Slashdot Mirror


Skydiving from 25 Miles Up

chisox writes "The Observer has a story about a retired French army colonel who is soon to make a free fall parachute jump from 25 miles up. In the process he will break the sound barrier, reaching a top speed of mach 1.68 before he opens his parachute 1,000 metres above the Earth. Of course, if the chute doesn't open, the hole he'll make will be about 1,000 metres deep." Well, actually his max speed will be high up and near the earth the atmosphere will have slowed him down to terminal velocity.

282 comments

  1. Make sure you interview him now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While he's still alive and in one piece.

    I wonder if he knows Rocket Guy?

    1. Re:Make sure you interview him now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually his max speed will be high up and near the earth the atmosphere will have slowed him down to terminal velocity.

      Thanks Captain Obvious!

  2. His Ears by Daveman692 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will he really experience a sonic boom? If so wouldn't that destroy his ear drums.

    1. Re:His Ears by rootlocus · · Score: 1

      He'll be wearing a space suit.. I'm sure his ears will be fine..

    2. Re:His Ears by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think his ears will be in the area which could experience the sonic boom. The sonic boom is actually a cone-shaped are where the sound becomes concentrated (because you are moving faster than it).

      I am more interested in how much his suit would heat up if his chute doesn't open due to air resistance and decreasing terminal velocity.`

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:His Ears by Bullschmidt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope. Won't be any sonic boom. He'll break the sea level speed of sound high in the atmosphere, where the speed of sound is higher. As he descends, he'll slow to terminal velocity. So there will never be a shockwave.

      --
      "Of all days, the day on which one has not laughed is the most surely the one wasted." -Sebastian Roch Nicol
    4. Re:His Ears by Fenresulven · · Score: 1

      Actually, the speed of sound is lower high in the atmosphere and higher at sealevel.

    5. Re:His Ears by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      (* Will he really experience a sonic boom? If so wouldn't that destroy his ear drums. *)

      Do French sonic booms sound more romantic to chicks than American sonic booms?

    6. Re:His Ears by stuuf · · Score: 0

      25 miles up. a space suit and oxygen. It would also probably create a lot of drag

      --

      Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it

    7. Re:His Ears by EvanED · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Drag by what? All the air that is present at 25 miles?

    8. Re:His Ears by spike+hay · · Score: 3, Informative

      Will he really experience a sonic boom? If so wouldn't that destroy his ear drums.

      Actually, no. The sonic boom is never heard by the body traveling at supersonic speeds, wether it be plane, rocket, or person. Concorde passengers are unaffected by the boom.

      The conical shock waves never touch. At least they aren't supposed to. Now, since a person is thin like a rocket, I am sure he won't have to worry about shock waves.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    9. Re:His Ears by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      Yes : http://www.theonion.com/onion3510/european_romanti c.html

    10. Re:His Ears by sverdlichenko · · Score: 1

      No. He must wear some kind of "space suit" or his ear drums will be destroyed just after he get off aircraft cabin: there is almost no pressure on 25 miles height.

    11. Re:His Ears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about this.

      lets assume he creates a sonic boom (not entirely convinced). so he's going too fast and can't hear it. so the boom is "behind him". what happens when he slows down? shouldn't the boom catch up with him and pass him? so then shouldn't he hear a delayed sonic boom?

    12. Re:His Ears by scaryman · · Score: 0

      according to the article "Michel Fournier, 58, who has 8,300 jumps to his credit, will pass through temperatures as low as minus 115C and reach a top speed of Mach 1.68 (1,680kph at that height) " so yes he will treavel faster than the speed of sound at that height, 1.68 times the speed of sound.
      easy when you read the article you are commenting on.

    13. Re:His Ears by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just a song before I go, to whom it may concern. Traveling twice the speed of sound, it's easy to get burned.
      He's Toast!

      --
      That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    14. Re:His Ears by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't the boom always be just behind him? He is afterall going faster than sound.

    15. Re:His Ears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait to hear Japanese Sonic Booms! They are more peaceful, but they will be just as loud.

      French Sonic Booms are more snooty than the old Russian or British Sonic booms.

      American Sonic Booms are more militaristic on average, but the Russian Sonic Booms are getting that way.

    16. Re:His Ears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing new, already done a lot of time before, since the 50's

  3. Champagne after landing. by garcia · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Damn French. I bet the previous record holder (American) had a beer :)

  4. Read the article by rblancarte · · Score: 2

    Sounds very interesting. I wish him the best of luck in getting this done. I think I read something about him a couple of years ago, though I could be wrong.

    I have to admit, considering applications of this, such as parachuting from a Space Shuttle, IIS, etc, it does make you wonder why something like this has not been undertaken by any government agency.

    RonB

    --
    It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
    1. Re:Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... 25 miles is nothing, not even on the same order of magnitude, as the altitude of either a Space Shuttle, or the IIS.

    2. Re:Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parachuting from an orbiting shuttle or space station is currently impossible to survive so it would be a bad pr move to be doing it.

    3. Re:Read the article by Verizon+Guy · · Score: 1

      such as parachuting from a Space Shuttle, IIS, etc

      I don't know about you, but my IIS is safely locked in the server room!

      --

      Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski

    4. Re:Read the article by Alrescha · · Score: 5, Informative

      "it does make you wonder why something like this has not been undertaken by any government agency."

      This has been done. I'm not sure why we forget. In 1960, Joe Kittenger jumped from ~20 miles, breaking the sound barrier. See:

      http://www.dropzone.com/news/SpaceParachutingSky di vin.shtml

      A.

      ps: I'm sorry that /. injects a space in that URL.

      --
      ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    5. Re:Read the article by Jondor · · Score: 3, Funny

      my IIS is also in the serverroom, on a CD which makes sure the table stays stable and horizontal..

      Sorry, couldn't resist.. :-)

      --
      Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
    6. Re:Read the article by gasp · · Score: 1

      Uh, if you HAD read the articles on the terminal velocity link, you'd notice that Joe Kittenger did NOT break the sound barrier. We forget that he broke it, because he didn't.

      Although the author of http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml has a lot of poor wording in his explanations of terminal velocity, there are several good links to the facts and data on Kittenger's jump.

      (My favorite quote on that page is: "In a vacuum with zero air resistance, these two objects will experience same acceleration. But on the earth this is not true.")

    7. Re:Read the article by Alrescha · · Score: 1

      "Uh, if you HAD read the articles on the terminal velocity link, you'd notice that Joe Kittenger did NOT break the sound barrier. We forget that he broke it, because he didn't."

      from the link I originally posted:

      "On August 16, 1960, Kittinger jumped his last Excelsior jump, doing so from an air-thin height of 102,800 feet (31,334 meters). From that nearly 20 miles altitude, his tumble toward terra firma took some 4 minutes and 36 seconds. Exceeding the speed of sound during the fall, Kittinger used a small stabilizing chute before a larger, main parachute opened in the denser atmosphere."

      So we have one web page that says one thing, and another page that says another. Your reference says 'Captain Kittinger most likely did not exceed the speed of sound on 16 August 1960.'

      That's hardly definitive.

      A.

      --
      ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    8. Re:Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone with more aerospace background can back me up or correct me here but jumping from a a vector with no realtive velocity to earth is very different from jumping from ISS or SST. A baloon at 25 miles up has no velocity relative to the atmoshphere and the skydiver will just accelerate until terminal velocity. ISS and SST orbit with _very_ high velocity relative to earth, and friction with the atmosphere upon re-entry is why SST, and other re-entry vehicles, require signifigant heat sheilding. I believe that skydiving from ISS in a normal spacecuit would result in untimely vaproization for whoever might attempt it.

      AC because I seem to have lost my cookies somewhere :)

    9. Re:Read the article by gasp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just because several (I know of at least half a dozen) sites have that sound-barrier quote, that doesn't make it true.

      I consider the several links on that page as a good cross-section of sources, and from what I read, I agree with Kittenger himself that the most reliable information is that he achieved 90% of the speed of sound at his altitude. The most credible information was that his top speed was 614mph, and that somebody somewhere made a typo of 714, hence many sources believed he broke the speed of sound. It turned into one of those urban myths. There was no evidence at all that he broke the sound barrier, and reasonably solid data that he didn't, and the man himself agreed with the 614mph data. Also, the math agrees with this, showing that another 1300m or so of altitude is needed to break the sound barrier.

      It's not like everybody was out there with their own altitude radar taking measurements. I'll side with Kittenger's own opinion, that the radar reading was the most reliable, and that the man himself is more likely to be correct than a few sensationalist storytellers. ;)

      So when the data and the people involved say he didn't break the sound barrier, I'd say that's the closest to definitive that we have.

      Disclaimer: No, I don't believe anything simply because it's posted on a website. But I remain happy to disagree with you. Enjoy!

    10. Re:Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow IIS adding to stability ??

    11. Re:Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been done. In the 60's Nasa sent up a HUGE weather balloon with 2-3 astronauts who all jumped and landed safely. I can't remember at what height it was for sure but it was insanely high at least 25k.

  5. Force? by NickRob · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't the amount of force be more than a parachute is used to receiving? This could possible rip a rope or the parachute itself.

    1. Re:Force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Force is constant close to the Earth's surface.. to be exact it's equal to the skydiver's mass times the acceleration due to gravity. The acceleration due to gravity will be rising slightly, but that's exactly what it's "used" to recieving, because people jump at lower altitudes as well. The force is near-constant and wouldn't destroy the parachute.

    2. Re:Force? by Bullschmidt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, not at all. Terminal velocity is the max velocity you can travel at a certain point in the atmosphere. You hit it really quickly. By the time he pulls his shoot he won't be travelling any faster than someone who jumped from 15000ft. He'll be going fast when hes REALLY high up and the atmostphere is thin and terminal velocity is higher.

      --
      "Of all days, the day on which one has not laughed is the most surely the one wasted." -Sebastian Roch Nicol
    3. Re:Force? by neuroticia · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the parachute only open once he slows down due to terminal velocity--something I'm sure parachutes are subject to?

      I don't think he'd try to use the parachute when he's going faster than the speed of sound, since I think that would hurt more than the parachute (him)

      -Sara

    4. Re:Force? by maximillionus · · Score: 1

      His velocity will probably be about 200 km/h when his chute gets pulled. Why 200 km/h? That's the terminal velocity due to wind resistance at the height (1000ft) where his chute gets pulled.

      He should be ok unless he weighs as much as a car or soemthing just as strange (maybe 300+ kilograms??). I haven't seen his picture yet :)

    5. Re:Force? by BabyDave · · Score: 2, Informative

      The force on the parachute when it opens is due to air resistance, which is (roughly) proportional to speed, not acceleration.

      The OP's thoughts were probably something along the lines of "Since he's falling for much longer, won't he be going much faster, and hence won't the force on the 'chute be huge?"

      The answer is almost certainly "no" though - as he falls, air density increases, creating an extra drag force on the parachutist, slowing him down. So when he pulled the ripcord, he'd only be falling at about the terminal velocity of a skydiver at 1000m. Therefore the 'chute would be subject to similar forces to those of a normal skydiver.

    6. Re:Force? by terminal.dk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Disclaimer: I am a skydiver, has slightly more than 300 jumps, so I am not really that experienced.

      I have been doing a jump from 22000 ft = 6700 meters. And I also experienced the thin air, making it more difficult to turn, and my speed max was around 300 km/h, where it normally tops at 200 km/h on a normal skydive.

      At deployment time (1000 meters / 3500 ft), the thick air near the planet had slowed me to below 180 km/h.

    7. Re:Force? by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't the parachute only open once he slows down due to terminal velocity--something I'm sure parachutes are subject to?

      The parachute will open at just about any speed as long as he is falling. It'll open at as little as 10-20 mph, and if he wants it to, it'll open at 500-600 mph. He'd have to be brain-dead to open at this speed though...since kinetic energy depends on the square of velocity, he would be putting an incredible strain on the parachute (which likely wouldn't survive opening at this speed) and himself.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    8. Re:Force? by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      His velocity will probably be about 200 km/h when his chute gets pulled. Why 200 km/h? That's the terminal velocity due to wind resistance at the height (1000ft) where his chute gets pulled.

      1000 feet? Let's hope he pulls higher than that. At 1000 feet, terminal velocity is around 120 mph, which means that you have about five seconds until impact. If you take into consideration that some parachutes are packed or designed to snivel on opening, 1000 feet may even be too low for him. He could use his reserve, which according to FAA TSO guidelines must open within 300 feet, but an opening that quick would damage the reserve.

      Generally, when jumps from this high are made, they pull at 10000-15000 feet. I've pulled this high before (I pulled right after I got out of the airplane) -- the view is INCREDIBLE.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    9. Re:Force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends more on body position, than anything else. In the standard 'arch position', he will only be falling about 120-130mph at pull-time. Were he to be 'head down' he would be averaging 200-230mph at pull time, due to terminal velocity speed at that altitude. FYI, 200 mph is easily fast enough to explode a chute.

    10. Re:Force? by undercanopy · · Score: 1

      He could use his reserve, which according to FAA TSO guidelines must open within 300 feet, but an opening that quick would damage the reserve.

      A reserve that would blow up on a terminal deployment wouldn't be much of a reserve, now would it?

      Remember, he was talking 200Kph, not Mph.200Km/hr isn't all that fast... it's approx terminal at sealevel.

      I've had a reserve deployment at terminal and nothing blew up. :)

      --
      -- D-23994, Muff#2613
    11. Re:Force? by John_Booty · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't the amount of force be more than a parachute is used to receiving? This could possible rip a rope or the parachute itself.

      Yeah! You're right! Maybe he shouldn't use those standard bargain parachutes you buy at Wal-Mart!

      *mutters and shakes head*

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    12. Re:Force? by two-bookoo! · · Score: 0
      If he is constantly travelling at or approaching terminal Velocity, I don't see how this would affect the parachute. Higher in the atmosphere, the chute would have less resistance and *should* be under less load/resistance at the same point in the atmosphere. i.e. If his terminal volocity is faster, then the chutes terminal velocity *should* be equally (Read: proportionally) higher as well.

      Correct me if I am wrong, but I belive that this makes sence.

    13. Re:Force? by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      A reserve that would blow up on a terminal deployment wouldn't be much of a reserve, now would it?

      Guess not...my reserve deployment was a cutaway from a spinning malfunction, but it wasn't anywhere near terminal.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
  6. Where Did He Get the Funding??? by Zspdude · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sponsored by the Darwin Awards...

    --
    What's in a Sig?
    1. Re:Where Did He Get the Funding??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are just fscking crazy.

    2. Re:Where Did He Get the Funding??? by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 2

      Have you even read the article? The man has been doing it for his entire life (he has jumped 8300 times before). He seems to be very prepared and there are actual details of the pressure and temperatures his space suit can resist to. Overall, I'd say this man has everything to be successful.

      If you can't do it, that doesn't mean it can't be done.

    3. Re:Where Did He Get the Funding??? by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1
      Sponsored by the Darwin Awards...

      I guess it all depends on how he does it. If he signed a contract that he would strap his testicles in the harness, so it got introduced to excruciating pressure when the parachute slows his descent, then he probably got funding from the Darwin Awards. But if they fund him, I'd imagine they would give him less than the cost to do this. You have to remember that the guy has to take himself out of the gene pool and doing it for next to nothing would make him a shoe in. I guess if he just did it for kicks and he made that 1km hole that would do it too.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    4. Re:Where Did He Get the Funding??? by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know why this got modded up.

      As Slashdotters we should recognize people trying to do "crazy" things are the ones who expand the frontiers of our society. Would you also have nominated the lunar Apollo teams for the darwin awards?

      If slashdot were around in 1633 perhaps we would also be the first to condemn Galileo as a heretic lune.

      --
      "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
    5. Re:Where Did He Get the Funding??? by stuffman64 · · Score: 2
      Well, if you read the article:

      'I sold my house, my collection of weapons, my stamp albums and my military medals to get this project off the ground after training for more than two years for the official experiment before it was abandoned,' he said. 'I'm not looking for fame. What fascinates me is the record and the physical challenge involved.

      This guy has balls.
      --
      --- At my sig, unleash hell.
    6. Re:Where Did He Get the Funding??? by snowlick · · Score: 1

      It was funny.

      Humor is a good thing, probably necessary to live like this guy. I'm sure he's well aware of how dangerous he is living, and would enjoy a joke like that.

      --
      Crystal Meth: Would you ingest somthing made from a poisonous gas and an explosive metal? You do it every day -- Salt!
    7. Re:Where Did He Get the Funding??? by cburley · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well, if you read the article:
      'I sold my house, my collection of weapons, my stamp albums and my military medals to get this project off the ground[...]'

      This guy has balls.

      What, he hasn't sold those, too?

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
  7. Impressive. by GrueMaster · · Score: 1

    He's sure to make an impact on the skydiving industry.

    1. Re:Impressive. by neuroticia · · Score: 1

      Heh. Yeah, maybe the skydiving industry that deals with millioaires who have a lot of time to spare. Didn't you read about the cost involved, and the amount of training?

      Ouch.

      Jumping from a putter-putt plane is expensive enough.

      -Sara

    2. Re:Impressive. by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 2

      you have that wrong, it's He's sure to make an impact on the skydiving industry^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hground.

  8. Terminal Velocity by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    If the chute doesn't open, yes, it will be.

    1. Re:Terminal Velocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the fall... it's the sudden stop at the end of it.

  9. Those French... by ungulation · · Score: 0

    Nothing is certain, but I'm looking forward to drinking a glass of champagne when I come back to Earth

  10. Physics by drfrank · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, actually his max speed will be high up and near the earth the atmosphere will have slowed him down to terminal velocity.

    Well, actually he'll be at terminal velocity for nearly the entire time... Terminal velocity is dependant on the density of the atmosphere. You'd think that someone that posted a link to a page which defined "terminal velopcity" would have at least read the definition...

    1. Re:Physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You'd think that someone that posted a link to a
      > page which defined "terminal velopcity" would have
      > at least read the definition...

      When was the last time you saw a slashdot staffer
      make anything other than a pseudo-educated stab
      at anything? .. Punters and never-weres, the lot
      of them - the last dregs of the dotcom boom yet
      to be swept back in to the unemployment line and
      the short order cook population.

      Hey /. ... get a real job, whatcha say, hey?

    2. Re:Physics by whookey · · Score: 1

      Well, actually he'll be at terminal velocity for nearly the entire time... Terminal velocity is dependant on the density of the atmosphere.

      Nope, density will increase exponentially as the diver heads towards the ground, so of course the terminal velocity will be reduced over the course of his flight.
      --
      somebody bent my whookey.
    3. Re:Physics by jellybear · · Score: 1

      you didn't read what the other poster said. Yes, the terminal velocity will be reduced over the course of his flight. But he will be at that terminal for nearly the entire time, i.e. gradually slowing down.

    4. Re:Physics by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      You aren't related to anybody at slashdot are you? Yes, as the density increases the terminal velocity decreases, hence he will still be traveling at terminal velocity. sheesh

    5. Re:Physics by tachi_ · · Score: 1

      umm... the actual terminal velocity changes depending on many things, not only you mass but also your shape. The reason you stop accelerating is because of air drag.. so if you are in a postion that has a high air resistant.. your terminal velocity can be considerablly slower than your terminal velocity in an aerodynamic position

    6. Re:Physics by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      actually he'll be at terminal velocity for nearly the entire time

      Nope. At that altitude you are practically in a vacuum. He will accelerate for close to half the distance. You haven't hit terminal velosity untill you stop accelerating. That won't happen until his altitude gets down to around 70,000 to 90,000 feet where the atmosphere starts thickening up.

      After he does hit terminal velocity, the atmosphere will thiken rapidy. The local value (for that altitude) of terminal velocity will drop rapidly. The air resistance will exceed the force of gravity and he will start slowing down, bleeding off his inertia. He will actually be ABOVE the local terminal velocity during this process - pretty much the second half of his trip.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Physics by countach · · Score: 1

      Umm, doesn't "terminal" mean final? As in the final velocity reached in the final stage of free-fall?

    8. Re:Physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Read the other posts.

    9. Re:Physics by Stochastic_Elastic · · Score: 1

      Actualy you are all wrong. Because he is decelerating, he will never slow down to the acctual speed of terminal velocity in his current atmosphere. The momentum from his free space fall will impeed him from slowing to terminal velocity during the free fall portion of his jump. terminal velocity is a velocity that is reached through accereration, not deceleration.

      --
      My Karma ran over your Dogma....
    10. Re:Physics by Alsee · · Score: 2

      terminal velocity is a velocity that is reached through accereration, not deceleration.

      Terminal velocity is the balance point where drag and gravity match resulting in no change in speed. It is approached asymtoticly from EITHER side.

      And if you re-read my post more carefully you'll see that I specificly said that he'd be above terminal velocity for pretty much the last half of the trip.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  11. Darwon Awards Safe by entity0110 · · Score: 0

    Well with people like this around the Darwin awards will never go under

  12. others trying same stunt by what_the_heck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wired had an article in August 2001 about two other people attempting much the same thing.

  13. 1000 metres by nakaduct · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone should tip off the drilling companies: rather than pay skilled people to operate fancy drilling rigs, just drop the rigs and/or people out of an airplane.

    1. Re:1000 metres by DemiKnute · · Score: 2, Funny

      Someone should tip off the drilling companies: rather than pay skilled people to operate fancy drilling rigs, just drop the rigs and/or people out of an airplane.

      Yeah, we like to call those airplanes B-52's.

      --
      .
  14. It's Been Done by thelizman · · Score: 1

    By an American Air Force pilot in the 50's. Rode a baloon up into the stratosphere, and jumped. Is the french dude going to set a record, or is this publicity?

    1. Re:It's Been Done by maetenloch · · Score: 1

      You're referring to the Project Manhigh program run by the Air Force back in the late fifties. In 1960 Captain Joseph Kittinger jumped from a balloon at 102,800 feet. During the fall he actually exceeded the speed of sound (estimated speed 714 mph). Later he was shot down in Vietnam and spent a year in solitary confinement. There was a good article on Manhigh a couple of years back in National Geographic with some amazing pictures taken automatically as he jumped from the gondola. Unfortunately the only one I could find on the web is this one.

  15. I remember by Aknaton · · Score: 1

    hearing a story about an American doing something like this a long time ago during the beginning of the space program. If I recall, he took some kind of ballon so high that he needed breathing assistance and then he jumped. He is supposed to be the only man so far to break the sound barrier without mechanical assistance.

    I want to say that this was on TLC or Discovery Channel. Can't remember anything else about it.

  16. Actually... by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2, Informative

    If the cute doesn't open, the crater he makes will be the same size if jumps from 25 miles or 10,000 feet. That's how terminal velocity works. Sure he'll break Mach 1 in the thin air aloft, but as he gets to into progressivly thicker air he'll be slowed to the same 55 m/s as any other skydiver. As long as he doesn't tuck into a ball or go head first, that is.

    1. Re:Actually... by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      "If the cute doesn't open, the crater he makes will be the same size if jumps from 25 miles or 10,000 feet. That's how terminal velocity works. Sure he'll break Mach 1 in the thin air aloft, but as he gets to into progressivly thicker air he'll be slowed to the same 55 m/s as any other skydiver. As long as he doesn't tuck into a ball or go head first, that is."

      Or he will accelerate 32'/second/second until he reaches 160'/second for us non metric Americans ;)

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    2. Re:Actually... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      From as high up as he is, he should break the sound barrier about three seconds after he jumps. Remember that the speed of sound depends on the medium (sound waves travel much faster through steel than air; on a neutron star, the speed of sound is approximately the speed of light). Twenty-five miles up, the atmosphere is very thin indeed.

      What I can't remember is whether Mach 1 is defined as the speed of sound at a certain air density, or whether it can vary.

      My advice to the jumper: If the chute doesn't open, go head first. What do you have to lose?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Actually... by mamba-mamba · · Score: 2

      Mach is always relative to the speed of sound where the travelling body is.

      I believe that's why they use Mach instead of specifying an actual velocity or speed.

      MM
      --

      --
      By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
  17. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people are just fscking crazy. And this guy is french, to boot.

    Maybe he will become the first human flambed crepe.

  18. Heh... by xoot · · Score: 0, Redundant

    He must be really bored to do such a thing.

  19. natural selection? by Narcocide · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... this kindof reminds me of the time that guy strapped a solid fuel booster to his Nova trying to break a landspeed record somewhere out in the desert. he hit a solid rock wall probably mere seconds after realizing no less than three critical errors in his planning:

    1) solid fuel boosters can't be stopped; once they're ignited they burn till they're used up.

    2) at 400 miles per hour those cliffs way off on the horizon approach much faster than you'd have thought.

    3) it doesn't really matter how hard you push in on the brake pedal if the car is being propelled by something they use for jet-assisted takeoff of military cargo planes.

    1. Re:natural selection? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Informative
      And:

      4) Everyone in Slashdot knows the story and knows that it is an urban legend (U) for untrue.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:natural selection? by maetenloch · · Score: 1

      4) Everyone in Slashdot knows the story and knows that it is an urban legend (U) for untrue.

      Or is it?

      This guy makes a strong case that he helped spark the story by crashing a empty chevy into a mine entrance back in 1978. They did use a JATO unit but the car actually ran on an old railroad line spur. Personally I tend to believe him.

    3. Re:natural selection? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2
      You are welcome to believe in him, the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

      However, apart from the story there is no corroborating evidence to back it up. Right?

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:natural selection? by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

      What I always wonder about that story is - they used up one JATO. What do you suppose happened to the other three?

      --
      if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
    5. Re:natural selection? by maetenloch · · Score: 1

      However, apart from the story there is no corroborating evidence to back it up. Right?

      Nope. But the details and real world factors in the story he describes are enough to make it plausible that it (or something close to it) really did happen. Certainly it's more credible than the tooth fairy or santa claus which could never exist in the real world.

      If you choose not to believe the story, simply view as a very entertaining piece of fiction about a kid in the desert, living next to a junkyard, with colorful friends who comes across a rocket motor.

    6. Re:natural selection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an urban legend, OK? Go to the Cult of the Dead Cow. They should (they did, a few years back) still have an interesting piece that spotlights exactly what that was all about.

    7. Re:natural selection? by Conare · · Score: 1

      Certainly it's more credible than the tooth fairy or santa claus which could never exist in the real world

      Hey how about a spoiler alert next time!

      --
      Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
    8. Re:natural selection? by jbf · · Score: 2

      A good analysis of this story is here.
      Also more info here.

  20. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by Tralfamadorian · · Score: 1

    Isn't it time that postmodernism died.

    Yeah, I'm looking forward to post-postmodernism.

  21. There ya go again... by Bollie · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    For the sane people out there... here's some unit conversions:

    25 Miles = 40.2336 Kilometers
    1.68 Mach [dry air, 273 Kelvin] = 2005.6498391999999 kilometers/hour

    For the insane people out there... here's some unit conversions:

    1 Kilometer = 0.621371 Miles
    12 Inches = 1 Foot
    3 Feet = 1 Yard
    1 Mile = 1,760 Yards
    1 Mile = 5,280 Feet
    1 Miles = 63,360 Inches

    Just to give you a taste of some saner things:

    1000 millimeter = 1 meter
    100 centimeter = 1 meter
    1000 meter = 1 kilometer

    But wait! There's more!

    1000 milliliter = 1 liter
    100 centiliter = 1 liter
    1000 liter = 1 kiloliter

    Just go to onlineconversions and have fun!

    1. Re:There ya go again... by mattdm · · Score: 1

      1 foot divided by three: 4 inches.
      One mile divided by six: 880 feet.

      63,360 is divisible by 35 numbers from the range 1-99; 100,000 is divisible by just 13 of those.

      It's not so irrational after all -- much of the imperial system is based on highly-composite numbers, which are easy to split evenly many different ways. The metric system's attachment to the number 10 is very inconvenient when you want to divide something three ways.

    2. Re:There ya go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok.

      For the most part (excluding, apparently, NASA) people that actually do unit conversions frequently use the metric system.

      Everyone else doesn't and they use values comparatively:

      125MPH - 5 miles faster than they travel in a school zone
      170lbs - Their weight at 13
      25'4" - The length of their trailer

      Or they use the values literally in accomplishing a task:

      I take out the tape measure, drag it across the wood, and mark off where it says on the paper! I GOT MAIL! I GOT MAIL! YAY!

      Four cups of flour? So I fill this thing that says "1 cup" four times. I'm a master baker!

    3. Re:There ya go again... by mamba-mamba · · Score: 1

      You wrote:
      "1.68 Mach [dry air, 273 Kelvin] = 2005.6498391999999 kilometers/hour"

      From the SECOND PARAGRAPH of the article:
      "Michel Fournier...will pass through temperatures as low as minus 115C and reach a top speed of Mach 1.68 (1,680kph at that height)..."

      The first paragraph says this:
      "A retired French army colonel is soon to make mankind's biggest jump with a 40,000-metre free fall - that's 25 miles"

      So, since the original article was metric-centric, why are you just repeating information that was in the article in the first place?

      Besides, your implied criticism isn't fair to the article, since it mentioned metric units first in the article body. It was only the headline that used archaic units (miles).

      Also, it is perilous to translate Mach into an actual speed if you don't know the conditions. So you really did a great disservice my claiming that mach 1.68 is 2000 kph.

      MM
      --

      --
      By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
  22. parachute necessary? by timeOday · · Score: 1
    I have always wondered if there were any examples (probably from war) of people bailing over the ocean with no/unopened parachute and surviving. Terminal velocity around sea level is like 120 mph, right? That's pretty fast, but I wonder if there's some chance of surviving an impact with water at that speed.

    If this isn't possible, I wonder how close to possible it is. I saw a *really* high-diving competition on TV (not at a pool, but off a cliff) and I'll bet those guys were getting up towards triple-digit speeds.

    1. Re:parachute necessary? by seyton · · Score: 1

      No way. When somebody falls/jumps from a plane and fails to open their parachute above the Ocean, they're toast. Terminal Velocity is dependent upon the atmospheric pressure and also the temperature, but it is generally around 120 mph (192 km/h). 192km/h == 53 m/s, which is pretty fast. I'm sure you've flopped a jump off of a diving board before and managed to land right on your back, right? Well that hurt, I bet. I know my back was red for a week after. And I hit maybe going at 2-3 m/s. Try hitting at 53m/s. It's pretty much the equivalent of landing on cement.

      I'm sure there are a FEW cases of people surviving, but the majority usually die upon impact.

    2. Re:parachute necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have always wondered if there were any examples (probably from war) of people bailing over the ocean with no/unopened parachute and surviving. Terminal velocity around sea level is like 120 mph, right? That's pretty fast, but I wonder if there's some chance of surviving an impact with water at that speed.

      Actually, I seem to recall hearing about one once... not quite from 25 Miles, I think he was in a skydiving class (an experienced diver), and his 'chute failed to open. He hit the ground spread eagled on his back, in an open field...

      ... and lived. Broke most of the bones in his body, but by hitting the ground with the force spread across his whole body (instead of feet first, or should I say, feet where his shoulders should be..).

    3. Re:parachute necessary? by DutchSter · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I have always wondered if there were any examples (probably from war) of people bailing over the ocean with no/unopened parachute and surviving. Terminal velocity around sea level is like 120 mph, right? That's pretty fast, but I wonder if there's some chance of surviving an impact with water at that speed.
      Given that water is an incompressible liquid and you would be hitting at such a high rate of speed, you'd be better off landing in a dirt field at the same high speed. Just think about those belly-flops; they hurt from three feet up. The second you hit, the water doesn't move. It's only after the blow has rippled out that the water moves and you begin to sink.

      According to the Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook (http://www.worstcasescenarios.com) if you plan to jump from anything high you should be prepared to at least break your legs, and clench your buttocks as you go down so as to keep water from rushing in and um, causing severe "internal" damage. Jumping from over 50 feet is ill-advised as it will almost certainaly break something other than your legs (spine) unless you hit at exactly the right angle. At 120 MPH you may not be able to adjust yourself by the time you realize that you're going to enter at a slight angle thanks to that last second cross breeze.

      Interestingly though, according to the same book you can probably survive a 50 foot fall into a dumpster of boxes with few complications.
    4. Re:parachute necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have always wondered if there were any examples (probably from war) of people bailing over the ocean with no/unopened parachute and surviving.

      You are looking for people like Vesna Vulovic. She is the record-holder, if you want to say so.
      She is the only survivor of a plane that broke apart in 33,000 ft (terrorists...) and landed in the tail of the plane on the snow-covered slope.
      The page lists over cases of people with what seems to be armies of guardian angels.

    5. Re:parachute necessary? by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have always wondered if there were any examples (probably from war) of people bailing over the ocean with no/unopened parachute and surviving.
      I haven't heard of any cases over water, but there have been a
      few on land.
    6. Re:parachute necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your 50ft number is certainly not right. Some friends and I would jump of a 75' bridge into a river and the worst I've ever gotten was a bruised back for landing nearly flat on it. We did wear sneakers so to protect our feet though. ( After 6-7 jumps they would get sore without shoes ).

    7. Re:parachute necessary? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      I watched a video of somebody skydiving where the shute failed to deploy and lived. The skydiver was tumbling in the air and the only explination I can give from watching the video is that the ground was tangent to the curve he was in, he tumbled along the ground and started screaming when he realized he was alive.

    8. Re:parachute necessary? by pigeon768 · · Score: 1

      Terminal velocity is 110-120 mph if you spread your arms and legs out a lot, and are wearing one of those baggy parachuter suits. 180 if you dive down head first.

      Biggest dives people take is around 150 meters, and you have major problems with people blacking own when hitting the water, and then drowning. (bad thing) This is a huge, huge jump- close to 500 feet. This attracts the same sorta people than go over the Niagara Falls in wine barrels, with about the same results.

      Assuming no atmosphere, you're going 54 m/s, 195 km/h, or 121 mph after a 150 meter free fall. Call it 80mph with that pesky "atmosphere" thing. You have over twice as much kinetic energy at 120mph than 80mph, (energy is a function of velocity squared) so I would say you ***might*** be able to survive a water impact at terminal velocity, but only if you fell into a deep swimming pool in the back of a hospital.

      I've heard stories of people bailing out of planes w/out a parachute, landing on lots of snow-covered branches, then landing in a 15 foot fresh snowbank, but I've also heard stories of people waking up in a bathtub full of icewater with "call 911" written on their chest in red lipstick.

    9. Re:parachute necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, water is practically incompressible, but it is fluid, and so will wrap around your body. This means the difference between stopping via instantaneous deceleration to zero vs stopping via rapid deceleration to zero. The less surface area of your body you give to the surface of the water, the easier it will be for the water to wrap around you, as you are not trying to displace it all at once (as in the belly flop scenario). This stretches out your negative acceleration over a more survivable period of time.
      Think of what the velocity curve would look like for a person falling and penetrating the surface of a lake feet first with toes pointed, versus a person in the same situation lying parallel to the surface. Personally, I would prefer to have the curve with a definable slope. ;]

    10. Re:parachute necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was one case (in the UK I think) where a womans parachute failed to open and she hit the ground going pretty near terminal velocity. She survived because she had passed out when the parachute failed to open so she was limp when she hit the ground. She suffered only minor injuries (compared to death anyway). Sorry can't find any links or remember any more details, perhaps someone with better memory can enlighten us.

    11. Re:parachute necessary? by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      According to the Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook

      As a licensed skydiver, I will say that the Worst-Case Scenario Survival handbook is full of shit. They have a section on how to survive if your parachute doesn't open; part of what they tell you to do is signal to other jumpers in the air that your parachute won't open, dock on them, and hold on to them until landing. First of all, everybody else will have deployed by the time you realize you're in trouble, and even if there were people with you, you wouldn't have time to dock onto them, get a good grip on them, and let them pull. It would take a VERY good grip on them too -- the deceleration of them pulling with the added weight of you hanging on would make holding on a bit difficult.

      What they don't tell you is what you are taught over and over and over again during your student training -- if your parachute doesn't work, pull your friggin' reserve!

      It is blatantly obvious to me that whoever wrote that book never took a lick of skydiving training. They have NO business telling people what to do in a situation like that. Their advice wouldn't help you; it would more than likely kill you. Look at this book as nothing more than a humor book...you're putting yourself in danger if you take it seriously.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    12. Re:parachute necessary? by P-Nuts · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are a FEW cases of people surviving, but the majority usually die upon impact.

      I remember a case of a person whose parachute failed, but survived after landing in a small pond about four feet deep. Seriously. I think he broke several bones though.

    13. Re:parachute necessary? by pigeon768 · · Score: 1, Informative
      Jumping from over 50 feet is ill-advised as it will almost certainaly break something other than your legs (spine) unless you hit at exactly the right angle.
      The high-dive in the olympics is from ~96 feet. (30m)

      There's a 100ft bridge where I live that people jump off of into the river below. People do it all the time, and it would be perfectly safe if people didn't have a disturbing tendancy to go straight through the 8 feet of water and get stuck in the mud at the bottom, and drown because they can't free themselves. Oops. They also have their arms stuck out when they hit the water, so they get the belly-flop effect on their under-arms only 30 times as bad. Big blood-blisters and stuff. Nasty.

    14. Re:parachute necessary? by MrSeb · · Score: 1

      On BBC's Sports Relief (a night of entertainment where Sportsmen degrade theirselves so that you donate money to the needy children, etc.) last night, someone dropped from the top of the Millenium Dome (100ft) into about 10 layers of cardboard boxes... no damage what so ever :)

      He did go through 9 of the 10 layers though!

    15. Re:parachute necessary? by PhotoGuy · · Score: 2

      Here's some examples from http://www.urbanlegends.com/death/falling_terminal _velocity.html

      This is what the Guinness Book of Records has to say:

      It is estimated that the human body reaches 99% of its low-level terminal velocity after falling 573m 1880ft which takes 13-14 sec. This is 117-125mph at normal atmospheric pressure and in a
      random posture.

      (At the 1100 ft Emley Moor TV mast near me they reckon that you would reach terminal velocity (great term) well before hitting the ground)

      Longest fall without a parachute:

      World: Vesna Vulovic (Yugoslavia, wherever that is now), stewardess in a DC-9 which blew up at 10160m 33330ft over Serbska Kamenice, Czechoslovakia, 26 Jan 1972.

      UK: Flt-Sgt Nicholas Steven Alkemade (d. 22 Jun 1987) from a blazing Lancaster bomber at 5485m 18000ft over Germany (near Oberkuerchen) on 23 Mar 1944.

      On a mathematical note, the acceleration force is always constant, whereas the drag increases as the square of the speed. The line reaches an asymptote at about 125mph. Interestingly though,
      it is actually the 0mph bit at the end which actually kills you.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    16. Re:parachute necessary? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Interesting ,thanks! Sorry I've no mod points for you.

    17. Re:parachute necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      They have a section on how to survive if your parachute doesn't open; part of what they tell you to do is signal to other jumpers in the air that your parachute won't open, dock on them, and hold on to them until landing. First of all, everybody else will have deployed by the time you realize you're in trouble,

      Why would that be? You pull your cord, and nothing happens. You pull you reserve cord, and nothing happens. That takes all of ten seconds. What says everyone is going to pull at once?

      and even if there were people with you, you wouldn't have time to dock onto them, get a good grip on them, and let them pull.

      Why not? It seems to me that some dives have minutes in the air, which is probably time enough.

      It would take a VERY good grip on them too -- the deceleration of them pulling with the added weight of you hanging on would make holding on a bit difficult.

      The WCSSH says that, and recommends that you put your arms through their straps.

    18. Re:parachute necessary? by Iamthefallen · · Score: 2

      It's been done before, but, there's no way you can hold on to the other person with hands alone. Put your arms inside their harness, entangle as much as you can, wait for them to pull, hope your arms don't break. Now, providing the canopy and lines hold, you have a chance to survive, with modern small <120sqft canopies the chance isn't that big, but there's at least a chance.

      Microlines would prolly be very painful for a brief moment until they snap.

      Although, the technique is, as you said, pointless really, no one will be around. Once your main has failed, you deploy reserve, if that doesn't work, your buddies will most likely be long gone already, and on a normal jump you'll be at <2000ft with <10 seconds until impact...

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    19. Re:parachute necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The high-dive in the olympics is from ~96 feet. (30m)

      30m?!? WTF Olympics has a 30m highdive?

      10m or about 33 feet is the highest.

    20. Re:parachute necessary? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      I believe if you break the surface tension of the water, they might have a chance. Ever seen those jump competitions they have during the olympics? They usually have something (not sure what it's called) that bubbles air from the botton just underneath the trampoline, thus breaking the surface. This helps if the diver fails in hitting the water correctly.

