Low-cost Near Space Without HAM Radios or Cellphones

 by NearSpaceLuke
Contest WinnerFeatured
moon_at_116k_feet.JPG
After researching near space balloon projects and launching two of my own I've found that the major hurdle is in communication with the balloon payload. Many near space ballooners are using HAM radio equipment to track their balloons through triangulation or APRS data transmissions. That's all well and good if you have a HAM license and the experience to know what equipment and frequencies to use. The non-HAM ballooners are using cellphones or cellular modules to send SMS messages for tracking the flight. Cellular modules work pretty well up to 40k feet altitudes with good external antennas, but above that altitude there will be no communication from the payload. It's a bit nerve racking not knowing what's going on with the payload for more than half of the flight. Cellular coverage isn't always available in the best launch locations in the U.S.

I discovered that the communications challenge is very simple with the right hardware. The XTend900 radio from Digi (http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9411 ) and a high gain patch antenna (http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=20447 ) can keep you in communication with the payload for the entire flight and can even provide enough bandwidth to transmit small pictures. This instructable will focus on the minimum set of hardware to get you into near space, capture those spectacular photos, and track your payload to recovery.

For information on my last near space flight, Night Sky, visit barney.gonzaga.edu/~lwardens
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 1: GPS Tracking

Your near space project will be a disaster if you don't know where the payload lands. The easiest way to track the flight is with a GPS receiver. Not all GPS receivers are equal, though. Some receivers can track 30+ satellites at a time, report the position 10 times a second, and output the raw data from the satellites. We aren't making an unmanned aerial drone, and even if we were there are only 12 GPS satellites in view of a hemisphere at one time...don't get suckered into buying an expensive GPS because the numbers are impressive. The one important thing is to get a receiver that can operate above 60k feet altitudes. Many receivers stop working above that altitude due to international export restrictions and what not.

For my projects I have used the GS407 receiver (http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9436). This is a small receiver with a helical antenna that gets great reception. The U-Blox chipset can interface with the U-Center software to set all the device parameters and update the satellite almanac for faster startup times (http://www.u-blox.com/en/evaluation-tools-a-software/u-center/u-center.html). Using U-Center you can also update the "dynamic platform Model" which allows this receiver to operate above 60k feet. You must set the dynamic platform model to "Airborne < 2g" or higher to operate above 60k feet. I'll discuss how to change that setting after we have the GPS and radios connected.

For now all we have to do to the GS407 is solder 4 wires on. In the picture you can see that the serial communication comes out of pins 3 & 4 of the U-Blox module. Pin 6 is VCC or power and pin 14 is ground, which you also need as a reference for the serial bus. Solder a wire to each of these pins, you should be able to do it without a microscope using 30 gauge solid core wire. If you use 4 different color wires you'll make your life easier, too. If you feel nervous about soldering these wires you can buy a breakout board (http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10496) for the GS407 that will provide slightly larger holes to solder to, but you're still going to have to solder.
1-40 of 59Next »
rdx227 says: May 7, 2013. 9:41 PM
Hello, I'm slightly confused as to which parts go onto the payload and which stay on the ground. From your descriptions I got:
Payload
- 1 GS407
- 1 breakout board w/ resistor
- 1 battery
- 1 antenna
Ground
- 1 XTend 900 radio module
- 1 uUSB-MB5
- 1 breakout board w/ resistor
However, the numbers don't match up and I can't seem to find where/how the second XTend 900 radio module connects. Any mention of the XTend 900 radio module only refer to it being connected to the PC. Could you please clarify?
If I follow the numbers you give in step 9, would that would suggest that the second antenna is on the ground connected to the XTend 900 radio and the second XTend 900 radio is in the payload, connected to the antenna (by the way, does that connection need an adapter?) and the breakout board. Since the GS407 also needs to be connected to a breakout board, do they share one?
Thank you
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to rdx227May 8, 2013. 6:03 AM
Step 2 says that you need to solder the wires from the GS407 to the XTend breakout board. I assumed you'd know to plug in your second XTend radio to that breakout board. You'll have this set of connections when you're done:
Balloon payload:
-GS407->XTend breakout->XTend radio->antenna

Ground Station:
-Antenna->XTend radio->XTend breakout->uUSB-MB5->Computer
omass says: Apr 14, 2013. 12:43 AM
Hey! Great tutorial but I was wondering- how could get immidiate data transactions?
If you live on a small island, it tends to fly into the sea :P Any suggestions will be appreciated!
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to omassApr 16, 2013. 9:19 AM
There won't be a way to stop it from flying into the water, unless you plan on a payload that can fly itself back to you (this is illegal in the U.S. without impossible to get waivers from the FAA).

You can increase the rate of NMEA messages from the GPS reciever to 5 per second on the GS407. Your best bet, if you must launch from an island, is to make your payload waterproof and buoyant. Do very careful flight plan predictions, fill your balloon precisely to get the rate of ascent right, pick your parachute for proper rate of descent, and get a fast boat so you can be at the landing zone before the payload lands. If you make the payload so it floats with the antenna facing up, you should be able to receive the signal well over a mile away from the payload. If the antenna is under water...you'll never hear from it again.

Might be cool to make the payload an autonomous boat that drives itself back to the closest shoreline.
jkarimi says: Mar 31, 2013. 5:24 PM
what was the peak altitude that your gps module was able to function at? Many of the devices I see on spark fun show that they have an upper limit of 18,000 ft due to COCOM regulations. Also the module you used is retired however there is a new model GS407, will the Airborne adjustment work on this new model?
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to jkarimiApr 1, 2013. 6:45 AM
The altitude measurements aren't actually limited by regulations and neither are the speed of movement...unless you plan on exporting your device outside the country (this statement is sure to get a bunch of comments from armchair experts). Using the dynamic platform setting of <2G airborne for the GS407 I had, you can get altitude readings from ground to the maximum theoretical GPS altitude.

With the new GS407, the setting is the same <2G airborne, but it is no longer under the NAV section. It's now in the NAV2 or NAV5 depending on the firmware version you have. You'll still see the NAV, NAV2, and NAV5 sections with any firmware version, so the easiest thing to do is set it in all three. Then it's done and you didn't have to worry about reading out the firmware version.
buckeyeguy says: Mar 9, 2013. 4:51 PM
How about an update on connecting the GPS with the new model GS407. It doesn't look like the same connectors are available to solder to? I'm pretty much electronically challenged, so figuring it out is way beyond me.
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to buckeyeguyMar 10, 2013. 12:53 PM
Ok, so it's a bit easier now actually. The GS407 uses a better connector and Sparkfun is offering cables with the connector attached. Get yourself one of the cables. Then clip off the connector that you don't need, strip the wires for TX, RX, VBAT, and GND. Then follow the rest of the instructions in this instructable using those wires. You can see the pinout of the connector in the GS407 datasheet on page 4. Pin 3 -> RX, Pin 4 ->TX, Pin 6 -> VBAT, Pin 1 -> GND.
CaPhysicsTeacher says: Feb 8, 2013. 10:55 AM
Dear NearSpaceLuke,
I am an AP Physics teacher. I want my students to do this as a class project. I will get all the materials then they will follow your instructions. Do you think 17-18 year old students would be able to complete this project?
Thanks in advance for your advice.
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to CaPhysicsTeacherMar 10, 2013. 12:46 PM
This is a good project for 17-18 year olds until the balloon gets in the air. Small balloons take about 4 hours to launch, track, and recover. The kids will probably get tired of waiting for it to land. If you aren't paying attention to the balloon and following it closely you may not be able to recover it.
ninfan1 says: Oct 20, 2012. 7:13 PM
Hello everyone. I've been researching and preparing for my first launch for weeks and recently have been scouting launch and landing sites. I'm working with the CUSF Landing Projector program now and have a minor question. When inputting my launch date, it already shows the date one day ahead of where I'm located now (I live in Florida ). I'm having a few issues converting EST to UTC time when it crosses over to the next day. For instance, if it's 9 pm here in Florida right now and I'm planning on a 10 am launch, what would I need to do. How far ahead will the program let me predict? Thank for any insight.

** I'm just running simulations to get used to the program for now as I research and build my payload etc. I do seem to be able to run current simulations if I leave the date as it is and launch tiem by default.
ninfan1 in reply to ninfan1Oct 21, 2012. 11:10 AM
In regards to the CUSF Landing Predictor, I'm following the step by step instructions I saw on this page and inputting my payload weight info etc correctly I believe. The projector y path and landing site look correct, but when compared to the wind directions I see on local Dopler it seems to be going to wrong direction. Is this normal, or am I doing something wrong. Local wind directions are out of the NE which I would think would make my payload travel SW. Thank you for any insight.

