[roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
- From: JACK GARIBALDI <jackgaribaldi@xxxxxxx>
- To: "roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:47:39 -0700
Yah TCC's is MilSpec
Jack
On Oct 9, 2012, at 10:53 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
> 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:
