Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Rockoon Launch

Expand Messages
  • Monroe K
    Scott,James,Tom Thank you so much!!!!! You just saved our team what sounds like 3 months of launches and around $2000 of hard to come by cash! No telling how
    Message 1 of 19 , May 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Scott,James,Tom
      Thank you so much!!!!! You just saved our team what sounds like 3 months of launches and around $2000 of hard to come by cash! No telling how much hardware! Thank you, thank you! 73's still listening if there's anymore suggestions! Thanks!

      Monroe Lee King Jr.
      Captain
      Team Prometheus
      http://www.teamprometheus.org

      --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, Tom Hayward <tom@...> wrote:
      >
      > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 21:42, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > The problem is that the channel loading climbs
      > > to the point that there is never any dead air that the digipeater is
      > > looking for to key up in.
      > ...
      > > James
      > > VE6SRV
      >
      > James, you make many good points, as always, but I wanted to correct
      > this. A digipeater (or balloon) should not wait for dead air to
      > transmit. You gave the reason why--there is never (or rarely) dead air
      > at altitude or high-elevation digipeater sites. When configuring a
      > digipeater, set QUIET to 0. Yes, there may be some packet collisions
      > when you transmit, but that's just how the APRS network was designed.
      >
      > Tom KD7LXL
      >
    • pb648174
      I m curious about the guided parachute mentioned on your site. I launched a balloon recently and one of the things I observed is that the winds blow close to
      Message 2 of 19 , May 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm curious about the guided parachute mentioned on your site. I launched a balloon recently and one of the things I observed is that the winds blow close to 100mph from about 20k-80k feet in the air. Let's say they are blowing east when you launch. When you come back down using a parachute how are you going to go the other direction to overcome the 100mph winds?

        Having lost a payload in the forest I've pondered using a glider or RC craft instead of a box as a balloon payload to try and fly it back to myself. But I'm thinking the wind would be too severe for anything more than maybe guiding it towards an unforested area.

        --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, "Monroe K" <monroe_lee2000@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Scott,James,Tom
        > Thank you so much!!!!! You just saved our team what sounds like 3 months of launches and around $2000 of hard to come by cash! No telling how much hardware! Thank you, thank you! 73's still listening if there's anymore suggestions! Thanks!
        >
        > Monroe Lee King Jr.
        > Captain
        > Team Prometheus
        > http://www.teamprometheus.org
        >
        > --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, Tom Hayward <tom@> wrote:
        > >
        > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 21:42, James Ewen <ve6srv@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > The problem is that the channel loading climbs
        > > > to the point that there is never any dead air that the digipeater is
        > > > looking for to key up in.
        > > ...
        > > > James
        > > > VE6SRV
        > >
        > > James, you make many good points, as always, but I wanted to correct
        > > this. A digipeater (or balloon) should not wait for dead air to
        > > transmit. You gave the reason why--there is never (or rarely) dead air
        > > at altitude or high-elevation digipeater sites. When configuring a
        > > digipeater, set QUIET to 0. Yes, there may be some packet collisions
        > > when you transmit, but that's just how the APRS network was designed.
        > >
        > > Tom KD7LXL
        > >
        >
      • James Ewen
        ... Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders, steerable parachutes,
        Message 3 of 19 , May 6, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM, pb648174 <yahoo@...> wrote:

          > I'm curious about the guided parachute mentioned on your site.
          > I launched a balloon recently and one of the things I observed is that
          > the winds blow close to 100mph from about 20k-80k feet in the air.
          > Let's say they are blowing east when you launch. When you come
          > back down using a parachute how are you going to go the other
          > direction to overcome the 100mph winds?

          Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
          penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
          steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
          a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
          any downstream drift, and also penetrate those same winds in order to
          get back home. There are times when it may be possible to return back
          home, but most likely you'll have a hard time getting back home.

