DIY Space Flight

[anonanon No.266106]

Why couldnt I use a weather balloon to launch a small rocket to 100k ft and then fire the rocket to get into orbit?

link related : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCAnLxRvNNc&feature=related

[Anonymous No.266115]

possibly. I'd suggest having the rocket drop from the balloon and then activating the ignition. You'd also need some way to keep the rocket oriented properly; you don't wanna go through all the trouble getting it up there only to have it launch itself back towards the ground. Also, I wouldn't expect it to get actually out of the atmosphere...if you could generate enough force to get it that far, it would just disintegrate.

[Anonymous No.266116]

Because you would go to jail. FAA has regulations about that shit.

[Anonymous No.266117]

good luck lifting a muti ton rocket 30 km with balloons

[Anonymous No.266119]

>>266117
>small rocket
>"muti" ton

[anonanon No.266132]

>>266117
Yeaaaahhh, not trying to launch Sputnik, much less an orbital space station...I was thinking large Estes size, not even /diy/ launch size.

[anonanon No.266133]

>>266116
Which shit specifically, bc I cant find anything about launching weather balloons, and plenty of folks have done it all over youtube w/o being so much as fined.

[anonanon No.266134]

>>266115
I was thinking the same thing. Im actually thinking a zero - g trigger to release but have worked out how to determine "away" and get the rocket oriented, cept maybe a parachute for it to shoot through.

[Anonymous No.266136]

Because you don't understand the difference in energy between orbit and just reaching the upper atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.266156]

Because you don't understand the difference in energy between orbit and just reaching the upper atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.266158]

Because you don't understand the difference in energy between orbit and just reaching the upper atmosphere.

[anonanon No.266161]

>>266136
I was actually someone could explain to me the diff in energy expenditure at 100k ft and say somewhere near 2k ft.

[anonanon No.266162]

>>266161
actually *hoping

[Anonymous No.266172]

Calculating what it would take for a certain amount of mass to achieve orbit at a certain altitude is actually relatively straightforward. Well, sort of, the balloons only going to take you so high and you'd want to shoot the rocket in an arc up and out to the horizon, to gain as much elevation as possible while accelerating... That's because the closer an object is to the Earth, the faster it has to be moving to stay in orbit.... There's a lot of other factors at play though as well... Like would that amount of thrust even be feasible with a small rocket? Would there be winds at that altitude and would they fuck the trajectory all to hell? There *would* be some atmosphere present. You'd have to overcome the friction created by that as well. You need someone fairly well versed in Physics to help you out with this one, but off the top of my head it probably wouldn't be possible... Unless you have access to a good fuel and can keep the mass way down.

[anonanon No.266177]

>>266172
Just doing some wiki research now. It seems launching from 100k ft would indeed reduce the velcity needed for escape. TBH the orbit doesnt really matter to me. And mass is going to be wayyyy down bc there is going to be next to nothing for payload. the point behind the exercise will be to see if you can put a camera into any king of actual LEO using off the shelf cheap tech. The guidance is going to be the major hang up.

[Anonymous No.266179]

>>266136
>>266156
>>266158
This statement is trying to say something, but it is failing. How cares if he doesn't understand it. those are two different things. Perhaps you don't understand what it is he is doing.

>>266172
Not really. You just need a balloon array to take a rocket up as far as it will go then launch it. Some simple self correcting would need to be done, but that is crap you can download off the net from rocket enthusiast websites. You can use a simple nettop for the scripts and sensors needed (arduino, raspberry pi, etc).

The only problems are fuel efficiency versus weight. Moving a rocket up is easy, but moving a rocket up for X amount of time, long enough to reach orbit is another thing. The amount of fuel needed to do that increases and so does the weight. So, long as the fuel can give you enough energy to carry itself and the rocket up, you'll have no troubles.

>>266177
You main payload will be fuel, fyi.

[Anonymous No.266180]

Wait....

I have an

Wait....get this....

If Helium is lighter than air.

ready for it?

Why not fill a balloon with a vacuum. No air or gas at all. It'll zip like a rocket up and completely out of the atmosphere into space.

[anonanon No.266183]

>>266179
Yeah I was wondering about the Arduino aspect. Maybe launch a small lab of some sort? It would be cool as snot. In the future Id love to launch a very small robot to the moon and be the first NGO on the moon or any other stellar object. I understand the basic mass vs fuel issues, but for now I was just looking to brain storm a bit.

[Anonymous No.266190]

>>266180

If you can find a ballon that can withstand the immense pressure of outer space, your idea works.

[anonanon No.266191]

>>266190
Technically I think its a LACK of pressure.

[Anonymous No.266193]

>>266190
Well, if you can find a balloon that can hold a vacuum first. lol

This makes me wonder though. Which is it that pops the balloon? Is it is the expanding gas inside or heat from the sun? I'd imagine it would be the gas.

[Anonymous No.266194]

>>266191

You're right, typo on my part. Thnx for the catch.

[anonanon No.266196]

>>266193
Everything Ive seen is the expansion of the gas bc of the lack of pressure. They go up at about 10ft and pop at a little over 30 ft in diameter.

[Anonymous No.266197]

>>266193

Probably both. They say if you can see the sun in space, it's hot enough to boil water.

[Anonymous No.266198]

>>266193
The gas.
Also, from my very limited knowledge, I believe a weather balloon reaches around 40km up, before bursting.

[Anonymous No.266201]

>>266179
Phone sucks, it kept saying I failed the captcha

yes. Ten Millions of joules per kg for orbit vs 300,000 ish for 100k ft.


The difference between lifting something 1000k vs 2k Is like 29400kj

[anonanon No.266204]

>>266106
OP here still, again, was mainly posting ot see if there was something HUGE I was missing to stop me from attempting this. I am now not seeing a whole lot...Yeah I know, other than the obvious. SO Im going to do a bit more research on the very available Estes type rockets and their fuel effeciency and such, and start buying some crazy crap...LOL Wish me luck, and Ill keep this thread open for the rest of the night to discuss general /diy/ space goodies for this projet.

[Anonymous No.266209]

>>266191
>>266194
I actually thought you were being funny. lol

>>266196
>>266197
I would imagine a balloon that could lift its own weight, some cargo, and withstand total vacuum would be pretty nice.

>>266201
This is where a high orbit would be better than a low orbit I'd assume. Less energy expended perhaps correcting and fighting. Much like a normal satellite.

>>266204
The only thing you need to really do is check your local laws about rocketry and the fuel you want to use. Actually, peruse rocket enthusiast websites and ask questions to people that actually launch rocket in your state or country. Your plan can work, it is only a matter of logistics. don't let even a veteran rocket launcher to sway you from doing it unless something is illegal to do in your area.

[Anonymous No.266212]

In case no one has thought of it. Since you are launching from a balloon you can skip using liquid propellant and stick with solid propellant.

[Anonymous No.266213]

If you can build a rocket that can get up to the ~8km/s required for low earth orbit and still be lifted by a weather balloon, there is nothing stopping you besides the law.

[Anonymous No.266214]

>>266106
The only technical problem I see with this is your rocket would have to be rather sophisticated; it would need to have a guidance system to get it oriented properly when it's time to fire the engine(s), and unless you plan on it being 100% expendable and ensuring it burns up on re-entry, it would need a re-entry/recovery system of some sort that would allow it to come back down in a controlled manner and provide a locator signal of some sort so it could be found and retrieved. This is no weekend project you're talking about, and it's not a cheap project, either, but it could be done. Chances are though you'd need some sort of permit from the government because you'd be launching something that would be a potential hazard to aircraft navigation, and probably with enough of a radar signature that the military would be able to detect it, and they'd freak the fuck out over something being launched into LEO and then re-entering at some point later. Do your research, find out what it takes to be allowed to do an experimental launch like this. You might even find that some branch of NASA is willing to help you with it, if you can demonstrate that you've got a solid plan and know what you're doing.

[anonanon No.266216]

>>266212
>>266213
Think Estes. Thats the size and scope of this initial project.

