Slashdot Mirror
Zero Gravity Flights for the Rest of Us
waynegoode writes "Zero G Corporation, whose motto is "Question Gravity", is now offering zero gravity flights to the general public. For $3000 you get training and a 90 minute ride with 15 periods of 25 seconds of low or zero-gravity: 3 1/3 Mars gravity, 3 1/6 Lunar gravity, and 9 zero gravity. Peter Diamandis, the man behind the Ansari X Prize, worked 11 years to get FAA approval. Previously, such flights were available only to astronauts, researchers, and Tom Hanks; although recently flights for the public began Russia for about twice the price. Story also here."
The porn industry would do it first!
Come to think about it, maybe they'll start using this as well, though 25 seconds isn't very long.
Simply take a bottle full of Ipecac and save yourself a few thousand dollars.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
...I just drink copious amounts of Jagermeister. Works like a charm, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
"Gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the law" - Author Unknown
Now, to gravitate to the story...
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
that does not seem like a long time...
of course falling from a great height it can seem like forever...
but I can just see someone trying a "cool trick" in zero G.. then the 25 secs ends and the kids lands on his head... that would be bad...
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
Consider that sky-diving can also offer you zero-g styled environment and it almost seems like a ripoff. If you were doing serious research it would be worth the cash but just for the sensation of free fall you can do better for less.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
to the floating vomit gallery?
but with the discressionary income of allot of americans, I could see this as being a business. it's like going on a roller coaster, but with more of the wow factor! ;)
CBdfs(setwhore-yest)
free ipod and free gmail!
Xeni Jardin, over at Boingboing.net has a ticket and is blogging the experience.
Warning! Keep Out of Eyes! Wash Out with Water! Don't Drink Soap! Dilute! Dilute!
That's relatively affordable for the uniqueness of the experience. And hey, maybe even more affordable. Since I write science fiction novels with such low-gravity and free-fall environments, I bet I could write this off! Whoo hoo!
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
Xeni Jardin of BoingBoing is going to be on one of the flights, you can read more here
.sdrawkcab si gis siht
Just find a road with some small hills and go fast enough to just become airborne. Always got a kick out of that as a kid in the back of my parents station wagon. May be short lived, but it's cheep!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
In case anyone's interested, skydiving is a cheaper way of obtaining a similar experience. The primary difference with skydiving is the lack of walls.
That and the big flat thing rushing towards you at ~140 mph.
Remain calm! All is well!
All orbit is is free fall with enough horizontal velocity to match. Orbit simply is fast free fall. Zero-g exists in orbit. How is this different?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
In case anyone's interested, skydiving is a cheaper way of obtaining a similar experience. The primary difference with skydiving is the lack of walls.
I would say the primary difference with skydiving is the wind... which you would not experience if you were inside a box/plane.
Fantastic idea to make a costly modern age pr0n
fifteen jugglers, five believers
Actually this would be quite a different experience than skydiving due to atmospheric drag felt during a dive. Inside the plane all of the air is moving along with you and so there are no drag effects.
The secret to flying is to hurl yourself at the ground and miss. (one of the more amusing ideas from HHGG)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Jesus,
what the hell was the FAA thinking.
If this isn't an advertisment for reducing the size of goverment I don't know what is.
Civil dis-obedience is rapidly becoming mandatory behaviour.
And without terminal velocity wind!
Sheesh. BIG difference here, fellas.
Wouldnt you get a similar effect on some of the larger roller coasters? You could ride one 25 times for a days admission to a theme park.
Flying The Vomit Comet Has Its Ups And Downs. NOTE: article deserves props for it's title alone, but it's also very revealing about what getting to Zero G is like. Not sure if I'd want to do it, but it must be a crazy feeling.
CB(whr=1)
free ipod and free gmail!
It's completely proper if you're slavic. Do I need to post the link to Elektronik Supersonik again?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It would be great, the Free Fall flights traveling, make the trips way more enjoyable. It would kick any in-flight movie's ass and I bet no one would complain about the lack of meals.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
skydiving is a cheaper way of obtaining a similar experience. The primary difference with skydiving is the lack of walls.
What about the wind?
Tried neither, but seems that sould be very different..
I hope the experiments triggered by the X-prize would lead to 'real' low-cost space flights soon.
This new flight though would give one the experience, wouldn't be as thrilling as a real flight i suppose.
I don't know if it's a proper example, but it, in my opinion, this would just be like wearing the special goggles and watching a 3d movie.
Damn! What is reality?!?!
You can do this with a single prop plane, it'd be hard to beat 25sec but you can get a good 10sec 0 gravity in one.
Why is it that the NASA/military free-fall flights are so notorious for inducing nausea in the participants that they've been dubbed "Vomit Comet," yet you never hear about anyone getting airsick or puking during a skydive?
Afterwards, Tom Hanks was Quoted as Saying:
"That's not Flying... That was Falling with Style!"
I would say the primary difference with skydiving is the wind... which you would not experience if you were inside a box/plane.
As I said. The primary difference is walls/no walls. Not that difficult to extrapolate from that.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
No wait, we don't live in a virutal world! Damn!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
And what, precisely, do you think happens in the space shuttle, space station or any other spacecraft?
I'm signing up as we speak!
I have never been sky diving, but you essentially get zero gravity while sky diving right? The only difference or course is you have the wind blowing in your face.
For my money, if I had $3000 I would go buy a Segway scooter to ride around all day. Think how many women that would get me!
Skydiving has a lot of wind!
This would the equivalent of paying $3000 for a flight on NASA's "vomit comet".
Shit, that's about all most of us nerds need :)
Hmmm.
Goddamn, who rated this informative?
:)
1) "anti-gravity space ship", what kind of rubbish is that?
