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

Christie Dudley longobord at gmail.com
Thu Feb 11 15:10:57 PST 2010


Don't forget the problem of having to dig it out of the ground if it doesn't
actually hit a building or car.  I wonder how deep the crater would be.

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 Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Ozzy Satori <ozzymandi at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Space mailing list
> Space at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/space
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/space/attachments/20100211/f96a108a/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Space mailing list