Fresh out on Ted : From mach-20 glider to humming bird drone, Regina Dugan (DARPA) on TED

Hi!

My name's Gabriel.

Basically I am a software developer. My previous work was in the avionics field as a s/w developer. But that was several years ago. Since then I did web dev (Django) and a little bit of native iOS development.

For several years I've been looking on many DIY and commercial UAV projects. And I find the whole thing very interesting and fascinating. 

So I finally started my own project.

It will be a DIY quadcopter. I think that the emphasis will be in video capture and transmission to base during the flight.

Since I'm not experienced in navigation and stabilization software (in terms of math) nor am I experienced in microelectronics I thought that Arduino is a good place to start. Besides it's well crafted.

Buying a ready kit that need only to be assembled is not my way, so I decided to make the task a little bit more creative.

So I ordered some pieces from several shops and got some parts shipped already.

That's the PDB and the propellers. And I'm waiting for the motors, the frame, battery pack, screws and other necessary parts. I haven't ordered yet the main electronics. Will do it during the week or two mainly due to budget issues.

By the way, I started this blog to stay fit in terms of the project and to continuously integrate the MyUAV.

Thanks.

Gary Mortimer at sUAS News spotted this excellent post from the Center for Democracy and Technology that gives the timeline for the FAA rulemaking process on integrating commercial UAVs into the national airspace. Here's the part for non-government drones:

Rules for Non-Government Drones

Nov. 10, 2012: Development of a comprehensive plan
The Secretary must develop a “comprehensive plan” to integrate non-government drones into the national airspace system by Sep. 30, 2015. The plan is required to contain several elements, including recommendations on acceptable standards for operation, certification, and licensing of non-government drones. The recommendations in this plan will influence subsequent rulemakings. Sec. 332(a)(1)-(4).

Aug. 12, 2012: Early integration of "safe" drones
The Secretary must determine if certain types of drones (government and non-government) can operate in the national airspace before completion of the comprehensive plan, rulemakings, or guidance required elsewhere in P.L.112-95. The Secretary must base this determination on whether the drone can perform without hazard to the public or national security. The Secretary must develop rules to integrate these drones into the national airspace, though P.L.112-95 gives no deadline for these rules. Sec. 333(a)-(b).

Feb. 14, 2013: Deadline for the comprehensive plan
The Secretary must submit the final version of the comprehensive plan to Congress. Sec. 332(a)(4). The Secretary must also approve and publish a 5-year roadmap - to be updated annually - for phasing non-government drones into the national airspace. Sec. 332(a)(5).

Aug. 14, 2014: Final rule for non-government drones
The Secretary must publish a final rule that will allow small non-government drones to operate in the national airspace system. Sec. 332(b)(1).

Aug. 14, 2014: Proposed rule to implement the comprehensive plan
The Secretary must issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the recommendations of the comprehensive plan. Sec. 332(b)(2).

Sep. 30, 2015: Integration of non-government drones
This is the target deadline for the completed implementation of the comprehensive plan to integrate non-government drones into the national airspace. Sec. 332(a)(3).

Dec. 14, 2015: Final rule to implement the comprehensive plan
The Secretary must issue the final rule to implement the comprehensive plan. Sec. 332(b)(2).

Very clever one this from Jimmy Prouty @Hanger 18, simple is always best.

Read more http://www.suasnews.com/2012/03/13827/maple-seed-recovery-method/

Photohigher have made a standalone camera gimbal stabilizer optimised to work with their AV130 and AV200 gimbals.

There are some retailers taking pre-orders.  Shipping expected in April.

http://shop.coptercam.com.au/Skyline-RSGS-p/skyline.htm

http://www.uavrotorking.com/

The nice X525 and X1 QuadCopter frames are cheap and light, perfect for beginner as they have suspension legs helping in the hard landings.  This frame also fold and is great for transportation.  More and more people are using it as basic platform and hack it and improve it.  

This new product is to specifically address the carbon fiber motor mount flex issues and stress fatigue failures. 

CNC machined from billet aluminum it is designed to adapt a large range of 28mm and 35mm motors.

These mounts are much stronger than the stock ones and will eliminate the common cracking and vibration issues. The nice bonus is that it's a direct replacement with no modifications necessary.

Designed and cut by Terry at http://smallpartscnc.com They are now on sale for Canadians in my store. 

http://www.canadadrones.com/X1-X525-Aluminum-Motor-Mount-Set-p/x1-motor-mount-set.htm

I know a lot of you did some similar plates but these looks way nicer and are quite lighter as excess aluminium is removed. 

Here is my own home made ones, soon to be replaced by these nice ones! 

Will post picture of them mounted on the Quad as soon as I get them! Should be 5-10 days. 

Dany

www.CanadaDrones.com

http://vimeo.com/39167109

Weight of the system (without GoPro camera): 7.8 ounces

Best, 

Matt

Components: 

Joystick
http://www.parallax.com/tabid/768/Pr...1/Default.aspx

Continuous rotation servo 
http://www.pololu.com/catalog/product/1248

ServoBlock 
http://servocity.com/html/standard_h...rvoblocks.html

Pan/Tilt
http://www.dpcav.com/xcart/product.p...7&cat=0&page=1

Gears 
can't recall, perhaps http://www.hobbyplace.com/robotics/gearbox.php/1

Yet to be implemented: 

Slip/Ring 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI...m=270932139279

Ok, so the heading is a little misleading.  By UAV, Lockheed probably means Umanned Aquatic Vehicle.  They're planning to offer this UAV for sale in late 2012.  But, seriously, maybe we all need to get out of the air and into the water.  Is there such a thing as FSA (Federal Submarine Authority) or does Transport Canada have regulations for submarine vehicles?

Hobbyking just posted this altimeter to their site:

Altimeter is a stand-alone, small, light and convenient unit for recording altitude and temperature changes throughout your flight. Once you have finished flying, you simply plug the altimeter into your computer via the supplied USB interface and download all the recorded flight data which displays an Altitude/Temperature/time graph for each flight.

Specs:
Dimensions: 21x13x5mm
Weight: 1.3g
Connector: 1.25mm pin
Operating Voltage: 3.7~8.4v
Working Current: <7mA
Upload Interface: USB
Height Range: -500~9000m
Height Accuracy: 0.3m
Operating Temp Range: -20c~65c
Temperature Accuracy: 1c
Sampling Fequency: 1hz/2hz/4hz/8hz
Storage Capacity: 63h(1hz)

More information at Hobbyking: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=22630;

Get ready for a lot of these sort of op-eds. Here's one in the LA Times from John Villasenor, a Brookings Institute fellow, who thinks the current FAA rules on RC have got to go. Extra points for anyone who can explain the logic of the bolded sentence below:

Although reasonable people can disagree on how long it would take terrorists to build or acquire weaponized drones that can be guided by video into a target, there's really no dispute that it is a question of when and not if. The day will come when such drones are available to almost anyone who wants them badly enough.

In fact, there is ample evidence that terrorist groups have already experimented with drones. As far back as the mid-1990s — practically ancient history in drone terms — the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo sect that carried out the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway reportedly considered drones. So too have Al Qaeda and the Colombian insurgent group FARC.

Nations with a record of close ties to terrorists are another concern. Iran unveiled a drone in August 2010 that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad managed to describe as an "ambassador of death" and a "message of peace and friendship" in the same sentence.

So what can we do to reduce the risk? One good place to start is the "model aircraft" provision in the new aviation law, which allows hobbyists to operate drones weighing up to 55 pounds with essentially no governmental oversight. The law allows recreational drones to be operated in accordance with "community-based" safety guidelines established by a "nationwide community-based organization." The inclusion of this language was a lobbying victory for model airplane enthusiasts. But is it really in the broader national interest?

It is not. One of the hallmarks of an effective national antiterrorism policy is consistency. The hobbyist exception is glaringly inconsistent with our overall approach to antiterrorism. By what logic, for example, do we prevent airline passengers from taking 8-ounce plastic water bottles through security checkpoints, while permitting anyone who so desires to operate a 50-pound, video-guided drone, no questions asked?

