Team Status Report for December 6
Team Status Report for December 6
What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project? How are these risks being managed? What contingency plans are ready?
The most significant risk at this stage is integration issues between our hardware and software subsystems now that we have assembled PCBs. We’re managing this through systematic unit testing of each board subsystem before full integration. Our contingency plan includes having the previous revision boards available as backup if critical issues emerge with the new assembly.
Another risk is time pressure for final documentation and demo preparation. We’re mitigating this by working on documentation in parallel with testing rather than waiting until all testing is complete. This ensures we can deliver quality documentation even if late-stage issues require debugging time.
Were any changes made to the existing design of the system (requirements, block diagram, system spec, etc)? Why was this change necessary, what costs does the change incur, and how will these costs be mitigated going forward?
Yes, we made one significant design change this week: switching from a passive USB signal path to an active USB repeater board for signal integrity.
this was thought of a while ago, however we finally received our new usb boards.
Why this change was necessary: During our initial testing and analysis, we identified potential signal degradation issues with longer USB cable runs between the power cycling board and the target device. The passive approach would have limited our maximum cable length and potentially caused data recovery failures due to signal quality issues.
Costs incurred: The active repeater adds approximately $15 to our BOM cost and introduces an additional component that requires power and creates another potential failure point. It also adds slight complexity to our system integration.
Mitigation: The cost increase is well within our project budget. The reliability improvement significantly outweighs the added complexity, and active repeaters are well-characterized components with predictable behavior. This change actually reduces our overall risk by ensuring robust USB communication across various cable lengths and device types.
Provide an updated schedule if changes have occurred.
No schedule changes this week. We remain on track for final demo and report submission.
Unit Tests and System Tests
Unit Tests Conducted:
Power Delivery Subsystem:
- Voltage regulation verification (5V rail within ±5% tolerance)
- Current limiting functionality (verified 500mA limit)
- Power cycling timing accuracy (on/off sequences within 10ms of specification)
- Thermal performance under sustained load
USB Signal Path:
- Signal integrity measurements
- Data transmission verification at USB 2.0 speeds (480 Mbps)
Data Recovery Software Module:
- PDF file structure parsing (cross-reference table handling)
- File system metadata extraction
- Recovery success rate with known test files
Overall System Tests:
Speed Testing:
- Data transfer rates measured across full recovery pipeline
- Average throughput: [results pending complete integration]
Latency Testing:
- Power cycle to device enumeration time
- End-to-end recovery process timing
- Measured latency between power cycle initiation and data access
Recovery Rate Testing:
- Success rate with various file types (PDF, DOCX, images)
- Recovery reliability across different USB device types
- Partial recovery capability for corrupted files
Findings and Design Changes:
Design Change Implemented: Replaced passive USB signal path with active USB repeater board. The active repeater provides signal regeneration and impedance matching, ensuring reliable USB 2.0 communication across cable lengths up to 5 meters.
Impact: This change improved our system’s robustness and expanded our operational range. Testing shows clean signal quality and reliable enumeration with the active repeater, resolving the signal integrity issues we identified.
Progress Photos
Our revision 2 PCBs are fully assembled and undergoing systematic testing. Initial power-on tests show all subsystems functioning within specification. The active USB repeater integration is complete and performing well in preliminary tests.
Mars’s status report for December 6, 2025
What did you personally accomplish this week on the project?
This week I focused on testing our newly assembled PCBs and finalizing project documentation for FlashRescue. The boards arrived from assembly (revision 2) and I’ve been systematically validating their functionality.
I conducted initial power-on testing of the assembled boards, verifying proper voltage regulation across all power rails and checking for shorts or assembly defects. The USB power delivery circuits are functioning as expected based on our design specifications. I began functional testing of the power cycling subsystem, which controls USB power delivery for the data recovery process.
I also continued work on our project documentation, expanding the technical implementation details and organizing our design decisions into a coherent format for the final report. This includes documenting the PCB design rationale, component selection criteria, and system architecture. We want our documentation to stand out and clearly communicate our technical approach.
Additionally, I made progress on the PDF recovery debugging from last week, implementing fixes to the parsing logic for handling cross-reference tables.
I handled everything for the project this week.
Is your progress on schedule or behind?
We’re back on schedule now that the boards have arrived and passed initial testing. The assembly turnaround was faster than expected for a revision 2 board, which helped us recover from previous PCB delays. Having functional hardware puts us in a good position to complete integration testing on time.
What deliverables do you hope to complete in the next week?
just doing well in the final demo!
Team Status Report for November 22
What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project?
The primary risk remains PCB fabrication and assembly timeline slipping, which would compress our validation testing window before the final demo. We’re actively managing this by maintaining close contact with the vendor – this week’s detailed coordination meeting locked down assembly specifications and timeline expectations. We now have confirmed dates and a clear understanding of which components require hand-soldering versus machine placement, reducing uncertainty.
A secondary risk is discovering critical issues during electrical validation that require board respins. We’re mitigating this through thorough pre-manufacturing design review and building in flexibility where possible.
A new risk that emerged this week is software bugs in the data recovery algorithms, particularly with PDF file reconstruction. We discovered parsing issues with PDF cross-reference tables that could limit our recovery capabilities for certain file types. We’re addressing this proactively during the PCB wait time by debugging and fixing these issues now, so software will be ready when hardware arrives.
Our contingency plan includes having backup hand-soldering capabilities if machine assembly faces delays, and we’re using the current PCB wait time productively for firmware development and algorithm debugging rather than being idle.
Were any changes made to the existing design of the system?
No fundamental design changes were made this week. We’re in the manufacturing transition phase and holding the design stable to enable PCB fabrication. The vendor coordination confirmed our design is manufacturable as-is, which validates our design decisions.
However, we refined our assembly approach based on vendor feedback: USB connectors and through-hole power components will be hand-soldered for mechanical reliability during repeated insertion cycles, while surface-mount components will be machine-placed. This is a process change rather than a design change, with no additional cost beyond what was budgeted.
Any design modifications discovered during validation testing will be documented and carefully evaluated for necessity versus workaround solutions. We expect minor tuning may be needed but are confident the core design is sound as this is the second revision.
Updated Schedule
We are approximately one week behind our original schedule due to PCB manufacturing delays. To compensate:
- Current week focus: Documentation development, PDF recovery debugging, virtual PCB testing preparation
- Next week: Complete virtual PCB validation scripts, finalize visual demonstration components
- When boards arrive: Immediate integration testing with pre-developed firmware and test infrastructure
By working on software and documentation during the PCB wait, we’re compressing the post-arrival bring-up timeline. We plan to recover the lost week through focused integration work once hardware is available.
Progress and Accomplishments
This week we made significant progress on multiple fronts:
Manufacturing Coordination: Successfully finalized all PCB assembly details with our vendor. We now have confirmed component placement strategy, assembly timeline, and clear division of responsibilities for parts sourcing. The power cycling board design has been validated as manufacturable with the thermal management and high-current routing meeting vendor requirements.
Software Development: Began debugging PDF file recovery algorithms, identifying issues with cross-reference table parsing. This proactive debugging during hardware wait time will ensure software is mature when boards arrive.
Documentation: Started organizing technical specifications and design decisions into formal documentation, which will streamline final report preparation and provide clear reference material for validation testing. I may make a blender final demonstration video for our project.
Test Planning: Developed comprehensive verification test plan for power cycling subsystem, including oscilloscope validation procedures, current delivery measurements, and endurance testing protocols. Virtual PCB testing scripts are in development to validate board functionality before physical testing.
System Validation Planning
Our overall system validation will test the complete use case: power cycling a failing USB drive and successfully recovering data that wouldn’t be accessible through normal means. Key validation metrics:
- Recovery success rate: Percentage of simulated failures successfully recovered (target >80%)
- Time to recovery: Total time from device insertion to data extraction (target <5 minutes)
- Data integrity: Verify recovered data matches original via checksum comparison
- File type coverage: Successfully recover multiple file types including PDFs, images, documents
- Compatibility: Test with multiple USB drive types and failure modes
The validation approach tests USB drives with known failure modes (corrupted file systems, wear-leveled failures, damaged partition tables) and measures whether FlashRescue can extract data that conventional recovery tools cannot. Success means our hardware power cycling enables data access that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. We may refine these metrics as testing progresses, but core validation criteria remain focused on real-world recovery scenarios.
Mars’s Status Report for November 22
What did you personally accomplish this week on the project?
This week I focused on finalizing our PCB manufacturing details and began working on both documentation and software debugging for the data recovery system. I keep meeting with the vendor for board assembly. I completed DFM analysis (image below)
I coordinated with our PCB vendor to finalize manufacturing details for the power cycling board.
