Legal? - SPOT Helium Balloon Race

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

This was a crazy idea I had that my son thought would be a lot of fun. The
question is whether or not it is legal or advisable.

The idea is to tie a bunch of helium party balloons to a SPOT unit, then let
it go and see how far it gets. We would chase it down in a car.
Theoretically, we should be able to follow it and know exactly where it
lands from the SPOT tracking data - send to a PDA or monitored using a PC.

I thought it would be fun to get my 11 year old son and perhaps his science
class at school to help design it. They would learn a lot in the process -
such as calculating the number of balloons required, analyzing the weather,
etc. I was planning on including a parachute so it won't land hard if all
the balloons pop, and a dish shaped base to help it land right-side up so
the SPOT tracking data can be broadcast to the satellites after landing.
We'd also attach a note with our phone numbers. We'd try to keep it as
light and simple as possible so that it would not do any damage to aircraft
that might happed to hit it. I think the odds of it getting hit by an
airliner are extremely slight, but I certainly wouldn't want to cause any
issues with airliners and their passengers.

I think it would be a fun adventure that may even help convince my 11 year
old (nearly 12) son that doing glider retrieves would also be fun when he
gets his driver's license in less than 5 years.

But I don't want to do it if it is not safe, or not legal, etc. I don't
want to "take my chances" that it will be safe - unless the risks are
miniscule.

I look forward to your feedback. I imagine that it won't be positive, but I
just had to ask... It sounds like a fun adventure.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

[[email protected]]

Wow, I can't wait till my SPOT gets sucked into some big GE turbofan,
destroys the engine, and kills 200 people.

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> Wow, I can't wait till my SPOT gets sucked into some big GE turbofan,
> destroys the engine, and kills 200 people.

Radiosondes about the size of a SPOT are launched daily by balloon all
over the country, but I haven't heard of any GE turbofans finding them.
Perhaps there is a procedure for doing something like this safely.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Jim Logajan]

"Paul Remde" > wrote:
> This was a crazy idea I had that my son thought would be a lot of fun.
> The question is whether or not it is legal or advisable.

As to legality: check out part 101 of the FAA regs, first to 101.1 to see
if the balloon size and ops are such that 101 covers them, then on to
101.31 through 101.39 to see what would be required.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 2, 12:27*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This was a crazy idea I had that my son thought would be a lot of fun. *The
> question is whether or not it is legal or advisable.

I assume you paid for the free replacement contract and want to see
how effective it is ;)

If I was going to launch the balloons I'd rather not have anything
traceable to me attached to them.

I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in the
Phoenix area. They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. I don't relish the
idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.

My take - don't do it. If you have to do it, don't do it anywhere I
could be flying.

Andy

[Jim Logajan]

Andy > wrote:
> On Mar 2, 12:27*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This was a crazy idea I had that my son thought would be a lot of fun.
> *The
>> question is whether or not it is legal or advisable.
>
> I assume you paid for the free replacement contract and want to see
> how effective it is ;)
>
> If I was going to launch the balloons I'd rather not have anything
> traceable to me attached to them.

Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use the
public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains the
regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

> I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in the
> Phoenix area. They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. I don't relish the
> idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.

I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird than
a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.

> My take - don't do it. If you have to do it, don't do it anywhere I
> could be flying.

Just to be clear - if the risk of using a public commons is too great for
you, you always have the option of not using it. If free balloons bother
you that much, don't fly.

[BrianC-V6]

Sorry to break the news to you but, that winds aloft information you
get on your pilot breifing is typically generated by the NWS launching
2 weather balloons every day from 66 locations in the US.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/abr/?n=wxballoonfacts.php

Brian

[Jim Logajan]

I wrote:
> (In the U.S. part 101 contains the
> regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

Correction - "... regulations pertinent to legal operations of balloons."

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 2, 4:24*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use the
> public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains the
> regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

The operation described by the OP does not appear to be compliant with
101 subpart D. Perhaps he left out all the details that would make it
compliant. Perhaps he'd post again telling us how he intends to
comply.

> > I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in the
> > Phoenix area. *They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. *I don't relish the
> > idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.
>
> I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird than
> a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.

Maybe that's because unmanned balloon operations are regulated by 101
subpart D. The flight of birds is, to the best of my knowledge,
unregulated.

> Just to be clear - if the risk of using a public commons is too great for
> you, you always have the option of not using it. If free balloons bother
> you that much, don't fly.

I have never, while flying, seen an unmanned free ballon legally
operating inder 101 subpart D. The risk of meeting one does not
bother me.

Andy

[Jim Logajan]

Andy > wrote:
> On Mar 2, 4:24*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use
>> the public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains
>> the regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)
>
> The operation described by the OP does not appear to be compliant with
> 101 subpart D. Perhaps he left out all the details that would make it
> compliant. Perhaps he'd post again telling us how he intends to
> comply.

I believe you've misread the regulations by not reading 101.1. That is
where it states:

"This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States,
of the following:
....
(4) Except as provided for in 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that ...
"

So the "applicability" in 101.1 specifies the criteria that must be met
for _any_ of the remainder of Part 101 to be applicable.

Now in 101.31 in "Subpart D" it states "This subpart applies to the
operation of unmanned free balloons." But that subpart _isn't_ applicable
if the conditions in 101.1 aren't met. (Because it is a _subpart_.) If it
were applicable, then according to 101.33(d), anyone releasing something
as small as a helium party balloon in a town would be in violation of the
FARs.

When properly read, according to 101.1 any unmanned free balloon under 4
lbs of payload that presents suitably large surface areas is not subject
to any Subparts of Part 101.

>> > I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in
>> > the Phoenix area. *They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. *I don't relish
>> > the idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.
>>
>> I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird
>> than a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.
>
> Maybe that's because unmanned balloon operations are regulated by 101
> subpart D. The flight of birds is, to the best of my knowledge,
> unregulated.

A SPOT weighs 209g. It has a density less than water (it's designed to
float.) Might dent the prop or crack the windshield, but can't see it
causing a serious hazard. (You can save the prop from significant damage
but shutting off the engine and gliding. ;-))

And as I said, Subpart D of Part 101 isn't applicable to all unmanned
balloon operations. Small balloons meeting the criteria of 101.1(4) are
not covered by Part 101. The balloon the OP proposes could no doubt be
easily made to comply. And since the OP is a pilot would no doubt perform
the operation as safely as feasible.

[Jim Logajan]

"Paul Remde" > wrote:
> I was planning on including a parachute
> so it won't land hard if all the balloons pop,

I presume the parachute (or perhaps a simple cloth drogue?) would already
be deployed - it'd hang limp (most of the time) till needed.

> But I don't want to do it if it is not safe, or not legal, etc. I
> don't want to "take my chances" that it will be safe - unless the
> risks are miniscule.

As far as I can tell it can be done legally since a SPOT allegedly weighs
only 209 gms (~7.4 oz) and the smallest surface is ~4.7 in^2, or ~1.6
oz/in^2 -- well under the 3 oz/in^2 specified by 101.1(a)(4)(i). (Numbers
extracted from the specs on the SPOT web site.)

I'd be mindful of 101.7 when determing when and where to launch. I'd launch
in clear weather and use 101.33 as a guideline (even though it isn't
applicable to such a small balloon.) So if the worst happens I'd have shown
intent to not launch in a hazardous manner.

I don't know what the probability is of it causing an accident, but I'd
guestimate it is indeed miniscule. Infinitesimal probability of a
collision, multiplied by a small amount of damage, multiplied by the
probability that small amount of damage yields fatalities.

Bottom line is I would not personally have any issue if such a balloon were
launched while I was in any sort of aircraft in the same area.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 2, 11:18*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> I believe you've misread the regulations by not reading 101.1. That is
> where it states:

True, I missed that. It would appear that only 101.7 is applicable
given the mass of SPOT. That looks like an FAA wild card to be played
anytime they want.

Andy

[Paul Remde]

Thank you everyone for the interesting and informative posts.

While it may be legal and would be safe 99.999% of the time, I think I'll
scrap the idea. I would never want it to cause any issues.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Andy > wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 4:24 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use
>>> the public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains
>>> the regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)
>>
>> The operation described by the OP does not appear to be compliant with
>> 101 subpart D. Perhaps he left out all the details that would make it
>> compliant. Perhaps he'd post again telling us how he intends to
>> comply.
>
> I believe you've misread the regulations by not reading 101.1. That is
> where it states:
>
> "This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States,
> of the following:
> ...
> (4) Except as provided for in 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that ...
> "
>
> So the "applicability" in 101.1 specifies the criteria that must be met
> for _any_ of the remainder of Part 101 to be applicable.
>
> Now in 101.31 in "Subpart D" it states "This subpart applies to the
> operation of unmanned free balloons." But that subpart _isn't_ applicable
> if the conditions in 101.1 aren't met. (Because it is a _subpart_.) If it
> were applicable, then according to 101.33(d), anyone releasing something
> as small as a helium party balloon in a town would be in violation of the
> FARs.
>
> When properly read, according to 101.1 any unmanned free balloon under 4
> lbs of payload that presents suitably large surface areas is not subject
> to any Subparts of Part 101.
>
>>> > I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in
>>> > the Phoenix area. They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. I don't relish
>>> > the idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.
>>>
>>> I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird
>>> than a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.
>>
>> Maybe that's because unmanned balloon operations are regulated by 101
>> subpart D. The flight of birds is, to the best of my knowledge,
>> unregulated.
>
> A SPOT weighs 209g. It has a density less than water (it's designed to
> float.) Might dent the prop or crack the windshield, but can't see it
> causing a serious hazard. (You can save the prop from significant damage
> but shutting off the engine and gliding. ;-))
>
> And as I said, Subpart D of Part 101 isn't applicable to all unmanned
> balloon operations. Small balloons meeting the criteria of 101.1(4) are
> not covered by Part 101. The balloon the OP proposes could no doubt be
> easily made to comply. And since the OP is a pilot would no doubt perform
> the operation as safely as feasible.

[vontresc]

On Mar 3, 8:09*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Thank you everyone for the interesting and informative posts.
>
> While it may be legal and would be safe 99.999% of the time, I think I'll
> scrap the idea. *I would never want it to cause any issues.
>
> Good Soaring,
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
>
>
> > Andy > wrote:
> >> On Mar 2, 4:24 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >>> Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use
> >>> the public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains
> >>> the regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)
>
> >> The operation described by the OP does not appear to be compliant with
> >> 101 subpart D. *Perhaps he left out all the details that would make it
> >> compliant. *Perhaps he'd post again telling us how he intends to
> >> comply.
>
> > I believe you've misread the regulations by not reading 101.1. That is
> > where it states:
>
> > "This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States,
> > of the following:
> > ...
> > (4) Except as provided for in 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that ...
> > "
>
> > So the "applicability" in 101.1 specifies the criteria that must be met
> > for _any_ of the remainder of Part 101 to be applicable.
>
> > Now in 101.31 in "Subpart D" it states "This subpart applies to the
> > operation of unmanned free balloons." But that subpart _isn't_ applicable
> > if the conditions in 101.1 aren't met. (Because it is a _subpart_.) If it
> > were applicable, then according to 101.33(d), anyone releasing something
> > as small as a helium party balloon in a town would be in violation of the
> > FARs.
>
> > When properly read, according to 101.1 any unmanned free balloon under 4
> > lbs of payload that presents suitably large surface areas is not subject
> > to any Subparts of Part 101.
>
> >>> > I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in
> >>> > the Phoenix area. They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. I don't relish
> >>> > the idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.
>
> >>> I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird
> >>> than a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.
>
> >> Maybe that's because unmanned balloon operations are regulated by 101
> >> subpart D. The flight of birds is, to the best of my knowledge,
> >> unregulated.
>
> > A SPOT weighs 209g. It has a density less than water (it's designed to
> > float.) Might dent the prop or crack the windshield, but can't see it
> > causing a serious hazard. (You can save the prop from significant damage
> > but shutting off the engine and gliding. ;-))
>
> > And as I said, Subpart D of Part 101 isn't applicable to all unmanned
> > balloon operations. Small balloons meeting the criteria of 101.1(4) are
> > not covered by Part 101. The balloon the OP proposes could no doubt be
> > easily made to comply. And since the OP is a pilot would no doubt perform
> > the operation as safely as feasible.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is a bit off topic, but I found this neat project while googling
for balloon info yesterday.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/sonde/

These guys launched an RC glider to 65k' via a balloon. Cool Stuff!

Pete

[Eric Greenwell]

vontresc wrote:

>
> This is a bit off topic, but I found this neat project while googling
> for balloon info yesterday.
>
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/sonde/
>
> These guys launched an RC glider to 65k' via a balloon. Cool Stuff!

