[00:10] rocketboy (n=steve@host86-132-35-0.range86-132.btcentralplus.com) left irc: "Leaving"
[00:30] icez_ (n=icez@ip68-3-56-121.ph.ph.cox.net) joined #highaltitude.
[00:47] icez (n=icez@ip68-3-56-121.ph.ph.cox.net) left irc: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)
[01:06] Ebola (n=Ebola@host86-143-156-147.range86-143.btcentralplus.com) left irc: "I'm Kirk!"
[02:20] jcoxon (n=jcoxon@jac208.caths.cam.ac.uk) left irc: "Leaving"
[05:09] Jpantoga (n=Jpantoga@ left irc:
[08:20] jcoxon (n=jcoxon@jac208.caths.cam.ac.uk) joined #highaltitude.
[08:34] icez_ (n=icez@ip68-3-56-121.ph.ph.cox.net) left irc: Remote closed the connection
[09:19] edwardmoore (n=edwardmo@pomegranate.chu.cam.ac.uk) joined #highaltitude.
[09:32] <jcoxon> morning edwardmoore
[09:35] flowolf (n=flowolf@host135-224-dynamic.1-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #highaltitude.
[09:44] jcoxon (n=jcoxon@jac208.caths.cam.ac.uk) left irc: "Leaving"
[09:56] flowolf (n=flowolf@host135-224-dynamic.1-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) left irc: "Leaving"
[10:13] edwardmoore (n=edwardmo@pomegranate.chu.cam.ac.uk) left irc:
[10:17] edwardmoore (n=edwardmo@pomegranate.chu.cam.ac.uk) joined #highaltitude.
[10:50] flowolf (n=flowolf@host135-224-dynamic.1-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #highaltitude.
[11:39] jcoxon (n=jcoxon@jac208.caths.cam.ac.uk) joined #highaltitude.
[12:19] jcoxon (n=jcoxon@jac208.caths.cam.ac.uk) left irc: "Leaving"
[13:53] Ebola (n=Ebola@host86-143-156-147.range86-143.btcentralplus.com) joined #highaltitude.
[14:37] flowolf (n=flowolf@host135-224-dynamic.1-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) left irc: "Leaving"
[14:38] phatmonkey (i=nobody@ joined #highaltitude.
[14:51] Golfgeo (n=ice@x142235.fttd-s.tudelft.nl) joined #highaltitude.
[14:51] <Golfgeo> Hi all
[15:34] flowolf (n=flowolf@host135-224-dynamic.1-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #highaltitude.
[15:36] Golfgeo (n=ice@x142235.fttd-s.tudelft.nl) left irc: "ircII EPIC4-2.2 -- Are we there yet?"
[15:44] Golfgeo (n=ice@x142235.fttd-s.tudelft.nl) joined #highaltitude.
[15:44] <Golfgeo> Hi all
[16:12] Golfgeo (n=ice@x142235.fttd-s.tudelft.nl) left #highaltitude.
[16:43] icez (n=icez@ip68-3-56-121.ph.ph.cox.net) joined #highaltitude.
[18:32] jcoxon (n=jcoxon@jac208.caths.cam.ac.uk) joined #highaltitude.
[18:57] flowolf (n=flowolf@host135-224-dynamic.1-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) left irc: "Leaving"
[19:12] <edwardmoore> ji jcoxon
[19:12] <edwardmoore> hi*
[19:13] <jcoxon> hey edwardmoore
[19:13] <jcoxon> http://www.pegasushabproject.org.uk/parawing/sat10march/
[19:13] <edwardmoore> beat me to it :)
[19:14] <edwardmoore> vid 11 is my fav
[19:15] <jcoxon> hehe thats cause it looks like it actually works
[19:15] <edwardmoore> one it stabalised it really had some nice directionality
[19:26] flowolf (n=flowolf@host135-224-dynamic.1-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #highaltitude.
[19:36] <edwardmoore> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/X-38/Medium/EM-0038-09.mpg
[19:40] <edwardmoore> also jcoxon, have a look at how they deploy the second from the first chute in this video- nice. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/X-38/Medium/EM-0038-01.mpg
[19:51] <jcoxon> ooo i like that
[19:51] <edwardmoore> it's nice isn't it
[19:54] <edwardmoore> i also like that kind of payload shape
[19:57] <edwardmoore> also, re-deployment. if the length is more limited than i originally thought, deployment needn't be that tricky
[19:59] rocketboy (n=steve@host86-132-45-134.range86-132.btcentralplus.com) joined #highaltitude.
