From: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Frequently Asked Questions - Part 4 of 5
Keywords: FAQ
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:55:42 GMT
Expires: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 15:00:00 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Radio Software Dept

Rec.Models.Rockets FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Part 4 of 5

Last Modified: 16 Nov 1992

*** Part 4: Payloads 

[Note: This part of the FAQ is maintained by Jack Hagerty (jack@rml.com)  
Any additions or corrections should be sent to that address]

Updates
-------------
Dec '92: Added (long) section on Astrocam tips; updated transmitted
   video, data logger and novelty payload sections with reader input;
   changed all references to _The Tripolitan_ to HPRM (High Power 
   Rocketry Magazine).
-------------

Introduction - Flying sport rockets is fun. Flying competition rockets can 
be exciting in the heat of battle. Scale models (my favorite) can be as much 
of a challenge to research and build as they are to fly.  But if you want to 
do something "real" with your rocket, you've got to fly a payload. This also 
provides you with a good response to the perpetual question from the the great 
unwashed masses when they ask "so, what's it do?"

I've  organized this section into the following topics (suggestions for 
expansion into other topics gladly accepted):

4.1 Camera Payloads 
   4.1.1 Commercial Cameras 
   4.1.2 Homebrew cameras 
   4.1.3 Video 

4.2 Data Gathering Payloads
   4.2.1 Transmitter
   4.2.2 Data logging
   4.2.3 Sample collection

4.3 Bio-payloads

4.4 Novelty Payloads
   4.4.1 Contest payloads
   4.4.2 Ejecting payloads

----------------------------

4.1 Camera Payloads 
   
   Cameras are the most often flown payloads (after eggs and bugs :-) because 
   they hit us where we live. No other payload lets us see the flight from our 
   rocket's point of view. The intensity of interest in camera payloads can be 
   seen by how early they were flown: Goddard flew them, the VfR (the German 
   rocket society which gave Von Braun his start) flew them and, of course, 
   dozens of post war sounding rockets carried camera payloads. 

   Some of the products and techniques that have been tried and/or are still 
   available are:

4.1.1 Commercial Cameras (chronological order):
	
Camroc - The first purpose-designed rocket camera. Designed by Estes and 
   sold from 1965 to 1974. A marvel of simplicity, it was patterned after 
   several homebrew cameras of the early '60s (see 4.1.2). It was simply a 
   cylindrical body that held the film topped by a hemispherical nose that 
   was flattened off to accept the optical window which the forward facing 
   lens looked through. One shot per flight on "Astropan 400" (Kodak Tri-X) 
   cut into a 1 1/2" dia. round negative. Easy to process at home. The film 
   had to be push processed to 1200 ASA (officially, though most home 
   developers went to 1600). Extremely valuable on the collector market.
   [Note: Don't write me asking how much your old Camroc's worth. Bob
   Sanford (72020.371@compuserve.com) tracks those sorts of things - JH]

   Greg Smith (smith@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu) describes some of the various hacks 
   of the Camroc: "At one time there were quite a few homebrew modifications to 
   the Camroc floating around. Most popular was substituting a 3-element glass 
   lens from Edmund Scientific for the standard plastic lens; it gave much 
   sharper and better color-corrected results. I have also seen a wide-angle 
   variation with yet another Edmund lens that required cutting the forward body
   section of the Camroc down to a much shorter length. As someone pointed out 
   at the time, the Camroc lens was a short telephoto relative to its film 
   format. It doesn't make sense to send a rocket up as high as possible and 
   then use a telephoto lens to get a SMALLER angle of view; it's a wide angle 
   you really want, so you can get more in the picture from a lower, easier-to-
   aim flight with a smaller motor and less risk of losing the camera. Several
   people flew color slide film in the Camroc, but high-speed color films were 
   pretty terrible at the time; the ASA 1600 print films available today would 
   probably work very well in it."   

Cineroc - Estes' second foray into camera payloads, the Cineroc was *much*
   more sophisticated than the Camroc. This was a full bore 8mm movie camera 
   crammed into a package not much bigger than it's predecessor (although more 
   aerodynamic). Introduced with much fanfare in 1969, it lasted only 5 years 
   before its plug was pulled in 1974. The lens looked aft via a hooded mirror 
   and it shot ~15 sec worth of flight time at 2X speed (30 sec projection 
   time). At least that's what the spec says. In reality, most Cinerocs ran in 
   the 18 - 20 fps range which is more-or-less normal speed. The film was a 
   Kodak ASA 160 instrumentation film on a polyester base which was probably 
   adopted because it was the only daylight-balanced Super 8 film available.  
   The Cineroc used a custom film cartridge meaning that you either used the 
   Estes processing service or went to a custom lab.  It could be developed 
   at home using a Kodak E-4 developing kit, but this was *much* more trouble 
   than most modelers would want to go.

   The official reason for its early demise, still lamented to this day, was 
   that the small electric motor it used went out of production. However, 
   in a conversation with Mike Dorffler (the designer) he revealed that the 
   product was killed by a combination of events that occurred over a very
   short (2 month) period in early '74: the motor went out of production,
   Eveready stopped making the tiny "N" batteries, Kodak changed the formula 
   of the film which couldn't be accommodated by the custom lab doing their 
   processing and, the coup de' gras, a technician dropped the mold for 
   making the custom lens.

   Many Cinerocs are still flown today nearly 20 years later. The size "N" 
   alkaline batteries, much better than the original carbon-zinc ones that 
   Estes supplied, are widely available now; and the new film stock (which 
   is available off the shelf, not special order like the one Estes originally 
   chose) is sharper and less grainy than the old stuff. Both of these 
   actually make for easier and better Cineroc results today than when it was 
   first introduced.  You do still need a custom film lab to deal with the 
   nonstandard lengths of 8mm film, however.

Astrocam 110 - Another Estes product and something of a combination of the 
   previous two. Reverting to the still format, the Astrocam was designed 
   around a stock 110 cartridge. It took multiple shots per roll of 400 
   speed color print film, but still only one frame per flight. The lens 
   looked out through a hooded mirror (like the Cineroc) but this time looking 
   forward (like the Camroc). Image quality was marginal due to the plastic 
   lens and small format, but the film can be developed anywhere (although the 
   prints are reversed). A very long lived product, it lasted from it's 1979 
   introduction until early 1992, and literally thousands are still in use.
   A late rumor has it that Estes may bring it back in early 1993 due to
   public demand.

   [With so many still around, the Astrocam is the source of continual threads
   on r.m.r. Following is a distillation of nearly half a megabyte worth of 
   Astrocam discussions I've archived - JH]

GENERAL TIPS

   Jim Cook <J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM>:
   Some observations from myself and C.D.Tavares:

* The film is quite grainy, hence a lot of people move on to 35mm cameras.

* Underexposure is a problem - the pictures are lousy if you launch in 
    anything other than bright sun.  Of course, there's also the usual problem 
    of forgetting to open the safety shutter before launch.

* Overexposure is a problem several ways: 
   - The shutter cord can get tangled in the shroud lines, taking multiple 
     exposures or one long exposure.
   - A hard impact can take another shot.  At the least, landing impact will 
     close the safety shutter making you wonder if you forgot to open it 
     before launch.
   - Problems with sun and heat on the pad make some folks drape it with 
     aluminum foil until final countdown.
   - Adjustments on the pad are always a source of causing the shutter
     to go off on the pad.

*  Chris suggests advancing the film before take off and advancing it after 
    landing. Yes, it wastes film, but you tend to not use all the shots anyway. 
    I believe that Kodak only makes 24 shot rolls of ASA 400 110 size film.  
    
SOME THOUGHTS ON FILM

John Viggiano (jsvrc@rc.rit.edu):
   Modern C-41 stocks have a 2-step under / 3-step over exposure lattitude. The 
   material has so low a contrast that little information is lost; the effect 
   is primarily a density shift which can be removed during printing.

Jack Hagerty (jack@rml.com):
   K-Mart 200 speed print film (which is made by 3M, and sold under many 
   different "house" brands) makes an acceptable medium. It's cheap, comes in 
   12 exposure rolls, and has enough latitude to give acceptable exposure.

ENGINE COMBOS

Jim Cook <J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM>:
   Given a well constructed Astrocam, a C6-7 will produce a good shot.  
   However, an Estes D12-7 will produce a horizon shot or blurry shot as it 
   is still in motion (this was reported in the Model Rocketeer about 10 years 
   ago).  A little weight will cure this without negating the effect of the D 
   motor.  I've also used AeroTech D21-10 or E25-10 can work well, though I 
   wonder if a 10 second delay tends to produce horizon shots with an E-powered 
   launch.  Dan Wolman tried an F-based launch which resulted in a blurry image 
   (again, probably too short a delay), so he tried an F25-10 and lost it to 
   wind/thermals.  

Harry C. Pulley (harry@aeshq.UUCP):
   With C6-7 engines, I have found that vertical flights range from 550-650 ft 
   in altitude.  For horizon shots with C6-5 engines, the altitude was a little 
   better (photo taken earlier in descent) maybe 600-700 feet.  

Jack Hagerty (jack@rml.com) [talking about small field flying]:
   Estes B6-4's give horizon shots 
   Quest B6-4's give sky shots
   Estes B4-6's give ground shots from ~30' up (real heart stoppers!)
   Estes B8-5's give reasonable ground shots

REVERSING THE CAMERA

Chris Tavares (cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com):
   The original article [on reversing the Astrocam] was "Retrospective Rocketry"
   in a 1980(?) issue of Model Rocketeer.  It's since been reprinted by Estes in
   one of their Model Rocket Newses, which you should be able to get.  It may 
   also be available from NARTS.

[Moderator's Note: the book _Advanced Model Rocketry_ by Michael Banks shows a 
   couple of reverse-Astrocam hacks including a "stereo" version incorporating
   two cameras hanging on either side of a large body tube.  This, IMHO, would 
   not produce any stereo effect at altitudes above 50' due to the miniscule 
   baseline (the OD of the body), but would double your chances of getting a 
   shot. Additionally, Tom Beach has a dual, rear-facing Astrocam (tandem) 
   which he flew at NARAM 34, a photo from which was published in the 
   Sept/Oct '92 AmSpam - JH]

CLEANING THE CAMERA

Jim Cook (J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM):
   There is one hint that I don't think has been mentioned: Bring a few Q-tips 
   to the launch field in your range box.  Use them to clean the lens before 
   launch.

Jack Hagerty (jack@rml.com):
   I believe a #1 Camel's hair brush is a better cleaning tool than a Q-tip 
   for the mirror. Since the Q-tip doesn't bend like the brush bristles do, 
   the surface pressures on that front-surfaced mirror can be quite high. I'm 
   not sure what material is used for the "cotton" tip (rayon?) but some 
   synthetic fibers can be very abrasive.

   To prevent dust from collecting on the mirror, I store my Astrocam/Delta 
   horizontally from a string with half a paper clip at each end hooked into 
   the launch lugs. Some people bag the camera in a plastic produce bag.

GETTING THE PHOTOS PRINTED "RIGHT"

Jack Hagerty (jack@rml.com):
   Find a 1 hr photo place that does 110 film then have the film processed
   normally. This means, of course, that the images will be reversed. If any 
   of the flight (or ground photos for that matter) came out well, then hand 
   the negatives back to the service droid and ask him/her to make some 
   reprints with the negative flipped. The key is that you're talking to the 
   person who'll be pushing the buttons so you can watch them do it.

   If there's no one else ahead of you in the processing queue, they can do 
   this while you wait (it only takes abt 5 minutes) and if they screw it up, 
   you can refuse the print and they'll try again.

======================================

Other commercial camera payloads - California Consumer Aeronautics (San 
   Diego, CA) sells a very small Super 8 movie camera suitable for HPR 
   payloads, but it's not a ready-to-fly system. Cotriss Technology (San 
   Jose, CA) specializes in rocket photography, and sells a complete HPR 
   still camera system (including rocket) called the Observer. 

   Note: I have not had dealings with either of these companies. Proceed 
   at your own risk. Address and phone info in the "address" section.

4.1.2 Homebrew cameras and techniques:

Still Cameras 

Historic - The earliest hobby type rocket with a camera was reported on 
   in the March 1983 issue of _The Model Rocketeer_ (the predecessor to 
   AmSpam) in the article "King George VI's Rocketeers." As Chris Tavares 
   (cdt@sw.stratus.com) reports: "A school group in Scotland formed what 
   is possibly the first model rocketry club [in the late '40s - JH]. Of 
   course, there were no commercial model rocket motors available, but they 
   used pennywhistle fireworks motors. The group's advisor designed and flew 
   a camera-bearing rocket with which he took several photos of a nearby 
   loch. The motors were pre-manufactured by professionals, used once, and 
   thrown away.  The airframes were designed by the modelers, and made out 
   of paper and light woods.  It's as valid an implementation of 'model 
   rocketry' as what goes on today in eastern Europe."

   According to Stine (Handbook, 2nd Edition) the first true "model rocket" 
   (in the NAR Safety Code defined sense) camera payload was flown by Lewis 
   Dewart in 1961. Lewis simply strapped a tiny Japanese novelty camera to 
   the side of a model.  The shutter was tripped by the nose cone separating.  
   Shortly after that, Dennis Guill upped the sophistication by taking the 
   shutter and lens of a similar camera and mounting it on a plastic tube 
   that just fit inside a rocket body tube with the lens facing forward. It 
   used sheet film cut into a circular negative and the cocked shutter was 
   released by a lanyard (a shoelace!) at ejection (sound familiar?). It was 
   an aerodynamic nightmare, but Estes saw enough promise to develop it into 
   the Camroc.

Current - The present wealth of lightweight, autowind cameras on the market 
   makes it relatively easy to design a sequence camera that shoots a whole 
   roll of film on a flight. A crude-but-effective setup was developed by 
   Peter Alway and described in Vol 3, No 2 issue of _T-5_ (the HUVARS 
   newsletter). Peter took a cheap autowind 110 camera and came up with a 
   simple arrangement of a motor, a stick and some bits of wire to repeatedly 
   trip the shutter.  This setup was flown on an "E" motor.

   A similar, but more sophisticated, system was detailed in the March/April
   1992 issue of AmSpam. Steve Roberson designed his system around HPR to give 
   him power to boost a high quality 35mm camera to significant altitudes. He 
   took a relatively expensive Olympus autowind camera and triggered it with a 
   very solid (but simple) cam-and-lever mechanism. A nice feature of this 
   camera is that it automatically rewinds the film into the can at the end of 
   the roll which would enhance its survivablity in the event of a crash. A 
   tribute to Steve's design and flying skills is that the camera and rocket 
   were retired, intact, after 22 High Power flights (H & I motors).

   A recent variation on this theme was flown by Bob (I forget the last name)
   at NARAM 34 last August. He had found a brand of compact 35mm camera which
   comes equipped with "sequence" mode (i.e. it keeps shooting at ~1 fps as 
   long as the shutter is pressed). Additionally, the shutter is electronic so 
   that all it takes is a contact closure to activate (no more moving parts). 
   Bob had switches at several places on the rocket to trigger the camera 
   either as it cleared the launch rod, or at payload separation. He also used 
   a recovery harness to keep the lens pointed at the ground during descent.

   Another very involved HPR camera project by Ray Dunakin was covered in
   five parts (and counting) by HPRM over the 5 issues of 1992, but is too 
   involved to even summarize here.

   Several r.m.r readers have announced projects to convert cheap film-box
   cameras into payloads, but none have posted their results yet. One
   ambitious soul (name please!) is even attempting to add film advance/shutter 
   trip mechanism to make a sequence system. We'll keep you posted.

Movie Cameras - The first model rocket movie camera was flown by Charles & Paul 
   Hans and Don Scott in 1962. A heavy spring-wound Bosley 8mm camera was 
   crammed into a payload section and lofted by an early "F" motor. The story 
   is still recounted by Stine in the most current edition of the Handbook. 
   (Note: Paul Hans currently works for ISP/Aerotech).

   Due to the greater difficulty of adapting a movie camera, and relatively
   easy access of Cinerocs, not too many homebrew movie cameras have been 
   flown, compared to still cameras. I'd be happy to include documented 
   examples here, if you send me the references.

4.1.3 Video 

   This is a brand new area with much work going on, but only a few 
   successes to report. There are two ways of returning video from a rocket: 
   record and transmit. 
   
Record - Following the lead of film cameras, attempts have been made to 
   fly stripped camcorders (using HPR, obviously!) to record the flight 
   while on board. Video tape recording, however, is a very delicate 
   technology and the accelerations encountered in rocket flight jiggle, 
   dislodge and otherwise move the tape all over the recording heads in 
   a disruptive manner. To date, I have only one report of someone making 
   this work. Stu Barrett (barrett@add.itg.ti.com) reports: "At a recent San 
   Antonio Prefecture launch, Randy Reimers (an expert video technician) had 
   a Sony camcorder with the camera separated from the transport via a wire 
   harness. He had the transport installed so that the tape was vertical to 
   the ground.  That seemed to keep the tape on the tape heads.  He did say 
   that under the acceleration of a K550, there was a slight herringbone 
   pattern on the tape during the boost that he attributes to vibrating tape 
   due to high G's.  The J415 did not have this phenomena."

   [Moderator's note: Both Stu and I agree that this sounds sideways. One 
   would think that the tape transport should be positioned so the tape runs 
   horizontal (WRT the acceleration) over the heads. What can I say? This guy 
   is the expert and he got results - JH]

Transmit - Transmitted video has had more frequent success, but complicates the 
   process by adding a whole new technology. While the components that ride 
   in the rocket have no moving parts, you must add transmitters and antennae 
   to your vehicle, plus receivers and recorders to your GSE.  License-less 
   video transmitting is allowed by the FCC, but the power limitations raise 
   more problems. Omni directional transmit antennae are easy to track, but 
   the signal strength drops off *fast* (inverse square law).  Directional 
   antennas concentrate the signal, but require that you track the rocket, or 
   hope that it doesn't go too far off course! 

   A good, but somewhat superficial, article on transmitted video appeared 
   in the July '92 issue of _73 Amateur Radio Today._ Being a radio hobby 
   magazine, it concentrated on that aspect (and assumed you know a bit 
   about it) and left the rocket parts at sort of the gee-whiz level. The 
   system transmitted with 6 Watts (the developer was a licensed ham) and 
   returned a good, clear picture to an altitude of 1,200 ft. The rocket 
   was an HPR (no details given) but this was just the checkout vehicle for 
   the transmitter hardware which is slated to go into an LOX/Kerosene amateur 
   rocket with a design altitude of 200,000 ft.

   Additionally, the HUVARS group is working on this technology, plus HPRM 
   is promising an article on the subject RSN :-)

Commercial - Hans Schneider (Plainsboro, NJ) runs a rather crude ad in HPRM 
   offering an HPR based B&W video broadcast system (including rocket) for 
   a hefty $385.

   Jim Cook <J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM> informs us that SuperCircuits in Hermosa 
   Beach, CA  is a good contact for minature video camers (B&W and color), 
   transmitters, and receivers.  Note that the operation of this transmitter 
   requires a ham radio license.
----------------------------

4.2 Data Gathering Payloads 
   
   The payloads covered in this section come the closest to the "real" kind in 
   purpose. The whole reason for launching professional rockets is to return 
   information from a place that is difficult, dangerous or even impossible 
   to visit first hand.

   The earliest data gathering payloads in model rockets were pretty crude. The
   only way of returning the data was to send the recording media up with it.
   Thus we had peak-reading accelerometers consisting of a spring mounted weight
   scratching a line on some graph paper, peak-reading dial or mercury tube
   thermometers, peak-reading manometers and...well, you get the idea :-)

   It wasn't long before advances in electronics, namely small and cheap
   transistors, made it possible to launch radio transmitters to return data
   from the whole flight (not just the peaks) to the ground for later analysis.
   Now only the sensors had to fly while the recording and analysis equipment
   could stay on the ground (again, much like the "real" thing).

   The astounding recent advances in electronics and computer science have 
   brought us full circle. The absolutely unforseeable (at the beginning of 
   the hobby) degree of miniaturization in electronics has once again allowed 
   us to launch the recording media, but now it's in the form of a full blown 
   computer system small enough for even modest model rockets to loft. Rather 
   than getting one crude data point per flight, we can get hundreds or even 
   thousands while doing the analysis right on board!

4.2.1 Transmitter

Historic -  According to the Stine Handbook, the first purpose-designed 
   model rocket telemetry transmitter was designed by Bill Robson and John 
   Roe. The unit broadcast on the Citizen's Band and was first publically 
   flown at NARAM 2 in 1960.  It was a simple multivibrator that put out a 
   continuous tone which could be modulated by a sensor, but what to do with 
   the wavering tone it sent back was left as an exercise for the reader :-) 
   Stine still includes the schematic for this device in the current edition 
   of the Handbook, although he finally admits to it being "a very old design." 
   
Foxmitter - Using the same basic encoding principle (and still broadcasting on
   the Citizens' Band), Richard Fox designed the "Foxmitter" which was described
   in the May thru December '69 issues of the old _Model Rocketry_ magazine. An
   improved version, the "Foxmitter-2" was detailed in the June '70 thru Jan '71
   issues of that same journal. The thing that made it an advance over the Roe/
   Robson design (and the reason it took so many issues to describe) is that the
   Foxmitter used a basic transmitter module into which multiple sensor modules 
   could be plugged (one at a time).  The sensors covered included a basic tone 
   module (for tracking purposes), temperature, humidity, acceleration and even 
   a microphone! 
   
   In a couple of related articles in the Aug/Sept '70 MRM, Alan Stolzenberg 
   used the Foxmitter as the basis for his "Bio-1" design which involved a 
   very clever respiration sensor to monitor the flight subject from order 
   Rodentia (see Section 4.3 below). This was, of course, before launching 
   mammals and other higher orders fell into disfavor in the hobby.
   
Transroc - In a case of deja-vu all over again, Estes took a well developed
   homebrew design, in this case the Foxmitter, and turned it into a commercial 
   product.  This time, they also borrowed a page from the Heathkit notebook 
   and let the customer do the assembly (it was also available pre-assembled). 
   Like the Foxmitter, the Transroc used sensor modules to let you mix 'n match 
   the parameters you wanted to measure.  Available were the basic beeping tone 
   module (aka "Rocketfinder" mode), a temperature module, spin rate module and 
   a microphone module.

   The Transroc announced the beginning of the Estes "Rocketronics" line with
   its introduction in 1971. It also quietly marked the end when it disappeared
   with the 1977 catalog. Note: The current "Transroc II" sold by Estes is NOT 
   an RF transmitter! It is an audio beeper designed to help you find your model
   after landing. It can be heard by the "naked ear" several hundred feet, but 
   that can be extended by using the ground unit which is a highly directional
   microphone with a narrow pass filter on an amplifier.

Current - Adept Rocketry in Broomfield, CO sells a large range of electronic 
   products including both transmitters and data loggers. I've grouped them 
   together in the next section.

4.2.2 Data Logging

Historic - The rise of the microprocessor coincided almost perfectly with
   my hiatus from the hobby. If anyone out there has documented examples
   of the first micro-p to be flown in a model or HPR, send it to me and
   I'll include it here.

Homebrew - The October 1990 issue of _Radio-Electronics_ magazine had a very 
   long and detailed article by John Fleischer on an altimeter payload based 
   on a solid state pressure sensor. The system consists of three parts: an 
   analog board with the sensor and signal conditioning, a CPU board and a 
   display module. The latter stays on the ground and can read out the data 
   in either selected peaks (shades of the beginning!) or do a 1/4 speed "slo-
   mo" playback of the entire flight. The article contains schematics, parts 
   lists and even board masks for etching your own. For more info on this
   device, see "Transolve Corp." below.

Commercial - Along with all other aspects of the computer industry, small
   "garage" type companies dominate the computer rocket payload industry.
   Following are a few data logging payloads that I have information on. 
   As usual, caveat emptor:

   Flight Control Systems of Camp Hill, PA sells a very sophisticated system 
   called the FP1 (Flight Pack One) Data Logger. This consists of a complete 
   computer system on a 1.6" wide x 11" long board into which the sensor board 
   plugs. The system not only logs data from the sensors, but comes with a 
   development system so that you can write your own programs to start/stop 
   data logging based on time or other flight events (e.g. staging). The ground 
   support software (all PC based) is quite extensive consisting of archiving 
   software (to upload data from the FP1 to your PC) and data analysis software 
   to crunch numbers once it's there. The standard sensor board has altitude, 
   velocity and temperature sensors on it, but they also provide a prototype 
   board for designing your own. The sensor board can be remote mounted from 
   the CPU board. Price for the FP1, sensor board and software is a rather 
   substantial $300.

   Transolve Corp, Cleveland, OH - Sells the "A2 Micro Altimeter" which sounds
   suspiciously like a production version of the _Radio-Electronics_ system 
   described above.  John Viggiano (jsvrc@rc.rit.edu) clarifies: "Many of the 
   articles in _Radio-Electronics_ are thinly veiled advertisements.  In this 
   case, it would appear that the author was writing on behalf of Transolve, in 
   order to sell the kit. Transolve is listed in the article as the source for 
   a pre-etched PC board, or the same board with all the necessary components. 
   In addition, the Transolve logo appears in the photo on the issue's cover."

   Adept Rocketry, Broomfield, CO - Has quite a line of electronic products
   including peak reading & continuous altimeters and on-board computers. A 
   few of these are reviewed by Tom Beach (71540.722@compuserve.com): "Coming 
   in July is a $49 altimeter.  Relatively small (BT-50?...I don't have the 
   specs) you launch it into the air, and when it returns it will be beeping 
   out the maximum altitude  (beep-beep-beep...beep-beep...beep = 321 feet).  
   A $79 altimeter is due in August that will log the altitude data into EPROM 
   for later recovery and downloading. [They also have] on-board computers
   (four models, most with built-in altimeters). Further in the future there 
   are transmitters in the $10-$20 range. The on-board computers are due out 
   between June and December, depending on which model you want."

   Finally, we have from the r.m.r address list the following entries on which 
   I have no info outside of the tag line in their list entry:

   Langley Autosystems in Sunnyvale, CA  is listed with "Datastick on-board 
   computer" 
   
   High Technology Flight in Ypsilanti, MI sells "Electronic Payloads".

[Moderator's note: There are quite a few electronic timers, beepers and even
sophisticated micro-p based flight controllers sold by several companies. 
These are usually used to control staging, recovery deployment and aid in the 
recovery itself. While of the same general nature as the electronic payloads 
just described, they are not technically payloads, but rather part of the 
carrier rocket itself. I have not included them for the same reason I haven't
included mercury switches and tempura paint, i.e., they're not payloads.]

4.2.3 Sample collection 

   This final type of data collection is practiced only rarely by 
   professionals.  True, some satellites are designed to be returned for 
   study (the LDEF is a notable example), but outside of Earth orbit, the 
   only unmanned "sample return" missions have been some moon rocks brought 
   back by the Soviet "Luna" series.

   I have only one documented example of sample collection by model rocket. 
   In the anthology "Advanced Model Rocketry" complied by Michael Banks, 
   there is an entry by Eric Nelson describing a system used to collect 
   atmospheric pollen and spore samples. It used an Estes Omega to loft a 
   sampler consisting of a hollow nose with a clever arrangement of springs 
   and marbles acting as check valves.

----------------------------

4.3 Bio-payloads 

   The official position on biological payloads can be summed up in one word: 

   Don't. 

   The perfectly reasonable rationale here is that this is an educational 
   hobby and you really aren't going to learn anything new by torturing your 
   pet gerbil or lizard to see if he'll survive (and if he doesn't, how will 
   you know what killed him? Launch shock? Burnout deceleration? Recovery 
   deployment? Impact?)

   With that disclaimer out of the way, though, we must admit that there 
   are other reasons for launching living things, as any 10 year old can 
   tell you.  If you have to do it, though, try to stay outside your own 
   Phylum :-) No one's going to get too upset if you launch a few plant 
   leaves (Some HPR guys even use lettuce as recovery wadding) and few 
   are going to risk the hypocrisy of objecting to a gastropod-naut after 
   killing hundreds of them with snail pellets the week before. 
   
   Be careful if you start venturing into the Chordates, though. While I'm 
   sure there have been more rocket riders from Class Insecta than all other 
   bio-payloads combined, stay out of Vertibrata. Anything with a backbone 
   is a definite no-no.

----------------------------

4.4 Novelty Payloads 
   
   This section is the catch-all for everything else your rocket might carry 
   outside of its own structure. If you can think of a broader category for 
   some of these things, let me know and I'll consider re-arranging it.

