 |
 | 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 / May 2009Estes rockets - w/video cams?!
Wow - I was going through Estes' 2008 catalog and was surprised to find that they now offer 2 rockets with video cameras: the Astrovision and the Oracle. Does anyone have any experience with these? What comments might you have? I was also a little surprised at the prices. The Astrovision uses 18mm motors and comes in a launch set (complete w/pad & controller) and has a 640x480 camera, all for about $75 (msrp). (It looks like the only way to get this rocket is in a launch set.) The Oracle uses 24mm motors, and is packaged alone (no pad or controller). It's camera is only 320x240, and its price tag is about $130 (msrp). Is there anything about the Oracle that justifies it being nearly twice the price of the Astrovision? Thanks. >Does anyone have any experience with these? What >comments might you have The G & T summer school (Gifted and Talented Summe School) i worked with last year used an Oracle for Demo flight before the kids desinged and built their own egg lofters. It did what it said on the tin but to be honest it retailed at over £100 over here the video was short and qaulity poor - very small and grainy and the download software was awfuk. The only advantage really is its built discreetly into the nose cone and could be transfered to another rocket easily. There are plenty of small good quality digital camera or mini video cameras out there in the £30 mark that i would sooner build my own. But then again i insist on transmitting my video over RF and capturing it live for the technical challenge. Best wishes Damian  SignatureDamian Burrin UKRA 1159 Level 2 RSO http://www.ukrocketry.com http://www.larf-rocketry.co.uk LARF - Putting the amateur back in rocketry!! > But then again i insist on transmitting my video over RF and capturing it > live for the technical challenge. Damian - what do you use for the tx/rx system? I'm especially interested in the antennas. I've been playing with this idea for several years now, and have the parts but only recently had a way to record the vodeo (tv tuner card in laptop). I bought a "wireless A/V link" that was discontinues from Radio Shack several years ago. It works on 2.4 GHz. It originally used a "patch" antenna for tx/rx but I modified the tx antenna slightly and replaced the rx antenna yoth a yagi. Do you still fly the traffic cone? >what do you use for the tx/rx system? I've tend to use standard AV - Videosender/Receivers. My Base station is a Micromark/Response (cheap& nasty) video receiver unit (the 2.4ghz type you buy for sending sky or cable to other rooms) I've cut out the patch aerial and mounted an N-Connector to i can attach it to a 19Dbi Helical Antenna. I originally made one of these http://www.wireless.org.au/~jhecker/ and it worked well but have since got a commercial one from http://www.wirelesspro.co.uk/ from when I did a promo video for them. My transmit end tends to be either a chopped up standard 2.4ghz video sender or just the 2.4ghz tin cans you get from Maplins or Ebay I tend to use 5dbi dipole antennas and mount them horizontal as this seems to give a better signal during flight. As for camera's I've previously bought the cheap cctv camera and chopped them or a cheap board pcb board camera from Maplins. I have recently bought a bullet camera which I'm planning on mounting on the outside of a piece of 38mm tube and then covering with a shroud for a near min diameter video rocket. For recording I connect direct to a MiniDV video camera. I have to admit that my gear, though works well is far superseded by Chris Eilbeck's and i do tend to fly video with him and use his base station (I'm sure he'll pipe up and explain it) >modified the tx antenna slightly and replaced the rx antenna yoth a yagi. I'm no expert but helical antenna seem to give the best results >Do you still fly the traffic cone? Yes though it's a bit worse for wear now and needs some repairs. I must liberate another and build a new one!! Best wishes Damian SignatureDamian Burrin UKRA 1159 Level 2 RSO http://www.ukrocketry.com http://www.larf-rocketry.co.uk LARF - Putting the amateur back in rocketry!! > Wow - I was going through Estes' 2008 catalog and was surprised to > find that they now offer 2 rockets with video cameras: the Astrovision [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thanks. After viewing several AstroVision and Oracle videos on YouTube, I now see why the Oracle costs more. I thought I'd answer my own post to pass the info along. Both have a resolution of 320x240 in video mode (the AstroVision is 640x480 in camera mode). But, the AstroVision takes only 12 seconds of video at a frame rate of 5 fps. That means it rarely records an entire flight, and what it does record is very choppy. The Oracle captures 30 seconds of video at a frame rate of 9 fps. It's easy to record an entire flight, launch to landing, and the video is much less choppy. Just FYI, if you cared. I received The Oracle as a gift a while back and have enjoyed it. The body tube was messed up during one launch, but the I was able to build a new one and use the camera. You can search on youtube.com for videos that people have posted too. Several of mine are out there, and others have posted some good ones too. It's easy to set up and works fairly well, so if you're looking for something easy then the Oracle is the way to go. For more effort you may want to look at using some sort of custom system though. My complaints about the Oracle: - Videos are only about 30 seconds long, so you may not get the whole flight - No sound - Not much storage. If you turn it off you lose what's stored. I have to drag my laptop out to the range, and it's time consuming to download while waiting to launch again. - Video quality isn't that great - Spinning - may cause dizziness if your rocket spins during launch Bill > Wow - I was going through Estes' 2008 catalog and was surprised to > find that they now offer 2 rockets with video cameras: the Astrovision [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thanks. >- No sound You're not going to hear much anyway... just the roar of the airflow. >- Spinning - may cause dizziness if your rocket spins during launch Not much you can do about that. On May 6, 11:19 am, "Bill P" <w...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > - No sound Actually, some Oracle videos I saw on youtube had sound synced with the video. They must have had a separate audio recorder on board. And, it had to be on board (rather than the audio track of a ground based audio or video recorder), because of how clearly you heard each phase of the flight. > - Videos are only about 30 seconds long, so you may not get the whole flight Perhaps. Most of the Oracle videos I saw covered the whole flight - some even showing someone picking the rocket up. Those that didn't cover the whole flight used a significant portion of their recording time just sitting on the pad. > You're not going to hear much anyway... just the roar of the airflow. Actually, in the videos I saw that had audio added, you heard the roar of the launch, rushing airflow during coast, and the pop of the ejection. Then you heard fluttering air during descent, the contact of landing, and possibly voices of those recovering the rocket. Personally, I think it adds a lot to the video. Look for Oracle videos on youtube and see if you don't agree. >>- No sound > > You're not going to hear much anyway... just the roar of the > airflow. Downlinked video with audio is very useful. You can hear the beeps from your altimeter and have some confidence that it's all still working when you hit the go button. You can also hear the beeped-out altitude or if the beeping stops, you know your altimeter has failed. >>- Spinning - may cause dizziness if your rocket spins during launch > > Not much you can do about that. Maybe not in an estes-powered rocket but I've flown active roll control on HPR and it worked really well, about half a turn from lift-off to apogee. The video is great. Chris SignatureChris Eilbeck MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/ UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB Tripoli UK Member #9527 LSMR >>>- Spinning - may cause dizziness if your rocket spins during launch >> Not much you can do about that. >Maybe not in an estes-powered rocket but I've flown active roll >control on HPR and it worked really well, about half a turn from >lift-off to apogee. The video is great. Good point - I'd forgotten about that. :-) Actually, roll control is one of the next additions to my HPR camera system... along with staging. > Actually, roll control is one of the next additions to my HPR > camera system... along with staging. Roll control?! Wouldn't that be considered an active guidance system and be frowned upon? >Roll control?! Wouldn't that be considered an active >guidance system >and be frowned upon Notat all - Active roll control is not guidance 'all' that is happening is that fin tabs are being used to stop the rocket from spinning based on the use of gyroscopes. This can in no way be used to guide the rocket. Damian SignatureDamian Burrin UKRA 1159 Level 2 RSO http://www.ukrocketry.com http://www.larf-rocketry.co.uk LARF - Putting the amateur back in rocketry!! > > Actually, roll control is one of the next additions to my HPR > > camera system... along with staging. > > Roll control?! Wouldn't that be considered an active guidance system > and be frowned upon? Where is this crap coming from? There's nothing in the MR or HPR rules that prohibit any sort of guidance, be it RC to autonomous. It's never been in any rules I've seen. But I've only been around for the past 45 years... > > Roll control?! Wouldn't that be considered an active guidance system > > and be frowned upon? > > Where is this crap coming from? Sorry, I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I'm coming out of many years of MR hibernation. A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, I seem to recall somehow picking up the idea that guidance systems were frowned upon. Apologies if that's wrong. So, has this technology been pursued at all? I used to imagine all the possibilities active guidance could bring to the hobby. >> Actually, roll control is one of the next additions to my HPR >> camera system... along with staging. >Roll control?! Wouldn't that be considered an active guidance system >and be frowned upon? As it's been explained by others - there's a world of difference between active GUIDANCE and active STABILIZATION. The rules prohibit rockets with active target-seeking capability... but keeping a rocket vertical and roll-free is not target-seeking. > As it's been explained by others - there's a world of difference > between active GUIDANCE and active STABILIZATION. The rules prohibit > rockets with active target-seeking capability... but keeping a rocket > vertical and roll-free is not target-seeking. OLE! (In Spain, that's what they say when the bull comes out) In my mere 45 years in this hobby there has NEVER been any