[19:59] <edwardmoore> kind of like how we suggested before, with a wee drogue that could keep the thinking in a stable orientation untill well after apogee chaos is over
[19:59] <edwardmoore> then maybe servo release the wing from the body and the drogue would haul it into position
[19:59] <edwardmoore> hey steve
[20:00] <rocketboy> hiya
[20:00] <edwardmoore> james and i did some bodge things with bin liners today
[20:00] <edwardmoore> might be worth a wee looksee http://www.pegasushabproject.org.uk/parawing/sat10march/
[20:01] <rocketboy> ok - just looking
[20:01] <edwardmoore> 11 is about the most worthwhile if you get bored of looking at all the rest ;)
[20:07] <rocketboy> Yeah as you say - 11 is great - thats making some progress
[20:07] <edwardmoore> once it got clear of the turbulence round the corner of the engineering building, it got an almost stable straight line flight
[20:07] <edwardmoore> with a decent glide ratio
[20:09] <rocketboy> yep - That looke like a copple of wing shapes - no nose?
[20:09] <rocketboy> couple
[20:09] <edwardmoore> we chopped the nose off
[20:09] <jcoxon> :-)
[20:09] <jcoxon> that nose was annoying
[20:09] <edwardmoore> if you go through frame by frame of the earlier tests, it was the nose that kept collapsing
[20:09] <edwardmoore> and making the rest of the thing collapse
[20:10] <rocketboy> Humm - I guess the nose needs to be inflated
[20:10] <edwardmoore> well we noticed that the nasa dryden vid has a chute with no nose
[20:11] <rocketboy> hang on I'll look
[20:12] <edwardmoore> whilst you're on the subject, this one is quite nice too (30 years later) http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/X-38/Medium/EM-0038-01.mpg
[20:12] <rocketboy> ok
[20:13] <edwardmoore> the deployment of the directional chute is nice
[20:13] <jcoxon> edwardmoore, would a parafoil then be better? or more unstable as we saw when kite flying
[20:13] <edwardmoore> this is what i'm wondering
[20:14] <jcoxon> however i'm encouraged for a parawing design on the basis of our tests today
[20:14] <edwardmoore> yeah me too- it seems like a nice way of doing things
[20:14] <jcoxon> i reckon a parawing is more likely to collapse when turning against the wind
[20:14] <edwardmoore> and twist up
[20:14] <rocketboy> Thats a nice vid - note sure about the parafoil now - that looks good
[20:15] <jcoxon> right i've got skype up
[20:15] <jcoxon> shall we move?
[20:15] <edwardmoore> yeah- lots of the nasa vids page has nice things using parafoils over rogallo wings
[20:15] <edwardmoore> also have a look at this vid
[20:15] <edwardmoore> fine by me
[20:15] <jcoxon> (though if we stay on irc it'll be logged
[20:15] <jcoxon> )
[20:16] <rocketboy> Just trying to log on to skype
[20:16] <edwardmoore> http://www.atairaerospace.com/press/onyx_video.html
[20:18] <edwardmoore> that last one is pretty convincing, i think
[20:19] <edwardmoore> give me a shout with your skype nameses
[20:21] <rocketboy> I'm having problems with skype - I havn't used it for some time - I think there is a problem with my router NAY config
[20:21] <rocketboy> NAT
[20:22] Action: edwardmoore here's a wooshing sound above his head
[20:22] <edwardmoore> hears*
[20:22] <jcoxon> its okay - we can stick to irc
[20:23] <jcoxon> now basically that onyx system is what we want
[20:23] <edwardmoore> what do you think of the onyx thing?