The overwhelming majority of the people in the model airplane and drone hobbyist community would never consider carrying out a terrorist attack. Yet the same could be said for the overwhelming majority of airline passengers, all of whom are subject to the same rules about what can be taken through airport security checkpoints.

Given the realities of the world we live in, it doesn't seem unreasonable to require all civilian U.S. operators of drones capable of carrying a significant payload to obtain a license. A useful model can be found in fishing licenses, which provide an inexpensive, non-burdensome way for government agencies to know who is fishing.

A licensing program obviously wouldn't eliminate the threat of drone terrorism. After all, terrorists won't necessarily feel compelled to get a license. But the federal government has a legitimate national security interest in monitoring domestic drone use. Today, its ability to do so is inadequate. A licensing program would help plug a critical gap in the government's knowledge regarding who should — and shouldn't — be operating drones.

I just finished a long debugging session with Andrew Tridgell and he has discovered the cause of my yaw (and attitude) issues. In case you don't know Andrew Tridgell, he is the genius developer who made the the latest release fly so well with his DCM improvements.

I think the majority of people out there are experiencing this issue can fix the problem very easily.

"So, what is it?!?!"

It turns out that the automatic compass calibration code on the APM does not work so well. I suspect it is working even more poorly under 2.5 because of the improvements to the DCM, but that correlation has not been confirmed. Like most of the users out there, I have never given more than a moments thought to compass offsets because they have been set automatically for as long as I have been a user, but it turns out they have an enormous impact on the performance of one's copter.

First, what are compass offsets? The offsets are three values that account for the difference in the magnetic field of the earth and the magnetic field that your copter experiences due to interference created by the ESCs, motors, etc. So, the magnetic interference can't possible effect heading that much, right? Wrong. If you don't believe me take a look at this graph:

You can see that towards the beginning of the flight when I am not doing much, the red and green lines are not that far off. As the flight continues and I start using more throttle, they are way off. At about 5:20:20 my heading is off by about 250 degrees. That is massive!!!! So why does it change throughout the flight? The more throttle that is applied the more current is flowing through one's electronics which increases the magnetic interference. Normally this field offset is accounted for, but recently I suspect that some users have bad offsets like I did. My offsets were essentially 1,1,1 when they should have been -180,3,52. Check out the next graph which shows the effect throttle has on the magnetic field:

This is a log from another user, Marco Robustini. The green line shows the throttle and the red line shows the magnetic field. You can see that as the throttle increases, the magnetic field more than doubles.

So how do you fix it? There is a new feature in the latest Mission Planner that allows you to use a telemetry log to determine the offsets OR you can calibrate your compass in real time by holding and spinning your copter 360 degrees. It is highly recommended that you use the telemetry log method. The reason is that when you are holding your copter and spinning it, you are not accounting for the amount of mag interference from the motors (because they are hopefully not running :-D ). Follow these steps:

With Telemetry Log (recommended)

1. Connect to your copter via telemetry.

2. Take off and fly around for a few minutes like you would normally fly. At this point we are collecting data about the magnetic fields during flight.

3. Land and disarm.

4. Download the tlog from that flight. (Instructions here: http://code.google.com/p/arducopter/wiki/AC2_Logs)

5. Connect to your board

6. Goto the Configuration tab

7. Click on the Setup tab

8. Click on the Hardware tab in the popup

9. Click the "Calibrate" button

10. Click "No" when asked if you want to use live data.

11. Browse to the fresh tlog

12. Your offsets are now saved

Without Telemetry Log

1. Follow the above steps 1 through 9

2. Click "Yes" when asked to use Live Data

3. Rotate the copter 360 degrees

The calibration utility is leagues ahead of the automatic calibration on the board that most of us are relying on. Many thanks to Andrew Tridgell, Michael Oborne, and all the devs who had a hand in the compass calibration utility in the planner. There is some serious brain power behind these features we take for granted.

Andrew Tridgell is working on improving the automatic calibration routines that reside on the board based on the updated (and original) algorithms by Bill Premerlani, but for now the Mission Planner calibration is everyone's best bet for improved flight performance.

If you have any questions just leave a comment.