[anonanon No.266217]

>>266214
The guidance system I think is going to be difficult AND cause some worry to the guvmint...LOL Im not too worried about retrieval, it can be completely destroyable as long as it can record or transmit some kind of data to prove where it was, ideally Id like a retrieval of some sort. Im think of using a phone for the retrieval and data storage, and video since they are off the shelf easy to use for that stuff., but the more I think about it Im not sure one of the Mk 108's or whatever wouldnt be a better idea. The deal with the FAA and such does worry me but they dont seem to care about weather balloons and they are definitely in the traffic altitudes, but only for a small time. I am more worried about NORAD shooting this thing out of LEO or me putting a MASSIVE hole in a very expensive satellite...LOL

[Anonymous No.266218]

>launching a rocket while it is suspended 100k in the air

OP and everyone here is a complete fucking idiot with no actual knowledge physics. Please die.

[Anonymous No.266219]

I've considered this OP. I see using 4 balloons carrying a platform with the rocket in the middle.

[Anonymous No.266221]

>>266217
Any electronics you use need to have an operating temperature range that goes way below zero centigrade, and must be able to operate in an airless environment. Essentially you need electronics certified for full military temperate range.

[Anonymous No.266222]

>>266218
How so? Explain yourself. Even in recent events someone has used a balloon to get to similar altitudes. Specifically someone who wanted to try skydiving from that altitude. OP's idea is plausible, if not necessarily in the reach of a hobbyist.

[Anonymous No.266223]

>>266214
>rather sophisticated

Dude, this isn't 1974. It is 2012.

2 0 1 2

Nothing is a problem technologically anymore. It is all a matter of will and money.

[Anonymous No.266224]

>>266218
>I can't even think to be able to do it so no one else can either

GB2/b/

[Anonymous No.266226]

>>266222
>not necessarily in the reach of a hobbyist.

Correct. You need to be an enthusiast, not a hobbyist for something like this.

[Anonymous No.266225]

>>266217
Any electronics you use need to have an operating temperature range that goes way below zero centigrade, and must be able to operate in an airless environment. Essentially you need electronics certified for full military temperature range.

What I'm saying is: a consumer-grade cellphone won't do, it'll fail before you even get to launch altitude.

[Anonymous No.266227]

>>266223
"Rather sophisticated" compared to a hobby-store model rocket.

[Anonymous No.266228]

>>266226
Just off the top of my head I'd say this is a project that could be done in the $5-digit range, assuming you had the knowledge already to do it at all.

[anonanon No.266231]

>>266225
Ive seen lots of guys on youtube use cell phones with those "toe warmer" chemical packs around them to keep them warm.

Ive done some quick googling and it turns out there are RULES against launching from anywhere but the ground....WTF? Really?

[Anonymous No.266229]

>>266225
>What I'm saying is: a consumer-grade cellphone won't do, it'll fail before you even get to launch altitude.

That is very true of most electronics. However, you can build your own circuits. It isn't that difficult. Everything doesn't' need to be in a chip size. You can upscale it and use materials that can withstand the cold and heat.

>>266227
That is like the difference between a rotary phone and a cell phone.

[Anonymous No.266232]

Using a cell phone to transmit your telemetry in orbit lulz, really. 10/10. You going to have a international data roaming plan for that?

[anonanon No.266237]

>>266232
You are some kind of genius huh? I was referring to using the GPS in the phone to recover the reentry section. Thanks for paying attention though.

[Anonymous No.266244]

>>266237
Here's a tip for you (used to work for a military contractor): You can *get* GPS receiver modules that are designed for full mil-spec temperature range. You could use a microcontroller to interface to it, and flight data on Flash.

[anonanon No.266247]

>>266244
TBH that is sooo far down the range of obstacles Im not even thinking about it right now. I think I am going to start with an active recovery solution from 100k ft or so. In other words, rocket design. I wanna be able to have the "rocket" direct itself toward a recovery area. For now, I can do that w/o breaking any laws or rules or anything.

[Anonymous No.266253]

>>266247
Sounds to me like you're going to have more than one test-launch before your final "production" vehicle is ready.

[Anonymous No.266268]

>>266266
As you say.. this is not a trivial project.

