yy 了一个  作个4个角以上的 加上MCU 控制 ,，集中上升，发射时在空中展开平台，我们因当能在空控制出相对水平位.打完后说不定架子还能回到一定区域内，实现回收。

如果在中国上空布置上,成千上万的这个好东西·`~``````g一定很好玩~~~·

如果这东西带上····多联装的飘在重要城市的上空作为防空用~~·泄空成本很低阿,为了防止无线压制，可以考虑备用的激光通信，或主动光学识别地面控制信号

方案不错。我的想法是装一堆小气球，排成一个环形(像面包圈)，发射架上安装1个几百mW激光。火箭发射后，发射架上的激光点爆一些气球减小浮力，当浮力减小到一定值后，架子开始缓慢下落，实现架子的回收，也避免了直接自由下落砸到什么。充入的气体如果是氢气，在点火发射的时候会发生空中爆炸，不能采用，所以必须是氦气。

引用第3楼jrcsh于2011-12-29 09:46发表的  :
如果这东西带上····多联装的飘在重要城市的上空作为防空用~~·泄空成本很低阿,为了防止无线压制，可以考虑备用的激光通信，或主动光学识别地面控制信号

1999年炸馆事件后讨论的“打巡航导弹”防空方案之一。

引用第4楼hefanghua于2011-12-29 09:49发表的 回 1楼(jrcsh) 的帖子 :
方案不错。我的想法是装一堆小气球，排成一个环形(像面包圈)，发射架上安装1个几百mW激光。火箭发射后，发射架上的激光点爆一些气球减小浮力，当浮力减小到一定值后，架子开始缓慢下落，实现架子的回收，也避免了直接自由下落砸到什么。充入的气体如果是氢气，在点火发射的时候会发生空中爆炸，不能采用，所以必须是氦气。

iowa state university的火箭小组用的就是环形气球排列

引用第4楼hefanghua于2011-12-29 09:49发表的 回 1楼(jrcsh) 的帖子 :
方案不错。我的想法是装一堆小气球，排成一个环形(像面包圈)，发射架上安装1个几百mW激光。火箭发射后，发射架上的激光点爆一些气球减小浮力，当浮力减小到一定值后，架子开始缓慢下落，实现架子的回收，也避免了直接自由下落砸到什么。充入的气体如果是氢气，在点火发射的时候会发生空中爆炸，不能采用，所以必须是氦气。

我想的是······当空中潜艇来玩,球球远离火箭,

这些方案都是不考虑气球回收的，气球不管是被火箭刺破，或者是由于气压自爆都是会毁的，即使用氢气发生爆炸也是在大气层边缘基本无害当然这些项目肯定都是用氦气的，用这么大量的氢气太危险了。发射配套系统的回收不是大问题，对于那个系统的回收用jpaerospace的就ok了 火箭装在发射筒里，因为是near space 气象条件极为恶劣大风低温，我对那种直接裸露箭体的方案不太赞同，可以做成像潜射导弹那样的运载箱。做成密闭环境里面还能放 那种暖手的袋子进行保温，降落伞外置就挂着。 对于回收定位系统具体的是在UCSD near space balloon那个网址里写的非常具体了。总之就是回收不是问题。

现在主要问题是点火，我不太了解坛内对于超远距离通信的水平，反正要么就是在大气层边缘自动点火或超远距离遥控点火，不管怎样点火都得在气球爆掉之前。

CALPOLY大学的火箭小组（之前误认为Iowa State University）
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/pastWork/rocketoon/

Home  > Rocketoon
Rocketoon

Rocketoon Project

Last updated: May 28, 2005

Rocketoon flies! On May 10, 2005 we went to Camp Roberts, CA at about 7:00 in the morning. All our team’s efforts and hard work paid off with a successful launch.

We arrived at Camp Roberts at about 8:00AM, only to be met by a large herd of sheep. The MPs chased them away, allowing our launch crew to continue to the site. We were all unpacked and ready to set up the launch site by around 9:00AM. It took us about an hour and a half to get everything ready for launch. It would have been shorter, but much of the time was spent recuperating from a parachute charge that went off on accident.

A big part of launch prep is filling and loading the NOx tank. Our Propulsion Team spent a lot of time and did a lot of tests in the weeks before this launch to get this filling procedure right. All this effort paid of in spades: it all went without a hitch. In fact, they made it look easy.

With the NOx tank filled we had to pack the parachute, charge the batteries, load and switch on the electronics, couple together and lock down the airframe and we are ready for launch! A count-down, then push the button.

The rocket took off beautifully. The motor burned for about 10 seconds, but it seemed like the rocket never really got enough speed to get stable. In tests, our motor produced about 70 pounds of peak thrust, and 40 pounds sustained. The rocket weighs a little over 20 pounds. At about 1000 feet, the rocket started to tip and then lose altitude. We tried to pop the chute, but it was a little too late and the rocket suffered some scrapes on landing.

The parachute failed to stay connected to the rocket and as a result, there was heavy damage to almost the entire rocket. In honor of its successful flight (before the parachute), we have officially and permanently retired the vehicle in its entirety of pieces up in the hanger. Special congratulations go out to the Propulsion Team as our hybrid motor worked perfectly this morning. This is the first time CPSS has designed a motor from scratch and to have it designed, built and working within a school year is a great accomplishment. We should also give props to the structures team who came up with an excellent rocket design, significantly better than last year (we’ll just use some epoxy to fill in the scrapes on this year’s model). Also, our electronics worked very well. This was truly a team effort and we couldn’t have done it without everyone’s hard work.

We learned a lot from this flight. But the real win today is that our own motor, designed a built here, worked like a champ!

HM1 Hybrid Rocket Motor

The task of the Cal Poly Space Systems Propulsion Team was to provide a hybrid motor for use in the Rocketoon project. Previously CPSS had used a Rattworks K240 hybrid motor for Rocketoon testing, but these tests were limited to ground tests only because the K240 lacked the ability to store the oxidizer liquid over long periods of time. Because a balloon launch required a safe storage mechanism for the liquid oxidizer it was decided that the Propulsion Team would design and create a hybrid motor capable of storing the oxidizer for a period of time before igniting and firing.

CPSS Hybrid Motor Version 1 (HM1) was designed with the Rattworks K240 as a reference. HM1 used the same polypropylene fuel grains as the K240. This meant that the HM1 and K240 combustion chambers had the same diameter and length, about 2.5 x 12 inches. Also, the amount of nitrous oxide needed would be the same. An aluminum Catalina Cylinders 9007 tank with storage capacity of 103 in3 was given as a sample to CPSS at no cost. The Catalina 9007 tank is rated to 1800 psi, and provides a safe means of storing nitrous oxide. On the K240, the combustion chamber and nitrous oxide container are in the same aluminum tube. Using a separate tank for nitrous oxide in the HM1 allowed for the weight of the oxidizer fuel to be moved forward in the rocket and thus move the rocket CG forward and increase stability. During early testing of HM1, standard industry tank valves were used for sealing the nitrous oxide tank. However, through testing it was found that standard tank valves were either too large for the Rocketoon body or did not allow for enough mass flow. Also, the lack of a good vent system on standard valves made filling the oxidizer tank a difficult task. CPSS with the help of the Cal Poly Mechanical Engineering hangar machine shop machined a tank fitting to both seal the oxidizer tank and enable gas venting during filling.

Oxidizer flow was controlled with a Holley Performance Super Pro Shot solenoid specifically designed for automotive nitrous systems. Even though the Super Pro Shot is rated at requiring 12 volts and 8.6 amps the CPSS Electronics team found a way to cut the power usage of the solenoid to the point where it could be used onboard the Rocketoon.

