Can You Get Stable Video From a Spinning Rocket?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 ноя 2022
- Get EXTRA 5% off coupon code BPSSPACE5 on all EcoFlow Black Friday products both on the Website and Amazon:
EcoFlow Amazon Black Friday US: amzn.to/3UO5Swd
EcoFlow Website Black Friday US: us.ecoflow.com/?aff=551
Milling the Bulkhead: • Camera Spinner CNC Part 2
Milling the Camera Shrouds: • Camera Spinner CNC
Raw Flight Footage: • SEND IT - Nov 2022 Syn...
Help support BPS.space: / bps_space
Second channel, mostly for KSP: / musicmakr
For more info:
/ joebarnard
/ bps_space
/ bps.space
/ bps.space
www.bps.space 
Наука
The one thing that stuck to my mind while watching this video was that no matter how complicated and technical the build gets there is always a role that "Hot glue" can play in it. 😀
Yo what if you did a 360 cam and a spinning cam all in one
Or, to paraphrase a paraphrase by Adam Savage:
“If you want something that is moving to not move, use duct tape (or hot glue). If you want something that is not moving to move, use WD40.”
I bought a 150w Hotglue gun and 15×.5in glue sticks. I approve this comment. Lol
He’s going to one day sign his name on a rocket using hot glue.
Potting only hurts the guy who has to strip everything apart after!
The missile knows where it is, it knows this by knowing where it isnt.
And substracting everything from there it is
By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation
The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is.
Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
Brilliant reference 👍🏻
I was shocked when you said it wasn't a success! It was a massive improvement in video stabilization, even if it wasn't perfect.
almost there doesnt mean it crossed the finish line
@@MrPaxio Bad way to think of this - you can still see much more than before.
@@zanderwohl you could just write a program to only take/record frames when the rocket is pointing a certain degree instead of this contraption trying to counter rotate with the rocket itself, which will probably make it really unstable. which he pointed out, and he wants to fix it by adding another spinning reaction wheel which goes the opposite way.... insanity. my idea way more practical, no unnecessary weight, and dont worry it wont be blurry, especially when ure recording at 120fps like he is. at that point spinning it faster would be beneficial for the video, and stability. but that wont bring in the views, so i can understand why go the unpractical asf route. its actually a very good strategy to do something in a bad way so alot of people comment their opinion on why its bad and the algorithm sees it as very good viewer engagement. and viewer engagement pays itself in weight of gold. its what makes your videos go viral. thats the truth unfortunately gotta get used to it regardless if you like it or not
Me too, I watched it and saw the fins rotating on those two seconds of stable video. I'd call that a success (at a Proof Of Concept level, which this has to be)!
@@MrPaxio your idea is practical but you lose a lot in video quality and continuity. the video will be just a compilation with images with no connection to one another.
since the guy's a youtuber who makes videos, his idea makes way more sense, mr. know it all.
Conservation of angular momentum... Your camera ring is a reaction wheel as others have stated. Look at adding a counter-rotating ring as well to maintain the angular momentum of the airframe. You could also use that combined system to de-spin the airframe like... 1 second before chute deployment to mitigate chute entanglement.
While I agree that the despin rig is acting like a reaction wheel, I don't think adding a second wheel is the best idea. It adds mass and complexity to an already existing rocket, which could be more of a headache than it is helpful. I think the best move is to use high rpm slip rings to get all of the electronics for this sub assembly into the avionics bay, lowering it's mass, dropping it's moment of inertia to lower the torque roll it's exerting on the vehicle. It doesn't solve the problem completely, but it could have the potential to greatly reduce the impact.
I’m not saying he doesn’t need to optimize the mass of the camera ring, that is obvious. However fin induced spin is completely GONE and reversed only 5 seconds after the camera ring kicked in. The oscillation this would induce would be worse than not spinning at all. Optimization will only go so far in extending that time, I doubt by a power of magnitude, and certainly not to apogee. Counter rotating wheel is the best option IMO. He already explored a fairly mechanical execution, it’s not too much to mechanically couple a second ring to the same stepper in v2.
Or just give up on the camera and go for the 360 one. Or give up on it altogether
There are easier ways to despin though, such as yoyo despinning.
@@jerry3790 I think this misses the point though. He’s trying to continuously stabilize the camera against a spin stabilized airframe. My secondary point of despinning at Apo should really be taken as like a secondary beneficial side effect if he decided to implement that in the same system. My point of the second ring is to counter spin the camera ring ONLY.
