On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:58:01 -0500, Alex Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps a paint shaker on a merry go round? I'm sure you could recoup the >costs by charging thrill seekers for rides ;-) We ain't charging nobody for nothin'. Liability issues. > All seriousness aside though, do you have to shake the whole machine? I >certainly would want to check out all relays for false triggering. I'd give the >circuitry a work out too. If you could go fro 90% to 94% by testing individual >parts, would this be realistic? I don't see the point in testing components, since the problems will be in the connections between them. As far as reliability, for altimeters/accelerometers, for KISS we're at 67% (4/6) on peroxide and 100% (8/8) on solids. It won't be worth chasing high reliability until we get our flight rate up - as long as we get the vehicle back intact - so we'll continue to solve the single point failures as they come up. The baro spoof is going to take some actual science to figure out and fix, but the fin failure we can just beat to death with a BFH. -R -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board is when it is on fire." -Sir Charles Kingsford Smith _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
