"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

But no call, no last name, no positive
ID, no website, no outside confirmation.

So what?

Come to think of it, you might be N2EY, or you might not be. No
positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe you're just
another of Len Andersons screen names. Or you might be VA2QRU/VE7JPN,
Masataka Noda.

Who cares?

73, de Hans, ex-KG6AQI

He might be Mark Morgan. Could explain Steve's recent disagreements with whoever.

"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

But no call, no last name, no positive
ID, no website, no outside confirmation.

So what?

Come to think of it, you might be N2EY, or you might not be. No
positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe you're just
another of Len Andersons screen names. Or you might be VA2QRU/VE7JPN,
Masataka Noda.

No! No! Not Cootie Boy!


Who cares?

73, de Hans, ex-KG6AQI

N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:


(N2EY) wrote in message
...

In article ,



(Brian Kelly) writes:

What courses, exactly James, did you have in your freshman year in
E-school which taught/preached how to do 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 . . " and come out of it with working pile of
hardware?

Ya missed the point.

Unless you can cite your soup-to-nuts "engineered" pile of freshman
hardware I didn't miss the point.


Boilerplate verbiage like:

"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"

is the ES 101 stuff. Actually doing it is very different. For example -
just what *are* all the facets of a given problem?.

I have no idea what "ES 101" is or was.


One of those intro engineering courses. Lays out basic concepts and methods.


. . . as if . . maybe two-three years outta E-school you were allowed
to take a poke at an assignment like that.



More like a year.

Sometimes right out of the chute, sometimes never and perhaps with a
glaring exception or two never in a freshman year out in commercial
reality.


Plus there's a big difference between giving the kid a project to do (every
aspect of which will be checked by someone more experienced) and really being
in charge of something.

Freshemen do get projects.
. . Because that's what we get paid to do. Perhaps wrongly, more
likely not, we don't have a helluva lotta time for approaching
projects like ballooning to 100,000 feet with science fair project
mentalities. Interpret as you will.

The trick is that the volunteer folks don't have the paycheck incentive.
Just
the reverse - such a project costs them money! So the motivation has to be
elsewhere.

You're taking it off onto a couple irrelevent tangents.


No, completely relevant.

There isn't much real "engineering" in the hard numeric design sense attached
to doing what KB3EIA proposes. It's like adding a room onto a house - you
wouldn't do a complete stress analysis of every stud and joist, nor a fluid
dynamic analysis of the plumbing just so you could have a half-bath on the
ground floor.

Bingo!

The topic is
how various folk who come from different educational, training and
employment backgrounds approach the technical aspects of pulling off
non-commercial stunts like sending homebrewed electronics packages to
100,000 feet with a balloon.


OK.


Seasoned technical types degreed and
otherwise learn out in the college of hard knocks how to plan and
execute projects in highly systematic manners because when money is
involved the project better be pulled off properly or yer outta work.


Which is not the same factor here.

In business if ya signed the contract to deliver X on date Y, you better do it
or bad things will happen. In this balloon thing, a delay of weeks or months is
no big deal if the result is success rather than failure.


That's the incentive. Beyond that we is what we is and we don't change
our stripes when we get involved in the planning of off-hours
volunteer efforts or our hobbies.


Maybe *you* don't.

People need to differentiate between work and play. Those who can't get
grumpy! ;^)


Wherein come the clashes with the
non-technical types we get involved with on joint efforts. Pick any
mid-to-large scale Field Day planning session around here for a
perfect example.


You might wanna look up how the CP folks did...

Send the non-technical types to me. I don't differentiate between them
and what is apparently the first class Hams. Perhaps they will learn,
and eventually become technical types.


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.

I **TODJA** to stick to being the cheerleader and delegate the tech
stuff to the technoids dammit but NO, you got all ****y huffy about it
instead!

****y huffy is par for the course here, isn't it?

. . . yeah . . . which of course is the whole bottom bottom line . .

sigh


bwaahaahaa

Leo is VE, a VE6 if I'm not mistaken.

How does anyone know for sure? He's been anonymous since day one here.

He let his cat out of the bag at some point in past but it got past
you. He's a VE but I had him in the wrong province.


Didn't get past me. Leo sez he's a VE3. But no call, no last name, no positive
ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't.


Not that there's anyhting wrong with that!

He could just as easily be another of Len's online personalities.

No way, changing writing styles like changing fingerprints, can't be
done.


Nonsense. Ghostwriters do it all the time. Len's done the pseudonym thing here
more than once - that we know of.


Leo absolutely is not Sweetums. Or vice versa.


Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not losing any sleep over it.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

some snippage

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.

If I may offer a suggestion: Keep the first flights simple.

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.

Since the payload will spend a relatively short time in the cold, the
insulation can be less than what would be needed for long duration.

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.

IOW: "If it happens, it must be possible".

Such a simple concept - so hard for some to grasp....

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.

Consider also the effect of launching in midsummer. The payload starts off at,
say, 100 degrees F inside the insulation....

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.

There's also the fact of free labor, and donation of incidental expenses
like fuel and food.

Yup. This is a thing that people do for a part of a hobby. There are
enough of that sort around.

Right.

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.

Yup.

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.

So it looks like you've "done your homework"..

I think so. There is always something else to learn, but that's another
part of the fun.

Kewl

And this is a bad thing - how?

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

Again

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!!


Len isn't. Says it all.

Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it?

Len's just wrong about the latex weather balloons. Not confusing at all.

No, I mean it would be confusing to his view, since we would be messing
up his opinion with facts.

That's a definite no-no. ;-)

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.

haw

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.

Of course you can discuss those issues! You just can't discuss them with
the naysayers!

Do you really think Len would have *anything* positive to contribute to the
project?

Snort! Too bad, that!

Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse?

Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with
CWGet.

Ugh

I'll probably use packet for telemetry.

I've been discussing this with one of the partners. The packet will
give us one more level of redundancy, since we can have people that have
internet access during the flight look at the position with APRS.

Only if there's a way for the data to get onto the internet.

Now morse QSO's are a possibility.

I am liking this more and more...

I'm looking at it in a repeater fashion or remote. I have to see what
the F.C.C. rules are related to this.

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.

"Cheap" implies shoddiness. I think a better choice is "frugal".


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!

Did you *really* expect any usable input from Len?

Everyone gives me usable input. Brian Burke has given me really good
input, Len and other Brian have too. I can take the advisement as what
happens when you interact with people that expect (want?) you to fail.
This helps, believe it or not.

"No [fill in this blank] is a complete waste. He/she/it can always serve as a
horrible example"

Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first
100,000 foot flight.....

hehe!

Just tuck them in with "Leonard"...

Seriously, we probably won't be sending any live payload. There would
probably be some ethical issues and complaints.

oh the humanity

I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most
here would know about that already.

There is one really big problem you cannot avoid, though....

Here in EPA, a *lot* of the land surface area is either wooded or
developed. Or
water, paved road, etc. This isn't prairie country, like where most of the
launches take place.

The chances that you'll be able to recover the package are adversely
affected
by this. If it hangs up 60 feet in a tree, or on a power line, or on top of
a building, it's probably gone forever.

Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the risk is greater.

It is a much bigger risk. The worst case scenario is a payload that
lands in the north central part of the state.

No, I can think of worse ones.

There are some areas that
are darn near wilderness there. So I/we have to be prepared to do some
serious hiking under a few circumstances. That's okay - it doesn't
bother me a bit. Hiking in Pennsylvania is a gift.

Of course. Just don't do it during deer season.

(moment of silence for the Wisconsin tragedy)

I don't know if you saw the link from the people in Mass.? A couple of
their payloads landed in the *big* pond!

Loss of a payload is one thing; it's bad but if you make the payload
inexpensive enough, it's not a big deal. An acceptable risk.

OTOH, I can imagine the payload landing on a power line and causing an outage,
or even a fire. Or landing on a busy interstate, somebody's house or business,
etc. Not the kind of publicity ham radio needs...

I wonder if it might not be more desirable to launch with the *intent* of the
payload coming down over water. Like Chesapeake Bay. Should not be hard to make
it float.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it
From: (William)
Date: 11/22/2004 5:51 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...

Sorry, Brain. No "promise" was made.

You are encouraged to re-post any such assertion.

Steve, in your third to the last post to me on November 7th, you said
that I was "kill" filed, and that you would see me at Dayton. You
gave the definite impression that you would have no further discourse
with me until Dayton.

Then YOUR "impression" was wrong.

You are in the killfile, Brain, and as I said, 85% of your lying bile gets
deleted without further adieu. It still does not mean I can't read through
them before I hit "delete".

You don't need to preface a statement with "I
promise" in order for someone to think that you have given your word,
or that you might keep your word. Or perhaps you do.

Sure I do.

"I promise" is a definitive statement. I did not make that statement. You
are welcomed to repost the quote wherein you think I said "I promise".

Then you post to me again and again.

Hardly "again and again". Most of the replies were to third persons who
quoted you.

Is your word no good?

I think not.

My "word" is better than ANYthing that comes from the mouth or keyboard of
Brian P Burke. You ARE a known liar who does not even abide his own rhetoric.

Creep. Scumbag. Liar. That's the legacy Brain P Burke leaves to his
namesakes.

Sheeeesh.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Leo
writes:

On 21 Nov 2004 18:42:08 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 20 Nov 2004 13:30:15 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
snip

He could just as easily be another of Len's online personalities.

That's an odd comment indeed.....a bit of paranoia perhaps, OM?


73 de Jim, N2EY


134, Leo

88s?! SHEESH!


Not quite 88s.

From the "Western Union 92 Code" - 134 means "Who is at the key?".
Pretty much the question that Jim seems to be pondering - I'm just
restating it telegraphicallyfor him....... :)

Updated to "who is at the keyboard?"....;-)


http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html


See also:

http://www.signalharbor.com/73.html

http://www.qsl.net/w5www/73.html

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...864%40ladder03.
news.aol.com&output=gplain


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Latex balloons.
Helium.
100,000 feet with a six pound payload.

Okay, you quoted a SALES PITCH.

More diversion.

I quoted what the named group uses, and then did research at the site
they bought their balloons at to ascertain what those particular
balloons were made of.

Why didn't you do that with YOUR sales pitch in here first?

Always the critic..

There is a need to work out a protocol for balloon launches. But aside
from that, the use of latex balloons and the altitudes achieved with
these balloons is pretty well documented. Believe or do not. If you
don't believe me, then you don't believe a whole lot of people.

Besides, even if I did, your next statement indicates that it would not
have mattered.

Have you actually USED that "Totex" balloon? Did you get to
100 kilofeet with one? [how did you measure that altitude to
"prove" it?]

Whattya think? Think this is a good question point? Are you really so
skeptical that you accept NOTHING as reliable?

If it proves Len to be wrong...

If you believe that the EOSS is lying, and that Kaymont is engaging in
false advertisement about a product that they have produced since the
1940's, take it up with them.

Don't hold yer breath...

I can supply references upon request.

A big reference Professor named Langley once convinced the USN
that heavier-than-air flying machines were dandy things for the fleet.
He talked them into rebuilding a small ship into an aircraft carrier.
His first flying machine "flight" went right off the bow and into the
water, climb rate in the minus numbers. Langley remained a "wheel"
(with references) but a couple of bicycle shop owners did the first
heavier-than-air flight...without anyone "proving it could be done" by
websites or advertisements.

Has nothing to do with the subject.

Why the difference between a manufacturer of the latex balloons, and a
documented user group, and your facts?

You tell me. YOU are the "manager" of this "concept."

Two sets of rules - one for Len, one for everyone else. You have to justify
your statements, Len doesn't have to justify his...

THe difference is that you are incorrect.

I suspect that part of the confusion is that most weather balloons are
sent to a much lower altitude than what NSS does. The reason is that
almost all the weather occurs in the Troposphere (and below) They are
sending the balloons that high, because that is the area that they are
interested in.

This does not mean that the balloons can go no higher. The maximum
height that can be attained is a function of the maximum diameter that
the balloon can attain without bursting.

Contributing factors to this are the weight of the payload, which
influences how much of the H or He has to be put into the balloon, and
the needed amount of lift. More weight, more lift gas. Higher lift for
faster ascent means more lift gas. Since the balloon will be inflated to
a larger diameter at launch, it will attain maximum diameter before
burst at a lower altitude.

Convice everyone you are without fault by your ballooning successes
to date.

So strange a comment.

"Convice"?

Still waiting for Len to show us his amateur radio and homebrewing successes
to date.

Nothing beyond "surprisingly inexpensive". I'm not making a financial
report to the group.

No? True...you don't have to tell anyone anything, including what
you are going to "do."

Are you telling me to shut up again?

Looks like it.

Otherwise I have a little trouble
making sense of that statement.

This was not about the financial aspects of the project anyhow. It was
in response to Hans' thread about the ARS being marginalized. Its a new
project.

Somehow I don't get a clear picture of all those "volunteers" just
waiting and anxious to give Mike Coslo TIME and MONEY to make
a "success" out of your "concept." Color me skeptical.

Not surprising.

Hockey team, star party, Field Day....

If you want more, you could dig it out of some of the other posts. A few
costs are in there.

Tsk. Standard newsgroup disclaimer. You expect others to go out
and do YOUR homework.

Len won't do his.

You would be doing the homework for yourself, Len. I really don't need
to convince you, and some newsgroup members have complained when I gave
them references.

All you have to do is outline your brilliant

It is not a particularly brilliant concept. In fact, since a number of
people are already doing it, it isn't a concept at all.

and unique "concept" and the cheering is supposed to start.

Unique? Incorrect. This project is not unique

In fact that's the biggest possible criticism - it's been done before, by
amateurs. Repeatedly....

Ahem. I'm not required to provide financial data to you.

Absolutely true. You don't have to provide anything to anyone.

The project will be "inexpensive." The FAA is "accommodating."

"Others have already done it."

No sweaty-dah.

Len hasn't done it.

If you google up the parts of the thread where I was providing
"references" you could confirm the veracity of those statements for
yourself. But you won't.

And you are still incorrect about latex balloons reaching the 100,000
foot altitude.

Latex.
Helium *or* Hydrogen.
100,000 feet.

Its happening.

Therefore it's possible

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:



In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


some snippage


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.


If I may offer a suggestion: Keep the first flights simple.

Oh yes! The first flight or two will be as much figuring out a
protocol/training for balloon launching as anything else. Payloads will
be minimal.


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.


Since the payload will spend a relatively short time in the cold, the
insulation can be less than what would be needed for long duration.

Spot-on! This is not a spacecraft that must be insulated in
anticipation of a long duration mission. As long as the insulation is
sufficient to keep the payload within it's operating temperature
envelope for the duration of the flight, we are in good shape. And since
some of the balloonatics are reporting slight internal temperature
*rise* during the flight, I am not anticipating major problems in this area.


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.



IOW: "If it happens, it must be possible".


Such a simple concept - so hard for some to grasp....

And I have a hard time grasping the lack of grasp! 8^)



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.


Consider also the effect of launching in midsummer. The payload starts off at,
say, 100 degrees F inside the insulation....

My biggest concern is humidity. Nice saturated Pennsylvania humidity
heading from say 85 degrees to well below zero. Visual ports may just
become blocked with frost, as well as antenna connectors - anything
that might be cold could possibly frost up. There will be extra helium
left over, so we may design a method to purge the payload.



