Tag - Altavian

Altavian Awarded US Army TUAS Contract

Altavian, Inc., announced they were awarded a $250MM Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract with the US Army. With this award, Altavian now supports the largest small UAS program in the world. It exists under the Program Executive Office Aviation, Products Office for Tactical Unmanned Aircraft (TUAS), The US Army Family of Systems, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (FoSUAS) includes the RQ-11, the RQ-20. It supports control and communications equipment, and other technologies fielded over the contract period of performance. All systems are for a single, dismounted war-fighter. The design enables the individual to carry, assemble, and deploy the system for immediate over-the-hill surveillance and reconnaissance.  

Altavian contract award

Altavian supports the mission of the Army to provide critical, real-time intelligence for warfighter protection and extended operational reach. “The entire Altavian team is proud to be supporting our warfighters," said John Perry, CEO of Altavian. "It is part of our mission to design and build incredible technology. Knowing that it is at work in service of those who defend the United States is our highest honor. We are committed to meeting the challenges of this contract and accelerating innovation in the US Army UAS capabilities.” Under this new contract, Altavian is in competition to provide quality components to sustain the FoSUAS fleet. It is also competing to provide upgrade offerings which increase capability, resiliency, and cost-effectiveness of the fleet. New offerings include upgraded avionics and radios with increased frequency options. Plus, a handheld ground control station (H-GCS). Altavian continues to supply RQ-11 and RQ-20 direct replacement parts for the Government. “We are proud to continue to bring competition to Group I [under 20 lbs] UAS.” said Thomas Rambo, co-founder of Altavian. “Our prior efforts were successful in breaking vendor lock on non-integrated components such as composite structures and ancillary parts. This new contract brings the opportunity to open the rest of the system (flight control, radio, payloads, and ground control) for greater integration. All the technologies that we are proposing for this contract embrace the US DoD’s Open Systems Architecture objectives and by adopting this technology will ensure the continued sustainment, upgradeability, and interoperability of Group I UAS for years to come.” This contract has a base award period of five years and is the primary acquisition method for Group I UAS in the Army. Altavian performed sucessfully on the predecessor contract since 2012.  

Shop Altavian's line of UAVs at Unmanned Systems Source.

 

Altavian Announces Work with NASA at UAS Test Site

Altavian, recently announced that it is working with Northern Plains UAS Test Site (NPUASTS). The reason? Altavian is helping to test NASA's Unmanned aircraft systems Traffic Management (UTM) system. Altavian and NPUASTS are developing technology related to UTM. Additionally, a third partner, iSight RPV Services, is providing flight test services on the Nova F7200 sUAS.  

UTM History

In recent years, NASA has worked with technology leaders in the sUAS industry to develop a UTM system which safely integrates drones into the national air space. A UTM is integral to regulating drones on a national level, as well as beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations.  

Developing UTM Technology

Altavian is hard at work developing dual communication systems for the Nova F7200. Point-to-point radio frequency communication is the most common method for sUAS-to-operator communication. Currently, nearly every drone uses point-to-point. This technology is optimal for high-rate aircraft telemetry or payload links, such as HD video. However, it has limitations when the sUAS is flown further away from the operator. By implementing a satellite link, the sUAS can send low-rate telemetry messages back and forth to the operator anywhere in the world. As such, the sUAS's range is no longer limited by local radio frequency. In parallel to this, Altavian is updating its Ground Control Station software, Flare, to communicate with the updated UTM system. Previously, Altavian and NPUASTS conducted flight tests with Technical Capability Level 1 in early 2016. The upcoming tests are the third iteration of the UTM system. By integrating Flare with the new UTM system, NASA is able to see where Altavian aircraft are at all times during testing. This developing technology could prove invaluable to preparing Altavian sUAS for future BVLOS operations. The project will continue into April 2018.   Shop Altavian's line of vehicles at Unmanned Systems Source.  

About Altavian, Inc.

Altavian designs and manufactures high quality drones to carry the best sensors into the toughest environments. Our drones feature modular systems to carry custom and integrated payloads to specialize any drone for any type of data. Our focus is on systems that collect data with the highest integrity and accuracy.  

Commercial or Consumer? Comparing the Accuracy of Survey Data Between Two Systems

Is there a difference in the accuracy of survey data from a consumer “retail” system versus a commercial system? If so, what is that difference? Over the Summer, the team at Altavian -- manufacturer of the Nova F7200 -- decided to find out.  

Commercial or Consumer?

For a variety of application, including aerial data collection, commercial UAV systems are believed to far exceed the capabilities of a retail drone. However, few surveyors have the luxury of comparing a commercial versus a consumer platform in a real-world environment. So, the Altavian Team decided to run a data collection survey test between a DJI Mavic Pro and an Altavian Nova F7200. The end result? The Nova F7200 produced data ten times more accurate than the Mavic in both horizontal and vertical deviation.  

The control: traditional ground survey

Establishing a reliable control for data comparison was a critical aspect of the experiment. The team decided on a traditional ground survey to serve as the data control baseline. Below is an overview of the ground survey. Equipment used
  • Trimble R7 GNSS RTK Rover
  • Trimble Zephyr Geodetic Antenna
  • Leica TCR405 Power
  • Leica Sprinter
Survey Description This survey established ground control for comparing the survey accuracy of drone data collected by a DJI Mavic Pro and Altavian’s Nova F7200 equipped with an MP-22 payload. Collection of Control The rover was placed on both the South Points for four hours each. The resulting coordinate error are LAT error at .005 m., LONG error .009 m., and ELEV error .033 m. (point 1). For (point 2) LAT error at .006 m., LONG error at .021 m., and ELEV error at .042 m. Survey Procedure The survey points were 8’’ spikes driven through checked linoleum tiles. The points were shot using a Leica TCR405 total station. The elevations were collected using a Leica Sprinter. Survey Results The vertical survey ended with a misclosure of .0095 m. Each aircraft collected two sets of data which the team compared to  With previously established Ground Control Points (GCP) from the ground survey, there was a clear way to determine how the accuracy of consumer and commercial systems stacked up.  

