Alex Fraser wrote:
> I would guess it comes down to another flight. I would think it
> would still be a KISS III flight? KISS IIIb? If flown will the same
> configuration for engine/ pressure feed be used with improved sensors?
> What should be looked for, that is what can be tested for the chugging
> problem?
My suggestion would be to run a KISS 3 flight with exactly the same
equipment, setup and procedures. Duplicating the effect eliminates the
posibility that it was external influence (such as wind induced
flexing). If a reflight gives the same bad chugging and wild
acceleration flux, it's a vehicle problem. If it's a smooth (or
smoother) flight, it may be external. Also, the three KISS 2 flights
showed notably less chugging in successive flights. It may be a
catpack issue related to settling. If the catpack has been removed or
changed or altered, it may be that in reassembly, the cat pack wasn't
under the same pressure loading and the disks shifted or fluttered
internally. In a scientific experiment, if you get bad results, you
repeat the experivment as closely as possible and see if you repeat
the bad result. That's one reason why we are developing reusable
technology - so we can make lots of runs under as near identical
setups and conditions and verify reliability of performance.
To rely KISS 3, what would we need?
- more peroxide?
- vehicle/fin/chute repairs?
- another PRS weekend?
Randall? Can we set up the "experiment" again with the same propellant
load and see if we get the same results?
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis KF6SPF (408) 396-9037 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