Thanks,
Adam

This was actually the first flights performed in the USA. We travel outside to a safe place and test and adjust our equipment, performing measurements and checking how the gear has survived air travel. Obviously it's a good opportunity to play around a bit among red rocks as well ... enjoy :)

Airframe is constructed of thin wall 3/4" aluminum

Controller is APM V2 in the + configuration

Rest of the parts are from HK, list below

Please see the new group Telemetry over cellular IP, which is a gathering place for all those interested in working on IP-enabled UAVs. 

The end goal is a plug-and-play ardupilot telemetry option of comparable cost to Xbee (or less). It should provide bi-directional telemetry and control over TCP/IP using the cellular network. 

But wait, what about DroneCell? Or ... that iPhone guy!

While there are several threads on this topic and many people have reported various levels of success using DroneCell or a Telit module or an iPhone, there is no off-the-shelf system with libraries and documentation comparable to the Xbee based solution. This group is for those who want such a solution and want to build it. 

Here's a logical mock up of such a telemetry system:

So, if you're interested in exchanging ideas and building prototypes for IP-enabled UAVs with cellular links, join the group:

http://diydrones.com/group/telemetry-over-cellular-ip

Outdoor scenerio demo

From the Robot Operating System news:

Announcement from Johannes Meyer and Stefan Kohlbrecher of Team Hector Darmstadt to ros-users

We are happy to announce the hector_quadrotor stack. While impressive results have been demonstrated by different groups using real quadrotor UAVs and ROS in the past, to our knowledge so far there is no solution available for comprehensive simulation of quadrotor UAVs using ROS tools.

We hope to fill this gap with the hector_quadrotor stack. Using the packages provided, a quadrotor UAV can be simulated in gazebo, similar to other mobile robots. This makes it possible to record sensor data (LIDAR, RGB-D, Stereo..) and test planning and control approaches in simulation.

The stack currently contains the following packages:

• hector_quadrotor_urdf provides an URDF model of our quadrotor UAV. You can also define your own model and attach our sensors and controllers to it.
• hector_quadrotor_gazebo contains launch files for running gazebo and spawning quadrotors.
• hector_quadrotor_gazebo_plugins contains two UAV specific plugins: a simple controller that subscribes to a geometry_msgs/Twist topic and calculates the required forces and torques and a sensor plugin that simulates a barometric altimeter. Some more generic sensor plugins not specific to UAVs (IMU, Magnetic, GPS, Sonar) are provided by package hector_gazebo_plugins in the hector_gazebo stack.
• hector_quadrotor_teleop contains a node and launch files for controlling the quadrotor using a joystick or gamepad.
• hector_quadrotor_demo provides sample launch files that run the quadrotor simulation and hector_slam for indoor and outdoor scenarios.

As many users of real quadrotors can probably confirm, testing with the real thing can lead to broken hardware quickly in case something goes wrong. We hope our stack contributes to a reduction of the number of broken quadrotor UAVs in research labs around the world

We plan to convert the plugins for Gazebo 1.0.0 as soon as ROS fuerte is released.

Indoor simulation:

After Many weeks of designing, Cutting, testing then redesigning, recutting and retesting we are happy with what we have created....

We call it the Razor; a Quadcopter made entirely from 1,5mm GFK. We wanted to create something that caught the eye, something different but at the same time keeping all the key factors in mind. We have test flown it with Ardupilot mega 1 using the default PID settings and it is solid as a rock. ( Not that we was expecting anything less from Ardupilot mega) We have pre drilled holes for APM 1 and 2, Xbee kit, Sonar and the power distro board.

The hood on the top is removable by sliding it back, keeping the Electronics protected but still giving easy access.

  The frame is CNC cut by ourselves in germany.

For more info click here. (Also avalable in english)

What Do You Think?

Luke cooke

www.Foamzone.de

Operation Aphrodite

This is our first FPV and RC the granddaddy

After seeing the video in youtube i did a quick lookup on wiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Aphrodite and Anvil were the World War II code names of United States Army Air Forces and United States Navy operations to use B-17 and PB4Y bombers as precision-guided munitions against bunkers such as those of Operation Crossbow.^[1]

OK, to explain, i finally got the autopilot sorted and installed in a test plane and all went according to plan, until the wing support failed on my manual flying back to land. what takes away the pain is that it wasn't in my full size plane, that I maidened last weekend successfully with 2 x 8 minute flights.

