Gregg Halligan and I were discussing cables on the way home from Trailer cleaning and had an Idea to help nurse the current cables a bit.
Since each cable is a pass through to the next set of pads (center front passes to center mid passes to center far) the cables fro mid to far are only using 1/3 of the wires in the bundle. Could we get three cables using the same ends but only 1/3 the conductors to be used only from mid to far. This opens up a set of 'full cables' as spares (or rotate them in to replace some of the more worn cables. The smaller / 1/3 of the conductor cables will certainly cost less than the full cable.
I appreciate the thought that went into the original design where all the cables are universal but since we tend to always use the same cable for the same connection every time this may be an option. If we use the same end connectors this change should be pretty seamless.
Just a thought, Mike Kramer On 10/9/2012 10:52 AM, Ron McGough 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 <mailto:richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx> *To:* roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 currentsystem of the push-button/buzzer for the pad area itself. We'd also need to ensure that we can handle the wider-range ofigniter 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 thatwould be the receiver for a computer based wireless system. The LCO would launch rockets using a computer and daylightmonitor 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 <mailto:roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> //www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
