David Weinshenker wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: >>David Weinshenker wrote: >>>Randall Clague wrote: >>>>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-board electronic latching circuit controlling the arming relay, for >>>reliability. >>> >>In that case, would it make more sense just to concentrate on getting >>POGO working so we can dispense with the pyro entirely? > > And abandon the KISS/Spike development stream?
No. I was thinking more along the lines of, "We've been living with it for now; given as this feature would require significant work and would likely be thrown away once POGO's recovery system replaces the current one, could we afford to live with the status quo until this alternate system is developed enough to use on all our projects?" To which Randall has said no. _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