I think the results are a lot better than you give yourself credit for! Unfortunately we all know getting that last 20% of the way there takes so much effort. I was going to say have a deadband to disable spinning if the roll rate is under the lower limit of the motor, but a stepper should be even better for butter smooth video! Keep it up!
He should still have a deadband because the steps of the motor will probably be shaky looking below a certain speed.
@@polyscient Dunno the specs of the degree steps but he could utilize half steps so it wont be as jarring, gearing can help too but will lose some top speed.
I was thinking the same. Not perfect, but once it woke up, it tried hard.
He should also put a limit to the degree of roll error so after one full rotation of error or so it doesnt counter rotate a lot and just goes back to the heading it started at
I think it was a bloody amazing first attempt
I have mentioned this in the last video, but something you could do rather than spinning the whole assembly, is spinning a mirror around the central point and then putting the camera statically in the body of the rocket. This would allow for a lot less load to be spun up and down. Similar concept to what you have already done, just less stuff spinning
I also suggested this when he had a gopro sticking halfway out the side of the rocket body causing unbalanced drag. Unfortunately this fix wont work for this use case, as the center of the viewpoint will remain static but the entire image will still be spinning around that central point, expecting no blur at the edges of the frame would be naïve.
if you stick a rotating periscope onto a cam, you'll have to put the cam in the middle. that will lose you the easy cable passthrough. which might be acceptable.
@@chrisjacobsen1659 : Yep, shutter speed isn't infinite, so you'll get blur everywhere outside of the exact rotation axis, and in this case it could be pretty bad.
That's sort of how IR seeker heads work.
@@chrisjacobsen1659 Assuming the camera isn't global shutter, you might also get some weird rolling shutter effects.
What I find awesome is that till now you tried to get your rockets "just" to fly, but now you've passed that level where you can start using them to try your own experiences... that means, building flying rockets is now "usual" for you, and that's an extraordinary step forward
It's not an engineer's job to overcomplicate things. In fact it is exactly the opposite. But it is in the engineering spirit to take something (even apparently stupid) as a challenge and do anything to make it work. Well done Joe, amazing video as always!!
I think it is just a meme.
... you obviously have not met a car engine they are a whole different breed
I think that’s what (don’t over engineer your design) my machine design professor (TRW experienced) told me on a team design project we proposed back in ‘75. “Back to the drawing board fellas” he said with a chuckle.
I have worked for engineers most of my life....thay may not be meant to over complicate things, but oh man they sure seem to think that they are that's for sure!
tell that to a modern mechanic, watch him laugh in your face..!
3:00 the other problem with using a 360 camera is that, ultimately, it is still a camera, and if you spin it like that, you'll get a ton of motion blur. You can stabilize the image in post and get a very stable video... of motion blur.
thats a very good point. I havent thought about that
Good Flight! In electric skateboards you get better slow rpm performance and jerkiness in brushless motors by using a sensored ESC and motor.
yup! its not the motor, its actually the driver that isn't good at slow speeds, but he would need to add some kind of encoder to keep track of where the motor is for field oriented control(FOC).
CD/DVD motors have sensors and drivers integrated in a single board. They're quite generic and you can find online how to use them...
Ok, I was wrong about integration part, here's info: akashkumar4u.blogspot.com/2013/05/cddvd-motor-driver-hack-to-run-its-own.html?m=1
Agreed! He needs a rotary encoder so he can keep track of the motor position while being able to supply more current to allow for torque holding. A cheap sensored ESC and motor should solve this problem, but I'm worried he'll go down the stepper path bc he's lost hope for brushless. IMHO, steppers are the wrong move. They're meant for precision and low rpm applications, not for high speed despinning like Joe wants to use them for. Oh well, fingers crossed he reads our comments!
What I wanted to comment on. And as Seth states, stepper motors probably won't be fast enough.
Spinny cameras have been the bane of my existence lately too😉 Excited to “borrow” your final design once the issues are ironed out
Despinning the camera on your crazy prop-copter would be an interesting challenge. Slightly easier than this though because you don’t have to sandwich in the structure like this one does.
kim jong un will be proud of your work
“The camera spinner didn’t work…..great”
Joe, I’m not sure you saw the same video I did.
