[roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
- From: James Dougherty <jafrado@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:09:15 -0700
Oh yeah. And we don't even need igniters anymore... just use shooters wire :-)
On 10/9/12, JACK GARIBALDI <jackgaribaldi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
ROC-Chat mailing list
roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
//www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
Other related posts:
