[roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
- From: James Dougherty <jafrado@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:24:21 -0700
Great thread....
Yeah, I agree -- The big problem is hauling cables ...
One thing I've pinged around with Ron is the idea of a Wireless relay.
It would hookup to the existing ROC/TCC relay boxes and just act
as a cable replacement.
Maybe this year Ron and I can do something with his existing design;
a lot of work has gone into that and even though I love the idea of all
digital design, the fact of the matter is that it doesn't work out that
well in our launch environment.
In the real world, I do wireless embedded systems for a living so I could
help, I already have hardware and software which could do all of what you
guys are describing ... the problem is time, and I have none until early
next year ...
Richard, why don't you guys work on a spec? .... it's one thing to cobble
together a board in the garage or lab, but a completely different
thing altogether
to do a real PCB schematic, layout, fab, assembly, bringup/debug -- a design.
design is everything -- anyone can write code or design hardware, but a design,
one which stands the test of time and works out on the playa with the
"Gorillas in the Mist" (as Ron calls them) -- that's a totally
different ballgame.
Last but not least, safety is priority #1, I would want triple redundancy and
large hamming distances on authentication codes ...
On 10/9/12, Richard Dierking <richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