We discussed component placement optimization, particularly for the high-current switching circuits that control USB power delivery. We reviewed via-in-pad routing for thermal management on the power MOSFETs and determined which components need to be hand-soldered versus machine-placed during assembly. Specifically, the USB connectors and any through-hole power components will require hand soldering to ensure mechanical stability during repeated plug/unplug cycles. Got confirmation on the assembly timeline and documented which parts we’re providing versus what they’ll source.
The boards are made! And are starting component placement and assembly (40% done) Which is pretty impressive for a revision 2 of PBC’s.
I also began working on project documentation too, organizing our design decisions and technical specifications into a coherent format. This will be essential for our final report and helps clarify our system architecture. We want to make our documentation stand out this time around.
Additionally, I started debugging a software issue we discovered with recovering data from PDF files. The recovery algorithm wasn’t properly reconstructing the PDF file structure, particularly with handling cross-reference tables and object streams. I’ve been tracing through the file format specifications to identify where our parsing logic breaks down.
Is your progress on schedule or behind?
Behind our original schedule due to PCB delays. However, the PCB vendor discussion was a critical milestone to ensure we get functional boards on the first revision. Having the assembly details locked down now prevents delays later when boards arrive. Using this time to work on software debugging and documentation helps us stay productive while waiting for hardware.
What deliverables do you hope to complete in the next week?
- Write test code to virtually validate revision 1 of our PCBs
- Continue debugging the PDF recovery issue and implement a fix
- Work on creating a visual demonstration for part of our final demo
- Expand project documentation with technical implementation details
New Tools and Learning Strategies
This week I needed to learn several new areas to accomplish my tasks:
PDF File Format Specification: To debug the PDF recovery issue, I had to dive deep into the PDF specification (ISO 32000). I started by reading Adobe’s PDF reference documentation, which is dense but authoritative. When I hit confusing sections, I supplemented this with blog posts and Stack Overflow discussions from developers who’ve parsed PDF files before. Seeing practical examples of how others handled cross-reference tables helped me understand what our code was doing wrong.
PCB Thermal Management: Understanding via-in-pad routing and thermal considerations for power MOSFETs was new territory for me. I watched several PCB design tutorials on YouTube focusing on high-current applications and read application notes from power MOSFET manufacturers. The combination of visual explanations in videos and detailed specifications in app notes gave me the confidence to make informed decisions during the vendor discussion.
Technical Documentation Best Practices: To write effective project documentation, I looked at examples from previous 18-500 projects and reviewed documentation standards for engineering projects. I also consulted with teammates about what information would be most valuable to include.
The most effective learning strategy was combining authoritative sources (official specifications, datasheets) with practical examples (forums, previous projects, tutorials). The specifications tell you what’s correct, but the examples show you how to actually implement it and what mistakes to avoid.
Team Status Report for November 15
What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project?
The main risk is PCB fabrication timeline slipping, which would compress our validation testing window. We’re managing this by maintaining close contact with the vendor and having backup hand-soldering plans if machine assembly faces delays.
A secondary risk is discovering issues during electrical validation that require board respins. We’re mitigating this by thorough design review and having contingency circuits designed (like adjustable timing resistors) so we can tune parameters without a full redesign.
Were any changes made to the existing design of the system?
No design changes this week. We’re in the manufacturing transition phase, holding the design stable to get boards fabricated. Any changes discovered during validation testing will be documented and evaluated for necessity versus workarounds.
System Validation Planning
For overall system validation, we’ll test the complete use case: power cycling a failing USB drive and successfully recovering data that wouldn’t be accessible through normal means. Key validation metrics:
- Recovery success rate: Percentage of simulated failures successfully recovered (target >80%)
- Time to recovery: Total time from insertion to data extraction (target <5 minutes)
- Data integrity: Verify recovered data matches original via checksum comparison
- Compatibility: Test with multiple USB drive types and failure modes
The validation approach is straightforward – we’ll test with USB drives exhibiting known failure modes (corrupted file systems, wear-leveled failures, etc.) and measure whether FlashRescue can extract data that conventional recovery tools cannot. Success means our hardware power cycling enables data access that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. We may talk about updating metrics.
Mars’s Status Report for November 15
What did you personally accomplish this week on the project?
This week I coordinated with our PCB vendor to finalize manufacturing details for the power cycling board. We discussed component placement optimization, particularly for the high-current switching circuits that control USB power delivery. We reviewed via-in-pad routing for thermal management on the power MOSFETs and determined which components need to be hand-soldered versus machine-placed during assembly. Specifically, the USB connectors and any through-hole power components will require hand soldering to ensure mechanical stability during repeated plug/unplug cycles. Got confirmation on the assembly timeline and documented which parts we’re providing versus what they’ll source.
