Paul
http://arsovtech.com/?page_id=1502
These guy's try pretty hard and the guy (Bill Premerlani that was the
mastermind behind the DCM code that made the arducopter fly) works with
him.
There is a good mini version made by hobby king as well.
I wish you would work with me Tridge,Randy and Paul Riseborough (who
wrote the current EKF code) because these guy's would rewrite the EKF if
I had the knowledge to tell them what was wrong. I just don't! That goes
for anyone interested in using the ardupilot code if you want to get
involved I can take you straight to the top of the list of the
developers if you will lend a hand.
I've had about enough of trying to get the help I need so by the end of
next year if I don't get it I'm going to just pay these guy's to fix it.
I will get my way to ardurocket one way or the other.
By the way if you want simple guidance for straight up flight? The
original 328 based ardupilot uses thermopiles and it would make a
perfect guidance system for that purpose. A very tiny and nice little
package for that type of guidance.
If your rocket is a little unstable because of propellant loading that
would do the trick for you.
I am interested in a rocket version of the Pixhawk hardware I might pay
for say 50 boards. The hardware is open and doing that would be easy.
Anyway today I'm working.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Pixhawk
From: Paul Breed <paul@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 16, 2015 8:03 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not sure if I'll use pixhawk code, but I'll be using the same processor and
sensors, not sure If I'll do my own hardware or use one of the tiny pixhawk
clones.
My sensor and actuator comms bus is either
going to be 1 wire lin or 1 wire can, or 2 wire 485 still working that
issue...
Blue and silver used 2 wire 485.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Monroe L. King Jr. <
monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here is what the original tracker looked like. This is what we
developed to use for Ardusat. Since then we have gone to 433 mhz and 1.2
ghz only and a more rigid mount.
We also integrated Optictracker into the system.
http://www.optictracker.com/Home.html and worked with them to get a
usable system working.
So now you know why we have not flown as many rockets. I always
believed the infrastructure had to come first.
We only flew enough balloons and rockets to test the infrastructure.
The details of all the work done so far are mind boggling. I'd have to
write a book to tie it all together.
The 2 main things missing are the calibration fix and the GPS module
and that's pretty much it. Which are things I can't do alone.
We have flown back from 100kft using these systems in conjunction and
they do work. The plane didn't reach space of course but the system is
viable.
I'm willing to share all or any part of this with you guy's
All we need is some very specific help with those 2 things and
everybody can make the cross from UAV to Rockets.
USV's (Unmanned Space Vehicles) are not much different than UAV's.
Code to control reaction wheels and cold gas thrusters as well as
gimbal and vane control is within the capabilities of Pixhawk it is
right there as well.
Why not use it!
Ok today is shot! I hope I didn't waste my breath today. I guess I fall
back and go to Walmart. Tomorrow we move forward!
-------- Original Message --------good
Subject: [AR] Pixhawk
From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 16, 2015 3:24 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
There are 2 problems
#1 the Pixhawk uses a 1 G calibration to base the flight controller on.
How hard it is to overcome that problem is beyond me. BUT From what I
can gleen it's not that difficult and it is open source. IF SOMEONE will
begin work on solving this issue there are guy's at ardupilot that will
kick in and help. I have been working with them (as best I can) since
2008.
A small step in this direction will net big results I can promise that.
#2 the GPS issue
Paul Breed is so close to solving this problem it hurts. I'm sure the
solution is forthcoming if just a few good people get in the right
places and this all lines up.
There is so much code written and so much already done with Pixhawk and
Mavlink it's a waste not to take advantage of this.
The ground control already in place and the possibilities with Mavproxi
allowing remote stations is so tasty. I use the Ground tracking
capability as well it will all tie in quite nicely.
Flight sim with X-Plane and FlightGear using Pixhawk is amazing.
I've also been working with FlightRadar24
https://www.flightradar24.com/38,-97/7
There is a way to develop a amateur tracking network for cubesats ect..
based on this system. Doing the soft handovers from station to station
is the key.
...........................
I want to give away about 50 tracking stations to get the network
started.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Test Stand DAQ
From: Eric Robbins <erobbins@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 16, 2015 2:56 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pixhawk looks very promising to me.
I have a pixhawk enroute for investigation as I think it could be
quite useful as a flight controller for rockets. Ardupilot is mature
software, with the hard parts done (see: kalman filter) and for
someone like me with a strong C programming background is pretty
easily extensible. The one big limit (and it's shared by everything in
the amateur space) is the lack of an unrestricted GPS module, but I
have a plan to cobble one together using a raspberry pi and an SDR
module that I can just query on the SPI bus.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Monroe L. King Jr.
<monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah, I'll get a coffee cup.
I do what to talk more about the Pixhawk and why it would make a
it Irocket flight controller and WHY rocketeers won't take advantage of
for adon't know.
But I will stay focused on the test stand it's more right now.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Test Stand DAQ
From: Nathan Bergey <nathan.bergey@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 16, 2015 1:08 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks Lloyd!
I feel like this project needs at least one more rev (and a lot more
documentation) to be really stable. But it works! We're using it
askfew things already.
Having a simple python library where you can plug the board in and
;)for data, then get a stream of data, is really great. Simple and
no-frills.
We're still running our crowdfunding campaign for the upcoming year
http://www.portlandstate-foundation.org/crowdfunding?cfpage=project&project_id=11930
ldroppers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-Nathan
PSAS
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Lloyd Droppers <
I bodgedNathan,
Looks nice, a fair bit nicer than the Arduino based things that
to learntogether. And if you used python for programming probably easier
provided thethan the monstrosity that is LabView. And importantly it
nathan.bergey@xxxxxxxxx>reminder I needed to actually contribute to PSAS.
Thanks.
Lloyd
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Nathan Bergey <
startedwrote:
Yeah, LabJack/Labview is standard. If you just want to get
arewithout any fuss, do this.
For some reason (...well, for the specific reason that LabJacks
still agod awful to actually use) we built our own last year. It's
bework in progress, but Andrew really wanted something that could
ldroppers@xxxxxxxxx>reusable for lots of people and better than labview.
And I made them make a web page for it:
http://marionette-daq.github.io/
-Nathan
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Lloyd Droppers <
defactowrote:
Yep, LabView coupled with National Instruments hardware is the
The mainstandard, at least in the NewSpace section of rocket testing.
extreme lowproblem is the cost, which can be as low as ~$1000 for the
running aend
up to ~$5k by the time you were happy with the system for
system if arocket
test stand. If you go that route the cDAQ chassis and module
especially ifreasonable starting point
http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/208990
I would highly recommend a microcontroller system though,
NI boardyour
plan is to eventually fly the rocket, as you won't be flying a
and it is:)
There are a lot of options, Arduino is probably the best known
leonardo basea
good bet for a start. I documented a very simple arduino
isDAQ
that might help you get started at
http://projectearendel.com/home/documentation/
Sensor arrays are not standard.
Lloyd
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Pierce Nichols
<piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The most common software in the world for this sort of thing
visualprobably
LabView. LabView is commercial software and its relentlessly
encapsulates aparadigm
takes some getting used to for those more used to conventional
programming
languages. That said, it's a very powerful tool and it
you guy's onlot of
tricky stuff.
As for common hardware and sensors... no.
-p
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Monroe L. King Jr.
<monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is there a standard DAQ and sensor array used by most of
of thethe list?
Is there a standard software used?
The reason I am asking is because I want to use what most
wouldguy's
use and understand. Sure I can come up with something but I
prefer
something the most people could work with.