2) Actually according to relativity, there is no way of distguishing between acceleration and gravity. Therefore if I put you in a sealed box and either a) leave you floating in deep space or b) put you in free fall then there is no way of you telling the difference (ok, there is as there will be slight air resistance slowing you down, and you could measure the very tiny difference in gravity between the top and bottom of the box, etc.).
There is always "c) you hit the ground" too of course
but seriously, this really is zero-G for all intents and purposes foras long as they can accalerate you downwards at 9.8m/s
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Well, try to remember (I know this is hard sometimes) that this company is trying to make money. I'm sure they understand the physics of their airplane rides, but to the general public "Zero Gravity" sounds a lot more exotic and exciting than "Free Falling." You can't blame them for trying to market their product.
That should read "Free-Fall Flights for the Rest of Us". Zero Gravity has a very different meaning, and hasn't been an acceptable substitute for "free-fall" in 20+ years.
Bah. This is pedantry. (on slashdot!?)
Astronauts floating in the space shuttle are experiencing 'free fall' rather than 'zero gravity'. But not many people would quibble with using the term 'zero gravity' in that instance.
The zero G experienced on this plane is the same zero G experienced by astronauts in orbiting vehicles.
And skydiving isnt very similar at all - you'll reach terminal velocity quickly and will 'feel' the force of gravity thereafter. Not to mention it's a lot windier. Skydiving on the moon on the other hand... just dont come crying to me when your parachute doesnt work.
Insightful?
Skydiving has wind rushing by you at 140mph. There's no real sensation of weightlessness, just thirty seconds of rush followed by a nuclear wedgie.
If you're sick, take some Nyquil and then drink a glass of wine. Go directly to bed. You'll know what 0 gravity feels like! It's so awesome and only cost about 10 bucks.
My name is a variety of floral rose, and no, it's not blue
Yow. Still it might appeal to the tub girl goatse
fraternity...
(and don't forget you get 2G as well for free if it's
like NASA's KC-10...).
Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller rode the Comet. I was even posted on Slashdot: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115312 &cid=9770946
In Penn's article, he mentions another noteworthy Vomit Comet expedition: The filming of the Pr0n movie, "The Uranus Experiment."
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I've never gone skydiving before, but I have always imagined that it feels an awful lot like falling- something which I have done. I can tell you that the feeling of weightlessness is very different from the sensation of falling. Maybe falling for quite a while makes all the difference but somehow I just don't see that it would.
Finally, if you have that $3k to spend, why not invest it in a Private Pilot Certificate so you can go out and experience it for yourself whenever you have the hankering?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
But when you're in an airplane that's in a dive, the airplane is going to reach terminal velocity and stop accelerating much sooner than you are while inside the plane. In other words, relative to earth, both plane and person are getting the same acceleration force from gravity. But the plane is getting a much greater upwards drag force from all the wind.
So wouldn't the person in the plane start travelling faster than the airplane, since the airplane is shielding the person from the effects of wind?
Or maybe I need to take physics again...
Zero-G does not exist in orbit (or anywhere for that matter). You will hear two terms used, "free fall" as mentioned several times, or "micro-gravity". Every object in the universe is exerting some amount of pull on every other object.
Don't worry about that. No matter what happens, NASA technicians will most likely be able to recover some useful mission data.
To avoid the possibility any other responders to this thread demonstrate a critical need to be cracked with a cluestick:
What a person experiences in this case is *identical* to what you'd experience in Space.
You don't suddenly leave the Earths gravitational field in orbit and start floating around. You just fall in a parabola that happens to miss the ground.
One would think this was common knowledge, but from the posts on here, its clearly not.
I'm actually sitting only 300 yards away from NASA's KC-135, affectionately known as the Vomit Comet. This is the aircraft that NASA uses to do micro-gravity research. (ie. zero-g flights with experiments in tow.) I've had the opportunity to fly on the thing but turned it down. (Yeah I'm a big chicken. A big green-in-the-face chicken in fact.)
Reckon I won't be spending $3000 to do what I could have done for free....
Life is pain. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
Another difference would be the overall perception.
Skydiving you see the world rushing up at you. Your brain generates the "I'm falling" sensation because of the stimuli.
In the plane your brain gets different information. There's no obvious tell-tale signs of falling. Instead the brain sees the walls of the plane. Without the other signs of falling, the brain conclude "I'm floating".
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
No - in skydiving you rapidly reach terminal velocity where your speed matches the wind resistance - you feel the air pressure against you.
In a parabolic flight the air and everyting in your frame of reference is "falling" with you so you don't have that resistance and you feel weightless. Very different experience.
As for the segway I think the answer to your question is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck load of tapes
I'm sure you'll call me a heretic, but I'd have to say it's a big *spherical* thing rushing towards you at ~140 mph.
do not read this line twice.
Einstein lived in vain apparently.
One of his points is that there is NO physical experiment that will distinguish the effect of a gravity-field and constant acceleration if you are locked in a box with no windows.
The constant acceleration being the free fall in this case.
So if there are no windows in the plane, there is no way to tell if they've invented some advanced anti-gravity machine and are using it on you, or if the plane is just falling...
If theres no way to tell the difference I don't really care what they do.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
The earth sucks.
The plane has ENGINES. It can exceed terminal velocity in a dive.
yeah, after ~25 seconds
I know I'm going to be modded up on this
Zero-gee is when you're in completely flat space. You're not accelerating due to gravity, because there isn't any.
Free fall is when you're in bent space, and are accelerating due to gravity. The space station is falling at one gee; but it's falling sideways, and everything in it is falling at roughly the same speed, so there's very little relative acceleration between the objects on board.