[anonanon No.266266]

>>266253
LOL I wasnt going to launch jack crap, and then my wheels got to turnin and now I think I have to. LOL Yeah Im gonna design some sort of directional recovery apparatus and then Ill worry about the launch to LEO.

[Anonymous No.266271]

Not to derail this thread, but I want launch a kind of habitat several hundred meters up. It will be tethered to the ground and I will have several mice or hamsters in it. Kind of like what Mad Scientist does.

As an Ausfag does anyone know of rules governing this? Viewing CASA I can't find anything.

[Anonymous No.266275]

>>266271
Whatever the Aussie equivalent of the FAA here in the States you have will define what is "too high" and therefore in the traffic patterns.

[Anonymous No.266276]

>>266106
sorry to be a fag and ask this
what do you accomplish by doing this?
I get you can put a camera on it and see the edge of space, but as you have shown 100s of people have done this already.
launching a model rocket into space(and most likely never retrieving it again) does what exactly?
i know it could work but whats the point of it?

sidenote
>gyros and a altitude meter
>gyros for orintation
>alt meter for balloon drop

maybe just for barging rights?
this is a waste of helium in my book
>unless you put an ipod playing songs about space
>hooked up to a powerful radio transmitter
>small enough to just fly around in space for a bit
>like sputnik
that would be pretty cool, but idk any other reasons for putting shit up into the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.266279]

>>266275
Yeah, as far as I can make out, it would be an Unmanned Aircraft System, but tethered. Rules on that are more then 400ft. So 100m should be my rough max to avoid the law, not to mention it will be weighed down and drift around. Titanium wire should be strong enough.

[anonanon No.266281]

>>266276
No homo, I get what you are asking and you are right on the head, BRAGGING RIGHTS, MOFO!!!

LOL SRSLY though, thats about it. Eventually, like I said, I wanna put something from a private citizen on the freaking moon, which I think might be easier than orbit really. Its starting to irk me that this is theoretically fairly easy and no one has done it yet, just to prove it could be done. Yes, it is technical, and yes it would probably be expensive to scale up to anything really useful but I can drop a radio transmitter on the moon that does nothing but playback a message saying "Anon put this on the moon for 10k$, what has NASA done since 1969?" Ill take it!

>>266271
Dont be afraid to derail it a bit..LOL I was wondering if I threatened to put a lunar rover on the moon that would build a Moon Hamster Habitat if Mad would show up in the thread with some good ideas...LOL

[anonanon No.266285]

>>266276
>on a side note
then comes up with genius level ideas that I hadnt thought of
>>Well played poster, well played.
Even better though, would be to use the gyros in the phone...I still think the phone is the tool to use here, especially since I have a spare EVO 4G...wonder if the insurance will cover "Lost in Orbit"..Lost is Lost right?

[Anonymous No.266314]

>>266281
No one launches rockets from balloons because the first 100k ft of a launch is trivial in comparison to the amount of energy required to attain orbit.

That's what I meant when I said you don't know nothing about orbital mechanics.

The Saturn V vehicle could get 100,000 pounds to the moon. The Saturn V vehicle weighed 6.2 MILLION pounds. It won't be accurate, but guess the payload of what you want to get up to the moon, and just put a ratio of that to the Saturn V rocket, and you'll see just how expensive this will be.


Getting 1kg up to 30km (100k ft) is easy. Getting 1kg to go around in any sort of orbit is 1000 times harder. Getting 1kg to the moon is... lulz.

>Why couldnt I use a weather balloon to launch a small rocket to 100k ft and then fire the rocket to get into orbit?
You could, but you would gain so little energy it wouldn't be worth the hassle of tying all those balloons to your rocket.

[anonanon No.266319]

>>266314
so for every 1lb of payload I should plan on 620 lbs of fuel/rocket? That seems a little overload. Im not doubting that scaling up causes exponential issues with weight but for my purposes I think the less than 100$ to go 100k ft is well spent.

[anonanon No.266323]

76 miles is the basic "outer space" definition, where atmosphere ceases to cause drag. The moon is about 238,000 miles past that. But with no drag to speak of, getting the rest of the way is just a matter of time and propulsion, and navigation.

[Anonymous No.266324]

>>266319
I have to agree with him on the whole moon thing that is better left to the NASA guys or people with lots of money and time
orbit is possible for a short amount of time
as i said
>an ipod with a radio message
(its light enough to fit on a small rocket, and will last for a while in orbit)
thats as far as your gonna go with a few weekends, and a little bit of money

[Anonymous No.266325]

>>266319
That is the thing... Going straight up and coming back down is one thing.

Getting payload to a high enough velocity to fall towards the earth and continue to miss?

11 km/s
121million joules?

Listen, I just know enough that you're doing it wrong if you think your balloon helps.

Make a rocket, that's cool
Make a weather balloon you tube thing.

If you lift a model rocket up in a weather balloon, you're just going to get a model rocket falling to the ground annoyingly far away from where you launched it. It won't be 'in orbit'.

Unless you're secretly a billionaire, you're also not pulling off a moon shot. The best you could do would be to build a compelling experiment, and pay someone to send it to the moon for you.

[anonanon No.266327]

>>266324
>>266325
Im starting to get that feeling...pic related...LMAO

[Anonymous No.266333]

>>266327
hey man i am all for it don't listen to the other guy
do it maybe it will work maybe not, talking about it on an online forum is not getting that rocket any closer to the sea of the unknown
>see what i did there

[anonanon No.266334]

>>266333
I see what you did...you got trips...LOL Im researching and researching and researching. And Ebaying for balloons :D

[anonanon No.266337]

I just got all teary eyed:

"The goal isn't just scientific exploration.... It's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time.... In the long run a single-planet species will not survive.... If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets ... colonize the solar system and one day go beyond." Micheal Griffin

[Anonymous No.267608]

Don't 404 yet. I'm saving this thread.

[Anonymous No.267618]

>>266325
>Listen, I just know enough that you're doing it wrong if you think your balloon helps

people have done crazier things that worked

[Anonymous No.267622]

Have you considered just having a tethered weather balloon holding some cargo/small animal. I've started building one that will eventually be at 90m and have some mice on it.

[sage No.267724]

>>267618
... The space shuttle doesn't fucking launch from a 747. Ever.

Sage goes in every field for this troll.

Using buoyancy to lift your missile can save you say, 300kj of energy per pound
Getting into low earth is 16Mj per kg

300,000 1,600,000. You see how big the difference between those numbers is? It's real big.

If you get your rocket up 100,000 ft. You still need 1.3 million joules to get into orbit. So you need enough balloons to carry 96% of your launch vehicle.

Go to http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php, play the demo, and keep in mind it is a grossly generous and optimistic simulation.

I don't want to discourage you.

You can get a rocket and shoot it off of a balloon, and it will go far. But you absolutely are not going to get it into orbit any easier than if you just launched it from earth. You are already dumping so muny resources to it that you may as well just design it to launch from the earth so you don't have to deal with all the complications of a balloon.

Look up the Caleb rocket
"So a 16' x 2' air-launched solid (Caleb) can at least theoretically get a 15 lb payload to orbit, with a payload-to-mass ratio of .5%. Can't find altitude info on Caleb, but Project Pilot was launched at 41k feet. "

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2847.0 I found this thread. it's 6 years old, and it's exactly the same as the one you just posted here.

[Anonymous No.267965]

>>266106

Because Low Earth Orbital velocity is 17,000 mph. That's why you can't use a weather balloon and an Estes rocket to put anything into orbit.

[Anonymous No.268026]

O HAI says the Anti Satellite Missile.

[Anonymous No.268033]

People forget that even in orbit, you aren't free from gravity (hence the orbit). You need to get enough height and lateral velocity that you don't just get pulled back down to Earth after you have exited the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.268058]

I've wondered about this myself op. I recently saw a company advertising what you explained that will put your items in low orbit for a fee.

[Anonymous No.268080]

>>266106
No. Because orbit requires you to be moving 5 miles pers second. Because you have to constantly miss the earth.