For a *first try prototype* that was amazing.
Give yourself more credit dude, you are an inspiration to those of us whose engineering consists of making parts to fix something at home.
man it is so great to be a BPS patron so you can see the videos EARLY
So true omg!!
@@BPSspace wouldn't it be easier to spin only a mirror to correct the rotation rather than the entire camera system?
I love rockets so I decided to study Audio Engineering ✌
honestly, that was a flawless first attempt. i know you engineer for expensive rockets you can't rapidly iterate, but that is far better than i expected from a sensorless brushless motor
As a proof of concept I’d call that a huge success. I have to admit some skepticism about destining the camera at first, but the footage looked pretty darn good when the rig worked. The stepper motor idea seems solid. Those little brushless motors don’t always have the resolution for fine work like this.
I really enjoy watching your thought process through these videos. You’re solving ridiculously hard technical challenges and have the good sense to make fun of yourself when appropriate. The fact that you’ve been able to do as much as you have is incredibly impressive, and the way you learn from your failures is inspirational.
I know they're uncool these days, but a little brushed gear motor would also solve this problem as you don't need the power density of brushless here, and they're very smooth
would go with DC instead of stepper, because they're usually lighter
Might want to research rollerons in your fins, like some air-to-air missiles. Those use passive rollerons spun up by the slipstream of the carrying aircraft.
I was working on a space shot where we thought about using hard disk drive platters and motors inside the fins for the gyroscopic fin stabilization.
Regardless, keep up the superb work!
My take on this comment is:
1) probably not what you are intending and
2) that you're saying to change the camera spinner so instead of being de-spun by a motor based on calculations, to instead attach fins with rollerons that de-spin using inertia... but I'm not even sure that would make sense.
Came down to say something like this,
fins are pretty excessive for high mach vehicles, *especially* low mass rockets.
Something like rollerons or tiny flap stabilizers makes more sense.
Rollerrons are pretty heavy and are probably reliant on the mass for a strong flex/vibration resistant housing.
But the idea is probably interesting to look into.
Especially passive self-corrective stabilization.
To those that might not know, rollerons are an enclosed gyroscope inside the trailing edge of a tailfin that is spun up by airflow over a small exposed portion. (Very common on military rockets/missiles, it's that toothy little wheel on the tailtin corners) They are connected to the static portion of the tailfin with a simple (but sometimes damped) hinge and function as a standard control surface but are passive and have only 2 moving parts.
If tuned correctly, the gyroscopic forces automatically tilt the control surface the perfect amount to counteract any roll and they can be surprising precise/accurate/responsive bc gyroscopes respond instantly and proportionally to even the smallest/slowest rates of change while not overcorrecting for the largest/fastest. It can essentially be thought of as a "wireless" equivalent to a mechanical bevel gear, neat.
What are you talking about, that looks incredibly. From a “where we were to where we are now” it’s an incredibly upgrade. That was bad ass.
Honestly the brief moments where the camera DOES counter-rotate correctly make it pretty clear that this is a fantastic approach if you can iterate it over the finish line.
When it works it works pretty well. I hope you iterate on it with FOC and a brushless gimbal motor actually designed for this kind of thing, what you already have is very promising!
I love how you used the lathe as a test rig for a spinning rocket. Genius!
Dude! It's been years watching your channel and this is still some of the best content on the internet. I hope your having fun and enjoying it still because I know we are!
Have you considered using a more passive stabilization using gyroscopes? Get them spun up before launch, and they should resist any roll. They could even double as steering control in the future.
I think it would work, but it's not as much fun 🙂
He did experiment with gyros but they saturate very quickly. They need to be either very fast or quite heavy to be effective. Idk what RPMs he got up to, so maybe a hard drive motor would be fast enough.
Joe, you are way too hard on yourself - that footage (for a first or second-generation design/build) was absolutely AMAZING! You are an incredible engineer, machinist, and rocketeer!!
Dude, i have watched your videos on and off since you had 1000 subs.
And what an amazing improvement you've made in all areas. But especially your ability to be a natural when presenting in front of a camera. You've gone from nigh unwatchable to among the very best.
Greetings from Denmark
I really enjoy your uploads, so enjoyable to see things fail and then watch you work out how to do it better. Super inspiring
There is an easy way to accomplish this. Add counter rotating fins just for your camera. Your camera has a bearing, so it will rotate as fast as rocket is rotating but in opposite direction. Let the wind gust to do the rest.
Seems like a success to me, most of the issues outlined you predicted or take a little programming effort to fix. It's wonderful to have such good footage that pretty much outlines every aspect of the problems.
This is sick. Excited to see how this comes along in the future. I'm quite impressed you are doing so many disciples of engineering concurrently: mechanical, aero, electrical, controls, software, manufacturing!
Even adding to that is the filming, voice-over, and editing. People rarely mention that, but that isn't as easy as counting to four. Massive amount of skill all around. Definitely a good role model and someone to look up to!
Don’t beat yourself up. I think that was a good starting place. It’s funny at 1340 I was thinking of stepper motors, and then that’s what you started talking about. My field was in marine, electronics and satellite communication. The earlier equipment is gyros and then they went to stepper motors. I am fascinated, watching you make your own rockets and rocket nozzles. I would like to see a walk-through of your shop and your tools subscriber here South Florida I often watch, the falcon nines takeoff and sometimes see the boosters return.
I was waiting for this!! It looks great at works awesome!
Have you thought about de-spinning a 360-Camera? It would combine the de-spinning with post processing stabilisation to remove the remaining jitter.
My first thought, but there might be too much motion blur
@@hund4440 My thought was, to de-spin the camera to an acceptable angular velocity, where the wouldn't be any motion blur. But I don't actually know how slow it would need to be.
You're right, maybe it would still be too fast, although the part that was semi-stabelized looked clear enough.
Several others have mentioned my concern, that of the spinning camera assembly acting as a gyro and possibly screwing with the spin stabilization of the rocket itself. Would it be possible to mount the batteries closer to the center of the assembly? It looks like there is room. Since those are probably the greater part of the weight, moving them closer to the axis of rotation should help limit the effects, might even make it easier for the motor to spin the assembly up.Edit: Personally I think the results were pretty darn good for a prototype, we'll wait for the second flight for it to be perfect!
But the camera assembly should always have a rotational inertia of zero. There is no spinning up. Just opposing what the rocket wants to do.
@@tjm2212 Yes, though I think you mean the camera assembly wouldn't have any angular momentum. If it were somehow levitated inside the rocket in a vacuum then as the rocket starts to rotate the camera would maintain its orientation due to its nonzero rotational inertia, and the fact that the rocket body would not be exerting a torque on it. If the motors could perfectly oppose the movement of the rocket then the camera subsystem would essentially be decoupled from the angular momentum of the rocket and would only contribute its mass to the downward force due to gravity. But for now I think the implementation leaves a bit to be desired 😂
We need more of this. Although you don't consider this a success looking at it from the outside it worked very well. I wasn't sure if this was possible but now you have me convinced.
Honestly, that footage looks really good! I'd call the flight a success, everything you were worried about actually worked and you've proven all your hypotheses.
I'm now trying to make a rocket too!
Thanks for the inspiration :) 💙
Me too
well now youre trying to get on a watchlist
Love the videos keep the great work up!
That's a really cool idea, when you initially started the video, I thought about a similar solution, the only difference is that I thought you may end up turning the entire "turntable" into a brushless DC motor. I love this and you should definitely keep trying!
I thought it was a wonderful attempt Joe and you learn so much about ideas only when you try them out. Great work. 👍😊
I think the footage looks already good! Sure, there are some parts where it fails. But at the sweet point where it works, it works pretty good! Nice Job!
And it is great footage to present the problems. The whole analysis shows an admirable level of control. Might not be enough for the builder, but it certainly makes an exceptional RUclips video.
I think you might need a sensored brushless motor and something like a VESC compatible ESC so you can get higher torque at low rpms. A good source of info on this might turn out to be the Onewheel Community, or people who diy their own eboards. Do some research on VESC and see if it's what you need! I do also have some hesitations about stepper motors. Stepper motors aren't traditionally great at high speed applications, but it would absolutely have the ability to despin those slower rotations near apogee. If you do go this route I recommend the Trinamic stepper drivers, specifically the TMC2130-TA (SPI interface so should be Ava compatible, up to 1.4A phase current, passive breaking, and load dependant speed control). Some sort of clutched assembly to allow for the use of both a brushless motor for high speeds and a stepper for low speeds could be an interesting trajectory, but would add several layers of complexity. I've also seen a lot of other people address the reaction wheel issue, and while I agree with them, I don't think the best answer is to add another reaction wheel to counter the spin. I think the best idea is to get the mass of your assembly down by off loading as much of the electronics for the despin rig to the avionics bay. Have you thought of using high rpm slip rings for all the circuitry, and leaving essentially only the cameras on the rig? I'd assume this would get the mass of the rig down a considerable amount, making the it's moment of inertia much lower, exerting less torque roll on the rocket. No matter what, I can't wait to see where you go from here Joe! This space shot is closer than you think!
