Heck, Jared, *anything* you want to do to help us out would be
awesome. I don't think we're wedded to 802.11. It is really cool that
we've figured out how to do it, but something better is welcome.

I guess the only caveat I'd have is that telemetry isn't really our
biggest bottleneck right now. If you wanted to do some cool SDR thing
that would have more impact, I'd personally prefer you help Jenner
finish up his GPS receiver HW and then build a nice little correlator
of some kind (SW? FPGA? I dunno) for that. We could *really* use a
decent high-dynamic GPS with no limiters and fast refresh right now.

--Bart

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jared Boone <ja...@sharebrained.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Nathan Bergey <nat...@psas.pdx.edu> wrote:
>
>  - CS: custom hardware, SDR ground station, but does exactly what you want.
>
>
> [Apologies to Nathan for the duplicate message. Mailing list fail on my
> part.]
>
> I feel like a weasel for saying this, since I've only been to *one* meeting,
> months ago. But speaking as a radio and SDR nerd, the Copenhagen approach is
> very appealing and has the potential to perform far better given the nature
> of a rocket's channel impairments. If you want to pursue the SDR path (and
> don't mind me working in KiCAD -- :-) ), I would heartily pick up the
> Copenhagen design and adapt it to PSAS requirements...
>
> - Jared
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> psas-avionics mailing list
> psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu
> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
>

_______________________________________________
psas-avionics mailing list
psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu
http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics

Reply via email to