Pros | Cons |
---|---|
Familiar language: C | No concurrency/multithreading |
Small & lightweight | More work to accomplish high-level tasks |
Bare-metal programming, good for motors | Bare-metal programming -> less readable |
Hardware interrupts | No onboard write storage |
More data/abbreviated specsheet here
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
Any language | Runs operating system: background task interference |
Concurrency/multithreading | Vibration concerns |
High-level programming | High-level programming -> inefficient? |
Onboard read-write storage | No hardware interrupts |
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
Open-source | Designed around somebody else’s rocket |
Poorly documented | |
Appears large and heavy |
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
High level of sensor integration | Designed for drones, not rockets |
Vibration design considerations | Unfamiliar programming environment |
High level of redundancy | Expensive |
Many variations | Many variations |
Link to main page: Pixhawk
I could not find any examples of Pixhawk being used in spaceflight, however it is very common in the UAS industry. UND owns several Pixhawk avionics units.
Small SOC Linux-based computers. Comes in multiple variations.
Designed for robotics.
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
High level of sensor integration | Not designed for high vibration |
Extensive documentation | Expensive (not very) |
Runs Debian Linux |
Link to page: BeagleBone Blue
Designed for general-purpose computations.
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
Large number of I/O pins | Not designed for high vibration |
Small size | Not designed for sensor integration |
Integrated WiFi |
Link to page: BeagleBone Black
Designed to be an “enhanced” version of the BeagleBone Black.
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
Onboard sensors | Not designed for high vibration |
Onboard WiFi/BT | Hard to find for purchase |
Large number of I/O pins | |
Inexpensive (~$70) |
Link to page: BeagleBone Enhanced
Check the dropdown menu labelled “BeagleBone Enhanced” for more hardware extensions (extra antennas, rechargeable batteries)