Category Archives: Mach 30 Projects
DIY Ground Station, Part 1
By Aaron Harper
Communication is a fundamental part of intelligence; it is one of the things that makes us human. It should come as no surprise that a foundational technology to mankind’s reach into space is his ability to communicate. To communicate with a spacecraft, a specialized set of equipment is required. It requires a computer, radio, antenna, and operator. While this sounds fairly straightforward, space throws us a few curves.
The first issue is literally a curve… the curvature of the earth and to a lesser degree the local terrain. This is an issue because a spacecraft is only visible to any given spot on earth for a small part of it’s orbit. It would really help to know in advance where the spacecraft will be at any given time in order to prepare for the communication. As you would expect, this is possible with the application of mathematics
The second issue is that to remain in orbit, the spacecraft is moving at a fairly high velocity, and thus the time it is visible (called a window) can be quite short if it is in low earth orbit (LEO). At a higher orbit, the craft remains visible for longer as it’s apparent motion is slower until you get to the geostationary altitude of 22,236 miles, when the apparent motion matches the earth’s rotation, making it stationary relative to a fixed point on the earth.
A third issue is the orientation of the spacecraft. While it is generally safe to assume the business end of the antenna will be pointed at the surface of the earth, but what is up, down, left, and right makes a difference in standard antennas. The craft will cross over different parts of the ground at different angles (skew), so a standard vertical or horizontally polarized antenna will require constant fiddling like the rabbit ears on an old TV.
The fourth issue relates to the apparent (relative) velocity of the spacecraft. Like anything else in motion producing a waveform, the doppler shift applies. As a train approaches the sound of the horn is higher than when it departs because the sound waves are compressed by the motion of the train relative to the listener (you). The satellite, which is moving at a good clip relative to the ground station shifts the radio frequency as well, making tuning rather challenging.
The final issue is that radio signals become weaker as the distance increases (inverse-square law). A very bright flashlight will be barely visible, if at all, on a distant mountain. This is because as the light travels outward, less and less photons reach our eyes until it is below our ability to perceive it. Spacecraft are a fairly long way away when in orbit, not to mention when they are visiting distant worlds, so receiving their signals becomes quite challenging.
Without solving these issues, stable radio communication with space assets is impossible. Fortunately, these problems have already been solved for us, and it is these solutions working in concert that become a 21st century ground station. Today a ground station designed to receive voice and data traffic from spacecraft such as ISS may be constructed using common components for under $200.00, not the millions it cost NASA.
A computer running software to predict a satellite pass is the first component of a ground station. This will easily predict satellite passes, giving us the craft’s precise location in the sky at any given time, though it generally will not take terrain into account. GPredict is a free, open source program that has an intuitive interface, displaying the data on a table or the view on a map or polar graph. With some plug-ins, it also solves a few of the other issues as well.
The skew issue is solved by using circular polarization which only cares if the signal is sent with a right hand or left hand polarization (imagine a spiral from the spacecraft to the ground station), not which way the transmit and receive antennas are oriented. This is a function of antenna design, and a bit of a “black art” compared to the rest of the solutions. This brings us to a decision… to point or not to point.
There are plenty of omnidirectional circular polarized antenna designs, but they have a weakness. An antenna which points in all directions at once can only increase the signal (gain) by a factor of 8 as a theoretical maximum (+9dB), while antennas which focus on one direction (directional antennas) can go much higher, bringing in the weak signals. The disadvantage is that the higher the antenna gain, the more directional the pattern, and the more precisely the antenna must be aimed. This increases complexity, mass, and expense. Always a tradeoff.
The ability to point a directional array, while technically optional for LEO spacecraft, is mandatory for anything in geostationary orbit or beyond. The mechanism used to point the antenna or array of antennas are largely up to the imagination of the engineer, but they must be made to point accurately enough so that the spacecraft stays within the peak gain area (lobe) of the antenna and it is able to do so in high wind without damage. Keep in mind that flat panel antennas as well as dishes make excellent sails on blustery days.
Now, wouldn’t it be nice if the prediction software such as GPredict were able to sent the direction of the spacecraft to the pointing assembly (Az-El mount)? Most can! In GPredict, a module called hamlib may be added which facilitates the communications between the computer running GPredict and equipment including Az-El mounts. That said, for the sub-$200.00 ground station, an omnidirectional antenna will be used.
Since the position and velocity of the craft are known, the prediction software may be used to calculate the anticipated doppler shift during the satellite pass. Using this information in GPredict, some radios may be tuned directly using the hamlib plugin. This makes running a modern, well integrated ground station a relatively simple process. As a spacecraft comes into view, simply select it on the software and the hamlib plugin will point the antenna and keep the radio in tune. This solves all but the last issue in setting up a ground station, that of signal strength.
Major factors which contribute to the ability of a signal to reach from the transmitter to the receiver are the output power of the transmitter, the gain of the transmitter antenna, the distance (inverse square of the distance, as mentioned before), the gain of the receive antenna, and the sensitivity of the receiver. Unless we designed it, we don’t have much control over the transmitter output power, antenna gain, or the distance (orbital altitude) of the spacecraft. This leaves the receive antenna gain and receiver sensitivity as areas the builder of a ground station can optimize things.
Fortunately for us, modern radio receivers have really improved. Back in the day, we were lucky to get a sensitivity figure of -84dB, but today a $20.00 USB dongle is capable of -114dB. To put this into perspective, every 3dB difference essentially doubles the measurement in this logarithmic scale. This means that the 30dB difference represents a real improvement of 2 to the 10th power, or 1024. In English, a modern USB dongle receiver available on Ebay or Amazon is over 1000 times more sensitive than those used in the 60’s that communicated with our astronauts on the moon!
Sensitivity and low cost isn’t the only thing these receivers have going for them. those same receivers which had the 84dB sensitivity were capable of tuning only within a fairly narrow band (406 – 549 Mhz). The dongle (a Realtek RTL2832u TV receiver) is capable of tuning 24MHZ to roughly 1850MHz by way of comparison. Simply put, this dongle makes the bridge between a modern computer and an antenna, turning it into the ground station Apollo era engineers could only dream of. The only wildcard is the antenna.
While there are many antenna designs, to keep the ground station simple and below $200.00, we must select the best omnidirectional solution instead of building (and paying for) an Az-El mount. A little research has shown a simple design with excellent gain characteristics that can be built by a hobbyist; the “eggbeater” antenna. As it’s name suggests, this antenna’s design looks like an eggbeater with two wire loops at 90 degrees to one another. This antenna is circularly polarized, and has a gain of around 8dB. Construction details are available at here.
This leaves one final component. The operator is a person with the responsibility and/or interest to operate the ground station. They have the knowledge of how the systems work, and get usable audio and/or data from the system. While a license (FCC amateur radio, ham license) is not required for reception in the United States, local, homeowner association, and national regulations vary. Check if in doubt. That said, a ham license will be required for the next step: transmitting.
Transmitting voice and data is required for most use of space based assets and real communication. This will be the subject of the next $200.00 project write up, and as said before, the use will require an FCC license. A technician class ham radio license is quite easy to get, with no requirement to learn morse code. The concepts you will learn in getting one will serve you well as an operator of a full fledged ground station. Transmitting capability is an upgrade to the ground station that will take your equipment to the next level and will let you use space for your communication needs. Stay tuned!
Everyone involved with Mach 30 is always learning and growing, whether it be from conversations on social media outlets like Facebook or Google+, activities like the book club , or our weekly Hangouts. Another way we learn is by simply doing. When we started our Shepard Test Stand hardware project, we weren’t exactly sure how things were going to work. There was no tried and true method for developing spaceflight hardware using a tool like Open Design Engine (ODE), and we knew there would be growing pains. That’s one of the many reasons we started with a small scale project like Shepard instead of tackling something bigger.
Our engineering process was largely created and refined during the course of that first test stand project, and is now being applied (and further refined) in the creation of our newest project – a satellite tracking Ground Station . One of the things that’s been most interesting to me to watch has been how certain pieces of a project are best developed. The first thing I noticed is that there is a lot of power in spinning up a forum post on a step in the design process and then letting the discussion take its own course. Using the ODE forums for the initial discussion has two main advantages that I see:
- It gives everyone a chance to participate. If we hold a Google+ Hangout at 5PM EST in the U.S. to do the design of a widget from scratch, people in other U.S. timezones (or parts of the world) may very well not get a chance to participate. Posting a step of the design process on the forums and then leaving it for a day or two, or until the discussion runs its course, allows more people to give their input.
- It gives everyone a chance to think. Sometimes you just need to sit on a thought for a day or two before your ideas really become clear. You might have even posted an idea to the forums earlier in a day, and then a better way of doing that thing, or a major flaw in your idea sends you right back to the forums to post a retraction or revision. Using this form of communication gives you that time to think.
