This semester marked a major learning phase for our IPPD team as we began developing our re-entry “Design for Demise” solution for Honeywell Aerospace. Our primary objective was to build a strong foundation in ANSYS Fluent, understand the aerodynamic behavior of re-entry conditions, and prepare for the more advanced simulations we will run next term.

We spent much of the semester learning the fundamentals of ANSYS Fluent, mastering how to create and refine meshes, assign boundary conditions, choose appropriate turbulence models, set up solvers, and interpret results. Because real re-entry conditions are extremely difficult to reproduce in the real world, having a reliable CFD workflow is essential to our project. Over time, we became more confident in our ability to set up simulations correctly, troubleshoot issues, and understand why the flow behaved the way it did.

One of the most important milestones was completing a flow-over-a-cylinder proof-of-concept simulation. The cylinder is a classic test case in fluid dynamics, and running it allowed us to validate that our methods were correct. We observed the expected stagnation point on the front of the cylinder and identified alternating vortices known as a Von Kármán vortex street forming downstream. Understanding this phenomenon required us to revisit concepts from fluid mechanics and study how vortex shedding works and why it appears at certain flow regimes. This project strengthened not only our technical skills but also our ability to interpret and explain physical results.

Another major achievement this semester was developing a Kriging surrogate model to optimize our design parameters before running full CFD simulations. Since high-fidelity simulations are computationally expensive, we needed a systematic way to determine which configurations were worth testing. To do this, we first identified the key geometric and physical variables of our design. We then used a structured set of sample points to train the Kriging model, which created a predictive map of how different parameter combinations influence performance. This model helped us narrow down the design space and select the most promising configurations for next semester’s simulations. Building the model taught us how surrogate modeling can guide engineering decisions and allowed us to work more efficiently with the resources we have.

We also prepared and delivered our System Level Design Review. For the SLDR report, we wrote detailed sections explaining how ANSYS works, what simulations we ran, how the simulation process functions, and why this software is crucial for our mission. Presenting this information pushed us to think carefully about clarity and communication. Many of us realized the challenge of presenting technical information smoothly, and the experience gave us insight into how we can improve our presentation skills going forward.

Throughout the semester, we grew significantly as a team. We learned how to divide tasks, explain complex ideas to one another, question results, and support each other as we worked through the learning curve of CFD, optimization, and re-entry physics. Even the challenges—such as understanding unexpected flow features or refining mesh strategies—played an important role in helping us become better engineers.

Next semester, our focus shifts toward simulations that are much more relevant to re-entry. We will begin modeling hypersonic flow conditions involving extreme Mach numbers, shock structures, and high thermal loads. Our simple test geometry will evolve into analyses of our actual design concepts, giving us insight into how they behave during re-entry and how we can improve their demisability. The Kriging model will continue to guide which configurations we test, allowing us to combine optimization and CFD to converge on a final design.

This semester laid the groundwork. We built the tools, established the workflow, validated our simulation process, and strengthened our ability to collaborate. Next semester, we take everything we’ve learned and apply it to the real engineering challenge of creating a design that safely and effectively breaks apart during re-entry. We’re proud of the progress we’ve made and excited for what’s ahead.

This week in IPPD was all about preparing for our upcoming System Level Design Review (SLDR). Although we didn’t make major technical changes, we made important progress in refining how we communicate our project and ensuring we’re ready for the formal SLDR on December 2.

We started the week with our final liaison meeting of the semester. Michael updated our Honeywell liaisons on the SLDR schedule and reminded everyone that this was our last status memo. Since most of our time has been dedicated to presentation preparation, we kept updates brief. Joseph shared stories about a past Honeywell competition—including a Rube Goldberg machine that won in 2018—and Loi presented his latest ANSYS Fluent work modeling flow over a cylinder and the Von Kármán vortex street. We wrapped up with a practice run of our SLDR presentation over Teams.

On November 18, we delivered our SLDR peer review presentation. Zach opened with an overview of our project, the Kessler syndrome, and recent real-world spacecraft debris incidents. The feedback we received was helpful: reviewers encouraged us to clarify the cost function, refine the parameters we use to measure demisability, and simplify technical sections like Kriging and ANSYS. Dr. Lind emphasized “telling a story” with our presentation rather than overwhelming the audience with details.

Overall, the peer review was a valuable checkpoint. Seeing other teams’ progress and receiving outside feedback helped us better tailor our message for a broader audience. While we’ll take a short break for Thanksgiving, our team plans to meet on November 30 to finalize the SLDR presentation and paper.

We’re looking forward to the formal SLDR and the chance to present our work to Honeywell and industry professionals next week.

This week our team has been preparing for one of the most important milestones in our project, the System Level Design Review (SLDR). This phase marks our transition from conceptual validation to detailed system refinement, where we must demonstrate a strong understanding of both our design and simulation results.

A major focus this week has been improving our ANSYS model. We’ve spent hours running simulations, adjusting parameters, and validating assumptions to ensure that our data accurately reflects our design’s behavior. Through this process, we identified key simplifications to make our simulations more manageable, such as maintaining a constant velocity and density throughout the analysis. These assumptions help us balance realism with computational efficiency.

Learning Ansys has been a challenge in itself: the software is powerful but complex. Interpreting the data that comes out of our simulations has required careful study and collaboration. Despite the steep learning curve, we’re gradually becoming more confident with the tool, thanks to continuous testing, peer discussions, and countless tutorial videos.

As we prepare for the SLDR, we’re proud of the progress we’ve made in understanding computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and how it applies to our prototype. Each week, our simulations become more refined, our data more reliable, and our teamwork stronger.

Next week, we’ll continue improving our Ansys models and finalizing our report so that we can confidently present our findings to reviewers. The learning process hasn’t been easy, but it’s been deeply rewarding, and we’re excited to showcase how far our team has come.