[roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
- From: Richard Dierking <richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:26:14 -0700
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:
