Raven bug at 65,600 feet ASL

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Adrian A

Well-Known Member
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
2,898
Location
Lakewood, CO
This morning I discovered a bug in the Raven firmware that causes premature baro-based deployments for flights exceeding 65,600 feet ASL.

After working with Jim Jarvis to understand the root cause of the in-flight separation of his sustainer at BALLS this year (he recoverd only his nosecone, with GPS units inside), I upgraded my vacuum test equipment so that I could find out how the Raven's pressure sensor behaves when the sensor's specified minimum operating pressure of 10 mbar (102,000 feet ASL) is exceeded. Much to my dismay, when examining the recorded data from the test, I found that the Raven's deployment logic thought the altitude immediately dropped as the pressure decreased through 0.054 atm, the equivalent of 65,600 feet. I traced this back to a transcription error in the equation used for that part of the atmosphere. I sincerely apologize to Jim Jarvis for spoiling his otherwise-marvelous flight.

As some background information, the international standard atmosphere model describes how to convert from pressure to altitude throughout the atmosphere. The equations for doing so are different for different layers. The equation for the troposphere is valid up to about 36,089 feet, then there is a different equation for the tropopause, where the temperature stays nearly constant from 36,089 to 65,617 feet, and then another equation for the stratosphere, in which the atmospheric temperature increases with altitude. That third atmospheric layer is valid from 65,617 feet up to 104,987 feet where the equation changes again. If an altimeter just uses the single troposphere version of the equation, it will read out about 80,000 feet when the rocket is actually at 100,000 feet.

https://web.me.com/gyatt/atmosculator/The Standard Atmosphere.html

When I wrote that section of the code, I carefully checked the equations in a spreadsheet, and against online calculators, to make sure that they provided correct results. Apparently I just dropped a minus sign when I typed it into the source code, and my test equipment was not sufficient to reveal this error during pre-production testing. This error only affects flights that exceed 65,600 feet; there is no error when operating below that altitude.

If you have a Raven and you're planning to operate it over 65,600 feet, please return your Raven for a firmware upgrade to:

Featherweight Altimeters
9887 S Isabel Court
Highlands Ranch, CO 80126

The new version of firmware that fixes this error will be 2.4. The firmware version is displayed in the Featherweight Interface Program when the Raven is connected to it, so users can verify that they have the updated firmware before attempting Raven-controlled flights over 65,600 feet. The silver lining to all this is that now I know the baro sensor used in the Raven provides well-behaved readings at very low pressures, so once the firmware is fixed, baro-based apogee detection appears to be valid well in excess of 100,000 feet. I'll do some further testing over the next week or so, with more units, to characterize the limits of this capability.
 
Adrian,
This is one of the reasons why I have purchased three of your Raven Altimeters. You are up front on your customer service and did not try to hide an issue that only a handful of people would experience.
I also like the price, performance and features of your altimeters. :) Thank you for this update.

Jim
 
Any idea how Jim's rocket made it to 98k ft, instead of separating at 65k?

The baro-based deployments also have a Mach inhibit to ignore the baro readings when the accel-based velocity is greater than 400 mph. Apparently the accel-based velocity estimate went below 400 ft/sec at 98,000 feet.
 
I'm impressed Adrian, as jwestr0cket said you didn't have to admit this issue in public; especially when it would effect so few of your customers. I doubt the company I work for would ever be so open about something like this.

And a great explanation as to how it happened.

I had been thinking about buying one of your products; this has tipped me over the edge and I WILL be buying something.
 
Adrian,
This is one of the reasons why I have purchased three of your Raven Altimeters. You are up front on your customer service and did not try to hide an issue that only a handful of people would experience.
I also like the price, performance and features of your altimeters. :) Thank you for this update.

Jim

I'm impressed Adrian, as jwestr0cket said you didn't have to admit this issue in public; especially when it would effect so few of your customers. I doubt the company I work for would ever be so open about something like this.

And a great explanation as to how it happened.

I had been thinking about buying one of your products; this has tipped me over the edge and I WILL be buying something.

Thanks, guys. Finding this bug was very painful, and nice feedback like this definitely helps.
 
I'm impressed Adrian, as jwestr0cket said you didn't have to admit this issue in public; especially when it would effect so few of your customers. I doubt the company I work for would ever be so open about something like this.
Full disclosure is the right way to handle problems like these. If a firmware upgrade was announced, folks would wonder why? The developer might tell a few people who he knows would be affected by what's going on and then the information leaks out. The story gets changed as it is whispered from person to person and pretty soon it morphs into something completely different.

Companies who aren't up-front about problems in their products open themselves up for doubt, further scrutiny and potential liability. It all goes to ethics and integrity, and companies who maintain open channels with customers are held in much higher regard than those who don't.

Adrian, it looks from the outside looking in you have handled this situation well. Sure, you have some egg on your face right now, but folks will be more confident in your products as they mature because they see you taking action to address issues.

--Lance.
 
Last edited:
Should everything go as planned and I am able to make it out to BALLS, my project will surely have a Raven calling the shots. Keep up the good product support!
 
If you have a Raven and you're planning to operate it over 65,600 feet, please return your Raven for a firmware upgrade to:

Featherweight Altimeters
9887 S Isabel Court
Highlands Ranch, CO 80126



Uhoh... Looks like I have Version 2.3. What's the turn around time on this
Firmware upgrade?
 
Uhoh... Looks like I have Version 2.3. What's the turn around time on this
Firmware upgrade?

Should be just a few days at my end, worst case. Can I assume you're planning to exceed 65,000 feet? If not, please consider keeping firmware version 2.3, since there is absolutely no difference in the Raven's operation below that threshold between the two firmware versions.

Thanks.
 
Should be just a few days at my end, worst case. Can I assume you're planning to exceed 65,000 feet? If not, please consider keeping firmware version 2.3, since there is absolutely no difference in the Raven's operation below that threshold between the two firmware versions.

Thanks.




Thanks Adrian. I appreciate this upgrade to correct an error. I'll be shipping
mine out today.

As a side note, have you considered throwing in some extra code with 2.4
to allow for owners to upgrade the firmware via the Featherweight Program
from a download or maybe online-only to insure security of the code?
I only say this, because I assume this upgrade of units will incur a bit of
red ink in your business, mainly from costs associated with shipping upgraded
units.
 
Last edited:
If the Raven's flash memory for code space were not full from all the other features, I would definitely include code for a bootloader so that firmware is remotely upgradeable. Future Featherweight products will have this feature.

The cost in money, and more importantly, time, for updating the firmware on all the units that get sent back could be substantial. Frankly, I'm hoping that most people who are not planning to exceed 65,000 feet do not send theirs back for the update. But I'll do it for anyone who wants it, in order to meet the advertised specification of 100,000 feet barometric range. There's no time limit on that offer, so if someone is thinking that someday they might fly that high, they can wait until that time comes, if they want to.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's kind of a funny coincidence that the stratosphere starts so close to 2^16 feet above the ground.



In just a random google search on stratosphere, I just noticed that where
it begins depends on what latitude you are at. Here is the blurb I found:


The height of the stratosphere varies depending on what latitude we are talking
about: at moderate latitudes, the stratosphere begins about 10 km (6 mi)
above the surface and ends at 50 km (31 mi), at the poles, it starts at only 8
km (5 mi) altitude. This is because the ground at the poles is so cold, it doesn’t
take much to produce greater temperatures, and thus the stratosphere begins
earlier.
 
Back
Top