http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget?Nice, One of these days I've got to try that.
Quote from: Orbiter on 09/15/2009 11:24 pmhttp://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget?Nice, One of these days I've got to try that.The next step would be to put the camera on a cheap rocket hanging from the balloon, James Van Allen "Rockoon" style. - Ed Kyle
I admire these student's success but I'm not sure how they beat NASA.NASA has never tried to do this and they probably never will. It is far too simple and offers no benefits to a government space agency.Not everything needs to be labeled as a competition.
Quote from: Rabidpanda on 09/16/2009 12:13 amI admire these student's success but I'm not sure how they beat NASA.NASA has never tried to do this and they probably never will. It is far too simple and offers no benefits to a government space agency.Not everything needs to be labeled as a competition.I'd be willing to bet that NASA couldn't do it for under $150. The meeting budget alone would exceed that. The paperwork budget would exceed that. The travel budget would exceed that. Hell just holding a meeting to discuss the possibility of doing it would cost more than $150. In fact there is a fairly high possibility that just the NASA employees that have viewed this thread and that link have cost NASA more than $150.
These guys replicated something various (mostly Ham radio) folks have been doing for at least 10+ years. Nice work, but hardly ground breaking...
If you're going to do the math that way, the students should have to tell us how much time they spent, and maybe how many school resources they spent researching their project... These guys replicated something various (mostly Ham radio) folks have been doing for at least 10+ years. Nice work, but hardly ground breaking...
Quote from: cneth on 09/16/2009 03:05 amIf you're going to do the math that way, the students should have to tell us how much time they spent, and maybe how many school resources they spent researching their project... These guys replicated something various (mostly Ham radio) folks have been doing for at least 10+ years. Nice work, but hardly ground breaking... Well... yeah, odds are these guys beer budget probably was higher than $150.
Aside from the obvious question of, "In what way did they beat NASA?" there's the more revealing question of "In what way did they beat the four teenagers who did this six months ago with a balloon that sent back real time telemetry?"
Quote from: iamlucky13 on 09/18/2009 08:23 amAside from the obvious question of, "In what way did they beat NASA?" there's the more revealing question of "In what way did they beat the four teenagers who did this six months ago with a balloon that sent back real time telemetry?"Well, I'm not an economist, but I am good with the calculator.The cost for the 4 teenager's system: $1350The cost for this system: $150I think that should be a little more clear what this group has done that none other has
Simple, buy a prepaid cell phone with a camera built in. Mod it to take pictures at preset times, tie to a balloon, hand to the little girl at the phillies game, and have it text the pics to the ground... << $150
"The next step would be to put the camera on a cheap rocket hanging from the balloon, James Van Allen "Rockoon" style."I have this image in my mind of someone going to the hobby shop, buying an Estes Astrocam or some other rocket, (along with a 3 pack of C engines) putting it together, sticking it on the launch rod, under the balloon then trying the "Rockoon" idea. But I don't know how well it would work, the stabilizing fins would only work in the atmosphere. And I don't know how high it would go - I think the Astrocam could make it up to about 1000 feet on earth. I imagine if you actually wanted to make it up to 62 miles with an amateur "rockoon" you'd need something a little bit bigger (maybe not much bigger?) than a typical Estes rocket and with a guidance box and steerable rocket engine nozzle (or spin stabilization) instead of stabilizing fins. But I'm not too good with advanced math and haven't made any calculations, so I'm not sure what would be needed to make such a thing work.
A curious?: With it being so easy to loft a camera (payload, per se) to extreme heights, are there regulations/rules to follow to avoid men-in-black-suits making an appearance at your doorstep? Does the FAA or other agency need to know if you are lifting metal cameras or other 'hard' objects into (possible) air-traffic routes even if the items are not in 'controlled airspace', so to speak?
$150 as the total cost for the system is bogus.
If I want to duplicate it, it'll cost me $150.
The Rocket Modeller II java applet on nasa's site is a good way to answer some of these questions.A simple pressure-fed liquid fuel rocket engine is a good fit for this, since you can get away with a much lower combustion chamber pressure when you're at 100,000ft. That's how I'd do it, anyways.
Yeah, that applet got me hooked. I have been trying to make a model rocket that would launch into lunar orbit. The best I've done so far is a 2 stage design with C engines (and VERY little else, just a paper tube and tiny paper fins, which I tried to remove but could not) - and I've been able to make it to a little over 4700 FPS. But I think I need over 6000 FPS to make it into lunar orbit, can someone confirm?