VESC will not help, lower kV motors will do.
@@igor_misic Aw crap. I guess you're right. I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about.
But a sensored motor is probably a key thing it needs.
Half a million subs is nothing to sneeze at, and it is tremendous accomplishment, but how the howly-f does this channel only have half a million subs? Absolutely first rate in every way!
Good stuff man! I love your passion to improve something
Rockets are cool!
Yes!
for the stabilization, you should stabilize based on the delta of the roll, since its not actually important that the camera holds a steady roll direction, but just that it dampens roll rate. this would solve the windup issue and it might also make it easier to get the motor to just not bother correcting if the roll rate is lower than its minimum starting speed, and just those changes alone i think would be a huge improvement for the viewability
additionally, although it probably doesnt matter at the current RPMs youre experiencing, you could always have it take into account the framerate of the camera and find the nearest multiple, so if your camera is 60hz and the rocket is rolling at 55rps, you could spin the camera to +5rps rather than -55rps and the framerate will hopefully turn it into a smooth video, although i guess that might end up producing some artifacts with shutter speed producing warped video... but its something to consider nonetheless
I was thinking about frame rate shenanigans as well, definitely something to keep in mind.
I've just started construction on my L3 rocket and have started mixing my own propellants after going to the balls launch this year. I hope to eventually be on a space shot team and I know that is ambitious, but compared to what you do I am just a child in a playground. I love watching you videos and I learn a lot. Keep it up!
this is exactly what I recommended to the guy making the 3-winged spinning drone. I am so glad someone is making it. Now make the drone guy add this to his drone and you've got an efficient improvement in drone camera technology and we can have that spinning drone copter passenger sized. I didn't work great but it worked so there. We are all impressed AF. Keep going.
This could probably be stabilized passively using fins on the rotating camera rig. The fins on the righ could be mounted such that they can swivel freely in pitch axis; this will make them automatically align themselves with the flow and dampen camera rig rotation.
I bet this would be super hard to do, but it might be the coolest possible solution.
You could try using small gyros to stabilize the camera in one or two directions.
I don't know if it would work, but i think it could.
Also great video, keep on doing the stuff you do.
Nice proof of concept. Liked it. Will definitely be a success after more testing.
Always great to see a new video!
You could try a bldc gimbal motor with FOC. Awesome video, as always!
Those are mutually exclusive.
BLDC and FOC are two diffrent methods of commutation control for a motor. There are no BLDC vs FOC motors they are just brushless motors being controlled by a BLDC or an FOC esc.
Still I agree and FOC system would solve all the brushless motor issues.
BLDC means Brush Less Direct Current motor. They can be controlled by Field Oriented Control (FOC). SimpleFOC is an open source implementation.
FOC motor control is technically 3 phase AC control.
BLDC is as you said is direct current.
A brushless motor can be used as both a DC motor or an AC motor depending on the commutation method.
So saying a BLDC motor makes no sense as the motor does not require a DC control scheme it can use an AC scheme makeing it a BLAC motor.
Therefore its inaccurate to call it a BLDC motor instead its a BL motor using BLDC commutation.
@@nocare BLDC just the common terminology.
If I'm correct, the PWM signal is sinusoidally pulsed DC, so technically they could be still DC motors.
Edit: I'm not looking for an argument, was just trying to be helpful as a hobbyist. If I google BLAC gimbal motor there are no results. Googling BLDC gimbal motors gives the exact result of my suggestion. There is no more to the whole thing from my side.
@@zsigmondkara hmmm how about this.
What then is the name of the commutation method used by a standard brushless ESC.
SInce we both agree FOC is not the standard method most ESCs employ.
Love it! BPS Space videos always get the design vibes rolling!
Question:
1.) Why don't you write a code to calculate roll rate vs shutter timing and frame grab and "stitch" a roll stabilized video together? I'm not a coder so this may be more difficult than I realize with mixing video encoding or is camera sensor and shutter hardware the bottleneck?
