/g120/g42/g16/g81/g72/g74/g68/g87/g76/g82/g81/g3/g54/g92/g86/g87/g72/g80/g3/g39/g72/g86/g76/g74/g81/g29  G-negation system biases can influence the deployment path, masking  the potential for on-orbit (i.e. zero-g) deployed interference (see Figure 9). During ground testing,  contact was unlikely to be observed because the g-negation system biases the deployment path towards the intended design path (i.e. tends to center HGAS and assist the sync cable). To check the validity of the baseline  dynamics model and CAD predictions of the interference condition with LRM C, a hardware range of motion system check was performed. This check was done as early as the flight hardware was available. The HGAS was g-negated  and all system preload was removed. Using careful hand manipulation, the system was moved through potential ranges of motion. From this study, it was verified that contact between deploying system members and non-deploying hardware could indeed occur. The principle point of contact was theoutboard actuator with the +X, +Y corner at the top (-Z) edge of the  spherical constraint tower assemblyof the LRM C. The interference resolution was well under way at the time the issue was verified on the flight hardware. Interference-Biased ADAMS Model Because the HGAS is kinematically indeterminate, whether there was sufficient clearance for the flight  deployment path could not be determined without use of dynamic motion analysis. This analysis must  include appropriate conservatism to ensure sufficient margin on clearance and a good design.  The calibrated baseline ADAMS model was key in developing a solution for the potential interference  issue as the flight hardware was unavailable for detailed in situ subsystem study and testing. The HGAS was already integrated on the GPM spacecraft and the tight spacecraft integration and test schedule  severely limited the team’s access to the hardware. To use the dynamic HGAS ADAMS model to investigate potential solutions, appropriate conservatism  was applied to the various parameters in the model. The type of conservatism applied to a dynamic model depends on the result one intends to study. For instance, with hinge deployment spring torque, if one wanted to be conservative with hinge “end of travel” impact velocity, you would use the high end of  the deployment spring torque tolerance. If one wanted to be conservative on deployment time (i.e. the  longest time) one would use the low end of deployment hinge spring torque tolerance, as lower torques translate to slower deployment speeds. When comparing and investigating the potential solutions of the  interference issue, the metric used was the /g80/g76/g81/g76/g80/g88/g80/g3/g70/g79/g72/g68/g85/g68/g81/g70/g72/g3/g69/g72/g87/g90/g72/g72/g81/g3/g87/g75/g72/g3/g74/g76/g80/g69/g68/g79/g3/g68/g86/g86/g72/g80/g69/g79/g92/g3/g68/g81/g71/g3/g47/g53/g48/g3/g38 at any moment in time during the deployment. Out of many dozens, the team identified 26 model parameters or factors that could have significant effect  on this clearance. Using the baseline “on-orbit” model as the starting point, all these factors were biased Figure 9. Gantry Cable tends to Center HGAS During Gnegated Ground Deployment Tests (image from ADAMS  model) 54