          The concept instead is to be able to designate a landing area near the
          anticipated descent zone. A non-guided device is at the whim of the
          winds, whereas a guided device can be used to select a location other
          than the top of that 70 foot tree, or out in the middle of a lake.

          The desired landing area would be preprogrammed into the controller
          before launch. In my ultimate world, I would be able to upload a new
          landing waypoint into the controller should the preprogrammed location
          become non-viable. The only problem is that people seem to like to
          build one-way trackers for use on balloons, rather than a
          bi-directional communications device...

          I just got my RTrak-HAB the other day... no two way communication
          capability there... darn!

          James
          VE6SRV
        • pb648174
          That s pretty much what I thought, but from their description it sounded to me like they were steering it back to the launch point. I guess they are just
          Message 4 of 19 , May 6, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            That's pretty much what I thought, but from their description it sounded to me like they were steering it back to the launch point. I guess they are just talking about a specific landing site like you say though.

            I had two communication on the one I launched, using a T2-301 with a micrcontroller talking to it on the command port. When a message comes in it is output on the command port and you just read the string and execute any custom commands you want.

            --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:
            >
            > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM, pb648174 <yahoo@...> wrote:
            >
            > > I'm curious about the guided parachute mentioned on your site.
            > > I launched a balloon recently and one of the things I observed is that
            > > the winds blow close to 100mph from about 20k-80k feet in the air.
            > > Let's say they are blowing east when you launch. When you come
            > > back down using a parachute how are you going to go the other
            > > direction to overcome the 100mph winds?
            >
            > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
            > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
            > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
            > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
            > any downstream drift, and also penetrate those same winds in order to
            > get back home. There are times when it may be possible to return back
            > home, but most likely you'll have a hard time getting back home.
            >
            > The concept instead is to be able to designate a landing area near the
            > anticipated descent zone. A non-guided device is at the whim of the
            > winds, whereas a guided device can be used to select a location other
            > than the top of that 70 foot tree, or out in the middle of a lake.
            >
            > The desired landing area would be preprogrammed into the controller
            > before launch. In my ultimate world, I would be able to upload a new
            > landing waypoint into the controller should the preprogrammed location
            > become non-viable. The only problem is that people seem to like to
            > build one-way trackers for use on balloons, rather than a
            > bi-directional communications device...
            >
            > I just got my RTrak-HAB the other day... no two way communication
            > capability there... darn!
            >
            > James
            > VE6SRV
            >
          • Monroe K
            Here in Texas the upper level winds in July only carry the payload about 10 miles away from 100k ft. so landing on the launch point is a possibility. But our
            Message 5 of 19 , May 7, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Here in Texas the upper level winds in July only carry the payload about 10 miles away from 100k ft. so landing on the launch point is a possibility. But our system has up to 5 way points so it will try to make it back if it cannot make way point one it try's for way point two ect...
              Here near Austin the winds near the ground go opposite the upper level winds and that helps too. But like was said it helps anyway to know where the payload may land the telemetry tells us what waypoint the UAV is trying to make.

              Monroe

              For more on the guided parachute check out "Nerd Fever" Dave is our guy working on that. Google Nerd Fever and you should find it.

              --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, "pb648174" <yahoo@...> wrote:
              >
              > That's pretty much what I thought, but from their description it sounded to me like they were steering it back to the launch point. I guess they are just talking about a specific landing site like you say though.
              >
              > I had two communication on the one I launched, using a T2-301 with a micrcontroller talking to it on the command port. When a message comes in it is output on the command port and you just read the string and execute any custom commands you want.
              >
              > --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, James Ewen <ve6srv@> wrote:
              > >
              > > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM, pb648174 <yahoo@> wrote:
              > >
              > > > I'm curious about the guided parachute mentioned on your site.
              > > > I launched a balloon recently and one of the things I observed is that
              > > > the winds blow close to 100mph from about 20k-80k feet in the air.
              > > > Let's say they are blowing east when you launch. When you come
              > > > back down using a parachute how are you going to go the other
              > > > direction to overcome the 100mph winds?
              > >
              > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
              > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
              > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
              > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
              > > any downstream drift, and also penetrate those same winds in order to
              > > get back home. There are times when it may be possible to return back
              > > home, but most likely you'll have a hard time getting back home.
              > >
              > > The concept instead is to be able to designate a landing area near the
              > > anticipated descent zone. A non-guided device is at the whim of the
              > > winds, whereas a guided device can be used to select a location other
              > > than the top of that 70 foot tree, or out in the middle of a lake.
              > >
              > > The desired landing area would be preprogrammed into the controller
              > > before launch. In my ultimate world, I would be able to upload a new
              > > landing waypoint into the controller should the preprogrammed location
              > > become non-viable. The only problem is that people seem to like to
              > > build one-way trackers for use on balloons, rather than a
              > > bi-directional communications device...
              > >
              > > I just got my RTrak-HAB the other day... no two way communication
              > > capability there... darn!
              > >
              > > James
              > > VE6SRV
              > >
              >
            • Scott Miller
              ... Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a balloon payload.
              Message 6 of 19 , May 8, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
                > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
                > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
                > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome

                Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
                thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
                balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
                for choosing a landing site within a certain range.

                Scott
              • pb648174
                Well, with just an autorotating helicopter blade your payload will be spinning in the opposite direction just as fast and probably not very controllable. So
                Message 7 of 19 , May 9, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, with just an autorotating helicopter blade your payload will be spinning in the opposite direction just as fast and probably not very controllable. So you'd need a tail rotor and once you do that you've got a helicopter. To get an idea of the difficulty of controlling that go to the local RC store and try out the RC simulators which have a helicopter option. Helicopters are very difficult to fly even in a slight wind, much less 100mph.

                  So I would think for any kind of option like this you'd want a full UAV, either a glider, powered airplane or tri/quad copter. That stuff is cool and fun and can be tested on its own minus the balloon so I would think that is the way to go. There are lots of arduino based UAV projects out there to look to for inspiration.

                  --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
                  > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
                  > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
                  > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
                  >
                  > Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
                  > thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
                  > balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
                  > for choosing a landing site within a certain range.
                  >
                  > Scott
                  >
                • Scott Miller
                  I know helicopters have at least a limited ability to land using autorotation in the event of a tail rotor failure because of the very low torque. I would
                  Message 8 of 19 , May 9, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I know helicopters have at least a limited ability to land using
                    autorotation in the event of a tail rotor failure because of the very
                    low torque. I would expect that friction is still going to try to turn
                    the payload, but maybe a big fin would be enough to slow it down to a
                    controllable state. Or maybe counter-rotating rotors on the same shaft?

                    It seems like it ought to be easier to deal with than a glider, and
                    simpler than a helicopter since it doesn't need to transmit power
                    through the shaft.

                    In any case, it's going to be a long time before I have time to mess
                    with a new project like this.

                    In the shorter term, it'd be fun to design a long-duration lander. The
                    last payload I flew out in the desert landed on the side of a mountain
                    in the middle of nowhere, with good APRS coverage. If it had been
                    weatherproof and solar powered, it could still be out there sending back
                    telemetry and the occasional JPEG image trickled out a packet at a time.

                    Scott

                    On 5/9/2011 10:40 AM, pb648174 wrote:
                    > Well, with just an autorotating helicopter blade your payload will be
                    > spinning in the opposite direction just as fast and probably not very
                    > controllable. So you'd need a tail rotor and once you do that you've got
                    > a helicopter. To get an idea of the difficulty of controlling that go to
                    > the local RC store and try out the RC simulators which have a helicopter
                    > option. Helicopters are very difficult to fly even in a slight wind,
                    > much less 100mph.
                    >
                    > So I would think for any kind of option like this you'd want a full UAV,
                    > either a glider, powered airplane or tri/quad copter. That stuff is cool
                    > and fun and can be tested on its own minus the balloon so I would think
                    > that is the way to go. There are lots of arduino based UAV projects out
                    > there to look to for inspiration.
                    >
                    > --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tracker2%40yahoogroups.com>,
                    > Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
                    > > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
                    > > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
                    > > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
                    > >
                    > > Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
                    > > thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
                    > > balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
                    > > for choosing a landing site within a certain range.
                    > >
                    > > Scott
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                  • Tom Tengdin
                    I suspect a steerable glider or bomb style configuration would be better. Less moving parts. If there is no power to the main rotor then I believe there is
                    Message 9 of 19 , May 9, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I suspect a steerable glider or bomb style configuration would be
                      better. Less moving parts.

                      If there is no power to the main rotor then I believe there is very
                      little torque. A tail assembly should be enough, just like on a
                      gyrocopter.

                      T3

                      On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 10:48 -0700, Scott Miller wrote:
                      > I know helicopters have at least a limited ability to land using
                      > autorotation in the event of a tail rotor failure because of the very
                      > low torque. I would expect that friction is still going to try to turn
                      > the payload, but maybe a big fin would be enough to slow it down to a
                      > controllable state. Or maybe counter-rotating rotors on the same shaft?
                      >
                      > It seems like it ought to be easier to deal with than a glider, and
                      > simpler than a helicopter since it doesn't need to transmit power
                      > through the shaft.
                      >
                      > In any case, it's going to be a long time before I have time to mess
                      > with a new project like this.
                      >
                      > In the shorter term, it'd be fun to design a long-duration lander. The
                      > last payload I flew out in the desert landed on the side of a mountain
                      > in the middle of nowhere, with good APRS coverage. If it had been
                      > weatherproof and solar powered, it could still be out there sending back
                      > telemetry and the occasional JPEG image trickled out a packet at a time.
                      >
                      > Scott
                      >
                      > On 5/9/2011 10:40 AM, pb648174 wrote:
                      > > Well, with just an autorotating helicopter blade your payload will be
                      > > spinning in the opposite direction just as fast and probably not very
                      > > controllable. So you'd need a tail rotor and once you do that you've got
                      > > a helicopter. To get an idea of the difficulty of controlling that go to
                      > > the local RC store and try out the RC simulators which have a helicopter
                      > > option. Helicopters are very difficult to fly even in a slight wind,
                      > > much less 100mph.
                      > >
                      > > So I would think for any kind of option like this you'd want a full UAV,
                      > > either a glider, powered airplane or tri/quad copter. That stuff is cool
                      > > and fun and can be tested on its own minus the balloon so I would think
                      > > that is the way to go. There are lots of arduino based UAV projects out
                      > > there to look to for inspiration.
                      > >
                      > > --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tracker2%40yahoogroups.com>,
                      > > Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
                      > > > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
                      > > > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
                      > > > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
                      > > >
                      > > > Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
                      > > > thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
                      > > > balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
                      > > > for choosing a landing site within a certain range.
                      > > >
                      > > > Scott
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Dean McCollom
                      I wonder how a package that would return in a mode similar to a maple seed would work. It would play havoc with a horizontally mounted camera but it should
                      Message 10 of 19 , May 9, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I wonder how a package that would return in a mode similar to a maple seed would work. It would play havoc with a horizontally mounted camera but it should have very little effect on the gps reciever if the antenna is mounted at the axis of rotation. The large wing would give a surface to mount Photo Voltaics for a long duration lander like scott was musing about.

                        Dean


                        On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Tom Tengdin <t3@...> wrote:
                        �

                        I suspect a steerable glider or bomb style configuration would be
                        better. Less moving parts.

                        If there is no power to the main rotor then I believe there is very
                        little torque. A tail assembly should be enough, just like on a
                        gyrocopter.

