Laser Scanning Data Question

[[Ja...]]

Hello All,

Our QA department measures large satellite reflector dishes with Calypso software hundreds of space points on the parabolic surface to determine the root mean square per a drawing callout.  The space points are generated from a Cad Model and are best fit with a loop. 

This run will usually take a shift and a half.

Our engineering and manufacturing leaders have decided this process is too time consuming and will be using laser scanning equipment from Hexagon to perform this task from now on.

The main issue now is that QA is not performing the measurements, but are being requested to acceptable the data that manufacturing has generated by engineering.

Has anyone else had this issue arise and how was it resolved?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[[Ma...]]

I am lost in translation.

What is your problem again?

Previously you were measuring it like freeform by touch points and used surface profile?

[[No...]]

In which form do you receive the measured data? If it is a point list in ASCII format, you should be able to import it in Calypso and evaluate as usual. 

[[Ja...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Hello, good point, this maybe an option our QA group will need to explore.

If the department performing the scan can provide the data to our group for us to evaluate, at we could perform that task, since the actual measuring of the assembly is no longer in QA hands.

Thank you your assistance.

[[Je...]]

Hi

Please sign in to view this username.

Totally fair that your engineering and manufacturing leaders want faster turnaround—1.5 shifts per part is a massive burn. The space-points process you described is at least a decade obsolete for large-volume parametric surfaces.

That said, I’d strongly recommend giving Zeiss Inspect and the ATOS LRX scanner a serious look before locking in with Hexagon.

Both vendors are competent, but there are key differences when it comes to measurement software—and they matter more than many teams realize.
(By the way, does the Hexagon system utilize Leica Cyclone?)

Key differentiators:

• Industrial pedigree – Zeiss Inspect is built for metrology-grade evaluations: profile tolerances, RMS deviation, ISO 1101 support. Leica Cyclone, on the other hand, was born in civil surveying—more for terrain and buildings than critical aerospace geometry. Hexagon has tried since their 2005 acquisition to Frankenstein Leica's software into something it isn’t.

• Workflow integration – Zeiss Inspect ties directly into Zeiss's ecosystem. Cyclone workflows tend to be siloed, often requiring post-processing or handoff to other platforms for dimensional inspection.

• Automation & flexibility – As plenty of users on this forum will attest, Zeiss Inspect’s capabilities for Python scripting, custom inspection routines, and batch processing are mature and production-ready.

Bottom line: laser scanning for your reflector dishes is a great move. Just make sure your software backbone is built for the level of accountability and traceability expected in satellite programs.

Edited June 3

[[Ja...]]

Jeff,

Thanks for a very complete response on my initial post. It has started an inquiry into primarily the Zeiss Inspect option, as the assembly process has already begun.

Our goal at this time is find a system that data can be downloaded from the engineering scans (Hexagon Lecia ATS800) and loaded on a Cad Model for analyzation by QA.

This would be the only input Quality would have, besides just reviewing the data from reports and accepting their results.

Previously, as noted, Quality performed the measurements while the Assy. was being built in our lab, using a LK Metre with a Zeiss Calypso interface for the last two years. It was very reliable in my opinion, but speed wise cannot match the scanning process.

Thanks again for the input.