Aerospace engineering
& design.

The internship involved seven custom tooling projects for internal production. I designed each in CATIA and carried the work through internal customer review to delivery.

Design-for-manufacturing and design-for-assembly principles guided this work. Customer feedback was part of the design process, connecting the model to the people and workflows that would use the finished tool.

I operated SLA, FDM, SLS, and DMLS additive manufacturing machines to produce shop aids and training tools for internal production. The equipment included Formlabs, Bambu, Markforged, Stratasys, and EOS machines.

The role also involved preventive maintenance on additive manufacturing equipment. Alongside the tooling projects, I redesigned the lab floor plan to open dedicated space for composite layup work.

• CATIA tooling design with DFM/DFA principles.
• SLA, FDM, SLS, and DMLS machine operation.
• Internal customer review, iteration, and delivery.
• Lab layout improvement and equipment preventive maintenance.

Two of the seven tooling designs were adopted into production on delivery. One cleared a two-month work backlog and pulled a shipment roughly one month ahead of schedule.

These results connect the design work to a concrete operational outcome: a tool that enabled work to move forward.

A thrust vector control system relies on a mechanical relationship between the engine, gimbal, and actuators. Changing a mount position changes that relationship. The mounting arrangement therefore needed to be evaluated alongside the actuator stroke and torque constraints.

My scope was the actuator mounting scheme and the tool used to compare mount point sets within the team’s existing engine geometry.

• Use the engine profile geometry from Siemens NX.
• Evaluate candidate mount point sets against actuator stroke constraints.
• Check maximum torque constraints before narrowing the configuration set.

I extracted the engine profile from NX CAD and brought that geometry into a MATLAB tool. The tool evaluated more than 250 candidate mount point sets against the actuator constraints.

This connected the geometry work and the configuration search in one workflow: extract the profile, evaluate the candidate set, then narrow the arrangements for final design.

The evaluation narrowed more than 250 candidate mount point sets to three configurations. From that shortlist, one configuration was selected for final design and fabrication.

The selected configuration is now in final design and fabrication. Integration follows this stage; flight performance is not yet a reported result.

The hand needed an actuation approach suited to grip strength and hands-on repair. We chose a linkage-based mechanism to address those priorities.

This decision drove the mechanical layout. My work included the finger linkages, the enclosure that houses the assembly, and actuator/servo wiring. These parts had to be considered together as an assembled hand.

We took the design through three CAD iterations and built two assembled prototypes. Moving between CAD and assembly gave the project a physical basis for further revision.

The design work covered the mechanisms and their integration: finger linkage geometry, the enclosure, and the actuator/servo wiring. The current prototype remains part of an ongoing test-and-iteration cycle.

The current prototype has been verified lifting a 2 lb payload. This is the demonstrated result for the assembled prototype; it is not a claim about maximum grip force or a completed endurance qualification.

I presented research at Purdue’s fall and spring undergraduate research conferences. Both presentations were listed under “Presentations with Distinction.”

As President, I lead a 1,500+ member organization with many subteams spanning electrical, mechanical, and software roles. My responsibilities include club strategy, finances, sponsor relationships, and technical project direction.

The role combines hands-on mechanical work with the organizational work that helps a large student engineering community build together. StarkHacks, an HRC program, is documented separately in this portfolio.

StarkHacks brought 750 attendees together for a 36-hour in-person hardware hackathon. As Head of Ops and President, I owned the operational work that enabled the event to take place at the Purdue Armory.

The responsibility spanned contracting, production, infrastructure, and participant logistics.

I handled venue contracting at the Purdue Armory and coordinated catering, AV/production, dedicated participant Wi-Fi infrastructure, and parking logistics.

This work sat alongside my wider role leading the Humanoid Robot Club, including club strategy, sponsor relationships, and technical project direction.

• Purdue Armory venue contracting.
• Catering and attendee support.
• AV and event production.
• Dedicated participant Wi-Fi infrastructure.
• Parking logistics.

The certification pathway combines kit building with OpenRocket simulation and team mentorship. I’m using this work to develop hands-on experience alongside my thrust vector control design work on Tadpole.

Level 1 and Level 2 are current certification goals. They are not completed certifications, and this portfolio does not yet report a certification flight result.

PlayAR’s concept was a first-person training experience: use a headset to run reps against virtual opponents. The platform was developed for Meta Quest Pro.

My role centered on product direction. I worked alongside the development team on the animation and movement interface, connecting the experience we wanted players to have with the requirements needed to build it.

The project combined XR development with animation and movement UI work. The project workflow used Unity and Blender.

I translated coach feedback into concrete build requirements and worked with the team on the interface and motion. This connected the product work to the experience of running a play from a player’s point of view.

The pitch deck describes personalized plays, live casting, and eye-tracking data as areas of product differentiation. These express the broader product direction. The documented pilot centered on first-person reps and live play-throws against virtual players.

We piloted the prototype with our high school football team, running live play-throws against virtual players. Coaches responded positively, and several continued integrating AR tools into practice afterward.

The pilot provided qualitative feedback about the experience. Coach feedback informed further product requirements.

PlayAR advanced to the Diamond Challenge semifinal round as a top-600 team in 2024 and to the Limitless Global Summit as a top-50 team in 2025.

My co-founder work spanned October 2023 through June 2026, bringing together product direction, development collaboration, and real-world prototype feedback.

The pitch deck proposed a team subscription priced at $800 per month, excluding the headset, with a $1,000 contractual fee. It focused on football programs at the high-school, college, and professional levels.

These figures describe the venture’s pitch-stage model. They are separate from the prototype and coaching feedback documented above. The deck’s later milestones, including expanded eye-tracking analysis and additional sports, describe the roadmap.

The pitch deck shows a stacked filter assembly with synthetic-fiber layers, carbon charcoal, and KDF 55 media. Water enters at the top and passes through the assembly into a lower collection chamber.

The housing concept explored sawdust as a structural material. The design challenge was to bring the housing, media layers, and flow path together in a compact product.

I used Fusion 360 to design the housing and explored the concept through 3D-printed prototypes and assembled units. My role was product design, working alongside teammates responsible for science research, marketing, and public relations.

The deck’s assembly diagram communicates the intended arrangement of the filtration layers. It documents a design concept, not a certified drinking-water performance result.

The pitch deck estimated a unit cost of $8.77 and proposed a retail price of $19.99. Its cost breakdown included synthetic fibers, sawdust, cleaning, charcoal, and KDF 55 media.

The concept paired material reuse with an affordability goal. Those numbers are pitch-stage estimates rather than achieved manufacturing costs or sales results.