An interesting method is presented on
https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:1a0c6dfd-6115-461f-ac04-bd8751efd6fb/datastream/OBJ page 14:
4.2 Piggy-back docking
A second evolution of a docking system was devised with the necessity to launch a ram-air
inflated kite in mind. In order to keep the kite inflated, it could only be fixed to either the
upper or the lower surface. No pressure was allowed which would squeeze out the air. It was
decided to piggy-back the kite on top of the aerostat. This meant fixing the kite at the lower
surface. For this purpose, a number of plastic rings were attached to the lower surface of the
kite. These rings have a very low mass and had no noticeable effect on the flight performance
of the kite. Figure 7 shows the principle of the piggy-back docking system.
The reluctance to use kite balloons is noticeable. Page 7:
A second option was the use of something called a kite balloon. Kite balloons are built by a
UK company called Allsop Helikites ltd. It is a combination of a small helium balloon and a
delta kite. Its lift is a combination of helium buoyancy and aerodynamic lift of the wing
surface of the kite. Its directional stability is far better than that of a conventional helium
balloon. But in a zero or low wind situation, the aerodynamic lift is extremely low, leaving the
helium balloon as the primary lifting device. In this case, the kite balloon would have to be of significant size to generate enough lift to lift the kite. Which means that once the helikite ascends to an altitude where there is wind, the lift will suddenly dramatically increase. This will put unnecessary strain on the
line and the anchor. Furthermore, the helikite of sufficient size is a rather expensive solution (around 7000 euro) and it would not be possible to deliver the helium kite on time for testing.
This meant the helikite was disqualified as a lifting device.
Such a reluctance is also noticeable on another document, but due to other reasons:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228560180_Design_of_a_one-third_scale_multi-tethered_aerostat_system_for_precise_positioning_of_a_radio_telescope_receiver page 6:
Two different variable lift aerostats, the Skydoc and Helikite were considered. Both are shown in Figure 5. The smaller aerostat on top is the Skydoc aerostat. It is an oblate (flattened) spheroid and its mesh flying harness gives it a pitched orientation which allows its hull to generate lift in a wind field.The lower aerostat is the Helikite and it is a combination of a spheroid aerostat and a kite. It generates lift using its delta wing. The attraction of such aerostats is their ability to maintain a more vertical orientation in high winds. For a conventional aerostat, only the drag increases as the wind speed increases and, as a result, the aerostat loses altitude as the angle of the aerostat tether becomes less and less vertical. To evaluate the performance of t he two variable-lift aerostats, experimental tests were performed while towing the aerostats behind a boat. During the tests, poor performance of both aerostats was observed. At high speeds between 40 and 50 km/hr, the aerostats became unstable,and sometimes dove violently all the way to the water surface. Based on these observations it was decided to exclude the variable-lift aerostats from further analysis and instead focus on more conventional spherical and streamlined types.
This leads me to reconsider what I have been able to investigate from kytoons or perhaps kite-blimps about other concerns than launching.