[Space] [Noisebridge-discuss] a riddle for you all

Thu Feb 11 22:56:53 UTC 2010

While I love that idea, there are a few problems:

* As far as my understanding goes, there is a strict blanket speed
restriction of 250 kts below 10k/ft.  I'm all about restricting the number
of axis by which we risk violating FARs, conceivably or practically.
* Payload Survival is questionable in the best of circumstances... The Flash
Chips would probably survive with little difficulty, but everything else
would be ruined.
* That off, one in ten million chance we hit someone or something- a 4lb
aerodynamic bullet falling from 100k/ft could do substantial damage to a
wood frame building or even an automobile...

That'd be a truly epically awesome video though;)

-Ozzy

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Martin Bogomolni <martinbogo at gmail.com>wrote:

> Why bother with a parachute release even?   What an incredible shot
> that would be .. the final seconds as the payload slams into the
> ground (and hopefully it's padding taking the impact)
>
> -Martin
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Ozzy Satori <ozzymandi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, and up in such thin atmosphere, it makes sense that the two falling
> > components stayed relatively close to one another until atmospheric drag
> > provided a force to separate them based on drag.
> > I'm _really_ interested by this tendency to stabilize during descent.
> >  Perhaps my mucking around with exotic statically stable supersonic
> > aerodynamics is a bit excessive- but even a basic finned teardrop shape
> > could provide a nice stable camera platform for a hella cool return
> video,
> > (Say, Flip HD video of the stabilized dive-bomb from burst altitude to
> 10k,
> > followed by an arduino-based parachute release?)
> > Just thinking out loud.
> > -Ozzy
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> That next frame also raises an interesting question.  Did we stop
> spinning
> >> and oscillating wildly on the descent?  It seems likely, considering the
> >> images.  This suggests we omit all theories for the destabilization that
> >> don't explicitly include the balloon.
> >> Sounds like descent pics are likely to be, on the whole, better than
> >> ascent pics.
> >> Also, thinking on it, it might not be as lucky as you'd think.  Correct
> me
> >> if I'm wrong but if the box stabilized out, it would likely do so with
> the
> >> greatest weight towards the back, which would mean the camera, since not
> >> much else was nailed down.  Since we're shooting with a wide angle,
> we'll
> >> get quite a lot of area in the shot.  It would seem to me rather
> probable
> >> that we'd manage to get a shot with our detritus in it.
> >> Christie
> >> _______
> >> "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." -- W. Blake.
> >>
> >> The outer bounds is only the beginning.
> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Ozzy Satori <ozzymandi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It does appear as though there is some line or rope attached to the
> >>> balloon fragment, trailing behind it, that line or rope bridges the
> fragment
> >>> to the cloud layer below visually, to make it appear as though they're
> >>> connected.   If you look at the next frame, however, you can see the
> 'vapor
> >>> trail' is still there (this time clearly attached the the marine layer
> >>> below), even after the balloon fragement has fallen well out of frame.
> >>> One hell of a lucky capture though, in any case.
> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> That would be... odd.  I imagine correction for the fisheye is in
> order
> >>>> to get a better understanding of the geometry.
> >>>> The reason I concluded it was an aircraft is it has a rather visible
> >>>> vapor trail.  I imagine the balloon very well could leave a trail, but
> not
> >>>> the shard of the balloon.  The trail seems to be completely aligned
> with the
> >>>> object, not above as you'd expect for something that is in free fall.
> >>>> Do you think the trail could be powder from the interior of the
> balloon
> >>>> or condensation on the rapidly expanded helium?  It would have to be
> >>>> something generated or released rather slowly after the burst, due to
> the
> >>>> alignment and trail that appears to be just over the clouds.
> >>>> But you're right, it does kind of neatly follow the line that our
> >>>> balloon took.  Curious.
> >>>> Did anyone happen to take any calibration images so the fisheye could
> be
> >>>> corrected?  I'd really love to see that image cleaned up and enhanced.
> >>>> Christie
> >>>> _______
> >>>> "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." -- W. Blake.
> >>>>
> >>>> The outer bounds is only the beginning.
> >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Mikolaj Habryn <dichro at rcpt.to>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we just got even more remarkably lucky.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Our best guess for the burst time of the balloon, based on
> >>>>> accelerometer data, is 17:02:05. This picture is time-stamped
> >>>>> 17:02:54, however I set the clock on the camera by hand the day
> >>>>> before, and only to the nearest minute. I think we managed to capture
> >>>>> a shard of the balloon flying off into the distance seconds after the
> >>>>> burst.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> m.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Christie Dudley <
> longobord at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> > What kind of aircraft do you think that is?  It's so small to make
> >>>>> > out.
> >>>>> > Christie
> >>>>> > _______
> >>>>> > "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." -- W. Blake.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > The outer bounds is only the beginning.
> >>>>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Mikolaj Habryn <dichro at rcpt.to>
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> I just uploaded the complete photoset to
> >>>>> >> http://picasaweb.google.com/syncretin/SpacebridgeAlpha02#
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> Have a look at picture 131:
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/syncretin/SpacebridgeAlpha02#5436722689403374338
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> What do you see?
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> m.
> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >> Space mailing list
> >>>>> >> Space at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>>>> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/space
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/space/attachments/20100211/0e74e382/attachment-0004.html>