Sylvie,
Thank you very much for posting.
I understand what you mean by that it can just be rechecking the same 0 eight times, and not checking any more new readings, but I dont understand how it actually would be doing that...
'
[ Main (MAWD Movement) ]
MainMAWDmovement:
IF feet = 0 THEN GOSUB CheckConsecutive
DEBUG "Cycle...", CR
RETURN
In the subroutine, MainMAWDmovement, it checks to see if feet = 0. If so, it moves onto the subroutine, CheckConsecutive. There it adds 1 to zerocounter. It then checks if zercounter = 8. Since it does not, it returns back to the same position it left of in MainMAWDMovement. It then DEBUGS, "Cycle" and returns to the main program for another set of data samples. I am just not seeing the logic behind the fact that it would be just checking to see if that 0 is still a 0, and not actually re-checking the feet variable. I thought that each time it looked to see if feet = 0 it was obtaining a new reading. I am going to do what you told us to do in your 3 steps soon. I just had a question about the fact that our program actually is just checking that one reading, instead of obtaining a new one each time.
My idea of using the wheel servo to release the parachute and my idea to start spinning the wheels before we hit the ground were only two ideas, depending on how many servos we could use. If space is a constraint, as it sounds like it is, I think using the wheel servo would be a logical choice. My other idea regarding spinning the wheels earlier, was just an attempt to try to get around the issue of there being no wind, and thus having a better chance of releasing the bot from the strings without getting tangled. Since, nobody seemed to think that was an advantage, and there were other possibilities to work around that issue, then I think we can drop that idea. I can meet to work on the parachute mechanism on Saturday after Mr. Kibler's Harvard presentation. Or I could meet Sunday, but I have to be in Henniker at 6:30 if at all possible.
I understand what you mean by that it can just be rechecking the same 0 eight times...
Yes, it IS good to hear from you Sylvie. Thanks for helping out and for throwing your name into the hat as an "expert witness" for the Harvard University SEDS rocketry program. I'll pass your name, address, and e-mail address along to them if you want me to, If so, you can send it to me by PM: mkibler@alumni.unity.edu
Dylan and Andrew,
Please put together the next working copy of the ASP-BOT program, then upload it to the forum so I can donwload it to the ASP and run it in the vacuum chamber. We need to be moving ahead with getting it fully operational and now our work begins. I hope to hear from Dr. Allen soon.
You're both doing an excellent job of clarifying what you've done to the program and asking clear questions on the forum. Keep up the good progress!
My idea of using the wheel servo to release the parachute and my idea to start spinning the wheels before we hit the ground were only two ideas, depending on how many servos we could use. If space is a constraint, as it sounds like it is, I think using the wheel servo would be a logical choice. My other idea regarding spinning the wheels earlier, was just an attempt to try to get around the issue of there being no wind, and thus having a better chance of releasing the bot from the strings without getting tangled. Since, nobody seemed to think that was an advantage, and there were other possibilities to work around that issue, then I think we can drop that idea. I can meet to work on the parachute mechanism on Saturday after Mr. Kibler's Harvard presentation. Or I could meet Sunday, but I have to be in Henniker at 6:30 if at all possible.
Justin
Justin,
I think both of your ideas were insightful for someone who has only been to one practice. They were both good ideas that have merit; there are no "bad" ideas, simply ideas. This is called brainstorming.
While spinning up the wheels 20 seconds before landing may not work it is, nonetheless, an idea. And we need to consider as many ideas as possible before settling on the "best" idea. That way we'll end up with 3 or 4 "best" ideas to work with. So guys, cut Justin a little slack please. He's doing really well for a newbie to the team.
Given the space limitations we may indeed want to consider how to attach and then detach the parachute from one of the servomotors on the wheels. Look at the picture of the ASP-BOT that I posted on page 66 of the forum to figure out how.
Keep the ideas coming Justin. You're doing just fine!
In the subroutine, MainMAWDmovement, it checks to see if feet = 0. If so, it moves onto the subroutine, CheckConsecutive. There it adds 1 to zerocounter. It then checks if zercounter = 8. Since it does not, it returns back to the same position it left of in MainMAWDMovement. It then DEBUGS, "Cycle" and returns to the main program for another set of data samples. I am just not seeing the logic behind the fact that it would be just checking to see if that 0 is still a 0, and not actually re-checking the feet variable. I thought that each time it looked to see if feet = 0 it was obtaining a new reading. I am going to do what you told us to do in your 3 steps soon. I just had a question about the fact that our program actually is just checking that one reading, instead of obtaining a new one each time.
It reads the current altimeter reading into "feet". But until you do that again, "feet" is going to be the same every time. It's not true that "each time it looked to see if feet = 0 it was obtaining a new reading". It doesn't. That only happens when you do that "SERIN" thing with the MAWDin line.
===========================
Edit: I'm looking at it again, and perhaps I'm wrong in what I said here. It's a bit hard to trace things, but everything depends on where the various subroutines are called from. You are correct that if, after checking to see if zerocounter = 8, it returns to the main program and runs MAWD_get again, then it WILL read a new altitude reading properly. I may have traced my way through the logic incorrectly.
I do think that you understand the situation - that you only get new altitude readings when you run MAWD_get, not when you do the "if feet = 0" thing. So long as you have that squared away in your head and have things in the right place in the code, you're fine. I'm not really sure - it's too difficult for me to trace through things (this is partly why I was keeping my nose out of the coding part).
Regardless, you should verify that your movement code actually moves the wheels, and verify that your flags for landing actually note when you've landed. Everything that does/does not happen is for a reason, and as you've surely noticed, if it doesn't do what you expected, it's because your code tells it to do something else.
Posted by Mr. Kibler:
Now that you mention it... One of the next things we have to do is reconstruct the (blue and yellow) ASP-2's circuitry on the new (yellow-wheeled) ASP-BOT. We also have to solder up a new ADC (analog-to-digtital) converter, etc.
In response to that I would be glad to reconstruct the circuitry and solder the new ADC converter. For the reconstruction aspect I might need some explaination on what the circuit is trying to accomplish and probably the logic expression(s) as well unless I am just replicating it piece by piece. Please explain.
In response to that I would be glad to reconstruct the circuitry and solder the new ADC converter. For the reconstruction aspect I might need some explaination on what the circuit is trying to accomplish and probably the logic expression(s) as well unless I am just replicating it piece by piece. Please explain.
Chase :thumb:
Chase,
What you would be doing is looking at last year's ASP (Atmospheric Sampling Probe) and the wiring schematics and then duplicating the wiring onto a new BOE (Board of Education circuit board) that will be mounted on the ASP-BOT (the yellow-wheeled robot. See picture on the previous page.) This will involve some intricate soldering which I will show you how to do, and also duplicating (soldering and wiring) another small ADC circuit board using our schematics and by looking another one just like it. Think you're up to the task...?
Obie said:
Chase, I love the hubcab idea. It's very elegant and should work. I think we should look deeper into the idea and try to maximize the space and efficiency. What I mean by that is look at how sperical it is.
What should we make it out of though, metal would be too heavy.
Jake said:
Chase- I really like the idea of using a "hub cap" but after i saw how much room we have left, I don't know that we can! what if we rounded the edge of the wheel instead? That in the end gives us MORE room with a HIGHER chance of a succesful landing. Post what you think about this?
My response to both of your comments and concerns with the idea is that we should look into possibly using a very small rounded piece of aluminum curved like this... ( .... and have memory foam or some type of thin layered shock absorbing material behind that would fit within the constraints of space and would create a soft and perfect landing. Just a more improved version of my original idea.
Chase St. Laurent;986407]...we should look into possibly using a very small rounded piece of aluminum curved like this... ( .... and have memory foam or some type of thin layered shock absorbing material ...
Do you have any of those materials we could use? Does anyone else? Any idea where to get them?
I will be able to know whether or not a can go to Harvard tomorrow. That is when I will post my program. Andrew and I have made light plans to work on it over Skype tomorrow.
