 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / September 2004AGTS/1 Flight Modules
Has anyone used the AGTS Flight systems (http://www.stephensonline.ca/atha-aerospace/aai_index.html)? They seem similar to GPSFlight except they don't require a PC to use on the field and can be programmed without a PC. > Has anyone used the AGTS Flight systems > (http://www.stephensonline.ca/atha-aerospace/aai_index.html)? They seem > similar to GPSFlight except they don't require a PC to use on the field and > can be programmed without a PC. Looks like you've got to hook 'em up to a PC or PDA to me... couldn't find any info to suggest otherwise... in fact it says: "We also carry the receivers and accessories required to display the GPS coordinates your [sic] PC or PalmOS-compatible device." But I defy you to find any information on the "receivers and accessories". ;) Price looks comparable to the GPSFlight... but the spec's don't appear to be there for the AGTS... what IS there is very sketchy... and links to download the actual pdf spec.s are 401! The following kinda bothers me on thier website... "What kind of power does the base station need? Dunno... still working on it... 120 volts?" 120 VOLTS?!? You're kidding me, right? A yagi is needed to boost (by 2db) the range into the EXTREME 2 mile line of sight zone! (Hell, I've ground tested the GPSFlight as is to 8 miles line of sight INSIDE a 2.5" nosecone with bubble wrap!) That was enough information for me to stop reading and say "No thanks". The FAQ'S that you pulled the quoted information from were all posted pre-release of the product. It is somewhat unfair to use that against a product that you have never touched. The PDF you speak of is almost completed and will be available on the link soon. If the big boys of Aerospace are buying the ATHA product in bulk I would think that would warrant a look. > > Has anyone used the AGTS Flight systems > > (http://www.stephensonline.ca/atha-aerospace/aai_index.html)? They seem [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > That was enough information for me to stop reading and say "No thanks". > The FAQ'S that you pulled the quoted information from were all posted > pre-release of the product. It is somewhat unfair to use that against a > product that you have never touched. I wasn't poo-pooing the "product" so much as the distinct lack of documentation about the product. The site doesn't say pre-release... but it was certainly inferred by the proposed voltage requirements of the base station. and besides.... "Riiiight. I'm going right out and plunk down $500+ because a website on the internet says so?" > The PDF you speak of is almost completed and will be available on the link > soon. I'll be waiting... looking forward to it, actually. A pity that a visitor seeking info is given the 401 finger though. Kinda leaves one with a suspicious feeling... surely you understand. > If the big boys of Aerospace are buying the ATHA product in bulk I would > think that would warrant a look. I did look... I've asked questions... I've had many answered. Currently there is too little information to justify the cost. In fact, there is currently too little info to justify spending a whole lot of time investigating it! I'm always on the look out for a bigger, better deal. But there is currently insufficient data for any meaningful investigation. Besides.... "Riiiight. I'm going right out and plunk down $500+ because a website SAYS the "big boys all use 'em" > > > Has anyone used the AGTS Flight systems > > > (http://www.stephensonline.ca/atha-aerospace/aai_index.html)? They seem [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > > That was enough information for me to stop reading and say "No thanks". Hi Mark Thanks for noticing that we need to update our web site (atha-aerospace.com). The AGTS/1 is powered from 7.2 V -9.6V batteries or ac/cigarette lighter power supplies. As the chief abuser of the product I run it at 14.4 (direct car battery) sometimes. Our board/ embedded designer cringes as these go through my abuses. The TX in the rocket uses a small half wave 2.1 dB antenna. The receiver comes with a similar 2.1 dB antenna that has been tested past 15 Km air LOS and ground (as in laying on the ground, hills and valleys included) to 1Km. Straight LOS on ground 9 Km. I know it may be a lame excuse but our team has been busy getting out Altus 40 project created and into the air. Coupled with some further developing for an easily used group based system (in RX several TX). We have designed our AGTS/1 system to meet our extreme needs and make that technology available to rocketeers. When we launch $10,000 systems we really would like to get these back and back in one piece to fly again. Anyhow the N casing shipped