4.4.1 Contest Payloads.

NAR standard payload - It wasn't long after the founders of the hobby had 
   the propulsion and airframe parts of the system sorted out that they 
   wanted to do "something else" during contests. Thus was the idea of 
   lofting a "dead" weight born. The first NAR standard payload was a slug 
   of lead 3/4" in diameter weighing 1 oz. Later, this was changed to being 
   a cylinder filled with sand. The official description (from the Pink book) 
   reads: "The standard NAR model rocket payload is a non-metallic cylinder 
   filled with fine sand, with a mass of no less than 28 grams [1 oz]. This 
   cylinder shall be 19.1mm [3/4"] in diameter and 70mm in length."

Tripoli water payload - As with everything else in HPR, their standard contest 
   payload is larger than life :-)  They figured that if the standard NAR 
   payload is one ounce, then the standard Tripoli contest payload should 
   be one pound.  Rather than using lead or sand, though, they upped the 
   difficulty by using water. Also, there is no standard container for the 
   water, just a requirement that the airframe be at least 2.25" diameter at 
   some point and be able to hold 16 fl oz of water. The payload compartment 
   is weighed both before and after flight to make sure that you didn't leave 
   any "vapor trails" during flight. One added wrinkle is that everyone must 
   use the same 36" chute, one of which is provided to each contestant.

Eggs - According to Stine, the idea of flying raw eggs is attributed to 
   Captain David Barr of the USAF Academy in 1962. Originally, this was used 
   as a qualification test to see if you had the skills to launch a biological 
   payload with a good chance of getting it back alive. It quickly took on a 
   life of its own, so to speak, as a competition. The "official" raw egg is 
   described in the Pink Book as: "a raw, USDA Large hen's egg with a mass of 
   no less than 57 grams and no more than 63 grams, and measuring no more than 
   45mm in diameter." Credit for the first successful eggloft is given to the
   same Hans/Scott team that flew the first movie camera (q.v.)

4.4.2 Ejecting payloads 

   Generally speaking, the hobby discourages ejecting things out of your 
   rocket (other than the recovery system, of course!) so as to not appeal too 
   much to the "warhead" mentality that we run into all too often. However, 
   there is great crowd pleasing effect to be had in dropping a bunch of 
   colorful "ejecta" for everyone to chase.

   Versions of this type of rocket have been around for some time.  Plans 
   for a "concept" rocket called "The Purple People Eater" by Ken Brown were 
   published in the December, 1980 issue of _Model Rocketry_ magazine. The 
   model drops various types of streamers and "flutterers" at ejection. A 
   larger version of this model was flown by Chris Tavares off of NARAM 34's 
   sport range last August. 

   Expanding on the concept, the "ZIA Spacemodelers Sport Design Notebook" 
   compiled by Tom Beach contains a design by John Pratt called "Bombardment."
   Capitalizing on various novelty toys available on the market, this model
   carries three foam gliders (Guillow Co. "Delta Streak") as parasites and
   has a modified egg capsule crammed with all sorts of goodies. Included are
   three "Pooper Trooper" parachuting army figures, six "Re-entry Vehicles"
   made from strips of trash bag taped to rubber washers and a hand full of
   "Penetration Aids" (black confetti) thrown in for good measure.

   Once again Estes came along and formalized the idea with a production
   version they call "Bailout". This is nothing more than a wide diameter
   rocket with a body tube big enough to hold an action figure (e.g. GI Joe).
   The kit includes an extra parachute for the figure, but you have to supply
   Joe. Despite the appearance, the figure does *NOT* leave via the "hatch"
   on the side. That's just a decal. He ejects out the top with the regular
   recovery system. Reports on r.m.r of success with this model have been 
   mixed, mostly because the recommended "B" motors are awfully wimpy to loft a 
   100+ gram model (Joe usually prangs before his chute unfurls), and the 
   recommended "C" motor is the "CATO-master" C5-3.

   Speaking of CATOs, Estes also has a model of the same name which sort of
   fits in this category. While it technically doesn't eject anything, it
   does break apart in the air and comes down in pieces.

   On the "any rocket, any time" front, John Viggiano (jsvrc@rc.rit.edu)
   reports: At a November, 1992 Tripoli launch the announcer said, "This one's 
   going to eject a roll of toilet paper." Sure enough, an extremely long 
   yellow streamer was seen coming down. It actually turned out to be a roll 
   of that yellow polyethelene "CAUTION" streamer that you can get at hardware 
   stores for cordoning off excavation sites. He had about a ten minute 
   winding-up job.