[20:23] <edwardmoore> yes
[20:23] <edwardmoore> it's good isn't it
[20:23] <rocketboy> its amazing
[20:23] <edwardmoore> it has me convinced :)
[20:24] <edwardmoore> i like the idea of a big old chute at the end to just drop down on
[20:26] <jcoxon> well certainly drogues look like the way to deploy things
[20:26] <jcoxon> whether we use a parafoil is another matter
[20:26] <edwardmoore> also i'm enamoured by the idea of dropping the payload on a drogue for a while- maybe giving it a nice glidey directional shape like the nasa vehicule in the previous video
[20:27] <jcoxon> parafoils look like a rapid both in speed and also turning
[20:27] <jcoxon> depends if we want that - the video certainly proves that its possible with a parafoil (from 35,000ft)
[20:27] <rocketboy> yeah - definatly looks better at handling spped
[20:28] <edwardmoore> yeah the onyx could turn on a sixpence. also the drogue of the parafoil seems to serve well as a tail once the parafoil is deployed
[20:29] <jcoxon> yeah
[20:29] <jcoxon> i seems that a rogallo wing would give more stability due to the attachments of central lines
[20:29] <rocketboy> Actually - I finished of my parafoil last night - Hope to test it in the hall at work on Monday
[20:30] <edwardmoore> cool
[20:30] <rocketboy> The rogallo is good - But I was looking for somthing without spars
[20:31] <edwardmoore> we were saying that it would be good to tack things on to the next few balloon flights and drop at, say, 100ft
[20:31] <rocketboy> So that it could be deployed from a rocket body tube
[20:31] <rocketboy> I was thinking of just using an unguided parafoil next time
[20:31] <edwardmoore> that would be impressive- very impressive
[20:33] <rocketboy> The only thing i'm not sure of is the rigging for the break lines - need to experiment
[20:33] <edwardmoore> rigging caused us lots of problems today
[20:33] <edwardmoore> tangled like crazy
[20:33] <rocketboy> I guess is brake not break
[20:33] <edwardmoore> lol
[20:33] <edwardmoore> fruedian
[20:34] <jcoxon> though while it did tangle it didn't tangle during the flight
[20:34] <rocketboy> yeah - I knpw what its like for rockets (and those parachutes are simple)
[20:34] <jcoxon> it actually kept suprisingly well
[20:34] <jcoxon> hmmm
[20:34] <jcoxon> this is a bit of a problem - was pretty set on the rogallo style nasa 5 wing
[20:35] <rocketboy> if the lines are too long they tangle - if too short they constrain the chute shape
[20:35] <jcoxon> but those a parafoils are pretty damn good
[20:35] <edwardmoore> with a wider payload (like the nasa one) you can seperate lines quite well, which would me deployment a lot easier for a balloon payload
[20:35] <edwardmoore> but obviously it's not so easy for rockets
[20:36] <rocketboy> It might be a good idea to try both - and not give up on the NPW just yet
[20:36] <edwardmoore> npw?
[20:36] <rocketboy> nasa para wing
[20:36] <edwardmoore> ty
[20:37] <edwardmoore> yeah i do like it- it certainly seems to have good directional stability
[20:37] <edwardmoore> and also pitch control
[20:37] <rocketboy> I have rigged mine to bring the main lines to a single point - and adfded a left and rigfht break lines at the back to steer
[20:38] <edwardmoore> that sounds good
[20:38] <rocketboy> I guess the inflated ribs give it the stength to hold up against the wind
[20:39] <edwardmoore> yeah my one intuitive feeling i've come away with was that a totally flexible rogallo really won't cope well into wind
[20:40] <edwardmoore> and if we go for a 'just keep it pointed at the landing site' algorithm then we'll need some decent performance into the wind
[20:40] <jcoxon> so basically what with got is that drogue deployment is a good option
[20:40] <rocketboy> agreed
[20:40] <edwardmoore> yes
[20:40] <jcoxon> and that we need to test both
[20:40] <jcoxon> conviently ed and a I are looking at rogallo
[20:41] <jcoxon> and rocketboy you're looking at parafoil
[20:41] <rocketboy> yep
[20:42] <jcoxon> i feel that the rogallo for some reason will deploy quicker and therefore be easier to test off of a building etc
[20:42] <rocketboy> actually I'll try mine as a 3 line kite tomorrow
[20:42] <jcoxon> the parafoil i reckon needs a bit of hight
[20:42] <edwardmoore> yeah it doesn't need to inflate the cells
[20:42] <jcoxon> height*
[20:43] <rocketboy> yep - I had that problem in the sports hall - it only inflated about 3 meters off the ground
[20:43] <rocketboy> ita about 7m hight
[20:43] <rocketboy> (the spaorts hall)
[20:43] <edwardmoore> the engineering department is quite useful in that respect
[20:43] <edwardmoore> but equally we have kilometers to play with up at altitude
[20:44] <rocketboy> yeh - you need a pole to launch it on - away from the building side
[20:44] <jcoxon> edwardmoore, but we are going to struggle to test it
[20:44] <jcoxon> at altitude
[20:44] <edwardmoore> aye :)
[20:44] <edwardmoore> spaceflight is fun
[20:45] <jcoxon> rocketboy, how close are you to having XABEN2 ready etc?
[20:45] <rocketboy> I could be ready in a week
[20:45] <jcoxon> just so that we could piggy back a low altitude drop
[20:45] <edwardmoore> saturday next is totally gorgeous
[20:45] <edwardmoore> not a breath of jet-stream
[20:45] <jcoxon> and monday would also do
[20:45] <edwardmoore> according to current forecasts anyway
[20:46] <rocketboy> is that sat through monday or just sat and mondat
[20:46] <jcoxon> sat and monday
[20:46] <jcoxon> sadly not sunday as that would be the best day for me
[20:46] <rocketboy> ok (I'll book monday off as a backup)
[20:47] <jcoxon> well what i was going to suggest was that we build a rc model and piggy back off a launch
[20:47] <jcoxon> say self cutdown while still in sight
[20:47] <jcoxon> and then control it down
[20:47] <rocketboy> yeah - or what about a kite drop?
[20:47] <jcoxon> i can also have Peg V ready in a week
[20:48] <jcoxon> rocketboy, kites weren't playing nice yesterday when we tried
[20:48] <jcoxon> and the problem is that to get them up you need wind
[20:48] <edwardmoore> yeah- when they go into the ground they tend to do it hard :(
[20:48] <jcoxon> yet the parawing/foil won't like lots of wind
[20:50] <rocketboy> I see - i tried it myself - with a large low wind kite i have - but it cant lift much (in a low wind) - it only just lifted my 200g key chain
[20:50] <edwardmoore> lol
[20:51] <jcoxon> i'm thinking if we can test as much say off engineering
[20:51] <jcoxon> and then use precious launches to test it
[20:51] <edwardmoore> if the wind is nice there's a fair old distance down to the grassland
[20:51] <rocketboy> what about a teathered balloon?
[20:51] <jcoxon> apparently the CAA don't like them
[20:51] <jcoxon> i've never really worked out why
[20:52] <rocketboy> humm - I thinh the ANO allows them as long as they aer close to buidings and below 200ft - I'll check
[20:52] <edwardmoore> 200ft would be really useful
[20:53] <jcoxon> cool - i've got some pretty dead 200g balloons that i'd love to use up
[20:53] <jcoxon> edwardmoore, are you happy working on the rogallo wing model still?
[20:53] <jcoxon> i think we made progress
[20:53] <edwardmoore> yes...........
[20:54] <jcoxon> i guess the actually controls e.g navigation will be very similar what ever
[20:54] <jcoxon> just a matter of deciding a wing shape
[20:54] <rocketboy> "a balloon in captive or tethered flight shall not be flown at a height measured to the top of the balloon of more than 60 metres above ground level;"
[20:54] <edwardmoore> from an engineering process POV, yes. But i think i'm slightly biased towards parafoils. but i'll do my best to suppress it ;)
[20:54] <rocketboy> "A balloon in captive or tethered flight shall not be flown within 60 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure except with the permission of the person in charge of any such vessel, vehicle or structure."
[20:56] <jcoxon> rocketboy, perfect
[20:56] <edwardmoore> sounds perfect
[20:56] <edwardmoore> we should make a day of it
[20:56] <jcoxon> edwardmoore, do you want to shift to a parafoil design then?
[20:57] <jcoxon> i reckon in the end as we'll have parallel development it won't matter
[20:57] <jcoxon> one will be better then the other
[20:57] <edwardmoore> well it seems so much better at high speeds and into wind.
[20:57] <jcoxon> and once we then accept the 'winner'
[20:57] <jcoxon> single model dev will progress
[20:57] <rocketboy> agreed Need to make some way of holding the chute away form the tether line - and release it remotly
[20:58] <jcoxon> a bar with a counter weight
[20:58] <edwardmoore> i mean you can drop the thing vertically and it still flies, whereas the rogallos have a much higher risk of collapse
[20:58] <edwardmoore> especially if they pitch beyond a range of about 10 degrees
[20:59] <jcoxon> hmmmm
[20:59] <rocketboy> sounds good - or perhaps two tether lines in a upside down V - with a bar to seperate
[21:00] <jcoxon> rocketboy, yeah + that'll give the balloon more stability
[21:00] <rocketboy> more stability as a launch platform
[21:00] <edwardmoore> what day do you reckon?
[21:00] <jcoxon> edwardmoore, hehe you've been drawn in by their superduper promotional video
[21:01] <edwardmoore> totally :P but also the rogallo papers from nasa make mention of just how collapse prone the flexible rogallos are
[21:01] <jcoxon> yeah - they did abandon it
[21:01] <jcoxon> rocketboy, what do you think?
[21:03] <rocketboy> I think the parafoils are stronger/stiffer - so will hold up into a headwind - therfore better to glide into the wind.
