Company Wants You to Visit Near-Space In Their "Bloon"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Company Wants You to Visit Near-Space In Their "Bloon"

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday August 18, 2011 @03:25AM from the more-up-than-up dept.

cylonlover writes "While space tourism efforts by the likes of Space Adventures and Virgin Galactic are relying on the tried and true technology of rockets to launch paying customers into space, Barcelona-based company zero2infinity proposes a more leisurely and eco-friendly ride into near-space using a helium balloon called the bloon. Designed to carry passengers to an altitude of 36 km (22 miles), an unmanned scale prototype bloon was flown to an altitude of 33 km (20 miles) last year and the company is already taking bookings for passenger flights that are expected to lift off sometime between 2013 and 2015."

135 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

1) But we're running out of helium.
2) You want to go up? Book a MiG-25. We already have private "space tourism" at this level of hopelessly deluded definition of "space tourism". And?
1. Re:Sounds cool by wiedzmin · 2011-08-18 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I will consider if their CEO goes up first. So far they've only had an unmanned flight...
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
2. Re:Sounds cool by Cryacin · 2011-08-18 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Did you watch the safety video? Man, it felt like I was being doused with Kool-Aid.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
3. Re:Sounds cool by 0123456 · 2011-08-18 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Book a MiG-25. We already have private "space tourism" at this level of hopelessly deluded definition of "space tourism".
  a) can a MIG-25 fly at 110,000 feet?
  b) can a MIG-25 fly up there, fly around and return for less than the cost of a balloon flight? Older-generation jet fighters typically cost about $50k an hour, don't they?
  c) can a MIG-25 do that safer than a balloon?
  d) can you eat a meal in the back seat of a MIG-25 while watching the scenery go by?
  All that said for $150k I think I'd just save another $50k and buy a real suborbital flight from Virgin.
4. Re:Sounds cool by Ken_g6 · 2011-08-18 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  1) But we're running out of helium.
  Which is why they should fill it with hydrogen instead. Keep the balloon in a separate building on the ground; once significantly above the ground the hydrogen should pose no fire threat - it would go up, not down. Plus, hydrogen is lighter, and might get you even higher!
  
  --
  (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
5. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot
  e) can a MIG-25 execute a negative 4G dive?
6. Re:Sounds cool by couchslug · 2011-08-18 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  I'd take the kinesthetic experience of the MIG over the balloony visuals any day.
  As a USAF crew chief I got a backseat ride in an F-16D, puked for most of it, and would do it again in a heartbeat!
  Rich Slashdotters:
  Buy the fucking fighter ride. As to safety, balloons don't have flight controls or ejection seats. Ask around and of course cash speaks louder than words. You can figure how much most of their overhead is if you can find local jet fuel prices.
  Quick Google yields this:
  http://www.thirtythousandfeet.com/rentride.htm
  "d) can you eat a meal in the back seat of a MIG-25 while watching the scenery go by?"
  Most people don't eat when they are getting laid. Using the "fuck metric", a fighter ride is worth MANY fucks. Go for it.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
7. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Most people don't puke their guts out when they're getting laid either.
8. Re:Sounds cool by Chris+Burke · 2011-08-18 04:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'd take the kinesthetic experience of the MIG over the balloony visuals any day.
  I'll take whatever gets me the closest to seeing the planet earth from space, soonest, and cheapest. I'll worry about other considerations like how exciting the ride itself later when picking my 2nd and subsequent trips. So let's see how it shakes out...
  Mig-29: 22km, available today, $25,000 (see the "price list" .pdf link, last page).
  Bloon: 36 km, 2013-2015, and $150,000.
  The Bloon has a significant altitude advantage, but that's irrelevant compared to the price difference! It may get cheaper at some point in the future, but that just means it fails on the 'soonest' criterion. Sure, I may not exactly have $25k (+ travel) lying around to spend on a Mig-29 flight, but it's clearly the best, most feasible option for me in the near future.
  The Mig-29 wins! Then the fact that it's a jet fighter is just awesome-icing on the awesome-cake. :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
9. Re:Sounds cool by Jason+Levine · 2011-08-18 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  Running out of helium? Won't someone think of the children of the future? Those poor kids unable to enjoy chipmunk voices! Oh, the humanity!
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
10. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Never heard of deep throating, have you?
11. Re:Sounds cool by element-o.p. · 2011-08-18 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot e) can a MIG-25 execute a negative 4G dive?
  Ugh...why would you want to? I love roller coasters and I'm a pilot that has pulled a few maneuvers in the just-barely-negative-g range when flying. I'd gladly take a ride that included some +4G maneuvers, but I'll pass on the negative 4G pushover, thanks. Negative G-forces are particularly hard on the body. Unless you are a practicing aerobatic/fighter pilot, -4G wouldn't be fun...it would be painful.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
12. Re:Sounds cool by A+nonymous+Coward · 2011-08-18 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  I wondered this myself -- first thought was I hope they are using hydrogen, or at least not venting the helium. Nope, helium, and they vent it.
  How retarded! There's so little danger of a hydrogen fire in their case, it can lift so much more or use a smaller envelope, and it is so easy to generate that the cost alone ought to be the deciding factor.
  The only fire danger is in the first few hundred meters of liftoff. Presumably they have emergency parachutes which could take over above that.
  
  --
  Infuriate left and right
13. Re:Sounds cool by edremy · 2011-08-18 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the He situation is both serious and an example of government at it's worst
  He is critical for a ton of stuff involving serious cooling. Ever had an MRI? Superconducting magnets, cooled by liquid He. It's not replaceable since nothing else liquifies at 4K
  The government has run a stockpile for decades, since it's a byproduct of some natural gas wells. But we can't have the government running something successful, so they have to shut down the He reserve. To do this, they are dumping it on the open market at far less than cost, so we have really cheap He for a bit longer. After that, who knows? Maybe private industry will step in, assuming they can find a way to make enough money at it. Expect prices to skyrocket.
  
  --
  "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
14. Re:Sounds cool by Alyred · 2011-08-18 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think he's referring to (and comparing) the weightlessness (such as that experienced in the so-called "vomit comet" for space training), rather than strapped-in red-out that you'd get from being in the MiG. I could be mistaken though.
15. Re:Sounds cool by TheCabal · 2011-08-18 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's a Top Gun reference.
16. Re:Sounds cool by TheCabal · 2011-08-18 05:03 · Score: 2
  
  You're watching the wrong kind of porn
17. Re:Sounds cool by Hylandr · 2011-08-18 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Whoooosh.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
18. Re:Sounds cool by MDMurphy · 2011-08-18 05:59 · Score: 2
  
  Most people don't eat when they are getting laid.
  That's what chocolate pudding skin singles were made for!
19. Re:Sounds cool by Yamioni · 2011-08-18 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I wondered this myself -- first thought was I hope they are using hydrogen, or at least not venting the helium. Nope, helium, and they vent it.
  Dude, just tether the balloon with a cable and tow it back down at the end of the ride. Simple, cheap, effective, and safe.
  
  --
  Cool post bro, highfive \o
20. Re:Sounds cool by A+nonymous+Coward · 2011-08-18 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Every tried winding in 30 km of cable? Slower than molasses. People would starve to death.
  
  --
  Infuriate left and right
21. Re:Sounds cool by colinnwn · 2011-08-18 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Cable strong enough would be too heavy, and cause too much aerodynamic drag after a couple kilometers.
22. Re:Sounds cool by Yamioni · 2011-08-18 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm having trouble believing you guys thought I was serious. :-(
  
  --
  Cool post bro, highfive \o
23. Re:Sounds cool by A+nonymous+Coward · 2011-08-18 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Heh ... didn't think of that! Space elevator, here we come!
  
  --
  Infuriate left and right
24. Re:Sounds cool by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  Re the helium. UT is indeed a finite resource and the US reserves are dwindling. What you may not know is that, many natural gas reserves contain trace amounts of helium which can be removed prior to shipping the gas. The price just has to increase a bit. (QatarGas has a project now to extract helium from their gas prior to liquefaction and shipping)
25. Re:Sounds cool by couchslug · 2011-08-19 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks to the internet, we know the number is much more than zero.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
26. Re:Sounds cool by MichaelSmith · 2011-08-20 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah what they need is to be able to take on ballast at the end of the flight. My best guess would be to use solar energy to compress and liquefy air, and then dump the gas at the start of the next flight.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Saving extra energy by avoiding the shift key by amorsen · 2011-08-18 03:29 · Score: 2

The company is saving extra energy by employing a strict lower-case policy. Lower case for higher altitude.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Kind of unsafe? by Darkness404 · 2011-08-18 03:33 · Score: 2

I don't know, but balloons just seem rather unsafe when compared to a jet. If the balloon (or Bloon) pops, you are screwed. If a jet loses power in its engines, it still is a decent enough glider to safely get you to the ground in most cases.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Jeng · 2011-08-18 03:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It descends on a parachute, I'm sure they even have a back up for that.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
2. Re:Kind of unsafe? by slshwtw · 2011-08-18 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  parachute?
3. Re:Kind of unsafe? by gblackwo · 2011-08-18 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  So design the capsule as a glider just in case...
4. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  it's in the damn video
5. Re:Kind of unsafe? by h4rr4r · 2011-08-18 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  No jet that flies that can reach those altitudes is a decent glider. Check out a Mig-25 for example.
6. Re:Kind of unsafe? by geogob · 2011-08-18 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  I have to agree. We fly stratospheric balloon for atmospheric research. I wouldn't want to climb into one of those thing... especially for the landing. Even with the chute, that thing still comes down on its crash pads (yes, crash pads) at 10 m/s. You got at least 10g deceleration on impact. Not cool.
  Plus, you'll never get me at 33 km without a pressure suit.
7. Re:Kind of unsafe? by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-18 03:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What about the U-2? (the spyplane, not the awful band)
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
8. Re:Kind of unsafe? by NonUniqueNickname · 2011-08-18 03:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In the unlikely event of the helium balloon bursting, the captain will yell the evacuation procedure in a chipmunk voice and everyone will die, of laughter.
9. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Although your concern is a valid one, you can't really evaluate the safty features based on what amounts to a time share a video. There's simply not enough information here. Also Spain isn't the third world, I'm sure they have safety regulations like most other European countries.
10. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  I would rather compare the balloon popping to the wings on the jet popping off.
11. Re:Kind of unsafe? by arisvega · 2011-08-18 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  If a jet loses power in its engines, it still is a decent enough glider to safely get you to the ground in most cases.
  Unless it is computers doing the actual bookkeeping that makes flight possible, in which case you ease down to the ground as elegantly as a rock.
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
12. Re:Kind of unsafe? by arisvega · 2011-08-18 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  You got at least 10g deceleration on impact.
  Where did you get this number from?
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
13. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Chris+Burke · 2011-08-18 04:20 · Score: 2
  
  What about the U-2? (the spyplane, not the awful band)
  Wait wait, let's not be hasty. I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of the high-altitude gliding capabilities of these two options. You know, for, uh, science.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
14. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Syberz · 2011-08-18 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it does have a parachute... sounds just as safe as a jet to me...
  
  --
  ~Syberz
15. Re:Kind of unsafe? by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2011-08-18 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Let's talk about parachutes. Parachutes only inflate when you're already moving in the direction they want to resist, ie downwards. Even if they start the downward plunge by leaking helium slowly rather than disconnecting the balloon, at some point they have to make the transition. Add that (and I admit ignorance) to the different atmospheric density at 20 miles, with however that may affect descent, and it could be a fairly rough ride back down.
  It's not like I think they haven't planned for it in terms of safety, but it sounds like it could be a fairly unpleasant, and maybe frightening, part of the experience.
16. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Dishevel · 2011-08-18 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  If it is "Safe but Scary". Can I pay extra and make sure it happens that way?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
17. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Dishevel · 2011-08-18 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  You got at least 10g deceleration on impact.
  Where did you get this number from?
  Not sure where he pulled it from. I do know though that the statement smells like shit.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
18. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  ...if by "jet" you mean "not the MiG-29" and by "most cases" you mean "a handful of documented near-miracles".
19. Re:Kind of unsafe? by KillaBeave · 2011-08-18 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  The awful band doesn't glide, they rise through the air as Bono is is so full of hot air their overall density is lower than the surrounding atmosphere.
  
  (Really pretty impressive if you think about it. There is so much hot air in Bono that it counteracts the weight of all the shit he's full of.)
20. Re:Kind of unsafe? by 0123456 · 2011-08-18 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  What about the U-2? (the spyplane, not the awful band)
  Altitude limit is around 80,000 feet. The balloon would be about 30,000 feet higher.
  I believe all the jets that have gone over 100,000 feet were just performing zoom climbs where you climb until you stall (or push the nose down). That's not really 'flying' in the accepted sense.
21. Re:Kind of unsafe? by element-o.p. · 2011-08-18 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Check out Project Excelsior: 102,800 feet (~19.5 miles), free-falling for 13+ minutes and reaching a speed of 614 mph at -94F...yeah, probably unpleasant and frightening, at least for most people, but definitely survivable.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
22. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Private balloons have existed for 200 hundred years? or more, whereas private space ships for only a handful of years. So, in terms of safety, I'll stick with balloons for the next 10 years or so.
  Don't misunderstand, I like thrills just like anyone else, but I'd rather they get the kinks out of their rocket technology without me on board. NASA with decades of experience still learn new stuff so ...
23. Re:Kind of unsafe? by sconeu · 2011-08-18 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing he assumes it take 0.1 seconds to come to a full stop from 10m/s.
  (10m/s)/(0.1s) = 100m/s^2 == 10g's.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
24. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  If you go parasailing with a shady enough crew, that offer actually works. :)
25. Re:Kind of unsafe? by geogob · 2011-08-18 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  From the accelerometers... that's where the number is coming from. We gave many accelerometers on board (INU, Shock logs, etc.). We registered landings as high as 48g...
26. Re:Kind of unsafe? by geogob · 2011-08-18 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  if you do not understand where something is coming from, you can ask for details. Nicely. Assuming I'm an idiot that spilling bullshit because you don't know better yourself is not very helpful to the community.
  Considering your sig, I will go ahead and guess that respect isn't your strongest attribute.
27. Re:Kind of unsafe? by geogob · 2011-08-18 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  No. I assume I can read the data coming from the accelerometers. No further assumption required.
28. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Amouth · 2011-08-18 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'd pay to do that..
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
29. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Ihmhi · 2011-08-18 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  You're right! If only those scientists had figured out how to take those giant parachutes and put them on little backpacks for people to wear.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
30. Re:Kind of unsafe? by goldspider · 2011-08-18 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  "Plus, you'll never get me at 33 km without a pressure suit."
  You don't think they'd be doing this WITHOUT a pressure suit, do you??
  
