What to watch out for? (Rocket Flight Computer)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
FWIW, if you read the rules for this contest (linked upthread), you'll find that a commercial backup altimeter is allowed, but not required. I think we'd all agree that it should simply be required.

You are not eligible for a prize if the rocket doesn't recover safely.
 
Honestly, the total score should be ZERO if you don't get it back. That's how important a successful recovery is...

As I said before, at the very least use a commerical altimeter as a backup. It doesn't even have to be one of ours. :) There's very little in rocketry more dangerous than a rocket coming in ballistic and you don't know where it is.
Sponsor us and we will use the commercial altimeter. You guys don't understand. With shipping and stuff altimeters cost more than a 100 dollars. We need 2 of them for 2 rockets. And our budget is 10k Turkish Liras around 1530 dollars. We can't just give 1/7 of our budget to the backup computer that easily. BTW if we ever get to launch the rocket we will be in a desert-ish area (Salt Lake in Turkey) and we will be more than 100 meters away from the rocket. I don't believe the rocket will hit us.
 
Sponsor us and we will use the commercial altimeter. You guys don't understand. With shipping and stuff altimeters cost more than a 100 dollars. We need 2 of them for 2 rockets. And our budget is 10k Turkish Liras around 1530 dollars. We can't just give 1/7 of our budget to the backup computer that easily. BTW if we ever get to launch the rocket we will be in a desert-ish area (Salt Lake in Turkey) and we will be more than 100 meters away from the rocket. I don't believe the rocket will hit us.
Two Eggtimer Quarks, which are simple dual-deployment controllers that WILL get your parachutes out, are $20 each, + about $20 shipping to Turkey. That's $60 to get a proven recovery solution for both of your rockets. For another $40, you can get two Eggtimer Quantums, which have full flight data logging and are programmable and downloadable via WiFi. You can find us at EggtimerRocketry.com
 
Sponsor us and we will use the commercial altimeter. You guys don't understand. With shipping and stuff altimeters cost more than a 100 dollars. We need 2 of them for 2 rockets. And our budget is 10k Turkish Liras around 1530 dollars. We can't just give 1/7 of our budget to the backup computer that easily.

There's a company in France that makes altimeters. These are fairly barebones altimeters that do deployment only, no logging, and are rather cheap as well (<$35 if I recall correctly). Hopefully shipping from France will be less expensive.

There's another company called Entacore based in South Africa that also makes altimeters. They're more expensive than the French altimeters but shipping may also be cheaper than US altimeters.

BTW if we ever get to launch the rocket we will be in a desert-ish area (Salt Lake in Turkey) and we will be more than 100 meters away from the rocket. I don't believe the rocket will hit us.

The probability of a hit increases with every rocket flown, and given that this is a competition there will be many rockets. Couple that with the fact that a collision with a rocket will be 100% fatal. Don't take that gamble.
 
Last edited:
Again, the OP is a student, not an organizer of this competition. Don't berate the students for real or perceived shortcomings in the rules. There is no requirement in the rules to use a proven backup altimeter.

Are the students sort of arrogant, clueless, and uninterested in listening to good advice? Apparently, but that's typical.

I still wonder if asking for all of this information on this forum is really in the spirit of the competition. There are many questions being asked by many posters. It may be that our best course is to simply refrain from answering. I think I'll do that from here on out. Best of luck to all the competitors.
 
I do believe that we should be encouraging these students, as we would for any group new to this area of technology, into achieving best practice by following tried and tested procedures and design techniques. The competition rules are, at best, ambiguous with regard to the redundant altimeters. It is stated in their requirements (Section 4.1.2) that their backup altimeter does not have to be a commercial unit, which only implies that the primary altimeter can be a commercial unit, but not mandatory. These requirements should be unambiguous, particularly as they are directed at people with little or no experience in these fields.

The reasoned responses from members on this forum is critical to ensuring that these students do have sound advice from the many members that do have extensive knowledge and experience in these areas. The organisers of this competition should also take note that they need to be more explicit with regard to their safety requirements. Relying on a student designed and manufactured primary altimeter is not best practice (if that is the case) unless it has gone through a very rigorous testing process and proven to be as good as, or better than, commercial altimeters that do have that established reliability.
 
Again, the OP is a student, not an organizer of this competition. Don't berate the students for real or perceived shortcomings in the rules. There is no requirement in the rules to use a proven backup altimeter.

Are the students sort of arrogant, clueless, and uninterested in listening to good advice? Apparently, but that's typical.

I still wonder if asking for all of this information on this forum is really in the spirit of the competition. There are many questions being asked by many posters. It may be that our best course is to simply refrain from answering. I think I'll do that from here on out. Best of luck to all the competitors.

Arrogant yes little bit. Clueless maybe. But the only reason i asked you guys the question was to get good advice but you people are only interested in proven systems. Our rocketry team has 30 members and 7 of them are dedicated to avionics. If we were to use commercial systems we would learn almost nothing and there would be little to no need of us in the team.
 
Forgot to mention we will be doing the tests before we ever put the system in to the rocket. The tests are mandotory in the second report for the competition.
 
Our rocketry team has 30 members and 7 of them are dedicated to avionics. If we were to use commercial systems we would learn almost nothing and there would be little to no need of us in the team

Is this a contest about rocketry or electronics?
Why are the two mixed?
Yes, rockets often need electronics, but they are two different disciplines.

Why not add other goofy things -- like a chemistry experiment that must be done at apogee -- nonsense rules.
 
Is this a contest about rocketry or electronics?
Why are the two mixed?
Yes, rockets often need electronics, but they are two different disciplines.

Why not add other goofy things -- like a chemistry experiment that must be done at apogee -- nonsense rules.
You also get more points if you put some fancy experiment in the nosecone. We haven't talked about it yet. Our main objective right now is to make a flight computer.
 
You got advise from people that actually make commercial flight computers to use a commercial unit as the backup. I think that is very good advise. They have done the years of development and testing to know that your initial device will more than likely not work as expected.

Of your 7 person team, 1 person is set to configure the commercial backup device, 5 people set to design, build and test your own device and 1 person to integrate the 2 systems together. I think that if you explain this process to the judges and its possible, you'd get extra points for it since that is how most real-world environments work.
 
But the only reason i asked you guys the question was to get good advice but you people are only interested in proven systems.

This is simply because our top concern is always safety, no matter what the question is. It's also probably worth noting that most of us are hobbyists working alone in our garages. Not many people here make their own electronics, most of us choosing to just buy computers we know are good and focus our efforts and experimentation on airframe designs.

Plus, think of it this way in terms of contest strategy: if you are not eligible for a prize if your rocket is not recovered, then you're taking a huge risk by not at least including a proven system as a backup. If you use a commercial computer and no electronics of your own, you miss out on some points but still might have a chance. If you use an unproven system with no backup and it fails, you are disqualified and definitely have NO chance.
 
Last edited:
i asked you guys the question was to get good advice but you people are only interested in proven systems.

Ok to answer your post, what to watch out for...

Assuming your are using a BMP280
1. You need to include digital filter on the output. Reading to reading can vary 10-20ft and that is with no wind. You will tradeoff some lag but it is worth it. Otherwise you will be at risk of detecting apogee while on the pad. A recursive or simple moving average filter will work.

2. You will need a reliable launch detect algorithm. Don't make it too sensitive, see #1.

3. As others have said, design or buy a solid state switch for the output, no relays.

4. For simple apogee and main deployment you do not need to sample fast at all. 10hz with decisions at 1hz is all that is necessary. Actually makes your apogee deployment more immune to noise on the sensor. If you want to sample faster that is fine, but make event decisions on a more slower cadence.

5. if you have a simulation you can use a timer as a backup to your sensor. use that to make sure some event happens to avoid a disaster.

6. Keep your algorithms as simple as possible. You do not have to calculate altitude. You can make all your recovery events based on pressure readings alone.
 
you people are only interested in proven systems. Our rocketry team has 30 members and 7 of them are dedicated to avionics. If we were to use commercial systems we would learn almost nothing and there would be little to no need of us in the team.

Nobody is saying to use a commercial system instead of building your own. People are saying to use one in addition.
 
Keep in mind that what you are doing is difficult. My rocket club has US college teams attend our club launches and they are doing NASA projects. They all use commercial altimeters. I have never seen a 100% successful launch of the competition rocket from these teams. Some launches are total failures and the rocket is destroyed.

Most experienced people in rocketry will tell you, "the up part is easy, the down part is hard." That is a way of saying getting the rocket in the air is a lot easier than getting it back down safely. The majority of failures in rocketry are recovery failures.
 
