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

Re: [tracker2] Re: Rockoon Launch

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.