/g120Perform characterization testing for fixtures supporting dynamic events. It is standard practice to  perform a bare fixture evaluation for vibration and acoustic testing. This philosophy may also be applied to dynamic separation tests. If the test fixture can have an impact on the dynamic behavior of  the test article, it may be necessary to perform some level of characterization testing on the fixture  itself. This can include static load, modal or simple functional testing with a known rigid test article. This testing could eliminate analytical uncertainties even with seemingly ‘simple’ structure. The fixture  testing performed for the fairing separation test provided data for adjustments to the analytical model. /g120Make sure all design aspects are accounted for in the dynamic simulation of the separation event. When a Finite Element Model is developed for dynamic separation analysis, ensure all proper critical  clearance elements are transferred from the CAD. There was a small piece of hardware that snagged on the test fixture in the first separation test and resulted in one of the fairings not separating. Had this part been included in the model, the issue would have been identified and corrected prior to the test. Conclusion Each test has provided critical data necessary for analytical model validation and better understanding of  the components and the system. PSM wear testing pushed the limits of the CANADIZE ®coating which  required changes to the geometry. Ultimately, the contact stresses were reduced and the design was ableto meet the life requirements under load and provide adequate clearance for separation. Spring testing showed how the vibroacoustic environment was the primary design driver. The softer CRES material was ultimately chosen to mitigate wear and debris generation. Deflector testing validated the flexure design over the relative large deflections required. While the electroless nickel was shown to be far superior for  this application, the cost and schedule constraints required an alternative solution. Ultimately, the brushed-on nickel met all design requirements once the proper lubrication was found. System-level fairing  separation testing showed how a small geometric interference and reduced ground margins can provide  unexpected results. While flight margins are significantly higher, the design changes made increased critical clearances to eliminate any potential recontact during ground or flight jettison. The second separation test was a complete success and all margins and clearances were validated.  Tests discussed here are only a subset of those required to fully verify all requirements necessary for  human rating of the Orion fairing system. Additional tests include other component development testing  as well as qualification testing being performed in support of the EFT-1 mission. The final test will include  a full-scale system-level separation test with flight hardware which is required for human rating the fairing separation system and the Orion vehicle. References 1. Couvalt, Craig. "Ariane 5 Fairing Passes Ground Separation Test", /g36/g89/g76/g68/g87/g76/g82/g81/g3 /g58/g72/g72/g78/g3 /g68/g81/g71/g3 /g54/g83/g68/g70/g72/g3 /g55/g72/g70/g75/g81/g82/g79/g82/g74/g92 , 28 November 1994, p. 66. 2. United Launch Alliance. “Atlas V Launch Services User’s Guide.” March 2010. 3. United Launch Alliance. “Delta IV Payload Planners Guide.” September 2007.4. K. Lucy and J. C. Uht. "Contamination studies of the Pegasus fairing separation", Proc. SPIE 2261,  Optical System Contamination: Effects, Measurements, and Control IV, 108 (October 19, 1994);  doi:10.1117/12.190132 5. Daye, Charles J. “Skylab Payload Shroud Jettison Tests.” National Aeronautics and Space  Administration Technical Note D-6913, August 1972. 285