Both these terms are so badly abused that microgravity tends to be used these days instead. Which is a shame, because it's just as confusing. Free fall is a much more accurate description of what's going on.
(BTW, skydivers aren't, technically, in free fall. They're falling freely, sure, but once they reach terminal velocity they're not accelerating any more.)
a free Zero-G Tote Bag!
barf bag, tote bag - don't be such a nitpicker...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
It's analogous but not the same. You experience less then 1 g while going down in an elevator, but never 0 g. That'd require your elevator to be basically falling and you'd be floating around in it. Big difference. Some roller coasters do give you 0 g and even negative g for a few instants at a time, still though, that's not going to be -anything- like free floating in a pressurized cabin without any wind blowing in your face. They are offering a totally unique experience.
Maybe?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
This is very different from skydiving and very similar to orbital flight. With typical skydiving you never actually feel a lack of acceleration force. The point is the box in this case has control surfaces and flies a parabolic arc to counter the forces of air friction, all forces of air friction are removed, and in the frame of reference inside the aircraft gravitational forces don't manifest as a perceived phenomenon. What do you think an Orbit is? It's a vehicle falling under gravity and missing the Earth because of it's velocity vector (in the Newtonian model), the two differences between this and an orbital flight are the control surfaces (and engines) on the vehicle eliminating the forces of air and the fact that the arc of motion intersects the Earth. If you call orbital flights zero-G then you should call this flight zero-G because the relevant difference air friction is eliminated with by the aircraft.
Skydiving when you exit the plane you immediately feel the force of air blasting you from the direction of flight, the speed of the aircraft is enough that this force is some significant portion of 1G, it actually feels like you're falling sideways once you're used to skydiving, skydivers call this "the hill". Eventually as you fall the forward motion is eliminated as you accelerate downwards but again it just feels like the vector from which the air is pushing you has changed. From then on you're lying on a cushion of air with a full 1G of gravity, and you feel this. Skydivers do seek the thrill of weightlessness by jumping from relatively stationary platforms, like Helicopters or Hot Air Balloons, unlike normal skydiving from an moving plane you get that lump in your throat "I'm falling" feeling for a few seconds at the start of the jump. Same with BASE jumping.
Zero-g exists in orbit? Then what's holding the moon in orbit? A long invisible string? Oh, yeah, that little force called GRAVITY. I believe the term you are looking for is "weightlessness." That would be a more correct word, IMO.
BTW, the Earth's gravitational force 250 miles up is between 80% and 90% what it is on the surface. Then, there's the gravitational effect of the Moon, the Sun, and the other planets. That last one is pretty darn negligible so near the Earth, but not ZERO.
No way can I afford $3000, but can I take 9 of my buddies and each pay $300? Here's the itinerary guys:
Lunar-G flights: Moonwalk competition.
Mars-G flights: Martian wrestling. (Imagine the bodyslams!)
Zero-G flights: Zero-G dodgeball, baby!
I'm giggling already.
Or just go to Carowinds and ride the Drop Zone ride, which drops 16 stories, straight down.
Total cost = $33 admission
Keep the other $2,967 in your pocket.
It's just that they have a rather odd diagram on there showing when the freefall periods occur. It doesn't look right to me.
It shows you get "zero g" (freefall) from the point where the aircraft starts to level off from a climb, until it starts to tip over... surely the freefall would occur from when it started to tip over until it started to pull up ?
in a glider, you can fly in zero-gravity for about 5 or 10 seconds. If you like the idea, go to the nearest airfield and ask them, it's fun. Price should be around 30 dollars for a flight for non-members. But you can't run around at zero gravity, because you'll be wearing a 4 or 5-point seat belt. (pssst... glider acrobatics are even more fun, but that varies between -2g and +5g)
Well... technically speaking, orbit is also "free-fall"
Err... that's actually my point.
but you don't hear any complaints about calling it "Zero G".
You do and you don't. "Zero-G" (as in Zero G-Forces) is ok, "microgravity" is ok, "weightlessness" is ok, and "free-fall" is ok. "Zero Gravity" is NOT an ok term, because it refers to an object experiencing zero interaction with gravitational fields.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If the elevator you're in is decending at 9.8ms^2 then you probably need to start worrying.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
You have a profoundly flawed understanding of physics. The only difference falling in a plane and falling in an orbiting spacecraft is the air friction. The orbiting spacecraft misses the Earth thanks to it's velocity. The aircraft in this case counterracts the forces on air friction *nothing else*. So you're as weightless as you would be in space, and in fact it is *exactly* like an orbit in a physical sense when you're inside the plane.
Douglas Adams is lucky he's dead. I tried missing the ground and broke my nose.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I really doubt that. I've been on a plane when there's heavy turbulence and I felt like I was falling for about a second. Your body doesn't distinguish between "falling" and "floating". Eventually your brain can convince your body that it's not falling, but it sure isn't an instantaneous thing.
For your information, it has been *already* done:
- The Uranus Experiment
- The Uranus Experiment 2
- The Uranus Experiment 3
BTW, those of us who have been lucky enough to have been in a parabolic flight know how difficult should have been filming such movie...
Legal Disclaimer: I am not responsible of any legal charges if you download such things from P2P networks.
You can also experience this sensation--briefly--by climbing aboard one of those 'Detonator' rides they have at amusement parks. (They also have one atop a tall building in Las Vegas, I believe.)
Basically you're sitting facing outward in a ring of seats, which is fired (pneumatically) up a 5/6-story arm. You rise until gravity stops you, at which moment you float out of your seat for about a second, and then fall back down (caught gently by air cushioning in the arm).
Great fun .. almost made me sick, but I'd do it again.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Orbit in "space" or even floating in deep-space is still "free-fall".
