On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:03:28 -0400, Alex Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I think it will take more time to convert
>GizmoCopter's flight controls to POGO's flight controls than to go
>straight for POGO's flight controls direct.
What conversion?
>I think moral wise it would also be better for ERPS go direct to POGO.
There are reasons for Gizmocopter. One is, ERPS can fly Gizmocopter
in the local park. Two is, electricity is significantly cheaper than
peroxide. Other than that, the projects are very similar, and have
identical goals: demonstrate controlled VTVL flight, culminating in a
Conrad Square. The original plan was to develop Gizmocopter, practice
on it, then develop POGO and validate the GC algorithms on POGO, then
do the Conrad Square with POGO. Flights of POGO will be orders of
magnitude more expensive than flights of Gizmocopter.
If POGO is finished first, and ERPS has great confidence in the flight
control system, it might make sense to fly POGO first, so they could
they had done it. The upcoming Centennial of Flight date might put
pressure on to do that - but I don't see how it's possible without
lots of deep throttling studies and other engine characterization out
at the Ranch.
There's one way around that, but I don't know if it would work. John,
is your FCS adaptive? That is, does it just keep adding control
inputs until it gets the output it wants?
> By the wiring I wasn't referring to the simulation. I think you can
>model the behavior pretty close with software. What I was referring to
>was the actual physical wiring that would control valves and get input
>from accelerometers and such. Stand offs and headers, current draw,
>batteries etc. will all be working in an entirely different environment
>from GC to POGO, more G's, more vibes, no rotor torque.
If it's entirely different, then Gizmocopter is a complete waste of
time and ERPS is a bunch of morons. I can say with some confidence
that none of these statements are true.
The whole point is that Gizmocopter is a model of POGO. The more
accurate the better. The acceleration environment will be similar. I
expect Gizmocopter will vibrate more than POGO, though POGO will have
the harsher acoustic environment. Gizmocopter torques should cancel
out unless the ERPS guys succumb to the temptation to use differential
throttling for roll control (this temptation is obvious and should be
resisted because it does not accurately model POGO).
>If the modeling
>software is so good why do you need Gismocopter to make writing the code
>easier?
Gizmocopter's job is to validate that has already been written.
>It's the timing that will get you and they depend on the
>devices you use actually working in the real world, so you got to write
>the code for a specific box to control (or sense) real hardware.
HUH? We've learned nothing about control systems in 60 years? I'm
speechless. Please explain.
-R
--
"SEAL training is just like Ranger training, except
it's three weeks longer. It takes that long to teach
them how to balance the balls on their noses."
-- Doug Jones
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
