Team Charter — Manufacturing

Published

May 8, 2026

Mission

Turn the team’s design intent into a real piece of copper hardware, without anyone at school ever touching a piece of metal that has been or will be subjected to heat and pressure. You own:

The CAD model of the chamber
The Trotec-cut plastic form study (school-built proof of dimensions and fit)
The Request For Quote (RFQ) to vendors
The vendor selection memo defending which vendor and which construction option (monolithic vs laminated)
Receipt and inspection of the delivered copper part

This is the team that practises real engineering procurement at Year 10 scale.

Roles

Role	Responsibility
Lead	Schedules team work, attends cross-team standup
Deputy Lead	Steps up if Lead absent; owns ICD interface checks
Safety Officer	Owns Trotec operator induction, deburring, plastic handling
CAD Owner	Drives Fusion 360 / OnShape model; exports STEP and STL for vendor; DXF for Trotec
Procurement Lead	Identifies ≥3 vendors, sends RFQs, manages quotes
Receiver	Inspects vendor-delivered part on arrival against spec

Deliverables

ID	Deliverable	Due	Consumer
MF-D1	TA-01 brass insurance rig assembled (school-side LPG demo)	W1L4	All teams (proves test-day rig exists)
MF-D2	CAD v0.1 of TA-04 chamber + nozzle (in monolithic form first)	W2L1	Heat Exchanger, Materials, Comp Eng
MF-D3	DXF set for Trotec — plastic form study, with tolerance annotations	W2L4	Trotec operator
MF-D4	TA-02-plastic form study assembled + dimensional check	W3L9	Cold-flow + LPG flame demo
MF-D5	RFQ sent to ≥3 vendors, asking for quotes on both Option H and Option L	W3L12	Vendors (external)
MF-D6	Vendor selection memo (the headline deliverable)	W4L13	Teacher, Phase 3 gate, Lab Report 3
MF-D7	Vendor DFM review accepted + STEP file locked	W4L14	Vendor (procurement trigger)
MF-D8	Delivered copper chamber inspected against spec (post-program)	After delivery	Materials review, Phase 3 gate

Syllabus dot points owned

This team is the engineering anchor. Chemistry coverage comes through their interfaces. Working Scientifically strands owned:

WS5 Questioning + Predicting (design constraints from chemistry)
WS6.2 Designing investigations (form-study as design verification)
WS6.3 Selecting equipment and materials (vendor selection)
WS8 Problem solving (RFQ → DFM → revised design loop)
WS9 Communicating (the vendor selection memo is a formal engineering communication)

Weekly milestones

Week	Milestone	Evidence
W1	Insurance rig built; CAD model started; vendor longlist compiled (5-10 candidates)	MF-D1 + candidate spreadsheet
W2	CAD v0.1 complete; DXF for Trotec produced; vendor shortlist (3) selected	MF-D2, MF-D3, shortlist memo
W3	Form study cut + assembled; RFQs sent; cold-flow + LPG demo conducted on TA-02-plastic	MF-D4, MF-D5
W4	Vendor quotes received; selection memo finalised; DFM review accepted; STEP locked	MF-D6, MF-D7

Team-specific risks

R-13 Trotec plastic burrs — deburr station before assembly
No risks beyond standard Stage 5 + Trotec induction; no metalwork at school

The “2D+1” framing — vendor cost-permitting choice

The Manufacturing team’s vendor RFQ asks each candidate to quote on both construction options:

Option H — Monolithic 3D-printed copper (Leap71 pattern)

Single piece, additively manufactured. Cleaner thermal path, no joints, single vendor operation. ~$300-800 per small part. Few AU vendors do copper print.

Option L — Laminated 2D+1 stack (cavity-magnetron pattern)

Stamped or laser-cut copper layers, vendor-brazed into a sealed chamber. The 1940s precedent: cavity magnetrons that gave Britain centimetric radar were built exactly this way because monolithic machining of the cavity was impossible at the time. ~$80-200 per small part. More AU vendors capable.

Your selection memo defends the choice with:

Vendor capability matrix (who can do what)
Cost comparison (total delivered cost incl. fabrication, certification, shipping)
Lead time
Pressure-test methodology each vendor uses
Telemetry deliverable each vendor offers
Risk-of-failure ranking (e.g. monolithic has no joints to leak; laminated braze quality must be inspected)

The selection is the team’s argument. There is no single right answer — it depends on quotes.

Vendor longlist starting points (Sydney / NSW / AU)

Suggested places to begin your research (none endorsed):

3D metal printing services: Amiga Engineering (VIC); Materialise Australia; 3D Systems Australia (NSW); GoProto AU
Small CNC + brazing shops: search “copper machining Sydney” or “small batch metal fabrication NSW”
University AM labs: UNSW Centre for Innovation in Additive Manufacturing; USYD School of Aerospace; UoW iSAM facility (some accept educational outreach)
Hobby-rocket community: Ozrocketry forum members occasionally share vendors they’ve used for small thrust chambers

For each, document: contact person, capability statement, sample quote turnaround, prior educational engagement (if any).

What you don’t do

You don’t fabricate the copper part at school (out of scope)
You don’t fire the chamber yourselves (vendor only)
You don’t write the materials spec (Materials team’s MA-D4)
You don’t analyse the burn telemetry (Heat Exchanger team)

The 2D+1 framing pedagogically

If your team chooses Option L (laminated): you are using the same manufacturing technique that built the cavity magnetrons in the Battle of Britain. Brief that history in the vendor selection memo as part of the precedent.

If your team chooses Option H (monolithic): you are using the same technique that Leap71 used for the Insanity aerospike (the video shown in W1L1). Same precedent argument.

Either way: defend the choice on engineering grounds — cost, lead time, capability, performance — not on historical association alone.

Cross-team interfaces

From Heat Exchanger: TC port locations on the chamber
From Materials: materials specification (MA-D4)
From Rocket Chemistry: propellant spec (LPG or ethanol) for vendor RFQ
From Comp Eng: chamber geometry constraints from prediction
To Vendor: RFQ + STEP + materials spec + propellant + TC locations
To Heat Exchanger: delivered chamber dimensions for vendor telemetry interpretation