Description of Performance Test 2 and important take-aways:
Two different codes were tested, to determine which code was more energy efficient (see Appendix page A1 for codes). One of the codes used a method of coasting, FinalCode, to minimize energy consumption. Whereas the other code, Code2, used a faster method of constant power. Both codes completed the track successfully, however the coasting code was more energy efficient. It only consumed 141.522 Joules of energy whereas the other code used 179.631 Joules of energy.
As seen in the figure below for the data recorded in lab 05, a pusher thrust setup had the largest propulsion efficiency. Since the vehicle is on one track to where the vehicle cannot turn around, the propellers will be in both a push and pull tractor configuration. Based on the data, the group decided to maximize propulsion efficiency when the vehicle was carrying R2D2. R2D2 and its caboose were added weight. Thus, more energy is required to move the AEV when the caboose is attached, so the group wanted to utilize the maximum efficiency when the thrust was under the greatest load. Therefore, the programming strategy for the development of these two codes both utilized this data.
To explicitly state the group’s final recommendation, the group plans to continue the mission with the Final Code. The final code is more developed and uses significantly less power. A 25% difference in power is significant to the group in order to minimize the energy consumed by the Advance Energy Vehicle. The final code only has a few areas to work on because the code can almost get the vehicle to complete the mission. Besides calculating the final marks for the fourth quarter of the project, the final code is complete. Overall, the group will continue to develop the final code until it successfully completes the Mission Concept Review.