The combustion chamber and oxidizer injector provided a machining task that was far beyond the capabilities of CPSS. Duke Energy of Morro Bay generously offered to machine the HM1 combustion chamber and injector at completely no cost. Many hours went into the machining and the result was a pristine aluminum chamber and injector. It is no exaggeration to say that without the help of Duke Energy, Cal Poly Space Systems would not have been able to build a hybrid motor.

Successful static firing of the CPSS Hybrid Motor Version 1 was first made on January 27 at the Cal Poly Test Cell. The first two test firings both used a direct oxidizer line from the large nitrous oxide storage tank. The third test firing used the flight capable Catalina Cylinder 9007 tank. After three successful static tests it was decided to move onto tests for measuring thrust. A swinging horizontal test stand was build to be used in thrust measurement tests. The decision to use a horizontal test stand was prompted by the large hole in the asphalt cause by the successful vertical firings of the hybrid motor. After several failed firing attempts a successful thrust measurement test was made on May 5. The peak thrust was 70 lbs and the average thrust was 41 lbs.

CPSS wanted to be the first private group to put an object into space. Well, we weren’t. However, we still plan to be the first amateur team put an object in to space.

Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4

    

The Rocketoon Project is a combination of a high-altitude launch platform and a rocket. The launch platform is made using balloons; it carries the rocket up through the dense air to around 100,000 feet. The rocket then launches from the balloon platform and travels to the edge of space, about 62½ miles above the earth. Using the same process developed from the StarBooster Project, we will start small and build up to the final vehicle. The Rocketoon Project started in the Fall of 2003.

We started the project the project by building a series of 2-ft tall model rockets and a balloon based launch platform. Our goals were to test recovery systems and onboard electronic packages. The first series of rockets were flown from the ground to determine which had the best flight characteristics. The best performing rocket was then remotely launched from a balloon launch platform shown in Figure 1. The launch platform consisted of a lightweight rocket launcher held up by six helium balloons, each with an approximate diameter of three feet. The balloons went up 100 ft above ground, then we launched the rocket by computer from the ground. The rocket fired successfully on a size G solid rocket motor. The rocket pierced one balloon as it left the launcher, but the parachute opened at apogee and the rocket was recovered safely. The launcher was tethered so we could pull it back to ground without incident. The purpose of the launch was to gain experience with how much weight a helium filled balloon could lift and to test the remote firing capability. Both objectives were met and we started to plan for the larger rocket.

In the next phase of the project we built a 5-ft tall rocket with an auto recovery capability. We planned to launch this rocket from the ground to prove that all the electronic and mechanical systems worked. The rocket design included recovery fins that we controlled from the ground; we plan to use this same design on the full-scale rocket. The goal is to have some control over where the rocket lands after launch.

A major new aspect of the 5-ft rocket was a hybrid rocket motor instead of a traditional solid propellant. We did not have any experience with hybrid motors, so the motor was test fired on the ground several times before being used for the actual rocket flight. The motor is shown being prepared for a test fire in Figure 2. The fuel propellant for the hybrid motor was polyurethane and the oxidizer was nitrous oxide. We used data gathered from our static firing tests to find out what pressure the oxidizer tank needed to be at before the fuel would fire efficiently.

While the motor was being built and tested, another part of our group built the rocket. Both rocket and motor were ready for flight in May, 2004. The group reserved a large open field at Camp Roberts Army Training Facility in Bradley, CA for the launch. The skies were calm at the time of launch, but for the first attempt the igniter didn’t fire. The entire launch sequence was aborted and the igniter reloaded. On the second launch attempt, the rocket, shown in Figure 3, fired and got to 1000 ft. The parachute ejected correctly after apogee (shown in Figure 4) and the rocket landed safely. The on-board electronics showed altitude, pressure and acceleration during the flight. Video of the flight shows some control coming from the fins, but we need more testing to determine if this system will work at higher altitudes.