What a fascinating project!


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[lrbj]

On Mar 3, 7:22*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> vontresc wrote:
>
> > This is a bit off topic, but I found this neat project while googling
> > for balloon info yesterday.
>
> >http://www.members.shaw.ca/sonde/
>
> > These guys launched an RC glider to 65k' via a balloon. Cool Stuff!
>
> What a fascinating project!
>
> --
This might be an excellent and cheap way to have a local temp
trace! :)

Lars

[sisu1a]

> This is a bit off topic, but I found this neat project while googling
> for balloon info yesterday.
>
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/sonde/
>
> These guys launched an RC glider to 65k' via a balloon. Cool Stuff!

Actually 20k' cooler, it was launched to 85k'!

-Paul

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 11:03*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> > I was planning on including a parachute
> > so it won't land hard if all the balloons pop,
>
> I presume the parachute (or perhaps a simple cloth drogue?) would already
> be deployed - it'd hang limp (most of the time) till needed.
>
> > But I don't want to do it if it is not safe, or not legal, etc. *I
> > don't want to "take my chances" that it will be safe - unless the
> > risks are miniscule.
>
> As far as I can tell it can be done legally since a SPOT allegedly weighs
> only 209 gms (~7.4 oz) and the smallest surface is ~4.7 in^2, or ~1.6
> oz/in^2 -- well under the 3 oz/in^2 specified by 101.1(a)(4)(i). (Numbers
> extracted from the specs on the SPOT web site.)
>
> I'd be mindful of 101.7 when determing when and where to launch. I'd launch
> in clear weather and use 101.33 as a guideline (even though it isn't
> applicable to such a small balloon.) So if the worst happens I'd have shown
> intent to not launch in a hazardous manner.
>
> I don't know what the probability is of it causing an accident, but I'd
> guestimate it is indeed miniscule. Infinitesimal probability of a
> collision, multiplied by a small amount of damage, multiplied by the
> probability that small amount of damage yields fatalities.
>
> Bottom line is I would not personally have any issue if such a balloon were
> launched while I was in any sort of aircraft in the same area.

With the right size balloon you might be able to fit the Spot inside
the balloon envelope. I'm guessing that would reduce the chances of it
striking anything directly as the upwash ahead of any moving object
would tend to deflect it - plus you get a built-in airbag. Anyone
who's seen a balloon on a freeway can understand that.

As to the turbofan scenario - jet engines are designed to eat birds up
to 5 lbs (as Capt Sully found out to his dismay, geese are bigger). I
can't imagine a Spot is any tougher than a duck. You'd get some damage
I'd bet, but I doubt it'd be catastrophic.

With a little effort you could balance things so the balloon didn't
get into the Class A. For instance a small pinhole would allow helium
out at a rate to ensure that the balloon didn't get too high or go too
far - how long a chase do you want anyway? If you release it away from
and downwind of any significant terminal areas your odds of hitting
anything are infinitesimal.

Given all the time lags associated with Spot messages I doubt you'll
be able to track the thing close enough to actually see it until it's
already on the ground. Also, you'd have to worry about lakes and maybe
forests as possible unhappy endings. Without a good wide area wireless
connection you will have trouble tracking it in real time from the
road, so you'll have to wait for it to land, get a fix and go find it.

Overall it sounds a bit like you've run out of ways to entertain
yourself over the winter. ;-)

9B

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
>> Bottom line is I would not personally have any issue if such a balloon were
>> launched while I was in any sort of aircraft in the same area.
>
> With the right size balloon you might be able to fit the Spot inside
> the balloon envelope. I'm guessing that would reduce the chances of it
> striking anything directly as the upwash ahead of any moving object
> would tend to deflect it - plus you get a built-in airbag. Anyone
> who's seen a balloon on a freeway can understand that.
>
> As to the turbofan scenario - jet engines are designed to eat birds up
> to 5 lbs (as Capt Sully found out to his dismay, geese are bigger). I
> can't imagine a Spot is any tougher than a duck. You'd get some damage
> I'd bet, but I doubt it'd be catastrophic.
>
> With a little effort you could balance things so the balloon didn't
> get into the Class A. For instance a small pinhole would allow helium
> out at a rate to ensure that the balloon didn't get too high or go too
> far - how long a chase do you want anyway? If you release it away from
> and downwind of any significant terminal areas your odds of hitting
> anything are infinitesimal.
>
> Given all the time lags associated with Spot messages I doubt you'll
> be able to track the thing close enough to actually see it until it's
> already on the ground. Also, you'd have to worry about lakes and maybe
> forests as possible unhappy endings. Without a good wide area wireless
> connection you will have trouble tracking it in real time from the
> road, so you'll have to wait for it to land, get a fix and go find it.

