A New Age of Launch Control |
The Fermi Computerised GLCS (Ground Launch Control System) is a DAJPL project aimed at
building a reliable, user friendly launch control system for the 21st century. Some form of
computer controller launch system is a pre-requisite if the current plans for the Gagarin II Pad
are used. Third Generation Rocketry (TGR) would be a complex problem should NASRA ever be
called upon to replace parts of the supplied GLC Systems. Such a solution could undoubtedly
be highly suitable for automation.
The Fermi GLCS - named after the famour Mathemeticion and Physicist Enrico Fermi - will
utilise Linux based platforms for deployment taking advantage of the additional flexibility,
stabilty and ease of development such a system provides. The custom interface will be written
in-house with C++ and allow a fault-tolerant safe and reliable interface for the end-user
to control launch events no matter how complex.
The initial system is planned to provide a simple circuit check of the firing
circuit at non-critical voltage then firing the circuit. Later plans include the
addition of independant monitor/control for up to 6 firing circuits,
additional data input devices and support for a Hybrid TGR system.
DAJPL Launch Systems Media |
The Oppenheimer I Pad in Construction
The Oppenhemer I was built specifically to cater for the MicroScud, it's
12-engine module can be seen at the bottom right of this picture. The pad
has worked successfully on every other occasion it has been utilised.
Image from NASRA Media,
© 2001-3 NASRA, Search for
Oppenheimer Images
|
NASRA began on 6th January 2001 with a series of mis-fires in the
cold and wet using the standard provided Estes kit launcher with
AA batteries. The launcher ate batteries and was highly unrealiable
but was perserved with for most very early lauches. The very first
NASRA Launch Controller (LC1) was a badly wired and poorly constructed
system that worked well but temprometally.
With the advent of LC1, we started using our own launch wires with
bigger batteries. When the launch controller failed we would use
manual contact with the battery to ignite. This was to form the
main form of launch control for the subsequant future. Say what
you may about fancy safeguards but what can be safer than not having
the system plugged in at all. This method brings its own risks however,
as it is always imperative to check that the wiring is well away from
contact.
During smaller launches, it is common practice for the launch cable
to be looped back to the pad with anyone approaching the pad ensuring
that thy have the 'battery' end of the launch cable in their hand. For
larger launches we would normally use a launch controller as well as
a physical contact break (see below). Even when using direct contact
on larger rockets, the pad is fitted with a safety switch. The switch
is thrown by the last person to leave upon a visual signal from the
RSO who must have the battery end of the cables in-hand at the time.
Following the LC1 there was one more main NASRA controller attempt
(LC2) in addition to a handheld controller from Non-Standard Design
(LC3). Although these controllers saw some use, neither was particularly
as reliable as direct contact.
The Oppenheimer I pad has a seperate launch controller which can be
used independantly and is rated to 24V. This has been used successfully
on two occasions and direct ignition has been used with the Oppenheimer
on all other occasions.
|
