Rocket Launched Reconnaissance UAV

[ShadesOfGray]

Well, I've gotten a lot of help off this forum on our senior design project, the Rocket Launched Reconnaissance UAV. We just had our big test launch, and it was a huge success, so I figured I'd post some pretty pictures for the masses to enjoy....

We successfully test-launched our project on Sunday. In case you're not familiar, it's a Rocket-Launched Reconnaissance UAV. The idea is that, to get a reconnaissance UAV to altitude in a hurry or over a hot area, instead of hand-launching the UAV or taking off from a runway, you use a rocket to save UAV fuel and get the UAV to altitude in a matter of seconds.

The rocket flew beautifully. The UAV was deployed intact. The pilot gained control of the UAV, flew around for 5 or 10 minutes for the cameras. The UAV landing was a little rough; apparently some of the ballast onboard the UAV broke loose, and when the pilot pitched up for landing it slid back, altering the CG and reducing the stability of the airplane. The UAV encountered minor damage on landing, but it is easily repairable. The bottom line is, the concept has been proven. The next iteration of the UAV will have an onboard computer, 2 cameras, and various sensory systems. Here are some pretty pictures.

More information and pictures can be found on our pictures:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI
In the lab --
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-12-09/uav1_sm2.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-12-09/uav2_sm2.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-12-09/uav4_sm2.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-12-09/combo_sm2.jpg

Flight testing the UAV --
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-13-09/2.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-13-09/4.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-13-09/6.jpg

The whole package, the big day --
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-16-09/3.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-16-09/7.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-16-09/8.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-16-09/16.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-16-09/22.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-16-09/23.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-16-09/20.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/3-16-09/25.jpg

Well, that's the brief summary. Everything worked basically as intended. More pictures and detail on the website.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI

Enjoy!

[Will Rock]

Video!! We need Video!!
http://www.guitarforum.net/bigsmile/big_twisted.gif

I found a clip of the plane flying, but not the rocket
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqAEzrAjSO0

[patrickegan]

Cool concept but you have all kinds of regulatory issues here.

[ShadesOfGray]

Yeah, unfortunately we didn't get any video of the actual launch. We were too busy getting everything ready. Sometime in the next few days I'm going to put together a slideshow/video of the design/fabrication/flight testing/test launch process, and that should be neat, but yeah, video would have been swell.

As for regulatory stuff.... I've read up a lot and had a hard time finding anything really definitive. I'm familiar with AC 91-57, the AMA rules, a few other documents, and of course we always use plenty of common sense.

When we fly we're operating under an FAA waiver (acts as a NOTAM, I believe), which, as it has been explained to me, makes it our responsibility to ensure the skies are clear of airplanes, and other than that puts a lot of the responsibility of the pilots. Obviously we're not eligible for AMA insurance, but we have great insurance through the school. Can you better inform me as to pertinent regulations?

Thanks for the replies. Hope ya'll enjoy the pictures.

[patrickegan]

AC 91-57 does not cover what you are doing. Your school has a COA (Certificate of Authorization), or an experimental certificate? A NOTAM (Notice to Airman) should be filed before every flight.

Also you may want to consult the new rocket reg's...

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-11263.pdf

Not trying to be a party pooper, but you don't want to get yourself shut down.

[ShadesOfGray]

A NOTAM is indeed filed before every airplane flight, except those conducted under AMA rules at an AMA field, where it is not necessary. I'm not familiar with COA's, but to my knowledge all of our rocket launches are in compliance with NAR regs (we have a NAR II and NAR III supervising every launch).

Even if AC91-57 did cover us directly, it still only "encourages voluntary compliance." I'm all ears if you can point me towards something that clearly defines what is legal and what is not legal with remote controlled airplanes being operated in class G airspace.

[patrickegan]

You are not in compliance with the AMA safety code and you need a COA to legally fly the uas.

[smh20502]

AMA.....not a federal regulatory entity. no "Laws"

Here is info from FAA. Notice that for the most part it refers to a "Guidance" Advisory...no law no penalty no fine if not complied with.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1ACFC3F689769A56862569E70077C9CC?OpenDocument

Based on how I operate, do I need an experimental certificate for my UAS?

Yes, if you plan to fly your unmanned aircraft as a civil aircraft (defined in 14 CFR §1.1). The FAA's current policy is to issue only special airworthiness certificates to UAS's in the experimental category for the purposes of research and development, crew training, or conducting market surveys (14 CFR §21.193).

No, if you are a hobbyist and intend to fly your model aircraft in accordance with the guidance in Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards.

No, if you intend to operate your UA as a public aircraft for the purposes of governmental (civil or military) functions. In this case, the FAA's Air Traffic System Operations and Safety Office (ATO-R) may issue a Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA). Normally, the government proponent (not the UAS manufacturer) contacts FAA to initiate the COA process.

Do I need a pilot certificate to operate a UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS)?
Yes. In general, 14 CFR part 61 prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot certificates. Section 61.3 states that a person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crew member of a civil aircraft of the U.S. registry, unless that person has a valid pilot certificate. Because the FAA has determined that UAS are civil aircraft in accordance with 14 CFR §1.1, these aircraft must be operated by a pilot in accordance with part 61.


Looks like you're ok. A couple questions, is the land private land? Are you in controlled airspace?

[ShadesOfGray]

The land is private, but we've signed a waiver saying basically we'll fix anything we break. It's in class G airspace.

[patrickegan]

They are not hobbyists... They fall under commercial or civil use and need a COA. Unless you are making arbitrary changes to order 1110.150. You can call the UAPO and ask for clarification...

[MIT KID]

They are not hobbyists... They fall under commercial or civil use and need a COA. Unless you are making arbitrary changes to order 1110.150. You can call the UAPO and ask for clarification...

Somewhat off topic, but how would this apply to student design competitions like SAE Heavy Lift, AIAA DBF, or AUVSI? Strictly speaking the students aren't acting as "hobbyists," but the events are run similar to any AMA or FAI competition. It seems like it would be the death of these events if every student team needed to go through the COA process.

-Adam

Cool project BTW

[patrickegan]

I've had issues with the AUVSI comp for years (including a heated discussion with an Admiral :D) pertaining to using the AMA code when they don't allow anything that would allow the aircraft to be flown beyond VLOS. The comp itself is held in military airspace. Technically those aircraft can only be flown with a COA or in military airspace (under 20lbs)

I'm on the sUAS ARC and have brought up the question(s) about "compensation and hire"

As I am told is being accepted, compensation and hire is when money is changing hands. Boeing (or any other vendor of choice) sponsoring a team or receiving a grant to develop a system (store fronting) constitutes money changing hands. Mom and Pop should not be shut out simply because they can't afford to exploit loopholes. The NPRM process on this one should be fun. :)

[MIT KID]

As I am told is being accepted, compensation and hire is when money is changing hands. Boeing (or any other vendor of choice) sponsoring a team or receiving a grant to develop a system (store fronting) constitutes money changing hands. Mom and Pop should not be shut out simply because they can't afford to exploit loopholes. The NPRM process on this one should be fun. :)

Interesing, so if a team accepts sponsorship to offset the cost of the competition then they fall outside of the "AMA Umbrella"? What about sponsored R/C pilots, like some of the more famous aerobatic guys?

What do you see happening to the non-autonomy based student competitions (heavy lift and DBF). They are certainly a breading ground for quality engineers, it would be sad to see them shutdown :(

-Adam

PM me if you think we're too off topic.

[ShadesOfGray]

Based on skimming over it briefly, 1110.150 doesn't stand out to me as being anything more than "we are planning on making changes."

And what distinguishes between hobbysists and non-hobbyists, considering that we're not making any money? Our club is funded by NASA and the Space Grant Consortium, I kind of take it for granted that they know what they're pouring money into...

[poynting]

They are not hobbyists... They fall under commercial or civil use and need a COA. Unless you are making arbitrary changes to order 1110.150. You can call the UAPO and ask for clarification...

What makes them "not hobbyists"? It's a student organization loosely affiliated with a university. They're a model rocket club, as best as I can tell. They aren't employees of the university, NASA, or anyone else, and they aren't flying for commercial gain. What makes them different from a member of a AMA club?

The only thing I see that they're doing wrong is that they're hobby RC guys flying too high.

[patrickegan]

Nobody is granting me money to fly my plane. I would suggest you call the UAPO and ask them these questions because I'm still waiting for an (the same) answer.

No this is not off topic.

We (as a group) have to pull our heads out of the sand. If this inanity becomes the law of the land research is going to come to an abrupt end.

[patrickegan]

Some light reading material

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

[MIT KID]

If this inanity becomes the law of the land research is going to come to an abrupt end.

Couldn't agree with you more.

[Helno]

This looks pretty cool but isnt the rocket more of a pain in the ass than just handlauching?

From your pictures it looks like it isnt going really high before deploying. Why not just use a hotliner style aircraft and have it go straight up from a handlaunch?

[poynting]

It's a proof of concept - their idea is to put a UAV "on station" over an area of interest very quickly and without using any of the UAV's fuel. The AOI could be hundreds of miles away.

[dmgoedde]

As I read the initial post before scrolling down to look at the pics, I was visualizing how I would do it. I was suprised to see such a large rocket for the method to get the UAV up. My vision was a slow burn G, H, or I class motor in the tail of the UAV, not a large mother ship.

Any reason for not just putting an Aerotek composite reloadable engine in the tail of the UAV itself and getting rid of the big rocket? The mass fraction and general complexity would seem to be a whole lot better.

[MIT KID]

Might not make logistic's sense for smaller UAV's, but do a quick search for DARPA RapidEye and you'll see the industry folks are quite interested in this too ;)

-Adam

[smh20502]

the only problem I see is in regards to it being classified as a guided missile. From the regulations that I've seen, the boost phase of the UAV would have to be uncontrolled via you or the autopilot.

of course a 2 axis gyro to control a nose gimbal or rudder/elevator to keep a vertical assent may not be considered "Guided"

[ShadesOfGray]

Might not make logistic's sense for smaller UAV's, but do a quick search for DARPA RapidEye and you'll see the industry folks are quite interested in this too ;)

-Adam

Yeah, that's basically the idea: Scalability. With our current setup, with a few hours modifications to the rocket we could be flying much larger distances. With the right motor you could probably shoot this UAV 40 miles away, and have it there in a hurry. Deploy it with sufficient altitude and battery life and you can get it back to the launch site. The rocket is relatively inexpensive compared to the UAV and its electronics package, so the rocket could be a disposable launch system.

Our faculty advisor is very interested in the DARPA rapideye project; when he originally came up with the notion for our project idea, it was intended to be a proof-of-concept for a much downsized version of that project.

[patrickegan]

So is the idea to launch the UAS beyond VLOS?

[ShadesOfGray]

This project is a proof of concept for that notion, yes. Whether we'll actually ever get sophisticated to safely fly outside of visual site, I don't know.

We've just written our last huge report, the Flight Readiness Review. If you want to learn more about our project, read the report and/or view the slideshow.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/frr.shtml

[Tuner]

I like the Idea of rockets. This basically bring up a good point about launch systems.

I wounder about other ejectable powered launch systems?

Scott

[jetstreaming]

ShadesOfGray, thankyou for posting this Thread on RCGroups.
It's a very interesting concept, the pictures are great, and looked a great success too - alot of fun!

Out of interest, where or how do you plan to advance past this recent experiment?
What is the overall 'goal' of your experiments (or have these goals now been achieved with the successful rocket launch/UAV deployment and landing)?

Great work - it's research, design and development, much like this that pushes R/C in some quite diverse directions (no pun intented). :)

[ShadesOfGray]

Glad you liked our website.

In our test launch the UAV carried no payload. The next step is equipping our new UAV with our custom-made electronics suite - two cameras, an infrared thermometer, a 1 GHz single board computer, a custom PCB with 3-axis data and PWM outputting, a pitot-static system, GPS, and 5 antennas. Ultimately, we want to be able to fly the plane remotely, with no visual contact. Whether we'll be able to achieve that between now and our Competition launch is very much up in the air... the big launch day is just 3 weeks away.

The payload is detailed in this graphic:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/updated_block_diagram_sm.jpg

Full size:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/updated_block_diagram.jpg

It's kind of intense. We just got our SBC + Wifi + GPS working for the first time. The PCB is being sent off for manufacturing on Monday. Both camera systems are setup and tested, but one thing is certain: We've got a lot of late nights between now and the big launch.

[jetstreaming]

This thread gets more amazing with each of your Posts! ;) Very thorough. Thanks for the update.

If you plan/hope to fly the plane remotely, with no visual contact, then you will be looking at FPV (First Person View) - Fitting a wireless video Transmitter on the plane, wired up to your Planes Cam(s), a Receiver on the ground (as part of your ground station), and a screen allowing you to view the video remotely and ultimately fly your plane over a great distance. ...........but then, I'm sure you already knew all this. :D

RC Groups does have an FPV section, if you are looking for further inspiration.

I'm sure I went to the wrong College/University, we did nothing as exciting or advanced as this! Keep us posted on the up-coming Competition? :)

[ShadesOfGray]

Yeah. We've gotten a whole lot of help from the FPV section of the forum. Our forward-facing camera is basically a standard 900 MHz FPV setup, and our downard facing camera uses a 1.2 GHz fpv transmitter/receiver. And yeah, our ground station is intense.....

Here's the block diagram -
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/2-26-09/groundstation.jpg

And here's the main antenna array -
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/USLI/gallery/inthelab/news/2-20-09/groundstation_sm.jpg

:D