Do you have any of those materials we could use? Does anyone else? Any idea where to get them?
Mr. Kibler
:cool:
I am going to one of my robotics teams meetings tonight and I will look around and ask my mentors if they have any of that stuff so we can use it if we want to try that idea. I know one in particular who most likely has those materials. I also will need the diameter of the wheels, not including the tire part.
I will be able to know whether or not a can go to Harvard tomorrow. That is when I will post my program. Andrew and I have made light plans to work on it over Skype tomorrow.
Dylan,
I look forward to working on updating the movement program later this evening via Skype. I feel that making the necessary changes shouldn't take too long, but we'll see.
Thanks,
Andrew
P.S. -- Mr. Kibler, I will definitely be going to Harvard with the team on Saturday. It seems like a great opportunity to make new connections, and perhaps even learn something new!
...Mr. Kibler, I will definitely be going to Harvard with the team on Saturday. It seems like a great opportunity to make new connections, and perhaps even learn something new!
CONFIRMED FOR THE HARVARD TRIP ON SATURDAY:
Obie
Justin
Andrew
PLEASE CONFIRM IF YOU ARE GOING HERE ON THE FORUM. I have space in my van for five comfortably but we also have rocketry equipment. Be at my house at 12:30 PM and be sure to bring $$ for dinner on the way home.
Hi all-
I got a chance to look at the ASP-Bot today with two platforms on it. I personally can see no problem with it and it also adds alot of space. Mr. Kibler and i disscused the option of adding two more platforms above and below that are slightly thinner, but a large modification like that can't be made by one person. Post what you think of having a platform that resembles something like this
> |
| <
With the servo inbetween two platforms dead center and then two smaller platforms above that near the top of the wheel.
Emily- Thank you for offering your house as a meeting place. What works best for everyone?
So that would be a total of 4 platforms, correct. I could see 3 maybe 4 if we really needed to but I think 4 many be too many in terms of weight and what we need for space. It would also depend on what electrical parts we need to place on it. Which reminds me, Dylan, and/or Andrew. Do you have an snswer for the question I asked a while back. Do we have available I/O pins for the servos to be put into?
By the way what material are the platforms made out of?
Anywhere and anytime is fine with me as long as it is not on Sunday past 6:00 p.m. My house is always available if it would be easy to meet there. If we do meet at Emily's house I need her address. As for the other question, it is hard to know how many platforms are required without knowing how much total space is needed depending on what the final design is.
PLEASE CONFIRM IF YOU ARE GOING ON THE TRIP TO HARVARD HERE ON THE FORUM.
CONFIRMED FOR THE HARVARD TRIP ON SATURDAY:
Obie
Justin
Andrew
Emily
Be at my house at 12:30 PM and be sure to bring $$ for dinner on the way home. Obie's Mom called tonight and they have offered to drive. They have a larger (and certainlly newer) van. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Helmers for offering to drive.
Andrew and Dylan,
Can you search MapQuest and get us some printed directions to:
Pierce Hall (Room G-12), 29 Oxford Street at Harvard University.
Our contact is Ellen Farber at (832) 584-8086. Please write this number down so we have it on Saturday. We'll call here to let us in the building.
Please e-mail me to let me know you have the directions.
... it is hard to know how many platforms are required without knowing how much total space is needed depending on what the final design is.
Good point Justin, and right on target. Next time we meet at my house we'll figure out exactly what needs to be mounted on the plaform and what doesn't. That will determine our space requirements, and the number of platforms. Right now we have two platforms, and the new ASP-BOT is starting to look pretty cool.
Mr. Kibler,
Andrew and I have created a program that just runs the MAWD and DEBUGS the, "feet" variable onto the screen. Since Andrew and I do not have a MAWD, we are asking you if you could test the program and report back your findings. We have edited the program and cleaned it up a little bit, (as in clean, I mean that we took Sylvie's suggestions that we could combine some subroutines and cleared up some space), and the only thing that we can check right now is what, "feet" actually equals.