such rule prohibiting any sort of active control of our model rockets. The rules prohibit launching rockets at targets (think Iraq), active or not. Active stabilization isn't very common, but has been used on some scale models, most notably George Gassaway's full up Space Shuttle. Active guidance is used by virtually every RCBG flown today in order to land in a specified area. >> between active GUIDANCE and active STABILIZATION. The rules prohibit >> rockets with active target-seeking capability... but keeping a rocket >In my mere 45 years in this hobby there has NEVER been any such rule >prohibiting any sort of active control of our model rockets. >The rules prohibit launching rockets at targets (think Iraq), active >or not. You're right, of course. I just dug out my copy of the (Canadian) rules for HPR, and the closest I could get was this... 8) Payloads My High-Power rocket will never carry any live animals, or a payload that is intended to be flammable, explosive, OR CAUSE HARM. (Emphasis mine...) At a guess, I'd say that most people would consider an active guidance system in the category of 'intended to cause harm'. It's not, of course, but the vast majority would SEE it in that light. After all... missiles are actively guided. So if you're experimenting with active control, you must be building a missile. It's wrong... but that's the way many peoples' minds work. > It's wrong... but that's the way many peoples' minds work. Unfortunately true. What I was thinking of was a lot more fun: stunt rocketry! Can you imagine a rocket going to a thousand feet or so, doing a loop, and returning to vertical before burnout? Or a figure eight? Or any other programmable path? I think *that* would be cool! But, I suspect that the technology isn't quite ready for it. >> It's wrong... but that's the way many peoples' minds work. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >other programmable path? I think *that* would be cool! But, I >suspect that the technology isn't quite ready for it. I suspect that the technology is ready, but that your stunt rocketry thinking has very little merit. BTW RC/BG folks have been doing thing like this for years, but probably not intentionaly. Alan >>What I was thinking of was a lot more fun: stunt rocketry! Can you >>imagine a rocket going to a thousand feet or so, doing a loop, and >>returning to vertical before burnout? Or a figure eight? Or any >I suspect that the technology is ready, but that your stunt rocketry >thinking has very little merit. BTW RC/BG folks have been doing thing >like this for years, but probably not intentionaly. A lot of *ordinary* rocket fliers have been doing things like that for years... although quite unintentionally. :-D > I suspect that the technology is ready, but that your stunt rocketry > thinking has very little merit. BTW RC/BG folks have been doing thing > like this for years, but probably not intentionaly. > > Alan Sure it has merit! I'm not talking RC, but fully autonomous on-board control. Just as on-board electronics (altimeters/timers/telemetry) brought the hobby to another level, this could be the next logical step. Active stabilization/roll control is the first step in that direction. >> I suspect that the technology is ready, but that your stunt rocketry >> thinking has very little merit. BTW RC/BG folks have been doing thing >> like this for years, but probably not intentionaly. >> >> Alan >Sure it has merit! This is the point that we disagree on, and it is simply mater of opinion or personal preference. > I'm not talking RC, but fully autonomous on-board control. Active guidance comes in both types. Best practice is to adhere to the safety codes, and not to infer that any particular technology is forbidden. Big Brother (our terrorist phobic government) is more concerned with autonomous on-board control than RC. If the hammer falls on sport rocketry, let it come from the hand of BB and not be a self inflicted injury. > Just as on-board electronics (altimeters/timers/telemetry) >brought the hobby to another level, That is true. This has allowed the use of shippable and storable hybrid motors, which allows more people to participate. > this could be the next logical >step. Active stabilization/roll control is the first step in that >direction. True enough. However, I would prefer that next logical step to be improved flight safety, minimization of dispersion, safe recovery in preferred areas, etc. rather than "stunt rocketry". Alan > The Oracle uses 24mm motors, and is packaged alone (no pad or > controller). It's camera is only 320x240, and its price tag is about > $130 (msrp). Is there anything about the Oracle that justifies it being > nearly twice the price of the Astrovision? I'm still trying to figure out what justifies the cameras being archaic. The Astrovision's camera loses its data if turned off, and has no removable storage. In this day of MicroSD cards, there's no reason it couldn't store a lot more than one short clip and at a better resolution for that price. For $20-30 you can buy a tiny camera that will record a couple of minutes of video on SD or MicroSD, and mount it in a $7.99 4FNC, or you can pay more than double that to get a camera that wouldn't sell at all on its own premounted in a RTF rocket. > For $20-30 you can buy a tiny camera that will record a couple of minutes > of video on SD or MicroSD Cool - any suggestions as to where to look for these? |
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
|
©2012 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.