LOHAN test flight: Results in from Oz jury
Andrew Tridgell picks over Vulture 2 avionics logs
Low Orbit Helium Assisted Navigator (LOHAN) brain surgeons Linus Penzlien and Andrew Tridgell* have scrutinised the log flies from the recent test flight which saw a Pixhawk autopilot, batteries and servos (pictured below) sent aloft to 27,700m to determine in real-world conditions how the Vulture 2 spaceplane's bulging electronics package would handle the cold.
We'll get to the results in a moment, but first up is another tip of the hat to our US allies at Edge Research Lab, who carried the "LOHAN Experiment: Stratospheric Test of Energy Reserves" (LESTER)** payload on their EDGE17 flight.
The mission's principal objective was to test the "BEACON e-field sensor" as part of the "Balloon Enabled Atmospheric Conditions Observation Network" project. Ultimately, Edge will release a sensor cluster into a thunderstorm "in an effort to more accurately profile the electrical characteristics of convective weather", and there's more on their electrifying work right here.
As you can see from the entertaining video above, EDGE17 was a textbook operation, and we got our avionics back in good shape, with the servos still operating in the custom APM AUTO mode command MAV_CMD_NAV_ASCEND_WAIT, which wiggles the servos every 15 seconds to prevent them freezing on the ascent to Vulture 2 launch altitude. There's more info on this and other custom LOHAN parameters/commands here.
Pixhawk peripherals along for the ride were a GPS/magnetic compass unit and a digital airspeed sensor identical to the one already installed in the Vulture 2's very pointy beak. The autopilot was powered by four Energizer Ultimate Lithium AAs, and the servos by eight of the same batteries.
So, what's the verdict? First up, while the external temperature dropped to a nippy -50°C, inside the enclosure was a positively balmy 0°C, pretty well in line with our experience on previous test flights, and what we expect to happen inside the spaceplane when the big day arrives.
We'll now hand you over to Tridge for a breakdown of the other results:
First the easy bits. The two 3-axis accelerometers worked perfectly, as did the gyros. The way we can tell they worked well is they matched. That is the advantage of having redundent sensors of different types. When they match you can be pretty confident both are right.
The internal compass also seems to have worked well, at least to the degree we can tell from the log. We can only really look at whether it gave plausible readings, not whether it was actually correct, as we have no way to validate it in a balloon. Once we are in fixed wing flight we can properly validate it, but in a balloon you can move in any direction, so compass can't be checked against other sensors.
The airspeed is interesting....
The blue line is the actual airspeed reading, which is apparent airspeed. It was very noisy over a small range. The green line is the true airspeed calculated by TECS during the flight by using the EAS2TAS ratio. The red line is the GPS vertical velocity, which ideally should match the true airspeed.
The GPS vertical speed and true airspeed do follow the same curve, but are offset by a factor of around 1.5. It would be nice to work out why that is.
I think there are two likely causes:
1) Looking at the logs, I see that it had quite a large ARSPD_OFFSET, probably because the electronics wasn't warmed up enough on the ground before airspeed calibration. That is something we can fix for the next flight. We need to cover the sensor loosely for several minutes, then get the GCS to do a airspeed calibration (offset zero) before removing the cover.
2) It could be the placement of the airspeed sensor, and that we're not getting clean airflow over it. Looking at the setup here...
I wonder if the edge of the box is interrupting the airflow? I suspect the problem was the offset, but if we do another test flight it would be good to get the airspeed sensor in clean air.