The only difference is that relativity says that you have no way of determining if you're falling toward the planet/star/guy next to you, or if it's falling toward you.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Only if you jump from a stationary object such as a balloon or a hovering helicoptor. If you jump from a plane there's really no percievable sensation of falling, it's a lot more like flying. Imagine standing the in back of a truck as it goes down the highway -- feel the wind. Now remove the truck. :)
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
Listen shrub,
I'm in a plane with no windows. Some force is keeping my feet on the floor and giving me the sensation of weight. I take two balls out of my pockets. I drop them.
If the balls fall straight down in parallel paths, I am undergoing constant acceleration.
If the balls do not fall in parallel paths, but rather land closer together, I am feeling the effects of gravity and the two paths intersect at the center of gravity for the system.
Yes, some theoretical gravity field with a center of gravity at an infinite distance will cause objects to fall in parallel paths. The real gravity field affecting the plane, the balls, and me is not such a field, and can be distinguished from constant acceleration.
Actually, methods of determining an un-seen source of 'gravity' (under influence of planet, rotating space station, constant acceleration in a straight line) was in the first problem set on the first of class in freshman physics. See what you would of learned if you had gone to class?
"Zero-g exists in orbit. How is this different?"
Zero-g doesn't exist anywhere in our universe -- you've always got graviational pull towards everything else in the universe.
Especially in orbit (hint: gravity is quite a useful feature if you want to orbit something)
What's funny is that they could only afford to the dive a couple of times, so they only have a little bit of footage. But there is other footage where they "simulate" zero-g with very tacky and hysterical porn special effects.
It's not a very good video. Although it does have some killer 3d special effects, that appear to be done with 3ds r4.
- Derek
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
how this is any harder-core than say, sky-diving, bungee-jumping, or free-fall netdiving ( all of which I've done )? While this seems fun and all, it hardly seems to be the rush it's made out to be. Still, I guess if I had money to burn, I'd do it, otherwise for $3000, I'd rather give a couple hundred to a bungee place and jump all day, then go get drunk as fuck, higher than a kite, and still wake up with $2000.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
we are always feeling the force of gravity, right? the only difference with sky diving is an equal and opposite force at terminal velocity.
There is a saying something like:
"If you call piloting a plane flying, you must call steering a boat swimming. Get out and fly."
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
If you are going, I have this cat and a small vial I'd like you to take along....
Have you ever been skydiving? Its nothing like any ride at an amusement park.
When I went nearly half the experimenters got quite sick. The smart groups made the experiments automated and spend the time doing flying kicks and walking up walls. Or, of course, Vomiting. Nasa hates the name Vomit Comet, but everyone calls it that. A problem was the camera people would come up to you on the plane while you were frantically working to make your project work due to some bug you missed before hand. When they come you are suppose to smile and wave and say hi to folks at home that will get shown the video. This is rather bad for a serious project that has 10k+ invested in it for plane tickets and hotel rooms.
For some great photos of flights try http://zerog.jsc.nasa.gov/2004SpringCollegeCampaig n/viewer.cgi
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
The plane has engines and can overcome the air resistance. It is not "free falling," it is actively maneuvering so as to maintain the parabolic path.
You all want to do this, if only for the opportunity to open up a bag of potato chips then gobble them up pacman-style.
Hmm, don't think there is that much office space near Ellington field. Mostly restricted government areas that you get shot at by National Guardsmen for taking photos of. The KC-135 is done anyway. Too old and time for a very expensive C check, so it is now time for a DC-9 to do the Job. The folks at Ellington are much happier, even if it is smaller than the 707, it has better engines and has much more ease of control.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
I prefer to be called Evil Scientist.
For three grand, I would hope they include a change of clothing in the package.
"The secret to flying is to hurl yourself at the ground and miss. (one of the more amusing ideas from HHGG)"
Or indeed, perpendicular to the ground, and extremely fast...
If I want to experience a few seconds of 0 gravity ill just fly southwestern airlines again.
"pardon me son, did we land or were we shot down?"
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
That's fair. "No walls" is the primary difference between the two.
I guess what I was going for was that the lack of wind creates a larger impact on experience than lack of walls itself... at least in my opinion.
But I did not word that opinion correctly in my first message.
I can't believe that nobody else has pointed out something mentioned at the end of the article: They are going to be using regular cargo aircraft that are temporarily reconfigured for the 0G flights, and have been awarded a patent for this idea.
Eventually you will accumulate the same as the 225 seconds of zero-g that you get with $3000, but do you really want to jump for weeks on end? That sounds like more work then fun.
The simple fact is that it's not the same thing. It's a little hard fly like superman on a roller coaster, even if the roller coaster is called "fly like superman roller coaster".
-Derek
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
When I first read the story, up until I went to the company's web site, I thought the company selling the rides was Zero G Software. They make InstallAnywhere, a product I've used extensively. I thought it was a cool tie-in and a great way to get the company noticed.
Oh well, so much for the free ride for using their product to bundle our product...
dude, it's porn!
The public road is far too uncontrolled. And everyone outside of trained stunt drivers are too uncontrolled as well.
My (our) roads are not your playground.
Any unexpected cleanup of the plane interior after the flight may cost you extra.
heretic!!
burn him!!
actually, from the perspective of the sky-diver, it makes little difference. The shape of the object that you go splat against will have little impact (errr) on the results if your chute doesn't open!
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
We've actually done the free fall experience in Cessna 172's. I think all those Cessna's are rated for 0G or even -1G or more no problem. Of course, it is no where near 25 seconds long, but we were still cackling like crazy kids.