2.) I was also wondering, have you considered integrating a coaxial system that incorporates a reaction wheel? If power and data connections through rotating electrical slip ring connector are stable, the mass of the batteries could be leveraged as reaction mass? The additional mass of the rotating camera system seems very high unless the quality of video is essentially "mission priority" over usable payload mass.
Edit :BPS Space contained a . and converted to hyperlink removed.
cameras can do 60fps usually, and you know the spin rate exactly from the sensor, so you probably can stitch anything together under 60 rotations per second. You would get some weird artifacts because of rolling shutter delay, there are CV cameras that can do more fps and instant shutter but that's a little more expensive.
But this is a cool idea, never seen anyone try it before
1) Wouldn't the frame rate of the stabilized video be limited to the rate of rotation? If the camera is rotating at 1 RPS you would only get 1 FPS.
Also if the rotation is fast enough each frame will be distorted by the CCD's scanning pattern.
@@polyscient I think you would if it was a single camera set up. However with dual opposing cameras (which i assume was for balance) the field of view could be optimized to meat at a central plane or known good overlap. Once again this is just assumption but then the rotation rate would adjust a "variable" in a function that chooses which video frame to grab based the camera settings for shutter speed. I think you will lose a significant amount of "off target data" so a higher FPS capture/sensor speed is desirable.
Is the sensor chip scanning pattern distortion accountable enough as a known calculable constant? If so wouldn't using a lower resolution sensor potentially yield greater scanning speed as a relative function to surface area? Or as simple as rotating the unit so the distortions are less obtrusive or don't align with horizon or other desired targets?
@@ffoska The rolling shutter delay effect is almost exactly what we are trying to accomplish. By determining where the target field of view is(from the flight computer or other hardware), the algorithm picks individual frames to stitch a new video from. At high rocket roll rates is where the algorithm I think would really take off in that it would begin "shedding" erroneous frames off the target field of view in order to "stitch" a new stabilized video.
I think this could be implemented downstream as a "fix it in post" or at a ground station with sufficient graphical compute power to re-encode/stitch on the fly. Implementing it on the rocket flight hardware seems unnecessary and detrimental to the rockets flight performance which we can see is nominal even with the addition of moving payloads (keepin' the pointy end up and hula-hooping).
@@TAR-D yes, by 'rolling shutter' I meant the CCD scanning pattern. You would just record the frames, but you also record the telemetry, so you can also use that later - but it's probably not even needed, because the sampling is fast enough to get multiple images of the same region and do keypoint matching. And I also meant using multiple cameras to get a 360 view, so it's just a question of unspinning the image.
Awesome content. We appreciate what you're doing!
Don’t give up, Joe! Fantastic work and an awesome way to solve a problem!
4 cameras, 60-120fps and unspin the video in post!
He's tryna avoid that tho
@@breadcat7332 yea I get it, engineering is fun, I let the scope creep happen too. But it’s worth remembering the primary goal sometimes.
Hey Joe, crazy engineer idea: why not combine both the brushless and stepper motors? Have some sort of clutched/movable gear that can switch between them and get the benefits of both the high speed and low speed control. It might cover both your bases if the stepper encounters a crazy high roll rate.
A a few others have mentioned you can take the ideas and tech used in high speed cameras following very fast moving objects and use moving mirrors. This solves a couple of problems also making it easier to mount bigger cameras(the gopro) inside the rocket and use a spinning periscope to capture beautiful footage of the outside. Great work it is really interesting watching the progression!
Sick dude. can't wait for pt.2
Others have said this but I want to add as well, the camera system is working as a reaction wheel and is changing the angular momentum of the rocket. When the camera is spun up, this is causing the rocket body to spin faster and also potentially some weird gyroscopic effects. Two things can be done that I know of:
1. Try to lower the moment of inertia of the camera system, or
2. Add a wheel with the same moment of inertia as the camera system with opposite angular velocity and acceleration.
This video was awesome, can’t wait to see what you’re doing next.
I really like what you've done here. Like the stepper motor idea too. It's much simpler and adaptable. Presuming of course that you're balancing everything, it's a pretty clean solution. I know there's also a lot of even smaller stepper motors that might also do the trick. You might find that a pancake stepper works nicely too by angling your drive gear 90 degrees. I made a similar modification to my high-speed 3D printer to decrease the weight of the printhead. My situation needed high torque though, not high speed. I only mentioned it, because some of those pancake steppers are really small.