We concluded that this flight proved very promising and immediately began making plans for a high altitude launch to take place next year, in 2005. At the end of the school year, CPSS still had 35 very active members from seven different majors. Overall, the project is on track to be a success. The goal for the 2004-2005 year will be to launch a rocket off a balloon at high altitude.

making，mak ing也敏感词？

气球高空发射应该可行，技术上应该没有啥难度。点火可以通过气压计控制在指定高度，姿态控制KC正在紧锣密鼓的进行。难点在于这样巨型的缓慢爬升度物体，必须实现知会安全部门，得到安全部门的认可和不妨碍航线的安全，再有就是回收，这样的高度恐怕回收散步范围可达几十公里。

安全还在其次，问题在于这么一大套系统能否比同等射高的火箭便宜。
气球单位体积的浮力很弱，到了高空更加弱爆了，所以需要庞大的气球。
注意发射架外圈环形支架的直径接近一圈气球的直径，气球大了之后结构重量更大。
结构重量增加需要更大的气球，一旦到了面多加水水多加面的程度就没法收拾了。

气球受到火箭烧灼用一次就爆，球体和昂贵的氦气不能回收，成本也很高。

UCSD near space ballon 发射火箭可能只是个对外宣称的名义。
临近空间气球代替高空长航时无人机的意义大得多，军方前几年已经开始到处撒钱搞了。

我可能说的不太清楚，抱歉，UCSD near space balloon 只是探空气球，有nasa赞助。我只是想说那套探空气球的回收手段同样也能用于rockoon。 我还真的不知道cal poly也有rockoon项目。。  一个20英尺的气象气球差不多55美元。。氦气也很贵，成本高没法否认，但至少比多级火箭达到同一高度技术难度低。若在钱充裕的情况下还是可以考虑的。

通知安全部门是必须的， 回收范围据 UCSD他们的探空气球的反馈数据是在104公里之外回收的。 在天朝非常有难度

我之前说神马来着 各位懂了吧

气球预计的变化..

我的设想是可以控制回收机械的


张开机械手臂就可以避免被火箭把气球点着,

火箭离开后，在慢慢放出汽体，和带上一个动力装置进行方向控制，这样因当能尽量靠近回收点

说到放大气球，好酷这家伙也因当浮出水面来了

其实就算 不搭火箭上去我也有想过 diy 一个类似这样的东西,

放在 1`2km 的高空~~~~  上边架上摄像机~~·拍火箭和追踪着落点可省事了

更新点历史资料纯历史
American air-launched sounding rocket. The Rockoon (balloon-launched rocket) consisted of a small high-performance sounding rocket launched from a balloon above most of the atmosphere. The Rockoon low-cost technique was conceived during an Aerobee firing cruse of the Norton Sound in March 1949. Rockoons were first launched from icebreaker Eastwind off Greenland by an ONR group under James A. Van Allen. They were later used by ONR and University of Iowa research groups in 1953-55 and 1957, from ships in sea between Boston and Thule, Greenland. A variety of upper stage rocket stages were used.
From NASA SOUNDING ROCKETS, 1958-1968 - A Historical Summary, NASA SP-4401, 1971, by William R. Corliss

Rockoons have been mentioned several times in the preceding pages, particularly in connection with the Deacon rocket. The Deacons were used on most rockoons, but a rockoon is actually the combination of any balloon with any rocket. The rockoon concept seems to have been originated by Lt. M. L. (Lee) Lewis during a conversation with S. F. Singer and George Halvorson during the Aerobee firing cruise of the U.S.S. Norton Sound in March 1949. The basic idea is to lift a small sounding rocket high above the dense atmosphere with a large balloon in the Skyhook class. Once enough altitude is attained, the rocket is fired by radio signal straight up through the balloon. The rocket will reach much higher altitudes than it could from the ground. The rockoon has turned out to be a simple, cheap way of getting high-altitude data without special facilities. Many rockoons employing Deacon, Loki, and Hawk rockets were fired between 1952 and 1960. Once satellites and high-altitude sounding rockets became available in adequate numbers, the use of rockoons declined.
James A. Van Allen first put rockoons to practical use when he and his group from the University of Iowa fired several from the Coast Guard Cutter East Wind during its cruise off Greenland in August and September 1952. 41 Van Allen was looking for high-altitude radiation near the magnetic poles and needed a vehicle that could reach well over 80 km (50 mi) with an 11-kg (25-lb) payload and yet still be launched easily from a small ship. The rockoon was the answer. With his rockoons, Van Allen detected considerable soft radiation at high altitudes - much more than scientists expected. This was one of the first hints that radiation might be trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. One drawback to the rockoon was that it had to be fired before high-altitude winds carried it out of radio range.

