mh9162013
Well-Known Member
Just learned about this today (maybe I'm behind the times). Curious as to whether anyone here has used it:
https://circuitwizardry.com/starlight-mini/
https://circuitwizardry.com/starlight-mini/
Starlight Mini: Anyone here used this flight computer?
- Thread starter mh9162013
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Interesting, particularly at that price point.
Probably not behind the times much as the documentation says "current as of April 10, 2024" so it was just updated Wednesday.
I wonder which way he chose for the polarity on the power socket (see another thread here about that...)
added: in reading the documentation I am not impressed with the pressure spike filtering for the altitude calculation...just a running average of five samples (at what rate, I wonder). I expect some deployment/ejection-related events are going to overwhelm that approach.
Probably not behind the times much as the documentation says "current as of April 10, 2024" so it was just updated Wednesday.
I wonder which way he chose for the polarity on the power socket (see another thread here about that...)
added: in reading the documentation I am not impressed with the pressure spike filtering for the altitude calculation...just a running average of five samples (at what rate, I wonder). I expect some deployment/ejection-related events are going to overwhelm that approach.
Last edited:
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
If figured it was new, but I know products can come out that I don't learn about until much later.
It's no FS Mini (seems to lack Bluetooth and it's bigger), but like you said, at that price point, it seems like an attractive option.
It's no FS Mini (seems to lack Bluetooth and it's bigger), but like you said, at that price point, it seems like an attractive option.
Sounds pretty cool, and in active development! The user manual mentions that the software was last updated two days ago.
Being a sucker for trying stuff out, I just ordered one, so will see what it actually does (save for pyro firing). $20 plus $7 shipping.
We shall see.
We shall see.
Well, that will work for me as my stuff is "radio control standard" including my Eggtimer IONs.
No kidding.....I really don't have a deep understanding of what's required (I'm more of a user than a designer of such things), but it is clear this is a beta (maybe alpha) test product, at least on the software/firmware side, being released to market likely too early.
Last edited:
Curious why, and what problems?
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing anything-but-gentle handling before lift off could cause it to prematurely conclude a launch has occured.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
I also saw that this only measures up to +/- 16G of acceleration. Probably not an issue for people like me, who focus on LPR flights.
NTP2
Well-Known Member
Honestly I’m more interested in the non mini one!!
Neutronium95
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,103
- Reaction score
- 1,648
The creator has posted a lot about the larger Starlight board on the r/rocketry subreddit. I've been less than impressed, and would not trust this board until it's been extensively flight proven. It does seem like he's included software on the mini, which is a step up from his previous effort.
lr64
Well-Known Member
Seems like it shouldn't be turned on until it's on the rail. OTOH, is it an instantaneous 1.5g? If 0.3 seconds was required, it would have to be going at over 14 feet per second and would have moved 21 feet. Assuming it wasn't moving at the beginning.
I was wondering about Adrian's comment about the 1.5Gs and was trying to find in my emails if John Beans has ever told me what the launch detection threshold is for Altimeter Two/Three, but so far I haven't found it. Their documentation cautions against rough handling before launch and I've seen at least one case where a tARC team this year had an anomalous launch detect due to (apparently) rough handling loading the rocket on the pad.
NTP2
Well-Known Member
That’s the part I like, python is a easy language to learn and has plenty of libraries so it’d be a pretty quick process to set up for more complicated projects like TVC or other computer control systems.
Ps it’s the only one I Know of that let’s you script it.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
I get the impression that users are encouraged (or expected) to modify the software as they see fit. So, for example, that 1.5g detection parameter could be adjusted by the user.
Neutronium95
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,103
- Reaction score
- 1,648
As I told the builder on reddit, it's fine if you ship a flight computer that the end user can run their own code on. But he put the original Starlight on sale with no code whatsoever, so you needed to write your own code to use the thing.
Hi BEC; "Well, that will work for me as my stuff is "radio control standard" including my Eggtimer IONs."
This is what gets me, why did the Rocketry stuff do the polarity backwards from the already in place RC standard? Rocketry and Aviation are in the same Genre.
This is what gets me, why did the Rocketry stuff do the polarity backwards from the already in place RC standard? Rocketry and Aviation are in the same Genre.
Last edited:
robopup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2021
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 569
I think "Anyone who's serious about writing software should do their own hardware" applies here. In my experience, the effort involved in learning how to solder (and design boards with the types of chips we fly) was small compared to the effort involved in properly writing firmware with the typical modern features we use for rocketry. I can't imagine going through that kind of effort on someone else's board (especially with the questionable sensor choices being talked about above).
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
That's my impression as well, both in the model rocketry hobby, as well as many other engineering/tech applications.
Signal processing is a perfect example of this, especially within the military context of electronic warfare and sonar. The juice is in the software/code, not the hardware.
Art, I have no idea why. I just know that Arduino-based stuff (and Altus Metrum's devices) use the opposite polarity on that particular JST plug as stuff sold into the RC market. I also don't have any idea how large a market for non-RC there is for small li-poly cells/batteries that would use that plug.
Even in rocketry there is one odd use of this JST plug family: The Adrel altimeters (used in FAI and NAR competitions) use a three pin version, and leave the middle pin open.
<thread drift>In the early days of lithium batteries in electric-powered RC airplanes, right after the need to balance packs became clear, there was one battery maker (CommonSense RC) who used the same balance connector as most (but not all) of the others, but had the polarity reversed relative to the others. Let's just say I got really good at making adapters and trying to label them so to be able to handle at least five different balance connector types with my favored chargers.