Do you want me to run the program on the MAWD in the vacuum chamber?
Mr. Kibler
Mr. Kibler,
Yes -- that's perfect. Ideally, we want to test it within the vacuum chamber so we can see a simulated flight on screen. The program is simply the MAWD subroutine with a debug statement that outputs the value of 'feet' each second.
Yes -- that's perfect. Ideally, we want to test it within the vacuum chamber so we can see a simulated flight on screen. The program is simply the MAWD subroutine with a debug statement that outputs the value of 'feet' each second.
Andrew
Program Subsystem Team (Dylan, Andrew, Chase?),
I downloaded and tested the program in the vacuum chamber and on the table. Here are the results:
1) IN THE VACUUM CAHMBER with the ASP and the MAWD turned on, in "flight mode": The Data Logger did not initialize. No data whatsoever was recorded. No temperature, time, altitude. Nothing at all. I decreased the vaccum chamber pressure to 200 psi and the MAWD did "beep out" an altitude of 10,569 feet.
2) ON THE TABLE with the ASP and the MAWD in "flight mode": The MAWD had no data output on the computer screen (GUI) and no data whatsover was recorded. Remember that the MAWD activates with a change in pressure altitude. Since there was no change in pressure while it was sitting on the table, the MAWD did not initialize. Again, no data whatsover.
OK, here's the latest information on Saturday's trip to Harvard.
CONFIRMED TO GO:
Obie and one parent
Justin and one parent
Dylan
Andrew
Emily
Mr. and Mrs. Kibler* (*depends on space)
That makes 9 and Mr. and Mrs. Helmers have an 8-passenger van. If we can get everyone-- and all the rocket gear-- in the Helmers' van, we'll all go together. If it's too crowded then I'll drive my van, too. We'll meet at my house at 12:30 as planned. I have a Boy Scout event in Manchester until 12:00 so don't panic if I'm 5 minutes late.
Please wear "team dress", which is a nice 2-button polo shirt, khaki pants (not blue jeans please), and "nice" shoes. Be sure to bring $$ for dinner on the way home.
Hi all-
It was very unfortunate that I was unable to attend the trip to Harvard. Was the trip a success? By this I mean, what was their overall reaction to your help? What was accomplished? I hope everything worked out well.
As for the proposed meeting for this afternoon, no time has been offered, so I think it best to not to hold a meeting. Mr. Kibler pointed out that there isn't really much we could accomplish, besides building the final and running more tests.
One final thing-
Has it been officially decided to use a servo? If so, the programming needs to know that there has to be a space in the program for the release mechanism to release at ground level.
I hope that the harvard trip went well. Can I have the dimensions for the side wheels so I can make a prototype of the hub cap idea for the next meeting.
I hope that the harvard trip went well. Can I have the dimensions for the side wheels so I can make a prototype of the hub cap idea for the next meeting.
Thanks
Chase,
I'll have to measure the hubs when I get home. The diameter of the wheel itself is slightly less than 6inches (5-3/4"- 5-7/8".) The hubs will of couse be a smaller diameter than the wheels (5" ??.)
When you're looking at hub caps consider that, the taller the dome on the hub cap, the less room we have for the parachute (and that amount of space is already limited.)
Harvard was a blast and they want me to come back down the weekend after next to guide them through building their Level 1 and Level 2 rockets.
ICan I have the dimensions for the side wheels so I can make a prototype of the hub cap idea for the next meeting.
Thanks
Chase,
The diameter of the hubs is 12 cm. As I mentioned above, if we use hub caps they can't be too tall because that we take space away for the parachute the rests atop the hubs (double that if you use two hubcaps.) Of course if the hubs don't have enough of a taper or "dome", they won't roll the ASP-BOT upright.
Comments
Thank you very much for posting.
I understand what you mean by that it can just be rechecking the same 0 eight times, and not checking any more new readings, but I dont understand how it actually would be doing that...
'
[ Main (MAWD Movement) ]
MainMAWDmovement:
IF feet = 0 THEN GOSUB CheckConsecutive
DEBUG "Cycle...", CR
RETURN
'
[ Subroutines ]
CheckConsecutive:
zerocounter = zerocounter + 1
IF zerocounter = 8 THEN GOSUB movement
RETURN
In the subroutine, MainMAWDmovement, it checks to see if feet = 0. If so, it moves onto the subroutine, CheckConsecutive. There it adds 1 to zerocounter. It then checks if zercounter = 8. Since it does not, it returns back to the same position it left of in MainMAWDMovement. It then DEBUGS, "Cycle" and returns to the main program for another set of data samples. I am just not seeing the logic behind the fact that it would be just checking to see if that 0 is still a 0, and not actually re-checking the feet variable. I thought that each time it looked to see if feet = 0 it was obtaining a new reading. I am going to do what you told us to do in your 3 steps soon. I just had a question about the fact that our program actually is just checking that one reading, instead of obtaining a new one each time.
My idea of using the wheel servo to release the parachute and my idea to start spinning the wheels before we hit the ground were only two ideas, depending on how many servos we could use. If space is a constraint, as it sounds like it is, I think using the wheel servo would be a logical choice. My other idea regarding spinning the wheels earlier, was just an attempt to try to get around the issue of there being no wind, and thus having a better chance of releasing the bot from the strings without getting tangled. Since, nobody seemed to think that was an advantage, and there were other possibilities to work around that issue, then I think we can drop that idea. I can meet to work on the parachute mechanism on Saturday after Mr. Kibler's Harvard presentation. Or I could meet Sunday, but I have to be in Henniker at 6:30 if at all possible.
Justin
Yes, it IS good to hear from you Sylvie. Thanks for helping out and for throwing your name into the hat as an "expert witness"
Dylan and Andrew,
Please put together the next working copy of the ASP-BOT program, then upload it to the forum so I can donwload it to the ASP and run it in the vacuum chamber. We need to be moving ahead with getting it fully operational and now our work begins. I hope to hear from Dr. Allen soon.
You're both doing an excellent job of clarifying what you've done to the program and asking clear questions on the forum. Keep up the good progress!
Are you both going to Harvard on Saturday?
Mr. Kibler
:cool:
Justin,
I think both of your ideas were insightful for someone who has only been to one practice. They were both good ideas that have merit; there are no "bad" ideas, simply ideas. This is called brainstorming.
While spinning up the wheels 20 seconds before landing may not work it is, nonetheless, an idea. And we need to consider as many ideas as possible before settling on the "best" idea. That way we'll end up with 3 or 4 "best" ideas to work with. So guys, cut Justin a little slack please. He's doing really well for a newbie to the team.
Given the space limitations we may indeed want to consider how to attach and then detach the parachute from one of the servomotors on the wheels. Look at the picture of the ASP-BOT that I posted on page 66 of the forum to figure out how.
Keep the ideas coming Justin. You're doing just fine!
Mr. Kibler
It reads the current altimeter reading into "feet". But until you do that again, "feet" is going to be the same every time. It's not true that "each time it looked to see if feet = 0 it was obtaining a new reading". It doesn't. That only happens when you do that "SERIN" thing with the MAWDin line.
===========================
Edit: I'm looking at it again, and perhaps I'm wrong in what I said here. It's a bit hard to trace things, but everything depends on where the various subroutines are called from. You are correct that if, after checking to see if zerocounter = 8, it returns to the main program and runs MAWD_get again, then it WILL read a new altitude reading properly. I may have traced my way through the logic incorrectly.
I do think that you understand the situation - that you only get new altitude readings when you run MAWD_get, not when you do the "if feet = 0" thing. So long as you have that squared away in your head and have things in the right place in the code, you're fine. I'm not really sure - it's too difficult for me to trace through things (this is partly why I was keeping my nose out of the coding part).
Regardless, you should verify that your movement code actually moves the wheels, and verify that your flags for landing actually note when you've landed. Everything that does/does not happen is for a reason, and as you've surely noticed, if it doesn't do what you expected, it's because your code tells it to do something else.
In response to that I would be glad to reconstruct the circuitry and solder the new ADC converter. For the reconstruction aspect I might need some explaination on what the circuit is trying to accomplish and probably the logic expression(s) as well unless I am just replicating it piece by piece. Please explain.
Chase :thumb:
Chase,
What you would be doing is looking at last year's ASP (Atmospheric Sampling Probe) and the wiring schematics and then duplicating the wiring onto a new BOE (Board of Education circuit board) that will be mounted on the ASP-BOT (the yellow-wheeled robot. See picture on the previous page.) This will involve some intricate soldering which I will show you how to do, and also duplicating (soldering and wiring) another small ADC circuit board using our schematics and by looking another one just like it. Think you're up to the task...?
Mr. Kibler
:nerd:
My response to both of your comments and concerns with the idea is that we should look into possibly using a very small rounded piece of aluminum curved like this... ( .... and have memory foam or some type of thin layered shock absorbing material behind that would fit within the constraints of space and would create a soft and perfect landing. Just a more improved version of my original idea.
I most certainly am. It sounds like it is what I have covered in my class and seems very doable.
Do you have any of those materials we could use? Does anyone else? Any idea where to get them?
Mr. Kibler
:cool:
I am going to one of my robotics teams meetings tonight and I will look around and ask my mentors if they have any of that stuff so we can use it if we want to try that idea. I know one in particular who most likely has those materials. I also will need the diameter of the wheels, not including the tire part.
Thanks,
Chase
Dylan,
I look forward to working on updating the movement program later this evening via Skype. I feel that making the necessary changes shouldn't take too long, but we'll see.
Thanks,
Andrew
P.S. -- Mr. Kibler, I will definitely be going to Harvard with the team on Saturday. It seems like a great opportunity to make new connections, and perhaps even learn something new!
CONFIRMED FOR THE HARVARD TRIP ON SATURDAY:
Obie
Justin
Andrew
PLEASE CONFIRM IF YOU ARE GOING HERE ON THE FORUM. I have space in my van for five comfortably but we also have rocketry equipment. Be at my house at 12:30 PM and be sure to bring $$ for dinner on the way home.
Mr. Kibler
:cool:
Emily
I got a chance to look at the ASP-Bot today with two platforms on it. I personally can see no problem with it and it also adds alot of space. Mr. Kibler and i disscused the option of adding two more platforms above and below that are slightly thinner, but a large modification like that can't be made by one person. Post what you think of having a platform that resembles something like this
> |
| <
With the servo inbetween two platforms dead center and then two smaller platforms above that near the top of the wheel.
Emily- Thank you for offering your house as a meeting place. What works best for everyone?
Thanks so much
-Jake-
By the way what material are the platforms made out of?
See ya all soon
Obie
Anywhere and anytime is fine with me as long as it is not on Sunday past 6:00 p.m. My house is always available if it would be easy to meet there. If we do meet at Emily's house I need her address. As for the other question, it is hard to know how many platforms are required without knowing how much total space is needed depending on what the final design is.
Justin
CONFIRMED FOR THE HARVARD TRIP ON SATURDAY:
Obie
Justin
Andrew
Emily
Be at my house at 12:30 PM and be sure to bring $$ for dinner on the way home. Obie's Mom called tonight and they have offered to drive. They have a larger (and certainlly newer) van. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Helmers for offering to drive.
Andrew and Dylan,
Can you search MapQuest and get us some printed directions to:
Pierce Hall (Room G-12), 29 Oxford Street at Harvard University.
Our contact is Ellen Farber at (832) 584-8086. Please write this number down so we have it on Saturday. We'll call here to let us in the building.
Please e-mail me to let me know you have the directions.
Thanks,
Mr. Kibler
:cool: <
Blues Brothers look
The two platforms are made of 1/4 clear plexiglass. They measure 14.2 x 14.2 cm and they just fit inside the payload tube.
Good point Justin, and right on target. Next time we meet at my house we'll figure out exactly what needs to be mounted on the plaform and what doesn't. That will determine our space requirements, and the number of platforms. Right now we have two platforms, and the new ASP-BOT is starting to look pretty cool.
"Form follows function."
Mr. Kibler
My mom said that just in case you needed another driver she could do it.
Justin
Andrew and I have created a program that just runs the MAWD and DEBUGS the, "feet" variable onto the screen. Since Andrew and I do not have a MAWD, we are asking you if you could test the program and report back your findings. We have edited the program and cleaned it up a little bit, (as in clean, I mean that we took Sylvie's suggestions that we could combine some subroutines and cleared up some space), and the only thing that we can check right now is what, "feet" actually equals.
Mr. Kibler,
Yes -- that's perfect. Ideally, we want to test it within the vacuum chamber so we can see a simulated flight on screen. The program is simply the MAWD subroutine with a debug statement that outputs the value of 'feet' each second.
Andrew
Program Subsystem Team (Dylan, Andrew, Chase?),
I downloaded and tested the program in the vacuum chamber and on the table. Here are the results:
1) IN THE VACUUM CAHMBER with the ASP and the MAWD turned on, in "flight mode": The Data Logger did not initialize. No data whatsoever was recorded. No temperature, time, altitude. Nothing at all. I decreased the vaccum chamber pressure to 200 psi and the MAWD did "beep out" an altitude of 10,569 feet.
2) ON THE TABLE with the ASP and the MAWD in "flight mode": The MAWD had no data output on the computer screen (GUI) and no data whatsover was recorded. Remember that the MAWD activates with a change in pressure altitude. Since there was no change in pressure while it was sitting on the table, the MAWD did not initialize. Again, no data whatsover.
Now what?
Mr. Kibler
ROCKETEERS:
OK, here's the latest information on Saturday's trip to Harvard.
CONFIRMED TO GO:
Obie and one parent
Justin and one parent
Dylan
Andrew
Emily
Mr. and Mrs. Kibler* (*depends on space)
That makes 9 and Mr. and Mrs. Helmers have an 8-passenger van. If we can get everyone-- and all the rocket gear-- in the Helmers' van, we'll all go together. If it's too crowded then I'll drive my van, too. We'll meet at my house at 12:30 as planned. I have a Boy Scout event in Manchester until 12:00 so don't panic if I'm 5 minutes late.
Please wear "team dress", which is a nice 2-button polo shirt, khaki pants (not blue jeans please), and "nice" shoes. Be sure to bring $$ for dinner on the way home.
Mr. Kibler
It was very unfortunate that I was unable to attend the trip to Harvard. Was the trip a success? By this I mean, what was their overall reaction to your help? What was accomplished? I hope everything worked out well.
As for the proposed meeting for this afternoon, no time has been offered, so I think it best to not to hold a meeting. Mr. Kibler pointed out that there isn't really much we could accomplish, besides building the final and running more tests.
One final thing-
Has it been officially decided to use a servo? If so, the programming needs to know that there has to be a space in the program for the release mechanism to release at ground level.
Thanks,
-Jake-
I hope that the harvard trip went well. Can I have the dimensions for the side wheels so I can make a prototype of the hub cap idea for the next meeting.
Thanks
Chase,
I'll have to measure the hubs when I get home. The diameter of the wheel itself is slightly less than 6inches (5-3/4"- 5-7/8".) The hubs will of couse be a smaller diameter than the wheels (5" ??.)
When you're looking at hub caps consider that, the taller the dome on the hub cap, the less room we have for the parachute (and that amount of space is already limited.)
Harvard was a blast and they want me to come back down the weekend after next to guide them through building their Level 1 and Level 2 rockets.
Mr. Kibler
:cool:
Chase,
The diameter of the hubs is 12 cm. As I mentioned above, if we use hub caps they can't be too tall because that we take space away for the parachute the rests atop the hubs (double that if you use two hubcaps.) Of course if the hubs don't have enough of a taper or "dome", they won't roll the ASP-BOT upright.
Keep at it!
Mr. Kibler
:cool:
Mr. Kibler