N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
some snippage
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.
And the research says?
My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate
and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere.
This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing
this sort of thing at this time.
This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in
launching similar balloons.
Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to
incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various
Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled
by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp"
processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet
radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be
transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload.
This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic
radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known
equipment that fits the requirements.
My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload
that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures
encountered in this area of the stratosphere.
This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more
extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of
insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple
insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related
failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of
payload container might be made and operate successfully.
If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be
arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours -
this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice
having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable
approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise.
My initial research leads me to believe that small science experiments
might be performed on this payload, as long as the aggregate weight is
within payload limits.
Yeah, you know.... people blah blah blah.
My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a
reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40
dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of
helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload
construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of
damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per
launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be
utilized, the cost can be reduced even more.
Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo
project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my
case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many
thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost
us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that
are doing this.
My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not
place undue restrictions on these launches.
I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA,
and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing.
[i]
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*
The tables will show that a properly-designed "latex weather ballon" can reach
100,000 feet. Remember:
"If it happens, it must be possible"
A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?
Hasn't held Len back, even when he's wrong!!
It would be interesting to know what are the "many topics where
have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various
articles that you have read"
Hmmm?
Lessee, there is a first person/second person shift in there, so I
wasn't sure how to answer.
But I'll take a stab. I would think that most everyone here - in fact
most everyone everywhere - gives daily pronouncements on things that
they have not done.
It isn't a problem. While there is nothing like first hand experience,
there is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge from references and
passing it on. Otherwise how could people "know" that a bullet fired
from a gun will do bodily damage. How would they know that potato chips
taste good. How would they know that if they stuck their head underwater
and took a deep breath, they probably wouldn't like the results We HAVE
to take some info as real without experience. We cannot be skeptical of
everything, every waking moment.
Have I said *anyone* should not post here?
I think Leo believes that I should simply accept that some people think
that I cannot do this, and simply slink away. I do reserve the right to
reply (and to not be too happy about it) when I am called incompetent!
Sorry Leo - it works both ways! 8^)
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.
Which means your resources have been multiplied.
Pop quiz time!
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?
No.
b. Because there isn't enough "lift" to take a payload that high
No.
c. Because most of what they are interested in takes place at lower
altitudes.
Possible.
d. more financial information please... 8^)
How about:
e. reliability of such high altitude missions is too lo
I don't think so, at least as a reason for not doing flights there. So
little "weather" is happening at that altitude that a payload sent there
would not have much to report on! 8^)
f. cost of such missions does not justify the *weather*
information gathered
True, no return at all.
Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane,
high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to
all.
Of course.
I wonder what a spitball falling from 100,000 feet would do? ;^)
Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?)
I also learned that preconceptions are often wrong and so are models based
on
inadequate information and a lack of understanding of *all* the relevant
physics. This has been proven time and again in the history of
engineering.
I've always found it hard to believe that a few square inches of brake
lining can stop a bog car. Seems impossible!
Depends on the composition of the brake lining, for one thing.
I should clarify this statement. I know that brakes stop cars. I know
that it is a pretty straightforward calculation.
My point is that it is a few square inches of material that is stopping
a big car. It isn't necessarily intuitive that it will do it.
And as you say, Jim. People are doing it, so it works.
No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur
radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute.
What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? From what
I've
seen and calculated, his main limitation may be airspace regulations here
in
EPA - a place where I do have some empirical experience.
And that is one of the big considerations.
But those aren't laws of physics - they're regulations imposed by humans
.for
obvious reasons.
They
aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend
to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of
engineering and physics as it pertains to your project.
Perhaps we've been reading different posts...
I respectfully suggest that you've been too busy (once again)
focussing on the poster rather than the material posted.
I suggest that the person posting that "latex weather balloons cannot reach
100,000 feet is simply wrong.
Or complexly wrong. But no doubt, wrong!
You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says?
Because we can have a civil discussion?
Exactly.
I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and
antagonistic behavior.
Seems that way..
Jim, whether
you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of
physics could care less! They remain absolute.
What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding?
Hmmm?
The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical
law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets
of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal
is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been
satisfactorily resolved.
Engineering 101, freshman years stuff.
Jim, can you honestly say that as an engineer that you have solved all
the problems on any project satisfactorily?
Satisfactorily? Yes. Perfectly? No.
Or have you accepted the
results and wanted to do better?
Any honest engineer will tell you that there were better ways to have done
it =
after it's done.
By the above definition, engineering tasks would probably never get done.
If there's too much insistence on perfection, nothing can ever happen.
There's
*always* another level of documentation, testing, analysis, etc., that
could be
done.
