Randall Clague wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:47:00 -0700, David Weinshenker > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Randall Clague wrote: > >> 11) Load rocket on rail > >> 12) Fuel rocket > >> 13) Pressurize rocket > >> 14) Arm pyro > >> 15) Launch > > > >You reversed the sequence on #13 and #14. We load the propellant, > >switch on the electronics, and then retreat to the blockhouse for > >pressurizing. > > We did it that way previously, yes. We need in the future to arm the > pyro remotely, and the sooner we make that change, the better.
Feature request noted... it's going to add _significant_ complexity, since the status indicators will need to be remoted as well, and we will need an on-borar electronic latching circuit controlling the arming relay, for reliability. (Direct relay latching, where the relay coil is kept energized by current flowing through a contact on the relay, has the possible failure mode that if the contacts open momentarily due to vibration, the relay will lose coil power and drop out to the "off" state, resulting in the recovery system disarming itself in flight.... not good.) Sounds like the system is going to grow a rather thick cable bundle between the electrical umbical and the blockhouse systems, once we implement that sort of feature... especially if we sequence it before the "Spike" telemetry system. (Once we have a general purpose digital data stream coming back from the rocket, it will be possible to include a "recovery system status byte" along with the A/D data.) -dave w _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