Simply fly long up and down swoops. When you arch over the top and start to descend, the pilot controls the rate so that everything in the cabin lifts up and floats. I spun my 35mm camera in front of me, hanging in the air, so you get a few seconds. Quite a rush.
couldnt you get the same feeling from skydiving in a enclosed "bubble"? Where the chute was attached to the bubble and you were loose inside of it?
... replacement for silicone implants: firm boobs instantaneously !
I worked for a charter airline, and we were approached by someone wanting to do something like this... probably 1997ish. They wanted to take some of our cargo planes, slap some FedEx PeoplePaks in them, and have them fly these sorts of flights during the day (when cargo planes are normally idle).
The scary thing is that most cargo planes are cargo planes because they're too freakin' OLD for sane passengers to fly in.
Now, okay, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I can't imagine taking those creaky old (many older than I am; see sig) birds and doing *anything* weird with them. The whole time I was in freefall, I'd be thinking, "okay, is this going to stop, or did the wings fall off?"
Okay, so the things would be all but unloaded, compared to hauling cargo, but still... seems like the stresses would be *different*. (Their FAQ doesn't exactly answer this straightforwardly, either.)
Hmm. Nowhere on their website am I finding the tail number for their bird. Could be one of our 727-200's, but the airline I worked for hasn't updated its website since, well, about the time I left in 1998. Oh, wait. Nope, looks like it's Amerijet N994AJ.
Heh. The reason the Zero-G website only shows the left side of the plane is because the right side is a Diet Rite ad.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Yes, so is falling in an parabolic arc inside a plane deep in Earth's gravity well.
There is a big difference between free-falling in the atmosphere and free-falling in an airplane: the air does not rush past you in the airplane and that is why it is called "zero gravity".
When you free-fall out of an airplane, (or a balloon), after about 12 seconds you reach terminal velocity. The air friction against your fall negates the acceleration that the earth exerts on you.
Free-falling in an airplane does not cause this as the air in the plane moves with you. Hence, for all "practical" purposes, you are experiencing zero-g.
I know. I have experienced several 5 seconds zero-g flight simulation. Good pilots can emulate the particular flight trajectories needed.
Post-Customer Trip Specialist
Job code: VC-15x9
Job duties: Return plane interior to pre-trip state, including walls, ceilings, and seats.
Requirements: No allergies to cleaning products.
So what's your point? You seem to be agreeing with me that the term "Zero Gravity" is incorrect, and "free-fall" is what it should be called. Not sure how that displays a "flawed understanding of physics".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
it's ok to have little understanding of physics. but to parade your ignorance endlessly means you are nothing but a troll. bye
* AKAImBatman shakes his head
Amazing, simply amazing. People around here would apparently prefer to believe in nonsense like "Zero Gravity" and the "Tooth Fairy" instead of being helpfully informed of correct terminology and reasons behind it.
Then again, this is Slashdot. God forbid that the residents want to learn and think.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
>What about the wind?
Well if you're getting out of either an helicopter or a small plane going not very fast, the wind is quite small during the first seconds of the freefall: so I suppose that 0g is very much similar to these first seconds.
It don't last long, but it still last much more than during a jump on the ground..
For skydivers, this is a quite rare situation as quite often we're getting out of plane going quite fast and when it happens, it is always a bit weird having little 'air grip': moving so slow in the air that you can not really use the air to move your body as you want.
the air does not rush past you in the airplane and that is why it is called "zero gravity"
...urrrgggg... ...PERSON... to get it WRONG!!!
No, it's called FREE-FALL. ZERO GRAVITY IS AN OUTMODED TERM THAT INCORRECTLY DESCRIBES A COMPLETE LACK OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCES. YOU ARE NOT EXPERIENCING ZERO GRAVITY, YOU ARE EXPERIENCING ZERO G-FORCES. I.E. THE PLANE AND YOU ARE FALLING AT THE SAME RATE.
Pardon me for YELLING, but you're the five hundredth
Now excuse me while I go swear up a storm.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Actually a big pear shaped thing, slightly moving
towards you, and you rushing towards it.
bj
Pardon me for being old tech, but you can have a similar experience at your local amusement park for a lot less money plus you have a shot at picking up chicks.
If you feel the need to add to the thrill, consider that the tons of steel in your average amusement ride is assembled by minimum wage carnies - composed of felons, degenerates and illiterates - and held together with cotter-keys.
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it? ~ Albert Einstein
Actually you only get free fall in sky diving for a very short period of time. Once you reach terminal velocity, you feel gravity again as you have air providing resistance. If you continued to accellerate towards the earth, than you would experience free fall for a longer period of time, but would reach insane speeds.
If the GP will please go to the nearest LaGrange point and then I would willing listen to its pedantic objections about zero-G.
All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
> slight air resistance
OK at the beginning it is small, but once you've reached terminal velocity, you're skydiving quite fast and this 'slight air resistance' is for you a very strong wind!!
Your original post was incorrect, skydiving is not actually freefall, infact it is nothing like it. Although it is often called that, the force of air constantly acts on the participant. Other people correctly described why it is acceptable to call this zero-G and gave descriptions of why that have been generally accepted as a description of the phenomenon and you foolishly tried to correct them. Your subsequent posts attempted to correct physically accurate descriptions because they use commonly accepted terms for this like zero gravity (and micro gravity), are misguided. This is zero gravity in the frame of reference of the aircraft.
A PhD you say? Putting aside the standard joke of "all my friends have PhD's too", would you like to explain how falling toward the Earth == zero gravity? Here's a hint: it doesn't. What relativity DOES tell us is this:
It is impossible to tell if the observer is falling toward the planet, or the planet is falling toward the observer.
