Skydiver To Break Sound Barrier During Free-Fall

I'll bet by Vinegar+Joe · 2010-01-23 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's really going to hurt.

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

Re:I'll bet by kojimoto_atusis · 2010-01-23 04:23 · Score: 5, Funny

It's really going to hurt.
I'm just going to say... Best Darwin award EVER!
Re:I'll bet by Sulphur · 2010-01-23 05:36 · Score: 1

How do I look? Like a hood ornament. Rocketman
Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 06:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm just going to say...
Best Darwin award EVER!
How is this a Darwin Award? He's not jumping into a bear cage at the zoo to feed a cub a deep fried snickers bar. He's pushing the limits of man to see what we're truly capable of. I say kudos and god speed.
Re:I'll bet by AmigaMMC · 2010-01-23 06:58 · Score: 1

God meant only for Superman to break the sound barrier without the aid of a machine.
Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 07:19 · Score: 0

Seriously, that was my first thought. If his shoulders and head, let's say, momentarily break the sound barrier (I have to imagine it would only be brief moments without thrust propulsion) that could be like hitting a brick wall for all we know, since his body would basically be colliding directly into the oncoming air at extremely high speeds. At the very least I think his chances of maintaining control under these conditions is near nill. Good luck to him...
Re:I'll bet by Blakey+Rat · 2010-01-23 07:30 · Score: 1

All I can say is I hope to Christ he has Teflon underpants.

--
Comment of the year
Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 07:31 · Score: 0

THin air .. the air is so thin up there that He wont have any problems as the air thickens up he will gradually slow to the normal air drop speed of a falling body 120mph.
Just so long as he doesn't yank his pants down for the Highest unpressurised S=hit in History
Re:I'll bet by PDX · 2010-01-23 09:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Sheared off at 750mph. Blood loss followed by blackout. If "he" survives he won't get many dates. Just date Lorena Bobbit next time. Same result no balloons.
Re:I'll bet by Matheus · 2010-01-23 10:24 · Score: 1

The *real question is:
Has anyone ever heard of Terminal Velocity? The record for a human is around half Mach and that takes skill to achieve not just height.
Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 10:52 · Score: 0

Sadly this award is no more.
Perhaps someone should put it up again.
My opinion:
This guy deserves it if he do this.
Re:I'll bet by PachmanP · 2010-01-23 11:09 · Score: 1

Has anyone ever heard of Terminal Velocity? The record for a human is around half Mach and that takes skill to achieve not just height.
Terminal velocity is dependent on drag which is dependent on density. The terminal velocity at high altitude is much higher than at low.

The the speed of sound is temperate dependent as well. It is lower at altitude that at sea level. It is about 760 mph at sea level and 675 at 100k ft.

--
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Re:I'll bet by amRadioHed · 2010-01-23 11:34 · Score: 1

No, height is sufficient. Free fall through sufficiently thin air pretty much guarantees you'll reach the sound barrier.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:I'll bet by jbolden · 2010-01-23 14:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

There is almost no air. According to people who have done high altitude jumping you are essentially unaware you are actually falling.
Re:I'll bet by Jager+Dave · 2010-01-23 15:17 · Score: 1

ummmm.... Darwin Awards ( www.darwinawards.com ) is still up and fully functional and still handing out awards, albeit posthumously.... Girl that started it is from "near me"... More power to her :D
Re:I'll bet by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2010-01-23 15:56 · Score: 1

We need to know about his children first. Does he have living kids who won't be killed along with him in the attempt? If so, it's not a Darwin award.
Darwin awards are for when you take yourself out of the gene pool. Having surviving kids puts you INTO the gene pool. These things are not the same.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:I'll bet by DrStoooopid · 2010-01-23 16:06 · Score: 1

I think this will be one of the first potential Darwin Award winner that the Darwin Award people will have forewarning of.

--
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-24 01:37 · Score: 0

Having surviving kids puts you INTO the gene pool.

Don't worry there are professionals who can deal with that.
Re:I'll bet by beckerist · 2010-01-24 08:42 · Score: 1

In fact, if he hits mach 1 at a high enough altitude, I bet there's still no sound of the molecules hitting your feet/wind resistance. The sound isn't the issue. If anything he'd need to find a way to slow himself OR insulate himself as the heat from friction would increase as the density of the atmosphere increases.

I just hope that whichever dummy they drop (plastic or Austrian) they strap a bunch of sensors on so we know how to prepare for the next dummy.
Re:I'll bet by jbolden · 2010-01-24 13:50 · Score: 1

As the amount of air increases, the friction causes a decrease in terminal velocity and he slowly loses velocity. It doesn't happen fast enough to break up.
Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-24 18:59 · Score: 0

but I'll be watching http://redbullstratos.com very closely in the coming weeks...
Re:I'll bet by treeves · 2010-01-25 08:14 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how you'd be unaware of the distinct weightless sensation, despite the lack of wind.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:07 · Score: 0

It will really fuck you up.

-- Will Farrell

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:09 · Score: -1, Troll

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled
properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have
purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial
configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another
nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking
that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a
chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped
in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be
hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your
nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and
over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus,
Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar,
and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your
nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some
owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and
Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight
over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and
vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases
with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others
make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so
you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't
hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing
interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for
health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This
is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not
done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make
sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger
food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of
cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two
hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft
ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out
of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the
cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to
now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it
did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be
safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with
black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should
therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost
certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt,
and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it
finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners
sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at
the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well
and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation
reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal
something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't
have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You
should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it
stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You
would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You rea

no sound = no sound barrier by knappe+duivel · 2010-01-23 04:09 · Score: 0

Funny... breaking the sound barrier when there is no sound

Re:no sound = no sound barrier by auric_dude · 2010-01-23 04:11 · Score: 0

In space no one can hear you scream.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by tverbeek · 2010-01-23 04:19 · Score: 5, Informative

If there's enough atmosphere to lift a balloon, there's enough atmosphere to transmit sound.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:23 · Score: 0

He'll still be going that fast for a while as he enters the layers of atmosphere that are dense enough to support the conveyance of soundwaves. At which point, he'll break the sound barrier
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Suki+I · 2010-01-23 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

If there's enough atmosphere to lift a balloon, there's enough atmosphere to transmit sound.
And the balloon would also be the machine he is 'not getting aid from.' he will exceed the speed of sound — the first person to do so without the aid of a machine. (from the /. story)

--
Home of The Suki Series
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Kneo24 · 2010-01-23 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Right, a balloon is not a machine. Way to be redundant.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Meh, it's a question of technicalities. Gravity is the force that will cause him to break the sound barrier (and perhaps the thin air - lack of resistance). A machine will not be used to accelerate him. It will give him tremendous potential energy, however. Anybody want to calculate that?
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by qzak · 2010-01-23 04:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Not just that, but undoubtedly he'll have a suit to keep him from freezing and an oxygen supply to keep him from passing out. So if you want to be pedantic, he has plenty of 'machines' aiding him, but nothing with a motor, which I think was the point.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Zocalo · 2010-01-23 04:43 · Score: 1

Presumably, he's planning on leaping from the balloon when it reaches its maximum altitude for the flight and is about to start it's inevitable descent. At that point his vertical velocity will be pretty near zero and so other than any residual lateral drift coming from the balloon any speed achieved will be entirely due to the influence of gravity. What isn't clear is whether he will be exceeding speed of sound at sea level, or just at his current altitude during the descent as well (it's not possible to do the former without also doing the latter).

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by dziban303 · 2010-01-23 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny

If my calculations are correct, it's 623 ergs/quartic coloumb-acre.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by shabtai87 · 2010-01-23 04:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

PE = mgh ~= 76Kg*10m/s^2*120000ft*0.3m/ft = 27,360,000Nm. This is the equivalent energy of a man the same weight traveling at about 848m/s: over twice the speed of sound. (to be fair I used the minimal mass of the average human male) I consider this significant help from technology.

--
@humanity: *facepalm*
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by maxwell+demon · 2010-01-23 04:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Meh, it's a question of technicalities. Gravity is the force that will cause him to break the sound barrier (and perhaps the thin air - lack of resistance). A machine will not be used to accelerate him. It will give him tremendous potential energy, however. Anybody want to calculate that?
About 26 megajoule.
(If you want to check the calculation: His weight is 73 kg)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by shabtai87 · 2010-01-23 04:55 · Score: 1

Actually, I wonder about the heat from the friction of the air for that long. in addition to the freezing temperatures prior to high velocity.

--
@humanity: *facepalm*
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Deadstick · 2010-01-23 05:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

His potential energy at 120,000 feet would be...ummm, let's see...120,000 foot-pounds per pound of suited-up weight. Tough calculation.
More to the point, let's say he intends to go sonic at 20,000 feet. In falling 100,000 feet he'd reach a speed of 2530 ft/sec if there were no air drag. The speed of sound at that altitude is 1036 ft/sec, so he has a chance, depending on how little drag he can achieve.
As he comes down in altitude, the drag and the speed of sound both go up, so it becomes a much harder calculation. There is an abrupt drag rise right around Mach 1, so there's a significant chance he could stabilize at, say, Mach 0.98 and be unable to accelerate further.
rj
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Deadstick · 2010-01-23 05:02 · Score: 1

If you go supersonic, there will be sound. Trust me on this.
rj
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by dziban303 · 2010-01-23 05:02 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm sure they mean the speed of sound at his particular altitude. Joe Kittenger reached 614 mph during his freefall in the 1960, which is roughly Mach 0.8 at sea level. At around 35,000 feet the speed of sound drops to around 650 mph. At higher altitudes, the speed of sound actually increases for awhile.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by HeLLFiRe1151 · 2010-01-23 05:03 · Score: 1

Yes, but will anyone hear it?

--
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Antique+Geekmeister · 2010-01-23 05:11 · Score: 1

Oh, there will be lateral drift due to the wind at maximum altitude, versus the wind at every altitude below that.
For reference, the speed of sound is _slower_ at higher altitudes. There is a chart at http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml. And for him to achieve transonic speeds for parts of his body but not other parts, he'll be breaking the local sound barrier.
Breaking the sound barrier also produces a _profound_ braking effect: you wind up providing tremendous power to compress the medium in front of you. All that energy that goes into the shock wave and the turbulence as you pass through the medium and the "sonic boom" itself, is a continuing drain on your kinetic energy. So I suspect his speed will max out at or barely above the sound barrier, and he'll certainly slow more rapidly as he hits thicker air and experiences more drag, slowing all the way to his freefall velocity in the denser air. That depends a lot on the shape of his suit: I'd expect him to want a high drag suit for maximum fall time.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:12 · Score: 0

Yeah, but gravitational acceleration at 120 thousand feet is
6.67300e-11 * 5.9742e24 / (6378.1e3 + 36576)**2 = 9.6883859579477978
Who's the smart one, now?
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by sznupi · 2010-01-23 05:13 · Score: 1

If a balloon counts as a machine, so do soap bubbles...

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by TheKidWho · 2010-01-23 05:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Apparently you never learned about significant figures.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by cheftw · 2010-01-23 05:25 · Score: 1

This assumes a spherical earth and neglects relativistic effects.
Also those decimal places are wrong,
The smart one may not be who you think it is.

--
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by polar+red · 2010-01-23 06:28 · Score: 1

from wikipedia, i pulled this sorta-definition : 'A machine is any device that uses energy to perform some activity' I guess the oxygen is pressurised, so it has energy, and it will be used to force-feed him oxygen ... And i think the balloon is a machine too ...

--
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by AmigaMMC · 2010-01-23 06:59 · Score: 1

Funny... breaking the sound barrier when there is no sound
The sound of the skydiver screaming: "oooooooooh craaaaaaaaap!"
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Sique · 2010-01-23 07:05 · Score: 1

No. It will be expanded to normal pressure before it is inhaled. For the actual breathing the pressure of the oxygen thus is irrelevant. It got compressed to store more of it within the same volume.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-01-23 07:16 · Score: 4, Funny

"There is an abrupt drag rise right around Mach 1, so there's a significant chance he could stabilize at, say, Mach 0.98 and be unable to accelerate further."
He will need a very pointy hat.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by zoloto · 2010-01-23 07:37 · Score: 4, Funny

You never do until they leave. :(
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by zoloto · 2010-01-23 07:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Good thing Eddy Izzard isn't doing this. The drag on that freefall would be like Mary Poppins floating with her parasol! Also: EI rocks!
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 07:58 · Score: 0

A balloon is a machine. Your arms are machines. Your legs, heart, tongue, lungs, ears, feet, hands.. err you get the point.
Nothing can do anything without a machine.
The definition of machine being a device that transmits or modifies force or motion among others.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by blueg3 · 2010-01-23 08:16 · Score: 1

Or units.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by MaskedSlacker · 2010-01-23 08:48 · Score: 1

Yes. Because the balloon does not propel him. That's what 'aid' means in this context. Propulsion.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 09:10 · Score: 0

Speaking of ears, note that TFS said he'd need to maintain a good attitude. This is particularly important, since otherwise he'd probably be quite grumpy after the damage his hearing might undergo!
^_^
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 09:47 · Score: 0

Aight, I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by poopdeville · 2010-01-23 10:11 · Score: 1

What a pointless comment.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by poopdeville · 2010-01-23 10:13 · Score: 1

Relativistic effects in 120,000 feet? Please, he's going around 800m/s at the fastest. He isn't a muon.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by shabtai87 · 2010-01-23 10:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Jeez, has no one ever heard of a back of an envelope calculation? Here, let me blow your mind: Pi = 3

--
@humanity: *facepalm*
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by shabtai87 · 2010-01-23 10:24 · Score: 1

And by no one I mean Mr. Anonymous Coward...

--
@humanity: *facepalm*
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by amRadioHed · 2010-01-23 11:39 · Score: 1

But those machines aren't helping him reach the sound barrier, they're only helping him survive the experience. He could still break the sound barrier without them, or at least his body could.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Gabrill · 2010-01-23 19:16 · Score: 1

By what definition is a balloon NOT a machine? . . . Thought so. Wait, you say he's not getting assistance from the balloon? You mean he floated up there on refried beans and hot air? The slash/short should have been written to say "without the aid of thrust".

--
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by alfielee · 2010-01-24 01:23 · Score: 0

...hit a lot of atmos, burn up. ...hit the sound barrier, torn apart by the sound waves. ...release first canopy at 1100 ft per sec, rip his shoulders apart & perhaps destroy the canopy, second canopy release if he isn't unconscious from the first release rips his rib cage to pieces. ...suffocate remainder of the voyage Gets his name into Guiness & Darwin. ...who cares?
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by tverbeek · 2010-01-25 03:14 · Score: 1

It's astonishing what lengths some people will go to, to not understand the obvious meaning what someone is saying.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by BoothbyTCD · 2010-01-25 05:37 · Score: 1

Ha! Amateur. I had an undergrad professor who liked to say Pi ~ 10, to an order of magnitude. Estimation is a good skill to have.

--
snig
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by Piranhaa · 2010-01-25 05:41 · Score: 1

Not too difficult
Re:no sound = no sound barrier by xupere · 2010-01-25 06:52 · Score: 1

He will need a very pointy hat.
Also it should double as a sniper rifer ... just in case he needs to fight off any alien invasions on the way down.

Anyone else think.. by pnewhook · 2010-01-23 04:10 · Score: 4, Funny

So I guess I'm not the only one to think this guy is going to die doing this stunt.

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.

Re:Anyone else think.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-01-23 04:17 · Score: 5, Informative

I suspected, and breaking slashdot rules and reading TFA confirmed, that his suit is designed to automatically deploy the parachute at some failsafe altitude, even if he blacks out earlier.

Still plenty of room for things to go wrong, people manage to die doing perfectly ordinary parachuting from time to time; but probably more dramatic than dangerous.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:42 · Score: 5, Informative

To go that fast, he will need to be extremely streamlined. Air becomes incompressible at supersonic speeds, so either his feet or head will need to handle the friction and stress created. I'd want a stability bar running the length of my body that my feet, legs, torso, shoulders, arms and head "clip" into.
To get out of that streamlined attitude is easy. To get out of it safely is a different matter completely. I'd want a way to release a trailing parachute, attached to my shoulders, to bleed off most of the speed. Perhaps down to 200 mph.
Slowing from 1200+ fps to 120 fps is a big deal and without extremely careful methods to retain something call static stability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_static_stability and he will end up tumbling out of control, breaking limbs or worse.
Any way, I wanna watch. I hope he does the trailing smoke thing!
Re:Anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:43 · Score: 0

Just because the chute deploys automatically it doesn't mean that it'll work. If he is in a spin and has blacked out the chute might not open as it should, or at all. If he uses a standard chute with standard automatic deployment system, it deploys the reserve very low (~400m or so). If in a spin the chute will get spun and might not open very much as the slider won't go down, preventing full deployment. He might survive anyway, but it'll be a hard landing.
In short, if he goes into a spin that makes him black out, he will will likely die or get seriously injured.
I'm a skydiver myself (not a very experienced one, admittedly).
OT, Baumgartner has aroused the anger of many Basejumpers by "burning" objects. That is, making high-profile jumps and turning the eyes of the owners/authorities to the fact that there are basejumping going on and making further jumps very hard/impossible to do. Not a popular guy.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Kjella · 2010-01-23 04:46 · Score: 1

If he's still coming down straight, that's fine. If he's in a spin, the chute can start off in any direction, it can tangle in itself or in him and never extend properly. And he definately wouldn't want to be unconscious hitting the ground, without controlling the landing that too will be nasty. Automatic releases are a last-ditch emergency resort because you certainly won't survive wihtout the chute, not something you'd want to rely on.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:48 · Score: 0

He'll be lucky (no pun on his name Felix intended) if he blacks out. I suspect his skin will freeze and sustain deep burns and lacerations that will cause his face to be torn open and his limbs to be broken and torn off.
In German Baum = tree, Gartner = Gardener. It looks like Mr. Baumgartner is going to end up scattered across many garden trees.
Re:Anyone else think.. by X0563511 · 2010-01-23 04:52 · Score: 1

I'm fairly certain that, having designed/modified the suit itself, they have thought about and probably altered the emergency chute(s) appropriately.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Anyone else think.. by Mitchell314 · 2010-01-23 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

He shouldn't feel more than 1 G pushing back on him. I know I abused units, but it's no more force than the ground pushing back on you. Newton's 3rd law. Terminal velocity means acceleration of gravity = -acceleration due to resistance. Otherwise, as long as he doesn't go very far past TV, he shouldn't have to worry too much in that regard (With or without all the other problems). Friction and heat? I don't know how bad that'll be, I hope he does the math before cooking like an egg. If he does cook, that is.

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Re:Anyone else think.. by mdarksbane · 2010-01-23 04:59 · Score: 1

It should be noted that the current record holder *did* go into a spin, and if he had been going any faster in it would have died just from how fast he was spinning in addition to blacking out (which he did).
Re:Anyone else think.. by Zocalo · 2010-01-23 05:08 · Score: 1

Maybe they plan on using a smaller drogue chute to try and get him the right way up first and reduce the speed of descent a little to lessen the strain on the main chute. wouldn't really matter quite so much if that tangles, as long as your design means that you can safely jettison it or otherwise get it out of the way before you deploy the main chute once things have settled down.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Anyone else think.. by Bruha · 2010-01-23 05:13 · Score: 1

More like he should be wearing a suit that gets more stiff where it tries to vibrate as the wind compresses his skin. If you've seen people in wind tunnels and watch their skin make waves, that needs to be prevented with this guy.
More likely he's going to rip up some areas of his skin severely and it's entirely possible he'll bleed out before he gets to the surface.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-01-23 05:56 · Score: 1

I was wondering that as well, considering that the first airplanes that exceeded the speed of sound broke apart due to the stresses.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Anyone else think.. by Jeremi · 2010-01-23 06:06 · Score: 1

So I guess I'm not the only one to think this guy is going to die doing this stunt.
I think it's likely that he won't... he's done similarly dangerous stunts before and is still alive, so it's not like he's some clueless bozo who doesn't know what he's doing. I think he (and his support team) have analyzed the risks and believe they have a reasonable chance of success, or they wouldn't be doing it.
I think the key piece of technology here is the altimeter that automatically opens his parachute for him. He may not be conscious during most of the descent, but that doesn't mean it will be an uncontrolled descent.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Anyone else think.. by dimeglio · 2010-01-23 06:23 · Score: 1

I didn't read TFA but I would first send down a few up-aimed video cameras and a dummy. This is going to help him capture the fall and see if the dummy breaks-up when it hits the sound barrier. Kind of a dry run. If all goes well, he could then safely jump. At least, he will know the risks better. A trail of smoke thing sounds like a great idea but likely impractical.

--
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 06:39 · Score: 0

Kittinger was out of control because he was not a trained skydiver. Terminal velocity will be faster at higher altitudes where the air is thinner, but I seriously doubt it would be 7 times faster than it is at 12,000 FT (standard altitude for skydiving). The "feel" of falling through the air at that altitude should be exactly the same as it is at 12,000 FT because terminal velocity is determined by the drag on the body relative to it's weight, so you should feel exactly the same air pressure on your body at any altitude once you reach terminal velocity. Regardless of the speed, an experienced skydiver would never just "go into a spin" and anyone who thinks that knows nothing about skydiving. I am a very experienced skydiver, it's a very small community, and I have never head of Felix Baumgartner. Also, most people jump with AADs (automatic activation devices) and they work just fine if you are spinning, you just end up with line twists that will slowly work themselves out. Even if you are tumbling out of control you typically do not get wrapped up in the lines during an automatic reserve deployment.
Re:Anyone else think.. by ArundelCastle · 2010-01-23 06:59 · Score: 1

The summary could just as easily be titled:
Sound Barrier To Break Skydiver During Free-Fall.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Glonoinha · 2010-01-23 07:20 · Score: 1

Actually the first airplane to break the speed of sound was the Bell X-1 with Chuck Yeager aboard - and it most definitely did not break apart due to the stress.

--
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Re:Anyone else think.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-01-23 07:21 · Score: 1

I was wondering that as well, considering that the first airplanes that exceeded the speed of sound broke apart due to the stresses.
Can infer from that, therefore, that the first skydivers to exceed the speed of sound will break apart as well, but one day, one of them won't and will be celebrated more than Chuck Yeager?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Anyone else think.. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2010-01-23 07:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Otherwise, as long as he doesn't go very far past TV, he shouldn't have to worry too much in that regard
Remember, he's going to be falling for a good long time in air so thin it's pretty close to vacuum -- I'd guess that terminal velocity at 120,000 feet is a hell of a lot faster than it is down here. He'll be moving very, very fast when he gets down to the thicker parts of the atmosphere. Fast enough to cause deceleration significantly greater than 1G? Dunno, but it wouldn't surprise me.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2010-01-23 07:42 · Score: 1

Actually the first airplane to break the speed of sound was the Bell X-1 with Chuck Yeager aboard - and it most definitely did not break apart due to the stress.
No, the first airplane to break the sound barrier in level flight was the X-1, and it was built to do so. A number of late WW2 fighters almost certainly did so in dives ... and most of the time, ended up in pieces scattered across the landscape.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-01-23 07:46 · Score: 1

Many early attempts to break the speed of sound ended in crashes. The reason that Chuck Yeager is credited with breaking the speed of sound is because he and his plane survived the experience.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Anyone else think.. by Shivani1141 · 2010-01-23 08:35 · Score: 1

What they need to do is strap a good coverage-net of accelerometers to his body, to collect some very useful data. for science, and all that. accelerometers are very cheap thanks to the nintendo wii, and what can be learned about the motion of a transonic human body will undoubtedly be of use to somebody, even if this man dies and they use the data to make sure the second attempt succeeds.
Re:Anyone else think.. by russ1337 · 2010-01-23 08:36 · Score: 1

I want him to scream all the way down so he can hear them after he deploys his 'chute.
Re:Anyone else think.. by ravenspear · 2010-01-23 09:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Air becomes incompressible at supersonic speeds

No it's the opposite, it becomes compressible at supersonic speeds. Low speed airflows are incompressible.
Re:Anyone else think.. by poopdeville · 2010-01-23 10:19 · Score: 1

This is like the 10th attempt. The first one, in the 1960s, was successful. Kittenger broke Mach 1.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:10 · Score: 0

Air becomes incompressible at supersonic speeds, so either his feet or head will need to handle the friction and stress created.
Exactly, by which I mean exactly backwards.
Airflow is incompressible at low speeds,essentially because the air has time to get out of the way instead of piling up in front of a slow object. At anything close to sonic speeds, you see a mixture of compression and displacement. At significantly supersonic speeds, compressibility dominates.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:11 · Score: 0

Air becomes incompressible at supersonic speeds
I think you've completely skipped your aerodynamics class - one of the basic tenets of high speed flows is its inherent compressibility.
It will be interesting to see if he is able to break the sound barrier. In the transonic regime due to the formation of shocks, drag increases dramatically. Perhaps he will have enough weight to punch through it.
Re:Anyone else think.. by AbRASiON · 2010-01-23 11:23 · Score: 1

Actually, Kittinger damaged his suit on the way up and had a leak, his hand was freezing and he could have lost it and he still went fine.
That was many years ago, advances in technology and planning I would think make this stunt at least easier than it was.
My god I hope it's filmed like Kittingers was (it's on google videos)
Re:Anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:44 · Score: 0

To go that fast, he will need to be extremely streamlined. Air becomes incompressible at supersonic speeds, so either his feet or head will need to handle the friction and stress created. I'd want a stability bar running the length of my body that my feet, legs, torso, shoulders, arms and head "clip" into.
Actually.. Air's incompressible at subsonic speeds and becomes compressed when supersonic speed is hit. The generated shock-wave is essentially the result from such compression. Not only that, but the intense friction is also caused by the shock-wave in that the supersonic air particles are colliding with the subsonic air particles. So, if there's a shock-wave generated directly from any part of his body then yes, he'll experience some intense heat.
Though, if he really wants to break the sound barrier, I agree that he'll have to consider the heat/friction issue but it may not be as big an issue if he can form a detached shock. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock_(aerodynamics) ) that way all of the friction occurs ahead of him.
Re:Anyone else think.. by pnewhook · 2010-01-23 13:35 · Score: 1

Unless he stays perfectly aerodynamic when he goes through the sound barrier he going to explode in the same manner that many airplanes did before they figured out they needed a pointed nose cone to soften the impact.

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-24 03:08 · Score: 0

Sheesh - it's compressible at every velocity, but it's negligible enough below Mach 0.3 that you can simplify a lot of calculations by assuming its incompressible.
Re:Anyone else think.. by Idiomatick · 2010-01-24 06:04 · Score: 1

Please don't use mph and fps on the internet. I thought /. had at least moved to metric... Plus, fps means frames per second for most of us... I thought you meant he was going to break the fourth wall and realize he was in the matrix then apparently start to lag down to 120fps (which is more than enough for people anyways...).
Re:Anyone else think.. by kinnell · 2010-01-25 00:38 · Score: 1

Any way, I wanna watch. I hope he does the trailing smoke thing!
That's not smoke, it's urine

--
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Re:Anyone else think.. by aarenz · 2010-01-25 02:59 · Score: 1

Just so you know, I do not think he is actually going to go supersonic in the true sense. He is going to fall faster than the speed of sound at sea level, but the world operates very different at 100,000 feet. If the air pressure is great enough to cause a sonic boom, his weight will surely not be enought to push past that barrier.

Darwin Award Candidate by sweetser · 2010-01-23 04:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Just like car racing, I want to watch.

--
Working on new views of old physics at http://VisualPhysics.org

Star Trek by tripmine · 2010-01-23 04:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Am I the only one that though of the space diving scene from Star Trek 11?

Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:15 · Score: 0

Superman throwing that island into space then falling for me.
Re:Star Trek by tverbeek · 2010-01-23 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Superman throwing that island into space then falling for me.
That bit about Superman falling for you? That was a dream. :)

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:23 · Score: 0

You only wish Superman would fall for you.
Re:Star Trek by tenco · 2010-01-23 04:23 · Score: -1, Flamebait

What is this Star Trek 11 you're talking about? There are only 9 Star Trek movies.
Re:Star Trek by PFritz21 · 2010-01-23 04:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

How do you get 9? Are you counting Wrath of Khan/Search for Spock/Voyage Home as one (since it's three parts of the same story arc)? Are you discounting the first and fifth movies (which were kinda terrible, IMO)? If not, which ones are you discounting?
Re:Star Trek by maxwell+demon · 2010-01-23 04:35 · Score: 1

I actually thought of the end of Dark Star.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Star Trek by johny42 · 2010-01-23 04:43 · Score: 1

You must be new here. Everyone knows there are only four!
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:44 · Score: 0, Informative

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Star Trek 1)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Star Trek 2)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (Star Trek 3)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (Star Trek 4)
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (Star Trek 5)
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (Star Trek 6)
Star Trek: Generations (Star Trek 7)
Star Trek: First Contact (Star Trek 8)
Star Trek: Insurrection (Star Trek 9)
Star Trek: Nemesis (Star Trek 10)
Star Trek (2009 - Star Trek 11)
While movies 2 through 4 were one story arc, they were three separate movies with each done by different directors. Hence, that's why we are at Star Trek 11. Talks are under way for #12 with the revamping of the franchise.
Re:Star Trek by itsme1234 · 2010-01-23 04:49 · Score: 3, Funny

For one thing we can pretend we're in an alternate timeline where the one from last year never happened.
Re:Star Trek by PFritz21 · 2010-01-23 04:51 · Score: 1

And I agree with you. There are 11 Star Trek movies. But I'm curious as to how that other guy says there are only 9.
Re:Star Trek by colinrichardday · 2010-01-23 05:14 · Score: 3, Funny

<response voice="Picard">But I see 11 Star Trek films!</response>
Re:Star Trek by maxwell+demon · 2010-01-23 05:32 · Score: 1

You must be new here. Everyone knows there are only four!
I counted five.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:45 · Score: 0

Did anyone else think specifically of the red shirt in that scene?
Re:Star Trek by stockard · 2010-01-23 05:55 · Score: 1

My first thought was the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers (the book not the movie), even though he's jumping from a balloon, and not from orbit.
Re:Star Trek by anagama · 2010-01-23 05:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Because ST11 sucked so hard it is equivalent to -2 Star Treks.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Star Trek by beelsebob · 2010-01-23 06:21 · Score: 2, Funny

I prefer to say there's only been one Star Trek film, and exist in an alternate timeline where the one from last year is the *only* one that ever happened.
Re:Star Trek by rkit · 2010-01-23 08:00 · Score: 1

Hopefully he will not use a girder.

--
sig intentionally left blank
Re:Star Trek by spire3661 · 2010-01-23 10:02 · Score: 1

Pretty sure hes not counting Nemesis, which was just terrible.

--
Good-bye
Re:Star Trek by CTachyon · 2010-01-23 10:23 · Score: 1, Funny

Actually, I'm fairly sure you miscounted. When I looked over that list, I only counted 8.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Star Trek 1)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Star Trek 2)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (Star Trek 3)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (Star Trek 4)
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier FNORD (Star Trek 5)
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (Star Trek 6)
Star Trek: Generations (Star Trek 7)
Star Trek: First Contact (Star Trek 8)
Star Trek: Insurrection FNORD (Star Trek 9)
Star Trek: Nemesis FNORD (Star Trek 10)
Star Trek (2009 - Star Trek 11)
See? There's a mysterious gap between 4 and 6 that I've never been able to figure out, but you can't seriously mean that the new movie gets a +2 added to its sequel number just because it's a reboot.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a sudden urge to go shopping.

--
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
Re:Star Trek by ozbird · 2010-01-23 11:21 · Score: 0, Offtopic

So in the other films they found the Higgs Boson?
Re:Star Trek by mosb1000 · 2010-01-23 15:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Those stats are a little out of date, here are the new ones:

1: 6.2
2: 7.8
3: 6.5
4: 7.3
5: 4.9
6: 7.2
7: 6.5
8: 7.6
9: 6.4
10: 6.4
11: 8.2

The new numbers give a U value of 7.5, which is completely attributable to the latest two movies. Note that 11 is the highest rated by far (adding 5 to the U value) while 10 is lower than 7 and 3 (so it can take credit for adding 2.5 to the U value). I'd say that in addition to rebooting the Star Trek franchise, 11 has rebooted the pattern.
Re:Star Trek by tenco · 2010-01-23 23:38 · Score: 1

ST10 sucked. ST11 was a "George Lucas" version of ST, which i refuse to recognize as ST.
Re:Star Trek by dangitman · 2010-01-24 00:51 · Score: 1

No, you're the only one who thinks about Star Trek 11.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

suicide mission by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:16 · Score: 0

A suicide mission with great importance for science. Finally the long lasting question of what happens to the human body at +1 mach will be answered.

Failed how? by Greger47 · 2010-01-23 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny

American Joe Kittinger made history by leaping from a balloon at 102,800 ft, and although many have sought to repeat the feat, all have failed.

Failed?!? How can you fail that? Throw yourself self off the balloon and miss the ground?

/greger

Re:Failed how? by maxwell+demon · 2010-01-23 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can fail to get the balloon to 102,800 ft.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Failed how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:36 · Score: 0

Youve never read the Hitchhikers guide - the art of flying is to fall towards the ground, but miss.
Re:Failed how? by sick_soul · 2010-01-23 04:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Missing the ground is fundamental in learning how to fly
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flying
See 3.
Re:Failed how? by AikonMGB · 2010-01-23 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

You could also fail to survive the attempt.
Re:Failed how? by MustardAndPizza · 2010-01-23 04:48 · Score: 1

Actually, if you RTA, the previous attempt epic failed. The guy was about to climb into the balloon when the balloon broke free and left for the sky without him.

That's almost as funny as missing the ground. Maybe Baumgartner will accidentally open a hyperspace window and end up on the other side of the earth...

----
One day, I accidentally ate a screwdriver instead of a corndog. I thought to myself, This would make a good signature.
Re:Failed how? by FilePeter · 2010-01-23 04:53 · Score: 2, Funny

A Frenchman called Michel Fournier spent years preparing to beat the record, only to watch his balloon detach from the capsule and float away without him. I believe the term is EPIC FAIL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Fournier_(adventurer)
Re:Failed how? by khallow · 2010-01-23 04:56 · Score: 1

There's a high risk of death for one thing.
Re:Failed how? by onepoint · 2010-01-23 04:58 · Score: 1

LOL, I wish I had mod points to give you funny.
thank you for laughter.

--
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Re:Failed how? by Mitchell314 · 2010-01-23 05:02 · Score: 5, Funny

They're all still in orbit.

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Re:Failed how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

You can fail to get the joke.
Re:Failed how? by tomhath · 2010-01-23 05:24 · Score: 1, Informative

Obligatory Franz Reichelt attempting to fly off the Eiffel Tower reference.
Graphic Video Warning: He does not miss the ground.
Re:Failed how? by logixoul · 2010-01-23 05:25 · Score: 1

You need to read the original from end to end then :)
Re:Failed how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:26 · Score: 0

If you miss the ground, are you then flying?
Re:Failed how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 06:10 · Score: 0

No. It's possible for someone to fail to survive the attempt and still succeed. Read the description of the feat slowly.
What's true is that you could also fail to leap after the ascent phase due to blackout or failure of the release mechanism.
Re:Failed how? by tomhath · 2010-01-23 06:44 · Score: 1

If you miss the ground you are probably in orbit. Although we say it's weightless when astronauts are in space, actually they're in constant free-fall. They're accelerating toward the Earth, but they're going so fast they keep missing.
Re:Failed how? by Dachannien · 2010-01-23 06:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Paul Atreides: They tried and failed?
Reverend Mother Mohiam: They tried and died.
Re:Failed how? by Better.Safe.Than.Sor · 2010-01-23 09:28 · Score: 1

You've never been employed by any government I see.

--
It's all history, man. -anon
Re:Failed how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:14 · Score: 0

Only once, though.
Re:Failed how? by michaelhood · 2010-01-23 11:33 · Score: 1

Actually, if you RTA, the previous attempt epic failed. The guy was about to climb into the balloon when the balloon broke free and left for the sky without him.
Was Falcon inside?!
Re:Failed how? by mqduck · 2010-01-23 13:26 · Score: 1

You could also fail to survive the attempt.
Which is entirely distinct from failing the attempt itself.

--
Property is theft.

The real question is ... by tomhudson · 2010-01-23 04:26 · Score: 4, Funny

... will he bounce?

Re:The real question is ... by bobdotorg · 2010-01-23 05:09 · Score: 0, Offtopic

... will he bounce?
Will he blend?
Though the post-bounce remains might have an appearance similar to post-blend.

--
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Re:The real question is ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:46 · Score: 0

crash and burn OR burn and crash?
Re:The real question is ... by ichthyoboy · 2010-01-23 07:18 · Score: 1

Only if he spins fast enough
Re:The real question is ... by spun · 2010-01-23 07:51 · Score: 1, Redundant

Only if he spins fast enough
This is a real problem. As no one really knows what the airflow around his body will be like, he could easily encounter conditions that put him into a spin so fast it knocks him unconscious.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:The real question is ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 08:16 · Score: 0

Even more pressing: if he doesn't bounce, will he blend?
Re:The real question is ... by MaskedSlacker · 2010-01-23 08:46 · Score: 1

We're hoping more for a 'rends him limb from limb' kind of spin....you know, like being blended.
Re:The real question is ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 09:48 · Score: 0

... will he blend?
Re:The real question is ... by xbytor · 2010-01-24 21:31 · Score: 1

As we used to say on Wall St, even a dead cat bounces...
Re:The real question is ... by fulldecent · 2010-01-25 07:53 · Score: 1

will he blend?

--
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch

Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:28 · Score: 0

Finally a use for my man-sized styrofoam wings!

A simple machine by psnyder · 2010-01-23 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

he will exceed the speed of sound — the first person to do so without the aid of a machine.

He's using a machine. It's a balloon that sends him up 120,000 ft.

Re:A simple machine by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well aren't you the Number One Wet Blanket.
Re:A simple machine by raddan · 2010-01-23 04:51 · Score: 1

I think TFA meant without a machine to propel you on the way down. At that point, it's just you and gravity.
Re:A simple machine by Anubis+IV · 2010-01-23 05:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not true at all. He wants to exceed the speed of sound by falling quickly, but the dang balloon keeps lifting him up! If anything, it's actively working against him!

On a more serious note, which simple machines would you say make up a balloon? Is it a pulley? A wedge? A lever? A balloon is just hot air in a sack. Nothing machine-like about that, though I suppose the mechanism for generating hot air may involve a machine, but that's tangential.
Re:A simple machine by Sir_Lewk · 2010-01-23 05:09 · Score: 4, Funny

You must be a big hit at the parties.

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Re:A simple machine by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:11 · Score: 0

A wedge? The denser air wedges the balloon upward.
Re:A simple machine by Spacezilla · 2010-01-23 05:19 · Score: 1

I thought the definition of a machine was something about moving parts?
Re:A simple machine by ScrewMaster · 2010-01-23 05:26 · Score: 1

he will exceed the speed of sound — the first person to do so without the aid of a machine.
He's using a machine. It's a balloon that sends him up 120,000 ft.
Gah. The basic assumption here is that he's not using powered flight to get him up there ... the fact that a balloon can be considered a mechanical device is irrelevant. And even if he were using a rocket or other such machine to get him there, it would hardly detract from the feat itself, that of falling almost 28 miles. Why the summary even bothered to state that he's not using the aid of a machine is stupid anyway ... of course he's using a machine of some kind to get that far off the planet. What else would he use ... teleportation?

Of course, having said that, I still think he's completely nuts.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:A simple machine by mister_playboy · 2010-01-23 05:33 · Score: 1

His mom doesn't allow parties in the basement.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
Re:A simple machine by maxwell+demon · 2010-01-23 05:38 · Score: 1

of course he's using a machine of some kind to get that far off the planet. What else would he use ... teleportation?
A teleporter would be a machine, too.
A staircase wouldn't be a machine, though. :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:A simple machine by ScrewMaster · 2010-01-23 05:55 · Score: 1

of course he's using a machine of some kind to get that far off the planet. What else would he use ... teleportation?
A teleporter would be a machine, too. A staircase wouldn't be a machine, though. :-)
Well, I meant teleportation as being some kind of psychic power akin to telekinesis. A staircase is certainly a machine ... it just doesn't have any moving parts.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:A simple machine by jschen · 2010-01-23 06:02 · Score: 1

By that definition, a passively cooled computer wouldn't be a machine.
Re:A simple machine by defaria · 2010-01-23 06:03 · Score: 1

He is not using a machine to accelerate down however. I don't understand. The article says he'll reach the speed of sound at 35 seconds in. It also says that Kittinger's fall lasted minutes. Why then did Kittinger not break the sound barrier after 35 seconds into hist descent?
Re:A simple machine by tepples · 2010-01-23 06:04 · Score: 1

Unless it's a netbook, it still has moving parts: hard drive and optical drive.
Re:A simple machine by oji-sama · 2010-01-23 06:14 · Score: 1

So feel free to break the sound barrier with one ^.^

--
It is what it is.
Re:A simple machine by jschen · 2010-01-23 06:35 · Score: 1

Oops... forgot about the hard drive. Stick an SSD in there and pull out the (non-essential) optical drive, and you no longer have moving parts. Still clearly a machine.
Re:A simple machine by 517714 · 2010-01-23 06:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Whether one uses a lever, a classic machine, or a balloon to raise an object is irrelevant. The fall from it is not aided by the machine. Using your (il)logic, one could not jump off the top of a mountain without using a machine - an inclined plane.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:A simple machine by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 06:43 · Score: 0

So is the Space Shuttle accelerating astronauts on reentry, or are they just gliding?
Re:A simple machine by Sir_Lewk · 2010-01-23 06:56 · Score: 1

The atmosphere is decelerating astronauts on reentry...

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Re:A simple machine by Vellmont · 2010-01-23 07:22 · Score: 1

Not true at all. He wants to exceed the speed of sound by falling quickly, but the dang balloon keeps lifting him up! If anything, it's actively working against him!

Clever, but misses the point.
Rather than argue what "a machine" is, I'd rather step back and wonder what the original distinction was supposed to convey. He's certainly using a tool, since the balloon, gondola and parachute aren't part of his body. He's not using his muscles to propel himself, so this isn't a physical feat of strength (beyond the obvious endurance of cold/stress of the environment). It's true the tool he's using isn't directly propelling him, but the balloon is certainly later enabling him to gain such high velocity. Dismissing the role of the technology as counter-productive is just self-deception.
If you want to categorize this, it's mostly a feat of daring and technology. To me that puts it closer to the category of "land speed record" than it does of "longest long jump".

--
AccountKiller
Re:A simple machine by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 07:22 · Score: 0

Hrm, I think it's an inclined plane with a negative slope, because you roll up it. ;-)
Re:A simple machine by Khyber · 2010-01-23 08:18 · Score: 1

Hinges. Keyboard Keys.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:A simple machine by sconeu · 2010-01-23 08:40 · Score: 1

you no longer have moving parts
Tell that to the electrons.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:A simple machine by the+brown+guy · 2010-01-23 09:43 · Score: 1

"A balloon is just hot air in a sack. Nothing machine-like about that,"
So obviously your head isn't a machine either

--
Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
Re:A simple machine by Anubis+IV · 2010-01-23 10:03 · Score: 1

I never made any claims to the contrary. :)
Re:A simple machine by Anubis+IV · 2010-01-23 10:05 · Score: 1

Tongue was thoroughly planted in cheek when I made that comment earlier.
Re:A simple machine by noidentity · 2010-01-23 11:30 · Score: 1

machine - 1. [...] b. A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an applied force; a simple machine.

A hot air balloon converts the downward force of the atmosphere into an upward force on the basket.
Re:A simple machine by rbanffy · 2010-01-23 11:56 · Score: 1

The balloon is giving him the potential energy. Gravity is helping with the conversion of potential energy into the kinetic kind.

--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Re:A simple machine by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:59 · Score: 0

tablet form factor with capacitive touchscreen for keypad?
... wait, did I just imply the iphone isn't a machine?
Re:A simple machine by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-23 12:45 · Score: 1

It also says that Kittinger's fall lasted minutes. Why then did Kittinger not break the sound barrier after 35 seconds into hist descent?
It's not just how far you fall, it's how high is terminal velocity due to wind resistance. Higher up the air is thinner and you can go faster. This new jumper will still be higher than the previous record holder even after 35 seconds. And he won't be going super-sonic from then until he pulls the parachute; he will slow down as he gets lower in the atmosphere.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:A simple machine by mosb1000 · 2010-01-23 15:41 · Score: 1

I'm sure it's a helium balloon.
Re:A simple machine by Explodicle · 2010-01-23 16:17 · Score: 1

Then everything's a machine because all electrons are moving.
Re:A simple machine by sconeu · 2010-01-23 16:53 · Score: 1

Not under the influence of a human-applied voltage.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:A simple machine by Explodicle · 2010-01-25 01:24 · Score: 1

They still jiggle around under voltage.
Re:A simple machine by BobMcD · 2010-01-25 10:39 · Score: 1

"A balloon is just hot air in a sack. Nothing machine-like about that,"
So obviously your head isn't a machine either
Sometimes the robots forget they are supposed to be living among us in disguise...

Just use a dummy first. by starbugs · 2010-01-23 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Test the survivability of this by using a dummy with G-force sensors (just like we see on Mythbusters).
Then, if all goes well - try the stunt.

And please, use some kind of stabilizer to make sure you don't turn into a frisbee.

I do see potential in this 'experiment' if anyone ever needs to bail out on spaceship2.

Re:Just use a dummy first. by X0563511 · 2010-01-23 04:56 · Score: 1

On that note... I do hope he has some kind of data recording system.
While the speed and pressures will not be the same, the data collectible may well be invaluable if someone decides to invent an ejection system that functions at mach1 or beyond.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Just use a dummy first. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:00 · Score: 0

starbugs wrote, "Just use a dummy first."
As a pilot who built and flies his own homebuilt airplane (a Rutan designed Long-EZ), and as one who has slipped the surly bonds of earth for 30+ years in various aircraft, and as one who has perhaps done a few foolish things in such aircraft, I submit that when Baumgartner jumps out of his balloon at 120k ft, *he* will be the dummy jumping. I suppose some people just have a death wish.
Re:Just use a dummy first. by maxwell+demon · 2010-01-23 05:03 · Score: 1

But "dummy died when sky-diving at supersonic speed" is a worse headline than "human died when sky-diving at supersonic speed" ...
Won't anyone think of the newspapers?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Just use a dummy first. by icegreentea · 2010-01-23 05:09 · Score: 4, Informative

They've had supersonic ejection seats for quite a while now. Pretty much every modern fighter jet has them. There was a successful ejection out of a modified SR-71 back in the 60s. They were flying at over mach 3. Pilot survived, the copilot drowned when after he landed in the water.
Re:Just use a dummy first. by Rockoon · 2010-01-23 06:32 · Score: 1

How about "dummy human goes deaf when he breaks the sound barrier"

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Just use a dummy first. by confused+one · 2010-01-23 06:56 · Score: 1

OK, you've hit on the best idea right there! Get Mythbusters to test his idea first. If Buster (the dummy) survives, then out come the explosives!
Re:Just use a dummy first. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-01-23 07:35 · Score: 1

"Just use a dummy first."
How exactly is this man himself *not* a dummy?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Just use a dummy first. by TBoon · 2010-01-23 07:48 · Score: 1

For some kind of film, the russians flew a fighter jet without the glass roof at supersonic speeds! (The pilot mostly complained about it being cold and windy...)
Re:Just use a dummy first. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 09:19 · Score: 0

There is only one pilot on the SR-71. The other crew member is the RSO (reconnaissance systems officer).
Re:Just use a dummy first. by naveenkumar.s · 2010-01-23 11:53 · Score: 1

Did you mean this? This was not a ejection; their seat belt harnesses just ruptured because of the aircraft break-up.
Re:Just use a dummy first. by icegreentea · 2010-01-23 12:01 · Score: 1

No. It was one of the SR-71s modified to be a mothership for a D-21 drone. They had some problems and launch and yeah.. ejected.

Sound barrier by russotto · 2010-01-23 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm going to guess that he doesn't break the sound barrier. The term "barrier" isn't entirely fanciful, as power required to go faster increases enormously as you approach it.

On the other hand, if he DOES break the sound barrier, I'm going to bet it does him some injury.

Re:Sound barrier by rossdee · 2010-01-23 05:08 · Score: 1

The trick is to start out high enough that you build up enough speed before hitting the dense atmosphere. The speed of sound decreases as the air gets thinner too.
Re:Sound barrier by oji-sama · 2010-01-23 06:17 · Score: 1

That sounds like he will literally hit the sound barrier... outch...

--
It is what it is.
Re:Sound barrier by Meumeu · 2010-01-23 06:23 · Score: 1

The speed of sound decreases as the air gets thinner^Wcolder too.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Sound barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 16:03 · Score: 0

While you're right, drag does increase very quickly as one approaches the speed of sound, at such high altitude that increase will bring you from hardly any drag to a little bit of drag.
Now, for most aircraft this still makes supersonic flight hard even at high altitude. While drag is very low at these altitudes the lack of air to run an airbreathing engine creates a situation where an aircraft has both very low drag and very low thrust.
However, in the case of a falling object, thrust, in the form of gravity, remains fairly constant, and thus acceleration to very high velocities is easy. Likewise, the speed of sound in such thin air is very low, and therefore reaching supersonic speeds is very easy.
Of course, as the article mentions supersonic and transonic airflows tend to be a bit squirrelly. If it was me, I'd be doing wind tunnel testing before even attempting this.
Re:Sound barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 16:11 · Score: 0

While you're right, drag does increase very quickly as one approaches the speed of sound, at such high altitude that increase will bring you from hardly any drag to a little bit of drag.
Now, for most aircraft this still makes supersonic flight hard even at high altitude. While drag is very low at these altitudes the lack of air to run an airbreathing engine creates a situation where an aircraft has both very low drag and very low thrust.
However, in the case of a falling object, thrust, in the form of gravity, remains fairly constant, and thus acceleration to very high velocities is easy. Likewise, the speed of sound in such thin air is very low, and therefore reaching supersonic speeds is very easy.
Of course, as the article mentions supersonic and transonic airflows tend to be a bit squirrelly. If it was me, I'd be doing wind tunnel testing before even attempting this.
Oh and I forgot to add, IAAMP (I am a military pilot). Too lazy to login today. And in theory, when writing in this capacity I probably shouldn't.
Re:Sound barrier by Rhesusmonkey · 2010-01-23 20:09 · Score: 1

not as much as if he breaks that ground barrier *padumpsshhh*

--
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com

Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 04:52 · Score: 0

gravity is not a machine ... and that is what propels him to the required speed
the balloon has zero to do with his fall other than lifting him to the altitude

it does not make him go fast

What ever happened to Terminal Velocity? by Zero__Kelvin · 2010-01-23 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I realize that Terminal Velocity will be higher with less air density, and the speed of sound should be lower, but do they both change so much that this is actually possible?

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun

Re:What ever happened to Terminal Velocity? by maxwell+demon · 2010-01-23 05:26 · Score: 1

Looking at Wikipedia, the speed of sound at that height should be about 300 m/s.
According to the NASA calculator (combined with Google to get from/to SI units), in 120.000 ft height the terminal speed is much larger than that (I inserted Baumgartner's weight (73kg = 161 lbs) and 120000 ft (which the calculator changed to 100000 for reasons unknown to me), but didn't change the other parameters; according to the NASA calculator, the terminal velocity at that height is 1700 ft/s, which is 518 m/s, and therefore much larger than 300 m/s.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:What ever happened to Terminal Velocity? by barzok · 2010-01-23 06:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Except he won't be at 120,000 feet when he reaches 300 m/s, he's going to fall from that altitude.
The question is will his velocity at any point during the descent be greater than the speed of sound; given that the speed of sound will be increasing while his terminal velocity will be decreasing, what you need to find the the point at which the two curves cross.
Re:What ever happened to Terminal Velocity? by Zcar · 2010-01-23 09:05 · Score: 2, Informative

The speed of sound seems to hit a minimum (over the range of altitudes he'll be falling through) in the Tropopause between 40 and 65000 ft (12 and 20000 m) at about 970 ft/s (295 m/s).
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml
In The Long, Lonely Leap Kittenger claims a radar-checked top speed of 274 m/s which is getting pretty close to Mach 1 at at least some of the Baumgartner he'll be falling through. The extra 18000 ft (5500 m) he'll fall may be enough in the thin air up there to do it.
Re:What ever happened to Terminal Velocity? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-29 20:50 · Score: 0

Acceleration at near sea level is a -9.8m/s^2, roughly. However, at 120,000 feet, it will be a bit less. How much less, I'm not entirely sure. It would seem, however, that the 35 second estimate is using this constant near sea level, which may not be entirely accurate. Using this constant, 35 seconds in the air with NO resistance would put you at a height of 99,744 feet, roughly, at a velocity of 343m/s (834.38 mph). The speed of sound at sea level is 340.3m/s (761.21mph).
So, whoever made that estimate, did not account for the change in the "constant" of acceleration of gravity on Earth at that altitude (and descending), and did not account for air resistance. The -9.8m/s^2 "constant" of acceleration is only accurate in situations with very little to no resistance. That estimate is bound to be off by quite a bit.

Physics novice, here: by captainskyhawk · 2010-01-23 05:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Isn't "terminal velocity" lower than the speed of sound?

Re:Physics novice, here: by WittyName · 2010-01-23 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

The speed of sound depends on the density of the air. Your acceleration would also be affected, drag is at a cube rate or fourth?!? rate. Gravity depends on the distance from the center of the earth. Without doing the math, there should be some region where resistance is low, acceleration fairly high, allowing supersonic speed.
Some body armor, perhaps a viscous gel embedded with carbon fiber, seems wise! Maybe a helmet to keep facial features from being torn removed.. Frost burn, too.

--
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
Re:Physics novice, here: by Angst+Badger · 2010-01-23 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Isn't "terminal velocity" lower than the speed of sound?
Terminal velocity depends on aerodynamic drag. At altitudes that high, there atmosphere is quite thin, so there's not much drag and a man-sized object can fall well in excess of the speed of sound. In fact, the air is so thin at 100,000 feet that even deploying his parachute wouldn't do much to slow him down. When he reaches the lower, denser parts of the atmosphere, he'll slow down considerably.
If not, terminal velocity in the lithosphere is approximately 0 mph.

--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Re:Physics novice, here: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 06:07 · Score: 0

captainskyhawk writes:
> Isn't "terminal velocity" lower than the speed of sound?
oh neat, the exteme sportsman talked about in TFA is posting to /.!
welcome and good luck!
Re:Physics novice, here: by kryptKnight · 2010-01-23 06:11 · Score: 1

Terminal velocity is the speed a thing is going when the force of gravity pulling down is equal to the force of drag pushing up (0 net force = no acceleration, ie constant velocity). The force due to drag at high altitudes is very low because there's not much air that high, which means there's not much to keep gravity from accelerating the sky diver. As he descends and the air gets thicker he will decelerate back to subsonic speeds because terminal velocity is lower at lower altitudes (all else being constant).
A common myth related to terminal velocity is that terminal velocity is a constant rate that all objects fall at. That's not true because drag factors into terminal velocity and different things are more or less aerodynamic. A person skydiving spread-eagle falls slower than a person diving streamlined, and a bullet will fall back down at about the same speed it was going when it was fired.

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
Re:Physics novice, here: by crazyvas · 2010-01-23 06:56 · Score: 1
Terminal velocity is not a fixed value. It is directly propotional to (the square root of):
- m = mass of the falling object,
- g = acceleration due to gravity,
Both these are constants in our case. Terminal velocity is inversely propotional to (the square root of):
- C = drag coefficient,
- I = density of the fluid through which the object is falling, and
- A = projected area of the object.
These are subject to change. In particular, "I", which is the density of the fluid, means that since air (the fluid here) is gets less dense with increasing altitudes, terminal velocity is higher at these high altitudes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
Re:Physics novice, here: by Rich0 · 2010-01-23 07:06 · Score: 1

Others have pointed out that terminal velocity depends on air density. I'd like to point out a very good illustration of this.
Some of the hottest stuff in the universe is the hydrogen gas (well, ions) that fills intergalactic space in the middle of large galaxy clusters. It isn't just white-hot, it is x-ray hot.
How does it get that way? Simple: terminal velocity.
The terminal velocity of a hydrogen atom in intergalactic space (density measured in atoms per cubic mile) is, well, astronomical. So, an atom that starts off floating in some void and falls towards a galaxy cluster. It probably takes 10s to 100s to maybe even 1000 million years to get there. Along the way it might bump into a few atoms on the whole trip. The first one it hits releases the kinds of energy associated with particle accelerators and the free protons and electrons just keep on falling. I'd be surprised if it even reaches terminal velocity as that would imply some kind of equilibrium where the kinetics have rate constants in the millions of years most likely.
Eventually it hits the middle and starts decelerating until it is well into the next void (which takes as long as the original fall), then begins falling back repeating the process.
Fascinating stuff...
Disclaimer - I'm not an astrophysicist - and if any real ones have more to add I'm certainly all ears... :)
Re:Physics novice, here: by kannibal_klown · 2010-01-23 08:12 · Score: 1

Isn't "terminal velocity" lower than the speed of sound?
Your terminal velocity depends on many factors...
- Angle of attack
Free fall TV is slower than a controlled head-first dive, as in a controlled nose dive you're more aerodynamic. Go flat like a pancake and you'll fall slower than someone tumbling or someone taking a nose dive. Which is why I hate it when a HS student with only basic physics complains when a movie has 2 people skydiving and one guy being able to catch up to another after a while.
So if he has some sort of suit that will make him more aerodynamic that your average skydiver he can really hit some major speeds.
- Your current altitude
The higher the altitude (especially over 10,000 ft), the thinner the air. The thinner the air, the less air resistance. The less air resistance, the higher the TV.
It should be mentioned that TV isn't instantaneous in free fall, if he surpasses TV due to falling from a higher altitude he'll gradually slow down to TV. So I imagine as he passes the 10,000 ft mark he'll being going faster than that altitude's TV for a short while.
Now how this all equates to breaking the sound barrier, I have no idea. As other posters said, at the extreme altitudes he's starting at his TV will be quite significant. However the speed of sound is also a lot less at those heights.
Re:Physics novice, here: by Dunbal · 2010-01-23 10:55 · Score: 1

Now how this all equates to breaking the sound barrier, I have no idea. As other posters said, at the extreme altitudes he's starting at his TV will be quite significant. However the speed of sound is also a lot less at those heights.
They're just dicking with you - it's a publicity stunt. The speed of sound at sea level is 343 meters per second at STP. However at say 40,000 to 80,000 feet, the velocity you need to travel at is much greater to reach the sound barrier, since the air is 1) colder and 2) less dense. According to some charts, the "speed of sound" is 1147.6 knots which is 2125 km/h which is 590.27 meters per second. So to reach the "sound barrier" (and all the associated resistances), you need to reach that velocity. However you will notice that even if you get partly there - 400 meters per second, you have technically broken the "sea level" speed of sound.
Since the air is less dense, terminal velocity is higher the higher you are - after all terminal velocity is the balance between the downward force provided by gravitation acting on your mass, and the opposite resisting force that is a function of your velocity, the density of the medium you are traveling through, your shape, and thus cross sectional area. Since the air is much less dense, terminal velocity will accordingly be higher. I'm not a physicist so I can't whip out the formulas but a bit of googling should do it.
So it's a trick. He will NOT break the sound barrier - that would involve him heating up a great deal and probably being torn apart. After all, he's not made of titanium. However it is possible he will travel at > 343 meters per second at some point during his flight. But saying he will travel "faster than sound" is just marketing BS.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Physics novice, here: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 10:55 · Score: 0

The speed of sound depends on the density of the air. WRONG! doesn't depend on density at all.
The speed of sound depends ONLY on the temperature. c = 331 + 0.6T (T in deg Celsius)
As it happens, the air gets colder as you go higher, so the speed of sound decreases as you go up. The temp goes down roughly linearly as a function of altitude for a while, then is constant. From 0 to 11km it's roughly -6.5 degrees/km, then flattens out at a constant -56.5 C up to 20 km, then changes at +1C/km to 32km (-44C), and then gets even warmer.
At the -56.5C the speed of sound is about 297 m/s, which is a low as it's going to get, call it about 1100 km/hr
Drag force is proportional to rho v^2. density (rho) goes inverse exponential, and is about 1/2 sea level at 5.5km (18000 ft)..
Terminal velocity is therefore proportional to square root of density. That is, at 5.5km, terminal velocity is 1.4 times faster than at sea level. If terminal velocity at sea level is something like 150 m/s, ignoring compressibility effects on drag, the density has to be 1/4 that of sea level to make terminal velocity twice as fast (300 m/s). That's at 11km...
So certainly it's feasible. THe challenge is that drag rises very quickly as you get close to Mach 1.
Re:Physics novice, here: by 5plicer · 2010-01-23 11:05 · Score: 1

Some body armor, perhaps a viscous gel embedded with carbon fiber, seems wise! Maybe a helmet to keep facial features from being torn removed.. Frost burn, too.
He should also wear ear plugs ;)

--
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
Re:Physics novice, here: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:57 · Score: 0

I guess even ten meters a second is pretty terminal if you hit the ground...
Re:Physics novice, here: by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-23 13:30 · Score: 1

If not, terminal velocity in the lithosphere is approximately 0 mph.
Lol, nice.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Physics novice, here: by fenix849 · 2010-01-23 13:52 · Score: 1

There's a picture of his helmet and a red bull promotional video at popsci: http://www.popsci.com.au/technology/article/2010-01/120000-foot-jump-daredevil-space-diver-become-first-human-break-sound-barrier-free-fall
Re:Physics novice, here: by selven · 2010-01-23 14:32 · Score: 2, Informative

The guy's starting at over 36km. Air pressure is about one 200th that of surface pressure. Given that the acceleration needed to counter drag increases with velocity^2 (if you're going twice as fast, twice as many air particles hit you at twice the relative velocity), that means that terminal velocity is 14 times as high as usual. Terminal velocity at the surface for a mostly vertical human with gear (I estimated 0.30m^2) is 200 m/s, so up there the terminal velocity is over 2800 m/s, or about 9.5 times the speed of sound at that elevation.
Re:Physics novice, here: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-24 14:01 · Score: 0

You need to look up the term "terminal velocity", Yes he can reach the speed of sound

Drift? by RevWaldo · 2010-01-23 05:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

During the fall, how far could he drift from the balloon's overhead position? A few miles? Tens of miles?

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

Re:Drift? by Moridin42 · 2010-01-23 08:26 · Score: 1

How far could he? Probably quite a lot. Given that he is jumping from over 20 miles altitude, I'd guess that he could get over 50 miles horizontal movement if he wished.
But since he is going for speed of fall, his suit and body position are going to attempt to minimize that sort of movement.

--
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.

Terminal Velocity and the Speed of Sound by Geoffrey.landis · 2010-01-23 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Pretty good information about high-altitude skydiving here: Speed of a Skydiver

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Supplemental question by bobdotorg · 2010-01-23 05:12 · Score: 4, Funny

If you fart while exceeding the speed of sound, will it make a noise?

--
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.

Re:Supplemental question by Machtyn · 2010-01-23 05:22 · Score: 1

That's my new sig... thank you!
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:30 · Score: 0

If you are in the fart's reference frame, there is no fart, and the whole universe farts around you!
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 07:02 · Score: 2, Funny

No, but it will (temporarily) give you a speedboost. It acts just like an afterburner, really.
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 07:20 · Score: 0

Noises ahead of the sound cannot be detected ahead of the source at > M=1 by definition. Your airspeed is exceeding the speed of propagation of disturbances through the medium - sound.
Re:Supplemental question by Hamoohead · 2010-01-23 07:52 · Score: 1

Yes, but due to the doppler effect, from your perspective it will be subsonic. Those ahead of your trajectory would most probably hear a "mouse fart".

--
"If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
Re:Supplemental question by unixguy43 · 2010-01-23 07:54 · Score: 1

If you light your fart will it give you extra thrust?
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 08:00 · Score: 0

No, the real question is "Can he exceed the speed of smell?"
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 08:52 · Score: 0

Hey, Mythbusters! Are you reading this?!
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:19 · Score: 0

If you fart while exceeding the speed of sound, will it make a noise?
Yes; it's called a sonic boom
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 12:28 · Score: 0

As if it were only a fart.
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 14:56 · Score: 0

In communist Russia, fart farts you!
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 17:10 · Score: 0

Of course, that's where thunder comes from!
Re:Supplemental question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 18:02 · Score: 0

I think want yo meant to say was "If you fart while exceeding the speed of sound, will it make a sound?"
Everything by definition makes noise, but sound requires someone to hear it as a noise is not sound until it is picking up by an ear.
So the answer is yes it would make noise, but due to the other, louder sources of noise around, it is unlikely to make any sound.
Re:Supplemental question by mjwx · 2010-01-24 16:33 · Score: 1

If you fart while exceeding the speed of sound, will it make a noise?
Better yet, will it have an odour? What exactly is the speed of smell.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Nominee by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:13 · Score: 1, Funny

I think this has to be considered as a Darwin Awards nominee...

Does he get the record if he dies? by tomhath · 2010-01-23 05:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Strictly speaking the record will be for highest parachute jump. Assuming he's alive when he jumps he should get the record, even if he lands in several pieces.

Braking deceleration by Arancaytar · 2010-01-23 05:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Aside from the air friction, it's going to jolt like hell when his chute opens and he starts to decelerate.

Re:Braking deceleration by grasshoppa · 2010-01-23 05:32 · Score: 1

I imagine his chute will be specialized to allow for variable resistance. This does make the jump much more dangerous, however. Even with a fail safe, his chute will likely deploy with the resistance to the minimum, so he'll come in pretty fast.
I don't really know, I'm just guessing mostly.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Braking deceleration by cynyr · 2010-01-23 06:46 · Score: 1

Also the 'chute could have the resistance controlled by computer/micro-controller and then would be deployed automaticly if he hasn't yet and then adjusted to provide a safe landing speed. I'm also guessing that the fail safe one is not the para wing style ones, but a mostly simple round one with little steering ability.

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Re:Braking deceleration by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 07:39 · Score: 0

I believe that as with the original jump, the chute is opened before the air is really thick enough to slow him down, just enough to fill the chute. As the air's density increases, he slows down rather gradually.
Re:Braking deceleration by aukset · 2010-01-23 16:34 · Score: 1

All high altitude jumps involve multiple stages of parachutes that gradually reduce the speed of the fall and provide some stability to the fall to prevent the object (aka human being) from spinning out of control. No doubt the same approach will be taken here. A small chute can be deployed initially to provide a gradual increase in drag as the atmosphere thickens, and once at a low enough altitude, deploy a larger chute to slow the decent to a survivable velocity.

--
No sig now

Maintain a WHAT? by VinB · 2010-01-23 05:40 · Score: 1

" a key objective for Baumgartner will be to try to maintain a good attitude during the descent"

At first glance, I thought I saw "maintain a good ALTITUDE". Jumping out of the balloon would all but dash any hope of that. That being said, I'd have to say that my attitude would be pretty piss poor as I froze my privates off while descending at super sonic speed.

Humans were not meant to fall out of the sky by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 05:51 · Score: 0

As a commercial airline pilot I will say that these stunts disturb me. We have always had to worry about birds being sucked into the engines. Now we have to worry about humans falling from the sky. And there's not much latitude to maneuver a commercial airplane with an approaching target going faster than the speed of sound. Even if we do miss, it will likely spook the kiddies sitting in the window seats.

UTW

Re:Humans were not meant to fall out of the sky by FlyingGuy · 2010-01-23 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then I guess you better make damn sure you read all your NOTAM's aye bunky?
Yeah I am a pilot.

--
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Re:Humans were not meant to fall out of the sky by spammeister · 2010-01-23 09:47 · Score: 1

If I ever see a NOTAM I immediately shred it. If the ship doesn't have a helipad on it then they don't need to know. Now if you were to read all your GOLDs or PURPLEs...colour me impressed.

--
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.

Red Shirt by Das+Auge · 2010-01-23 05:53 · Score: 2, Funny

I hope to god he's not wearing a red shirt.

golfer by mordorph · 2010-01-23 06:05 · Score: 5, Funny

The Difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? one goes *Whack*... "D@mn". the other goes "D@mn"...Whack.

Re:golfer by ByteSlicer · 2010-01-23 11:47 · Score: 1

It's OK to say 'damn'. Unless you're Irish of course.
Re:golfer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 14:53 · Score: 0

What the fuck was the point of trying to censor "damn" by replacing the a's with @'s?
Re:golfer by Alcohol+Fueled · 2010-01-23 16:44 · Score: 1

Hahaha. Thanks for the laugh, good sir.

--
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
Re:golfer by dangitman · 2010-01-24 01:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Nobody says "damn" in those situations. They say "fuck" or "shit" or "fucking cunt."

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:golfer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-25 02:19 · Score: 0

and then there's Tiger Woods, who should have just whacked off.

Can I buy insurance? by NotQuiteReal · 2010-01-23 06:25 · Score: 1

Is 3rd person life insurance legal in Australia?

I mean they only ask if one has dangerous hobbies like sky diving, right? They probably don't ask if you are doing super sonic skydiving...

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

I cannot believe everybody forgot the by miknix · 2010-01-23 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

What can possibly go wrong?? /. memo

Re: Bullets by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 06:28 · Score: 0

A rifle might have a muzzle velocity of something like 3000 ft/sec, the falling bullet may have a terminal velocity of something like 300 or 400 ft/sec. The idea that a bullet will fall down at the same speed it was fired is inaccurate. (This does not mean that falling bullets cannot be dangerous).

Um, hang on just a sec, Mr. Wizard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 06:35 · Score: -1, Redundant

I'd like to know how he plans to get around the issue of basic physics and the concept of "terminal velocity." Terminal velocity of a human free-falling in the Earth's atmosphere is around 200mph, give-or-take (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml). The standardized Speed of Sound in dry air is around 768mph. So, how is this guy going to make up for a difference of 568+ mph without the aid of a machine?

Re:Um, hang on just a sec, Mr. Wizard ... by Arimus · 2010-01-23 06:50 · Score: 1

Will that still apply at extreme altitude as friction, and ergo drag, is going to be a lot lower due to thinner air?
Regardless rather him than me... also the comment from him regarding bits of his body being in a transonic and some in supersonic airflow makes me wonder if he's going to arrive in one or multiple pieces....

--
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.

Beware Of The Terrorist by Auto_Lykos · 2010-01-23 06:44 · Score: 1

Damnit, we've lived in fear of them going 600 miles an hour in airplanes and crashing into things. Now what the fuck are we going to do when they start falling from the sky at 800 miles an hour?!

Re:Beware Of The Terrorist by baegucb · 2010-01-23 16:20 · Score: 1

Think of it as evolution in action.

Didn't we already see this in Star Trek V? by punterjoe · 2010-01-23 06:54 · Score: 1

OK, it was a deleted scene. And I think it involved actual orbital reentry in just a jumpsuit. Still, I suspect that if this guy survives, he will eventually end up attempting something like that. Does Virgin Galactic sell one-way tickets?

Hearing by Effugas · 2010-01-23 06:57 · Score: 0

I think he's going to burst his eardrums, and possibly some organs.

Look. this is going to be an enormous pressure wave that will saturate his body. He pops this barrier, it's going to rattle him pretty fierce.

They really should try this with a dummy first!

Re:Hearing by mindstrm · 2010-01-23 13:09 · Score: 1

He'll be in a pressure suit...... and it's not like a sudden shockwave goes through your body when you hit mach 1. You don't really "pop" the sound barrier.

Ah, a .gov web server by afabbro · 2010-01-23 06:58 · Score: 1

You can always tell because they have that Sun logo in their favicon.

--
Advice: on VPS providers

Re:Ah, a .gov web server by aflag · 2010-01-23 17:03 · Score: 1

The address bar also gives you a pretty good hint.

highly dubious by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 07:00 · Score: 0

are they really sure they know what they are doing?

first in case of human bodies air resistance tends to balance out gravity way before mach 1, you would need a shell with very good aerodynamics

secondly, if(and its a very big if) the fall gets anywhere near mach 1 it will hurt, not for long tho, death should come soon. people behind this seem to forget lessons learned with the breaking of sound barrier. supersonic flows mean shockwaves strong enough to tear up airplanes.

i would recommend throwing crash test dummy first

Re:highly dubious by obarthelemy · 2010-01-23 08:19 · Score: 1

i'm not sure there's that much air at 120.000 ft.

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.

It vaires with altitude by Sycraft-fu · 2010-01-23 07:12 · Score: 1

Terminal velocity is cause by the resistance of the air equaling the force of gravity. Well, up higher you've got less air. Of course that also affects the speed of sound.

Test first with real doll!!! by McNihil · 2010-01-23 07:36 · Score: 1

He most likely will vibrate to death... they should test it first with a real doll.

1200 Frames Per Second by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 08:00 · Score: 0

> Slowing from 1200+ fps to 120 fps is a big deal and

Wow, that's some quick rendering! But why is it a big deal to slow it down?

Lacking Virtue? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 08:45 · Score: 0

Hope this guy gets his record... America made this record to test space suits for manned space flight over 50 years ago while advancing manned space flight... This guy just wants a record.
They say they are testing a new suit... Uhhh kinda... But it's kinda made just for this purpose. Funny how the Brits glorify
themselves in all their documentaries. Watched one on flight and they almost discarded the Wright Bros. Watched one on
Colossus and the made Alan Turing look like nothing. SOUR GRAPES.... SOUR ISLAND

Do a search... by CFD339 · 2010-01-23 09:12 · Score: 1

I'm sure you'll find plenty of results if you search for things that get more stiff the more they're blown on.

--
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln

Re:Do a search... by BobMcD · 2010-01-25 10:31 · Score: 1

I'm sure you'll find plenty of results if you search for things that get more stiff the more they're blown on.
Only on slashdot would you advise some guy google that.

Kittinger on "What's My Line" by sysjkb · 2010-01-23 09:27 · Score: 1

Kittinger was a contestant on the "What's My Line" game show in 1956, in honor of an earlier altitude record he set in a balloon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNFH1Ds0rU4

Very personable guy; there's a brief interview with him afterwards.

Skydive or Suit Flight? by ehiris · 2010-01-23 10:06 · Score: 1

This would really only be interesting if no gear other than a parachute was used.
I wonder if the air resistance at that speed would crush him without re-enforcement gear.

Re:Skydive or Suit Flight? by Jeng · 2010-01-24 08:33 · Score: 1

The not enough oxygen in the air to sustain life part would kill him long before he jumps if he were to do it with just a parachute alone.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

The real question is ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:15 · Score: 0

... how high ?

inclined plane? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 11:17 · Score: 0

composed of laminar flow of air molecules around surface of the balloon

What does fail mean? by mathfeel · 2010-01-23 11:36 · Score: 1

I am curious about the summary

and although many have sought to repeat the feat, all have failed.

Isn't this one of those thing that you either succeed or you die?

--
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't

Re:What does fail mean? by selven · 2010-01-23 14:34 · Score: 1

Yes, fail means death. Yes, there are people willing to take a 95% chance of dying for a 5% chance of making a world record.

Speed of Sound, Terminal V and Drag by DynaSoar · 2010-01-23 12:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Interviewer: "Is that your crash helmet?"
Jose' Jimenez: " . . . oh I hope not."

Using:
standard atmosphere http://www.desktopaero.com/stdatm.html
Mach/altitude tables http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml
g acceleration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
and historical stuff on Col Joe.
At 35 seconds he'll have fallen from 120kft to 80kft, going 1126 ft/s. That's Mach 1 at sea level. At 80kft it's Mach 1.15, giving some room for drag error. 10 seconds later he'd cross from stratosphere to tropopause where Mach 1 is lowest, but since it's only a matter of ~6 ft/s, this just gives him room to fall farther if need be but not required. At 80kft the dynamic pressure will be around 55 lb/ft^2, so if fully loaded he weighs more than 165 lbs he'll still accelerate some, but not after the 45 second mark. If he's outfitted like Kittenger was, he'll weigh up towards 300 lbs, and would still accelerate for some time.

At 30 seconds he'll be falling at 965 ft/s, or Mach 0.98, well within the narrow transonic region of highest pressure, "max Q". This is where aircraft prior to the Bell X-1 came apart due to the buffeting of turbulence combined with the growing bow shock pressure wave.

He can do it theoretically. The altitude is just about perfect for the attempt. I'm more concerned about whether he'll be able to keep from getting the piss kicked out of him at the Mach line. Sure, it'll be slight compared to what General Chuck punched through, but he's a damn sight slighter than the X-1. On the other hand Kittenger hit Mach 0.96 around 60kft and I see no report of this effect so maybe it's not a problem.

It may still be a problem to punch through though. There's a spike in the speed/drag curve that's greater or lesser depending on the drag characteristics (coefficient of drag of cD). If his outfit will be shaped to approximate a low cD body so much the better. Since he'll require some form of protection I doubt anyone would fault him for choosing a shape to fit his flight profile.

If he kept up his falling profile he's still slow to terminal velocity for the lower altitude, around 200 MPH, slower still if he's either braking or blacked out and spinning. Lower altitude here is taken to be where he could pop the chute and stay conscious even if he lost his mask, around 20 kft. At that altitude and speed a full open would be quite a jerk, but no more than airborne troops practice, and which I'm sure he's handled previously. If he's designing his chute to be able to be opened higher/faster should he need or want to, he'll include a drogue chute with a delay before the main, to slow him gradually to safe opening speed (especially helpful if spinning).

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B

Terminal Velocity by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 13:25 · Score: 0

Ummm...whatever happened to terminal velocity? Can the human body even break the sound barrier? I was taught in High School physics that the human body had a terminal velocity of about 120mp/h.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just rather curious.

around my house we call the sound a human body by WormholeFiend · 2010-01-23 14:29 · Score: 1

that breaks the sound barrier, the brown note

Drag needed for stabilization, I think by Gazzonyx · 2010-01-23 14:48 · Score: 1

Won't a high drag suit also help him stabilize himself to avoid going in to a spin? He'll need the surface area (provided by a high drag suit) where the air is thinner, I think.

--

If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

Re:Drag needed for stabilization, I think by Antique+Geekmeister · 2010-01-23 18:14 · Score: 1

I've apparently violated Slashdot rules and actually looked at the article. His suit basically looks like a space suit, unsurprisingly. I'm very curious about its maneuverability, and if he's tried it in one of those vertical wind tunnels used for testing skydiving gear, or if it's a reconditioned flight suit for a military pilot, or what.
A suit with big levered fins that make it spin like a propeller would be "high drag". That's an absolute no-no for this: the spin at Mach 1 in thin air would be ludicrous, and could cause fascinating circulation problems to whatever the furthest organs are from his axis. If he's spinning sideways, as might occur of he's falling face down like most skydivers, that could knock him out pretty easily.

Can't wait to see the restricted airspace by yabos · 2010-01-23 15:00 · Score: 1

FAA restricted airspace, ground level to 120,000' due to crazy guy jumping from balloon. Radius 100 nautical miles.

Boards of Canada - Dayvan Cowboy by 742Evergreen · 2010-01-23 23:13 · Score: 1

Some footage from the original Kittinger jump are incorporated in this awesome music video by Boards of Canada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xN3t1fSbnc

Probably, if his chutes work by billstewart · 2010-01-24 11:54 · Score: 1

If they don't work, he'll have slowed down to low-altitude terminal velocity. But if everything works, he'll be landing at normal parachute-landing speed, so he may bounce a bit when he first touches down.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Brownian Motion Theory explains it better. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-24 14:25 · Score: 0

As he exits the plain, there being less atmosphere will skip him across the roof of the planet's shell and into space. No doubt his oxygen tanks will keep him alive longer than needed, just so his suit and skin super-freeze and super-heat at the same time from interacting with drifting pockets of elemental gases in outer space. His oxygen-tank will rupture and fuel an explosion that hurtles his freeze-dried corpse deeper into space. It'll be whittled-down with every collision until all that is left gets attracted to orbit around the Moon. Maybe one forgotten Day of Middle Earth will emerge to reclaim the former catastrophic 2012 flooded-plaints with it's over-populants from the inner-sun. As they study the stars, they'll note an orbiting buiskit with a remarkable resemblance of one of their phylosophers and see it draw smaller objects near with it's own mass of Brownian Motion. They'll call it someone's son as it orbits Planet Earth, and an emboldened tax collector will take-over a church as the first Pope on Earth with a new phylosophy that this orbitting Sun orbits Planet Earth.

It will be epic, until someone reads the book, so we'll outlaw oral law this time because we know it'll convince people to break oral law and neglect written law by us using the reverse-psychology aspect of a rebellious generation. Everyone will be ignorant this time, because we outlawed all the unrelated matters.

Or the friction of hitting denser atmosphere. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-24 15:49 · Score: 0

That's a great question, to be resolved soon!

I'd like to know similar. Say he's moving 800 MPH in very little atmosphere, when suddenly he hits a layer of denser atmosphere that restricts his speed down to 700 MPH within a couple seconds. That's got to be like a bullet pushing through jello in some ways, but wouldn't the rate of change be equivalent of punching a fist through wood? If this is not so because of gradual atmospheric resistance, then consider how going 800 MPH through a dark cloud would be much more dangerous than a gradual atmospheric resistance change. Those clouds are starting to look like sandbags...all of a sudden...

Joe Kittinger already broke sound barrier. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-25 03:49 · Score: 0

, he will exceed the speed of sound — the first person to do so without the aid of a machine.

/facepalm
Joe Kittinger already did this. I'd hope that the footage is on youtube as I saw it in college.

So all the questions about what will happen have already been answered.

Suit, schmoot. by Muad'Dave · 2010-01-25 08:40 · Score: 1

I want to see the scene from the movie "Heavy Metal" performed in real life. A car (not just any car, a 57-ish 'vette) drops from the shuttle, survives re-entry (with a little help from the windshield wipers to clear the char/ash), lands safely, and drives off!

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

Slashdot Mirror

Skydiver To Break Sound Barrier During Free-Fall

311 comments