We can certainly come up with that. I know of some people
(read:businesses) that have programmable (I believe) shake testers that I
_might_ be able to get access to as well. As for the shock testing, a drop
test could almost certainly be tuned as a launch shock analogue.
My follow up though, before we go down that route, is "do the electrical
engineering folks have ideas on how to protect from a shock/shake induced
reboot?" From the mechanical side we could add some dampening and
absorption in between the flight computer and the rocket proper, but we are
really _really_ low on space for that. Barring programmatic solutions
though, if the tests show a lack of resilience, I'm sure we could find a
way to fit in mechanical aid.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:36 AM, James Perkins <ja...@loowit.net> wrote:
> Would the mechanical engineering folks have schemes for shake and shock
> testing of the avionics segment?
> On Jul 4, 2013 10:24 PM, "Nathan Bergey" <nathan.ber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, this sucks.
>> On Tuesday with Kenny's help we dd'd the entire CF card from the
>> flight computer onto my laptop and mounted a copy so we could pull the
>> complete logs from the FCF.
>> The raw logs are all here:
>> I finished writing a parser for the FCF logs tonight and found what I
>> suspected based on the few packets that made it to the ground:
>> There is no data from the launch (T-0 to apogee). The last logfile
>> starts *after* we're already on parachutes.
>> I suspect we rebooted on motor ignition.
>> psas-avionics mailing list
> psas-avionics mailing list
psas-avionics mailing list