Assuming you mean "wireless" as used for computer communication, that
may not be a limitation: SPOT service can be set to send text messages
with the coordinates to your cell phone, which usually has a lot more
coverage. The truly determined could rent/borrow a satellite phone for
the day of the flight. SPOT floats - tow a boat with your retrieve vehicle!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 4, 4:14*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> Bottom line is I would not personally have any issue if such a balloon were
> >> launched while I was in any sort of aircraft in the same area.
>
> > With the right size balloon you might be able to fit the Spot inside
> > the balloon envelope. I'm guessing that would reduce the chances of it
> > striking anything directly as the upwash ahead of any moving object
> > would tend to deflect it - plus you get a built-in airbag. Anyone
> > who's seen a balloon on a freeway can understand that.
>
> > As to the turbofan scenario - jet engines are designed to eat birds up
> > to 5 lbs (as Capt Sully found out to his dismay, geese are bigger). I
> > can't imagine a Spot is any tougher than a duck. You'd get some damage
> > I'd bet, but I doubt it'd be catastrophic.
>
> > With a little effort you could balance things so the balloon didn't
> > get into the Class A. For instance a small pinhole would allow helium
> > out at a rate to ensure that the balloon didn't get too high or go too
> > far - how long a chase do you want anyway? If you release it away from
> > and downwind of any significant terminal areas your odds of hitting
> > anything are infinitesimal.
>
> > Given all the time lags associated with Spot messages I doubt you'll
> > be able to track the thing close enough to actually see it until it's
> > already on the ground. Also, you'd have to worry about lakes and maybe
> > forests as possible unhappy endings. Without a good wide area wireless
> > connection you will have trouble tracking it in real time from the
> > road, so you'll have to wait for it to land, get a fix and go find it.
>
> Assuming you mean "wireless" as used for computer communication, that
> may not be a limitation: SPOT service can be set to send text messages
> with the coordinates to your cell phone, which usually has a lot more
> coverage. The truly determined could rent/borrow a satellite phone for
> the day of the flight. SPOT floats - tow a boat with your retrieve vehicle!
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * * * Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"

You are going to want to hang the spot under the balloon some
distance, maybe on a little platform so the thing can be oriented
pointing roughly up for best GPS reception (not really an issue) and
best GlobalStar coverage (more of an issue).

Eric's idea of SMS message to an Iridium phone sounds sexy if you are
really remote. However SPOTcast/tracking only works to the internet
and won't transmit position data to SMS or email. So you will have to
modify the SPOT to "press" the OK button. Very simple to hack for
somebody with electronics skill, but encouraging this might annoy
SPOT, Inc. You'd need to find out if SPOT supports SMS to Iridium
numbers. Many places do, people even twitter to them etc.

My perception is that many of the SPOT position delays that Andy
mentioned are associate with the SPOT web pages, SMS and email
messages may get thought faster. It would be great to know if anybody
has hard data on this.

The problem on landing is the SPOT is unlikely to land upright
oriented with sight of the satellites so the best you may get is a 10
minute old position fix which may or may not be enough to find the
unit.

The idea of launching some balloons with small cameras etc on them as
a project with kids is quite interesting.

Darryl

[BrianC-V6]

Here is the big kid version of it...

a balloon launch to 80,000 feet.

http://www.thefintels.com/aer/hab3.htm

Brian

[Gavin Short[_2_]]

At 23:48 05 March 2009, BrianC-V6 wrote:
>Here is the big kid version of it...
>
>a balloon launch to 80,000 feet.
>
>http://www.thefintels.com/aer/hab3.htm
>
>Brian
>
>
>

Paul,
it looks like some Spanish teenagers have beaten you to it. Perhaps you
need to set your sights higher.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5005022/Teens-capture-images-of-space-with-56-camera-and-balloon.html

Gavin
Std Cirrus, CNN now G-SCNN, #173
LSV Viersen, Keiheuvel, Belgium