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

Kelly hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
Thu Feb 11 14:08:36 PST 2010


I approve of the amazing heights of your nerdiness, spacebridgers.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 15:18, 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
>
>


More information about the Space mailing list