Man, some of the coolest videos on yt...
you´re awesome joe!!! may the sky be blue and may the force be with you!!!
I love your videos! It's thrilling to see a maker play with rockets. Keep up the good work!
Dude... I just discovered your channel yesterday, and Wow... you've made some very impressive builds and accomplishments !
I was big into rocketry back in the late 90's (Tripoli)....and making my own solid rocket motors and nozzles.
But here you are in a whole other league.
- Keep up the great work. Looking forward to seeing your space shot.
I think your experiment was tremendously successful. Once the ESC started to work your mechanism and control worked beautifully. Compliments.
Nice! Always am getting some motivating my life here!
Your videos are truly quality content! very interesting to watch thank you!
What an absolute masterpiece of rocket, defo my favourite channel of all RUclips is urs
Awesome video! Love the concept, also the utility!
I think you're being pretty hard on yourself. I really think it did amazing for a first attempt. Significantly better than I even expected!
I'm so excited for the ultimate spaceshot, Joe, but I'm equally thrilled with every step and iteration along the way! I love these components that are technical but explained in such a way that my non-engineer brain can understand them, and I wholly endorse this pursuit of non-spinning footage from a spinning rocket because that sounds AWESOME 😁I'm also immensely pleased that SEND IT! is serving as such a reliable testbed for all this tech development - keep up the great work Joe, and I'll be here to follow along on your journey!
I loved the Flerf jab, nicely done.
So happy to see you back on screen in such a good mood 😍
Great progress Joe, Im sure you will get better results from the Stepper Motor. My only question/suggestion is to ensure the payload is rotationally balanced as it could be affecting the spin rate and influencing the IMU, looking forward to the next launch.. PR
Just watched the Mark Rober collab! WOW! How cool was that! Glad to see you are finally getting some well deserved recognition for your insane skills!
Damn man. It’s was indeed a rock solid build. Glad your not giving up on. 🤞🏼for the next iteration
great video joe keep up the good work
You wanted video stability.....I'd say you accomplished it for the most part. You can't always get perfection on your first attempt. Now comes the fun of the refining process.
This is very good work.
With gyroscopes you can directly try to stop the rocket from spinning. I'm looking forward to seeing this.
The footage isnt so bad. It is really great to see it.
Man these are beautiful shots! still a treat!
Awesome !! keep going with the spinning cam !!
This one time in school we made rockets and launched them with compressed air, and I did not have enough fins for proper stability so I folded the ends of the fins to around 30-45 degrees so it was stable due to gyroscopic stability (I think that's the name?), and its cool how it works so well. Great video!
Oh man, as someone with a computer vision background, what an amazing problem. Loved your doing this for the sake of it!
Fantastic video as always.
This is an amazing project! You can do it!
I think you are very creative and I enjoyed watching it, keep up the great work 🙂
Joe, you are great engineer. Good luck!
Genius idea spinning the camera. Cant wait for version 2 :)
You're doing great Bro.
Learning from you.
Nice job! Keep trying. Fun to learn with you.
Just discovered your videos ... I'm addicted bro .. Nice stuff
Yes, I would even say rocket engineer. Your vids are the biggest motivation to me solving engineering problems!
Very cool. I look forward to seeing the stepper motor version fly! 🚀
I like your argument for doing this very much. The other ways might work, but this is more fun and I want to try it. There is huge value to that. Good for you. Also, regardless of outcome, you will learn something interesting.
Another awesome video from BPS. Keep up the great work!
It seems like when the camera module spins it also puts spin on the rocket (like a reaction wheel). I'm willing to bet putting a weighted counterwheel (weighted the same as the camera module) that rotates in the opposite direction of the camera will help steady the camera even more. Having the stepper motor will definitely be the biggest thing that will smooth things out, but in case you need a large and sudden rotation the weighted counterwheel solution will get rid of any possible exacerbation caused by the rotation of the camera. The spin as it is now will most likely cause the camera rotation to have to keep compensating more and more as the flight goes on (even if the camera spins perfectly with the roll of the rocket) so this is really just something to worry about for a space shot or longer duration flight.
Cool! I can't wait to see V2.
Love all the B-roll shots