...and the majority of recovery system failures (at least with commercial altimeters) are NOT due to the electronics. They're mechanical... broken shock cords, jammed payload bays, loose ematch connections that don't fire, switch/battery failures, inadequate charges, stuck parachutes, etc. It's critical that you do a full-up ground test with your deployment system to make sure that it will get the parachutes out. Rolling your own altimeter just adds to the things that can go wrong.
 
I was involved in a custom flight computer effort, from the hardware side, while at Portland State University. If you are serious about building one, you should take a look at the work PSAS is doing: https://psas.pdx.edu/

As has been pointed out already, this is a non-trivial engineering and computer science problem to solve. PSAS has iterated many hardware and software revisions over the past 5+ years since I last contributed. There have been some rockets lost along the way.

Take your time. Talk to your mentors. Think about everything that could go wrong, then think about it all again. Best of luck.
 
I think someone mentioned it above but if you insist on a scratch built avionics system you should employ a decent brownout protection (like strattologger). A very important feature for safety. Another $50 altimeter would just be better if you are doing this much prep. You definitely want at least two sets of numbers. :)
 
As has been pointed out already, this is a non-trivial engineering and computer science problem to solve. PSAS has iterated many hardware and software revisions over the past 5+ years since I last contributed. There have been some rockets lost along the way.

I would say that PSAS is one of the BEST out there with >5 YEARS of effort and a few lost rockets.
Not something that should be included in half-year projects for newbies.
 
I've been mentoring a Turkish team in this contest for about 12 months. It is no understatement how difficult it is to design, code, and build your own avionics. Combining accelerometers, gyroscopes, barometers, and GPS is a significant hardware and software endeavor. Add a radio for live telemetry and now Pandora's Box is open for all sorts of EMI issues.

For what its worth, I've solved all these problems and posted the code out on Github:

https://github.com/SparkyVT/HPR-Rocket-Flight-Computer

Your team could use some or all of my (poorly written) 5000+ lines of code. To date, I have 94 successful flights in different hardware configurations.

As a personal note, I highly disagree with a full-on ban of personally developed avionics. I'd rather allow them but encourage the use of open-source software packages developed by an expert community of practice. This would reduce risk and cost of entry for young people like this team.


Front.JPG Back.JPG
 
I would say that PSAS is one of the BEST out there with >5 YEARS of effort and a few lost rockets.
Not something that should be included in half-year projects for newbies.
Our team is not a half year old team. We recently celebrated 3rd birthday. We just wanted additional information from you people.
 
Spark -- full ban on UN-VALIDATED* flight computers being in command. From ANY source, not just college teams.

Yes -- open source is a GREAT way to start.

* - which begs the question - "what is proper validation?" - an issue you'll see I've been pounding on in this forum for a while.
 
Last edited:
For what its worth, I've solved all these problems and posted the code... I'd rather allow them but encourage the use of open-source software packages developed by an expert community of practice.
Not to run down your contributions, which are obviously more substantive than most posters here, but two points:

1) I don't think anyone here is saying experimental electronics should be banned, only that having a proven commercial backup is inexpensive insurance. I think the OP has unfairly dismissed the minor added cost of this. The contest rules that say the primary and backup avionics have to use different basic sensing techniques are, in a word, stupid IMHO.

2) Open source code could be a good place to start, but I question if starting from something that already works is really meeting the intent of the contest. If I was evaluating the originality of a project, I would give a team zero credit for using unmodified open source, and not a lot of credit for tweaks unless there was some evidence they were based on substantive knowledge.
 
Not to run down your contributions, which are obviously more substantive than most posters here, but two points:

1) I don't think anyone here is saying experimental electronics should be banned, only that having a proven commercial backup is inexpensive insurance. I think the OP has unfairly dismissed the minor added cost of this. The contest rules that say the primary and backup avionics have to use different basic sensing techniques are, in a word, stupid IMHO.

I totally agree 100%. Commercial primary or backup is the way to go. Mine started out as a ride-along with commercial systems doing all the important work. Eventually it became the backup system with a commercial primary. All my big rockets still fly this way. Only the most stable and proven versions fly solo on small rockets.

2) Open source code could be a good place to start, but I question if starting from something that already works is really meeting the intent of the contest. If I was evaluating the originality of a project, I would give a team zero credit for using unmodified open source, and not a lot of credit for tweaks unless there was some evidence they were based on substantive knowledge.

Great point for contests. It will depend on the specific rules. I was more speaking to non-contest flyers. Though for some contests it might still be appropriate. Think about the risk reduction if a proven apogee detection algorithm is used.
 
