Let us first of all look at a number of features which already gives some information about the test.

1. the total burning time of the motor is compatible with the stand burning measures, indicating that:
2. the propellant (or at least one segment) had a normal burning rate
3. at least one segment, or part of it, burned at the right rate from the inside to the outside
4. the pressure and thrust built up during the first phase of the curve is somewhat slower, essentially as from about 800 N (160 pounds) than in the BEM 1 test, indicating a smaller burning area in the beginning
5. the top of the curve is situated almost exactly in the middle of the total burning time, indicating the possibility that:
   1. or some segments burned from the outside to the inside (tubular? Hence they needed only half the time).
   2. or part of the propellant was consumed much faster (at a rate twice as normal)
6. the lack of a plateau shaped curve in the second part of the thrust curve: even if one or several propellant segments are affected by cracks, erosive burning or tubular burning, after these segments have been consumed, the normal base burning segments should be left over and burn at least for a while in a more or less normal way. The absence of such a plateau indicates that almost all segments were affected by abnormal burning. A good example of such a plateau (between 3.5s and 4.5s ) is the following curve of the first static test of the Norwegian NEAR SCAA9901 (www.near.no) (Also see case 2).

1. The BEM 1 thrust curve shows a long tail-off (more than 0.5s) which is most probably not caused by fragmentation of the remaining propellant, but which may rather be a sign for erosion.