Each Micro Propulsion Attitude Control System (MPACS) tube underwent testing prior to assembly and launch. The first tests for MPACS occurred on 10 and 13 May 2004. These tests involve firing each tube and documenting how many pulses are observed. However, there are no details to exactly which PPT was fired, so from this point in the analysis, the most conservative (longest) duration will be assumed to be for the PPT that shorted on 2 Nov 07 (PPT Cluster 2, Tube 2). Additionally, since there are no time records available, a frequency of 1 Hz will be assumed. This comes from long term testing on different tubes that showed a variation of frequency, with 1 Hz being the lower range.
On 10 May, the maximum number of pulses was 40. Assuming the conservative estimate of 1 Hz firing, this gives 40 seconds. Using the same logic, the maximum of 60 pulses on 13 May adds another 60 seconds. In total, all the documentation from the USAFA clean room shows a maximum time of 100 seconds.
The next series of tests occurred at Kirtland AFB, NM on 17-26 April 2006. This included the Hot Bake Out and Hot Start test and the Cold Soak and Cold Start test three times each for a total of 6 tests. The procedures called for firing each tube only 5 times, however the actual results varied. The total duration of these six tests was 120 seconds at most.
The last series of test occurred on 6 June 2006. This test involved testing MPACS in a cold environment (0 deg C). The documentation was much better with this test, having 12 pulses specifically counted for the tube of interest. However, there are no remarks as to a second part of the test in which one of the +X MPACS (Cluster 2) fired for an additional 42 pulses. Assuming this was tube 2, the maximum ...
... middle of paper ...
...FS-3, a long duration test will be continuing in testing MPACS functionality. This test will most likely involve a tube away from the payloads (plasma sensors) to keep charging minimal. The tube will also be in a direction that will give the best attitude demonstration capabilities, so it most likely will be in –X Tube 1 or 3. The best attitude demonstration with a gravity gradient boom deployed is about the yaw direction. These times do not include the conservative pre-launch estimate of 240 seconds each, so four minutes can be added for the most conservative total firing.
Conclusion
The success of MPACS payload is dependent on the further evaluation of the potential of the tubes in flight characteristics. More time of firing in addition to an extended control torque test will present a result which may prove the functionality and applicability of the payload.
5. A second test tube was then filled with water and placed in a test
A schematic of the SHPB facility used in the present work is presented in Figure 2.1. The Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar consists of an incident bar, transmission bar and a projectile termed as the striker bar all made of maraging steel which holds a nominal yield strength of 2500
minute. The range of the rifle is 1,509ft (460m; 503yds) the sights of the rifle are aperture rear
minutes, the AHR escalated even more, to 369 bpm. See Table 5 and Figure 3.
The project that will be tested is called The Effect of the Ion Engine propulsion system on a Space Shuttle launch. To effectively understand the project background information will be needed. The observers will need to understand the following terms which are: ions, ion engine, conservation of momentum, atoms, ionization and Newton’s law. It is also important to effectively understand why an ion system would be used and why it is the best, as well as being knowledgeable about the different components.
exact, the time was only able to be told by the hourly chiming of the
4 What is the sustained rate of fire of the M249? 85 rounds per minute
8. For the second test, put the large fan on a low setting and time the fan car’s progress.
a couple of hours. The Liberty Bell was nearly always met with military salutes, parades,
Having two people in the group, we had one person be a timer and a spectrophometer reader, and the other was the data recorder. After recording the time, we then mixed tubes 2 and 3. We then recorded the data of the combined tube and wrote down the results. After this, we mixed tubes 4 and 5 and completed the same procedure as with tubes 2 and 3 (“Biology” 80). We then had to determine the effect of temperature. We found the results of these four temperatures:
Hershey, D. (2003, March 3). MadSciNet: The 24-hour exploding laboratory. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://www.madsci.org
As the test tubes were taken out of the water bath and placed the in
4. Put each group of potato discs in one of the 6 test tubes and watch
In both tests the results show very different things. I think the second test was a lot more successful than the first. The main factor that would have overall affected the results would have been the different temperature between the two tests. This and the fact that they were on a different day and the fact that we didn’t have the exact same amount of bugs in the containers would have been the biggest factors that would have disadvantaged our test.
...ight budget and timeframe, this led to engineers relying more on models and simulations than actual testing. Models like the Radar-terrain interaction and Dynamical control effects of pulse-mode propulsion were not properly validated due budget constraints. This reliance on software models and simulations may have caused the MPL to be destroyed. These tools can be used but their limitations should also be known. In order to minimize these failures a decisive decision should be taken early in the development stages by experts and experienced system architects and engineers this will minimize the errors made in the finishing stages. Risk assessment should be carried out whenever analysis are based on models and simulations without being validated by actual testing. This will help reduce the over reliance on models and simulations by the engineers. [4]