| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
November 19th 04, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#162
November 19th 04, 01:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#163
November 19th 04, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#165
November 19th 04, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Leo
writes: On 18 Nov 2004 11:11:05 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian Kelly have something in common. Realism? Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice. Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. Who are they, Leo? ...um, Len and Brian, IIRC.....did you forget? What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to 100,000 feet or more? And you, of course - cheerleading for Mike, as usual....... You said "two folks who have a fair amount of knowledge and experience". I would make three - except I claim no experience in high altitude ballooning at all. Is there something wrong with expressing a positive attitude towards the idea, and offering encouragement while *simultaneously* pointing out where the problems may be? Who on this newsgroup has even attempted to launch a radio-carrying ballon to 100,000 feet? Or even to half that? Why should that matter? When someone says it cannot be done..... You yourself have posted on many topics where you have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read......including this one! True enough! A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? Have I said *anyone* should not post here? 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. 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. 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. 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. You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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 can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific information - actually doing it is quite something else. That's my point. 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! ;-) 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#166
November 19th 04, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: They need a way to burst the balloon on command (i.e., nichrome wire wrapped around the balloon plug, a receiver, and a battery), metallized RADAR reflectors on the instrument chain, and FAA clearance to launch. The "command burst" receiver better have some secure coding to it or some jughead will burst-command it beforehand. Make that "CBer." There are no jugheads in the amateur service. 8^0 Riiiiighhhht...especially the morsemen who would never Ever do any wrongness! :-) A corner-cube reflector can be done with aluminum foil on a balsa wood frame...just three mutually-perpendicular planes in that corner cube, less than a foot in any dimension and still good for skin tracking. Maybe Kelly could diagram one on the back of an envelope for us? I've made them. They weigh about a half ounce or so for 1-foot sides (good for reflections down to transponder frequencies of 1.1 GHz and up to X band. Little ones for X-band (and some C band) search/weather radar can be a few inches on the side. Balsa wood strips for the edges and ordinary kitchen aluminum foil for the reflector. Corner cubes are extensively used in optics/laser benches. Those are just three planes of reflectors, each perpendicular to the others. No matter the azimuth or elevation of the source, a reflection goes back on the same direction vector. Ideal for a positive radar return in any azimuth or elevation. According to Mike, the FAA is "accommodating." :-) They've lost all sense of jumor since 9/11 The air controllers weren't too happy about the comms outage (including the backup system) at the Los Angeles Center, either! Back in the 60s the weather folks used to loft a quarter million or so weather balloons per year...with little transmitters in them and telemetry done with extremely low-cost electronics. Good example of doing things simply and for low cost per launch. They still do. It is called a rawindsonde and the rawin observations are transmitted over the weather networks and shared worldwide. These ballons often reach 10MB, but the payload is much smaller than most EOS amateur projects. I had one cluttering up the workshop since the 60s. Military type by the markings. One-shot battery, a simple aneroid bellows driving a printed-circuit rotary switch to kick in temp and moisture and light sensors, all of them variable resistive types that changed the rep. rate of a simple pulse modulator for the combination RCA pencil triode and cavity oscillator assembly and inverted ground-plane antenna. That must be why the ground operator had headphones and counted clicks. It's a lot different today. Not quite. The USAF launched this one I had in the mid-1950s. Guess where? :-) They used a tracking radar receiver on the ground and recorded the telemetry frequencies (of the rep rate) for altitude, temp, and humidity. Azimuthal accuracy was as good as the boresight of the tracking antenna (with some corroboration of altitude by tracker's elevation at close ranges). All of that went in the dumpster long ago except the translucent plastic sleeve on the Xmter assembly went two weeks ago (found it in a box of junk after sorting out the workshop). Best place for all that stuff. Perhaps. :-) RCA's tube works had a steady producion of pencil triodes with crimped-on cavities formed by thin sheet metal. They made millions of units over a couple decades. Was a fairly cheap combination tube & cavity. Those same pencil triodes were later used in a small boat radar unit made by Bonzer. Flattened disk kind of radome, had a planar array of helix antennas inside. A few miles range, good for very small boats. The experiments can be just about anything you can think of that can be done at that altitude. Most launches are multi-mission, with both science and Ham fun stuff on board. And of course the Ham fun can be scientific too. Hams have had fun ballooning for quite a while, but the advent of inexpensive GPS has changed things dramatically. We now fully expect to get our payloads back! That wasn't the case not too many years ago. The balloon is usually one of the latex weather balloon variety. Zero pressure balloons can be used too, but since they are designed to go up and stay up for a long time, that would be a more complex proposition. You need to do some math on that before envisioning such a "low- cost" approach to get to 100 Kilofeet. Those 8-foot (typical) "weather balloons" aren't going to get up that high, not even a mass of them. You need to consult some (free for the asking) density values of the atmosphere and some back-of-the-envelope figuring first. Note that you have to allow for the lifting gas expansion with altitude. It is far from the same at 100 kilofeet versus sea level. Lots of expansion. Tsk. Mike hasn't consulted a Standard Atmosphere table set yet. 100 kilofeet he will NEVER make with some surplus latex weather balloons. Get sponsor, buy new. Mike is still NOT going to make 100 kilofeet altitude with "latex weather balloons." [that was his original statement and, by Rules of Engagement in this newsgrope, he MUST follow that EXACTLY or be termed a "failure" or "defunct"] The payload uses Amateur radio for command and control. At the heart of the system is a GPS unit in conjunction with a packet radio. The telemetry data is sent back to earth and kept track of with a computer. The computer lets us know where the payload is, where it is going and how fast, and predicts the landing site. Oh, and it's freeware. That's going to be a minor cost item. As you will find out, the balloon structure, its support infrastructure, and lifting gas will cost more than you think.. It all adds up. Might be good idea to get a sponsor. Tsk. He gots the "recycling" spirit. Maybe he has a new way to "mine" helium out of the air or ground? [collectors around some heliarc welders might work? :-) ] I was a forecaster for a "round-the-world" balloon venture. They lost their helium due to a fabric tear. Couldn't find enough replacement helium in Argentina. Most helium still comes from Texas. :-) In addition, the packet radio can send back other info as the mission may desire. The mission is often controlled by a microprocessor. To date, a lot of balloonatics use basic stamp controllers. Often a repeater is put on board. A small one has a lot of coverage at 100,000 feet! There is usually a VHF beacon, and occasionally a 10 meter beacon also, although that is not as prevalent as it was before GPS. Two words: Payload weight. You can't get up in the blue sky with lack-of-detail blue sky ideas. If it were that easy, lots and lots of folks would have done so a half century ago. And all of those gps, beacons, packets, thermistors, pressure transducers, and video cameras and ATV transmitters operate off of heavy batteries. Luckily the ascent and descent won't be that long, and the batteries can be scaled back from what is normally required with one caveat. You'll want the beacon to be operable for several days, if possible. Mere details. It is "doing science!" It is "inexpensive!" One-shot batteries are one source, but they ARE truly one-shot and can't be recycled afterwards. I'm sure our multi-disciplinarian engineer who's "been there and back" could do it. Absolutell! :-) The experiments vary. One of the favorite devices for the grade and middle school kids is something called a pongsat. This is an experiment that can be anything that will fit inside a ping-pong ball. Sounds weird, but there are plenty of small scale experiments that fit the bill... er, ping-pong ball. The balloon lifts the payload to the predetermined altitude, and bursts. The payload drops, and the Ham comms can continue during descent, although the first few moments after burst can be pretty weird as the payload often does some pretty strange gyrations until the parachute can grab some atmosphere. Drops like the proverbial rock. All this time, the GPS is keeping track of the whereabouts of the payload. Commercial grade GPS recievers are designed to not work above 60,000 feet. Crazy precaution against strapping one to a missile and using it as a guidance system. No sweaty-dah. Seal the GPS unit in more balloon material, it stays in a local pressure regardless of the vehicle altitude. More or less. The ascent and descent shouldn't be more than 4 - 5 hours. Descent much faster. :-) That weather balloon will probably go POP before 50 kilofeet. [someone finally noticed that those balloon things filled at near sea level DO get rather BIG at high altitude...like, no kidding?] Then at landing, it turns into a foxhunt as the hams use the beacon transmissions to find the payload. With the advent of us getting used to the software and the precision with which the GPS can determine the location, it is not too uncommon for the recovery team to witness the landing. Launch of one of these things does not take as much bureaucratic red tape as most people think. You've done that? You are going to the edge of the stratosphere and think you can do so freely? Ain't quite that easy. And it can be done for surprisingly little money. "Surprisingly little" is a highly subjective term. Real projects have quite objective, finite budgets. The people that are needed are of course Hams, and people with some programming experience. People with experience building things, and a meteorologist can't hurt! People that don't mind a drive on a weekend day to serve on the recovery team. Plenty of subteams, such as payload, publicity, science, visualization, integration, education liaison. Even people that might just want to feed all the other reprobates. Sounds like you've already filled the "executive" position. :-) This is real stuff. This might spark the interest in science in some youngster. And that is not only a career choice, but a service to the country. American scientists are becoming pretty rare. "Becoming pretty rare?" Not quite as any visit to academia will show but feel free to get opinionated. Its great publicity for Amateur radio. It will get ham radio noticed, but what is written up by journalists may not be what you expect. Free ballooning has been going in the USA since 9 January 1793, the first American flight by Frenchman Jean-Pierre Blanchard, lifting off from the Walnut Street Prison in colonial Philadelphia. That was witnessed by none other than President Washington. [from "Lighter Than Air Flight" by Lt. Col. C. V. Glines, USAF, Franklin Watts Inc., NYC, 1965, data from pp 29-35] That's over two centuries of time... And we can innovate and experiment. Radio is a pretty mature science now. It's doubtful that any of us are going to invent a grand new communication scheme, or an antenna that does DC to daylight, or even one that is a whole lot better than what we have now. So What we need to do is to integrate what we have now, and do some innovation with it. We also need (or at least should) prove our worth to the community. That we can do it while having fun is a real bonus. You can have all your innovative fun doing many, many things. Until you find out what helium costs to lift the total balloon (the balloon itself, its payload, its carrying structure, its all going to be a pipe dream having no more basis than enthusiasm. Check out the prices for helium with a gas supplier, plus what it takes to haul to HEAVY gas cylinders to a launch area, plus the metering system plus the filling system plus whatever else. All that after you've investigated what the actual lifting capacity will be in terms of ounces per cubic feet of balloon. [I said ounces, not pounds...lighter than air does not mean negative weight] You could get "efficiency" by going for hydrogen gas...which is offset by very direct DANGER from many and varied sources. Yikes! If they use the nichrome wire on the balloon plug trick... Hydrogen is a very efficient lifting gas. It CAN be generated by amateurs...chemistry amateurs. Getting into the balloon is going to be tricky. Friend of mine had a hydrogen generator for launching balloons on Antarctica. I guess it was cheaper/less weight than hauling in helium. Surplus catalogs used to sell the little generators but haven't seen them in years. It's high school chemistry time. Electrolysis...separate oxy and hydrogen from water via electrickery. Takes a while for any sort of H volume but that can be automated. Water cheap, electricity relatively cheap. [some hams extremely cheap...[ Still going for 100,000 foot altitude? Start thinking in terms of the balloon exapanding to something on the order of EIGHT times in size at altitude maximum. That's visible on some of the high altitude research balloon flights of the 1960s using lots and lots of plastic sheet for balloon material. Your project may need a virgin...such as Richard Branson...to help start it off. Now, if you are REALLY thinking about this whole thing, look into "Project STAR" and a little thing like a model airplane that crossed the Atlantic (from Newfoundland to the Irish coast) during the 38 hours in August 9, 10, and 11, 2003. Laugh all you want but a few guys from around DC managed to do that through GPS guidance on board as an autopilot. You can read about it at http://tam.plannet21.com/index.htm Pictures and stuff to guide you even if you are not into model flying. 38 hours (approx) of powered flight using only 5.5 pounds of fuel, flight path of 1882 miles. Radio control only for take off and climb- out, then landing in Ireland...the rest entirely on "autopilot." It had some means of reporting its position to earth via satellites. That alone would be of interest to anything else involving GPS location or guidance. Search around on the huge NASA website for atmospheric info, especially for density versus height. You could do an approximate curve of payload + balloon weight versus cost of helium in hundreds of cubic feet to whatever altitude limit. That will give you some realistic viewing into feasibility of it all. Sounds like fun. Dense air operations in the eastern states may pose a big problem. Not to worry. Air carriers are on the "Victor" ways above the max. balloon altitude. General Av types will be in the denser altitudes and props will chop it up nicely. :-) I wouldn't count on it. Maybe CAPman can fly by with a skyhook and snatch the descending package before it becomes FOD for the General Av types? A large budget bump there...CAP is unlikely to pay for the snatch aircraft fuel, maintenance costs, etc. Anyway, this entire thing is highly doable as it's already been done by amateur radio operators for at least a decade. Well, YES, it