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.



There's also the fact of free labor, and donation of incidental expenses
like fuel and food.


Yup. This is a thing that people do for a part of a hobby. There are
enough of that sort around.


Right.


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.



Yup.



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.



So it looks like you've "done your homework"..


I think so. There is always something else to learn, but that's another
part of the fun.


Kewl


And this is a bad thing - how?



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


Again


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!!



Len isn't. Says it all.



Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it?



Len's just wrong about the latex weather balloons. Not confusing at all.


No, I mean it would be confusing to his view, since we would be messing
up his opinion with facts.


That's a definite no-no. ;-)


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.



haw



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.

Of course you can discuss those issues! You just can't discuss them with
the naysayers!


Do you really think Len would have *anything* positive to contribute to the
project?


Snort! Too bad, that!


Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse?



Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with
CWGet.



Ugh



I'll probably use packet for telemetry.


I've been discussing this with one of the partners. The packet will
give us one more level of redundancy, since we can have people that have
internet access during the flight look at the position with APRS.


Only if there's a way for the data to get onto the internet.


Remember that the APRS signal from the Packet transmitter will allow
anyone running the software to see the location of the signal. So while
I doubt we will be connected, another ham at home might be able to do this.

Part of the philosophy of *everyone* can help*. A shut-in Ham, or one
that can't be with the group for some reason or another can help out.
It's part of the redundancy thing. And under some failure modes, the
APRS signal might just save the payload.


Now morse QSO's are a possibility.



I am liking this more and more...


I'm looking at it in a repeater fashion or remote. I have to see what
the F.C.C. rules are related to this.



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.



"Cheap" implies shoddiness. I think a better choice is "frugal".



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!



Did you *really* expect any usable input from Len?

Everyone gives me usable input. Brian Burke has given me really good
input, Len and other Brian have too. I can take the advisement as what
happens when you interact with people that expect (want?) you to fail.
This helps, believe it or not.


"No [fill in this blank] is a complete waste. He/she/it can always serve as a
horrible example"

Have you ever seen the "Disincentive" screen saver? It's a parody of
the ones with pithy and optimistic quotes. That is one of the screens.




Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first
100,000 foot flight.....


hehe!



Just tuck them in with "Leonard"...


Seriously, we probably won't be sending any live payload. There would
probably be some ethical issues and complaints.


oh the humanity


I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most
here would know about that already.



There is one really big problem you cannot avoid, though....


Here in EPA, a *lot* of the land surface area is either wooded or
developed. Or
water, paved road, etc. This isn't prairie country, like where most of the
launches take place.



The chances that you'll be able to recover the package are adversely
affected
by this. If it hangs up 60 feet in a tree, or on a power line, or on top of
a building, it's probably gone forever.


Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the risk is greater.


It is a much bigger risk. The worst case scenario is a payload that
lands in the north central part of the state.


No, I can think of worse ones.


There are some areas that
are darn near wilderness there. So I/we have to be prepared to do some
serious hiking under a few circumstances. That's okay - it doesn't
bother me a bit. Hiking in Pennsylvania is a gift.


Of course. Just don't do it during deer season.

(moment of silence for the Wisconsin tragedy)


I don't know if you saw the link from the people in Mass.? A couple of
their payloads landed in the *big* pond!


Loss of a payload is one thing; it's bad but if you make the payload
inexpensive enough, it's not a big deal. An acceptable risk.

Knowing their possible fate due to proximity to the ocean, they have
done just that.



OTOH, I can imagine the payload landing on a power line and causing an outage,
or even a fire. Or landing on a busy interstate, somebody's house or business,
etc. Not the kind of publicity ham radio needs...

I wonder if it might not be more desirable to launch with the *intent* of the
payload coming down over water. Like Chesapeake Bay. Should not be hard to make
it float.

It is planned to be waterproof.

- Mike KB3EIA -