This was my first successful attempt at getting the APM to first stabilize and then circle RTL, it was on the 4th and now final flight that we were trying to fly to some way-points that I caused the plane to crash. lucky though the plane came down in the carpark (between the bmw and landcruiser) and the APM module seems to be intact, so bining a $60 plane was worth it.

Next stage is to get the next test plane happening before transferring to "richies UAV" ( i might have to give it a model name- maybe MARK I).

"Richies UAV" - Mark 1 in test flight mode. OK the cardboard on top looks rough, but it flew, next step is to make some covers and mount a camera.

Flight Control Box, FITPC2 - 12 Volt micro computer - running Win7Pro, with Samsung 19inch (model S19A450BW) runing on 12 Volt Dc 24AH Gel Cell, the computer uses 9 watts and the monitor about 19 Watts and is quite clear in daylight, and was the hardest thing to find that didn't use alot of power, I also looked at some 12inch screens from China but they did not have the screen definition to use as a computer monitor.

Richie

I've spent the last few years as an undergrad at MIT working on human factors issues related to quadrotors and their operators. Since this project wasn't about controls or vehicle development, we purchased aircraft from UAV vendors. The experience was less than ideal. In particular, the cost of the vehicles was about $6k, which given the components, 

just seemed outrageous when an RC helicopter can get down to $50. In light of how wonderfully unregulated the world of amateur UAV work is compared to industry or academia, I have been thinking about what it would take to do better myself. In particular, our human factors research indicated that systems with a human in the loop didn't need to be nearly as stable and precise in their movements as we had thought. So with this is in mind, I started to design a vehicle.

To be honest, controllers are kinda magical to me. I had to learn some basics when I took 6.01 at MIT, but I was overjoyed when that unit ended. Three years have since passed, and I now only have vague memories of something about poles, a letter 's', and graphs of underdamped oscillatory systems.

So I am starting an experiment. I have an RC helicopter, barely enough skill to keep it from crashing, Matlab, and a pile of Arduino and RC-related electronics. My first goal will be to give myself automated height control of the vehicle.

(Please note: as someone without a controls or aeroastro bone in my body, if I'm doing this hilariously wrong, please let me know.)

My strategy looks like this:

1. Attach an Arduino, ArduIMU, and RC receiver together on the aircraft.
2. Code up an integrator loop running on the ArduIMU to provide a dead reckoning estimate of Z motion.
3. Log a timestamped series of readings matching the aircraft height to throttle inputs.
4. Apply Matlab and rub vigorously.
5. Repeat step 4 every few days until satisfied.

Step 4 and 5 really mean this: develop a model of the aircraft behavior that matches the real world. I'm assuming that the vehicle is a point mass with two forces acting on it, gravity and thrust. If this really is the case, then given a functional relationship between the RC throttle command and thrust, I can sum the forces, use Newton's first law, integrate the acceleration, and provide a model of the expected Z behavior. Since I have the logged Z behavior to compare it to, I can see whether my predicted behavior matches the real behavior of the vehicle. In a picture:

If the model matches the real work reasonably well, then there is cake! If it doesn't, then I go back to my Matlab pit of despair and see what I did wrong. Once I have this model, then I can do something scary like design a controller. Which might look like this:

At least two demons lurk in these diagrams: delays and linearity. I would be thrilled to discover that there is insignificant lag in the forward portion of this controller and the thrust is a linear function of some maximum thrust value. I suspect that these assumptions will be mostly, but not completely, true. Fortunately, they may be good enough that I am satisfied with the results, and I don't need to mess with it any further.

My parts are ordered, I have a trip to take this weekend, and then I will be back on spring break to see how well it works! 

Just a little basic lesson in how gyros work... for us newbs.

Dragonflies are always leading the way.  When we have hyper~efficient dragonfly~wingsystems, the rotor will be made Model~T~obsolete. But that's down the road a tad....