[roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
- From: Richard Dierking <richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:19:35 -0700
Absolutely correct Ron. I don't recall any misfires from the system.
We've had one stuck continuity button. I also think ROC should continue
using this system with an eye (and budget) for the future. The system
is an excellent design and obviously took a lot of work building it. ROC
will have to decide where to put the money; repair and upgrade, or replace?
I suggested covers for the launch control system a couple years ago before
I was on the Board, and received no positive responses. The system should
be covered when left out overnight. I've been told, "Richard you shouldn't
do everything" so, I don't.
Many of the launch leads have been getting shorter because the wires get
cooked, and when they are repaired, they become shorter. I used some of
the longer leads from the front pads for middle and back pads when we
switched to the raised pads and this helped a bit.
I've attached a cable care sheet which I laminated and going to post in the
trailer. You can not treat the trailer and launch equipment like it's a
rental and expect that it will last.
Richard
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Ron McGough <rrmagoo7@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> **
> 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 <richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx>
> *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:
