The star tracker is less useful if it only works when the thing it is
attached to has no roll. Stacking frames is effectively the same as a
longer exposure which, as Henry mentioned earlier in the thread, leads to
star trails rather than brighter stars.
Dragon has a star tracker and they don’t expose it to space until well
after stage separation, I’d guess to keep the optics clean.
On Thursday, December 27, 2018, Elliot Robert <elliotr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah, he's right about the baffle. It's the simplest solution. I just
thought since you mentioned space being a issue on a cube sat that an LCD
might fit the bill. If this is a stupid thing to say then please ignore but
I wouldn't think the percentage of incoming light would matter really since
you can stack the images(take multiple images and combine them) as much as
you want to make the brighter stars stand out. I'm a software developer so
software is usually my one trick pony. Sounds like a interesting project.
I'd love to see how it progresses.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 6:54 PM Monroe L. King Jr. <
monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Because LCD's block 50% of the incoming light. I admit the first thing I
thought of was my welding helmet. Henry covered the baffling thing
pretty good. I agree with everything he said about baffling.
Monroe
-------- Original Message --------why
Subject: [AR] Re: Star Tracker
From: Elliot Robert <elliotr@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, December 27, 2018 11:38 am
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I understand someone was talking about switchable mirror to prevent the
camera from over heating. Instead a switchable mirror with high power
consumption and instead of a baffle that takes up space on a cube sat,
not just use a crystal liquid display, like the ones in cheapcalculators.
They very little power, could be set up to turn on by default as long asin a
there is a least a trickle of power coming in so if the space craft is
tumble all cameras get muted.trying
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 4:52 PM Monroe L. King Jr. <
monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Damn yep gotta have a baffle. I'm thinking cubesat here so I've got >
100mm to work with more like 70 or something whatever the body with of
the camera is. The lens could be part of the baffle I suppose not much
choice there. So I guess I need to know what FOV I'm going to be
atto make work first.
Oh yeah, my luck the system locks up and the damn thing stares right
Sothe sun. Get the system rebooted and find out the camera's shot. So it
has to have a shutter. I want one independent of the main system too.
wasif it crashes the shutter still works.
I was working with the guys at "Eye in the Sky" from Australia and I
came up with a neet 80mm telescope that was one side of the sat. It
ata Gregorian with an extending secondary. It took up almost no interior
space in the sat. I'was trying to get it to double as the radio dish
athe same time. Because if you can point a reaction wheel telescope at
thestar surely you could point it at the earth.
Pretty tuff to get enough components in a cubesat to do any real
science. But things get smaller every day!
We need some GEO repeaters so we can use light to them and radio to
baffleground lol.
Keep talking Henry I'm listening.
Monroe
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Star Tracker
From: Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, December 27, 2018 1:19 pm
To: Arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018, Monroe L. King Jr. wrote:
I found something I don't like about Star Trackers they need a
sucks! Tooto
block the sun because the sensor can't handle the sun. That
Sun,*near*easy to kill one.
Actually, there's two parts to that.
The baffle is there to let the star tracker still work when pointed
the Sun. As soon as the tracker points within about 90deg of the
It'llsome sunlight will fall inside the tracker's outermost opening.
optics,hit
the side of the tube rather than going straight down it to the
illuminatedbut
the Sun is so bright that even the scattered light from an
itpatch of tube wall can wash out the image. The first thing to do,flat-black
obviously, is to paint the wall flat black. But even the best
coating isn't completely non-reflective, especially when light hits
biggerat
a shallow angle. So the next step is to make the tube a little
hitsand
have baffles sticking inward from it, so scattered/reflected light
goodthem rather than continuing down the tube toward the sensor (and ofcourse
you paint them flat black too). Designing and building a really
spentbaffle is complicated, but the more effort (and mass and volume)
staron
the baffle, the smaller the region of sky around the Sun where the
cantracker doesn't work.
(Other bright objects, like the Moon or brightly-lit Earth surface,
trackeralso cause difficulties, and a good baffle helps there too.)sensor
Part two is that obviously, no baffle will keep sunlight out of the
if the star tracker is looking straight at the Sun. Clearly the
whetherdoesn't work in that orientation, but there is the question of
it.the
intense light can damage it. So you may need a shutter to protect
Sun.
The extreme worst case is to have the tracker staring right at the
brave,It's hard to avoid needing a shutter for that. If you're feeling
worstyou can assume that sun-stare is an unrealistic case, and that the
the*plausible* failure is to have the field of view briefly sweep over
isSun as an out-of-control spacecraft tumbles -- a brief Sun exposure
youeasier to handle than a steady stare. If you're feeling foolhardy,
andcan assume that you will always have the spacecraft under control
Sowill
never point the star tracker at the Sun even briefly; yeah, right.
implausibleit's a question of how much you feel like spending on "insurance"against
various classes of trouble, and how confident you are about guessingtheir
probabilities. (Cases that have been dismissed as obviously
betweenhave a bad habit of really happening...)
FSD (Fast Switchable Diffusor) The polarizer-free FSD switches
83%clear and light-scattering states. The open state exhibits over
you'dlesstransmittance while the closed state effectively diffuses light. I
wonder if these Star Trackers could function sufficiently with 17%
light?
You'd have to do the numbers. Clearly it'll hurt performance --
(whichneed a bigger aperture to gather more light, or longer exposures
make amight mean a lower maximum angular rate), or both. It shouldn't
whetherworkable star tracker impossible, but it would run up the mass andvolume
and complicate the design, and numbers would be needed to decide
the penalties are unacceptable.
Henry