[roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
- From: "Ron McGough" <rrmagoo7@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:52:44 -0700
Richard,
One big question,
Has there ever been a rocket accidentally launched due to a failure of the ROC
Launch System?
Answer: NO! All accidental launches have been caused by lack of knowledge of
the RSO and or the Owner of the rocket. To my knowledge there has never been a
"misfire" of the ROC Launch System since it was built in 2001.
As for the layout of the launch system being rows of 6 spaced apart. This
concept was arrived at after much thought and planning by a group of BOD
members. Originally it was supposed to be 6 pads all with a minimum of 10 ft.
between them, original launch leads were cut at lengths of 30', 20', 10', 10',
20', 30',in that order, these lengths enabled the 2 pads at the center to be at
least 10 feet apart and then the rest of the pads were supposed to be set up at
10 ft. intervals. These lengths have changed as the years have passed due to
shorter leads and the people doing the set up not knowing the proper layout.
Why do we need coils of excess wire laying on the ground behind the pads when
if the pads were laid out properly the wires would be the correct length?
The ROC launch system was built with Safety and the ability to supply 30amps of
power maximum to each launch pad. It was built with the idea that it would last
for many years with almost trouble free operation (which it has). The control
cables have lasted as planned and would still be in good shape had they had the
proper treatment and not been driven over by ATV's and Vehicles. But alas some
people just can't seem to figure out that you shouldn't try to shove a square
peg in a round hole and that is why the cable connectors are in the shape they
are. As for the LCO control boxes we never had any trouble with them until the
system was left out in the rain a couple of years ago.
The funny part about all this is that TCC's new launch system (24 pads) is
built on the same concept for it's ability to safe and arm 30amps of power to
each pad. They also use a larger 33amp hour sealed lead acid battery so that
they are able to launch multiple large scale rockets using high amp igniters
simultaneously for the whole weekend without fear of the battery going dead.
Enough for now,
Ron McGough
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Dierking
To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:33 AM
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
Good point. There could be a high tone for armed and continuity, and low
tone for armed with no continuity.
I still think wireless to individual pads rather than groups of pads would be
better. For example, instead of left middle, center middle, and right middle,
you would just have the middle row with lots of distance between the pads.
This makes it safer for people loading rockets. Have you ever been loading
your rocket next to someone you've never seen before prepping their complex
rocket, and thought "I sure hope they know what their doing?" Or, had someones
rocket CATO 6 feet from your rocket as it sits on the pad? Distance between
pads is a good thing!
I don't want a misunderstanding about what's on the table, because I see
comments about the safety of a wireless system. If the individual pad has
shunt and power switches, how could the rocket accidentally launch when being
loaded? If the launch control box gives a audible and visual warning that the
pad is in an armed condition, the person would have to be ignoring the warning
as they were loading their rocket and switch the power on during this warning.
If they're that stupid, they should be involved in another hobby like ham
radio.
Sorry, JK. Just wanted to see if any one's reading this stuff.
Richard Dierking
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Jim - TFJ <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you’re using a processor at each group of pads, you could program the
buzzer/siren make a different sound if continuity is lost.
Jim G.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Dierking
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 9:26 AM
To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
The most important safety feature is having the shunt/power switch
(mechanical switch) at the pad with a visual and audible warning that the pad
is armed. This puts the responsibility for safety back in the hands of the
person loading their rocket.
I think having a continuity check at the pad is a good thing, but don't
think the continuity check at the LCO for a high-power rocket pad is that
important. If the rocket doesn't go when the button is pushed and there's
continuity at the pad, it's a recycle and the igniter must be checked. If the
rocket doesn't go and there isn't continuity, the igniter must be checked. So,
really what's the value of having a continuity check if the rocket doesn't
launch?
Regarding the battery, it shouldn't take a large battery for the individual
launch pad controllers. We launch 6 rockets all day using a 12 volt gel cell 7
Ah battery.
Regarding the front row and model rocket pads, these could still use
cables. However, I think that some kind of digital system using Cat 5 cable
would be better. It's not expensive cable to replace if necessary, and a lot
easier to deploy and hook up.
If ROC budgeted to save $2000 per year (approx $175 per launch), this would
probably be enough money to develop a wireless system and go wireless for the
high-power pads in approximately 3 years.
Richard
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Richard <rocket_hall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David is this possibly a XBEE module? The XBEE modules could accomplish
exactly what Richard's dream system would need. I have some experience with
these too. Richard Dierking I can put together a couple of concepts both "dream
system" and "partial dream system" The biggest problem I see would be
batteries(one per pad). I won't be at ROCtober but will be at ROCstock.
Richard C. Hall
TRA 11515
-----Original Message-----
From: David Erbas-White
Sent: Oct 7, 2012 7:14 PM
To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
On 10/7/2012 6:03 PM, Richard Dierking wrote:
In my 'real life' job I'm working with some wireless systems (actually,
using a wireless module with our own proprietary control circuitry -- but as
the module is FCC approved, don't need to worry about that end of it). I have
tested this system on the lakebed to over a mile, reliably. If we were to come
up with some definitions of exactly such a 'wireless dream system' were to do,
I could perhaps cobble something up that would be extensible.
Effectively, the system I'm working with is a single-master, multiple-slave
system, which would be ideal for what we're doing. To avoid interference from
other sources, we would have to use secure encoding, along with timing, to
ensure safety (i.e., a secure code to arm the system, system disarms if it
either times out or loses signal from the master, etc.).
If we design a modular system (i.e., a relay box with batteries for doing
the actual firing, and a 'receiver section' that handles the wireless and
intelligence, we should be good to go. Current systems (as I envision them
using these components) would require a PC to act as the launch controller. If
we really wanted to, we could simply build a wireless box that 'looks' like the
current launch controller, but sends the proper signals via the wireless master
-- but I'm just kind of thinking out loud...
What might be the more difficult aspect (possibly) would be the continuity
detection (wirelessly), as we would need to have the circuitry in the
range-head box to 'tell' the wireless unit if continuity was present, etc. And
this circuitry would need to work in conjunction with the current system of the
push-button/buzzer for the pad area itself. We'd also need to ensure that we
can handle the wider-range of igniter firing levels (like the new Quest
igniters) with such a system..
Love to hear what other folks might think...
David Erbas-White
Wireless System:
These types of systems (particularly multi pad systems) are just being
developed and there's not a lot of experience using them. If we had to obtain
a new system today, I would suggest a wireless system because of the savings on
the weight and cable cost. But we don't need a new system currently, so let's
see what's developed over the next couple of years and listen to their
experiences. In the meantime, we can save for a system so when ROC's ready,
we'll have the money for a safe and reliable system.
For me, my 'dream system' would look something like this: A small
control box would be located at each launch pad that would be the receiver for
a computer based wireless system. The LCO would launch rockets using a
computer and daylight monitor connected to a powerful (over 2,500' range)
wireless transmitter. The pad control box would have a shunt and power switch
controlled by the person loading the rocket and be located on a ground stake
that would also have the pad number sign. There would be both audible and
visual arm signal on the box and it would also have a connection for a larger
battery if necessary (i.e. more firing amps). So, no central control boxes,
just place the launch control box with the pad number sign were you want a pad,
attach the launch leads with clips, and away you go. This would allow for any
kind of spacing on rows.
Richard Dierking
-- ROC-Chat mailing list roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
//www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
Other related posts:
