## 10 Conclusions  
In this paper, we demonstrated the second iteration of a dual-purpose star tracker system launched on a stratospheric balloon. By adding an extra camera for real-time attitude determination and RSO detection, we have been able to successfully test our algorithms without the risk of altering the performance of our image capture payload. We also successfully demonstrated image downlink, enabling us to monitor the payload's performance throughout the mission. This is an extremely important feature of our payload, which will be especially critical for any long stratospheric missions that run for multiple days. We performed a limiting magnitude comparison between the two main sensors, the PCO and IDS cameras, and proved through calculations that both are able to see stars. Additionally, we analyzed resulting data from the image and performed a delay analysis, thermal analysis, and sensor comparison. An important lesson from the analysis of this stratospheric balloon mission is that non-weather-rated microSD cards are more advantageous than weather-rated ones because the internal payload temperatures support the operation of standard microSD cards. These cards offer a faster writing speed at a relatively low cost.  
Future work includes further post-processing of the data we captured. Additionally, in future stratospheric missions, we aim to incorporate uplink commands alongside downlink capabilities. This will enable us to make necessary code adjustments based on the data collected via downlink. With regards to RSO detection, we plan to use the RSO detection algorithm flown on subpayload to perform RSO detection on both datasets to assess if there is a difference between it and the truth data. We will also study subpayload 2's IDS  
Figure 16: The Life Cycle of Celestial Objects Pts. 1 & 2: (**a**) RSONAR II payload display; (**b**) some of the etched messages seen through magnifying glass.  
truth data' and compare it to the onboard algorithm's detection. Additionally, we intend to expand our analysis to determine which RSOs were uniquely detected by PCO, which RSOs were uniquely detected by IDS, and which RSOs were detected by both cameras.  
Conceptualization, R.Q.; methodology, R.Q., G.C., P.K. and V.S.; software, R.Q., G.C., P.K. and V.S.; validation, R.Q., G.C., P.K. and V.S.; formal analysis, R.Q., G.C., P.K. and V.S.; writing--original draft preparation, R.Q., G.C., P.K. and V.S.; writing--review and editing, R.S.K.L.; supervision, R.S.K.L.; project administration, R.S.K.L.; funding acquisition, R.S.K.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant (grant number: RGPIN-2019-06322) and the Canadian Space Agency Flights and Fieldwork for the Advancement of Science and Technology (FAST) program (grant number: 19 FAYORA12) in collaboration with Magellan Aerospace and Defence Research and Development Canada.  
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to continuing research and containing sensitive data.  
We would like to thank [PERSON] for his invaluable feedback and support during the RSONAR II mission.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.