[roc-chat] Re: ROC Launch Control System
- From: Richard Dierking <richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:33:24 -0700
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 ****
>
> ** **
>
Other related posts:
