How about this as a tracker??

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
No, one would want an independent system that is completely self-contained for tracking so they don't have to depend on an outside service.
If you have reliable cell service where you launch, it could be workable but if the device can't hit a tower one would be out of luck.
Compared to some of the APRS and telemetered trackers available, it looks pretty large and one would have to plug in a GPS module.
Kurt
 
I tend to agree. Using cellular service for tracking leaves you at the mercy of a cell signal. I have found that cell signals at launch sites can be very iffy. Even if you get a reasonable signal at the LCO table, the signal can completely disappear when you get out in the field retrieving a rocket. I personally wouldn't trust it.
 
I'm not a fan of a cell service either but, thought like some might be interested.
It'a another crowd fund deal and the company will probably be scooped up by a major carrier just to bury it.

JD
 
I ponied up for this campaign, looks really cool. The best part is that they're offering data plans for just $3/month. Pair one of these devices with a GPS and you've got a very inexpensive cell based tracker. They've also got some interesting Wifi devices for less than $20.

Of course, I'd never use one of these to track a rocket for reasons mentioned above.

Greg
 
Dunno about using it for rockets, but it sounds like a cool IoT platform if you need your device to be mobile. $59 for the 3G board is fine for development and playing around, but they're going to have to get it down to about half of that to make it a viable embedded commercial solution. They're going to be competing with people like Qualcomm so it may be tough going.
 
I'm still waiting for my RETRIEVOR which is AWOL for almost a year. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/retrievor-self-charging-gps-tracking The RETRIEVR was supposed to fit inside a 29 mm airframe but now it's 35 mm so a 38 mm is the smallest size. I'm not holding my breath on when of if I'll receive mine.

The competency of any development group will determine if it goes anywhere and the Spark Electron unit seems to have too many folks involved for the amount of money invested. Additionally the reliance on the cell phone network is a negative as we often launch in places with poor cell coverage.

IMO a standalone system is better and can be had for the same money.

Bob
 
The other issue is, is it even legal to do this? Didn't someone say that if you go above a certain altitude cell transmission is not allowed?
 
Thats kind of a grey area, they're permitted on non-commercial aircraft at the discretion of the pilots. I've had private pilots tell me that they use them all the time as long as they're cruising in clear air.

A bigger issue is that 1) Where we fly there tends to be spotty cell coverage, and 2) You probably will have the coverage drop out above 5,000' or so. It's really only good for tracking on the ground, and then only if you have cell coverage. I've tried the GPS tracker units that send text messages out to your phone, they're only so-so.

[Full disclosure: I make the Eggfinder GPS/RF trackers.]
 
NASA/sounding rockets must have a tracker to allow recovery (especially things like shuttle SRB)... I would imagine whatever they use must require a ham license at the very minimum.

So what can we do to allow tracking and telemetry at greater range (like hundreds of miles)?
 
We're not building short range ballistic missiles! There is no reason for hundreds of miles. High power rocket to ~150 kft. max. or about 30 miles.

Bob
 
NASA/sounding rockets must have a tracker to allow recovery (especially things like shuttle SRB)... I would imagine whatever they use must require a ham license at the very minimum.

So what can we do to allow tracking and telemetry at greater range (like hundreds of miles)?

Being the government, they can use any frequency they need and at whatever power levels are needed. A 50 watt transmitter on a military channel with little or no interference will get you a signal a long ways, especially when it's high in the air. Then again the Navy has some incredible tracking and targeting radars. They tracked, targeted and shot down that satellite with a ship launched missile a few year ago. They may not need any transmitters on the SRB with that kind of technology available. Then again, you can buy a transmitter to go on your life vest for sea going vessels that is tracked by satellite so the Coast Guard can find you. I don't think the hobbyist is ever going to have that kind of tracking available.
 
Last edited:
Being the government, they can use any frequency they need and at whatever power levels are needed. A 50 watt transmitter on a military channel with little or no interference will get you a signal a long ways, especially when it's high in the air. Then again the Navy has some incredible tracking and targeting radars. They tracked, targeted and shot down that satellite with a ship launched missile a few year ago. They may not need any transmitters on the SRB with that kind of technology available. Then again, you can buy a transmitter to go on your life vest for sea going vessels that is tracked by satellite so the Coast Guard can find you. I don't think the hobbyist is ever going to have that kind of tracking available.
The US government and virtually all other nations have signed international treaties because they share the EM spectrum with over 200 other nations and all have agreed to a common spectra allocation map so that anyone's use of the EM spectra doesn't interfere with others users. In the US the Federal Communications Commission manages the state/local government, commercial and civilian use of the EM spectrum, and the National Telecommunications & Information Agency manages the Federal government's use of EM spectrum, ensuring that America's domestic and international spectrum needs are met while making efficient use of a limited resource. FCC makes the use rules and frequency allocations for all non-Federal telecommunications in the US, and the NTIA makes the use rules and frequency allocations for all Federal users.

The FCC has no authority to assign or administer use in the NTIA portions of the EM spectra. For example, I am a member of the Civil Air Patrol, aka the US Air Force Auxiliary, and I'm licensed by the USAF/CAP, not the FCC, to own, possess and operate base, mobile and hand-held telecommunication equipment operating on USAF/CAP frequencies assigned and administered by NTIA using equipment approved by NTIA. I am also a member of my company's emergency response team and we are licensed by the FCC to operate up to 10 registered FCC approved hand-held radios within 5 miles of our facility on a single specific UHF frequency assigned to us by the FCC.

Bob
 
Back
Top