Failures: 36. Success Rate: 75.84%. First Fail Date: 1952-08-21. Last Fail Date: 1957-10-17. Launch data is: incomplete.

Status: Retired 1992.
First Launch: 1952.08.21.
Last Launch: 1992.02.14.
Number: 149 .

JPaerospace 关于 rockoon项目的网址  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXml
这是另外个团队的发射记录   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXt/~bbrown/XXXXXXXXXXm
这个是个参加Google Lunar X Prize的团队他们打算用气球发射能到月球的火箭   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/10/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXml

国内打不开的话请留言我直接复制过来。

版主找到支持你的观点的文章了，总算明白为什么这种方法没有大规模应用。
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/teams/part-time-scientists/blog/rockoon-or-how-we-learned-to-love-the-rocket

So back in the middle of last year when we threw ideas around on how to get to the moon. One of the first ideas we looked into was the Rockoon. Like the name says it's a combination of a rocket and a balloon. We thought it would be innovative and cheaper. It wasn't a bad idea. But after some number crunching we figured out that the whole thing had a terrible catch. And here is why:
Used in late 40s and 50s, Rockoon was used to transport very light payloads to altitudes that are near the edge of earth's atmosphere. But to carry a full scale moon rocket that high, the balloon would have to have proportions beyond any economical sense. 1m3 Hydrogen or Helium can lift something slightly above 1Kg of mass. At sea level. But when it goes up the air-pressure half's every 5500m. Therefore the gas doubles its volume. At an altitude of 49.5Km the gas will have expanded by a factor of 512. The diameter of the balloon would be 8 times bigger as it's been at sea level.
Now let's take a very optimistic mass of 250Kg for a rocket. For that mass the balloon needs 250m3 of Hydrogen or Helium. That results in a diameter for the balloon on the ground of 8m. Growing to 64m after the ascend. At first that doesn't sound too bad. But now let's see the gain of energy the balloon delivered. We took 250Kg and brought them up to an altitude of 50Km. This equivalents to 123MJ (250Kg * 50000m * 9.81m/s2). The energy Density of Hydrogen is 11.7MJ/m3. This shows that it's not a bad idea to burn all that Hydrogen with a rocket instead.
More interesting is the ratio between the gained potential energy and the energy required to reach the earth orbit. A Mass of 250Kg traveling at 7.9Km/s has a kinetic energy of 7800MJ ( 1/2 m v2 ). Now let's think of the energy needed to send a rocket into earth orbit as a 100%. The energy that the balloon brings into the whole equation is a mere 1.58%. However, it's a different story with a balloon. Considering the Rockoon approach to the entire matter greatly complicates things. Increasing the number of variables that can lead to a total failure of the launch.
That's not even taking into account that the balloon will go where the wind pushes it and not where we want it to go.
One argument for a Rockoon is less air drag. For larger rockets the velocity loss due to air drag can be lower than 3% (1). A small rocket has a higher drag, that is one argument more against small launch vehicles.
It makes more sense to modify a air-air-missile and to launch it from an airplane flying at Mach 2,5. But even that only accounts for less than 1/8 of the needed speed to reach earth orbit. The fact that private people will have a hard time acquiring an air-to-air-missile is a matter for another time. The conditions are still better than with a balloon though.