[roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
- From: Richard Dierking <richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:43:54 -0700
Currently, the greatest problem is time and money. But, isn't that
always a problem. Ron and Rick O'Neil invested a lot of money and their
time in designing and creating the current system. But that's when every
one's wallet was a little fatter. I don't think there is anyone currently
that would have the expertise and willingness to do the work without
getting paid for it. With the current economy, I can't say I would blame
anyone for that. So, *I think*, ROC should take care of what it has and
save its money for a wireless system. If the current pad boxes could be
upgraded that would be OK. I just think that stand alone pad boxes ran by
a wireless computer launch control would be the way to go. Easy to deploy
and move. Easy to swap one out if necessary. And, easy to store.
Richard Dierking
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, James Dougherty <jafrado@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