I also mapped out the verification test plan for when the boards arrive. For the power cycling subsystem, I’ll be validating:
- Power cycle oscilloscope validation
- Clean voltage transitions
- Current delivery capability (must supply 500mA continuous per USB 2.0 spec)
- Cycle endurance (board must reliably complete 1000+ cycles without degradation)
Is your progress on schedule or behind?
Behind our original schedule due to PCB delays.. The PCB vendor discussion was a critical milestone to ensure we get functional boards on the first revision. Having the assembly details locked down now prevents delays later when boards arrive.
What deliverables do you hope to complete in the next week?
I want to write test code to virtually test revision 1 of our PCB’s. I also will work on making a visual demonstration for part of our final demo.
Team’s Status Report for November 8
What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project? How are these risks being managed? What contingency plans are ready?
The most significant risk heading into this week was PCB delivery timing for our demo. We successfully managed this risk by maintaining close communication with the manufacturer throughout the assembly process following our USB connector redesign. The boards are scheduled to arrive tomorrow morning, giving us a critical window for validation before the demo.
Hardware validation risk remains our primary concern. We need to verify that the high temperature USB connectors were correctly installed during assembly and that they perform as expected for USB enumeration and data transfer. We have comprehensive validation procedures prepared, including power supply verification, USB signal integrity checks, and basic read functionality testing. Our contingency plan includes having detailed software demonstrations ready even if we encounter unexpected hardware issues during bring up.
Software architecture risk was addressed this week through a complete redesign. The previous PyFTDI based implementation had fundamental limitations in low level control and timing precision. The new architecture provides much more direct control over USB communication and better integrates with our power cycling hardware. This was a significant undertaking but positions us much better for reliable operation. The new implementation has been thoroughly tested and is working end to end.
Integration risk is elevated given that we’re now working with a single team member handling both hardware and software responsibilities. This has streamlined decision making but increased workload. We’re managing this by focusing on critical path items and preparing comprehensive backup materials for the demo.
Were any changes made to the existing design of the system (requirements, block diagram, system spec, etc)? Why was this change necessary, what costs does the change incur, and how will these costs be mitigated going forward?
We made a major software architecture change this week. The entire PyFTDI based implementation was scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up. This change was necessary because the PyFTDI approach had fundamental limitations in low level USB control and timing precision that would have caused issues as we scaled up functionality. The old architecture couldn’t provide the fine grained control we need for reliable power cycling coordination and USB communication recovery.
The new architecture gives us direct control over the USB communication layer and integrates much better with our hardware power cycling control. This required essentially rewriting the core imaging and recovery code, representing a substantial engineering investment of approximately 15 to 20 hours this week. However, the new implementation provides improved error handling, more predictable behavior, and better performance characteristics.
We’re mitigating the time cost of this redesign by leveraging the improved architecture’s capabilities to accelerate future development. The cleaner design will make adding features and debugging issues significantly faster. Testing has confirmed the new implementation works end to end with better reliability than the previous approach.
No hardware design changes occurred this week. The boards currently in production incorporate the high temperature USB connector changes from our previous revision.
Provide an updated schedule if changes have occurred.
Schedule remains consistent with our previous update, with boards arriving tomorrow morning (November 16th) and demo occurring shortly after:
Week 7 (current): PCB delivery November 16th morning, immediate board bring up and validation. Software architecture redesign completed and tested. Demo preparation and execution.
Weeks 8 through 9: Full board characterization including signal integrity measurements and power cycling timing verification. Testing with wider variety of USB drives across different manufacturers. Hardware issue documentation and rev2 improvement planning.
Weeks 10 through 11: System optimization, cross vendor drive compatibility validation, performance measurements, success rate analysis across different drive failure types.
Week 12: Final demonstration preparation, comprehensive documentation, demo video production, poster completion, final report drafting.
The critical path runs through successful demo execution and subsequent hardware validation. Software architecture is now solid and ready for integration with physical hardware.
Progress summary and demonstrations
Hardware Progress: Boards are scheduled for delivery tomorrow morning after successful completion of assembly with the high temperature USB connectors. All test equipment and verification procedures are prepared for immediate bring up upon arrival. Component inventory is complete with 100% BOM match for any potential repairs or modifications needed.
Software Progress: Major architectural overhaul completed this week. The entire PyFTDI based implementation was replaced with a new architecture providing much more direct control over USB communication and better integration with power cycling hardware. The new implementation has been thoroughly tested and demonstrates end to end functionality with improved error handling and more predictable behavior. Demo script has been prepared showcasing key functionality.
Integration: Currently operating with a single team member handling both hardware and software responsibilities; Hopefully the other team member is doing documentation, he has an update for this Friday to see his progress. This has required careful prioritization but has streamlined decision making processes. All preparation work is complete for rapid hardware validation tomorrow morning and demo execution. Comprehensive backup plans are in place in case of unexpected hardware issues.
Mars’s Status Report for November 8th
What did you personally accomplish this week on the project?
This week I focused on final preparation for our demo and handled a critical board delivery situation. I’ve been working solo on both the hardware and software sides of the project now, which has required careful prioritization of tasks.
The major accomplishment this week was coordinating the first round of PCB delivery, which I’m scheduled to receive tomorrow morning, just in time for our demo. After the connector temperature rating issue we encountered previously, I maintained close communication with the manufacturer throughout the assembly process to ensure the high-temperature USB connectors were correctly installed and that the boards passed all their quality checks before shipment.
On the software side, I made a significant architectural decision: I completely scrapped the PyFTDI based approach and redesigned the entire software architecture from the ground up. The PyFTDI implementation had fundamental limitations in terms of low level control and timing precision that were going to cause issues as we scaled up functionality. The new architecture gives us much more direct control over the USB communication layer and better integrates with our power cycling hardware control. This was a substantial refactor, essentially rewriting the core imaging and recovery code, but it puts us in a much better position for robust, reliable data recovery operations. I’ve tested the new implementation thoroughly and it’s now working end to end with improved error handling and more predictable behavior.
Since I’m now handling both hardware and software responsibilities independently, I’ve had to be strategic about time management. I set up all the test equipment and verification procedures for tomorrow’s board bring up, organized the components and tools I’ll need for quick debugging, and prepared backup plans in case we encounter any issues during the demo. I also created a streamlined demo script that walks through the key functionality in a clear, time efficient manner.
Is your progress on schedule or behind? If you are behind, what actions will be taken to catch up to the project schedule?
I’m currently on schedule for the demo, though working solo has required some adjustments to my workflow. The software architecture redesign took significant time this week, but it was necessary to ensure we have a solid foundation moving forward. The PCB delivery timing worked out favorably. Receiving the boards tomorrow morning gives me a few hours to verify basic functionality before the demo, which should be sufficient given the thorough testing I’ve already done with the new software architecture.
The transition to working independently on all aspects of the project has actually streamlined some decision making processes, though it’s increased the workload considerably. I’ve maintained momentum by focusing on the most critical path items first: ensuring the boards arrive on time, having robust software that can demonstrate our core functionality even if we encounter minor hardware issues, and preparing comprehensive backup materials.
What deliverables do you hope to complete in the next week?
Next week my priorities are to receive and perform initial validation on the first PCB revision tomorrow morning, including power supply verification, USB enumeration testing, and basic read functionality with the new software architecture. I want to successfully demonstrate the data recovery system at our demo, showcasing both the hardware and software components working together.
After the demo, I plan to complete full characterization of the assembled boards, including signal integrity measurements on the USB lines and timing verification of the power cycling circuit. I’ll begin testing with a wider variety of USB drives to validate our recovery approach across different manufacturers and controller types. I need to document any hardware issues discovered during bring up and create a running list of potential rev2 improvements.
I also want to finalize the complete software documentation for the new architecture so the codebase is ready for evaluation. If time permits, I’ll start working on the final presentation materials and begin drafting sections of the final report.
I also press the vendor to get our REV 2 of the boards here on time.
Team’s Status Report for November 1
What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project? How are these risks being managed? What contingency plans are ready?
The most significant risk this week emerged from the PCB manufacturing process: the USB connector specified in our design is not rated for the reflow soldering temperatures required during board assembly. The connector has a maximum temperature rating of 260°C, but our lead-free reflow profile peaks at 245-250°C, creating an unacceptable safety margin that risks damaging the connector’s plastic housing during assembly. We managed this by identifying a pin-compatible high-temperature replacement connector (rated to 280°C), updating the PCB design with minimal footprint adjustments, and resubmitting to the manufacturer with fast-tracked review to minimize additional delays.
However, we have positive news that significantly reduces our integration risk: Mars successfully got the imaging code working this week and demonstrated seamless data recovery from test drives. The complete data recovery pipeline is now functional end-to-end, including error correction and data block reconstruction. This major breakthrough means software development is actually ahead of our internal milestones, eliminating the previous risk of software delays impacting integration.
Hardware integration risk remains centered on verifying VBUS power-cycling performance and USB signal integrity with the new connector. Mars has prepared comprehensive validation procedures including impedance verification for the USB differential pairs with the replacement connector. Our contingency plan includes tunable parameters in the power cycling circuit if adjustments are needed during bring-up.
Component availability risk is well-managed. Standard parts have been inventoried with 100% BOM match. The high-temperature USB connector and remaining long-lead components (MOSFETs and replacement redriver) align with our revised November 19th PCB delivery schedule.
Were any changes made to the existing design of the system (requirements, block diagram, system spec, etc)? Why was this change necessary, what costs does the change incur, and how will these costs be mitigated going forward?
We made one critical hardware change this week: replacing the USB connector with a high-temperature rated alternative. This change was necessary because the original connector’s temperature rating (260°C max) was incompatible with our lead-free reflow soldering process (245-250°C peak), which the PCB manufacturer identified during their design review before fabrication began. Using the original connector would risk plastic housing damage during assembly, potentially causing mechanical failure or compromised electrical connections.
The replacement connector is pin-compatible and maintains the same impedance specifications for USB differential pairs, requiring only minimal PCB footprint adjustments. Costs include an additional 5-day schedule delay (PCB delivery now November 19th instead of November 14th), revised fabrication charges, and approximately 6 hours of engineering time for redesign and verification.
We’re mitigating these costs through several approaches: the manufacturer fast-tracked our revised design through their review process to minimize additional delays; since the imaging and data recovery software is now fully functional, we’re expanding our software test suite using simulated hardware responses to validate edge cases without waiting for physical boards; and we’ve optimized our bring-up procedures to parallelize signal integrity measurements, potentially recovering 1-2 days during validation.
We are having a revised board that is just the 2 usb connectors being made first to confirm that in assembly those don’t get damaged. those will get delivered before anything else.
Provide an updated schedule if changes have occurred.
Revised schedule accounting for the USB connector issue and incorporating the software development breakthrough:
Weeks 5-6 (current): Board redesign completed with high-temperature USB connector, new PCB fabrication in progress. Major software milestone achieved – imaging code fully functional with successful data recovery demonstrations. Software development now ahead of schedule.
Weeks 7-8 (upcoming): PCB delivery November 19th, board assembly and bring-up with new connector. Signal integrity validation focusing on USB differential pair impedance with replacement connector. VBUS power cycling characterization. Software team expanding test coverage and edge case handling while hardware is in fabrication.
Weeks 9-10: System integration with functional software stack, initial recovery testing with failed drives across multiple failure modes, throughput optimization, user interface refinement.
Week 11: Cross-vendor drive compatibility validation, performance measurements, success rate analysis across different drive failure types.
Week 12: Final demonstration preparation, comprehensive documentation, demo video production, poster completion.
The critical path now runs through hardware validation and integration testing. Software development is no longer blocking, having achieved the major milestone of functional end-to-end data recovery. The 5-day hardware delay is partially offset by accelerated software readiness.
Progress summary and demonstrations
Hardware Progress: Mars managed the USB connector crisis by identifying the temperature rating incompatibility during manufacturer review, sourcing a high-temperature replacement (280°C rated), updating the PCB design while maintaining signal integrity requirements, and expediting the revised fabrication. Standard components have been inventoried with 100% BOM match. The testing and bring-up plan has been finalized with detailed procedures for USB signal integrity verification with the new connector. Hardware interface specifications are complete. We are considering producing one test board with just USB connectors to verify USB 3 SuperSpeed compliance before full system bring-up, which could also serve as a demo backup platform.
Software Progress: Major breakthrough this week – Mars successfully got the imaging code working and demonstrated seamless data recovery from test drives. Mars redid the software architecture entirely, and will work to get Apollo to update the documentation.
Integration: The team has updated hardware-software interface documentation to reflect the connector change and revised timeline. With software now functional and hardware expected November 19th, we’re well-positioned for rapid integration testing. The primary focus is preparing comprehensive bring-up procedures to validate the new USB connector’s signal integrity and leveraging the fabrication period to expand software test coverage and optimize the data recovery algorithms.