38 days
21
Budget
22
Phase I Resource/Office costs
61,292 Phase II Resource/Office costs
45,292 Phase III Resource/Office costs
208,061 Phase III Hardware costs
1,150,000
Bottom Line 3,000,000
23
Production Schedule
24
Contractual Aspects

• Kongsberg Simrad Mesotech Ltd.
• Purchase of five SM2000 multi-beam SONAR systems.
• Mooring Systems Inc.
• Purchase of five Bottom-mount instrument frames.
• Site Specific Contracts
• Horizontal Boring Services
• Office Trailer Leasing

25
Other Requirements

• Control House Placement and Maintenance
• Purchase and Placement of Audible Warning System
• Purchase and Placement of Warning Flags
• Purchase and Maintain Marker System
• Implement Educational Measures

26
Risk Management Plan

• Inability to secure an investment
• Not enough clients
• Problems with Prime contractor
• Competitors
• Legal risks

27
Corporate Management Plan
28
Corporate Management Plan
29
Test Plan
30
Evaluation Plan

• Program Design Review (PDR)
• Critical Design Review (CDR)
• Factory Acceptance Test (FAT)
• Customer Acceptance Test (CAT)

31
Marketing Plan

• 420 years of data
• United States and Australia

32
(No Transcript)
33
Strategy

• Direct Mailings
• Radio
• Trade Journals
• Word of Mouth
• Demonstrations
• Internet

34
Funding Plan (Corporate)

• EDO Corporation
• General Electric
• Raytheon
• Atlas-Krupp
• Thompson Electronics
• General Dynamics
• Klein Associates Inc.
• Lockheed Martin
• Northrop-Grumman

35
Funding Plan (Other)

• State Task Force
• CIT Group

36
A school of fish approaching a net and avoiding
it.
37
(No Transcript)