[21:04] <rocketboy> not sure when the parafoils were developed wrt NPWs
[21:04] <jcoxon> afterwards
[21:04] <jcoxon> i think
[21:04] <edwardmoore> i'll see if there are some more modern nasa papers about that detail their design choises for foils over npw
[21:05] <jcoxon> edwardmoore, we can customise my parafoil pretty easily
[21:05] <edwardmoore> yes- that'll be very useful
[21:05] <rocketboy> its interesting that they chose a parafoil for the x-38 - i think that says somthing
[21:05] <edwardmoore> especially as it's built to a much higher tolerance than our bin liners
[21:05] <jcoxon> i guess with a parafoil also we don't have to make them from scratch
[21:06] <jcoxon> while the rogallo we are
[21:06] <edwardmoore> jcoxon- do we know what the optimum weight for it is?
[21:06] <edwardmoore> assuming it has a surface area of ballpark 0.4m
[21:06] <rocketboy> There are people in the US selling NPWs - so we could buy one if we wanted
[21:06] <jcoxon> nope
[21:06] <edwardmoore> rocketboy - i totally agree
[21:06] <edwardmoore> with the x-38 comment
[21:07] <jcoxon> i really like hte parafoil after onyx etc
[21:07] <rocketboy> yeah
[21:07] <jcoxon> i just don't want to abandon the rogallo cause we've been drawn in
[21:07] <jcoxon> by the promotional vide
[21:07] <edwardmoore> sure.... if we could do an inflatable rogallo we might be onto something
[21:08] <jcoxon> nasa did that it seems
[21:09] <rocketboy> Anyway I think much more testing is needed
[21:10] <jcoxon> of course
[21:10] <rocketboy> A 60m drop should be good - we could do that at ears (chrurchill might drift into the main road?)
[21:10] <edwardmoore> agreed
[21:11] <jcoxon> i've got lots of space at home as well
[21:11] <jcoxon> cause we wouldn't need permission i guess
[21:11] <rocketboy> oh yeah i'd forgotton
[21:12] <rocketboy> OF so we need a smallish balloon - enough to lift 1000g
[21:12] <jcoxon> i've got 2 old 200g
[21:12] <jcoxon> that can't be used for high altitude
[21:12] <rocketboy> that
[21:12] <edwardmoore> steve have a look at this one, especially the end- it seems they're doing what you said, i.e. a single main attachment and a braking line to pull the end down
[21:12] <rocketboy> tey would be ideal - need some helium - I can get that
[21:13] <edwardmoore> sorry, vid: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/X-38/Medium/EM-0038-09.mpg
[21:13] <edwardmoore> or maybe it's a left, a right, and a back one. i can't really tell
[21:16] <jcoxon> okay
[21:16] <jcoxon> how about we work towards a tethered balloon day say not next week but hte week after sometime
[21:17] <jcoxon> uni "finishs" a week today roughly
[21:17] <jcoxon> i think ed is pretty much sold on the parafoil
[21:18] <rocketboy> seems so
[21:18] <jcoxon> so how about we spend the day testing 2 parafoils
[21:18] <jcoxon> as in rocketboy's and ed and I
[21:18] <edwardmoore> hey i don't mind.... but it basically needs to be inflated whatever it ends up being
[21:18] <jcoxon> edwardmoore, parafoils are much easier at doing that!
[21:19] <edwardmoore> aye
[21:19] <jcoxon> i reckon we'd want to be in a position to begin to r/c control them
[21:19] <rocketboy> OK - need to work on a release mechanisum
[21:19] <jcoxon> shouldn't be that difficult to get to that stage
[21:19] <jcoxon> yeah
[21:19] <jcoxon> good point
[21:20] <rocketboy> I have a pill pin system that sems to work
[21:20] <jcoxon> servo?
[21:20] <edwardmoore> ok jcoxon- i've noted now that nasa and onyx control theirs by having a standard fixed rigging and then tugging at the right or rear left edges to steer
[21:20] <rocketboy> its like the relase on UKHAS1
[21:20] <rocketboy> a motor and a thread - which pulls a pin back
[21:21] <jcoxon> oh okay
[21:21] <rocketboy> the payload is held captive until the pin pulls back
[21:21] <jcoxon> rocketboy, so we could adapt that system for a balloon?
[21:22] <rocketboy> sure - probably need a radio system to work
[21:22] <rocketboy> or possibly a mobile phone somehow
[21:22] <rocketboy> I'll work on it
[21:22] <jcoxon> rocketboy, ooo that sounds like something fun to make
[21:23] <jcoxon> okay this is sounding good
[21:23] <jcoxon> i'm also going to delay peg V
[21:23] <jcoxon> cause i reckon its a good chance to test a bit higher than 200ft
[21:23] <jcoxon> i'll finish it this week
[21:23] <jcoxon> but it can wair
[21:23] <jcoxon> wait*
[21:24] <jcoxon> edwardmoore, so basically quite like the rogallo
[21:24] <jcoxon> (steering that is)
[21:24] <edwardmoore> yeah
[21:25] <edwardmoore> but you don't need the centre of gravity low down so much with this method
[21:25] <edwardmoore> you can have a prettier, sleeker payload ;)
[21:25] <jcoxon> hehe
[21:25] <jcoxon> i like the idea of having a control payload
[21:25] <jcoxon> and then sticking another payload below it
[21:25] <edwardmoore> inkeeping with the theme of passive stability that nova is using, we should make it so that a failed deployment won't kill anyone too much
[21:26] <edwardmoore> see i kinda like the idea of making an x-38 :p
[21:26] <edwardmoore> certainly something with a nice large soft base like that
[21:26] <jcoxon> well from what i'm putting together in my head we are going to use a pre-deployed drogue
[21:26] <jcoxon> to reassert stability at cutdown
[21:27] <jcoxon> so that would help
[21:27] <edwardmoore> yeah
[21:27] <jcoxon> but i agree something soft (and small and light)
[21:27] <edwardmoore> and it can deploy with parafoil with extreme efficiency and sexiness
[21:28] <jcoxon> exactly
[21:28] Action: edwardmoore is most fired up by the idea
[21:28] <jcoxon> i reckon we let it fall with the drogue to about 30,000ft
[21:28] <jcoxon> deploy the parafoil
[21:28] <jcoxon> steer it to where we want
[21:29] <jcoxon> and the either land or deploy big parachute
[21:29] <edwardmoore> hmm....
[21:29] <edwardmoore> onyx said they could get 30 miles from 35kfeet
[21:29] <edwardmoore> that might not be quite enough?
[21:29] <jcoxon> well its something to look into
[21:29] <jcoxon> i'm just not sure how useful a parafoil would be at low air density
[21:29] <jcoxon> would it inflate? or get nastly tangled
[21:29] <edwardmoore> well as steve's email said....
[21:30] <jcoxon> lower down when it deploys its going to be inflated straight away and be happy
[21:30] <edwardmoore> actually i can't remember the detail :) but we should be able to do something useful in the initial 10k
[21:30] <edwardmoore> yes that's true
[21:30] <rocketboy> the way I see it with parachutes things speed up until they act the same as low altitues
[21:30] <edwardmoore> well y'see this is what i was thinking with regards to the x38 shape
[21:31] <edwardmoore> if we can get it to fall perhaps even slightly directionaly, and stick a servo on the rudder, we can do useful things
[21:31] <jcoxon> hmmmmm
[21:32] <jcoxon> something to test
[21:32] <edwardmoore> servo on a rudder is technically not a biggie (i know i risk sounding like henry when i say stuff like that :) but it can use all the same algorithsm as the chute bit
[21:33] <jcoxon> true
[21:33] <jcoxon> would we use the winch mechanism or independent servos?
[21:34] <jcoxon> i'm thinking it looks more like a servo jobby
[21:34] <edwardmoore> yep it's a servo jobby. but the winch control board could easily handle it
[21:35] <edwardmoore> basically the gumstix just sends it direction commands and the control board switches from feeding them from rudder to chute as soon as the chute is deployed
[21:35] <jcoxon> oh i meant controlling hte foil :-)
[21:35] <edwardmoore> oh whhopsy, lol
[21:35] <edwardmoore> for the drop tests you mean?
[21:35] <jcoxon> for the final thing?
[21:36] <edwardmoore> it would be a servo- probably a more beefy pair of about 35g each
[21:36] <edwardmoore> probably for the final thing too :)
[21:36] <jcoxon> so we need to get our hands on some of those, some r/c stuff and adapt the parfoil then methinks
[21:37] <rocketboy> ebay
[21:37] <edwardmoore> i have lots of servos lying around at home
[21:37] Action: jcoxon has a nightmare of a world without ebay
[21:37] <edwardmoore> and some RC kit
[21:37] <jcoxon> can you get them sent up?
[21:38] <edwardmoore> getting it up to cambridge within the next 7 days might be a challenge though
[21:38] <edwardmoore> i'd proably have to go home as they're too distrubuted about the place for a parent to cope with
[21:38] <jcoxon> would it be easier to invest in some "new" (ebay) ones?
[21:40] <edwardmoore> yep
[21:40] Action: rocketboy greps round ebay
[21:40] <edwardmoore> although a transmitter and receiver won't be cheap
[21:42] <rocketboy> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Acoms-2-Channel-Technidrive-Radio-Control-System_W0QQitemZ300088398980QQihZ020QQcategoryZ140980QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
[21:42] <jcoxon> hehe
[21:42] <jcoxon> thats quite cheap :-[
[21:42] <jcoxon> oops that should be :-p
[21:42] <edwardmoore> lol. crudtastic :)
[21:42] <edwardmoore> go for it!
