I probably made a mistake diving into the middle of the topic like this. I keep forgetting that very few people go to the annual national convention, so for most people on the forum you won't have heard my thoughts in past years on locators and my vision for how they should work. Drones are NOT a big part of it. They are something you think of down the line (as you'll hear people at NARCON chime in with during the presentation, if you listen to it).
The key concept is that the locators are small, and they are all cooperative. There isn't such a thing on the market today; today each person brings their own tracker to the launch, and they actually hope they don't CONFLICT with each other and make the situation worse. Some with the best range require a HAM license. Most people are not interested in getting a HAM license. Some require cell phone service. Most people don't want a cell phone bill for their rockets, and some locations don't have cell service at all. Some are bulky. Some make you walk around like Mr Magoo zig-zagging and listening.
Kurt, there's no "setup" or "teardown" with the system I'm developing. Any locator turned on at a launch would automatically cooperate with any other one there, and the more there are and the more people walk around (or drive around in their trucks, whatever), the more the network "sees." Every flight of a locator in a rocket is a "satellite scanner" from the sky, for instance. Some forward-thinking clubs with little hills or known flight patterns would be wise to set a few out, but they wouldn't have to. If there's a place rockets are tending to drift, that area would tend to get automatically "lit up" (in the radio sense) by locators.
Nobody can "see" the location of your stuff unless you give them explicit permission (like if you want them to fetch your stuff while they are out there, or members of the same family or TARC team, for instance). Nonetheless, in the background their equipment is helping your equipment, all encrypted and invisibly. It's part of the DNA of the product that in the background your stuff is helping other people, and vice versa.
As for drones, I think the photos and videos they are beginning to take are really cool. Just a simple change of perspective by moving 100 feet back and 100 feet up creates a more dramatic launch shot, like the photos and videos SCRocketFan has shared with me from our launches together, and the arial one from Facebook recently from ABOVE a side-arcing flight in the wind. Much more interesting (to me) than the standard "ground level from in front, then blue sky and clouds" standard fare we're used to. Much more epic to see the surrounding crowd and countryside during lift.
Like I said, it's one thing to be annoyed by someone else's drone buzzing around. It's another thing to be able to say, "Hey, could you fly over that corn field and scan it for my rocket?" And then boom, after a couple of minutes a marker pops up on your phone, plus an exact bearing and distance. Beats the hell out of searching for an hour.
All valid points for a nucleus of users who make the investment. That could be a problem for people who fly with a small group on an irregular basis. If nobody shows up with a compatible unit, some utility would be lost.......... Except if
your tracker and receiver would have comparable utility/range to be used by itself a' la something like an EggFinder, 900Mhz Beeline GPS tracker and a couple of others some in and some out of production.
If it were effective by itself and have connectivity to an Android or Windows tablet so one could have real time graphical tracking that would be a viable selling point too.
What I didn't mention before is if one has a graphical track of the rocket flight on descent in hand, one will have an idea of drift when that last position packet comes in from 100 feet up or so. Would know what direction to proceed to acquire a new signal if they weren't within the Rf footprint of the tracker when they get to that last known position. That could be judged by the direction of travel on one's map at-hand. A 900Mhz patch antenna can maximize reception range with a decent enough broad pattern so aiming the receive antenna from the base receiver would not be so critical while in flight.
I've found that a 900Mhz Yagi on the receive end, though not recommended for in-flight tracking, is easy enough to carry to the last known position and increases the Rf reception footprint of the downed rocket. Since the rocket is not moving around generally once it's down, it's easy enough to aim a narrow beam Yagi. (Unless of course somebody picked it up or the wind is dragging it across the ground. In the latter situation one can usually see the open chute from some distance away. I have video from onboard a rocket of me trying to chase the thing down while being wind blown across the field!)
Your proposed device would have the prospect of receiving a relayed position from another overhead rocket that has one of your trackers flying in it sending the position of their downed rocket. That would be a nice perk to get the final resting
place sooner rather than later.
Some random thoughts: Big advantage if ready built and not a kit like an EggFinder. Those electronic kit averse could consider it.
It would really have to have the ability of being an effective stand alone tracker comparable to other 900Mhz trackers for lone wolf use. If it's not that, I would only think a few large clubs might be interested but that's all.
Ability to do realtime tracking on a portable map is a big plus for people in the Midwest and areas where there are roads so a recovery path can be planned. Not so big for out West where there's wide open spaces.
Now this is a big one, the networking would need to be as free from a formal setup process as possible and completely transparent. If one has to "pair", "type" "codes" or do "this" or "that" check to get the devices to work together
that would handicap it immensely. One shows up at a big launch and you never know who's flying what tracker with what or on what frequency. If many show up with several "Jolly Beans GPS Locators" they would have to pair with their respective ground receivers and listen for and be ready to relay positions to others receivers. Granted that can be easier to do with digital protocols but one would have to look at throughput considerations.
I understand your salient paradigm that the overhead rocket would hear and relay the lat/long to my receiver only based on coding. I wouldn't mind being a good Samaritan as long as my primary position throughput is maintained
in flight.
I'd want MY rocket to give ME its position packets at a reasonable rate in flight and not be interrupting the real time stream re-transmitting positions of a bunch of rockets on the ground who might still be getting prepped for flight with their Jolly Beans GPS Trackers turned on. Granted one would only need to re-transmit a lat/long from a "guest" rocket with none of the other NMEA "stuff" which would cut down on the overhead a lot.
Then how many times is the in-flight rocket going to re-transmit the "guest" rocket(s) position? Are the tracker/receivers going to have two way capability? Say the in-flight rocket sends the position of my "guest" rocket that's lying on the ground waiting to be recovered and my receiver is going to transmit a "I got it signal" to the rocket in flight? Might be a dicey situation for that scenario if the in flight rocket is really moving out.
I can hear it now, "Hey, can you launch your
Jolly Beans GPS Locator rocket this-a-way so's I can get a fix!! or Can you set your main deploy for 2000 feet so I can get a fix on my rocket!!":lol:
Boy, seems to me you are undertaking quite a task here John. Enjoy any future explanations you care to share.
Kurt Savegnago
