In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:


Yep. There's also the "learn by doing" aspect.

Sure enough. Am I an expert in this field? Not hardly. I'm going to
have to launch a few of these things before I can be a neophyte. But I
can do the research, and learn as I go.

...then try not to come across as an "expert" with all the
"website references" to prove somebody's criticism is "wrong."

And this is a bad thing - how?

Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be
absolutely wrong.....

Yup. Despite his *tables*

Tsk. The Standard Atmosphere "table" was put together before
WW2. It is quite accurate enough for the flying community to use,
to calibrate altimeters as one example. Refinements of the data
have continued, including computer modeling to make it easier to
use in other analysis programs involving aerodynamics.

The first question that comes to mind is: How accurate are the
claims of amateur balloonists' altitudes? How is that measured?
[Note: An on-board recording barometer would have to be precisely
calibrated against - guess what - those pesky Standard Atmosphere
"tables!"]

SpaceShipOne's altitude was measured by NASA radar; Dryden
is conveniently very near Mojave International where Scaled
Composites has its company and uses that old Marine Air Base's
airfield. Radar ranging from China Lake Naval Weapons facility is
a bit south of Edwards but they can "look up" just fine. Before
you claim (in triumph, of course) reaching a certain height, you have
to establish some bona fides about actually reaching an altitude by
being able to cite the measurement capability.


And perhaps you can't do it *all by yourself*. But you don't plan to - your
method is to assemble a team, not be the sole basement inventor.

Right, I have no intention of doing it by myself.

Right. Get everyone ELSE busy taking care of those pesky details
like "work" and budgetary support. Concept managers don't have
to sweat anything.


Weather people often send balloons of the latex variety into the
atmosphere. Why would they not often send them to 100,000 feet?

a. Because the balloon is made of latex, and will not "go" that high?

Tsk. Because those surplus 8-foot-diameter (or so) balloons which
are implied probably don't have the elastomeric characteristics they
might have had when new. Those are fine for parties and such at
surface altitudes but are NO guarantee that they will work at 100,000
ASL with totally frigid temps and way-low pressure and atmospheric
density.

No problem...you have all these websites to "prove" you are absolutely
good and true and without fault in messaging. :-)

b. Because there isn't enough "lift" to take a payload that high

Maybe, maybe not. Ask the Commerce Department, ask NOAA,
whoever. Look for ANSWERS from the pros who do that kind of thing,
not some ballooning morsemen.

Some high school geometry and those nasty, pesky figures from the
Standard Atmosphere "tables" can help you make some simple
back-of-the-envelope APPROXIMATIONS of lift capability with
various balloon volumes and various available gasses (other than
the hot air from PCTAs). That gives you some CREDIBILITY on
doing your own homework. Successful managers DO that sort of
thing...finalized, refined calculations are left up to specialists.

c. Because most of what they are interested in takes place at lower
altitudes.

You are starting to show promise of thinking for yourself.

d. more financial information please... 8^)

Successful managers are able to contact the specialists and pros
of a particular technology to get that...and should have some of that
background data available before pitching the "concept management"
pipe-dream.


There are some old-school folks whose idea of "encouragement" is to tell you
you're no good, your ideas cannot work, that you don't know what you're
doing,
etc. The idea is that you'll somehow be motivated to prove them wrong, and
will
succeed in order to do so.

Do you think this is encouragement? Not that it matters.

If you are spending OTHER folks' money (such as sponsors) or OTHER
folks' TIME (the unnamed volunteers doing all the dirty work), then you'd
better have your ducks at least partway in a row before committing.

If you want to get pouty, petulant, and pejorative-laden towards anyone
demonstrating common corporate design review practices on your noble,
imaginative soul, that's your own problem. Your "concept" is not unique
nor is your application unique...free ballooning in the USA has been going
on for over 200 years and those other websites "prove" that others have
been "doing science" (NASA's phraseology) already.

Design review meetings are done to make certain a project will make a
profit, the most profit, for the company. The emotionally self-centered
usually have a very hard time in those because "they thought of a
particular thing and that is without fault and the 'best' one to use" and
are then freaked out by several other 'suggestions' which are cheaper,
simpler, or just plain better all-around. Those folks don't last long in
projects. To do "managing" of a fair-sized budget hobby project involving
others time and energy, you have to demonstrate some capability other
than passing a morse code test...like knowing a FEW details about this
ballooning thingy, approximate monies involved, appropriate federal and
local laws met, and so forth.

If you need all this psychological stroking BEFORE committing, try
looking at some of the successes in the past. A couple of bicycle
shop owners-brothers worked for years and years on making a flying
machine, pretty much in isolation. They got their ducks in a row on
what terribly little "science" of flight was known by anyone [built their
own wind tunnel to get an idea of airfoil shapes and lifting capability, as
one example] They did their first, very short flight of a heavier-than-air
flying machine 101 years ago. Few folks other than the Wright's sister
offered any solace or ego sustenance for years and years of working
out their first problems.


And success is not guaranteed.

Which of course, makes success all that much better. It's like the
difference between a complete appliance station, and one where as much
as you can do yourself has been done.

So far, Mr. Concept Manager, you have NOT done it.

Try not to get all ****y about others not cheering your "success."


You may fail, Mike. Worse, you may succeed!

Failure is not an option......... ;^)

You don't have a gene stamped with "Kranz" yet.