from CTI this past weekend for the booster was used as an implement of war against other packages and we ended up only launching the sustainer and achieved 23,960 feet out of the proposed 47,000 in a two stage configuration. So LDRS we now have a high altitude flight coming....Nice that this is at our back door next year. Our AGTS/1 system is very flexible. Anything that can receive serial, will receive data from the data link (PC, PDA). We are using cheap/free and tested GPS mapping (oziexplorer, cetus, Pathaway) and APRS (amateur radio) software to track the rocket components. No you do not need a radio license to use the software or our system. We are, as I indicted above, creating a multiple track system with the ability to overlay the received location streams on a user defined maps and if you are into the ham radio side see where the recovery crews are in relation to the base camp and the rocket components to be recovered (multiple ATGS/1 TX units can do the same thing license free). We were digipeting the location info from the 23960 foot shot,to all recovery crews and needless to say drove to the rocket laying down in a second growth grain field. Check out an L4 project that uses the AGTS/1 system for location http://www.telusplanet.net/~rveale/ David Buhler CAR S219 L4 TRA 9749 L3 VE6RKT development dude > > Has anyone used the AGTS Flight systems > > (http://www.stephensonline.ca/atha-aerospace/aai_index.html)? They seem [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > That was enough information for me to stop reading and say "No thanks". > Hi Mark > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > run it at 14.4 (direct car battery) sometimes. Our board/ embedded designer > cringes as these go through my abuses. Whew! That's a relief! 120volts seemed like quite a bit... and there didn't appear to be a lot of nitty-gritty info(that we tech-heads love) about the AGTS/1 on the site. > The TX in the rocket uses a small half wave 2.1 dB antenna. The receiver > comes with a similar 2.1 dB antenna that has been tested past 15 Km air LOS > and ground (as in laying on the ground, hills and valleys included) to 1Km. > Straight LOS on ground 9 Km. Using spread spectrum frequency hopping 900Mhz 'telephone's? > I know it may be a lame excuse but our team has been busy getting out Altus > 40 project created and into the air. Heh, heh... no, no... there's no better excuse! ;) > Coupled with some further developing > for an easily used group based system (in RX several TX). We have designed [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > shot,to all recovery crews and needless to say drove to the rocket laying > down in a second growth grain field. Great! > Check out an L4 project that uses the AGTS/1 system for location > http://www.telusplanet.net/~rveale/ Very nice rocket(s)... I escpecially enjoyed the 'Risk' section of the site... very good advice! Is that you in the pics? I'll keep an eye on the AGTS/1, sounds interesting enough. > > Hi Mark > Using spread spectrum frequency hopping 900Mhz 'telephone's? FHSS modems at 900 Mhz 4800 baud to match GPS data and the AFC-877 flight computer data rate. > > Check out an L4 project that uses the AGTS/1 system for location > > http://www.telusplanet.net/~rveale/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is that you in the pics? Nope, That is Ron Veale a fellow rocketeer here in Calgary. David Buhler ATHA Aerospace > I'll keep an eye on the AGTS/1, sounds interesting enough. > > > Hi Mark > > Using spread spectrum frequency hopping 900Mhz 'telephone's? > > FHSS modems at 900 Mhz 4800 baud to match GPS data and the AFC-877 flight > computer data rate. GPS data updated at 1 per second? Let me know when they're ready... always willing to experiment. ;) Updated at the gps configured rate. Minimum rate is once per second. Could be longer and you can set what sentence or sentences come through. David Buhler > > > > Hi Mark > > > Using spread spectrum frequency hopping 900Mhz 'telephone's? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Let me know when they're ready... always willing to experiment. > ;) > Has anyone used the AGTS Flight systems > (http://www.stephensonline.ca/atha-aerospace/aai_index.html)? They seem > similar to GPSFlight except they don't require a PC to use on the field and > can be programmed without a PC. I was thinking about putting together a simple GPS-based flight computer that could have the following capabilities: Standby mode for launch Launch detection Record GPS trajectory/velocity data up to parachute deployment Deloy chute at predetermined altitude on descent Begin continuous audio (maybe data?) reporting of position Upload data after recovery on a local or home PC (if desired) By audio link, I basically mean turning on either a handheld scanner (or an FM radio) and listening for the latitude and longitude data (maybe altitude too?). So let me pose a question to you: What exactly are you looking for in a flight computer? Thanks for any insight! Dave > So let me pose a question to you: What exactly are you looking for in > a flight computer? Well, since your asking... 1. Integrating Accelerometer to detect; a. Launch b. Apogee 2. Barometric Sensor to detect Altitude. 3. GPS to locate rocket when it lands. 4. Temperature Sensor 5. X-Y Gee sensors 6. Magnometer 7. Telemetry 8. Real Time Clock 9 Copious EE Ram, and perhaps ability for SD Flash cards. 10. 8 or more User defined Analog inputs, -10 to =10 vdc. (12 - 16 bit resolution at 200-20KHZ). 11. 8 or more User defined Digital inputs. 12. 8 or more high current outputs for igniters (Main, Drogue, Smoke, Staging, etc.) 13. 8 or more standard TTL outputs. The flight computer should integrate these components and be able to perform the following: 1. Store multiple flights with time stamp. 2. Ability to program and fire any high current or any Digital output based on; a. Accelerometer b. Barometric Sensor (altitude) c. GPS data (X-Y-Z) d. X-Y sensor extremes e. Magnometer (tip-over, apogee) f. Timer. g. User defined Analog input h. User defined digital input. i. Counter 3. Ability to program computer to make 'decisions' based on Boolean equations and operators (IF AND OR) to fire igniters or User Defined outputs based on integrated sensors AND \ OR user defined inputs. 4. Ability to start 'timers' based on user_defined inputs or sensor inputs. 5. Ability to program User Defined outputs vs. Time - (for instance, to operate a camera... turn on at launch_detect using User_defined_output1, wait one second, take three pictures using User_defined_output1, wait for apogee, take 5 pictures, etc.) 6. Ability to program Telemetry to XMIT any or all of the above sensor data... including the status of the input and output bits or the analog values. 7. Ability of the Telemetry to accept and 'tell' the Flight computer at least three commands, Fire1, Fire2. Fire3 (for remote firing of redundant deployment systems or whatever). 8. Ability to perform necessary conversions (e.g. convert the magnometer sensor data from the Cartesian to Spherical coordinate system. 9. Ability to output sensor information in CSV format, GPS in NEMA format. It would also be nice if the whole thing could be packaged in a one inch cube, had little legs and arms AND could be programmed to gather up and re-pack the deployment devices and clean the rocket after landing. ;) > Thanks for any insight! > Dave > > So let me pose a question to you: What exactly are you looking for in > > a flight computer? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a. Launch > b. Apogee Do you want the accelerometer to detect apogee as opposed to another type of sensor? On a side note, you could detect both launch and apogee without integrating. > 2. Barometric Sensor to detect Altitude. Ok, but do you want the accelerometer to detect apogee as opposed to the barometric sensor? The barometric pressure sensor isn't dependant on the flight trajectory. > 3. GPS to locate rocket when it lands. Ok. > 4. Temperature Sensor Ok. > 5. X-Y Gee sensors The y-axis sensor could be used as both an integrating and direct measure accelerometer. So you could eliminate #1. > 6. Magnometer Is this for apogee detection? If so, did you want this sensor to override the accelerometer's apogee detection? > 7. Telemetry Ok. > 8. Real Time Clock Ok. This can be synched with the GPS reciever. > 9 Copious EE Ram, and perhaps ability for SD Flash cards. > 10. 8 or more User defined Analog inputs, -10 to =10 vdc. (12 - 16 bit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Staging, etc.) > 13. 8 or more standard TTL outputs. Ok, basically a datalogger, with the exception of #12. Most dataloggers with capabilities like this are pretty heavy and pricey... one of the cheapest and lightest I've seen (with only 16 channels, 8 analog) is 14oz at 400$. So my question is: what could you add to a rocket that could populate even half of these inputs? > The flight computer should integrate these components and be able to perform > the following: > 1. Store multiple flights with time stamp. Ok. > 2. Ability to program and fire any high current or any Digital output > based on; [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > h. User defined digital input. > i. Counter Ok, here's the tricky part... which sensor takes precedence for launch detection? Apogee detection? Chute kickout? etc... > 3. Ability to program computer to make 'decisions' based on Boolean > equations and operators (IF AND OR) to fire igniters or User Defined outputs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > data... including the status of the input and output bits or the analog > values. These capabilities might be nice for you... but if you add these capabilities, you're starting to alienate buyers and reduce sales (just from a vendor perspective). If someone who buys this has to program boolean operators for simple things like parachute deployment, you'll be seeing a lot of crashed rockets, even if sales do (ahem) get off the ground. > 7. Ability of the Telemetry to accept and 'tell' the Flight computer at > least three commands, Fire1, Fire2. Fire3 (for remote firing of redundant > deployment systems or whatever). By accept, do you mean receive from a ground transmitter? > 8. Ability to perform necessary conversions (e.g. convert the magnometer > sensor data from the Cartesian to Spherical coordinate system. Magnometers can only detect tilt (only one of the spherical coordinates). To add the second angular coordinate of a spherical system, you'd need an integrating rotation rate sensor. Even so, I didn't think magnometers could provide enough resolution or accuracy even to detect tilt within a few degrees, especially with nearby components with their own EM fields (high powered outputs going on and off, telemetry, etc). > 9. Ability to output sensor information in CSV format, GPS in NEMA > format. > > It would also be nice if the whole thing could be packaged in a one inch > cube, had little legs and arms AND could be programmed to gather up and > re-pack the deployment devices and clean the rocket after landing. What you've basically described is an ICBM, minus the steering and nukes. ;-) Something with all those capabilities could be designed and built for amateur rocket builders, but it would be limited to larger rockets, and the price would *easily* exceed $4,000 (including the ground telemetry and equipment). The question is: would you pay for it? If not, what WOULD you pay for? Dave >>8. Ability to perform necessary conversions (e.g. convert the magnometer >>sensor data from the Cartesian to Spherical coordinate system. > > Magnometers can only detect tilt (only one of the spherical > coordinates). To add the second angular coordinate of a spherical > system, you'd need an integrating rotation rate sensor. While it is true that magnetometers can only sense their angle relative to the local field lines, a magnetometer mounted perpendicular to the axis of a rocket can provide a good roll angle measurement, especially if you are interested in simple things like roll rate. > Even so, I didn't think magnometers could provide enough resolution or > accuracy even to detect tilt within a few degrees, especially with > nearby components with their own EM fields (high powered outputs going > on and off, telemetry, etc). You certainly have to be careful with nearby magnetic materials but you'd be surprised at the resolution of simple magnetometers ... - Robert Galejs > >Mark" <mburggra1@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > 2. Ability to program and fire any high current or any Digital output > > based on; [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > h. User defined digital input. > > i. Counter > Ok, here's the tricky part... which sensor takes precedence for launch > detection? Apogee detection? Chute kickout? etc... The option that produces a more flexible device would be a single, selectable trigger for each output, and many outputs. Each output would act independently. Each would have a single, selectable trigger. For example, person "A" might program output 1 to operate at GPS apogee and output 2 to operate at barometric apogee. Person "B" might program output 1 to operate based on time after launch and output 2 to operate on tipover. Different outputs could also use the same trigger. Perhaps at apogee someone wants multiple events to occur. You are probably right, this would not be a device for the beginner. > Something with all those capabilities could be designed and built for > amateur rocket builders, but it would be limited to larger rockets, > and the price would *easily* exceed $4,000 (including the ground > telemetry and equipment). The question is: would you pay for it? Also: - USB port - WiFi - Voice synthesizer that can say "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." "First stage was smooth, this one's smoother." :-) Defy Gravity's "Control" had some interesting features. Will it ever exist? Gwiz's "DCS" has some interesting features. Last update was on 6/25/2004. Dean >Defy Gravity's "Control" had some interesting features. Will it ever exist? I own one, and it's in a case in the back of my truck at the moment. So, yes, they exist. I understand Troy has had production problems (supply-line problems, if I understood correctly), and is planning to bring Control back as soon as he can. - Rick "Existence proof" Dickinson  SignatureIt's distinctly sub-optimal having a 70MPH pigeon explode all over the inside of your vehicle. -- Tanuki, in asr No I don't think so. I believe he posted he had put the modules on hold because he is focused on some other product development. It would be nice if simply put down the date the units will be available. The way the web page reads, the units are available now, but in reality they aren't. It kind of reminds me of IBM vaporware. The announcement preceded the deployment by as much as three years. GPSFlight as it stands is a nice system, but it is not in league with RDAS until the modules can be brought on line. >>Defy Gravity's "Control" had some interesting features. Will it ever >>exist? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Rick "Existence proof" Dickinson Are speaking of the GPS Flight products or the ATHA products? > No I don't think so. I believe he posted he had put the modules on hold > because he is focused on some other product development. It would be nice if [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > - Rick "Existence proof" Dickinson > Ok, but do you want the accelerometer to detect apogee as opposed to > the barometric sensor? The barometric pressure sensor isn't dependant > on the flight trajectory. Some rockets go high enough they run out of air. "Good Thing-tm" Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > Magnometers can only detect tilt (only one of the spherical > coordinates). To add the second angular coordinate of a spherical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nearby components with their own EM fields (high powered outputs going > on and off, telemetry, etc). A three axis magnetic sensor will provide data on the rockets orientation with respect to the magnetic field. It takes a bit of math but it can be done. I have a set of three axis magnetic data that I intended to do this with but the excessive roll was very obvious in the data so I didn't pursue the more detailed analysis. But I did work out the automatic calibration equations. Crunch data from six different orientations and you get offsets and sensitivities that convert the sensor readings directly to direction cosines. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz > > > > Magnometers can only detect tilt (only one of the spherical [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > from six different orientations and you get offsets and sensitivities that > convert the sensor readings directly to direction cosines. Interesting idea. You plan on just recording the data and crunching it later, or having the computations done in flight? I don't know if it'd be easy to make a flight-weight system that could determine a constantly changing coordinate system...unless you're taking a low sample rate, that's some processing time. Cool idea though. Dave \> Interesting idea. You plan on just recording the data and crunching > it later, or having the computations done in flight? I don't know if > it'd be easy to make a flight-weight system that could determine a > constantly changing coordinate system...unless you're taking a low > sample rate, that's some processing time. Cool idea though. > > Dave Just put a quad G5 motherboard running OSX in there and running a unix baased custom program. No prob :) What are the highest capacity solid state drives these days? Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >\> Interesting idea. You plan on just recording the data and crunching >> it later, or having the computations done in flight? I don't know if [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Jerry Fetch > What are the highest capacity solid state drives these days? The latest in SSD is now flash RAM instead of DRAM. Retains its memory when power is removed, just like good old core memory. Capacity is on par with laptop micro drives. I'm looking at one with 75 GB capacity. Cost is significantly higher, as is performance. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org 26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ ... One nation under survielence, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. > > What are the highest capacity solid state drives these days? > > The latest in SSD is now flash RAM instead of DRAM. Retains its memory when > power is removed, just like good old core memory. Capacity is on par with > laptop micro drives. I'm looking at one with 75 GB capacity. Cost is > significantly higher, as is performance. That is more than adequate for high res data AND some HDTV images. The more you pay the more it is worth. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.