That's it. The Earth's gravity still has a measurable influence on any object *EXCEPT* one which completely cancels out the Earth's gravitational forces by way of competing acceleration. And even if you did cancel out the Earth's gravity, you'd still have the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, and every other particle in the universe to deal with.
The term I believe you're thinking of is not "Zero Gravity", but rather "microgravity" or "Zero G-Forces". i.e. You and the Earth are attracting each other, but you don't feel the inertial difference.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
skydiving is not actually freefall, infact it is nothing like it.
Actually, I stated that it was a "similar" experience. I intended that for those who wished to experience the sensation of falling without paying $3000.
Other people correctly described why it is acceptable to call this zero-G and gave descriptions of why that have been generally accepted as a description of the phenomenon and you foolishly tried to correct them.
You're confusing terms again. Zero-G is a term for "Zero G-Forces". That's not the same thing as "Zero Gravity", which is an absence of gravitation forces acting upon an object.
Your subsequent posts attempted to correct physically accurate descriptions because they use commonly accepted terms for this like zero gravity (and micro gravity)
1. I only ever argued with the term "Zero Gravity". Note that every time an astronaut is interviewed about "What it's like to be in zero gravity", he always starts by saying "these days we like to call it microgravity or free-fall".
2. You are never in Zero Gravity, because there are always gravitational forces from other objects in the universe acting upon you. One can counteract Earth's gravity directly, then be in an observable position to state that the Earth is exerting zero gravity upon them. However, one can still observe gravity from other objects in the Universe, unless steps are taken to counteract these gravitational fields as well.
This is zero gravity in the frame of reference of the aircraft.
This is "micro-gravity" in the frame of the aircraft. And if you look through a window, you'll easily find that you're actually in a "Free-fall" frame of reference. i.e. You and the planet are getting closer together. Because all frames of reference are equally valid, we don't know who's falling toward who, but we can observe that the two bodies are getting closer.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Skydiving's the same as standing on the ground in that regard (gravity + an equal and opposite force). ;-)
Due to the density of the ground, the terminal velocity is normally zero metres per second.
I thought that was part of the appeal?
I went on a lame bungee-dive type thing at Magic Mountain, and was amazed - just being at that height (150 ft?) scared me SO MUCH. Had no idea I could be that scared. The falling and swooping around and stuff was totally tame and anticlimactic.
So I've always wanted to do it again just to tweak that amazingly intense fear. That's not what people skydive for? What's the point then? (But I don't get to Magic Mountain that often - and I'm scared.)
Oh for crying out loud.
Ok, so from a spacecraft, we can observe the Earth getting closer. As we continue observing, we note that the distance between us and the Earth is decreasing at a greater and greater rate. i.e. We are accelerating toward each other. Yet we feel no G-forces because our entire craft is accelerating at a near uniform rate.
Is it your contention that we are NOT able to observe gravitational effects in this situation, despite getting closer to the Earth?
Experiment number two: We are in a craft in orbit. we find that a blue marble below is turning. We thrust forward for a few moments and check our trajectory. Oddly enough, we find that we appear to get closer to the marble at certain periods of time. I feel no inertia, and thus am weightless inside my spacecraft.
Certainly, it's difficult to know who's orbiting whp, but is it your contention that the elliptic orbit that can be calculated from the observations is an illusion?
Never mind. I give up. Go on saying "Zero Gravity". What the hell do I care? I was only trying to educate a few people.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Sigh, skydiving is ***NOTHING*** like freefall. Go lie on a really soft mattress and close your eyes, then imagine lots of wind rush noise, then imaging a spectacular view from 13000 feet, that's skydiving. You have 1 G acting on you at all times (a bit less at the start but never zero G). The *only* thing that differentiates skydiving from lying on a soft bed is the frame of reference of falling from 13000 feet and that's the one thing thing that is denied you on the aircraft. Infact it is fair to say that this aircraft ride is almost the exact opposite of skydiving.
Zero-G is a commonly accepted term. Moreover in the frame of reference of the zero-G you *cannot tell the difference*. If I'm in orbit, I'm subject to the pull of the Earth, The gravity constantly pulls but there's no way to tell in the frame of reference of the spaceship. Yes microgravity refers to miniscule local gravitational effects everyone knows this but what you should take from this is that if NASA weren't so pedantic thay'd call the micro-gravity missions zero-gravity missions.
Yes in the aircraft you can look out the window, same on the spaceship, the aircraft has no windows so the frame of reference of the aircraft is maintained. i.e. you are in zero gravity environment.
Your attempt to imply that there's some gravitational flux that should be considered is physical nonsense. The frame of reference counts. (no I don't want to hear about miniscule effects like tidal forces.)
Your point about equivalence does stand, but I can still tell acceleration from old fashioned gravity. You're really talking about two different things.
If I'm in a closed room with no outside stimuli other than some gravity-like force, there are experiments I can perform to learn something about the nature of that force.
However if I'm in a closed room with no detectable gravity...well, you know, there are still things I can do to determine if I am in free fall or out in the middle of no where with no gravity-producing mass around.
I take my two balls and place them in the air. If I'm free from all gravity, or in an area where opposing fields cancel out, the balls will remain stationary.
If I am in free fall, then the balls are falling. Even through I am falling at the same rate, they will follow paths according the center of gravity and gradually get closer together. Their paths will intersect at the center of gravity. (Yes, the balls would have to be placed perfectly still and in any realistic situation it would be extremely difficult to measure by what amount the balls' paths deviate from parallel, but hey, its a thought experiment.)
I'm not arguing the relationship between gravity and acceleration. There's a reason g is expressed in units of acceleration. But I can still distinguish the effects of free fall from the advanced effect of a machine generating a gravity field opposing earth's.