                        T3



                        On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 10:48 -0700, Scott Miller wrote:
                        > I know helicopters have at least a limited ability to land using
                        > autorotation in the event of a tail rotor failure because of the very
                        > low torque. I would expect that friction is still going to try to turn
                        > the payload, but maybe a big fin would be enough to slow it down to a
                        > controllable state. Or maybe counter-rotating rotors on the same shaft?
                        >
                        > It seems like it ought to be easier to deal with than a glider, and
                        > simpler than a helicopter since it doesn't need to transmit power
                        > through the shaft.
                        >
                        > In any case, it's going to be a long time before I have time to mess
                        > with a new project like this.
                        >
                        > In the shorter term, it'd be fun to design a long-duration lander. The
                        > last payload I flew out in the desert landed on the side of a mountain
                        > in the middle of nowhere, with good APRS coverage. If it had been
                        > weatherproof and solar powered, it could still be out there sending back
                        > telemetry and the occasional JPEG image trickled out a packet at a time.
                        >
                        > Scott
                        >
                        > On 5/9/2011 10:40 AM, pb648174 wrote:
                        > > Well, with just an autorotating helicopter blade your payload will be
                        > > spinning in the opposite direction just as fast and probably not very
                        > > controllable. So you'd need a tail rotor and once you do that you've got
                        > > a helicopter. To get an idea of the difficulty of controlling that go to
                        > > the local RC store and try out the RC simulators which have a helicopter
                        > > option. Helicopters are very difficult to fly even in a slight wind,
                        > > much less 100mph.
                        > >
                        > > So I would think for any kind of option like this you'd want a full UAV,
                        > > either a glider, powered airplane or tri/quad copter. That stuff is cool
                        > > and fun and can be tested on its own minus the balloon so I would think
                        > > that is the way to go. There are lots of arduino based UAV projects out
                        > > there to look to for inspiration.
                        > >
                        > > --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tracker2%40yahoogroups.com>,
                        > > Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
                        > > > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
                        > > > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
                        > > > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
                        > > >
                        > > > Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
                        > > > thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
                        > > > balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
                        > > > for choosing a landing site within a certain range.
                        > > >
                        > > > Scott
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >




                        --
                        Dean McCollom
                        Cell 831-239-4118

                      • captnkliegle
                        Autopilot for RC airplanes...not heli s: http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=49&products_id=135 OSD = On Screen Display Overlay
                        Message 11 of 19 , May 13, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Autopilot for RC airplanes...not heli's:
                          http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=49&products_id=135

                          OSD = On Screen Display Overlay GPS data (course, speed, alt) over a video signal (video camera) that is transmitted to the ground on 910Mhz, 1.3G, 2.4G, or 5.8Ghz. GPS provides 10Hz refresh rate. Waypoints are programmable as well to fly over/to.

                          Lots of interesting videos on youtube under FPV RC Flying.

                          One would have to protect the craft during climb due to high speeds... shroud like military sat launches that open at apogee?

                          Kriss KA1GJU


                          --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
                          > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
                          > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
                          > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
                          >
                          > Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
                          > thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
                          > balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
                          > for choosing a landing site within a certain range.
                          >
                          > Scott
                          >
                        • Scott Miller
                          ... I d be more concerned about the wings getting ripped off as it plummets from 100,000 . Maybe the shroud ought to open at 20,000 after a drogue slows it
                          Message 12 of 19 , May 13, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > One would have to protect the craft during climb due to high speeds...
                            > shroud like military sat launches that open at apogee?

                            I'd be more concerned about the wings getting ripped off as it plummets
                            from 100,000'. Maybe the shroud ought to open at 20,000' after a drogue
                            slows it down to something reasonable.

                            Scott
                          • James Ewen
                            ... Kriss is talking rocket trip up... ... Scott is talking drop from a balloon... Both have similar issues, but the rocket accelleration and speeds will
                            Message 13 of 19 , May 13, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
                              >> One would have to protect the craft during climb due to high speeds...
                              >> shroud like military sat launches that open at apogee?

                              Kriss is talking rocket trip up...

                              > I'd be more concerned about the wings getting ripped off as it plummets
                              > from 100,000'.  Maybe the shroud ought to open at 20,000' after a drogue
                              > slows it down to something reasonable.