[21:43] <edwardmoore> does anyone have any servo horns knocking about?
[21:43] <edwardmoore> i do but they're in a similar situation to the rest of my stuff
[21:43] <jcoxon> i found this
[21:43] <jcoxon> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sanwa-VG600-Six-Channel-Transmitter_W0QQitemZ270095956294QQihZ017QQcategoryZ140980QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
[21:43] <jcoxon> it doesn't have the reciver though
[21:46] <jcoxon> rocketboy, are you going to bid on that transmitter/receiver combo?
[21:48] <rocketboy> don't mind either way
[21:49] <jcoxon> while more expensive i've found this: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ACOMS-TECHNIPLUS-27MHZ-TRANSMITTER-Receiver-Servo_W0QQitemZ320088665050QQihZ011QQcategoryZ2565QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
[21:49] <jcoxon> its buy it now so we'd get it by tues i reckon
[21:50] <edwardmoore> i'll chip in on that
[21:50] <edwardmoore> it looks good
[21:51] <jcoxon> or http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Futaba-Radio-Set-Transmitter-Receiver-Servos_W0QQitemZ180093916078QQihZ008QQcategoryZ34063QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
[21:51] <jcoxon> roughly same price
[21:51] <jcoxon> 2 servos
[21:51] <edwardmoore> i rate futaba servos
[21:51] <edwardmoore> always been a little more solid for me than other things
[21:51] <edwardmoore> tested a lot for my walking robot!
[21:52] <rocketboy> I'd go for the Futaba one too - happy to chip in also
[21:52] <jcoxon> okay shall get the futaba then
[21:53] <edwardmoore> coolies
[21:53] <rocketboy> I'll work on the release - I have a 868MHz system that should operate it over that distance
[21:53] <jcoxon> okay - are you still going to test your parafoil etc?
[21:54] <rocketboy> yep
[21:54] <jcoxon> okay
[21:54] <jcoxon> and ed and I put try and combine are new servo + r/c gear and a parafoil
[21:54] <edwardmoore> sounds grand
[21:54] <rocketboy> - sounds like a plan
[21:54] <jcoxon> perhaps if we do it in a nice way we could rapidly adapt to fit your parafoil as well
[21:54] <jcoxon> to see differences etc
[21:54] laurenceb (n=Laurence@cpc2-oxfd9-0-0-cust392.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) joined #highaltitude.
[21:54] <laurenceb> hi folks
[21:55] <laurenceb> lots of people!
[21:55] <jcoxon> hey laurenceb
[21:55] <rocketboy> yo laurence
[21:55] <laurenceb> I'm going home tomorrow :)
[21:55] <laurenceb> cant stay long got to pack
[21:55] <laurenceb> saw your parawing test
[21:55] <laurenceb> 11 looked promising
[21:56] <jcoxon> yeah we've just had a long long meeting
[21:56] <jcoxon> rocketboy, edwardmoore i've bought the r/c stuff
[21:56] <laurenceb> I've been thinking about glider design, see the glider page on the wiki
[21:57] <laurenceb> but now I think a parawing mightbe the way to go
[21:57] <edwardmoore> we don't anymore :p
[21:57] <laurenceb> I used all the necessary techniques for the parachute system on mihab1
[21:57] <laurenceb> oh okay
[21:57] <jcoxon> http://www.atairaerospace.com/onyx/operation.html
[21:58] <edwardmoore> parafoil has significantly better speed handing characteristics
[21:58] <edwardmoore> see the link
[21:59] laurenceb_ (n=Laurence@cpc2-oxfd9-0-0-cust392.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) joined #highaltitude.
[21:59] <jcoxon> this is the link: http://www.atairaerospace.com/press/onyx_video.html
[21:59] <laurenceb_> sorry I'm a bit lost
[21:59] <jcoxon> laurenceb have a look at hte logs
[21:59] <laurenceb_> erm parafoil
[21:59] <laurenceb_> as opposed to parawing
[22:00] <edwardmoore> yes
[22:00] <jcoxon> right guys i'm going to have to go - reckon we've made good progress - i like our plan
[22:00] <laurenceb_> ie the thing that people go "parawinging" with?
