Slashdot Mirror


HD Video From the Edge of Space, On the Cheap

SoundDoc75 links to a page describing the motivations and problem-solving behind "a 10-minute HD video taken on August 24th with a Canon Vixia HF20 HD camera suspended from a 1500g hydrogen balloon and launched near Edmonton, Alberta. This is the first known amateur video taken from this height — 107,145 feet."

205 comments

  1. How misleading! by celibate+for+life · · Score: 5, Funny

    The title made me think we had finally reached the outer edge of the Universe, where God lives!

    1. Re:How misleading! by eln · · Score: 1

      God really needs to set a better example than that. Living that far out, his commute must be terrible, and he probably does it in a giant SUV. How can he expect us to take care of his little planet if he's going to be out there spreading his pollution all over the Universe?

    2. Re:How misleading! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well, it's good exercise to get caught out that way. Like that brown horse over there; so far, all we know is it's brown on /this/ side.

    3. Re:How misleading! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When we find God, I would like to ask him why so many of his followers (Pudge, RailGunner, Sarah Palin, Adolf Hitler) are such assholes.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    4. Re:How misleading! by nairnr · · Score: 3, Informative

      When we find God, maybe we can get him to stop the Slashdot editors from posting so many dupes?

      I mean honestly. I logged in, looked down the page, and had to check the date thinking I'd somehow slipped back into last week.

      The last one was a team from MIT, with normal digital stills which is getting fairly routine, this one has hi-def video... Same Idea, different beast...

    5. Re:How misleading! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      And audio too... totally hip. Total bummer that my mini could only play about three frames a second though.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:How misleading! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      What does GOD need with a Balloon?

    7. Re:How misleading! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God really needs to set a better example than that. Living that far out, His commute must be terrible, and he probably does it in a giant SUV. How can He expect us to take care of His little planet if He's going to be out there spreading His pollution all over the Universe?

      MYBBCFY (made your blasphemy biblically correct for you)

    8. Re:How misleading! by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was surprised that the camera was still picking-up sound when it was 20 miles high. I thought the air would be too thin for the microphone to sense anything.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:How misleading! by kimvette · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It was mechanically coupled to the styrofoam enclosure, so there is a good deal of surface area to respond to sound waves. Most of the sound at that altitude seems from the enclosure anyhow - that would be picked up by the non-isolated mic even in a vacuum with that setup.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    10. Re:How misleading! by armanox · · Score: 0

      That depends, what does G-d need with a starship?

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    11. Re:How misleading! by Ksevio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, if you read the article (kind of weird to do) they say that it did stop picking up sounds and only picked up vibrations directly connected to it like the balloon popping.

    12. Re:How misleading! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, was there any sound not connected to it that they could have heard but didn't?

      Theory says that the microphone should work just as well until the pressure is really 0. Yeah the air is thinner, so the microphone has a harder time, but the object making a sound has an easier time creating sound waves -- it cancels out. Think about it, if in a controlled experiment the volume at a microphone was proportional to pressure, then for a high enough pressure the microphone would pick up more energy than the object creating the sound consumed. So the volume picked up can't be proportional to pressure, nor can it be proportional to some positive power of pressure.

    13. Re:How misleading! by boxxertrumps · · Score: 1

      god isn't alive. If god were alive that implies it could die! Do you _want_ god to die???

    14. Re:How misleading! by mpfife · · Score: 1

      But why does God need a spaceship?

  2. weird by ChienAndalu · · Score: 1

    It looks like slashes become backslashes in that height

  3. DUP by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

    Seems like a DUP timothy.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:DUP by frovingslosh · · Score: 1, Interesting
      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    2. Re:DUP by DrData99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So clearly you didn't look at either article (I know, this is slashdot).
      Completely different projects.

    3. Re:DUP by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Nah, its just that everyone is doing it but you.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  4. Free HD Camera for Farmer in middle of nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well someone just got a pretty nice new video camera. Assuming the camera was transmitting it's GPS coordinates it's finders keepers.

  5. First amateurs? Not quite! by intermodal · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's not the first amateur video from that height, I've seen the quality of the video astronauts shoot. If they're not amateur cameramen, who is?

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  6. This seems to be getting pretty routine by wandazulu · · Score: 1

    But it's still way way cool and I'd love to do something like this myself.

    I was thinking of a short-lived TV show I immediately loved and can't think of its name (and sadly, google hasn't been my friend to find it) about a group of people who launch a spaceship to the moon using stuff from a junkyard. In a similar vein, I suppose, as a way of "upping the ante", what would be the chances of attaching a couple of rockets to the side so that, when the balloon has gotten as far as it's going to go, the rockets kick in and push it up that much further? Heck, what would it take to get it into some sort of orbit? I suppose, though, the pictures would look pretty much the same as taken from the balloon; you'd really have to work hard to get a good pic of the earth. Of course, INARS so I'm likely being incredibly naive in my ideas here.

    1. Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine by mshannon78660 · · Score: 1

      Ask, and ye shall receive... Salvage

    2. Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      You know what would make it not routine? If they were use 3 or 4 cameras pointing in different directions and "stitch" the videos together to get a panoramic view, if that capability exists.

      If not, then at least they can display the separate videos on multiple screens for a similar effect.

    3. Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine by kuldan · · Score: 2, Informative
    4. Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine by kuldan · · Score: 1

      Oh, and just to add another bit of Information - if you are into this kind of Science Fiction, I can highly recommend a book series by John Varley - Red Thunder (followed by Red Lightning and Rolling Thunder) where the invention of "Bubble Drive" enables a few off-the-shelf people to build a rocket out of Junkyard scrap and come to the rescue when the "real" mission by nasa goes poof.. It is a highly interesting read and continues nicely in the following Novels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Thunder_(novel)

    5. Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine by karstux · · Score: 2, Informative

      Achieving orbit would be impossible for such a project. Most of the energy in spacefaring rockets is spent on gaining velocity, not altitude. This balloon would give a lot of altitude "for free", but virtually no velocity. Gravity is pretty much as strong at 30 km as it is here on the ground, so it's not like the rockets would have an easier time lifting the payload than they do at ground level.

      --
      Don't whistle while you're pissing.
    6. Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Actually,
      I've heard a bit about using a large balloon to get near the edge of space like this, then using an ion-drive (super high impulse, but low thrust) to gradually accelerate into orbit.

      Sam

    7. Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATHF?

  7. There's a reason this doesn't happen often by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Informative

    Woah did anyone watch that movie? I'm about ready to vomit on my keyboard. My eyes are still spinning. DO NOT WATCH THAT IF YOU GET MOTION SICKNESS! Woah, just ruined any desire I had to fly in a balloon. Gives new meaning to the words vomit comet.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by joggle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a shame they didn't put some gyros and a free mount to get better video. If you're going to bother buying a new HD video camera, fly from Japan to Canada and (presumably) help pay for this balloon launch it seems it would have been worth it to put at least one gyro on there. It would have added to the weight (both due to the gyro and due to the extra batteries needed to power it), but it would have dramatically improved the video quality.

      (I'm not referring to expensive professional, bulky gyro mounts like http://www.camerasystems.com/rentals.htm -- any gyro would have been better than nothing -- heck, even a spindle mount with a wind vane on the styrofoam cube would have been a big improvement).

    2. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      You should wait until it gets to the top when the baloon bursts, and it starts falling.

      I was fine up until then.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    3. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just a motor attached to a spinning disk would have halped a lot, two of these mounted perpendicular to each other should be enough to greatly dampen the spinning and oscillation.

    4. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by TBoon · · Score: 1

      wouldn't a gyro holding that whole box be "somewhat" large and heavy? they seem to mention something in the beginning of the video that they were really close to the carrying capacity of the balloon...

      But I guess some sort of stabilizer probably (hopefully at least) made it quite high on their list of improvements for their next launch...

    5. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by joggle · · Score: 1

      A gyro would be mounted within the box. It wouldn't need to weigh more than a pound for something of that size.

      If they were at the weight limit then they still could have hung the cube on something that can twist freely and attach something like a weather vane or ribbon to give it some passive stability with very little extra weight.

    6. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by qubezz · · Score: 1

      Another thing - no battery needed - camera stabilization gyros take about 10 minutes to get up to full speed (which is insanely fast), and then you can unplug the battery for another 20 minutes of spinning.

    7. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by skylerweaver · · Score: 1
    8. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully on the next run, they'll figure this out. I guess they didn't anticipate this degree of instability? But yeah, I'm with GP on this. I just get dizzy watching this.

    9. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think you can do better, then why don't you send up your own balloon and camera?

    10. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by joggle · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you were only interested in the first 20 minutes of flight. But if you wanted it to be stable for the whole flight or during portions of the flight (which lasted several hours) you would need to fly batteries with it.

      In this case it probably wouldn't be feasible to run a gyro the entire time because it would simply require too large of a battery. But they could have flown batteries to spin it up a few times during flight, perhaps something like:

      1) Spin it up initially using external power like you suggest.
      2) When the balloon reached a certain height (maybe 100,000 ft), spin it up again.
      3) As soon as the balloon starts falling spin it up again. This might not make much sense since you probably wouldn't have any attitude control software so you wouldn't know which orientation the camera would stabilize in (with one gyro it wouldn't fully stabilize it anyway).
      4) Just before landing

      While this would require a little programming, it's pretty simple to program a micro controller nowadays and the GPS unit can output its position in plain text via serial or serial over USB so it's trivial to decode and add the necessary logic to the micro controller to switch the gyro on and off.

    11. Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know it's funny that everyone is suggesting all these high tech gyros and disks and wing mechanisms to slow the spin, but I bet if they just tied the connections to 4 corners instead of one central tether I bet it would have been a lot more stable. including the parachute fall as well.

  8. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are taking the videos while being paid. Astronauts are therefor professional cameramen.

  9. Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can they control or limit the camera spin? It makes sense they can't right after the balloon bursts, but I would think there might be some kind of tricks they could do in the atmosphere on ascent and descent.

    1. Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by Jaqenn · · Score: 1

      Can they control or limit the camera spin? It makes sense they can't right after the balloon bursts, but I would think there might be some kind of tricks they could do in the atmosphere on ascent and descent.

      Seems to me it would be better to digitally scrub the video, and keep your hardware cheap.

      --
      You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
    2. Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet you could rig up a nice gyro using a modified CD/DVD drive, but then that would add to the weight. Long record time, directional stability, resolution, altitude. Pick 2. A windsock/windvane/sail would be another option to help keep it pointed in a direction for long enough to grab a sharp frame.

    3. Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      What would have been cooler would have been a mirror that panorama makers use (the 360 ones). Point the camera at that. Do some trickery to do some anti spin, and then you could have a full 360 ascent.

      CPU processing would be insane though.

    4. Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Adding a long streamer to the payload to act like a tail on a kite should have done the trick.

    5. Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      You mean like CosmoCam http://www.cosmocam.com/

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    6. Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Removing motion blur is very difficult and computationally expensive. The typical deshaking results in bursts of blur in an otherwise steady picture. Here's an example where a very shaky video has been processed: It shows police brutality at the "freedom instead of fear" demonstration in Berlin on 2009-09-12.

    7. Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can they control or limit the camera spin? It makes sense they can't right after the balloon bursts, but I would think there might be some kind of tricks they could do in the atmosphere on ascent and descent.

      I debated that one myself. A gyroscope would help keep it from pitching but it won't stop spin. There are tracking rigs that lock to fixed points but it would add a lot of weight and expense. Building a vertical wing onto the housing might help but it could make it worse. The best thing would be to use three balloons in a triangle configuration hopefully with ridge rods to space them out a bit. The problem with the rig is it's far too easy for a single balloon to rotate given it has little wind resistance. Three balloons would be more inherently stable.

    8. Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, someone fire that goddamn cameraman!

  10. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by intermodal · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, they're professional astronauts with a hobby. I was a professional fireman for years, and sometimes at night I played Pokemon. That doesn't make me a professional Pokemon Trainer.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  11. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

    Well, if you want to get technical, the astronauts aren't taking any video at 100k feet. They're still strapped in at that point, cameras stowed away.

  12. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if they're being payed to shoot the video.

    So, if taking the video is part of their official duties, they're professional cameramen. If it's not, then it's amateur video. And if they weigh less than a duck, they're a witch, and should be burned.

  13. 107,145 feet by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    This is the first known amateur video taken from this height — 107,145 feet.

    Yes, and I bet it remains the only one taken from that (exact) height. ;)

    (If they'd said "this high", I'd have interpreted it to mean "or higher", but strangely "this height" doesn't strike me the same.)

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1. Re:107,145 feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about the grammar -- the author of the article certainly doesn't.

      The video is dizzying and so is the text. Oy.

  14. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by intermodal · · Score: 1

    Actually, judging from the videos of a spacewalk, they do weigh less than a duck.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  15. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    You can't tell how much something weighs by how fast it falls. :p

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  16. Hell of a skydive! :D by rarel · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Dupe or not, I don't care, I missed it the first time and I'm glad I didn't this one.

    In the beginning it reminded me of how cool it is to fly, and I don't mean airliner, I mean small plane, ideally old-school open cockpit. It's not only all kinds of fun, it always detaches you from the world below and its petty concerns, in a way. Up there, you're literally free as a bird, it's magic.

    Second half of the vid was one hell of a skydive! :D

    Awesome flight, kudos guys!

  17. "Edge of Space" is 100 km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This kind of error gets posted routinely.

    The boundary of space is conventionally defined at 100 km, or about 260,000 feet. Sending a weather balloon to 107,000 feet is nice, but it's only 40% of the way to the "edge of space."

    Which, of course, you could have realized just by thinking about it. We define "space" as meaning "above the sensible atmosphere," and if you get there in a balloon, it couldn't be above the atmosphere.

    1. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by jguthrie · · Score: 4, Informative

      100Km is about 328,000 feet. That's why Space Ship One had a tail number of N328KF.

      Also, the North Texas Balloon Team and the South Texas Balloon Project routinely (with launches approximately annually) send balloons with video cameras to altitudes in excess of 100,000 feet. Those are just the two balloon projects I'm familiar with. I am sure there are others because it's not particularly hard to do.

      So, this is pure ho-hum to me. Let me know when they've done it a couple of dozen times.

    2. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

      The boundary of space is conventionally defined at 100 km, or about 260,000 feet. Sending a weather balloon to 107,000 feet is nice, but it's only 40% of the way to the "edge of space." Which, of course, you could have realized just by thinking about it. We define "space" as meaning "above the sensible atmosphere," and if you get there in a balloon, it couldn't be above the atmosphere.

      It's an exponential decay. There is no sharp cutoff. Nothing special happens at 100 km. The scale height of the earth's atmosphere is about 7 km, so the pressure at 107,000 ft (32 km) is about 10^-2 of what it is at the surface, while the pressure at 100 km is about 10^-6 of surface pressure. It's not like somewhere in between 10^-2 atm and 10^-6 atm there's a mystical barrier that suddenly makes balloon flight impossible. It just gets harder and harder; to stay aloft with a given volume of hydrogen, a balloon at 100 km would have to have 10^-4 of the weight of a balloon that's neutrally buoyant at 32 km. It just happens to be difficult to make a balloon with sufficiently thin walls, high strength, and low surface-to-volume ratio.

      If you watch the (very cool) video, the sky is black, there is no sound, and the curvature of the earth is extremely obvious. I would call that the "edge of space" -- for some definitions of "edge of space." There's not some international standards body that defines terms like "edge of space."

    3. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by Eevee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that the atmosphere isn't a smooth medium; 100,000 ft. is still inside the stratosphere. To go to 100 Km, you're going through the stratopause (the boundary between the stratosphere and mesosphere) and the mesopause (the boundary between the mesosphere and the thermosphere.) All three layers have different characteristics as far as temperature and circulation.

    4. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by dapyx · · Score: 1

      At 32 km (107,000 feet), the atmosphere is practically inexistent (the air pressure is less than 1% of the one at sea level), but the gravity is 99% of the one at sea level.

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    5. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the mesopause (the boundary between the mesosphere and the thermosphere.)...

      whew...for a second there I thought you told me I was going through menopause!

    6. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by pmarini · · Score: 1

      in any case, a non-pressurised, non-heated box like that one would not make the instruments that it contains work above 3 km (10,000 ft), so that's a moot point as the experiment or its video is a fake one...

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    7. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you need to grow up, or you need some glasses...

    8. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by Amanitin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's an exponential decay. There is no sharp cutoff. Nothing special happens at 100 km.

      Yes it does. At around that height the theoretical speed that would be required to generate enough lift to stay in the 'air' surpasses orbital speed in vacuum.
      Look at 'Karman line'.

    9. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by catbertscousin · · Score: 1

      So, this is pure ho-hum to me. Let me know when they've done it a couple of dozen times.

      No one is claiming this is some astounding breakthrough or unheard of application of technology. They're saying "Hey, these guys sent a video camera up to 100k feet and this is the footage they got. Cool, huh?" Most of us would say we could/would do something like this if we had the time... initiative... willingness to get off our lazy butts and do it. But most of us never will. These guys actually did, and we're applauding them for it.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
    10. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Except the box WAS heated... by the batteries, as they were used. Combined with the box being made out of Styrofoam, the electronics managed to stay warm enough to function without problems. Evidently, the vacuum wasn't a big deal either, other than causing some membrane buttons to be forced down by atmospheric pressure when returning to the ground.

      This is not the first group (by far) that has sent consumer electronics on a high-altitude ride. Maybe you should look around a bit more before you call something a fake.

    11. Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Ohhhh, the near edge. I thought they were talking about the far edge. That would be much more impressive.

      --
      -
  18. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    IIRC. The Apollo astronauts were trained by a professional photographer on how to use the custom (Hasselbak or something close to that.) cameras for use on the moon. They carried them around for months and practiced shooting with them everywhere. For learning how to shoot a picture without getting to look through the view finder I think they did a fairly good job. With those cameras, in that environment they were definitely trained professionals.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  19. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try telling that to the Medieval villagers.

  20. twitter by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    for those who are interested, this bear project has a twitter page : https://twitter.com/BEAR_HAB. (linked twice)

  21. Not a dupe... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Not a dupe...

  22. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by oldspewey · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd love to see them bring a duck into space in order to test this hypothesis.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  23. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by rarel · · Score: 1

    I think their point is that it's the first HD video, not the first video.

  24. Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    editors are cracksmoke

    And I'm glad. You see, this information comes from Edmonton. To get it to Slashdot, brave Canadian Voyageurs and their faithful Eskimo sidekicks must trek through millions of miles of frozen wastelands filled with polar bears, undead elk that thirst for dwarven blood, and the occasional crazed Frenchman. It is only the far and distant beacon of crack smoke billowing from the obsidian tower of Slashdot HQ that prevents them from getting lost in the soul-destroying wilds and eaten by madding tundra, a close cousin to the dread gazebo.

  25. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by gnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's typically true, but there are seldom exceptions - This being one of them.

    If something falls at 0 ft/second, it weighs nothing. If it falls up, it weighs less than nothing.

    These things, of course, tell you little about the object's mass.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  26. Before the days of HD ... by Skapare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... and memory cards, ham radio operators did this one in 1989, which was just standard definition, but it went further (from Illinois to nearly Indianapolis) and higher. It just transmitted the signal back via the UHF transmitter on board.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Before the days of HD ... by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      That one had a much better soundtrack, too. 4 stars.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    2. Re:Before the days of HD ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I wonder how accurate the altimeter is.
      At 4 minutes it goes 125k, 110, 119 k per-second.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Before the days of HD ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad he didn't get "munched by the columbine" at the end. What he didn't tell you is that Columbine is what he calls his wife.

    4. Re:Before the days of HD ... by confused+one · · Score: 1

      The altimeter was a GPS device. The post-flight analysis showed that the camera's DC-DC converter was interfering with the GPS reciever; so, the signal was intermittent.

    5. Re:Before the days of HD ... by dapyx · · Score: 1

      The altimeter was pressure-based, so it was not very accurate, hence the constant changes.

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    6. Re:Before the days of HD ... by SoundDoc75 · · Score: 1

      Um... no, the altimeter was GPS based... (its my GPS) The camera's power supply is what we suspect was interfering with the GPS's ability to get a 3D fix during the first part of the flight, as the battery voltage began to drop the converters frequency shifted, the interference cleared and we got a good lock.

    7. Re:Before the days of HD ... by holmstar · · Score: 1

      I think you meant "combine". Columbine is a city. A combine is a harvester/piece of farm equipment.

    8. Re:Before the days of HD ... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I would say that one is more impressive than the one in TFA, considering the technological hurdles they had to overcome. That mirror on a servo was pretty slick too. Unfortunately, the video isn't of very good quality. But I am impressed with the graphical output of the altimeter.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  27. legal? safe? ATC? by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 1

    I haven't read TFA but one thing that springs to my mind whenever I read stories like this is: who do you have to get permission from? I mean, it can't be safe for people to randomly be launching electronic equipment, potentially into the flight path of commercial or amateur aircraft. Is this simply not an issue, or is there a controlling body who schedules such launches?

    1. Re:legal? safe? ATC? by nairnr · · Score: 1
      It is legal and not controlled. You can/should file a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) to warn of the activity. The FAA has restrictions but devices like this falls beneath the weight/size that are limited and controlled by the FAA.

      A friend of mine did a project like this as well with a a regular digital camera, no video. It flew from Vulcan, AB to Hanna AB.

    2. Re:legal? safe? ATC? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      I don't worry about the launch, I worry about the landing. A camera from space crashing into a house, person, car, etc. would be a bad thing (think parachute failure).

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    3. Re:legal? safe? ATC? by fatboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am a member of the Tennessee Balloon Group. We had a parachute failure on one of our flights. TABEL-5 if I remember correctly. It burned in at a whopping 55 MPH and landed in a tree. We only launch if the predicted burst and landing is over a rural area.

      --
      --fatboy
    4. Re:legal? safe? ATC? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, we here in Canada do not have to worry about FAA regulations.

      Transport Canada regulations - now that's a different story.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:legal? safe? ATC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the FAA ? in canada ?

    6. Re:legal? safe? ATC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that things can only fall so fast...

      In this house, we obey the laws of physics!

    7. Re:legal? safe? ATC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a member of the Tennessee Balloon Group [nt4bg.net].

      Ahh, the irony...

      SafeSurf tagging of that URL:
      Criminal_Activities -> Blocked by firewall policy.

      *Falls over*

    8. Re:legal? safe? ATC? by fatboy · · Score: 1

      Never heard of that software before. NT4BG is the club callsign for our group. Pretty funny that they tag it as "Criminal_Activities"!

      --
      --fatboy
  28. Valve by l0b0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IANAAE, but I can't help thinking that a valve on the balloon would enable it to survive longer, siphoning off gas when the inner pressure gets too high. What other cheap improvements are available to these guys?

    1. Re:Valve by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Encasing it in a plastic shell.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Valve by TheHawke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Weight restrictions vs performance. The envelope is filled to 25% capacity with helium, then released. As the balloon ascends, the gas expands, filling the envelope completely. Once it reaches altitude, it will stay there until either the membrane fails or programmed cutter severs the the tether, letting the payload descend back to the ground. A release valve would prolong the flight, but with amateur rides like this, they usually let it ride up until it bursts at a calculated altitude from the overpressure. 100K feet is impressive and the video is stunning.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    3. Re:Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you add a syphon? Wouldn't the gas release under it's own pressure? Seems stupid to me.

    4. Re:Valve by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they fill it with hydrogen?

    5. Re:Valve by CarlDenny · · Score: 1

      I'd been thinking similar things. Venting gas would limit their ultimate height though. I wonder if they could:

      Underinflate the balloon at ground level so it's got just enough bouyancy to get off the ground. Then the ballon inflates itself as the external pressure drops. It'd still pop eventually, but might last a good bit longer.

      Carry a second (third? smaller?) balloon that inflates off the main ballon when the internal pressure gets high enough. I don't know how much a second balloon would weight things down on the way up, but at higher altitudes, it could double your bouyancy.

    6. Re:Valve by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Does the buoyancy of the balloon change with height or does the increase in volume perfectly cancels with the reduction in density of the air mass displaced?

    7. Re:Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wouldn't they fill it with hydrogen?

      Because as the balloon ascends, the pressure drops, and when the pressure drops, the hydrogen expands. If the balloon is near capacity at sea level, it bursts pretty quickly. If it's at a much lower capacity, it has significantly more room to expand before it finally ruptures.

    8. Re:Valve by clintp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A mechanism to vent gas introduces a rather tragic possible failure vector: equilibrium. Your balloon floats along until it's out of reach of the chase team and you don't get your payload back. (Which might be fine if you're using telemetry.)

      At least with this method you're guaranteed that the payload will come back sooner rather than much, much later.

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    9. Re:Valve by SoundDoc75 · · Score: 1

      We did fill it with Hydrogen...

    10. Re:Valve by infolation · · Score: 1

      At ground level the weather balloon is not completely filled to allow room for the gas to expand as the balloon rises in the atmosphere.

      As the balloon rises, the air pressure outside the balloon decreases, and the balloon is stretched by the gas inside the balloon as the pressure attempts to equalize. But when the pressures are equal, the densities of the gases from the inside of the balloon to the outside are still different, so the balloon continues to rise... and the balloon continues to stretch.

      At an altitude of around 100,000 feet, the balloon has stretched to become almost as big as a house. When the balloon can no longer stretch, it ruptures and the payload falls to earth. Because the atmosphere is so rarefied at that height it requires that large volume to maintain buoyancy. Allowing gas to escape through a valve would reduce the volume of the balloon, and therefore reduce buoyancy.

    11. Re:Valve by holmstar · · Score: 1

      If you do something like that, then your balloon/payload will reach an equilibrium altitude, and will just stay there (until the hydrogen leaks out) floating around the planet... actually I seriously doubt it would stay up long enough to circle the globe, but it certainly could float several states away, and that would make retrieval a bitch.

  29. now I know by Luyseyal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now I have some idea of what it was like for Joe Kittinger, a guy who sky-dived over 102,000 ft. back in the Fifties.

    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  30. Re:DUP. *NOT* by schon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, it's the same thing.

    Except that the other story was about different people. And they were from MIT, not Sherwood Park, Canada. And they used a still camera, not a video one.

    So yeah, except for the fact that everything is different, it's completely the same.

  31. Re:Free HD Camera for Farmer in middle of nowhere by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    How exactly do you think they got the video from it?

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  32. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

    A slashdotter?

  33. Always found these interesting by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

    What size balloon would need to have attach a small craft that would be able to break thought the atmosphere?
    I.e. attaching a rocket. Let alone keeping it on the correct trajectory.

  34. unobscured sun by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    My favorite parts were the brief glimpses of the sun surrounded by black space. That's a very rare sight and I feel like I might not have even seen that before. Every other image I've ever seen of the sun has the bluish atmosphere surrounding it. Very offputting to see the brightness of the sun surrounded by black.

    Seth

    1. Re:unobscured sun by grahamwest · · Score: 1

      NASA records video from the Solid Rocket Boosters on Space Shuttle launches. 6 minutes or so from the pad up to around 200,000ft and then all the way down to the sea. You can see the orbiter fly away, the other SRB as they both tumble, and the sun in the blackness of space although it's often too bright for the camera to cope with.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FadV-VwuXWo

      --
      Graham
  35. Not again :/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay.. another slashdot "from space" article where hasn't even left the atmosphere. Anyone wanna fight about it?

  36. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Good points... although these exceptions still wouldn't help you tell whether an astronaut weighed less than a duck. Unless the astronaut fell up, I suppose, but that would be an astronaut with one serious case of gas.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  37. I can see my house from here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, almost. The part of the town that the camera kept spinning past as it rose... somewhere over there.

  38. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    This is the first known amateur video taken from this height â" 107,145 feet."

    they weren't taken at the height, were they? Yes this is the first from the height...not the highest over all~

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. Insta-cred for me! by Itninja · · Score: 1

    I can tell from the canned graphics they edited the video using Pinnacle Studio. Since I also use that for home movies, I am giving myself 5 Insta-cred points (tm). Who ever said a $99 application has no place in space (well space-flavored sky anyway)? Suck it Adobe Premier Pro!

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  40. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by V!NCENT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who cares? What matters is that they did something that was awesome to do. Imagine yourself lifting up a baloon with a camera attached to it, wondering what will happen. Later on you find your camera back. You wait for what seems to be like forever for the 32GB to get transfered onto your computer. You watch the video from when you were standing in a grass field and watch what happened when you were there on the ground. You watch your camera fly into outer fscking space. You feel like "WOW! Dude that's beautifull... we freakin done it! We actually did it! It worked!".

    And then you feel awesome for a complete month, figuring out what to do next, while the world gets to see what you saw.

    You're suppose to like this, given the fact that you are on /. What's wrong with you?

    --
    Here be signatures
  41. They could add a rudder... by t0qer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Watching the video I thought the same thing about controlling the spin. All it would take is a rudder mounted on a boom (no elevator).

    Then again, why not add an elevator, wings, ailerons, etc? They could add a pico pilot

    http://www.u-nav.com/picopilot.html

    And have the camera always pointed towards home. Then when the balloon bursts, instead of an out of control fall, they could have a nice controlled glide back to earth.

    By giving the wings a ton of dihedral, it would automagically keep the camera steady on descent.

    1. Re:They could add a rudder... by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Those are interesting ideas. I hope that the hobbyists will get into a friendly competition to see who can make the best video and achieve the highest altitude. It would be fun to see what they come up with. I'd consider trying it myself.

    2. Re:They could add a rudder... by SoundDoc75 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      shhhhh! If you read over our website http://bear.sbszoo.com/bear3-4/bear4.htm you'd see thats allready in the works... ;) The thought of adding a tail for stabilization was there, just never implimented, its always shoulda/coulda after the fact lol, next time will be different/better/bigger! Gyro's may have been a option, but powering one over the full 4.5hr flight, and having one that would work at -30C and at that altitude would be another challenge. We were just happy to have the camera work the whole time!

  42. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by jgarra23 · · Score: 1

    No, they're professional astronauts with a hobby. I was a professional fireman for years, and sometimes at night I played Pokemon. That doesn't make me a professional Pokemon Trainer.

    It does if you're playing Pokemon whilst putting out fires :)

  43. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

    If something falls at 0 ft/second, it weighs nothing. If it falls up, it weighs less than nothing.

    Since science has so far not found anything that weighs nothing while at rest, nor anything that wheights less than nothing, that is pure speculation. It is unknown how such objects would behave

  44. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny
    "This is the first known amateur video taken from this height -- 107,145 feet."

    Yes, the 218 videos from 107,146 feet and the 342 from 107,147 feet are not the same as this one.

  45. Re:Free HD Camera for Farmer in middle of nowhere by ChienAndalu · · Score: 1

    Is this joke from monty python and the holy grail?

  46. Not first. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

    As long as you consider a couple of guys on a BBC show to be amateurs in the sens that they were only professional TV presenters, not pro space people, they did it for about $500. They showed the footage on the TV show "Bang! Goes the Theory."

    --
    This space available.
  47. Hitchhikers? by Kazlor · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that thought of the sperm whale being called into existence, several miles above the surface of an alien planet?

  48. Out of focus... by ScottPhill · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they could lock the focus at infinity for better quality?

  49. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Jurily · · Score: 1

    You can't tell how much something weighs by how fast it falls. :p

    I think you're confusing mass with weight. In Newtonian physics, mass is constant, and weight = mass*gravity.

  50. airspace coordination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are there any rules for clearing airspace for this kind of thing? What happens when another aircraft hits one?

  51. Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like now that people are able to do these types of projects for relatively cheap, is that a concern for safety since the "secret" is out? Certainly a number of people randomly sending up weather balloons without notice could pose a problem for air traffic, no?

  52. Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... by popo · · Score: 1

    1) How much power would it take to get to orbit from that height?

    2) How hard would this be for a person to accomplish? (Human flight)

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Almost identical to a ground launch. Getting 100 km up is the easy part (note: they didn't, they got less than 33 km up), getting over 7 km/s of horizontal velocity is the hard part. It's so hard that most boosters start accelerating as soon as they leave the ground.. that makes them supersonic in the low atmosphere, which means they need a fancy aeroshell or they'll burn up.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... by resignator · · Score: 1

      You need to reach escape velocity which is about mach 34 (6.96 miles per second). In other words, same power as the space shuttle minus 18.9 miles of fuel in the gas tank.

      --
      "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
    3. Re:Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... by resignator · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looks like I spoke too soon. Escape velocity does decrease with altitude. At sufficient heights it can even approach zero.
      *punches himself in the balls*
      There, that'll learn me.

      --
      "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
    4. Re:Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, they may have only gotten ~33km up, but those are the densest 33km of the trip. When you take into account the extra fuel they would need to overcome atmospheric drag at lower altitudes, each km of travel at low altitude is worth more than each km at high altitude. My understanding was that this leads to a significant fuel savings, which means a lighter vehicle, which means less energy to get it up to that 7km/s you were talking about.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    5. Re:Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Almost identical to a ground launch. Getting 100 km up is the easy part (note: they didn't, they got less than 33 km up), getting over 7 km/s of horizontal velocity is the hard part. It's so hard that most boosters start accelerating as soon as they leave the ground.. that makes them supersonic in the low atmosphere, which means they need a fancy aeroshell or they'll burn up.

      Right. To be fair, though, although getting to orbital velocity is the hard part, you do gain a bit by starting from outside (the dense part of) the atmosphere. Turns out that, for a SSTO, that's significant (mostly because SSTOs are so sensitive to small variations to start with). Ages ago I calculated that starting out above the atmosphere would give a typical SSTO about a 20% gain in mass to orbit. Interestingly, a significant fraction of this is due to the increased performance of rocket engines in vacuum compared to operating under pressure.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    6. Re:Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      A balloon that could lift a 100t rocket.. yeah, that's likely to be cheaper than just making the rocket a little bigger.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      No, no you're thinking about this all wrong. You get 10,000 balloons, each carrying 0.1t, and attach them like you would baloons to a lawn chair. Then, when you get the the desired altitude, you just pull out your BB gun and... wait, I think I read about this somewhere else already...

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  53. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by the+99th+penguin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Apollo astronauts were trained by a professional photographer on how to use the custom (Hasselbak or something close to that.) cameras for use on the moon.

    They were modified Hasselblad cameras (a very nice medium format film camera). They brought the film back but left the cameras on the moon.

  54. Re:DUP. *NOT* by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Well, one thing they do have in common is that neither group got anywhere close to the 100km (330,000ish ft) altitude which is the internationally recognized edge of space.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  55. Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eskimos suck!

    Go Lions!

  56. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by intermodal · · Score: 1

    That would make me a professional multitasker!

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  57. Re:Repeat by paimin · · Score: 1

    Okay:

    "a 10-minute HD video taken on August 24th with a Canon Vixia HF20 HD camera suspended from a 1500g hydrogen balloon and launched near Edmonton, Alberta. This is the first known amateur video taken from this height â" 107,145 feet."

    --
    Facebook is the new AOL
  58. Re:Free HD Camera for Farmer in middle of nowhere by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    WTFV. At the end, you can see the people that launched it waiting to retrieve it before it even landed. Unlike those other students who did it on the cheap, it appears these people did something a little more sophisticated and were tracking it the entire time.

  59. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if you use Squirtle or Blastoise to put out the fire?

  60. Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks by stainless-steel-vash · · Score: 1

    Look, unless many Bothans die to bring me this "vital" information, I am just not interested.

    I measure the value of interest in Bothans/pg. I expect a high amount of Bothan deaths/pg of info. If we aren't talking at least 10 BD/p then I ain't interested.

    However, this video was cool, if we can fix the shaky-cam somehow, even cooler.

    --
    I'm so awesome I don't need a sig file -Me
  61. Re:Free HD Camera for Farmer in middle of nowhere by uassholes · · Score: 1

    They are "amateur radio operators", ie. HAMs. The same people that relay information in emergencies.
    You have to take a test of radio circuit theory to get the license. In other words; radio nerds instead of computer nerds.
    Of course they were using sophisticated techniques to find the landing site.

  62. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    I think you're confusing mass with weight.

    No, I'm not.

    In Newtonian physics, mass is constant, and weight = mass*gravity.

    Correct. And you still can't tell how much something weighs by how fast it falls.

    You can't tell its mass or its weight by how fast it falls. (If you knew one, you could find the other by the formula you gave, of course.)

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  63. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they have. Weight = mass * gravity.

    In zero-gravity, everything weighs zero.

    Furthermore, to be 100% accurate when describing the weight of something, you should say that weight = mass * gravity - buoyancy, where buoyancy is the mass * gravity of the displaced fluid surrounding the object being weighed (air, usually, whose mass is usually negligible for weighing most objects). So an object which is actually lighter than air actually has a negative weight.

  64. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Charizard. Fight fire with fire.

  65. Different Perspective by gone.fishing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those of you complaining about the jerky video: STFU!

    For those of you saying it isn't practical: So What!

    I want to take my hat off to these dudes and give them a hearty round of applause and say "Great job guys!"

    My point here is these guys had a vision, that led to an idea, that lead to an exparament where a couple of pretty normal folks did something extrodinary. It is the same kind of curiosity that Ben Franklin had when he flew the kite and "discovered" electricity.

    Those of you who have offered criticisim, I ask you to reply to this post and tell me what you have done without backing that approximates or bests their very cool accomplishment.

    Those of you who have a vision share it, maybe someone will help you make it an idea so, I invite you to share your vision.

    For those of you who have an idea, share it and maybe someone will help you make it real.

    We don't need government, business, or universities to make the world a better place; just a few ordinary folks who try to do extrodinary things!

    Those of you who think this is just very cool, use this thread to virtually offer your applause and (real) encouraging comments!

    1. Re:Different Perspective by kefler · · Score: 1

      I always found the posts that begin with "I wish I had mod points to mod you up" stupid, but now I find myself posting one.

      Good post.

    2. Re:Different Perspective by oqaqiq · · Score: 1

      We don't need government, business, or universities to make the world a better place; just a few ordinary folks who try to do extrodinary things!

      Universities were created in order to share and distribute ideas. Before them, guys with good ideas were on their own, isolated. I don't want to go back to this dark age, we are not cave men. Government was created in order to protect the weak againt the strong. I don't want to live without it. If you don't like strong governement, go live somewhere else, like Somalia for example. http://n3t.net/humor/AntiGovRegulationTaxationGunLovers.jpg

    3. Re:Different Perspective by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

      I did not say that government, business, or universities are bad - just that people can do extrodinary things on their own.

      I found inspiration in what these folks did (and did on their own). If more people did stuff like this, I am pretty sure the world would be a better place.

      I think that my original post was pretty clear but for the sake of clarity - what I wanted to do with my post was inspire others to do something or at least be someone who encourages people that take the bull by the horns!

      Look, I don't understand how you got what you got out of my post, I had not intended it to be political at all.

    4. Re:Different Perspective by SoundDoc75 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thank you. I blame YouTube in part for the jerky video, as well yes, there were MANY things we COULD have done in order to try to stabilize the camera, Gyro's, Fins, etc..etc..etc... Don't think that many wern't considered (you don't go sending a $1000 camera & spending the time/money doing this on a whim) but when it comes down to it KISS won out. at 107K feet fins don't help, no real air to push against, a gyro might have helped though, but the package was kept small for a reason. External fins might also have gotten tangled in the parachute lines after burst, so we kept this one nice and simple. Looking at the video after recovery, I never knew the decent was so rough! I'm actually suprised it survived. Some of our previous launches have gone higher, some lower, each one is a little different and unique. The next one will have more stable video, the wings will help with that... More into on this and our other flights at: http://bear.sbszoo.com/bear3-4/bear4.htm and http://bear.sbszoo.com/

    5. Re:Different Perspective by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      You must be a total jerk to take all that hassle to do the video and post it to Youtube with massive, needless overcompression. I feel sad for the work, nothing else. I think they did the youtube upload wrong too or did some huge mistake like editing in compressed format, hope some video pro having time will contact them for the raw source and package it fine.

    6. Re:Different Perspective by oqaqiq · · Score: 1

      OK thank you for the explanation. At first it looked like all those antigovernement stuff you can read here and there. But anyway, once people do this kind of thing, the next step is to find other people who make the same things, and then gather. It's more efficient than staying alone on his own. So in the long term, your sentence "we don't need government, business or universities to make the world a better place" is plain wrong (in the long term, let me repeat myself).

  66. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that in the absence of gravity the weight of the displaced air is zero so the buoyancy term is also zero.

    0(weight) - 0(buoyancy) = 0

    Sorry no negative weights.

    And as long as there is more than one piece of mass somewhere in the universe there is a gravitational force between them even if the masses is far enough away from each other for said force to be negligible.

  67. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WRONG.

    Lrn2physics.

  68. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by heptapod · · Score: 1

    Quagsire or swampert are superior when it comes to fire because they are both supereffective against fire being water/ground.

  69. Video Jerkiness by Wallslide · · Score: 1

    This is something I've been wondering for a while. Presumably the video is being recorded to some sort of solid state flash memory. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any moving parts in the camera while it is recording the video. Why do I see the video seem to stop in certain places, and seemingly skip a few tenths of a second?

    The only theory I can come up with is that the motion is too great, and the camera's processor is unable to keep up with the increased bitrate? Some examples of this are @ the :30 mark and the :43 mark in the linked balloon video.

    1. Re:Video Jerkiness by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The only theory I can come up with is that the motion is too great, and the camera's processor is unable to keep up with the increased bitrate?

      Perhaps.

      The flash memory write speed could also be the bottle-neck that's causing buffer overflows during a high bitrate transfer.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  70. more than $150 by zorkdork · · Score: 0

    this cost more than $150

  71. G.i. joe! by somd · · Score: 1

    Where is the G.i. joe?

  72. Not AGAIN by damburger · · Score: 1

    What is it with people massively overhyping fairly routine balloon flights? 32km is not the 'edge of space' anymore than London is on the 'edge of France'

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  73. Obligatory quote from THGTTG by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    (Read this 7 minutes into the video) Ah ... ! What's happening? ...it thought. Er, excuse me, who am I? Hello? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Calm down, get a grip now ... oh! this is an interesting sensation, what is it? It's a sort of ... yawning, tingling sensation in my ... my ... well I suppose I'd better start finding names for things if I want to make any headway in what for the sake of what I shall call an argument I shall call the world, so let's call it my stomach. Good. Ooooh, it's getting quite strong. And hey, what's about this whistling roaring sound going past what I'm suddenly going to call my head? Perhaps I can call that ... wind! Is that a good name? It'll do ... perhaps I can find a better name for it later when I've found out what it's for. It must be something very important because there certainly seems to be a hell of a lot of it. Hey! What's this thing? This ... let's call it a tail - yeah, tail. Hey! I can can really thrash it about pretty good can't I? Wow! Wow! That feels great! Doesn't seem to achieve very much but I'll probably find out what it's for later on. Now - have I built up any coherent picture of things yet? No. Never mind, hey, this is really exciting, so much to find out about, so much to look forward to, I'm quite dizzy with anticipation ... Or is it the wind? There really is a lot of that now isn't it? And wow! Hey! What's this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like ... ow ... ound ... round ... ground! That's it! That's a good name - ground! I wonder if it will be friends with me? And the rest, after a sudden wet thud, was silence. (Douglas Adams, Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy)

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  74. I loved this Slashdot! by herojig · · Score: 1

    What a great writeup at Bear-4. This is what Slashdot should publish more of, interesting articles on homemade space exploration (and the like); leave the inane copyright stuff for others to squelch.