      But yes, you're right, 99% of the people hitting water after falling out of an airplane are very, very toast.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    21. Re:parachute necessary? by decaying · · Score: 1

      30m? Try 10 platform

      Can you imagine the size of the indoor swimming/diving venues if you had a 30m platform? yeesh

      --
      ----- One piece short of Legoland
    22. Re:parachute necessary? by undercanopy · · Score: 1

      Why would that be? You pull your cord, and nothing happens. You pull you reserve cord, and nothing happens. That takes all of ten seconds. What says everyone is going to pull at once?

      in the scenerio you just described, 5 seconds later you hit the ground.. See below for why...

      Why not? It seems to me that some dives have minutes in the air, which is probably time enough.

      An average skydive from full altitude in the slowest normal attitude will take about 70 seconds from exit to deployment... about 5 seconds before deployment everyone turns and flies as far away from eachother as they can so that their canopies don't collide.

      Yes, everyone opens at about the same time.

      It may SEEM like minutes to you in Pointbreak, Dropzone, Cutaway and Fandango, but it certainly isn't that way in real life.
      I invite you to come try it sometime, hopefully before you attempt to spread any more wildly inaccurate information (and get modded informative *sigh*)

      --
      -- D-23994, Muff#2613
  23. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by kmweber · · Score: 1

    What's so wrong with someone doing something he wants to do? It's his own money--he has the right to dispose of it as he pleases.

    Socialist jerk...

    --
    "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
  24. Take off, eh?!? by xipho · · Score: 2, Funny

    Its a plot, the French have decided to take back Canada by dropping old people on them... Oh well at least he won't hit nothin' too important when he crashes into Saskatoon.

    --

    only infrmatn esentil to understandn mst b tranmitd
    1. Re:Take off, eh?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I resent that...
      -Local Saskatoon boy

    2. Re:Take off, eh?!? by SparkyMartin · · Score: 1

      I resent you saying there's nothing important in Saskatoon...he may hit the Co-op store!

      If he goes off course I can see the headlines now..."French Skydiver lands in Moose Jaw!"

  25. Re:well by NorthDude · · Score: 1

    He will not fly, he will fall!

    --


    I'd rather be sailing...
  26. Will advance science. by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 2

    Quoth the article,

    The free fall will involve 200 scientific experiments in the stratosphere and the troposphere, some of them linked to the possibility of parachute escapes from stranded space shuttles.

  27. Rich people in space by maximillionus · · Score: 1

    How long will it be until Russia gets in on this action for the space tourist looking for the "econo" trip?

    I could imaging sending someone to an altitude lower than the ISS and letting them take a long skydive.

    Interesting experience... but could they ensure survival? I'm sure the standard extreme sport waiver forms would still apply :)

    1. Re:Rich people in space by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'snt that rocket guys general idea (see interviews, I am a lazy fuck not willing to post a link).? He wants to use a pnumatic launcher of some type?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  28. Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by splorf · · Score: 3, Informative
    And what does it really mean, here?

    ISTR that the speed of sound changes with air pressure and it's faster when the pressure is lower. The speed of sound at sea level is around 300 m/sec so mach 1.68 at sea level would be around 500 m/sec.

    But at 100,000 feet, the speed of sound in that thin air might be 1000 m/sec. So if the guy is falling at 500 m/sec at that altitude, that's really just half the speed of sound there. If he's falling at 1700 m/sec, that sounds awful, sonic booms and all that kind of thing.

    So what's the deal?

    1. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by mberman · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the second paragraph in the article: "[He will] reach a top speed of Mach 1.68 (1,680kph at that height)." As for the sonic booms, it's been mentioned in posts above that the boom takes place in a cone shape behind him, and by then he's long past it.

      Maybe you should read the article before asking questions about it?

      --

      This is a self-referential sig

    2. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speed of sound decreases the density of the medium decreases. The speed of sound is slower in thin air.

    3. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by Papineau · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try the other way. It's faster when the pressure is higher. The more closer together the molecules, the easier it is for them to collide and spread the sound. The speed of sound in a solid is a couple times higher than in air.

      If you're insterested: in perfect gases, v=(p*k/rho)^(1/2), with pressure p, k=Cp/Cv, and density rho.

      So the speed of sound (Mach 1) at high altitude is way lower, in terms of absolute speed, than near the ground. Mach 1.68 at 25 miles is probably not even the same absolute speed (m/s) than Mach 1 at ground level. In a sufficiently rarified atmosphere (eg Mars), you might even be able to run faster than sound! How's that?

    4. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by Arjuna · · Score: 1

      Its the speed of terminal velocity that increases when the air pressure is lower, while the speed of sound decreases, giving a handy crossover point where you fall at mach 1, prolly somewhere around 20-30km up.
      Maybe its getting used to imperial measurements and then learning the metric system later that makes US science education so abysmal.

    5. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by smoondog · · Score: 2

      I thought so, too. But that isn't correct. The speed of sound at 100,000 feet is within 30-40% of the speed of sound at sea level. From:

      The same publication lists the soundspeed at sea level as 340.29 m/s, and 302.03 m/s at an altitude of 100,000 ft.

      -Sean

    6. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by mamba-mamba · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I am pretty sure I remember a thread on /. a long time ago where it was conclusively proved (hah, hah) that speed of sound depends much more critically on temperature than on pressure.

      Of course, I could be wrong.

      Since I don't know what Cp and Cv are, I am not sure how this jibes with your equation.

      Most of the calculators I find on a google search don't even ask what the pressure is, but only the temperature and humidity.

      MM
      --

      --
      By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
    7. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The higher speed of sound in a solid (specifically the very high speed of sound in metals) can be attributed to the fact that the sound wave is being propogated by *electrons* vibrating about their equilibrium positions, as opposed to vibration of more massive bits (such as molecules in gas).

    8. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by CodeShark · · Score: 1
      As already noted, the speed of sound decreases as altitude decreases but becomes steady at around 36000 ft. Which is why the top listed speed for the SR-71 Blackbird is around Mach 3.2, (2112 mph) even though where at sea level this would only be around Mach 2.78.

      So the maximum speed (1.68*561 knots (mach above 36000 ft) * 1.151 (miles per hour per know), they are saying he would reach is around 1100 mph.

      I suppose someone with more interest could do the math and figure out the acceleration, etc. and determine how long it would take to reach this top speed and how long he would maintain it before the thicker warmer air below 36,000 ft would slow him back down.

      --
      ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
    9. Re:Does "Mach 1.68" make any sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed of sound in air are a function of temperature ONLY. Since it's colder at altitude (until you get REALLY high, when ionizing radiation actually heats the air), the speed of sound is usually lower at altitude (around 600mph) than sea level (about 750 mph).

      Greg

  29. Landing site? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    (* Of course, if the chute doesn't open, the hole he'll make will be about 1,000 metres deep." *)

    I hope he does it near my hometown. I always wanted to visit that crater in Arizona, but it is too far and too hot.

    We need a local one.

    1. Re:Landing site? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I hope he does it near my hometown. I always wanted to visit that crater in Arizona, but it is too far and too hot.

      It's in Winslow (or the outskirts, closer really to flagstaff) so it's not really all that hot. Been there about 2-3 times. He'd only make that big of hole if he was made of iron and lead and huge. :)

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  30. kittinger - The longest leap by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 5, Informative
    US Air Force Captain Kittinger made the previous world record jump in 1960 from 19 miles up. There's an archive of the Life story on it at:


    http://www2.tsixroads.com/Corinth_MLSANDY/jk004. ht ml

    including an amazing shot of him taken from the gondola from which he jumped:


    http://www2.tsixroads.com/Corinth_MLSANDY/corint h_ images/jk20.jpg

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    1. Re:kittinger - The longest leap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The life cover is a fake mockup done in photoshop (see for telltail signs of therein). If you wish to see the orginal cover (which actually featured a picture of Marilyn Monroe very drunk), please head to your local well stocked library.

  31. Video Record ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will he have a video camera recording the entire experience ? I'm highly curious to see what the view looks like from up there :)

  32. No... by Xeriar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Speed of sound is significantly lower higher in the atmosphere, and since there is less air resistance, he can fall faster.

    The last attempt, five miles lower, got pretty close to the speed of sound, this should do it. Not sure how safe it would be, but he should break it.

    Of course, if his chute doesn't open, he becomes his own airbrake and bursts into flames.

    1. Re:No... by zer0vector · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would he burst into flames if his chute did not open? He's not planning on opening it until 1000m, well in the range of normal skydiving, so obviously the chute has no bearing on what happens above that. At this point he'll only be traveling at terminal velocity anyway, which ain't so fast (~160mph, rough estimate for a human body).

      --

      ----
      Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
    2. Re:No... by p3d0 · · Score: 2
      Of course, if his chute doesn't open, he becomes his own airbrake and bursts into flames.
      Nonsense. If he was moving so fast that this were a possibility, then a parachute would be useless.

      You must be imagining that anything falling from space must be falling from orbit, and therefore has to deal with reentry. Not so--he's jumping from a stationary balloon held aloft by buoyancy, not by the momentum of an orbiting spacecraft.

      This raises another question though: if they are considering this as an escape route for shuttle or space station passengers, then they will have to deal with re-entry. I wonder how they plan to do that...

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  33. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the article. Jeez.

  34. Supersonic Jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets just hope he does better than the Japanese supersonic jet!

  35. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by Restil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody is obligated to do with their money what YOU feel is the best thing. How many of the qualities of life you take for granted today would not exist if someone hadn't "wasted" a lot of time, money, and effort on things that have "no relevance"?

    I personally have no desire to float 25 miles up into the atmosphere in temperatures over a hundred degrees below freezing just so I can fall faster than the speed of sound. But if this guy wants to do it, more power to him. As long as SOMEONE is reaching higher for what nobody in their right mind would ever want to do, the rest of the world will benefit as a result, even if indirectly.

    I'm not saying that funding medical research is bad. Its just as noble an endevour as any other. But to say that other reasearch does no good for the world simply because the immediate results do not, is very short sighted and reeks very badly of the "everything's already been invented" mentality. And besides, consider the fact that since he has partially funded this effort of his, the experiments he's carrying out will benefit agencies that otherwise would have to spend their own money to carry out similar experiments anyway. That means that money will be saved.. which means it might be available elsewhere, including your own personal preferred pet projects. And that's just looking at things from an immediate economic point of view.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  36. Some notes... by Grip3n · · Score: 1

    The previous jumper who exceeded the sound barrier (Joe Kittinger) jumped from a height of 19 miles, so we're talking here 6 additional miles here.