[22:00] <laurenceb_> cya
[22:00] <jcoxon> ed and i rc + parafoil
[22:00] <edwardmoore> cya jcoxon
[22:00] <jcoxon> rocketboy, parafoil test + release mech for tethered test
[22:01] <jcoxon> and of course anything else that can be done :-D
[22:01] <edwardmoore> lol
[22:01] laurence (n=Laurence@cpc2-oxfd9-0-0-cust392.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) joined #highaltitude.
[22:01] <laurence> arg it keeps disconnecting..
[22:02] <jcoxon> rocketboy, is that okay with you?
[22:02] <laurence> I though a parawing was good as its easy to make
[22:02] <laurence> so anyway, are you making an rc parafoil?
[22:03] <rocketboy> yep - sounds good
[22:03] <jcoxon> cool
[22:03] <rocketboy> so its
[22:03] <jcoxon> night
[22:03] jcoxon (n=jcoxon@jac208.caths.cam.ac.uk) left irc: "Leaving"
[22:03] <rocketboy> tethered test next weekend?
[22:03] <edwardmoore> sounds like it- although it'd be a shame to waste the gorgeous jet-stream conditions
[22:03] <laurence> what will you be testing?
[22:04] <edwardmoore> gravity :P
[22:04] <laurence> eh
[22:04] <edwardmoore> parafoils
[22:05] <laurence> going to make one that quickly?
[22:05] <rocketboy> we already have some
[22:05] <edwardmoore> with luck yes
[22:06] <rocketboy> OK - I'm off to work on the release mechanisum
[22:06] <laurence> I was always unconvinced about parafoils, they are hard to get right
[22:06] <rocketboy> Cya
[22:06] rocketboy (n=steve@host86-132-45-134.range86-132.btcentralplus.com) left irc: "Leaving"
[22:06] <edwardmoore> i need to go too- sorry to leave you!
[22:07] <laurence> but when I saw jamses parawing, I thought a semirigid hang glider type thing would be good
[22:07] <laurence> cya then
[22:07] <edwardmoore> rigidity is the issue
[22:07] <laurence> I could easily make one using the same techniques as on mihab1
[22:08] <edwardmoore> the blue-tack technique? :P
[22:08] <laurence> and control it with a servo and two lines - hand to explain
[22:08] <laurence> plastic welding
[22:08] <laurence> - hand=hard
[22:08] <laurence> need a diagram
[22:09] <edwardmoore> i think i know already
[22:09] <laurence> mihab1 was perfect, 2.38ms^-1 descent rate
[22:09] <edwardmoore> only so many ways to control parawings/foils with two lines and a servo!
[22:09] <edwardmoore> anyhu, i need to dash. will be on tomorrow. cya
[22:10] edwardmoore (n=edwardmo@pomegranate.chu.cam.ac.uk) left irc:
[22:10] laurence123 (n=Laurence@cpc2-oxfd9-0-0-cust392.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) joined #highaltitude.
[22:11] <laurence123> sorry i keep disconnecting
[22:11] <laurence123> probably missed someting
[22:12] <laurence123> anyway if hang gliders use parawings, they must be good enough for a high alt glider
[22:13] <laurence123> I will certainly try it out
[22:13] <laurence123> should have enough spare plastic ect to make one
[22:16] laurenceb (n=Laurence@cpc2-oxfd9-0-0-cust392.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) left irc: Read error: 113 (No route to host)
[22:17] Nick change: laurence123 -> laurenceb
[22:18] Tiger^ (i=tygrys@tangerine.dream.art.pl) left irc: Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)
[22:18] laurenceb_ (n=Laurence@cpc2-oxfd9-0-0-cust392.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) left irc: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)
[22:20] <laurenceb> looking at the nasa video, a semi rigid parawing cold be much more earodynamic
[22:21] <laurenceb> that parawing is not exactly drilliant
[22:21] <laurenceb> -brilliant
[22:25] icez_ (n=icez@ip68-3-56-121.ph.ph.cox.net) joined #highaltitude.
[22:27] <laurenceb> I may attempt a semi rigid parawing for the experiments next weekend, seeing as I have all the materials :)
[22:31] Tiger^ (i=tygrys@tangerine.dream.art.pl) joined #highaltitude.
[22:32] laurence (n=Laurence@cpc2-oxfd9-0-0-cust392.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) left irc: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)
[22:41] icez (n=icez@ip68-3-56-121.ph.ph.cox.net) left irc: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)
[22:47] <laurenceb> right I'm off
[22:48] laurenceb (n=Laurence@cpc2-oxfd9-0-0-cust392.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) left irc:
[23:51] flowolf (n=flowolf@host135-224-dynamic.1-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) left irc: "Leaving"
[00:00] --- Sun Mar 11 2007