Gliding Into the Stratosphere

iAlex writes "Apparently flying around the world in a balloon isn't enough for Steve Fossett. Currently he is attempting to exceed the sailplane altitude record of 49,000 feet. The intention is to fly a two seat glider into the stratosphere on a mountain wave while wearing a pressure suit. Later on the intention is to exceed 100,000 feet in a pressurized glider. There is also a Wired article." Here's a nutshell description of the plan and a primer on mountain waves.

Comments

I'm a rich bastard!

[Bonker]

I'm so rich that I think I'm going to blow my money on breaking records for my personal glory rather than trying to help people in need or advancing technology to help everyone.

Seriously, I can't help but think that Mister Fosset could get significantly more head-rush for his money by doing something like sky-diving than building vast, record-breaking projects that have very little effect on advancing technology. Imagine for a second that, rather than attempting to circle the globe in a baloon eight or nine times, he had held back a few years, used the money to improve his balloon technology, and tried again with better technology than the same technology over and over again.

I'm a very firm beleiver that throwing money at problems doesn't make them go away, but if he had spent *half* the funds from his balloon venture on something like inner-city literacy campaigns or AIDS research, I can't help but feel like the world would be a better place.

Real men don't wear pressure suits.

[maeka]

I love the speculation in the last paragraphs of the Wired article "The Omarama attempt may also yield new scientific information. . . " Reminds me a great deal of the stories about John Glenn's "mission" on the space shuttle, and all the "science" they would gather from sending an older man into space.
I think it'd be a blast to ride the glider, and if I had the money and the skill I'd try it too, but to sell one man's stratospheric ego trip as an important mission of science is just silly.

Re:Envy?

[simetra]

Indeed.
Just think... if you worked hard to make millions of dollars, how would you like it if those who didn't kept telling you how to spend your money? Really, isn't the point of becoming wealthy; to do what you want with your wealth? If we made it such that anyone who becomes wealthy must give their wealth to others, would anyone choose to become wealthy? Isn't that the root of capitalism and freedom?

Re:The Real Record

[Stonehand]

Because he's a rich celebrity, that's why. Rich people are, apparently, so important that some people even read or listen to commentaries on whoever provided their suits and dresses at whatever parties they attended. If you want vapid and "unimportant", go watch the Oscars / Emmys / People's Choice / other awards ceremony de-jour -- hours and hours of self-congratulations for being "entertainers".

I reckon that more people recognize, say, the name of Robert Blake and what he's alleged to have done, versus, say, Hun Sen versus the UN on the subject of trials for the (surviving) Khmer Rouge leaders a few years ago. Hell, Torricelli seems to get far less coverage than Trafficant, while arguably the former's case is much more severe due to Torricelli's standing and influence among his peers and the Democratic Party -- it's just that Trafficant habitually plays the Village Idiot and thus provides sillier quotes.

Celebrity attracts coverage, because vapid, superficial viewers like that sort of thing, and there are an /awful/ lot of them around.