    Additionally, it is unlikely Michel Fournier will even realise when he breaks the sound barrier due to the fact he would be travelling faster than the noise he actually makes. Kittinger stated when he reached the ground that he didn't believe he actually did break the barrier and had to be assured by scientists watching the drop that he, in fact, did.

    --
    To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
  37. A Timeline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    65 million years ago, the dinosaurs disappeared mysteriously from the earth, supposedly caused by an impact from a meteor or piece of comet.

    A.D.2002: A retired French army colonel makes his skydive from 25 miles up. As he approaches mach 1.68, a bright flash is seen, and he vanishes. For years, the mystery of what happened to him remains unsolved.

    A.D.2042: It is discovered that at the moment the retired colonel reached mach 1.68, he caused a rift in the space-time continuum and travelled 65 million years back in time and slammed into the earth at 1200MPH, creator a crator and wiping out dinosaur life.

    1. Re:A Timeline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and it turns out someone had replaced his parachute with a flux capacitor.

    2. Re:A Timeline by MarkusQ · · Score: 2

      65 million years ago, the dinosaurs disappeared mysteriously from the earth, supposedly caused by an impact from a meteor or piece of comet.

      A.D.2002: A retired French army colonel makes his skydive from 25 miles up. His chute* fails to open and he makes a large crater. Experts measuring the crater realize how luck we are that he didn't weigh several tons...

      And in that instant new theory about extreme sports among the dinosaurs is born.

      -- MarkusQ

      * If it fails to open, is it still called a "shoot" or would the proper now be "a fuck"?

    3. Re:A Timeline by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Another way to look at this:

      Dinosours became extinct because of falling meteors.

      Stupid humans are becomming extinct by *being* meteors.

  38. Re:well by stuuf · · Score: 0

    you're probably right, he will burn up from the air friction at 1.68 mach

    --

    Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it

  39. Parachuting from space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parachuting from an orbiting shuttle or space station is currently impossible to survive so it would be a bad pr move to be doing it.

    I never got why this is so. You simply manage your surface area via a chute so that you decellerate gradually enough not the burn.

    Is it just too much heat to disapate for known flexible materials?

    What about a surf-board like thingy that acts as the primary shield?

    Space surfin' would be bitchin'

    1. Re:Parachuting from space? by Kredal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Going down isn't the problem. If the shuttle were geosynchronous, no problem.. if you had space suit, you could make the jump no problem (well, very little problem)..

      But the shuttle is also moving around the earth VERY quickly.. something like 17,000 kph (feel free to correct me), which would kill you pretty much instantly when you encountered the atmosphere, and had to slow down your sideways speed.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    2. Re:Parachuting from space? by saider · · Score: 1

      How would the shuttle being geosynchronous be any safer? If you are thinking that you will fall straight down onto the spot you are orbiting over, you are wrong.

      Newton's laws state that there must be a conservation of momentum. The linear velocity (which is tangent to the orbit) at GSO is 6-7000kph (IIRC). You would need to cancel this first, before you start falling straight down.

      And if you managed to do that, the acceleration from gravity would get you up to a nice velocity (don't feel like doing a diff eq right now). When you hit the Earth's atmosphere, you also would do it at a less than optimal angle which would cause the air friction to build up faster than the astronaut (or any vehicle) could tolerate. The result is rapidly increasing heat and pressure resulting in the vaporization of the object (much like most meteors).

      This doesn't sound like "no problem" to me.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    3. Re:Parachuting from space? by Rivin · · Score: 1

      Umm.. if you're in orbit, you're not going to fall. Jumping out of the shuttle in orbit isn't a problem, but you're not going to go down. You're going to float in orbit alongside the shuttle. To go down, you would have to deorbit, which requires thrust. So actually going down is quite a bit of a problem.

  40. Hello, common sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, if the chute doesn't open, the hole he'll make will be about 1,000 metres deep.

    Geez, some people really have poor physical intuition. How about we drop a skydiving dummy and chisox walks naked in his town for a number of seconds equal to 1,000 minus the depth of the hole? Of course if he's right, he can make a fortune with this technique in the mining industry.

  41. Dangerous Ascent by imkonen · · Score: 3, Funny
    But the risks of an accident during the jump are considered lower than during the painstaking process of reaching maximum altitude.

    Yeah, going straight up in a balloon can be pretty dangerous. He should bring a parachute just in case.

  42. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its staffers are not famous for intelligence.

    The whole thing sucks.

    I hang out here with the sole purpose of pointing
    this out to the population, day by day.


    Slashdot is the pinnacle of Editor/User mental equality, it seems.

  43. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 1

    He's sold his house and some personal belongings to pay for this and, according to the article, "the free fall will involve 200 scientific experiments in the stratosphere and the troposphere". If you're so concerned, why not sell your house (if you have one) and give the money to medical research?

    "Will shall be the sterner, heart the boulder, spirit the braver, as our strength lessens. The Battle of Maldon"

    Interesting sig. I was born in Maldon and reading that has made me want to learn more about the battle. Though it's spelt 'bolder' - a 'boulder' is a large rock.

    HH

  44. Re:well by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    ObToyStory:

    Note: Not a flying rich guy.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  45. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm.

  46. Re:well by macdaddy357 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The chute won't even open. It will be frozen. A 200 pound popsicle will be stuck 50 feet into the ground. He will only prove that it can't be done.

    --
    How ya like dat?
  47. Stamps? by ComaVN · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I sold (...) my stamp albums (...)

    So this guy regularly jumps from perfectly functional aircraft, and collects (collected) stamps!?!?

    I guess you've got to get your kicks somewhere.

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  48. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "So I look at something like this and go how will this advance mankind. The only answer is that it will not. This is like trying to balloon around the world. I think subjuects like this have no0 relevence on slashdot. He could take the money that he is squandering on this and give it to doctors without borders and actually do some good in this world. Isn't it time that postmodernism died."

    You know what the moral difference is between robbing someone on the street at gunpoint, and using your government representatives to do it for you?

    None.

    What you state is VERY contrary to the spirit of freedom and individual liberty. What someone does with his own time and money is no business of yours at all.

    How about your own life? That money you spent on that new RAM upgrade could have gone to help AIDS victims. That money you blew on beer and pr0n magazines could have gone to help the homeless.

    See what I mean? This is, in essence, what socialism is: A central comitte decides what is done with money, property, and individuals, NOT the individuals.

    I don't think that is what you are advocating, at least, I hope not...

    If not for the individual freedom the USA is supposed to stand for, and the incredible spirit of adventure and creativity this spawns, the world wouldn't have had:

    Charles Lindburgh
    Wilbur and Orville Wright

    Who both did things that were thought to be nutty at the time.

    There is a reason why most great inventions of the past 150 years have happened in America. One word: Freedom.

    Freedom to do with what is yours, and what gifts you have, as you will.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  49. Re:well by spike+hay · · Score: 2

    How does a chute become frozen? Last time I checked nylon was already "frozen" at room temperature. ;-P

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  50. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    capitalist pig...

  51. If you want more info on his jump... by zrosener · · Score: 3, Informative

    check out his home page:

    http://www.legrandsaut.org/

    or straight to the english version:

    http://www.legrandsaut.org/ressources/gb/gb_page s/ gb_accueil.html

    He has some movies and facts and explanations and interviews....etc

  52. Re:well by spike+hay · · Score: 1

    At 1.68, air friction is not that bad at all. He's wearing a protective suit as well, to boot.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  53. Anyone know when? by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 1

    I'd like to keep track of this story, anyone know when the jump is going to happen?

    There was a story a couple years ago that was something to the same extent, I believe it was posted on /. but apparently it never happened because the record is still in place. Anyone know what happened with that attempt? I think it may have been a women trying.

    --
    sig.
    1. Re:Anyone know when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA....september.

  54. height doesn't matter by matt4077 · · Score: 1

    He could easily open the chute at any height without killing himself. Why? Because the chute is subject to the same air pressure (=resistance) his body is. Only problems would be (a) wind which might make it impossible for him to descend and (b) oxygen because it would take quite a long time to descend.

  55. Big Airy Sponges... by roberto0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At 25,000 feet, the earth's atmosphere is significantly thinner than at ground level. So there's an interesting effect going on here: When the skydiver jumps from the plane, he'll accelerate until he's falling at "terminal velocity".
    But as he falls, the atmosphere will be thickening around him, and the "terminal velocity" will decrease. Which is kind of cool, because he'll be slowing down as he's falling!
    The atmosphere is like a big, airy sponge around the Earth...

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, simulate.
  56. Adventure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space tourists and Space divings business? Humm... I hope that NASA changed their mind and open the door to tourists/divings business. I do really want to dive from 25.01 miles above and travel at mach 1.681.

    Where can I sign up?

  57. Skydiving from 25 Miles Up by guru312 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well...He may get to hold the record for highest skydive but *I* hold the record for parachuting night pukes.

    No one has gotten sick jumping out of an airplane at night as many times as I have.

    I keep waiting for someone to try to break my record. They are all afraid to try!

    See it here: http://AICommand.com/PukeDuke.htm

    Guru312

    1. Re:Skydiving from 25 Miles Up by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* *I* hold the record for parachuting night pukes. No one has gotten sick jumping out of an airplane at night as many times as I have. *)

      Isn't that a biohazard? All that stuff is going to land *somewhere*.

      Unless, perhaps you have never heard of this important rule: "Never puke into the wind".

      BTW, if it makes you sick, then why do you keep doing it? I never found puking pleasent in the least amount.

  58. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by mabinogi · · Score: 1

    > There is a reason why most great inventions of the past 150 years have happened in America. One word: Freedom.

    You know, I have this strange feeling that there might be one or two other countries around the world that have some degree of freedom too...

    I think having a relatively large population, and the natural tendancy to pay more attention to things that happen in your back yard may be where you have got this perception from.

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  59. At least if his chute doesn't open... by jeffy210 · · Score: 1

    ... he can be burried in a Succrets box.

    --
    ------
    "And may your days be long upon the earth."
  60. Good Timing... by Calle+Ballz · · Score: 2

    I just went skydiving for the first time yesterday.... albeit I only jumped from 10,000 feet... but the experience is undescribable. To all other slashdotters, I recommend that you give it a shot, even if you only jump from 2 miles, and not 20.

    1. Re:Good Timing... by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      I did it once, 8 months ago. NEVER AGAIN.

  61. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  62. Sonic "click" by s4m7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The sound heard on the ground as a "sonic boom" is the sudden onset and release of pressure after the buildup by the shock wave or "peak overpressure." The change in pressure caused by sonic boom is only a few pounds per square foot -- about the same pressure change we experience on an elevator as it descends two or three floors -- in a much shorter time period. It is the magnitude of this peak overpressure that describes a sonic boom.

    now, all this relies on air pressure! If our skydiver hits the speed of sound up where there isn't any air to speak of, then he's not going to experience much of a boom at all now, is he?

    This is not to say nothing of the fact that the boom appears to occur behind the cause, from the pilot's, or in our case the intrepid colonel's perspective. (that is, he is moving away from the sound at the speed of sound.)

    NO BOOM PEOPLE, GET IT?

    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    1. Re:Sonic "click" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what buildings you frequent, but I can assure you that the pressure difference is no where near "a few" psi. To put you comment into perspective, 1 atmosphere = 14.7 psi.

      3 stories is about 10 m. The pressure difference will be 120 Pa = 0.017 psi

      From a sound point of view, a few psi is huge.
      However, the obique shock wave will be ahead of the skydiver and will not effect him in the manner that people expect.

      Seriously, if you have no clue, why post crap?

    2. Re:Sonic "click" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops! Sorry. You said lbs/ft^2 not psi. :o

  63. Better Picture by crisco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like this picture better.

    --

    Bleh!

    1. Re:Better Picture by MulluskO · · Score: 2

      Is that a red toolbox strapped to his but?
      I think I see drawers.

      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    2. Re:Better Picture by MulluskO · · Score: 2

      *butt, I noticed just after posting. I can spel butt. It's not like I'm stupid.

      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    3. Re:Better Picture by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      *butt, I noticed just after posting. I can spel butt. It's not like I'm stupid

      Nope, your not stupid, but you missed the 'l' at the end of spell, so you might want to use that preview button!

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:Better Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, and there's no way that was don intentionally, right?

    5. Re:Better Picture by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2

      aye, that's a nice picture too. i had found a very small version of it, but not a decent sized one. there should be quite a few more pictures of his jump, but i cant find any online. :(

      My preference in the pictures though is for the one that appeared on the Life cover - an expanse of cloud mass, that looks like it's photographed from orbit/high up - and a wee speck of a man in a space suit sticking one leg out to control his fall. You just get an amazing sense of how extreme his jump was, as the background and the man look more like the images we've seen of astronauts on EVA than of a man parachuting to earth. The only clue: no umbilical.

      Though the picture you posted a link to is technically more interesting as you get a much better view of his kit, i like the cover picture better for it's sense of perspective.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    6. Re:Better Picture by Eg0r · · Score: 1

      Nope, only the black box ;-)

      --
      "Hasta la victoria siempre!" El Comandante
  64. MOOSE - Personal Re-Entry Kit by Komodo · · Score: 4, Informative

    GE once designed a device called the MOOSE, to allow astronauts to bail out from orbit and re-enter the Earth's atmosphere with little more than a space suit and plastic cocoon (remember that early heat shields where basically a big slab of high-temperature plastic that would flake off during re-entry).Here's one link about the MOOSE: http://www.boggsspace.com/strange_but_true.htm

  65. Sonic Flatulence Maybe - Get an Education. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Daveman, please get an education. It the kind of useful thing that stops us all from becoming scientologists, muslims, or buying into m$.

    A "sonic boom" is only caused by Very Noisy Fast Things (TM) why should going fast be noisy in itself? Don't be silly...

    It is simply a sudden shock when all the sound is compressed and amplified as the object moves through the 'barrier' of the speed of sound.

    I would say he will travel around 120 mph, perhaps diving to speeds of 200-250 mph, just a hairs width from 742 mph required to break mach at freezing.

    Then again, if something goes wrong, I would say most speeds could be considered terminal...

    1. Re:Sonic Flatulence Maybe - Get an Education. by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      A "sonic boom" is only caused by Very Noisy Fast Things (TM) why should going fast be noisy in itself?

      You're kidding, right?

    2. Re:Sonic Flatulence Maybe - Get an Education. by undercanopy · · Score: 1

      troll.

      --
      -- D-23994, Muff#2613
  66. Cone shapes are for aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please dont have too much faith in the cone shape theory.

    If an object such as an aeroplane or a jet, designed to travel > mach, physically shakes after the sounds wall moves through the body, then a human would experience the same thing.

    Without the 4 car sized jet engines making all the noise...

    The sound energy disperses away from the source, however during the time leading upto the sonic boom, and wall of amplified sound energy builds up as a physical entity.

    Then when you go fast enough, you travel through this bubble. boom.

    however I failed to read the bit about him carrying 4 car sized jet engines with him.

    Maybe I am stupid.

  67. Well, there's the end of JBoss! by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 2

    Marc! Marc Fleury! Vous etes trop age! Restez ici a Atlanta, et gagnez un grand vie!

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  68. interviewed on TV recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    saw Kittinger being interviewed about this in a documentary on history channel or TLC (can't remember which). 'say a little prayer and jump'...

  69. cool by nr · · Score: 1

    Which speed will he hold then he hits the ground? :)

  70. Bailing out over Saskatchewan by Bekwin · · Score: 1

    FYI he is going to do this over this in the skies
    over Saskatchewan,Canada. Saskatchewan, for the geographically challenged is located just north of
    North Dakota and the southern part of it is as
    flat as your outstreched, upturned hand. Guess he
    doesn't want to land in any pointy terrain. Heard
    an interview done with a colleague of his on the
    CBC english morning radio program. Guess the Colonel
    speaks no usable english and his assistant was little better so the interview was a real strain. Funny, just down the hall at our local CBC station are the offices of Radio-Canada, the french arm of
    the CBC which broadcasts here locally also. You would think CBC english folk could ask someone from Radio-Canada (all fluently bilingual) for a
    little help. Alas not. Sigh.

  71. Heating by friction by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 2

    How hot would the surface of ones clothing/body become while traveling at mach 1.68 due to friction with the air?

    1. Re:Heating by friction by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Since he only reaches that speed due to lack of friction with the air, pretty much no rise of temp. when the air pressure slowly increases, he will slow down, but still hardly any increase, IMHO. If you're thinking of something like the space shuttle, well, they go *damn* much faster.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
  72. Deja Vu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a feeling that RocketMan is going to be doing the same thing, sans parachute.

  73. And he traveled through the by Pfhor · · Score: 1

    8th Dimensoin!

    And returned with a rocket car.

  74. Wired article, yet again. by iamr00t · · Score: 1
  75. thin air by Kenard · · Score: 1

    If he opened the parachute in high in the atmosphere the thin air would push LESS in the parachute then it would close to the ground (that's why he will travel so fast in the first place) the force would be the same any point on the trip down.
    Though, if he opened it high in the atmoshere, it would take a long time to get down.

    --
    (appended to the end of comments you post)
    1. Re:thin air by undercanopy · · Score: 1

      If he opened the parachute in high in the atmosphere the thin air would push LESS in the parachute then it would close to the ground (that's why he will travel so fast in the first place) the force would be the same any point on the trip down.

      See, i theorize the same thing, but people SWEAR that they have harder(faster) openings when they're at higher-than-normal altitudes. The only thing i can figure about this is that the thinner air gets you going faster, but when the canopy inflates, all the surface area still does a really good job of grabbing the air that's there (there's some force^2 as surface area doubles or someting, isn't there?)...

      --
      -- D-23994, Muff#2613
  76. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um, there were fewer skydiving related deaths last year then there were deaths that occurred while bowling.

  77. Where this Urban Legend Comes From by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a good story so I don't want to Lone Gunman it. Suffice it to say, no one gets killed and those involved weren't QUITE that stupid. There is a true story that gave birth to the urban legend. What REALLY happened isn't quite like the parent quoted Legend.

    http://www.wagoneers.com/pages/RocketCar/rockit. ht ml

  78. Kewl! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was a kid, I could never drop a Frog off a high enough place!

  79. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  80. Wrong, but right by Goonie · · Score: 2, Informative
    The maximum height in competitive diving is the 10 metre platform.

    However, you're absolutely right in that it's not that hard to safely dive from much greater heights. I've personally seen people do 30 metre dives at acquatic shows.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  81. He's not the only one by M.+Silver · · Score: 2

    There's an article here on a different skydiver (mentions Fournier and another attemptee, too) shooting for the same record.

    "If her plans succeed, on Sept 3, 2003, she'll ride a balloon to 130,000 feet, jump out in a McConnell Air Force Base pressurized space suit and free fall to Earth nearly 25 miles below -- landing somewhere within 70 miles of Wichita."

    --

    Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
  82. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just because old earl went on that killing spree ... when are you people gonna let that statistic die?!?

  83. Waitaminute!! I printed out their stuff!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been dealing with the people for a while. They usually get their funding proposals and whatnot printed through the us (Nation-Wide Copy Chain K----'s). Because I do most of the digital output I'm very familiar with the whole thing. I've chatted up the doctor in charge of Mr. Fournier's jump and he's a nice guy. So I hope Mr. Fournier don't perish as he hurtles through the stratosphere.

  84. 1000M is low for skydiving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most first time sky divers jump at 1066M.

    I jumped from 4000M last weekend.

    1. Re:1000M is low for skydiving by undercanopy · · Score: 1

      Most first time sky divers jump at 1066M.
      I jumped from 4000M last weekend.


      Actually 1000M is right about where most skydivers open their parachutes on an average jump. Some lower, some higer, but 1000M is average.

      I jumped from 4000M last weekend, too.. opened just below 1000M and was still well within the rules.

      --
      -- D-23994, Muff#2613
  85. What do you call a Frenchman... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When his parachute fails to open after a 25 mile skydive?

    SPLAT-TE.

  86. It's been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. Army did this stuff back in the late 60's, only it was at 75-100K.

  87. Truth informs fiction, or the other way around? by shameless · · Score: 1

    A few years back, I read an early "leaked" script for the movie "Star Trek: Generations" that had been circulated on the Net. Early on in the movie, before Kirk appears on the Enterprise-B, the script describe a scene of Kirk engaging in "orbital sky-diving", with Scotty and Chekov waiting for him at the landing zone. Since the rest of the script was dead-on compared to the movie, this scene *must* have been part of the original concept. Whether it was actually filmed is another story...

    1. Re:Truth informs fiction, or the other way around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a picture of Kirk in the suit in the center of the book version - the pictures were from the movie. I wondered why it was cut too.

      The idea did make it to ST:Voyager in a scene where Tores is in the Holodeck trying to kill herself by doing crazy things. Can't remember the episode name.