In some cases, the forums are all you need to complete a step in our engineering process. For example, on the Ground Station project we were able to complete steps 1 through 3 of our engineering process without ever having a face-to-face meeting. In step 1 we answered the high level whys and hows of the project. Questions like “Why are we building this?” and “How is this going to be used?” are what we tackle here. Step 3 involves creating a diagram so that it’s easy to see all the parts of what we want to build and how they all fit together. Then step 2 of the engineering process, which involves creating requirements that use words like “must” and “shall”, naturally come out of step 1. Requirements create a measuring stick that helps us make sure a project is doing what it’s supposed to.
Now, all of that is not meant to give the idea that forums are the be-all and end-all of project communication. One you’ve had the initial discussions in the forums, we’ve found that it’s often best to do those “in person” meetings using tools like Google+ Hangouts to help solidify and finalize decisions. This seems to be especially important with things like mechanical, electrical, and software design which often are easier to finalize when discussed face to face. On our preliminary design for instance, which is where we come up with a rough idea of what parts we need for a project, we may start out in the forum to give everyone a chance to contribute, but then we hold a Hangout to finalize the preliminary design. We discuss in real-time what everyone has put forth in the forum and distill it all down to a plausible design.
We realize that our processes will continue to evolve and be refined as we continue our work to enable the human race’s journey to the stars. Each project we do brings with it new lessons and opportunities for growth both on a personal level, and an organizational one. We encourage you to join us as we grow towards completing our mission.
Maureen and I had lunch with Jerry from Maui Makers and the Hackerspace Space Program a couple of weeks ago. We talked about a number of things including Open Design Engine, Makerspaces (which led to a brief tour of Dayton Diode), and Open Source Hardware.
It was our conversation around open source hardware which had me thinking back to our meeting days later. We started off talking about the usual stuff: licensing, the new Open Source Hardware Association, and of course we talked about open source spaceflight.
But then, sitting there in a Panera Bread over coffee and snacks, the conversation turned toward questions we don’t always address when talking about open source hardware. Questions like:
- “What should happen to abandoned projects on sites like Open Design Engine?” – Well, we should keep them up for others to learn from or fork into new projects, which is what Source Forge does.
- “But won’t that eventually lead to lots of incomplete projects?” – Probably, which on the surface sounds like a “bad thing”, especially if there are many more abandoned projects than completed or active ones.
- “And what if the reason the project was abandoned was it just didn’t work? What if it was a failure???” – People really don’t like to share their failures…
- “But, wouldn’t you want to know about the things that didn’t work so you don’t have to discover that for yourself?” – Well, yes. . . Of course. . .
And then it happened: the light bulb flashed on, and we started talking very excitedly about science, engineering, publishing, and how hardly anyone writes about their failures. They only share their successes. In fact, if someone were to publish one of their failures, their peers would stare at them with bewildered expressions and ask “What are you thinking?”
It was Maureen who put it best, pointing out that we need to change the culture so people’s reaction becomes “What do you mean you didn’t share your failure?!?!“
In that spirit, allow me to present an update on Mach 30′s first open source hardware project, including the good with the bad, so we can all learn from the progress Mach 30 has made.
Things have been very busy at the Shepard Test Stand. Since announcing the project in May, we have completed the requirements analysis, the block diagram, and are working steadily through Shepard’s design. That’s pretty good news. We also submitted two Shepard related presentation proposals to the Open Hardware Summit.
The first submission was a plenary session presentation looking at the engineering process used to develop Shepard and the instrumental role Open Design Engine played in the process. The second submission was a demo of the Shepard Test Stand. We were disappointed when our plenary presentation was not accepted, but were pleased to be included as one of the demo projects.
So Shepard has had its share of successes, but what about the failures? Where have things not gone as planned? The most significant challenge for Shepard is our schedule. We are more than a month behind, and we now have a confirmed deadline of September 27, 2012 to conduct a public demonstration of the test stand. This gives us just short of two months to complete the design (which is mercifully nearing completion), assemble, test, and document Shepard. That is a tight time frame, especially given our work to date.
So, how did we get so far behind schedule?
I see two driving factors. First, we were probably a little aggressive in the scope of Shepard, and in the time we allotted ourselves to complete the project–especially when you consider this was our first open source hardware project. Second, we split our focus between Shepard and our work on the Far Horizons Project High Altitude Balloon. Our group of volunteers is still pretty small, and many ended up working on both projects. With limited time, something had to give. At the time, the deadlines associated with the High Altitude Balloon (HAB) launch meant that Shepard’s timeline that had to give.
Still, with the current round of development work on the HAB basically wrapped up, we will be turning our full attention to the Shepard Test Stand. Hopefully, we can find a way to get caught back up and be ready for the Open Hardware Summit.
Only time will tell.