Retail System: DJI Mavic Pro

The team's primary concern was to ensure that the smaller, consumer system had the same GSD as the Nova. To ensure this, the Mavic flew just shy of 60 m. to maintain a calculated GSD of 1.97 cm. The Mavic Flight used 317 photos with a median of 51976 key points per image, and a median of 30452.2 matches per calibrated image. The total flight time for the Mavic was 25 minutes. The data was processed in Pix4Dmapper Pro and then compared to the results from the ground survey. The result was the Mavic had a deviation from the GCPs at 1.9 m. horizontally and 1.22 m. vertically. Finally, the mean RMS error for the Mavic was 0.996 m.  

Commercial System: Nova F7200

Thet team equipped the Nova with their modular MP-22 payload carrying a DSLR Canon SL1 camera. It flew at its standard 90 m. altitude maintaining a GSD of 1.97 cm. The Nova Flight used 238 images with a median of 40199 key points per image, and a median of 25492.3 matches per calibrated image. Total flight time for the Nova was 9 minutes. The data process using Pix4Dmapper Pro was identical to create a comparable data sets between the Mavic and Nova. Once again, the team compared the data to the ground survey. They found that the Nova had a 0.19 m. horizontal and 0.17 m. vertical deviation from the GCPs. The mean RMS error for the Nova was 0.015 m.  

Results: Comparing the Survey Accuracy of Drone Data

When the team examined the two data sets against the accuracy of the ground survey, it revealed a clear winner. The Altavian commercial system thoroughly out paced the consumer system. Now, the benefits of investing in a commercial system were measurable. Also measurable were the risks involved in selecting a consumer drone for such a task. Though consumer drones are a great fit for a number of applications, there are risks involved when choosing such a vehicle for other endeavors. An off-the-shelf consumer drone offers an attractive price tag. However, that price tag also comes with limitations when it comes to the accuracy and fidelity of data that, ultimately, makes it more toy than tool. The advantages of a commercial system like the Nova F7200 for accurate survey data are clear. In the long run, such systems are a safer long-term investment. Commercial drones designed for survey accuracy cut workload down from weeks to days. Such systems enable users to complete projects faster and with more cost efficiency. And, such systems beat the pants off walking that survey line day in day out rain or shine.   Find out more about Altavian's commercial line of solutions at Unmanned Systems Source.

PPK vs. RTK: When do you choose one over the other?

PPK vs. RTKUAS vendors targeting markets from commercial survey to agriculture are fielding systems with real-time kinematic GNSS (RTK) capability. In principle, RTK promises accuracies at the 1-3cm level. The main purpose is to minimize or eliminate the need for ground control points, thereby reducing cost. Altavian uses GNSS receivers upgradeable to RTK operation, but favors another approach for this level of accuracy: post-processed kinematic (PPK). There are a couple of reasons why:
  1. RTK requires a GNSS base station equipped with a transmitter with a reliable link to a fairly dynamic moving platform.
  2. The rover (on the UAS) itself requires a dedicated receiver for the corrections.
These primary reasons carry some further implications for the cost of deployment, especially when considered against PPK.  

PPK vs.RTK

RTK operations not only require a stationary base station, but it must be located at a known control point. Provided the base station is deployed for long enough periods of time, this is not too much of a problem. The base station’s precise location can be determined post-mission if no control points are already present. In this case, a global shift of the aircraft’s trajectory must be done once the position of the base station is determined, taking away some of the benefits of a ‘real-time’ solution. PPK requires a base station as well. But in many cases, at least in the Eastern US, the public CORS network may be dense enough to provide a base station reasonably close to your project. But, it’s likely you will need a base station of your own. This represents slightly less investment in an over-the-air link to the rover. However, it comes with the possibility of loss-of-lock.  

Losing Lock

In both RTK and PPK, when the rover loses lock, a new integer ambiguity resolution procedure must be initiated. The advantage of PPK is that the search can proceed from previous and future data relative to that instant. Additionally, forward and reverse solutions in PPK are optimally combined and give an estimate of a solution’s consistency. RTK solutions cannot use data that has not yet been recorded. If you want to eliminate ground control points and you chose an RTK system, there is no external information for basing accuracy estimates. Finally, it is worth noting that antennas light enough to be mounted on a small UAS are not geodetic-grade and are not likely calibrated for phase-center variation (PCV), let alone the actual location of the phase center. This means that you might get a reported solution accuracy of 2cm, but it could easily be very misleading. With a PPK solution, at least you can see if the forward and reverse solutions agree within certain bounds (and we acknowledge this is a very limited vote of confidence for any kinematic solution, but it’s better than nothing).  

Conclusion

Ultimately, there is no replacement for real ground truth, especially if your data product must be certified to a specific level of accuracy. However, strategies to minimize the requirements on GCPs can vary widely in their effectiveness, depending on your needs. If positional accuracies of a few decimeters are acceptable, real-time L-band corrections through a subscription service such as TerraStar-D are very attractive alternatives that require no base stations at all. You can find and shop Altavian's line of solutions at Unmanned Systems Source.