  88. Some info 'bout HALO by one51 · · Score: 1

    As a skydiver let me make a couple points:

    * the fastest you could get near the earth, regardless of how high you jump FROM, is a terminal velocity somewhat over 200mph. Big boys pencilled-out in a head down (looks just like it sounds) can break 200 but not skinny dudes like me. Of course you could always dress in a lead cone for more speed...

    * no way the guy would make a crater. whoever said that must have been looking at the speed at 35,000m or something, and just did some quick (wrong) math. he /would/ end up like a fat skeeter on the windshield glass tho.

    * there's no way you could survive hitting water at 120mph. it's similar to hitting concrete once you are going that fast. just ask my friends who dropped a watermelon from a helicopter over a lake... that sucker exploded like dan akroyd's experimental melon in Caddyshack 2.

    * you want to be slowed to a terminal of ~120mph by the time your parachute opens... yes, some lines a.k.a. "ropes" would probably break if you opened at mach 1.something. opening at that speed might also rip your legs from your torso.

    * this guy may have one or several "drogue" parachutes, or small chutes that would help to slow his rate of descent at various points. the "Tandem" jumps commonly done by first-timers have a drogue since with 2 people (and the same surface area) they would otherwise fall too fast to open the parachute safely (190-200mph is too fast). now, from space a drogue might help keep you from incinerating (since he would essentially be a meteor otherwise).

    That is pretty high... i would like to make a HALO (high altitude, low opening) jump like the military (and rich folks) can do, from 30k feet or so with oxygen. But i'll settle for 14k feet which you all should try

    (and now your shameless off-topic plug for skydiving...) come to skydiveorange (dot com) if you're in VA, that's where i jump

  89. Will Gravity have an effect? by tgibson · · Score: 1

    Actually, gravity is less up there. By my dc calculations it will take him 8 days to travel the first 1000 meters, and then about 10 minutes for the rest of the trip. I think. Someone want to double-check my math? Hope he brought some food with him.

  90. he is ALWAYS at terminal velocity by Transcendent · · Score: 2

    "Well, actually his max speed will be high up and near the earth the atmosphere will have slowed him down to terminal velocity."

    at that high altitude, mach 1.6 IS his terminal velocity.....

  91. Feet and meters by theolein · · Score: 2

    The U.S. Army did this stuff back in the late 60's, only it was at 75-100K.

    That was at 75 000 to 100 000 feet. This is to be done at 41 000 meters. There are just over three feet in a meter. Do the rest yourself.

  92. However, his later jump... by kikta · · Score: 3, Informative
    ...was a bit faster:
    His later jumps were much more stable, and with a functioning 6 foot drogue, he achieved a terminal velocity of 702 MPH! He is still the holder of several world records, including longest (4.5 minutes) and highest freefall (81,000 feet) as well as highest bailout.
    Source: The Ejection Site
  93. SMFDAC by thelizman · · Score: 1

    I'll let you figger it out...

  94. Play the game online and "stratosphere jump" links by willpost · · Score: 1

    Nova did a great show on Joe Kittinger and his dive from 19 miles up.

    They first tested it with human shaped models and found out the flatspin would be deadly, liquifying organs. After that they used a stabilizing chute to avoid the flatspin.

    Exerpt:
    http://www.yvcc.cc.wa.us/~chemyvcc/Skydive_From_St ratosphere.html

    Here's the link to the shockwave game:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/escape/skydive.html

    Wired article:
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.08/space.html ?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=

    Project Excelsior:
    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/coldwar/pe. htm

    I can no longer find my favorite desktop sized picture of the jump but a smaller one is here (the top picture):
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/balloon/science/histo ry2.html

  95. He will not break the sound barrier by peterpi · · Score: 0

    The speed of sound changes with air pressure. When the skydiver is at great altitude, he might travel faster than the speed of sound at sea level, but he will not be travelling faster than the speed of sound at his altitude. If he did break the sound barrier, he'd probably be shaken to pieces, which would be quite funny.

  96. Close Harmoney by BoBaBrain · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since he will break the sound barrier and eventually start to slow down, he could sing a close harmony duet with himself.

    Cool.

    --
    I am a Karma Library.
  97. "Oh no. Not again . . ." by Pike65 · · Score: 1

    If his life really did flash before his eyes, what would hapen when he ran out of life? Would he have to watch it more than once?

    I guess they why they picked such an old guy.

    Wouldn't want him getting bored and falling asleep half way down . . .

    --
    "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
  98. And if you're Jon Katz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't bring a parachute

  99. Misread by AJSchu · · Score: 2, Funny

    First time I read the story, I thought it said "a retarded French army colonel who is soon to make a free fall parachute jump from 25 miles up."

    AJS

  100. How low can terminal velocity be? by pussyco · · Score: 1

    I thought sky divers wore baggy clothes, to reduce their terminal velocity, so that they could spend more time in free fall. How far can you push this? Could you wear a flying squirrel suit, with cloth between you arms and legs, to get your terminal velocity down to say 50mph?

    If that worked, could it be the basis for a fairground ride: Enourmous fans blast air upwards at 50mph. Customers wear flying squirrel suits, and get to fly about in the air stream, a bit like being a bird.

    1. Re:How low can terminal velocity be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      already exists, in a way. There are wind tunnels that divers use for practice--big fan over which a diver hovers about 5ft off the ground.

    2. Re:How low can terminal velocity be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, some skydivers do wear "bird man" suits to increase their horizontal distance of travel while in freefall. This allows them to fall in some direction other than down. It might slow down the speed of descent a little, but not that much.

      And goshdarn, I have actually been in one such contraption that you propose. An old amusement park in Northern New Jersey, Action Park, had a huge fan blowing upwards. You put on a baggy jumpsuit and get to fly around for a couple seconds. Never get much above a couple feet off the ground, and you're supposed to flip over onto some cushions, but it was fun!! And the guys who worked there would take the thin foam rectangular body mats from the water rides and use them on their bellies to catch the air!! But alas, the machine's been long since retired, and the place was taken over by a much more responsible, and better insured company to create the new Mountain Creek Waterpark. Still a great place to go.

      http://www.mountaincreekwaterpark.com

  101. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by JPelorat · · Score: 1

    Postmodernism is inefficient... use Getmodernism instead.

    --
    Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  102. Crackpot by Azureash · · Score: 0

    This moron is going to freeze immediately. Falling at that speed, at that altitude, is going to freeze him solid. I mean, come on, a commercial jetliner flies at around 30,000 ft (less than 6 miles), where its -30 to -70 F. It only gets colder as you go up, and when you factor in the windchill....this guy is going to come down like a big French popsicle.

    --
    Look at my karma - I'm bad, just like Michael Jackson!
  103. Almost by Cobain · · Score: 1

    If he is successful, he will break a 42-year-old record set by an American colonel, Joe Kittinger, who jumped from 31,333 metres over Florida in August 1960.

    Damn Joe was almost 31337.

    --

    ----------------------
    58.0% slashdot corrupt
  104. high-altitude jump info by caveat · · Score: 1

    here's a VERY intersting page on high-altitude skydiving...it's main focus is civilian HALO jumping, but there's quite a bit of very good information on space-jumping. includes Kittinger, the French dude, another woman who wants to jump from 130K this year, and lots and lots of space-escape systems. great way to burn an hour at work.

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  105. How long is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alright, adders...
    Exactly how long will it take him to fall that far?

  106. Terminal Velocity by cyberlync · · Score: 1

    Isn't terminal velocity on the order of 260+ miles per hour. That means that with out some type of assistance (some type of engine, rocket, etc) he should not be able to get anywhere near the sound barrier. Just as an FYI terminal velocity is the highest speed at which the earths gravity may pull an object. This is, of course, effected by wind resistance etc. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

    --
    I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
  107. Make this a park attraction by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Interesting stunt, but isn't it hard to breathe up there ? Heck, just in a roller coaster I have trouble breathing sometimes, and that's just a short drop of a few dozen feet. And what about (de)compression ? Deep-sea divers start having problems after going a certain depth, isn't there a reverse effect at high altitude where air pressure is very low ?

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:Make this a park attraction by CormacJ · · Score: 2

      It's the edge of space. To protect yourself at this altitude you use essentially a space suit. This gets past all the issues of lack of oxygen, decompression etc.

      You're right there is a reverse effect at high altitude. Climbers need to acclimatize properly otherwise they risk problems from oxgen deprivation and a rather nasty problem where the brain swells.

      In standard parachute jumping though the exposure is not long enough for these problems to be apparent. The only time problems occur is when you go from the altitude metioned here. Instant death from lack of oxygen, and freezing is pretty assured if you tried going from this height without some protection.

  108. last record set in 1966? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    The previous records he'll be breaking were set in the 60's, the last being in 1966. What's the deal? Have there just been two generations of lamers?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  109. Fan power calculation by pussyco · · Score: 1

    Let the flying area be 10 meters by 10 meters.
    50mph is a little over 20 meters per second.
    Thus the volume of flow required is 2000 cubic meters per second.

    Each cubic meter of air has a mass of about 1 kg, so it has a kinetic energy, half m v squared, of 1/2 x 1 x 20 x 20 = 200 Joules. We need 2000 cubic meters per second, so 400kW.

    This is a bit more that 500hp, so the idea is not impractical because the fans would take too much power :-)

  110. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This dude is a real man ....despite the fact that he's French.

  111. Space Surfin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the shuttle is also moving around the earth VERY quickly.. something like 17,000 kph (feel free to correct me), which would kill you pretty much instantly when you encountered the atmosphere, and had to slow down your sideways speed.

    But you don't hit the atmosphere all at once. It slowly increases. And with the nifty Surfboard Shield, your space-suit does not have to take the brunt of the friction. Make the board out of the same stuff that the shuttle tiles are made of. (Except these ones would not fall off, hopefully.)

  112. Terminal Velocity by Futaba-chan · · Score: 1

    Terminal Velocity: the speed of a VT-100 sailing out an open window....

  113. Re:Wouldn't be cool if he died by Alanoman · · Score: 1

    I'm all for freedom and such, but where'd you get the idea that most great inventions in the past 150 years came from America? (By which you mean the U. S. of America, remember there's more to America than "America")

    Industrial things got invented in western Europe. Mathematical stuff tends to come from Eastern Europe. Electronics are from Japan. Basketball is from Canada. What else is left?

    - Alanoman