Hi All,

Being very experienced avionics designer with significant operational drone experience including stratospheric airdrop, I have tried to contact Polish space3ac fund asking for funding. I was blocked on facebook march 2016 after asking the first question by coordinator who knew me as being whistleblower.

You can find entire entry under the link describing the idea:



I have revised 20-years old patent issues, found solutions and made a proposal for European Satellite Navigation Contest knowing than in 2015 their award-winning project was CAD sketch of giant quadcopter project that should be able to drop safety equipment at sea (that never left drawing stage).

ESNC contest organizers have failed to review the proposal and never contacted me, while blocking my email address on their side:

-Two hours before submission deadline (which I have met) I have received a notification “with so many new registrations in the last couple of days and the UEFA Euro still running, we decided to give you 10 days of added time to submit, complete, or improve your idea #160828”. Basically 3-month submission process for space contest was extended because of football match that evening which raises the suspicion that specific participants were receiving special attention.

-Organiser’s answer to suggestion this is against contest regulations, thay have pointed a clause where thay can reserve the right to alter any clause at any time. Since one of the clauses is non-disclosure of submissions and honest evaluation, I must assume those premises are equally volatile.

-The only feedback I was being asked for was using automated questionnaires without follow-up

-Nobody has contacted me regarding neither patent issues nor any other doubts that might arise during evaluation phase, legal aspects risks were somehow evaluated at 50-60% despite the fact I have been examining scope and validity of related patents during past 4 years. Obviously I didn’t uploaded full patent analysis for free without making sure I am dealing with professionals.

-Evaluation (only 2 diagrams with percentage points were presented https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9LVVMUURNeFEzYkk) contains ridiculous notes, like technological feasibility rated at 50%, despite the fact that early solutions with limited altitude reaching stable flight at 12km existed (discontinued because lack of funding at trial phase, New Zealand 2010) and there are documented amateur trials at 20km altitude (Canada, 2001) plus recent DLR research (2015 albeit using very heavy and completely impractical airframe)

-Market potential has been evaluated at 40-60% despite the idea is replacing at least 80% uses of balloon-dropped meteo probes worldwide. Nobody asked for a businessplan, there was no option to upload a businessplan when a detailed multi-variant businessplan was well prepared based on recent prices, use cases, investor capital options and various countries.

-GNSS Relevance was estimated at 60-63% even if GNSS navigation is strictly necessary component of said invention; current solutions are using satellite navigation only for wind speed reporting during ascent phase. Proposed invention is updating meteo profile both relative to moving air mass (ascent) as well as relative to any fixed ground position (descent).

-Polish region organizers stated on ESNC competition page that their own secured investor’s capital is 10 times higher than the capital they have precisely enumerated on their Polish website as invested in Polish startups which puts in doubts existence of control over money flow, particularly that one of organizing committee submission persons is an owner of a company sponsored directly by venture capital he is representing for ESNC submissions

-Polish region organizers have a history of promoting funding of exotic constructions of null scientific value, like Mars Greenhouse near Kraków – a primitive building without scientific background being made on budget allowing only most basic construction of the structure

-My submission as independent review researcher for future editions was rejected strictly because I have asked for my proposal to be analyzed by international committee, and not by regional organizers. ESNC representative has stated explicitly that if I am not going well along with local contact person, I am unfit. At this point ESNC has no experts able to evaluate aerial autonomous vehicles in Poland because of lack of professional experience.

-After the answer above, I have asked regular contact person (German nationality) for a contact with his supervisor in order to explain the situation, just to witness my email put into spam list

Following all the above, I publicly state that ESNC contest is a scam led by closed circles that are trying to trick people into submitting ideas, while keeping applicant’s personalities hidden. I can defend it in front of any court. In order to prevent the idea of being forgotten or stolen, I am publishing it in its entirety. I claim that ESNC contest in its current form is damaging to ESA and GALILEO public perception, making selection of proposals on strictly non-scientific background. Organizers have admitted they have purposely extended submission deadline for more than a week in order to allow unnamed participants to complete their submissions.

On this occasion I would like to congratulate Polish region winners for ESNC2016 http://www.esnc.info/index.php?anzeige=winner2016.html AEROBITS http://aerobits.pl/ that are aiming at providing ADS-B UAV broadcasting functionality that is already available for free here: https://flightaware.com/adsb/ .  This is an interesting contrast to my submission that is based on several years of prior research verified during at least 2000 flights.

I discourage everybody from submitting to ESNC contest until said grave problems are addressed.

I am forced to make this idea public in order to parts of it being claimed by CanSat competition organizers or other patent claims that might appear.

I am among very few persons capable an willing to make this system operational. 


E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • T3

    "My last stratospheric flight went from launch to land with minimal to no user intervention." If you did that after 2013, you are 3 years after me. Thsi also means you are 15 years past Canadian amateurs. The real point is: have you compared your results with atmospheric sounding of local authorities? If not, you are not at the same level of readiness, @Azhar

  • T3

    My objection is not on investors. My objection is for the total lack of support for making well educated person to be able to present his ideas. This was the role of ESNC, and they failed miserably.

  • Is it just me or.. 

    I don't think people can get investor by saying "this is rubbish, that is rubbish, mine is the best". I mean, I am sorry, but the tone of the post and especially the comments will most likely put off investor from being interested. I am not saying that its impossible to get investor, but don't you think you need to put a nicer tone on it?

    My last stratospheric flight went from launch to land with minimal to no user intervention. Yes it is not polished and need more clean up to be 'idiot-proof', but technically speaking it was fully autonomous. Meteo data was pumped through MavLink so we can see basic meteo info (from external sensor) real-time in mission planner.

    But I was using "diy-hobby-grade-equipments" so I guess our flight may not be considered as worthy to you. It was just rubbish compared to your concept.


  • The Radiosonde is far cheaper and has been in service a very long time you can't compete with them for meteorology data collection.

    But flying back from nearspace is a lot of fun! You need serious range and tracking to FPV from nearspace.

    You need FAA approval in the United States.

    Other countries might be easier.

  • The Pixhawk is quite capable of flying back from altitudes in the 30km range. You do need a speed density table to steady flight at high altitudes. We hit nearly 500 mph on return flight just missing the record by 2 mph.

    The Pixhawk is even capable of space flight! You just need to fix the frame of reference issues that relate to the earth as the center of gravity.

    There is some code to use Pixhawk with reaction wheels even for cubesats.

  • @Krzysztof -- you mean this: http://rcexplorer.se/projects/2013/03/fpv-to-space-and-back/

    That might not be the same as:  http://artech.space (who look like a clever bunch from Aston University in Brummyland).

  • Like, all of the details publicly available for our system are at http://artech.space - and that's it

  • You realise the guy who did FPV-to-space isn't me, right?

  • T3

    "To control the plane I used the OpenLRS long range system from Flytron, hooked up to my Aurora 9 radio."

    You have made a very nice RC flying model and it performed awesome. The video is fantastic, probably one of the very best on the internet. You are several long years from designing fully autonomous solution if education goes well, what is needed because all components you have used are off the shelf. Keep it up, good job. Meteo probing is performed twice a day at hudreds places on earth. Nobody will hire you to teleport among those places to fly. Unfortunately you are at least 14 years behind amateurs like Art van Den Berg from Canada who made fully autonomous yet one-time system. But so is German DLR research center, with their HABLEG requiring interactive inflight tuning.

  • Ours bears no significant differences to what you've described here, and is definitely fully autonomous.
This reply was deleted.