Space On a Shoestring 257
An anonymous reader writes, "Three engineering students from Cambridge University plan to send an unmanned craft into space for £1,000 ($1,880) and have just sent a test mission up 32 km for a lot less. Their snaps from the upper atmosphere are impressive, and were taken by a balloon equipped with off-the-shelf technology including GSM text messaging, radio communications, and an ordinary 5-megapixel camera. They now plan to use a similar craft as a launching stage to get a cheap rocket into space." There's also a video of the balloon launch.
Very cool hobby... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Math ematical_Thinking/designing_a_high_altitude.htm [nasa.gov]
http://www.amsat.org/amsat/balloons/balloon.htm [amsat.org]
ACES (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless, what they've done is an outstanding achievement. The year before mine our school tried to take a picture up there (~100,000 feet) but it didn't work because the cold temperature changed the timing of some electronics, causing them to malfunction =/
I was in charge of the thermal stuff, and let me tell you, it's pretty hard to keep it warm but not so warm that the sun toasts it. And keep in mind the payload, as they call it, could only be 500 grams!
New Aproach? (Score:4, Informative)
Raw RGB? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: GSM text messaging (Score:5, Informative)
At least this is my only partially-informed assumption (a long time ago I was a radio negineer, but I don't know about the actual implementation details of GSM.) But logically, allowing in-flight GSM phone calls is a bad idea because of the reasoning above. The system is designed on the assumption that calls will be made on the ground, therefore range-limited, and thus can only possibly be routed by one or two base stations, not hundreds.
32 Kilometers = What? (Score:3, Informative)
You can see that weather balloons are in the 18-50 km range, which is what we expect, because that's what they're using, and they got to 32 km.
Re:ACES (Score:1, Informative)
"The year before mine our school tried to take a picture up there (~100,000 feet) but it didn't work because the cold temperature changed the timing of some electronics, causing them to malfunction"
There's always the outside chance that this is newsworthy because it worked?
Re:Yes, but orbital? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: GSM text messaging (Score:3, Informative)
I think the main problem with phones at altititude is the farraday cage effect of the aluminum aircraft body. Signals can only exit via the windows, and at high altitude, your signals are going out horizontally instead of down to the ground and therefore the cell towers.
Re: GSM text messaging (Score:3, Informative)
I've experienced problems which I am pretty sure are related to hopping between towers -- not on an aircraft, but when hiking in the Smokey Mountains in North Carolina. We got up to the top and I was surprised to find that I had 4 or 5 bars! However, when I tried to make calls, I was denied and the signal strength would go up and down. I believe I was seeing towers on both sides of the mountain and the system and/or my phone was getting confused.
Re:why ruin a "good" idea? (Score:2, Informative)
because launching the rocket is EFFECTIVE, compared to a balloon that will only reach about midway/three-fourths of the way in the atmosphere, only to fall back to the earth. the rocket has enough to push at a force that will allow it to get into orbit. not efficient, but it's the only way we get the job done.
Re:oh boy (Score:2, Informative)
Can you say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb [wikipedia.org] ?
That's a sounding rocket (Score:3, Informative)
That's a sounding rocket. In terms of performance, it seems comparable to the WAC Corporal [designation-systems.net] of 1944, or maybe the Aerobee [nasa.gov] of 1947.
Nothing wrong with building one cheaply, but it's not a step forward.
Re: GSM text messaging while flying (Score:5, Informative)
More likely you had too much signal. From altitude you tie up one RF channel on several dozen towers in range instead of running at reduced power on the closest tower. This blanket coverage of dozens of towers tying up a channel without the ability to hand your signal to a single tower and free up the frequency on other towers for use by others is why they don't permit phone use on aircraft. If the system is smart, it may have shut down your phone to clear the frequency as the towers noticed an even signal strength from one phone over dozens of towers. You simply did not get a tower assignment at altitude.
Ballons need permission?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:lunatics?! (Score:5, Informative)
The casing is made of a type of foam that is very good at absorbing impacts, and the whole thing doesn't weigh very much.
If it landed on you with the parachute open you'd just brush it off. If it landed on you without the parachute you'd get a bruised head but would be okay.
Our launches are insured with £5m public liability cover. Arranging this insurance was quite difficult though.
Re:Very cool hobby... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Orbit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Precise landing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: GSM text messaging while flying (Score:3, Informative)
He said that the big problem was that it is very tricky for an airborne phone to decide what cell it's closest to, since it can see loads of them and they're all pretty much the same distance (the downward distance is now very large compared to the on-ground inter-cell distance). This means your phone keeps jumping between cells, which incurs quite a lot of overhead on the network (and if you had a planeload of people doing it, it would be very chaotic!).
Re:those poor /.'d fools! Put the pics on FLICKR!- (Score:2, Informative)
Seems that FAA notification is easy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Very cool hobby... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: GSM text messaging while flying (Score:4, Informative)