    --
    I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
  75. Processed the KML file a bit by Statecraftsman · · Score: 1

    And here's a spreadsheet showing the rate of climb/descent vs. altitude. Fairly simple with a little grep | cut | ...

    http://trygnulinux.com/bear4-speed-vs-alt.ods

  76. Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks by FingerSoup · · Score: 1

    no, you have us Canadians all wrong... They had to send it via unmanned weather balloon. Do you know how hard it is to control one of those things?

  77. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were almost right on the camera brand. They're a Swedish company called Hasselblad, which translates to "Hazel leaf". Hasselbak also means something in Swedish, namely "Hazel butt".

  78. And you're going through the menopause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by the sound of it...

  79. nothing lie the real thing by pmarini · · Score: 1

    it looks like a fake film to me... you can notice the horizon curvature even at 100 feet and when it's at the top you can't make a single continent out of the image... is that supposed to be how it looks from 32km heights ? I highly doubt it: if you've ever been on an airplane, you'll notice how big a river or a town looks from 3 or 4 km above the surface and that's how this film looks like, a good miscalculation factor of 10, in my opinion... so the maximum altitude would be 10,714 ft, not 107,145 ft !!

    --
    Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
    Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    1. Re:nothing lie the real thing by pmarini · · Score: 1

      on top of that, was the box heated in some way? because I don't see how an off-the-shelf camcorder can still work at sub-zero temperature like those above 3km (10,000 ft) of altitude - see chart, good luck with proving me wrong !!

      air temperature

      this experiment is utter rubbish, or at least so are the claims

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    2. Re:nothing lie the real thing by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Right... [sarcasm] I guess all of the other people that have done something similar must have faked it too. [/sarcasm]

    3. Re:nothing lie the real thing by holmstar · · Score: 1

      The payload WAS heated. By the batteries. It was also well insulated so that heat was conserved. Did you not even bother to read the article?

    4. Re:nothing lie the real thing by SoundDoc75 · · Score: 1

      Yep, we faked the whole thing, the Video, the launch, the construction of the payload and package, the other 6 launches we've been associated with and their video's / data... Not to mention the GPS data, it was tough but we faked that too, and the cameraman and producer from Daily Planet, they were tougher, but we still convinced them! http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/september-2009/daily-planet-september-18-2009/#clip215393 Skip forward to the 10 minute mark for our story... now they faked some things, silly tv people and their cut and paste... Whew... after all that work faking everything, it might just have been easier if we actually did it! lol...

    5. Re:nothing lie the real thing by SoundDoc75 · · Score: 1

      Can't convince those that are sure they're right, so I won't try... But for others that are interested, there are 2 problems with heat doing a launch like this... 1: it gets cold up there! Batteries don't like to put out power when they get cold, so only Lithium batteries are used. As well the package is insulated to keep things from freezing up on the way up. 2: once your "up" there, the air pressure is much less, the equipment dissipates energy which causes heat, but now since there is no air to carry the heat away, electronics start to get very very hot... at this point you almost need a radiation surface to dissipate the heat. Coming back down we get into thicker air, now we lose heat again due to conduction and convection and get cold again, there was Ice crystalized on the GPS unit when I opened the first package. Very large temperature swings on these flights.

  80. Isn't it dangerous? Can cause an airplane accident by Hemi+Rodner · · Score: 1

    Really. How do they know that no airplanes will fly in that area and collide with the balloon?

    --
    hemi
  81. Definitely not the first by tequila13 · · Score: 2

    These guys http://natrium42.com/halo/flight2/ made a video from 30 km altitude (100.000 feet) almost 2 years ago.

  82. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by PenisLands · · Score: 1

    The person you replied to was obviously joking, and they never said that they didn't like the video or the fact that it was made.

  83. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    The person you replied to was obviously joking, and they never said that they didn't like the video or the fact that it was made.

    ^ Cognitive FAIL.

    --
    Here be signatures
  84. Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

    However, this video was cool, if we can fix the shaky-cam somehow, even cooler.

    Yeah, all that constant panning of the scenery reminds me of what I see when operating Flight Simulator using only the keyboard.

  85. egg-drop contest FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Descent from 100,000ft without disintegration == all-time egg-drop contest winner!

  86. Re:Isn't it dangerous? Can cause an airplane accid by holmstar · · Score: 1

    They don't. But the sky is a big place.

  87. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's footage of one of the Apollo astronauts dropping a feather and a rock at the same time: they DO drop at the same speed.

  88. Let me know when you've done it ONCE. by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    What a debbie downer you are.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  89. Attaching a rocket to a balloon. by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    This was actually the concept followed by one of the X-prize companies. They were going to basically float a rocket up into the sky and then launch it from altitude.

    http://space.xprize.org/files/downloads/ansari/da_vinci_project.pdf

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  90. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Yes, we knew they would...

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  91. Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks by ajs · · Score: 1

    And I'm glad. You see, this information comes from Edmonton. To get it to Slashdot, brave Canadian Voyageurs and their faithful Eskimo sidekicks must trek through millions of miles of frozen wastelands filled with polar bears, undead elk that thirst for dwarven blood, and the occasional crazed Frenchman. It is only the far and distant beacon of crack smoke billowing from the obsidian tower of Slashdot HQ that prevents them from getting lost in the soul-destroying wilds and eaten by madding tundra, a close cousin to the dread gazebo.

    This is, quite possibly, the funniest thing I've seen posted to Slashdot in the forever that I've been reading posts, here. The gazebo reference is the part that pushed it over the line for me.

  92. Re:First amateurs? Not quite! by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    I read Slashdot at work... and I always thought that made me a professional Slashdot geek.

  93. Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

    This is, quite possibly, the funniest thing I've seen posted to Slashdot in the forever that I've been reading posts, here. The gazebo reference is the part that pushed it over the line for me.

    Low five digit UID? Wow, I thank you for the high praise.:)