All depends on how we define "satisfactorily". For example, suppose a project
demands that a system have MTBF of, say, 100,000 hours, as measured under
certain specified conditions. If a system is designed that meets that
specification, it's "satisfactory". 99,999 hours is not satisfactory, unless
the writer(s) of the specification rewrite it.
Of course if the design turns out to have MTBF of, say, 250,000 hours, that's
great - but only if it does not adversely affect other requirements.
The posts that we saw earlier were the
beginnings of the issues list - responding to it with "it's been done,
it'll work, no problemo!" - type platitudes ain't going to resolve the
issues - it's just wishful thinking. Or perhaps no thinking at all.
No, it isn't.
Not to mention, I never said those words in quotes! I don't know why
I'm attributed to saying things I never said!
True enough.
When an attempt is made to do something for the first time, there's always
the
possibility that it simply cannot be done, or cannot be done with the
available
resources. Or that there are factors no one has considered.
But once a thing is actually done for the first time, it's a different
ball
game completely, because now we *know* it's possible.
Classic example: In the very early 1920s, the very best knowledge of the
physics of radio waves predicted that it was *essentially impossible* to
communicate across the Atlantic with the power levels, wavelengths,
antennas
and receiver sensitivity then available to amateurs.
The problem was that the models used did not take ionospheric refraction
into
account. And so amateurs showed it could be done, and soon the
"shortwaves"
were in worldwide use.
Now I'm not saying that the physics of ballooning isn't well understood!
I'm
just saying that since it has been done already, some of the commentary
against
Mike's idea rings very hollow.
Has me stumped!
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.
I don't think it's encouragement. It's just typical Len behavior.
If they are missing something (and me too, perhaps - this sure ain't
my area of expertise either!), then by all means show them where
they're wrong - but they are both pretty intelligent, educated and
knowledgeable guys, with years of real-world experience in their
fields - maybe worth at least a rational discussion? Or you could
throw a bunch of web references in their faces and get angry....
Your call.
Leo,
There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions
and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering
is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent.
At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites.
Len isn't. Says it all.
Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it?
And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit
web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called
incompetent.
Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian
Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I
would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in
my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone.
My call.
The websites offer a lot of evidence that it can be done, has been done
and
even how to do it.
Of course it has been done - duh!
Tell it to Len.
What I like (not) is that when I'm told both that it is impossible
(with insinuations as to my lack of knowledge of basic physics), and
again with a direct comment as to my lack of competency, I am somehow
the petulant one.
Classic Len trick. Acts like a complete jackass, then says *he's* the
injured party and *you* are acting inappropriately.
The term for such behavior in these parts is "being a smack".
I do want to get beyond this, but it goes both ways.
The issue here is simply how the
various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome.
The first question is if they are obstacles at all.
I recall commentary on how expensive helium allegedly is. Then I did a
little
research and found that it's about 20 cents a cubic foot when bought in
quantities of about 300 cubic feet or greater. So for a thousand-cubic
foot
balloon, we're talking maybe $200 worth of helium. That's a bit of money
but not a showstopper.
I know folks who will drop $200 on *dinner*.
Yup.
Three words: Eagles tailgate party.
I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be.
I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles
tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow
tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability
issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the
calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food,
and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate
parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party
unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they
won't allow them anyhow.
Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the
frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the
various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of
it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context)
But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others
can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing
every concern.
Referring folks who raise technical concerns to a pile of websites
merely demonstrates an inability to articulate the technical knowledge
that is ultimately required to accomplish a plan such as this.
How?
1. He would hate academic documents. references- pages of them!
Possible.
2. Besides, I think that NASA has a very nice graphic and description
of the atmospheric layers.
3. In the complicated many faceted world we live in today, it is
sometimes more important to know where to FIND knowledge than to have
all the knowledge there is (which is BTW, impossible)
"Don't reinvent the wheel"
The websites show what has already been done. By *amateurs*. Their methods
and solutions form a starting point.
One thing I learned in engineering school was not to reinvent the wheel.
*ahem*
Makes
one wonder ho deep an understanding one would possess to reply in this
manner! I'd suspect not too deep.......not much past the "sounds
pretty cool!" stage of the project).
If it doesn't "sound pretty cool", why do it at all?
One of the things I HAVE to do is sell this concept to people. Even as
strange as this rrap experience has been is that although I have not
encountered it so far in the real world, I must realize that there will
probably be people that simply refuse to believe that we can do this for
one reason or the other.
Sure. Or that it will cost too much to be practical.
I may run into a flat earther here and there.
You mean like folks who get upset whenever it's pointed out that Morse Code
played any important role in radio communication after the 1930s?
Yeah.... like that! I bet they'll really be annoyed knowing this thing
is going to have a Morse beacon on it.
Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse?
Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with
CWGet. I'll probably use packet for telemetry.
Now morse QSO's are a possibility.
One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific
information - actually doing it is quite something else.
That's my point.
And doing it will be exceptionally cool. (pardon my enthusiasm)
Who should have greater credibility - the person who has done it or the
person
who sits on the sidelines and says it can't be done?
The plans to
construct an atomic bomb take up but a few pages on the Web - but
actually building one might be just a bit more difficult than the
relatively simple documentation would lead one to believe......lol!
Those plans aren't complete.
;-)
If Mike was not interested in discussing this topic at a detail level,
then perhaps it was a bit unwise to post it in a public newsgroup -
unless there was some other reason for doing so......? Wonder what
that might be.....! hmmmmm - Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah......
y'think?
Perhaps he *is* interested in discussing it at a detail level. But the
negeative criticism makes that difficult.
After all, Mike could actually launch a balloon - and no matter what the
results were, some would decry it as a "kluge". And if it only made it to,
say,
98,500 feet, the mission would be described by some as a "failure".
I just think it's worth a try.
Lets back up a little bit here, and see if I can salvage something here.
My main job in this whole project has been to SELL people on the
concept of something that is not particularly new, but has been made
more interesting by a fusion of Ham radio, GPS, Packet radio, and
Schools, or perhaps more accurately, youth in general.
Yep. And it's something that requires a team effort.
The concept is to put volunteers to playwork in sending a payload in an
appropriate container to the shoreline between earth and space, where
the conditions are not like the area that we inhabit. It's cold, there
is almost no atmosphere, there is a lot of radiation, and it is fairly
near the ionized area of the atmosphere.
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.
You mean...like somebody who builds an entire ham station out of mostly
recycled parts? And then is called "cheap" because it only him cost $100?
I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too.
One thing I notice is that there is very little attention given to the fact
that what you're talking about is an ongoing project consisting of a series
of
launches. You'll almost certainly not try to reach 100,000 feet on the
first
go. Or the second...
These conditions make it an interesting place to go to. How do we go
there? Weather balloons provide a tantalizing clue. These latex balloons
are launched on a daily basis by various weather agencies, mostly NOAA,
but also at others.
At this point in time, I don't know whether latex ballons can take one of
your packages to 100,000 feet or not.
From what I've read since that sentence was written, it seems very likely that
"latex weather balloons" can do the job.
Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we
learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though!
I do know that they can be useful in the
development process.
Here are a couple links: pssst, don't let Leo know I gave you these! ;^)
http://www.eoss.org/pubs/faqloon.htm
This is a gentleman of experience going through a FAQ on the subject.
Part way through, he notes that they use Totex balloons. 800 gram
balloon to lift 3-4 pounds to 100,000 feet, and 1200 gram to lift a 6
pound payload to the same. The company that they buy the balloons from
has a website:
http://www.kaymont.com/pages/home.html
Checking on this website, you'll find that Totex balloons are indeed
made of natural latex rubber, as well as some other interesting stuff.
Back to the EOSS FAQ page, there are a lot of answers there. They also
go into costs, He versus H, power sources, and a lot of other stuff.
"If it happens, it must be possible".
Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first
100,000 foot flight.....
hehe!
Since this happens so often, the authorities (FAA)
and the launchers of the balloons have worked out a system that allows
this to happen. A science balloon launch will just add one more to the mix.
Another consideration is that the FAA no longer cares about the payload
after it has reached 60,000 feet. That is the top end of their "airspace".
During launch day, you will call them at launch, at 60,000 feet when
they leave airspace, and on descent when they renter airspace at 60,000
feet, then again at landing. This means the balloon spends less time in
the path of harm than it might appear at first.
As the payload grows in weight, the regulations become more involved.
While still relatively accommodating, it is a powerful incentive to keep
the payload light.
How is this done? The payload is often made of a material such as
household insulation. Styrene insulation is quite light, and provides
good insulation against the cold.
Small versions of electronics are usually used. In the quest for weight
reduction, cases are often stripped, and the chassis are mounted
directly on the foam. For VHF and UHF communications, not a whole lot of
power is needed for the transmitters. A 300 mw "credit card" HT is often
the transmitter of choice.
Power being a consideration. Lithium batteries are the power of choice,
due to lightness. Anywhere that power can be conserved is worth looking at.
I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most
here would know about that already.
What's so bad about this?
You may fail, Mike. Worse, you may succeed!
Failure is not an option......... ;^)
Failure is always an option. Often more is learned from a "failure" than from a
"success".
The smiley was because that was the old Gene Kranz quote during the
Apollo 13 mission. I thought it was a bit fitting.
- Mike KB3EIA -