Acceleration is not scalar. It has direction. If I'm on the Earth, two objects get closer together as they fall, moving towards the center of the Earth. If I'm in a rotating space station, two objects move apart as they fall, moving radially away from the center of rotation. (Well, that's not quite right because the acceleration is tangential to the rotation, not towards the center of rotation in sense that Earth gravity is acceleration away from the center of gravity. The point is, I can figure out I'm on a rotating space station and not on the Earth.)
If I'm moved by straight-line acceleration with no gravitational effects, falling objects follow parallel paths. These effects still exist even if I am in free fall and stationary relative to the falling objects.
And yes, I do have issues. Thank you for noticing. =)
Zero-G is a commonly accepted term.
4 1.html 4 67.htm
That's because Zero-G is NOT Zero Gravity. Why is that so hard to understand?
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/Space/archives/0007
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99
http://www.astrodigital.org/space/zgr.html
Sigh, skydiving is ***NOTHING*** like freefall
If you say so. Honestly, you do get complete free fall up until terminal velocity is reached. Not necessarily as long as this ride, but it definitely happens. Same thing with amusement park drop towers. Terminal velocity usually isn't reached by the time they begin the braking procedure.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Einstein's Theory of *General* Relativity includes the Principle of Equivalence, namely,
There is no physical way of distinguishing between a UNIFORM gravitational field from a UNIFORM linear acceleration.
Since there is no way to distinguish between the gravitational field being uniformly *zero* and a uniform acceleration of *zero*, there is no distinguishable difference between your "Zero G Force" (F=ma ---> F=0 a = 0) and "Zero Gravity" (F = 0 because Gmm/r^2 = 0).
Now, the nit to pick that leads to the term "microgravity" is that the gravitational field in Earth orbit is not uniform over a finite region; there are (minute) tidal effects, anisotropies, spacecraft vibration, drag at low earth orbit, etc., all of which are, in principle, detectable, and some of which could not be produced except by a non-uniform gravitational field, although determining that might be beyond a particular experimental error.
Note, in passing, that NASA uses the "Zero Gravity" term to describe it's Earth-based drop facilities.
There is NO comparison between skydiving and true freefall experienced in parabolic flight. While skydiving, you get this 'minor' force of air resistance, and if you think it's really minor, explain why it's such a big deal when 140 mph winds hit shore in a hurricane, those are the winds you experience while skydiving. In parabolic arcs, you are sheltered from the air resistance within the confines of the aircraft cabin, the local air mass is traversing the same trajectory, so it's not providing you with air resistance.
I've done both, and the closest you are going to get to true freefall without use of an aircraft, is scuba diving. Get your bouyancy properly neutral, get rid of your fins, and hover out in the open, well below the surface, and well clear of the bottom. It's still not nearly as cool as the freefall in an aircraft cabin, but it's a damn site closer than a freefall skydive.
The primary difference with skydiving is the lack of walls.
The primary difference skydiving is the 100+ mph wind, which provides lots of air resistance, against which you can work to do all sorts of maneuvering. Maneuvering is determined by newtonian physics, f=ma, and the wind resistance in a skydive provides plenty of f to work with. To really experience 'weightlessness' you need to get into an environment where there is no inital vector for the f element of the equation. In the aircraft cabin, the walls shelter you from that wind resistance, the aircraft itself is being flown on a trajectory to neutralize all the other forces.
Keep one more thing in mind, there is NO free lunch. If you go for 25 seconds at zero g during the pushover, expect 25 seconds of two g during the pullup. Newtonian physics do adhere to the TANSTAAFL principles.
No you *don't* get to freefall up to terminal velocity. You exit into the air flow at the forward motion of the aircraft. You are instantly subject to acceleration forces.
Once again the frame of reference counts and it *is* zero gravity. Your first link seem to support what everyone except you has been posting here. You have to revert to archaic Newtonian descriptions to support your zero gravity thesis But not even Newton can tell the difference between zero-G and orbiting in a box (ignoring tidal effects).
It's possible that if it was a cone, or even just a plane at the right angle, he'd be able to slide down it.
It would have to be almost 90 degrees of course, and it would have to level out so that he slows down, but if it's convex, angled correctly, steep enough for long enough at the top and shallow enough for long enough at the bottom, there's no reason (other than failure to get really, really lucky) that he couldn't survive.
Zero-g doesn't exist anywhere in our universe
How do you know? Imagine an experimental method for determining that a region of space has zero gravitational field (or zero space-time curvature, if you like). How would that method distinguish the zero curvature from free-fall?
Note, in particular, the problem of establishing a "fixed" frame of reference in space-time. Perhaps that is what Einstein was talking about when he called his theory "General RELATIVITY."
You flakes are all getting worked up into a lather about something that is nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be, and a careful consideration of the facts should make that clear to you, if you spent as much effort on asking yourself difficult questions as you do lambasting others.
Note also that it is by no means obvious, for instance, that "looking out the window" of the spacecraft and seeing a planet rotating "below" you means that you are in orbit around the planet. It is only clear if you know that the thing out the window has MASS. How do you really know it has mass? Through gravity? Well, that's a circular argument, isn't it?
In fact, it is easy to imagine that you *could* set up masses around you to cancel out the gravitational fields of every other object. Putting yourself *inside* a massive spherical shell would be a good start. Then, add small lumps to the spherical shell to cancel out the residual effects of far-away bodies.
The Zero group has been offering 0-g flights in Kiruna, Sweden, using a special built russian air-plane since last year, and made their first "space-tourist"-flights this year in April (at least they were supposed to but I couldn't find a source actually confirming it with my 5 minutes of googling...). One of the people from there made a presentation at my university in December and said they charged ~$/4000 for it. They are also supposed to used special equipment and lighting inside the cabin to make the flight even more interesting than just having low gravity.