And of course there was a plethora of power connectors for electric RC ranging from cheap industrial connectors (Molex-based or similar) through Anderson Powerpoles and those lovely but pricey connectors made by Astro Flight, and then bullet connectors of various sizes and now XT-30/60/90 plugs. </thread drift>
Indeed. I could likely never write the software, but I can put together Eggfinder devices.
Piston launchers can impart over 30 g's to the vehicle. It shocked me, too.
Looking at the Python code, the latest firmware has a 100Hz limit mentioned in the comments. Comparing it to my DIY RP2040 flight computer with an ICM-20649 IMU, I record IMU data at 800Hz and BMP390 data at 100Hz. There is significant room for firmware speed improvements, if you want to write your own code.
According to his site he is a 16 year old attending a vocational high school in MA, see https://circuitwizardry.com/about/ . Obviously there are some limitations to the board and code which would limit it to lower powered rockets and folks who would want to tinker with the code. That being said this level of effort, for someone who is that age and attending school full time, is very impressive.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2019
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 4,459
Just bought one to fool around with.
marcelog
New Member
Hi! Not to revive a dead thread, I just wanted to reply and clarify a few things.
First things first - I am the designer of STARLIGHT MINI, and I did recently release it about a month and a half ago.
It's my second altimeter in the rocketry space, and I designed it as a budget-friendly option for smaller model rockets.
To address some of the concerns around the software - STARLIGHT MINI is expected to be powered once the rocket is already on the rail, not before. Because of this, I figured a 1.5g acceleration threshold, despite being pretty sensitive, would be good for detecting launch very early in the process.
@Neutronium95 As for software for both STARLIGHT and STARLIGHT MINI, I released software for STARLIGHT about a month after release, once I realized how important it was for many people. Because of your feedback (as well as others, of course), I made STARLIGHT MINI much more software-dependent. Because of its limited GPIO, it is much more reliant on the on-board software, and trust me, I cut no corners when designing the software for both the board and the desktop application.
STARLIGHT MINI did only release a month ago - so I'd love any feedback from anyone who's purchased the board. At a price point of $20, I'm still looking for feedback wherever and whenever possible.
And yes... I'm still in high school. There's only so much time I have to work on these boards, especially with finals coming up =)
First things first - I am the designer of STARLIGHT MINI, and I did recently release it about a month and a half ago.
It's my second altimeter in the rocketry space, and I designed it as a budget-friendly option for smaller model rockets.
To address some of the concerns around the software - STARLIGHT MINI is expected to be powered once the rocket is already on the rail, not before. Because of this, I figured a 1.5g acceleration threshold, despite being pretty sensitive, would be good for detecting launch very early in the process.
@Neutronium95 As for software for both STARLIGHT and STARLIGHT MINI, I released software for STARLIGHT about a month after release, once I realized how important it was for many people. Because of your feedback (as well as others, of course), I made STARLIGHT MINI much more software-dependent. Because of its limited GPIO, it is much more reliant on the on-board software, and trust me, I cut no corners when designing the software for both the board and the desktop application.
STARLIGHT MINI did only release a month ago - so I'd love any feedback from anyone who's purchased the board. At a price point of $20, I'm still looking for feedback wherever and whenever possible.
And yes... I'm still in high school. There's only so much time I have to work on these boards, especially with finals coming up =)
NTP2
Well-Known Member
Tell me about it!! I’m also a HS student and I just finished my SOLs yesterday! (I think Massachusetts has those).
I think that the next flight computer I get will be starlight!
NTP2
Well-Known Member
Yes, it came while I was away helping with the tARC finals. This was after the initial order was canceled (apparently there was some kind of build error in the first batch of boards he got) and then I re-ordered when he emailed to say they were available.
I have to decide how to proceed with it since its power connector has the opposite polarity of my cells and chargers. Somewhere I need to make a reversing adapter. It's easy to swap the pins in a cell's plug, but then I won't be able to charge it or use it with my Eggfinder IONs (which I built to be compatible with my existing cells and chargers by putting the power socket on the board the other way 'round from how Cris' documentation calls for).
Marcelo has been responsive to my questions and comments so far. I am a little disturbed about his comment in his post above that the thing is designed to be powered up while the rocket is on the pad, which is pretty awkward operationally at least for models like I like to fly. The device will fit in a BT-50 tube, and I think it still will with the cell plugged in to power it. But it would be a pain to put, say, the Nova Payloader on the pad with the nose cone off, power the thing up and slide it down into the payload section without jostling it too much, putting the nose cone on and securing it, then flying.
It does say this clearly in the manual, such as it is: "WARNING: DO NOT BOOT THE BOARD IN FLIGHT MODE UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO FLY AND THE BOARD IS POSITIONED IN THE ROCKET TO AVOID FALSE DETECTIONS." So it's not a secret. It's just not the way I'd prefer to do it.
I'm also wrestling with the requirement for Java 17 for his Mission Control Software as that version is not the version that is part of MacOS. But I did get the software running on the little Windows 10 ThinkPad that I take to the field for use with altimeters and such, so I can play with the software as soon as I decide where to insert a polarity-reversing adapter in my "altimeter infrastructure" or remove the power socket from the Starlight Mini and put it back on the other way around. I'd rather not do that, yet, so I see making a reversing adapter in my future....probably later today.
How's that for a long answer to a short question?
Last edited:
Similar threads
