Nice work tracking down that 1575MHz interference, everyone! I wish I'd
been there just to see how you figured it out, 'cause that sounds like deep
magic to me.
Another thing we could try: manually tune the gain, disabling AGC, to find
out what level of gain corresponds to the signal we're
There was a request off-list for more background on this stuff, because
we're using plenty of jargon. One of the big goals for this group is
education, so I'm eager to help people understand what's going on. But I
don't want to answer questions privately, because I'm sure more people are
confused
because dithering and parasitic
signals.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:16 AM Jamey Sharp ja...@psas.pdx.edu wrote:
I'm happy to get a copy of the file from you next time I see you. I
don't know if we have a sensible place to stick 200MB test files.
I've attached a single cycle of the pseudo-noise
Awesome! And nice job on the pretty pictures!
I think this is strong evidence that we should get access to a real
satellite simulator, soon.
Though I don't understand why it saw a -14.8kHz Doppler shift. The original
file is a zero-IF sample. Did you set the HackRF at a center frequency
On Jun 3, 2015 7:44 AM, Kenny ke...@romhat.net wrote:
+ The STM32 which controls the MAX2769 (GPS baseband receiver) now
dynamically configures the MAX according to instructions received by
debug scripts so we can test all the configurations we want without
reprogramming the STM32 each time.
I think tonight is our last GPS study group of the year. In fact we'll
have to decide, come January, whether we want to pick it up again or
try, say, a sensor fusion study group.
So I'm planning to walk through the cross-correlation process that
everyone's been working on one more time, and then
We had two kinds of problems with using our USB wi-fi adapters for
telemetry at our last launch: electrical issues with USB, and regulatory
limits we didn't understand on our 802.11a channel selection. Andrew et
al seem to have solved the electrical issues, and our antenna is tuned
for a different
Is anyone lurking who's interested in working on sensor models or
physics models? We've been needing your help for a while now. :-)
Please reply to me privately if you just want to express interest; but
if you have questions or suggestions please reply on-list. And if you
don't like these
Thanks for this feedback! If anybody takes on implementing better
physics models, please consult with Dan for advice. :-)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ikirk...@pdx.edu wrote:
Quoting Jamey Sharp ja...@psas.pdx.edu:
Physics modelling: I don't care what piece of rocket physics you want
Hello Rafael!
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Rafael Medaglia
rafael.medag...@gmail.com wrote:
... my dissertation is about the use of model checking in an
implementation of the communication protocol proposed by the CCSDS.
Cool! Good luck.
I’d like to work with model checking and Barton C
Wow, I'm sorry I dropped this.
We tried the 2.4 and 2.6 kernels for PowerPC from DENX:
http://www.denx.de/en/Software/GIT
Our notes, such as they are, are here:
http://psas.pdx.edu/PowerPCKernelBuilding/
Jamey
On 11/16/07, Sarah Sharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings,
Can someone from the
11 matches
Mail list logo
