Hm. Looking at the raw KML data, I'm not sure what you're looking at that you're getting it that high. This looks very, very similar to what we saw with the last flight. The first peak altitude measurement is 57339.24068... I'm assuming that's feet? It would be right if it were. As predicted, it cuts out after that as it continues above 60,000 ft for 28 more measurements. It then returns at 59963.91268 and continues to fall.<div>
<br></div><div>This looks like entirely consistent data and very much in line with what we know the capabilities of the device to be, and what we've seen before. It sounds like the peak altitude of this flight was right around 72,000 ft. Almost exactly what we saw last time.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Christie<br clear="all">_______<br>"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -- Albert Einstein<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Christie Dudley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:longobord@gmail.com">longobord@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
No, unless something changed, the APRS is being generated by a Garmin GPS device hooked up to an OpenTracker+ APRS terminal adapter that connects into the radio. Nils was working on an APRS/AX.25 TA for the G1. We were going to have them each broadcast a different call sign so we could differentiate and compare the generated data. He scrapped the idea because of complexities of muxing the signal between the OT+ and the G1, and the G1's inability to function above 60,000'.<div>
<br></div><div><div class="im">Christie<br clear="all">_______<br>"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -- Albert Einstein<br>
<br><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Chris Paget <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ivegotta@tombom.co.uk" target="_blank">ivegotta@tombom.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I thought the APRS packets were being generated by the G1, in which case<br>
the two should correlate perfectly. Is that not the case?<br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<div><br>
<br>
On 06/08/2010 02:52 PM, Christie Dudley wrote:<br>
> Hm. The highest data point recorded via APRS is 71185 ft. around the<br>
> location where the KML data was peaking (although there are gaps after<br>
> that). See: <a href="http://aprs.fi/?call=KJ6ERK-11&mt=m&z=11&timerange=86400" target="_blank">http://aprs.fi/?call=KJ6ERK-11&mt=m&z=11&timerange=86400</a><br>
> <<a href="http://aprs.fi/?call=KJ6ERK-11&mt=m&z=11&timerange=86400" target="_blank">http://aprs.fi/?call=KJ6ERK-11&mt=m&z=11&timerange=86400</a>>. The G1,<br>
> according to all reports, will only accurately report location up to<br>
> 60,000 ft. If you managed to hack that, then kudos... but you probably<br>
> want to double check your altitude calculations.<br>
><br>
> Christie<br>
> _______<br>
> "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.<br>
> The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit<br>
> to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his<br>
> intelligence." -- Albert Einstein<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Chris Paget <<a href="mailto:ivegotta@tombom.co.uk" target="_blank">ivegotta@tombom.co.uk</a><br>
</div><div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ivegotta@tombom.co.uk" target="_blank">ivegotta@tombom.co.uk</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This doesn't seem right. Assuming the kml measures altitude in metres,<br>
> that puts apogee at about 200,000 feet - I thought the ceiling for<br>
> balloons was about 120k feet?<br>
><br>
> Was the G1 the only GPS that flew? Would be nice to have another set of<br>
> data to validate against.<br>
><br>
> Cheers!<br>
><br>
> Chris<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 06/08/2010 11:56 AM, Jonathan Moore wrote:<br>
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Erik Ebert <<a href="mailto:eebert@gmail.com" target="_blank">eebert@gmail.com</a><br>
</div><div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:eebert@gmail.com" target="_blank">eebert@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >> Cool. I stripped out the dropouts so it displays a little better...<br>
> ><br>
> > did the new flight really go that much higher? I guess we did not have<br>
> > data from a good protaion of the alpha flight that could explain it.<br>
> ><br>
> > -Jonathan<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Space mailing list<br>
</div>> > <a href="mailto:Space@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Space@lists.noisebridge.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Space@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Space@lists.noisebridge.net</a>><br>
<div>> > <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/space" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/space</a><br>
> ><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Space mailing list<br>
</div>> <a href="mailto:Space@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Space@lists.noisebridge.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Space@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Space@lists.noisebridge.net</a>><br>
<div><div></div><div>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/space" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/space</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>