                              Scott is talking drop from a balloon...

                              Both have similar issues, but the rocket accelleration and speeds will
                              probably win out!

                              James
                              VE6SRV
                            • Monroe K
                              Scott Sorry I got too busy to check the thread. We have an Arducopter from DIY Drones anyone interested should check out the Ardupilot. It s a good start. We
                              Message 14 of 19 , May 21, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Scott
                                Sorry I got too busy to check the thread. We have an Arducopter from DIY Drones anyone interested should check out the Ardupilot. It's a good start. We are doing FPV/OSD as well check that stuff out the range is extended with Scherer UHF components 20 watts 900 Mhz for the FPV system 7 watts for the remote control system. A ground station guides the dish with auto-tracking. The telemetry comes down one of the audio channels of the 900 Mhz transmitter.

                                Monroe

                                --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
                                > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
                                > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
                                > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
                                >
                                > Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
                                > thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
                                > balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
                                > for choosing a landing site within a certain range.
                                >
                                > Scott
                                >
                              • Monroe K
                                Just remember the atmosphere at 100kft is about the same as Mars, in order for us to fly at that altitude the rotors had to be designed after the blades of the
                                Message 15 of 19 , May 21, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Just remember the atmosphere at 100kft is about the same as Mars, in order for us to fly at that altitude the rotors had to be designed after the blades of the Helios aircraft NASA flue at 96,000 ft. They are very thin and ultra light weight. Motors cant dissipate heat very well either at that altitude.
                                  For a return autorotating does work! A tri-copter could autorotate during the decent and if you swing the motors/rotors 90 degrees it could fly like a plane in the lower atmosphere with the front two rotors pulling and the rear one pushing.

                                  Monroe

                                  --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com, Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I know helicopters have at least a limited ability to land using
                                  > autorotation in the event of a tail rotor failure because of the very
                                  > low torque. I would expect that friction is still going to try to turn
                                  > the payload, but maybe a big fin would be enough to slow it down to a
                                  > controllable state. Or maybe counter-rotating rotors on the same shaft?
                                  >
                                  > It seems like it ought to be easier to deal with than a glider, and
                                  > simpler than a helicopter since it doesn't need to transmit power
                                  > through the shaft.
                                  >
                                  > In any case, it's going to be a long time before I have time to mess
                                  > with a new project like this.
                                  >
                                  > In the shorter term, it'd be fun to design a long-duration lander. The
                                  > last payload I flew out in the desert landed on the side of a mountain
                                  > in the middle of nowhere, with good APRS coverage. If it had been
                                  > weatherproof and solar powered, it could still be out there sending back
                                  > telemetry and the occasional JPEG image trickled out a packet at a time.
                                  >
                                  > Scott
                                  >
                                  > On 5/9/2011 10:40 AM, pb648174 wrote:
                                  > > Well, with just an autorotating helicopter blade your payload will be
                                  > > spinning in the opposite direction just as fast and probably not very
                                  > > controllable. So you'd need a tail rotor and once you do that you've got
                                  > > a helicopter. To get an idea of the difficulty of controlling that go to
                                  > > the local RC store and try out the RC simulators which have a helicopter
                                  > > option. Helicopters are very difficult to fly even in a slight wind,
                                  > > much less 100mph.
                                  > >
                                  > > So I would think for any kind of option like this you'd want a full UAV,
                                  > > either a glider, powered airplane or tri/quad copter. That stuff is cool
                                  > > and fun and can be tested on its own minus the balloon so I would think
                                  > > that is the way to go. There are lots of arduino based UAV projects out
                                  > > there to look to for inspiration.
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tracker2%40yahoogroups.com>,
                                  > > Scott Miller <scott@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
                                  > > > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
                                  > > > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
                                  > > > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
                                  > > > thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
                                  > > > balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
                                  > > > for choosing a landing site within a certain range.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Scott
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.