Jason
ninfan1 in reply to ninfan1Oct 21, 2012. 12:08 PM
Ok, so I apparnetly was not looking at the jetstream wind direction! Looking closer at my projected path, I now can see the lower level winds effecting the path correctly and then the upper level winds taking over. Learning more each day:

Jason
robotkid249 says: Aug 23, 2012. 2:09 PM
If you're interested my new instructable on near space balloons is published!

http://www.instructables.com/id/My-Space-Balloon-Project-Stratohab-Success-High/
Dg613 says: Feb 23, 2012. 4:04 AM
Hi nearspaceluke

It would be great if you help me build the tracker. I am based in Australia and would love your input.

Up to it?
tstowe says: Feb 7, 2012. 4:11 PM
Here is a better site: http://nearspaceventures.com/w3Baltrak/readyget.pl
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to tstoweFeb 8, 2012. 6:54 AM
I actually don't like that site at all. The predictions come out just fine, but the user interface is garbage. The plot track to Google Maps never works, either.
tstowe in reply to NearSpaceLukeFeb 8, 2012. 9:10 AM
That's the only one I use. It's usually VERY accurate. I've had it the prediction be off by less than a mile. I also like that you can look at the raw data and see lat., long. and alt. throughout the prediction (so I can compare it to the actual numbers during the flight).

I also don't think I've ever had a problem looking at the prediction in Google Map.
Jack A Lopez says: Aug 23, 2011. 7:17 PM
Is there a reason why you are using helium, rather than hydrogen, as the lifting gas? I kinda thought that H2 would be cheaper, and provide more lift for the same volume balloon, but maybe there's some other reason, like maybe your local welding store won't sell you hydrogen.  Just curious about that part, I mean your choice for lifting gas.
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to Jack A LopezAug 24, 2011. 6:52 AM
Hydrogen is probably cheaper, and it is a marginally better lifting gas. It's also exponentially more dangerous than helium. Sellers in my area don't like to sell in large quantities to amateurs and the tiny bit of extra lift isn't really worth the added dangers in my mind.

However, I'm thinking about making a rockoon in the near future. The balloon would lift a rocket to altitude and then the rocket would shoot right through the balloon. It would be crazy awesome to see a giant hydrogen explosion as the rocket goes through the balloon!
tstowe in reply to NearSpaceLukeNov 13, 2011. 2:25 PM
Hydrogen is cheaper by almost half. It has 8% more lift than helium.
blinkyblinky in reply to NearSpaceLukeSep 21, 2011. 9:00 PM
Actually, the probability of it actually exploding is very high because Hydrogen is one of the alkali metals (not exactly.)
tstowe in reply to blinkyblinkyNov 13, 2011. 2:27 PM
I wouldn't say the probability is high. It will burn. If mixed with oxygen it will explode. But for either of these to happen there has to be an open flame or a spark. Don't smoke and ground everything.
blinkyblinky in reply to tstoweNov 13, 2011. 4:13 PM
Remember what happened to the Hindenburg???
tstowe in reply to blinkyblinkyNov 13, 2011. 5:17 PM
Yes, and remember what has happened to the dozens of other groups who do high altitude balloon flights and use hydrogen all over the country....nothing. A pencil is dangerous if you don't use it correctly.

I've done five high altitude balloon launches (www.thetalon.smugmug.com/misc/space). If you use it safely, there's nothing wrong with using hydrogen. It's cheaper (a cylinder rents for $60. The same size helium is over $100) and it has more lift by volume. We are looking at doing a flight to break the altitude record in June. If we try it, we will be using hydrogen.
tstowe says: Oct 13, 2011. 5:57 PM
177k feet? Are you sure? If so, you set a new record. The current record is 170,000 feet.
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to tstoweOct 13, 2011. 7:32 PM
That's a typo...it's meant to be 117k feet. I'm putting together a trimmed down payload and better camera for a launch this winter. Maybe I'll get lucky and get to that record setting altitude!
tstowe in reply to NearSpaceLukeOct 13, 2011. 8:25 PM
117k is still pretty good. Best I've gotten is 106. You might have a shot at the record if you used the 3,000g balloon and under filled it.

I think you might want to take a second look at the ham radio transmitters too. I'm not an electronics guy, just someone who wanted to photograph space. But I was able to figure it out. :)

We've done five launches and gotten four back. We use a Byonics transmitter attached to a Garmin 18x GPS and a simple antenna. Plus a SPOT satellite messenger. Plus the loudest piezo buzzer I could find. :)

The photos are online at www.thetalon.smugmug.com/misc/space.
bulletBird says: Sep 30, 2011. 4:08 AM
Is that picture on the first step seriously a picture from a balloon?!?! If so, thats awesome!
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to bulletBirdSep 30, 2011. 5:33 AM
Yeah, that's really from the balloon. It was at 177k feet. You can see the moon in the upper left hand corner, too. It makes me really want to see it with my own eyes.
_Scratch_ says: Aug 3, 2011. 6:52 PM
Do you happen to know what the air density is up there? (around 100K feet) I was interested in building a drone that could possibly fly that high (solar powered) but I would need to know the density of the air to know if i would have to use a balloon or something.
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to _Scratch_Aug 3, 2011. 7:16 PM
My pressure sensor bottomed out at 1.65 inHg. You're going to have trouble with a drone at that height and I think you know why. There isn't a lot of atmosphere for your flight surfaces to act on, so your rudder, elevator, ailerons, etc will have to be very large. On top of that there won't be enough air to keep a naturally aspirated engine going. You'll need something like a SCRAM jet or a rocket with the oxidizer on board to keep the fire burning.
_Scratch_ in reply to NearSpaceLukeAug 4, 2011. 8:26 AM
I was thinking solar powered LI-PO4 batteries running a few electric motors. I suppose it would be more of a motorized glider, as the wings would have to be pretty big at that altitude.
Khem Caigan in reply to _Scratch_Sep 27, 2011. 5:32 PM
There isn't much air for props and such, but what air there is, is ionized.
Perfect testbed for trying out some "lifter" configurations, with the electrodes painted/glued on the balloon's surface.
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to _Scratch_Aug 4, 2011. 10:00 AM
I'm always trying stuff that people say is impossible and most of the time I fail. In those failures are a lot of useful lessons and ideas, though. So, don't be discouraged when i say that you probably won't get above 60k feet. Looking at the records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Piston-driven_propeller_aeroplane) that's about the limit for propeller flight. You'll also be breaking many FAA regulations by flying an unmanned drone in commercial airspace and without being in sight of the pilot.

Have a look at supercapacitors instead of Lipo batteries (http://www.maxwell.com/products/ultracapacitors/product.aspx?PID=K2-SERIES)
_Scratch_ in reply to NearSpaceLukeAug 4, 2011. 10:26 AM
Ok, super capacitors would likely be a better choice, unless they couldn't last through a continuous 12 hours of discharging.

Well now I have 2 more questions for you. If you know, what is the FAA limit for unmanned flight.

And 2, How high up would a drone have to be to transmit a satellite signal over, lets say, 10-20 miles? I suppose I could figure that out with some math, but it would be easier to find out if you knew.
static in reply to _Scratch_Oct 9, 2011. 8:23 PM
10-20 miles is not that much, 50' would do it in most instances. Don't like math? try this http://www.qsl.net/kd4sai/distance.html
NearSpaceLuke (author) in reply to _Scratch_Aug 4, 2011. 11:46 AM
I'm not certain what the exact rules are for UAV's in commercial airspace and that's probably because there aren't any. What I've heard and read on the internet is that the FAA doesn't allow any UAV's to fly in commercial airspace (read as anywhere in the U.S.), except that certain government agencies can get a time limited waiver for sparsely populated areas. The FAA has been tolerating RC airplanes and small UAVs that fly below 10k feet and within eyesight of their operators. News Corp knows all about these issues, http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/08/03/2227248/FAA-Taking-a-Look-At-News-Corps-Use-of-Drone.

As for transmitting a satellite signal, I'm assuming you mean your UAV acts like a satellite... It depends a lot on the topography of the ground beneath you. I was able to get a 20 mile radio link out of my last balloon with just a few thousand feet altitude. The ground there was very flat and there were no trees, though. In a mountainous area with trees you will need to get line-of-sight to the bottom of each valley and that might mean tens of thousands of feet.
_Scratch_ in reply to NearSpaceLukeAug 4, 2011. 12:03 PM
well thanks for the info, sorry about the many questions.
rocketman221 says: Sep 22, 2011. 4:09 PM
I find that tango GPS works better than google earth. You can download the maps ahead of time and even use the google sat maps if you want.
Besides it's a pain to hack the free version google earth into working with gps.
1-40 of 59Next »
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!