Slashdot Mirror


Australian Student Balloon Rises 100,000 Feet, With a Digital Camera

hype7 writes "An Australian student at Deakin University had a fascinating idea for a final project — to send a balloon up 100,000ft (~30,000 metres) into the stratosphere with a digital camera attached. The university was supportive, and the project took shape. Although there were some serious hitches along the way, the project was successful, and he managed to retrieve the balloon — with the pictures. What's really amazing is that the total cost was so low; the most expensive part was buying the helium gas for approximately AUD$250 (~USD$200)."

174 comments

  1. Altitude by White+Flame · · Score: 5, Funny

    See, you can get a lot higher up without a kid inside.

    1. Re:Altitude by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 5, Funny

      But you get fewer press coverage without the kid...

    2. Re:Altitude by stillpixel · · Score: 5, Informative
      Wasn't something similar to this reported about a month or two ago? oh yeah!

      Always interesting to see the twists applied to previous attempts at the same task.. I know what idea I'm putting in my 6 yr old's mind for his first science fair....

    3. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, you can get a lot higher up without a kid inside.

      The real question is how many balloons would it take to get a kid up to a 100,000 feet? Inquiring minds want to know?

    4. Re:Altitude by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know what I'm putting my 6 yr old inside for his last science fair...

    5. Re:Altitude by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      That little balloon in the states couldn't have lifted at all with a child inside. Somebody should have realized that.

    6. Re:Altitude by LaZZaR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought the same thing as well.
      I'm in Australia, even the people here are calling it a publicity stunt, although, if thats true then I don't understand the actual benefit the family gets with the publicity... aren't they described as a "crackpot" family?

      --
      I lost me sig.
    7. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in the USA, that's a good thing, since most everyone here is a crackpot, see our religious beliefs for one... at least this family was scientist crackpots!

    8. Re:Altitude by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah because the rest of the world is full of atheists and that there are not religious nuts anywhere else in the world *cough*middle east*cough*

    9. Re:Altitude by dh0dges · · Score: 1

      I call BS on the "kid on balloon" story. From the size of it, no way it could lift a person, even a 6 year old. I saw NOTHING in the press questioning if the envelope was big enough to perform as feared.

    10. Re:Altitude by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 5, Funny

      They got the press coverage without the kid. The "schrodingers kid" was only a "potential child" in the balloon.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    11. Re:Altitude by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Google is your friend, and can help you find the answer. Ok, maybe not a specific answer, but pretty damned close. :)

          I suggest 10 24' diameter balloons, with breakaway tethers should one pop (no need to carry the extra weight of a dead balloon). If that can launch a compact car into LEO, it should be able to take a 6 year old high enough where you won't have to hear him scream. Well, at least until hypoxia kicks in, then it doesn't matter.

          Make sure you strap a camera to him, a little something like the Blair Witch Project, except in the daylight, with the only backdrop being the sky. Well, you may have the incidental aircraft in the background. I think a 6 year old and 10 24' balloons may ruin a perfectly good flight. What exactly put that Airbus A320 down in the Hudson? I think the whole bird thing was just a conspiracy to cover up the fact that it was a flock of school kids tethered to weather balloons with cameras strapped to their asses. Oh, imagine the bad press when you have to admit that your A320 just ingested a flock of school children in the engines. Oh, and the mess on the ground. I'd hate to be walking down the street just to get splattered by that. I thought it was nasty when PETA threw red paint on me for wearing a leather jacket? That would just be disgusting.

          And as a side note, based on those numbers, it would take about 80 24' diameter helium balloons to lift a 40' city bus. *THAT* would be something hilarious to see, but I'd hate to be under the landing zone. You know eventually they'll pop or leak. Some famous guy said "what comes up must come down", but I think he may have been full of shit. A flying 40' city bus could leave a little bit of a crater. I don't want to think of the logistics of filling the 80 balloons simultaneously though. That's a lot of helium. Just imagine if you got on the bus thinking "Oh, I'm just going to work", and then find that your bus is heading up towards 100,000 feet, and the driver keeps saying "Sir, please stay behind the white line." White line my ass, I'm on a flying bus!

          Maybe sometimes you shouldn't ask the questions, because they may be answered and then some. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    12. Re:Altitude by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

          I say send a UAV up with it. Float it up, and then see how far you can fly/glide from 100k feet. :)

          Ahh, the ways we could piss off the FAA. I know some of the regulations, and that's half of why I haven't built half the stuff I want to. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course you didn't see the "PRESS" questioning anything, US journalists are fucking idiots. All they are capable of is reading what some under paid intern drops in front of them. This applies to most of the stories from all of the "NEWS" networks. Why do you think the US is in such terrible shape? The total lack of honest, well thought out information for the masses (read Joe six pack) is the major reason.

      I've got a nicely aged 20 oz. bottle of Jolt Cola from ~2000 for any one who mods this up, as I'm lazy and don't have an account.

    14. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, Slashdot has old news all the time.

    15. Re:Altitude by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't see why ANY of this is a big deal. Joe Kittinger RODE a balloon up over 100,000 and then jumped out, with cameras rolling. OK, they weren't digital cameras, and the whole job cast a lot more than $200. but it was back in the 60's...

      During the test his suit leaked but he kept going http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excelsior
      Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcT8lKKpeXs&feature=related

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    16. Re:Altitude by igny · · Score: 1

      I say, send a cannon up with it. And then see how far it can shoot. Can it miss Earth from up there?

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    17. Re:Altitude by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Why stop at a child? Go float your house.

      --
      signature is pants
    18. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Birth of a new satellite?

    19. Re:Altitude by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, it can't miss Earth from up there. I just did the calculations. At 20 miles up, that adds only 32187 meters to the radius of the Earth. Working through the math, it means that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.7 m/s^2.

      At sea level, the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.

      Thus, sea level escape velocity is 11201 meters per second
      Escape velocity at 20 miles up is 11152 meters per second.

      The difference is 49 meters per second, or 110 MPH.

      Now, to pick a gun at random, let's choose the US Army's M198 Howitzer. It's an artillery piece that fires projectiles at approximately 760 meters per second. So you need to have a much bigger cannon, and a much bigger balloon.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    20. Re:Altitude by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair, it was kind of tough to tell the scale from the pictures of it flying. Once it got close to the ground, it was obvious to anyone who'd seen that one episode of mythbusters like five years ago. But until then, there just wasn't anything to reference its size to, except maybe the skin crinkle, which would have required extensive knowledge of the material to make judgements based upon.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    21. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This work was supported by the Centre for Intelligent Systems Research CISR: http://www.deakin.edu.au/itri/cisr/index.php

    22. Re:Altitude by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Duh. Are you serious? That was an expensive project with plenty of manpower. This was one guy and his girlfriend spending a few hundred dollars.

    23. Re:Altitude by lxs · · Score: 0

      You should get something for that cold. It's invading your typing.

    24. Re:Altitude by imakemusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't see why that's a big deal. Neil Armstrong went to the MOON in and made it back in one piece with cameras rolling. OK, they weren't digital cameras and the whole job cost a lot more than $200 but it was back in the 60s...

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    25. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new to Slashdot.

    26. Re:Altitude by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Hmm, sounds like a great idea for a movie...

    27. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had - I believe - CNN on at work while this was unfolding. One of the hot air balloon experts they had on air did say, "I don't think that it is possible for a balloon that size to lift a kid; look at how far over it has tilted - shouldn't do that with a payload onboard."

    28. Re:Altitude by davetv · · Score: 0, Redundant

      rofl

    29. Re:Altitude by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      We put a zygote in ours and got almost as high as these guys, but you didn't hear about it because only the fundie news sources did stories.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    30. Re:Altitude by maxume · · Score: 1

      Presumably the parents helped the kid with the balloon, so they probably had some idea of how big the balloon was.

      There is noise on the morning nattering that it was an intentional hoax (quoting the kid saying something about doing it for a show...)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    31. Re:Altitude by ndege · · Score: 1

      Hmm, sounds like a great idea for a movie...

      Let me correct that for you:
         

      Hmm, sounds like a great idea for a bad movie...

      --
      Sig Return: 204 No Content
    32. Re:Altitude by Sebilrazen · · Score: 4, Funny

      That sentence is really disturbing if you jumble the words.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    33. Re:Altitude by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      How is that correcting it? If the parent said 'good' then I can understand your fix. Though, I did enjoy the film.

      --
      signature is pants
    34. Re:Altitude by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      No idea what you are talking about. It was a wonderful movie. One of the best I've seen recently geared toward the youngsters.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    35. Re:Altitude by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes! A comment about escape velocity. Now I can shoehorn in a really cool fact about Deimos (moon of Mars): it's escape velocity is 20 km/h (13 MPH)!

      You could run, jump, and orbit around the thing like Mario in Super Mario Galaxy. That is awesome.

    36. Re:Altitude by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Yeah the twist on this one versus the others was that this crew boofed it and got basically zero good pictures by accidentally setting the shutterspeed to 1600. Still cool, wouldn't mind doing one myself. But really shows that it's important to pay attention when launching things into space.

    37. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      by not picking a gun at random... .220 swift = 1,284 m/s with a 40 grain bullet. Plus it's significantly lighter. I would put my balloon over the equator and shoot with the direction the earth is spinning (~1670 km/hour, however it's probably faster 20 miles up?)

      Also I wouldn't aim for escape velocity, it only takes ~8km/sec to get into orbit. So somehow we need to find another ~5km/sec

    38. Re:Altitude by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Cool music as well!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    39. Re:Altitude by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      It comes in spurts

    40. Re:Altitude by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      Always interesting to see the twists applied to previous attempts at the same task.. I know what idea I'm putting in my 6 yr old's mind for his first science fair....

      After seeing these stories as of late, and reading the FAA regulations on launching balloon missions and their payloads, I've been wanting to do one at night. Would take some tweaking to figure out the correct camera settings, but having night pictures (with all the roads and cities lit up and such) would be pretty cool that high up.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    41. Re:Altitude by dh0dges · · Score: 1

      I was commenting based on reports the balloon was 20 ft in diameter. A 20 ft cylinder 6 ft tall would lift about 100 lb. This was a prism with average height less than 3 ft.

    42. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been done: http://www.members.shaw.ca/sonde/

    43. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the boy wasn't really a child.

    44. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imma let you finish, but Neil Armstrong had the greatest space video of all time. Of all time.

    45. Re:Altitude by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just a question from my idle mind... Is escape velocity usually about the same as the lateral velocity of an object in a perfect orbit?

      I'm thinking this because the ISS is 350km up, and moves at just over 7,700m/sec.

      It seems to make sense that to 'fall around' something, you would have to move 'to the side' just as much as you're 'pulled in' over any given time.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    46. Re:Altitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you're fit enough to run a mile in 4:37 or less. To get an idea of how "fit" that is note that the world record for the mile is around 3:45 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_run_world_record_progression).

    47. Re:Altitude by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Actually the fastest sprinting record is more like 30MPH. Most reasonably athletic people could probably hit 13 MPH easily.

    48. Re:Altitude by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Just make sure the bus isn't full of shit also, okay? Cuz that would suck.

    49. Re:Altitude by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      No offense to Armstrong, he has very large cajones, but I don't recall Neil jumping from orbit with the intention of landing on the earth with his own two legs.

      Kittinger, FTW!
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    50. Re:Altitude by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. Titan has a low gravity, and a thick atmosphere. You could literally strap on cardboard wings and fly around the room. THAT is cool.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    51. Re:Altitude by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      No, escape velocity is what it takes to leave a gravity well completely. It's significantly above orbital speed.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  2. CU Boulder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The University of Colorado at Boulder in Boulder, CO has a class where all of the students get to make CubeSATs that are sent up on a balloon and then retrieved.

    1. Re:CU Boulder by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Of course, it would be useful if they could retrieve those sats in one piece rather then the million from having been dropped. See, the CU students SHOULD have gone to CSU and learned how to do decent balloons FIRST. Heck, a CSU balloon can haul around a 6 y.o, and they even have practice runs for it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:CU Boulder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the useful comment. They actually do retrieve the cubesats in one piece as well as recover the data they record.

    3. Re:CU Boulder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh. I am guessing that you go to CU?

  3. So what... by krej · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Didn't some kids at MIT send a balloon out of the atmosphere for less than $150 USD recently? What's so special about this?

    1. Re:So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. Good job though!

    2. Re:So what... by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      And those MIT kids also managed to take better pictures unlike the overexposed earth taken at ISO 1600 FTFA

    3. Re:So what... by Drakin020 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

      The only real difference is that this one went a bit higher (100,000 ft) where as the MIT guys made it 93,000. Still pretty close though.

      --
      The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    4. Re:So what... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      To be fair the US has much more helium than Australia and helium was the most expensive thing at ~US$230.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    5. Re:So what... by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Go to all this trouble and yet not even set your camera right. What sort of grade would that get at MIT?

      I suppose then that MIT students don't make mistakes?

    6. Re:So what... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      Some people from Alberta took HD video of the whole thing on a budget. I think that is more impressive.

      --
      The game.
    7. Re:So what... by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      But the real question is, how many of those kids rode the balloon?

    8. Re:So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so special about those MIT kids? Didn't they just copy the Spanish students who did it first?

    9. Re:So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      And all this coming from a fat gimp who sits in his moms basement typing out 'Worst episode....ever' comments and doing precisely nothing.

      So STFU until YOU come back with YOUR pictures YOU got from YOUR sub $300 balloon floating around at 100,000 feet.

      Losers like you are the exact reason why the USA is rapidly going down the tubes and will soon be a province of China.

    10. Re:So what... by anexkahn · · Score: 1

      I was about to ask the same question

      --
      Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
    11. Re:So what... by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't some kids at MIT send a balloon out of the atmosphere ... recently?

      No they didn't, not even halfway. What's special about this is that neither the summary nor the article make any bogus claims about balloons making it into space.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:So what... by LifesABeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      An in a related news story:

      (Kennedy Flight Center) NASA Spokeswoman Carrice Light stated at a hastily assembled press conference at a local KFC at Tampa Bay, "NASA has done this many times, and will continue to do so." Ms. Light also went on to say that NASA's projects to explore the heights of space are planned to go way beyond the 100KY Barrier,(short for 100,000 yard barrier), but that it still appears to be a major concern for NASA's administrators. "With the tragic passing of Mr. Jackson, 'Moon Walking' will be indefinitely postponed."

    13. Re:So what... by citizenr · · Score: 1

      and this wasn't even $250, they didn't count APRS radio, camera and the rest of the gear. I can send payload to the moon for $250 if I count like they did.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    14. Re:So what... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      I can send a few billion photons to the moon in 1 second. The cost is high tho per weight of the photons tho. $2 for 0.000000000000000001 of a gram.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    15. Re:So what... by mortuus · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think that the reason that the newspapers printed this article was because it had a nice story to go with it. These high altitude balloon projects seem to be a bit of a hot topic at the moment. (I'm the Geoff from the Article)

      Yes there have been many similar projects done by others for many years - I'm quite surprised that this story ended up going this far. Mine was a Uni project that I went about by myself, there aren't a lot of technical details in the article but the aim of the project from an engineering point of view was to build a data logging system that would function without fail at very low temperatures. Of course I wanted it to take nice pictures along the way, but this was really just because I thought it would be nice to have my own pictures from "Near Space". Other than the electronics/software design that went in to it, I put the system through low temperature environmental testing so that I could prove (mainly to myself) that the system would work before I launched it. I worked on it part time over a year, there was a lot that went in to it at the end.

      I encourage others that are interested in this hobby to give it a try, it's a lot of fun and a lot more challenging than it seems. I gave it a go, learnt from it, and now plan another launch. I still haven't decided what to put in to the payload for next time round, so here's a question for the /. crowd:

      What would you pack in a high altitude balloon project payload?

    16. Re:So what... by Monsieur_F · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where do you find those heavy photons?

      In my universe, photons are light!

      --
      McCartney fans pay bus tickets. [...] Lennon fans too, with discretion.
    17. Re:So what... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      No, the real difference is this guy had a girlfriend.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    18. Re:So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > What would you pack in a high altitude balloon project payload?

      I would put a collection of a dozen small light-weight balsa gliders in it (ready-to-fly weight perhaps 5 gms each) with ID and "please return location" information on them. Then I'd release them at a fairly high altitude and see how far they went. Such gliders, thrown by hand, have caught risers and flown for miles. Could these cross continents?

    19. Re:So what... by crossmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      braving negative 47-degrees temperatures

      well jeff, I'd like to tell that you set-up is almost ready for a Canadian winter. In early 2008 we hit -49 for a couple days ;)
      If you'd like to do any environment testing for future projects, just head to Alberta in January/February.

    20. Re:So what... by physburn · · Score: 1
      No idea whats special. University's, Weather stations, and Cosmic Ray Physics have been sending observing equipment up on balloons over a hundred years. China is supposed to have unmanned balloons since 220BC.

      ---

      @ Feed Distiller

    21. Re:So what... by Alan426 · · Score: 1

      Your little brother?

    22. Re:So what... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      I think the Japanese military have prior art on that.

  4. Not comparing, but 2 MIT Students did this: $150 by walmass · · Score: 4, Informative
  5. Should have used hydrogen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, we aren't talking about Hindenberg here. Save the Helium! Save the whales!

  6. Well done... by serbianheretic · · Score: 1

    ...Commander, your bounty has been paid. I guess koalas are next.

  7. 200 USD eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our dollar is better than that..
    http://www.google.com/search?q=250+AUD+%3D+%3F+USD

  8. "some serious hitches along the way" by Toonol · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd say. When the basket fell off, I was sure the boy was dead!

    They should keep it fastened down a little better.

  9. Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's Denzel Washington when you need him...

  10. Another Day, Another Balloon Cam by cmholm · · Score: 1

    Now that the methodology has been worked out, sending a camera up to 100kft is becoming a pretty common university and ham club team project. Provided care is taken during assembly, the biggest gotchas are while inflating the balloon, and hoping the winds keep the payload over an area with suitable roads.

    It'd be neat to see more teams collect additional science, with live TM for extra points. A few years back, a few college students in Beautiful B.C. designed their own UAV, which flew home after release a 60kft. Nowadays, it's possible to take a crack at that without CS/EE-level knowledge of control logic, but would still be a neat challenge. Too bad FAA regs make it of iffy legality in the US.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:Another Day, Another Balloon Cam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the methodology for this stuff had been worked out for years. Hundreds of camera balloons have been launched from all kinds of universities for as long as I can remember. It's nice to see these balloons making news, but they are in no way new or unique.

      Also, this might make me a troll, but 30k meters is not the "edge of space" as some of these articles claim. You have to get 3x higher to even get out of the continuum flow where you can then assume you are exo-atmospheric. There is no defined edge, most gauge it on the Knudsen number which is dependent on the mean free molecular path of the particles in relation to the characteristic length of your vehicle. Generally, for stuff that we normally fly, above 90k meters is considered exo-atmospheric. Just for comparison, this balloon and the others that have made the headlines all go to about 30k meters, which is standard for a high altitude balloon. The ISS orbits at around 300-350k meters and is considered to be a very low orbit, so you can get a bit of perspective about how far these balloons are from the "edge of space" as the reporters keeps saying...

    2. Re:Another Day, Another Balloon Cam by SoundDoc75 · · Score: 4, Informative

      its usually the reporters that call it "the edge of space" even the author calls it the stratosphere. I'm part of that Alberta HD video balloon group. We like to call it "Near Space" which is defined as: "Near space is the region of Earth's atmosphere that lies between 65,000 and 325,000-350,000 feet (20 to 100 km) above sea level, encompassing the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere." We're not in space, but were way up there!

  11. Re:Not comparing, but 2 MIT Students did this: $15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was actually a group of Spanish students who initially did this earlier this year for the first time. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5005022/Teens-capture-images-of-space-with-56-camera-and-balloon.html and it also got slashdotted (and they didn't get the ISO wrong...).

  12. cheaper space lift by triemer · · Score: 1

    Seriously take a look at http://jpaerospace.com/ Basically since we started Space travel we've been into macho cowboys who suit up, rocket scientists, and massive flight control systems. Lets face it, the slow boat from Europe or the Middle East, or China still gets here, just a whole lot cheaper. These balloon cams one day is going to get people into space thinking.... What if we could remove about a good 90% of the thrust problem? What if?

    1. Re:cheaper space lift by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, if you drop something from a high altitude balloon, it falls straight down... For space lift, you need delta-v.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:cheaper space lift by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      That joke has been up for decades now.. and yet people keep falling for it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:cheaper space lift by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Their plan is to use the buoyancy to take the urgency out of the rocket motors. If you don't need to have thrust to have a thrust to weight ratio of four, and can instead get away with much less than one, you can use more mass-efficient engines like hall thrusters and such.

      Of course, that assumes that you can get up enough speed pushing a giant freakin' balloon to be able to detach and complete the trip....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:cheaper space lift by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Huh, looks like they used the white ball from The Prisoner, to achieve lift.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:cheaper space lift by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The problem is that this doesn't remove 90% of the thrust problem. It only removes about 3%. Actually it is even less than that.

      Yes, I've seen the JP Aerospace efforts, and that is certainly is an interesting concept. The #1 benefit that comes from launching at high altitude is that you don't have to worry about the troposphere and weather: You pretty much can launch whenever the equipment is ready and when the launch windows is open without having to worry about something like a lightning storm, tornado, or hurricane coming along to delay the launch for a month or so. That is a common problem in Florida and KSC in particular.

      Also, with a balloon you don't have to worry about building a concrete launch pad and blockhouse that will have to deflect the flames of the launch vehicle when a rocket fires for the first time. That is also a considerable part of the expense in launching rockets that is often ignored when calculating launch costs. From a pure economics standpoint, there are some decided advantages to an air launch.

      This said, launching from the ground does allow technicians to do some last minute tweaks that can't be done from the air, and it offers some other advantages including larger launch vehicles that aren't possible with air launch methods. Saving fuel costs... if that was even a major consideration for orbital launch vehicles (which it isn't), really isn't a major issue or a reason to prefer air launches. A rocket going into orbit has to be about the same size regardless of the location it is launched... within some margin of error. The Lattitude of the launch site has a much stronger influence, where launching from the equator is much better than launching from mid-lattitudes like the Russians have their launch complex. Even that is located in what was one of the most southern locations in the old USSR (with a good buffer to keep "spies" and random tourists away).

  13. Weather balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee... meteorological services have been doing this for over 50 years. 40,000 meters is typical before the balloon bursts.

    The balloons are easy to get. Helium is safe but usually they use hydrogen generated on site by an accumulator.

    Heh heh... they used to make it chemically which led to some famous disasters (well... famous within the respective services).

    BTW, it was sometimes fun to inflate one inside of a colleague's room/office while they were out. Amazing how space filling they can be.

  14. So who will be the first to.. by stillpixel · · Score: 0

    send up a balloon and an iPhone jailbroken and functioning as a streaming web cam?

  15. Sorry, even the MIT students were beaten up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is the news for some Spanish high-school kids achieving the feat much earlier than any undergrads:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5005022/Teens-capture-images-of-space-with-56-camera-and-balloon.html

  16. Re:Reported before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...and even more amazing is that at about 800 sites around the world, various national weather services do this same thing twice daily. Oh and they have been doing it at least since the 1950's.

    100,000 feet is nothing special. They regularly go higher than that.

    Anyhow, this is how most of the atmospheric layer and wind information is obtained --- not by satellite.

  17. Confirmation is important in science by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now we can say that all those stories about high altitude camera stealing gremlins probably aren't true..

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  18. Fuck Deakin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mother fuckers, I attend the Burwood campus at Deakin University and I'm an SIT student and I wanted to do something very similar (Attach some Arduino data logging for sensors etc.) and they told me no and didn't want to hear anything more about it even though I said I could fund it myself, instead this tool who can't even set a camera right does it with University support. I attend the damn university and not even I get to find out about this stuff until I see it on Slashdot! Fuck the "Deakin Experience", they don't give a flying fuck about anyone else other than postgrads and masters students.

    1. Re:Fuck Deakin by Kozz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, man. Too bad you didn't get the opportunity. But I'm proud of you for not being bitter.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    2. Re:Fuck Deakin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but it just annoys me because now I'm doing such a lame project. I work in aviation as well doing mostly legal compliance stuff (CASA regs etc.) and I do radio and RC stuff in my spare time which is why I'm so annoyed.

    3. Re:Fuck Deakin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Have you considered a career in player hating? It seems like you'd be a natural. Plus, you get a cane!

    4. Re:Fuck Deakin by mortuus · · Score: 1

      When I say that I got University support, I meant that they were happy for me to do this as my final year project - they didn't fund me in any way and pretty much nobody (other than my supervisor) at Deakin would have known about the project until now.

      In 3rd year before we start on our final year projects we have to give a presentation justifying what we are intending to do for our final year project. I put together a presentation talking about all the challenges involved and the successes that other groups have had, I guess my lecturer liked it and it went from there. The project was a pretty risky choice, I could have lost everything. Most other engineering students pick the pre-determined projects which are a lot safer. We are given freedom to do whatever project we want though, and for me this was a pretty good excuse to try a high altitude balloon launch which I'd wanted to do for years. Maybe the academics in your school/department are different, but I found mine to all be very helpful and supportive.

      If you're still interested in doing a launch let me know, I live in Melbourne too and can probably help you out with equipment. I've got lots of manufacturer sample micros/sensors and other misc semiconductors that you could use. Let me know: gmmcc AT deakin DOT edu DOT au

  19. Noooooooo.... by Qubit · · Score: 1

    I can just see the Australian patent lawyers revving their engines again. Thank goodness those MIT students did this before and have prior art so we won't see another stop-stealing-our-toy-designs lawsuit.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  20. Special doesn't really mean s p e c i a l anymore by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Well, you see, if NASA can smack the Moon's ass in the dark and get people all worked up over nothing, why not some Aussie dweeb that can't set a camera? Special just means vastly underachieved these days it seems...

    Ahhhh, the celebration of mediocrity.

  21. And before the MIT guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a group of Spanish high-schoolers, back in March. And a canadian a couple of years ago. And whatnot...

    So, yeah. Not pretty much impressive (or a novelty) by now. Seems that verifying the roundness of Earth is routine.

    1. Re:And before the MIT guys... by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      In your face, Flat Earth Society!

  22. Re:Not comparing, but 2 MIT Students did this: $15 by king-hobo · · Score: 0

    my thoughts too...

  23. Aircraft Regulations? by filosofo · · Score: 1

    Anybody who wants to attempt a similar project ought to read part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety rules that specify what operators of unmanned aircraft and rockets must do to ensure safety in the air.

    Can someone summarize what those are or explain the American equivalent? I mean, how do you avoid taking out an airliner's engine or some such thing?

    1. Re:Aircraft Regulations? by SJ2000 · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:Aircraft Regulations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US guys that did this (after the Spanish guys did it) said as long as your payload is under 400g you don't need to get approval for launch under US regs.

  24. Re:Aussie dollars rising fast like the balloon by orangeyouglad · · Score: 0

    Do notice the tilde next to USD$200. It commonly (in mathematics circles, anyway) stands for "approximately." I hope you agree that USD$200 is not far off enough to invalidate the tilde.

  25. Re:Not comparing, but 2 MIT Students did this: $15 by topnob · · Score: 1

    There's been a lot of them go up this year! :P

  26. Um... by chucklebutte · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Wasnt this already done by someone else a few weeks back? Or is it same guy and /. is just a tad bit behind in the news?

  27. Why is this news? by Snowtred · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't something new, my undergrad university (DePauw University in Indiana) has been sending balloons 100,000 feet (I think our record is about 110,000) with digital cameras for about 5 years: http://www.depauw.edu/acad/physics/base/ Each student had a pod with their own designed experiment, a requirement for a physics course. We bought our system from Taylor University, who have been doing it twice as long.

    1. Re:Why is this news? by khallow · · Score: 1

      And I sent a chair up to 98,000 feet a few weekends ago. We launched three other chairs to above 90,000 feet that weekend. So where's this guy in the space chair arms race? Huh? Huh?

    2. Re:Why is this news? by barakn · · Score: 1

      The Borealis program at Montana State University has been doing this since 2001. http://spacegrant.montana.edu/borealis/

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  28. ICBNN mission - similar project, nice pictures by myzz · · Score: 1
  29. Augh! Not impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have been doing this for DECADES! What's with all the sudden press over random launches?

    I know we do a few launches a year at University of Maryland, are we not just not as exciting or something?

  30. Re:Reported before by node+3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyhow, this is how most of the atmospheric layer and wind information is obtained --- not by satellite.

    Seems like it would've been easier to put little propellers on the satellites to measure the wind than to have to fly a balloon every day.

    And before anyone replies, yes, this is a joke. I know this wouldn't work, since the little propellers would fly the satellites off course...

  31. been done many times before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a lame story.

    Amateur Radio operators started doing this ~15 years ago and still do it today. And on the cheap.. Check out the first HD video via balloon;

    http://bear.sbszoo.com/bear3-4/bear4.htm

  32. Nothing new, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please do not post unimportant articles.

    This has been done already - with better pictures.
    Nothing new has been aquired, exept for 7000 feet (~2k meters) extra height.

  33. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent post is a very, very bad post and should be modded down.

  34. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to be quite popular recently anyway:

    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

  35. Adding rockets by blaisethom · · Score: 1

    Seems like 110,000 feet is quite common for university balloon flights. The University of Cambridge in the UK also has a project which has been reaching that height for a while (33km). What is interesting there is that they're planning to launch rockets from the balloon, and hoping to reach 150km. You can see their plans at http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~cuspaceflight/martlet.php. Don't know what their costs are.

  36. a new way to import cocaine from mexico by cheekyboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cool, so if we can get a baloon with payloads of say 1/2 a pound pure, which is what.... $20k of cocaine.

    Wait for favourable winds/direction. Make sure its blue so it cant easily be seen.

    Fire it up, with a tiny cpu (use old nokia without screen/plastic cover running MIDP2 java app).

    Once it reachs a GPS region or into USA, deflate one of the baloons to desend not too fast, and sms the gps coordinate 5 seconds before hitting the ground.

    Drive up and pick it up at leasure.

    Im sure if you write up a nice prospectus, any dealer would purchase this 'kit' for $2k.

    If the potential is to make millions, im sure they are doing it now already.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  37. Re: model airoplane by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

    that's been done by a hobbyist years ago. Incredibly cool project. can't seem to find it now, i read an extensive website about it years ago. Some kid and his brother spent years building an airframe, and pack a gps and embedded computer that steers the plane back "home", 2-way radio modem, camera, the lot. Someone post the link please

  38. We all know 'crime' pays... by Animaether · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahh, the ways we could piss off the FAA. I know some of the regulations, and that's half of why I haven't built half the stuff I want to.

    Not too sure about Australia, but here in NL we have much the same regulations.

    If I were to 'do the right thing' and write to the aviation authorities here saying I intend to let loose a big ol' helium balloon capable of reaching 30,000 feet and higher, with a digital camera attached, they would smack me down citing all sorts of safety regulations (camera into jet engine = potential loss of engine power and all that.. they tend to be less squishy than birds - which do enough damage as it is).

    But if I were to 'just do it', I get to have a fun project, a great experience, and possibly awesome results to share with friends and indeed the world. Last, but not least, very little chance that the authorities would come after me after-the-fact (unless the thing -did- get sucked into some jet engine or otherwise disrupted air traffic).

    The same applies to ventures into abandoned factories, for example. It's not your land, not your property, you're legally trespassing and if caught the owner will probably tell you to get the hell off of his property.. but you'll already have the experience of going there, maybe photos, etc. If you were to write first, you've got odds against you.. if the owner says 'sure, go ahead', and you get into an accident at the site, they'll be liable.. odds are, thus, that you'll get a big fat "no, you may not go onto my property".

    Rules may not be meant to be broken, but life tends to be more interesting when you do break them.

    1. Re:We all know 'crime' pays... by fprintf · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a big difference in the population/air traffic density between Australia and pretty much everywhere else? I know Australia can be a bit of a nanny state at times, but with all that area it seems you can do quite a bit and not intefere with anyone or anything. Maybe they have taken a rather pragmatic approach knowing that as long as you stay out of known flight paths between the East and West coasts (Sydney/Melbourne/Canberra to Perth), then you can pretty much do whatever you want and not worry about it, whereas in NL or US or anywhere else you run significantly more risk hence there are more regulations to worry about.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    2. Re:We all know 'crime' pays... by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

      In short: sometimes it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    3. Re:We all know 'crime' pays... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's far easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

    4. Re:We all know 'crime' pays... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you accidentally kill a jetliner full of people. Airspace laws are there for a reason.

  39. Why not hydrogen? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Given the high cost of helium, why not use hydrogen? Helium is safer, of course, but it's not an issue in-flight when there's no human dangling from the balloon. There is a risk at the time of filling, but even then, I don't see how it's more dangerous than handling a bottle of propane for your kitchen. Especially outside. Leaking H2 will go straight up and will not build up to pose much of a threat.

    Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Why not hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. You're missing the fact that the hydrogen molecule is really really tiny.

    2. Re:Why not hydrogen? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      He is smaller than H2, almost half as small.

    3. Re:Why not hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is smaller than H2?

    4. Re:Why not hydrogen? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      He is.
      Who was the president of China.

    5. Re:Why not hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, who was it?

    6. Re:Why not hydrogen? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      It was Wu.

  40. OpenAerialMap by chrb · · Score: 1

    This would be awesome for OpenAerialMap. It's a shame there's no freely available photography dataset of the world yet.

    1. Re:OpenAerialMap by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Actually, that isn't quite true. All of the Landsat data is available in the public domain as it was produced with resources and funding from the U.S. government. This can be found here:

      http://eros.usgs.gov/

      Unfortunately, the data isn't packaged and set up to be convenient to folks who want to use it. The copyright information about this satellite data can be found here that does confirm it is in the public domain. Some folks have obtained this data and then charged fees and "copyright" for their modifications to make it accessable, but the raw information is still in the public domain. It just takes a determined set of volunteers to be able to extract the mountains of data and turn it into something usable. Also, some of the higher resolution images found on places like Google Maps are made from commercial imaging satellites, which is protected by copyright.

      There are also photographic surveys that have been done by the U.S. Geological Survey that are technically in the public domain, but because some of those photographs were done by contractors working on behalf of the U.S. government and not necessarily government employees, the copyright status is at best dubious. In a few cases, some early aerial photography has entered the public domain due to the copyright expiring, but that is some incredibly old photography. Many of the geological survey maps of the USA were made from these aerial maps... and there have even been map made by the Defense Maping Agency (the branch of the U.S. military that maps maps for military planning purposes) that have aerial photography which was used in their creation. Some of that photography has been collected with coverage of decidedly non-USA areas... with of course emphasis on places like Russia, Poland, and Eastern Germany. Some of those photos are still classified, but I'm sure that a strong effort to get some FOIA requests to have some of the older photos released might get some results. If it is released at all, it would be in the public domain in terms of copyright.

    2. Re:OpenAerialMap by chrb · · Score: 1

      Interesting post, yes, it would be useful to get those old photos declassified.

      Also, some of the higher resolution images found on places like Google Maps are made from commercial imaging satellites, which is protected by copyright.

      That's what I meant, Landsat is quite low resolution (I don't find it particularly difficult to use, with JOSM and other OSM editors map data can be easily laid over landsat images). The Google Maps type images are nice, high resolution, and make mapping areas very easy, it would be good if there were a way to use cheap balloons to gather these type of images for large areas and then release them as part of a larger project with open license.

  41. the most expensive part was buying the helium gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must have been a piece of crap Digital Camera then, huh?

  42. Too easy... by ahow628 · · Score: 1

    Look at Slashdot just lobbing up softballs. Swing away, folks...

  43. What would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I estimate 10 million of these balloons have been launched with sensing instruments and radio telemetry. (Twice a day, more than 50 years, 800 sites currently but hundreds since the 1960's= 2x50x365x400 = more than 10 M). There is nothing very interesting about these students doing it.

    These camera stories are kind of "eye-candy" science: pleasing to look at but not much substance. There is no trick to launching a balloon with a camera attached... and apart from being outright fun, there isn't any research advancement either into atmospherics or into the engineering technology of launching an instrument package with a balloon. They even do it the easy (safe) way with helium instead of hydrogen. BTW, this is kind of wasteful. Helium is a scarce resource.

    The current telemetry packages attached to the weather balloons contain a telemetry transmitter, a GPS receiver, and humidity/temperature sensors. This provides wind speed, direction, altitude, location, temperature, and humidity.

    Now, if the students did something interesting such as:

    1. Adding in a light weight low-cost stabilizer and remote control package to steady and aim the camera
    2. Modify the camera with filters to observe a parameter that is not usually measured (ie: perhaps infrared, uv, etc)
    3. Attach a laser and test out a methodology for measuring parameters within a range of the balloon
    4. Create a 360 scanning system and analyze the images in real time to provide cloud formation information
    5. Created a wireless grid that co-ordinated and measured information from multiple synchronous balloon launces in the same relative area
    6. or something else creative, imaginative, and useful

    THEN this would be an interesting story. Else just fluff.

    If /. publishes another "student loses camera attached to stupid weather balloon" then I'm going to start submitting pictures of our pets. "Man uses $1000 camera to take thousands of pictures of children and dogs".

    1. Re:What would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, this is kind of wasteful. Helium is a scarce resource.

      This is more useful than all the helium filled birthday and random holiday balloons, which I would bet use more helium daily than this guy did on his one balloon. That is, unless you count using that same helium to make your voice sound funny as being useful.

    2. Re:What would be interesting... by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow - what a complainer. Sure it's not that novel, but still cool and you just have to shit all over it. He built his own microcontroller system - that's not that trivial.

      As for your suggestions:

      1) a stabilizer would either drain the batteries or freeze up with the low temperatures. Adding complexity with little benefit does not make it better

      2) might be interesting. IR might just show that the earth is warmer than space. Ooooo now there's science!

      3) sure, put lasers on a balloon that can fly into airline flight paths. Now that's safe.

      4) real time image analysis. You do realize what the computing capabilities of a microcontroller are, don't you?

      5) why implement the complexity of a wireless grid? Just launch several balloons all time stamped and you can process the data later. Again, needless complexity doesn't make it better, it just makes the probability of failure much higher and drives up the cost exponentially.

      6) something useful? How about a big floating sign saying ACs don't have a freaking clue what they are talking about?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    3. Re:What would be interesting... by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      Hey pnewhook, you're trolling here ... or perhaps AC knows more than you ;->

      If we all took your attitude we would never send out a Mars rover. troll troll troll

      I think AC is correct in saying there is nothing very interesting or cool about attaching a camera and sending it up. Pretty lame for science/engineering but OK for Youtube. These stories are coming in from Universities so shouldn't we expect more?

      The packages have about a 500 to 800 gram limit if a high altitude is to be achieved. It would be hard to build a useful, sophisticated instrument but not impossible.

      Stabilization, remote control, GPS info would make a camera launch more interesting.

      Power management and operational reliability are issues that recognize the harsh environment being explored... but they are not show stoppers.

      Contrary to your IR view, there is a temperature gradient through the atmosphere and it is not a consistent linear decline. Inversions happen and also there are interesting heat vs temperature situations. The temperature gradients currently plotted by NWS launches are very significant. It would be useful to extend the reach of the measurement beyond the narrow path followed by the balloon ascent. Certainly an area to explore.

      UV measurements could be interesting as well. Likely easy to implement.

      Uhhh... and lasers don't have to be in the visible range. Automated cloud cover instruments and visibility measurements have used lasers. Putting these into a small, disposable, lightweight package should be doable. Making the measurement meaningful would be hard but worthwhile.

      Balloon to balloon communication isn't necessary if they are just going to send back data for post processing. However, it would enable measurements between the balloons. Don't think 802.11; instead it could be a coded infrared link that also measured visibility and distance. Or it could be something completely different depending on what is to be measured or explored.

      I think those were just suggestions off the top. There's lots of things that could be done instead of throwing a camera away in hopes of getting five minutes of fame on the web.

      UAV launches from balloons are not new but they are another opportunity to build something interesting. It all depends on what you do with it.

      Why not toss in something useful yourself instead of ranting and trolling?

      At least that guy in Colorado is trying to measure something.

    4. Re:What would be interesting... by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      BTW, this is kind of wasteful. Helium is a scarce resource.

      This is more useful than all the helium filled birthday and random holiday balloons

      True but still wasteful... although safe.

    5. Re:What would be interesting... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Sigh... you missed my point. AC did nothing but crap on interesting work of others then tried to show how smart he was by telling them what they should have done without actually having a clue himself of how to do anything. I simply shot back a little of what he was dishing.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    6. Re:What would be interesting... by mortuus · · Score: 1

      It is not as simple as it seems, let me give a few examples:

      For these sorts of experiments, you absolutely must be able to find the payload after landing - and though you may be able to simulate roughly where it will land, you really have no idea. You have to have a really high confidence that your communication system is going to allow you to find the payload wherever it lands. In Australia, even the best two options (GSM and APRS) have rather patchy coverage. GSM is great near populated areas, but these are obviously not the best areas for launch and landing. Outside populated areas there is weak, or often no GSM reception at all. Likewise, most of the APRS infrastructure is located around areas where people live and are going to use it. Then of course there is the physical recovery, what happens if the balloon lands in the wilderness hundreds of kilometres from roads? What if it lands in the sea? Before you can really do anything fancy you really need to verify that you launch/recovery system works absolutely perfectly.

      OK, so now you've got your GPS receiver and transmitters. How is your GPS location data affected by the transmitter going off next to it? How about serial comms? Could the NMEA data be corrupted when the transmitter goes off? I2C sensors? How will it affect communication with the SD-CARD? How will you know? How will the transmitter affect the rest of your system? How will the system be affected by low temperatures? What happens if one module fails, what will the system do to recover? It's good stuff for an engineering project, but perhaps not an extremely interesting story in itself.

      You have many interesting ideas which really would make a project unique, in my case though it was enough of a handful already just getting the basics done myself while coping with the rest of Uni study/life. I'll try something more unique for my next launch.

    7. Re:What would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've probably missed this, but how did the cost of his project compare the cost of the daily-launched balloons? If it was lots cheaper, and the d/l statistics were similar ... well, that would be a significant advance.

  44. Re:Aussie dollars rising fast like the balloon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is that flamebait? You don't like the exchange rate, ignavus shows you the plain and simple facts and HE's the flamebait?

    "Keep up with the economy" might be harsh, but so are Americans when they still think their almighty dollar matters as much as before. It doesn't. ignavus is right when he says AUD$250 = USD$230.

    Want another slap in the face? Here's a few more:
    1 U.S. dollar = 1.03960046 Canadian dollars
    1 U.S. dollar = 1.09039363 Australian dollars
    1 U.S. dollar = 0.671456389 Euros
    1 U.S. dollar = 91.2408759 Japanese yen

    Wow. You're not even 4% from the Canucks, not even 10% from the Aussies and not even worth 100 yens anymore.

    Good economic recovery, keep it up!

    NOT! /Borat

  45. Anonymous Coward reduxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A BBC show (Bang goes the theory) did this. Very similar concept, on a very similar budget, except he had the problem where the camera froze up.

    http://testtubetelly.channel4.com/programmes/items/5514523

  46. This isn't Science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's Art (and it's been done before):
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-features/5777571/Simon-Faithfulls-Gravity-Sucks-furnitures-giant-leap.html

    Strange how the Artist managed to get his images beamed back to Earth in realtime, but the techie just hit record then went looking for debris...

  47. Re:Reported before by schon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Australian Student Balloon Rises 100,000 Feet, With a Digital Camera

    they have been doing it at least since the 1950's

    Umm, yeah, I'm gonna need a citation on that.

  48. The untold story? It was an accident. by rclandrum · · Score: 2, Funny

    Same thing happened to me a few years ago at Disney World when I was attempting to juggle a hot dog, my digital camera, and some Mickey Mouse balloons I had bought for the kids. The strings got tangled in the camera and when I went to munch on the hot dog, the balloon slipped from my fingers and I watched helplessly as my camera sailed into the unknown.

    But it gets better!

    Several weeks later, I received an anonymous UPS package containing my digital camera! A quick glance showed that the Disney shots were still there, but there were some added shots that were somehow snapped on my camera's inadvertent journey. Some brief examples: (a) a shot of a 757 passenger jet with some astonished but blurred looking people looking out at Mickey; (2) a shot that showed a rocket launch at the Cape - from above!; (3) a nice clear shot that showed another group of brightly painted balloons that read "Visit Exciting Sydney!"; (4) a dim but unmistakable shot of the Shuttle as it came in for re-entry.

    Of course there were a bunch more boring random shots of earth from way up high, but who cares about those?

    I suspect I am not alone in this - has anyone else ever run an inadvertent "experiment" that accidentally took you to the edge of space? If getting close to the final frontier is actually this easy, it won't be long before we make it to the moon!

  49. Feet? Whose feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An ant's feet? An elephant's? Obama's? My grandma's?

    God, people, use real units or shut up! Or, at least while posting on slashdot, use "average car length" as unit...

  50. Re:Reported before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not cameras but instruments that actually measure useful stuff. Big deal: a camera on a balloon. Move along -- nothing to see here.

  51. Open source tracking by Rorschach1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The black gadget at the top of the picture appears to be one of my OpenTracker+ kits - I see that Geoff ordered a couple back in May. So I'm going to take this opportunity for a brief shameless plug:

    http://www.argentdata.com/products/otplus.html

    His main payload computer looks to be wholly custom-built, but the OpenTracker+ (that handles taking data from the GPS receiver and transmitting it over the radio) is an off-the-shelf kit that takes maybe an hour to build, if you don't want to pay an extra few bucks for a pre-assembled unit.

    It's based on the Freescale MC908JL16 microcontroller, the full source code is available under the BSD license, and it'll compile with the free version of the Codewarrior IDE. It's got a serial bootloader, so there's no need for a device programmer. If you're comfortable with C programming, it's a very cheap way to build a simple, customizable tracking and telemetry system. Or just run the regular firmware and it'll do a whole bunch of stuff without modification.

    Its larger cousin, the Tracker2, does a whole lot more and the code is released under GPLv3, but unfortunately you can't compile it with the free version of the IDE. It does include a simple scripting engine, though - written mostly so balloon builders would stop bugging me with minor ad hoc changes for their particular setup.

    Scott
    N1VG

  52. Re: model airoplane by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

        I may have seen the same thing, except it was a concept when I saw it. They had done the balloon trip a few times, and the airplane was their next plan. I didn't know that they had done it. Unfortunately, I don't have the link either.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  53. Re: the most expensive part was buying the helium by treeves · · Score: 1

    No. It could have been, not it must have been. He got the camera back in working order, so it didn't cost him. If you buy a car then drive over to your uncle's house, you don't say that it cost $20,000 dollars to drive to your uncle's house, do you? Why am I replying to an AC when the answer is obvious to everyone elsde and the AC probably won't even see it. That just cost me a minute of my life...

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  54. Re:Aussie dollars rising fast like the balloon by ignavus · · Score: 1

    Do notice the tilde next to USD$200. It commonly (in mathematics circles, anyway) stands for "approximately." I hope you agree that USD$200 is not far off enough to invalidate the tilde.

    I hope YOU agree that $230 is closer to $250 (the AUD price) than it is to $200 (the incorrect USD "equivalent" given in the article). In other words, the author would have been LESS wrong if he gave no equivalent and left everyone to assume that the $250 was USD.

    Can't you see that the accuracy went *backwards* when he gave an "equivalent"?

    How hard is it to look up an online currency service like xe.com and get a current figure?

    Sheesh! I though this was a nerd website.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.