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。

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

气球预计的变化..

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.