Spark -- fun ban on UN-VALIDATED* flight computers being in command. From ANY source, not just college teams.

Yes -- open source is a GREAT way to start.

* - which begs the question - "what is proper validation?" - an issue you'll see I've been pounding on in this forum for a while.

Sorry, I should read all the replies before I do the same. I agree with you on the unvalidated computers being in command. I have only done this twice, and would not do it again just because of the pre-flight anxiety involved.

As for proper validation, I think that would ideally come through testing among the community of users. But I'm open to better ideas on this.
 
Sheesh, a whole bunch of negativity here.

I haven't built my own avionics, but I do a lot of building of electronics for other activities, and I've thought a lot about the issues, so here's my take on your question.
1. If your rocket is going to stay below Mach 1, life is easier. A big gotcha for rocket electronics is that, around and above Mach 1, there are shock waves moving around the rocket that can cause Barometric sensors to measure that you've reached apogee, or are perhaps going down, causing them to release parachutes early - and most parachutes don't handle opening well when the rocket is going that fast. Commercial and good amateur avionics will prevent ejection if the rocket is going fast, but getting this right is tricky.
2. If you're using commercial Arduino boards, you'll have to be careful about the connections between them - there can be a lot of G force and vibrations when a rocket motor is firing, which can cause intermittent connections for some connectors. At the very least, you should use screws to hold the boards together so the connections don't flex. I've found that using a 3D printer to build a sled that the avionics get screwed to is remarkably useful.
3. I can think of several different methods for detecting apogee on a rocket - barometric, accelerometer, GPS altitude. For all of them, you'll probably have to consider what's gonna happen at apogee, and develop the appropriate algorithms to filter the raw measurements to detect apogee. For example, an accelerometer is great - but it's very unlikely that your rocket will be vertical after burnout, so you'll have to calculate acceleration as a vector with [X,Y,Z] components. You'll also have to note that, after motor burnout, the rocket will be in free-fall - you'll essentially be measuring a 1G acceleration towards the center of the earth until such time as the rocket impacts the ground. How do you detect that vertical velocity is zero at apogee?
4. When you fire the ejection charges, there's a good chance that you'll see a dead short across the igniter wires. If enough current flows, the battery voltage may drop low enough to reset your processors or confuse your sensors. How do you handle or prevent this?

I think building avionics would be a fun thing to do, and a great experience. I encourage you to give it a go - ask specific questions here ("I'm building my own flight computer, and I'd like suggestions on how to prevent the current surge when firing the ejection charge from resetting my processor"), and you'll likely get good answers. From a practical perspective, I would suggest that building and flying your rocket using a commercially available avionics board while testing your own device with no ejection charges would be the safest approach with the highest likelihood of success. From a cost standpoint, build one or two (or three, or four, depending on your success rate) cheap, throwaway rockets that uses cheap 'B' or 'C' motors to enable you to do a dozen or more test flights without worrying about accidentally destroying your big rocket. What you don't want to do is build your avionics, build your expensive rocket, put them together and light an expensive motor, then not have the ejection charges fire.

I'm sure you've done this already, but searching with Google for "arduino rocket flight computer" got a ton of links to avionics projects people had built with Arduinos. For example, this guy (https://www.altduino.de/) had a great writeup on his development project, showing using his arduino first for data logging, then advancing through a testing regime, all using cheap rockets.

For cheap commercial avionics, you couldn't go wrong with an Eggtimer Quark kit (https://eggtimerrocketry.com/home/altimeters-av-bay/) for $20 US. You'll need someone with the skills to solder surface-mount components onto a PCB, but that should be available somewhere at your university. Getting one into your country might be a problem, or might not - but it's another one of those things that you could ask a specific question here ("I can't get an Eggtimer Quark shipped to my country; can someone buy one and send it to me and I'll reimburse you?") and perhaps get help. If you phrase it well, you might even get someone to loan you one with the promise that you'll ship it back (assuming that it survives your testing program).

One thing you might consider is posting information about your project in a "build" thread - "We're a university team in <country> building our own rocket and avionics for a competition. Here's what we're doing, does anyone know how to solve this problem? We need an altimeter for testing and development of ours, can anyone help us out?". If you provide enough information, pictures, and interest, you can get enough of a following that you'll certainly get lots of armchair advice, and perhaps more. Right now, you've given us almost nothing to be interested in, hence a lot of people just pissing on your parade.

Good luck, hope to hear more from you here.
 
Back
Top