has. Thing was that Mike was making out like it was something "new" in going to "near space!" NOT with surplus latex weather balloons he aint. A mylar or other polymer film gasbag, yes, but the ground support for anything sizeable is going to be MUCH larger than realized for that "near space" altitude. Then there are all of the high-power amateur rocket types who regularly get FAA approval, have telemetry, and a good set of binocs. I participated once with another amateur and they were thrilled with our ability to communicate from the launch area to the pick-up area. Today, FRS and cell phones can probably fill that niche. Ooops! Darn it! Brian! You said some naughty words! You will now be lectured interminably by the S. :-) Len, so one part of the project, the corner cube reflector, is easily fabricated using inexpensive materials. Excellent. No need to bother Kelly. I'm sure he's much too busy gearing up for field day or the sweeps. Regarding the latex balloons, the little PIBAL balloons are not going to get there, if those are the balloons that Mike is referring to. I don't know what kind of fabric the rawinsonde balloons are made from, but they routinely get to 100mb, and often get to 10mb (~30km). Mike just needs to get whatever is currently available and go with it. It will work. I think planning several launches, each with increasing difficulty, is a way to tackle the problems and see what works and ~who~ works. Nothing sent aloft should be so valuable that it cannot be lost, and expect losses. A receiver for the command burst, a beacon transmitter for tracking and recovery, and a telemetry recorder (internal temp, external temp, and pressure) will verify the attained altitude. He can play with the cross-band repeaters, atv cameras, and hyperspectral imaging during a later launch. The problem of congested airways is still there. He might consider having a trained group of DFers locally/College Station to recover the package, and move his launch site and crew to Indiana to tame that problem. If he does it with the Scouts, they are always mobile, and actually like going places for a purpose. And Scouting opens doors that might otherwise be closed. All highly do-able if he gets the right volunteers and sponsorship. |
|
#167
November 19th 04, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004 11:11:05 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian Kelly have something in common. Realism? Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice. Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. Who are they, Leo? ...um, Len and Brian, IIRC.....did you forget? And you, of course - cheerleading for Mike, as usual....... Who on this newsgroup has even attempted to launch a radio-carrying ballon to 100,000 feet? Or even to half that? Why should that matter? You yourself have posted on many topics where you have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read......including this one! A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane, high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to all. Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?) And the laws of physics I am trying to ignore are....? No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute. 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. Jim, whether you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of physics could care less! They remain absolute. The laws of physics The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical law. No laws have been broken 8^) 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. 1. hmmmm. Your engineering projects must have an unlimited budget 2. In engineering projects, all problems are never satisfactorily resolved. In fact, most are not. You accept, you are not satisfied. 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. I see that is in quotes. can you dig that up where I said that? You can't even paraphrase that from any of my posts. 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. 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! The issue here is simply how the various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome. 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. Leo, would you accept my explanations? If there is a graphic that shows the thermal profile of the atmosphere, should I draw my own, and mail it to the person? Why not make that reference? In fact, what you are taking for petulance is the simple provision of references. I don't know how many techincal reports you read, but where I come from, they often have *several* pages of references, lately including some that are indeed web pages. Sorry that you don't think I have any technical acumen, but you are wrong. But that isn't my sole purpose in the project, as outlined below. Makes one wonder ho deep an understanding one would possess to reply in this manner! I'd suspect not too deep....... "One" would not posess all the understanding needed to do this project. My own expertise towards this project would be in the area of Visualization - still and video cameras - and payload integration. In addition, I would be involved with interfacing between the various parts of the group, schools and regulatory agencies. Other people that would be needed are programmers, technician type builders,computer jockeys and let's not forget the recovery team. As for the launching, I already have a person with experience in launching balloons for NOAA. Does it several times a week. not much past the "sounds pretty cool!" stage of the project). That stage was reached around August of this past year. We are at the beginning stage of making committees now. One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific information - actually doing it is quite something else. Yep. 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! At least you don't exxagerate! Sheesh! 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 - How much detail do you want? I expect that as this project evolves, I will post a lot of info on our club website. I would be interested in providing detail as the project evolves. Of course, I'm handicapped by the fact that some here want me to reinvent the wheel. Yes, it is possible to send a small balloon and payload to the edge of space, and safely retrieve it. But if I can't convince people here that it is being done(and if I give proof, it is considered being petulant) then what can I do? unless there was some other reason for doing so......? Wonder what that might be.....! hmmmmm - Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah...... y'think? Come to think of it, there *was* another reason. A long long time ago in this thread, I brough this project up as an example of what Hams could do that is relevent. Hans had noted that the ARS is being marginalized. I noted that such a project had many advantages. We would be working with youth on a science oriented mission, we would be innovating, bringing multiple disciplines together, and garnering good publicity for the ARS. THAT was the reason I brought it up. And barring unforseen setback, it will happen. Of course, Jim, you could step up to the plate and use your vast knowledge of engineering Sarcasm doesn't become you , Leo. to articulately respond to each of the problems and issues raised, educating us all as to why they do or no not have a bearing on this project........ Jim raised some good questions. One does not need to be versed in all the disciplines involved to be a good sounding board. What is needed is critical thinking. he can think critically, and that is a good trait. Many do *not* like that trait of course. .....Didn't think so. Why the lawyer mentality? One must be an acknowledged expert in any field to comment on anything? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#168
November 19th 04, 05:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , Leo writes: On 18 Nov 2004 11:11:05 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian Kelly have something in common. Realism? Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice. Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. Who are they, Leo? ...um, Len and Brian, IIRC.....did you forget? What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to 100,000 feet or more? And you, of course - cheerleading for Mike, as usual....... You said "two folks who have a fair amount of knowledge and experience". I would make three - except I claim no experience in high altitude ballooning at all. I'll have lots of experience before too long! ;^) Is there something wrong with expressing a positive attitude towards the idea, and offering encouragement while *simultaneously* pointing out where the problems may be? The best way to get things done! Who on this newsgroup has even attempted to launch a radio-carrying ballon to 100,000 feet? Or even to half that? Why should that matter? When someone says it cannot be done..... Especially when it is being done with some regularity.... You yourself have posted on many topics where you have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read......including this one! True enough! Seems to me like the way the academic field works. Someone wants to do something, another say, "Hey! I read an article by so and so, and she says that......... And this is a bad thing - how? A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? 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^) 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! 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. 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. You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says? Because we can have a civil discussion? I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and antagonistic behavior. 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? 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? Or have you accepted the results and wanted to do better? By the above definition, engineering tasks would probably never get done. 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! 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! 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. 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. 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. 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! 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) 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. 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. I may run into a flat earther here and there. 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! ;-) 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. 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. 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. 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? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#169
November 19th 04, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 18 Nov 2004 04:42:46 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian Kelly have something in common. Realism? Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice. Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. 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. 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. Sigh...there will be NO "rational discussions" in THIS newsgrope by PCTA with any NCTA. Hasn't been before, won't be ever until the last code key is pried from cold, dead fingers. :-) There have been - literally - millions of balloons lofted carrying radio transmitters to high altitudes. Very, very few of those made it past 50 kilofeet altitude...they weren't designed to do that and part of that design-for-meteorology-by-metrology used ground- level helium-filled closed balloons. Basic information needed for any "manager" of this kind of thing is the Standard Atmosphere data. [easy to get] Information on the millions of radiosondes and (now) rawinsondes takes more digging (it's of little interest to most other folks) but it's out there. Next would be basic gas costs and what is required to get from the supplier's bottle (costs a helluva lot more if the container is not returned, empty or not) to the balloon itself. That's the cross-over between work-that-must-be-known-and-done and task logistics. The "manager" must eventually integrate all the on-board equipment, cross-check that against lifting capability and make sure that someone has checked operation VERY close to launch. There has to be some kind of tracking of the balloon flight and (unless one has a spare half-million-dollar optical tracker) it is going out of sight in about ten minutes or maybe 15 even with 10 power binoculars. Supposedly the on-board GPS is doing that tracking and reporting back accurately...but what if it suddenly went non-operational? There needs be a procedural back-up. Now, if the name of the game is Actual Amateur Experimentation, then the "manager" ought to be able to sweet-talk his way into getting his own experiment on board one of those already-proven ham balloon flights. But, that may be defeating the whole object of this blue-sky to near-blackness-of-space pipe dreaming... the "manager" won't be manager any more and his name can't head the list of experienced done-it-before types doing the actual flight. Or, the project proposals for all this are pure pipe dreaming which cannot Ever be negatively criticized without getting someone very outraged for ANY sort of critique except high-fives. Dreaming about something is fine. DOING it is quite another. Getting outraged at not being psychologically sugar-boosted happens all the time in here, realized by most but never by the proposer. :-) Tsk. Sad indeed, but true! Of course, it's far more important to make a concerted effort to bash the messenger rather than analyse the essence of the data presented in the message - that's how this thing seems to work......! If it didn't work that way there would be no RRAP. 73, Leo w3rv |
|
#170
November 19th 04, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 18 Nov 2004 11:11:05 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian Kelly have something in common. Realism? Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice. Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. Who are they, Leo? ...um, Len and Brian, IIRC.....did you forget? What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to 100,000 feet or more? And you, of course - cheerleading for Mike, as usual....... You said "two folks who have a fair amount of knowledge and experience". I would make three - except I claim no experience in high altitude ballooning at all. I'll have lots of experience before too long! ;^) I sure hope so! Is there something wrong with expressing a positive attitude towards the idea, and offering encouragement while *simultaneously* pointing out where the problems may be? The best way to get things done! With volunteers, it's arguably often the *only* way to get things done. Who on this newsgroup has even attempted to launch a radio-carrying ballon to 100,000 feet? Or even to half that? Why should that matter? When someone says it cannot be done..... Especially when it is being done with some regularity.... By *amateurs* You yourself have posted on many topics where you have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read......including this one! True enough! Seems to me like the way the academic field works. Someone wants to do something, another say, "Hey! I read an article by so and so, and she says that......... Yep. There's also the "learn by doing" aspect. And this is a bad thing - how? Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be absolutely wrong..... A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? It would be interesting to know what are the "many topics where [i] have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read" 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. 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. 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. Perhaps "Len" and "Leo" are the same person. Note the identical misspelling of "focussing" and "focussed" in their postings. "Leo" is anonymous, but is never challenged on it by Len or "William".. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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*. 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? 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. 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. I do know that they can be useful in the development process. 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! 73 es GL de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