[Anonymous No.268092]

>>268058

There are several of those, including at least one which is willing to deal with normal people and asks almost reasonable amount of money for putting shit to LEO. They also have satellite kits. Can't remember the company's name, though.

[Dat driveby poster No.268129]

http://gizmodo.com/5925097/this-is-launcherone-virgin-galactics-mothership+launched-space-rocket

This is what OP needs
/thread

[Anonymous No.268506]

>>268080
never implied that the ASAT can reach orbital speeds. Just posted this for inspiration that you could also launch stuff from a high altitude plane.
Besides, if OP is willing to compromise, reaching space alone would also be quite a neat feat (which again could be pulled off with something like the ASM-135).

[Anonymous No.268692]

dude you guys are missing the whole point of this thread

i could launch my weed into space and get high on spaceweed

[Anonymous No.268866]

>>267724
Space agencies have been thinkering with launching vehicules from planes since the 70's, recently they started thinkering with it again, although OP's going to accomplish nothing his idea is quite feasible

[Anonymous No.268945]

The scary part is that there's only 5-6 people max in this thread that even grasp the concept of orbital velocity

[Anonymous No.269076]

>>268945
I think it's cute

[Anonymous No.270234]

Bumpin this shit to the front so I can go play kerbal

[Anonymous No.270242]

>>268945

Fuck man, I'm not surprised. Ask a person off the street why an astronaut in the ISS is floating and they will tell you it's because "there is no gravity in space".

[Anonymous No.271462]

I can't be buggered to do the calculations, but I feel as though if he were SOMEHOW able to take a balloon up pretty FUCKING HIGH, we're talking about the very edge of the atmosphere, and fired a rocket off laterally with high enough acceleration to reach 17k mph by the time it's fallen back to wherever that number applies (Can't think of the altitude and not going to bother looking), I feel as though fuel savings could make it a feasible idea. Your'e not spending the mass amount of fuel reaching that altitude under high atmospheric drag, expending most of it on vertical velocity versus lateral.

I'm probably way the fuck off. Keep this thread alive for another year until I've finished my first Aerospace class.

[Anonymous No.271490]

>>271462
You should do the calculations gaining, 100k ft of altitude is worth fuck-all when your goal is 17k mph

[Anonymous No.271521]

So, I hate to dash your hopes and dreams OP, but, speaking as someone who spent the last three years of his life on rockoon design, you probably lack the money, time, and experience to get this to work.

First of all, accomplishing orbit from a rockoon requires a rocket many orders of magnitude larger than an Estes. And that rocket needs a sophisticated electronics package for communication, recovery, and perhaps control if you feel like skirting the law. Add fuel costs and just building the rocket required has already bankrupted you.

Then you have to construct your launch platform which can support your massive rocket, a second set of custom electronics to control launch, and then an ungodly number of balloons, each of which needs helium, which, again, is pricey. Off the top of my head, the best commercially available weather balloons can lift about 15 lbs a piece if you want them to last till 100k feet.

So, if you have tens of thousands of dollars to spare, and enough time to design from scratch two electronics packages, write the required code for each, and physically build the rocket and launch platform, you'll be able to have something that might work.

Now you'll just have to get the FAA to sign off on it (launching the balloon, launching the rocket, putting something into orbit), certification to operate on whatever radio frequency you're communicating over, and probably level 3 certification to actually launch rockets with the sizes of motor you need.

And that's just the quick overview. OP, don't waste your life.

[Anonymous No.271533]

Why dont you just build a rocket that can reach 120,000ft..its been done by hobbyists before. However, it will probably take a few thousand dollars and you can end up in jail for launching what is pretty much a supersonic missile. as for achieving LEO, its not going to happen unless you have millions of dollars at your disposal. First problem for you would be engineering a rocket that can handle hypersonic speeds....

[Anonymous No.271840]

>>271521
fuck da law nigga

[anonanon No.272033]

>>266106
OP here, I cant believe this thread is still alllliiiiivvvve....LOL

[anonanon No.272039]

>>272033
OP again. I appreciate all the negative nellies but its just kind of funny to me that so much hatred got shot at me for just asking about launching an Estes from a fucking balloon. As far as LEO and all the rest, obviously that would be a big jump, but if we dont dream what is there to aim for??? We stand on the largest stockpile of technology the world has ever known and yet not one single solitary person or agency has ever launched a rocket into space, save one, for the single purpose of proving it can be done by hobbyists/enthusiasts. To all you that say it cant be done, I say "Fuck you.", politely. To all you that say it cant be done easily/cheaply I say " It cost London almost 8 times the amount of $$$ to put on the Olympic games as it did for JPL to land a minivan on Mars that can vaporize rocks." And to all you pointing out the flaws, that cool. I appreciate it, Ill keep working on it. Adn to all those that say the I, specifically cant do it, I say "We'll see, but Ill get caught trying, not sitting on the couch." Later, Haters----OP

[Anonymous No.272040]

>>271521
This rare grainy footage reveals a successful test flight of a rockoon.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ47IK5dFFY

[Anonymous No.272067]

>>271533
Just get some licensing and go for it. No need to do things illegal in the first place.

[Anonymous No.272095]

>>268945

the cool thing is i just figured it out from reading this thread... I had read a bit about escape velocity of the Earth before, but now I see....

i didn't realize gravity is still a "problem" when you're that high up. i have always been fascinated by satellites. now i'm like 10x more in love with them. fuuuuik.

[Anonymous No.272098]

If you do it.... make the rocket out of a dildo. please. Imagine that shit drifting down out of the sky.

[Anonymous No.272589]

>>266231
Those use oxygen to work

>>266281
The moon is like 238,000 miles away. You couldn't buy a car that would do that for under 10k
>>267622
Why, just why?
>>268692
yes
>>268945
Agreed
>>272098
>best idea so far, but its been done before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY7MW2vtWB0

[Anonymous No.272594]

What about a high altitude gauss cannon?

[Anonymous No.272639]

>get into orbit

The Earth rotates at 1,038 mph around the equator.
The ISS has to travel at 17,500 mph to stay in orbit and keep from falling to earth.

A 1,500 gram weather balloon will only get you about 20 miles up.
You need to be about 100 miles up to orbit Earth.

You would need to design a rocket that can travel an extra 80 miles up, then achieve 17,500 miles per hour to stay in orbit. I dont see it happening using a weather balloon.

[Anonymous No.272648]

Here's a thought, why use a rocket at all?

If the balloon bursts by expanding too much from lack of surrounding pressure at high altitudes why not stop it from expanding and increase your travel height? Another words, modify the ballon to travel further.

Put a thin, light weight, and spaced out wire mesh cover around the ballon to keep it from expanding at high altitudes. Profit from increased altitude.

[Anonymous No.272663]

>>272648

Getting to orbit requires a tremendous change in velocity, generally eastward. It is pretty easy to launch a rocket to orbital altitudes but any payload needs be going about 17,500 mph to stay in orbit.

[Anonymous No.272769]

correct you still need to reach "escape velocity". Which you won't. Good thinking though.

[Anonymous No.272790]

>>272648

That isn't why weather balloons burst. It's because as they rise, they expand in size, and this expansion leads to material failure.

A wire mesh would just cause it to expand in a non-spherical pattern, probably hastening failure.

[Anonymous No.272793]

>>272790
Just give up, it's a troll thread.

[Anonymous No.272794]

>>272790
Also, I don't know if he understands why submarines can dive, dive, dive! It applies in all matters, air included.

[Anonymous No.272854]

>>272648
>If you stop a low density gas from expanding, it will cease to rise due to the fact that it has attained an altitude with similar density atmosphere.

Fucking science-how does that shit work?

[Anonymous No.272860]

>>266106
Why is this thread still around?

[Anonymous No.273087]

100 miles up doesn't equal orbit it is somebody's definition of space. You can even go 9000 miles up without lateral moment you will never orbit and simply fall back to earth having reached space. an estas rocket isn't going to give you the lateral movement you need.

[sage No.273888]

one can not simply stabilize a tiny rocket's route on outer atmosphere, IDIOTS.