Give me a job. Please?
Is this in any way related to the "airtime" you get on a good rollercoaster?
hmmm.... ok, I understand the difference. I guess zero gravity is not experienced anywhere in the universe then. I can't come up with any location in the entire universe where there is pure "zero gravity."
The zero-g test plane didn't get the nickname "Vomit Comet" for nothing. Almost EVERYBODY gets sick their first time, even the hard-core right-stuff guys.
Notable Exception: Crista McAuliffe, the teacher killed in the Columbia shuttle explosion, was the only member of her zero-g training group who didn't barf.
Well, not exactly for free. I put a crapload of effort into it.
I got to fly in the the Weightless Wonder (aka V**** C****) as part of a collegiate student program this past April. All told, we flew 30 micro-g parabolas, 1 lunar parabola, and 1 martian parabola. Let me say this: roller coasters, jumping cars over hills, even piloting gliders do not come close to comparing. Even when piloting an aircraft, you don't have the ability to get up and move around...there's that darn steering part to take care of.
For $3000, if the track record and maintenence records are clean, I would definitely do it again (granted I plan ahead for this as simply an expensive vacation). Especially since I won't have to be preoccupied with any experiments.
Might I suggest: anyone who is in a science-based major in college should try to come up with an experiment that would yield "intriguing" results when flown in microgravity. Remember, each trial must last a maximum of 25 seconds. And the more hands-off (and more automated), the better...that just means more fun for you.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
we are always feeling the force of gravity, right?
It depends very much on what you mean by "feel" gravity.
On the surface of the earth, the way I use the word "feel", I "feel" the pressure in my legs when I am standing up, and I "feel" the pressure in my butt when I sit down. It "feels" exactly like the floor or seat is pushing me up.
Now, in my usual frame of reference (fixed to the floor), I am not accelerating. But Newton says "F=ma" and I feel a force acting from the floor. How can that be, says the physics student? Well, says the physics guru, there must be *another* mysterious force acting on you to balance out that force that you feel from the floor. I will call that force "gravity". You can measure the magnitude of the force by putting a thing called a "scale" between your feet and the floor, and it will measure the force the floor exerts on the scale, and that the scale exerts on you, (because, after all, the scale isn't accelerating, either, when you use it properly).
The important thing to know is that YOU ARE NOT MEASURING THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD! What you can measure is the force exerted on the scale, OR, throw something in the air and measure its ACCELERATION in your frame of reference. The only way you can link this to something called "gravity" is to have a *theory* of gravity.
The only way (known to current physics) you could really measure the gravitational field (actually, the curvature of space-time) directly is some very sensitive measurement, for instance, to use optical means to detect curvature of space; in practice, this only works for looking for bright, distant objects behind big things like planets, stars, galaxies, etc. You can also use a big metal resonator to pick up minute vibrations caused by things like stellar explosions. It is no coincidence that these experiments, done by physicists, all are testing something they call the GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
This slashdot discussion is a perfect example of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You people all *think* you paid good attention in your Physics 101 class, or whatever, but you didn't really think very hard about what you supposedly learned.
Now, you may have some magic ESP-like power that lets you feel the gravitational field, but I'm guessing not.
would be interesting to find out if i'm actually right..
time to start saving!
rj
Well, okay, but if it had any amount of friction, (the slider) would almost immediately ignite. And without friction, he'd never stop at the bottom. What's an imagineer to do?
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
There *is* no gravity - the earth sucks.
Water slide maybe?
That would allow enough cushion to slow him down, and help with the heat dissipation.
All things considered, though, I had something of a more natural landscape in mind.
Oh well.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Look, even in your first example, you cannot tell the difference between a "massless Earth" (zero G field) that happens to be accelerating toward you at 1 g and a massive Earth that is deforming space-time around you, creating a "gravitational field."
In your second example, what the hell do you mean "I feel no inertia?" I have never heard anyone use that phrase.
Mod parent informative... that's the exact definition of "ORBIT". An object in orbit is constantly falling but moving laterally fast enough that it's always missing the earth (ie relative to the falling object, the earth is always moving out of its way).
- Thomas;
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
Who said I was anywhere near Ellington Field? I am at NASA Glenn Research Center, which is the focus of microgravity research within NASA. The KC-135 (which used to be housed at Glenn) flies up here to pick up the research modules. It's here right now.
I think you should apologize for labeling me a troll.
Life is pain. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
I have been skydiving twice (static line), and I have over two hours of accumulated zero-g time in the Vomit Comet. The two experiences are not at all similar.
The initial sensation from jumping out of an airplane is one of complete sensory overload; your body just does not know what is happening to it, and doesn't know how to respond. After that, you're rushing towards the ground at high speed. Imagine sticking your head out the window at over 100 MPH on the freeway to get a rough idea of the feeling. With the static line, the free-fall portion of the dive lasted only a few seconds, but it was still enough to experience the feeling.
Flying parabolas is much more calm, except that the airplane engines can be rather loud during the pull-up (1.8 g) phase. You're constantly rotating: pitching up during high g and pitching down during low g. Flying around in zero-g doesn't make you sick; rather, it's the transitions from zero to 1.8 and vice versa that make you sick. Because you alternate back and forth between the two, you actually get used to the feelings of weightlessness and heaviness pretty quickly, but that doesn't make it any less fun. My experiments required a lot of attention, and so often the primary thing that reminded me I was in zero g was the fact that I had to hold on to something to keep from floating away. The most fun thing I did was fly lengthwise down the airplane, like Superman. Spinning is a blast too.
If you get the chance, I highly recommend trying both, as they're each unique experiences!
This account verified sig-free since..., uh, never mind.