  --
  "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
31. Re:Kind of unsafe? by frenchbedroom · 2011-08-18 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  Kittinger's impressions when he jumped off that platform at 102k feet was that there is no sense of acceleration, no sense of speed, because you're in a near-vacuum and there are no points of reference at this altitude for you to see how fast you're going. You're too high up to see how fast the ground is coming at you. He had to turn around and look at the gondola rocketing into space to understand that yes indeed, he was falling.
  Besides, eventually you're going to decelerate because the atmosphere is getting thicker the closer you get to the ground, and it offers more resistance. So I don't think there's anything scary about free-falling from the edge of space. I'd bet those rides at amusement parks where they drop you from a height of 30 meters are scarier.
32. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  The point being made (effectively to most people I believe) was that you were pulling numbers out of your ass.
  If I am wrong I am sorry.
  Did you in fact get hard numbers from somewhere?
33. Re:Kind of unsafe? by geogob · 2011-08-18 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. In fact, I do. These numbers come form the accelerometers that are on our balloon gondola (which I said, we fly, if I do remember my original post correctly). But the variability is fairly large... 10 g is only a typical value. One of the hardest landing recorded (except for the crash where our first generation gondola was a total loss - this is an exceptional event), was recorded at 48g. The deceleration is very dependent on the impact terrain and how well the crash pads absorb the initial shock.
34. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  That's not really 'flying' in the accepted sense.
  Nor does a balloon fly, it floats. But that doesn't matter anyway. What matters is the fact that it gets you there.
35. Re:Kind of unsafe? by kryliss · 2011-08-18 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  For an extra fee, I can sell you this little blue button to get you down...
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
36. Re:Kind of unsafe? by geogob · 2011-08-18 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Check their website... it looks like a very casual lounge, they are building ;)
37. Re:Kind of unsafe? by norminator · 2011-08-18 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  When they came out with that "Elevation" song, they were talking about their own superiority to bloons?
38. Re:Kind of unsafe? by h4rr4r · 2011-08-18 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Does not go as high as we are talking about. Only powered "zoom" climbs get jets this high.
39. Re:Kind of unsafe? by drerwk · 2011-08-18 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.designboom.com/weblog/images/images_2/2011/jenny/bloon/bloon05.jpg
  Looks like a pressure capsule.
  Jenny is a lung buster. ( apologies to the Ramones )
40. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Hilarious. Something as obvious as recording your landing loads blows right past people, and they jump up your ass about it.
  (Oooh, look - that guy over there remembers his kinematics! Kinda. Sorta. Maybe if you linearized the impact?)
41. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know, but balloons just seem rather unsafe when compared to a jet. If the balloon (or Bloon) pops, you are screwed. If a jet loses power in its engines, it still is a decent enough glider to safely get you to the ground in most cases.
  Oh yeah, definitely. That's why no one in a malfunctioning fighter jet ever actually uses the parachute. They just glide those things right down into the ground.
42. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  There's no atmosphere between 30K and 100K feet... you'd drop like a rock before the parachute had enough atmosphere to slow you down.
  You'd also be limited to specific launch locations and times of year to make sure you don't (1) Land in the ocean, mountains, neighboring country (2) Travel too far away.
43. Re:Kind of unsafe? by Bill_the_Engineer · 2011-08-18 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I launch (fly? whatever) scientific balloons with a gondola of at least 6000 Lbs. I'm sure the passenger craft will be substantially larger but the principles should be similar enough to design. I've had one balloon fail during flight. It was a tear along the bottom portion of the balloon. Since the balloons I use are zero-pressure helium balloons, the gondola was able to float away from the general population and once the gondola was within a safe landing zone the it was separated from the balloon and parachuted to the ground. They don't pop in the traditional since.
  I have three gondola frames where I work that we fly. One is around 20 years old and have flown multiple science missions, one is around 10 years old and have flown at least 4 missions, and the third only flew once (it doesn't have az-ev pointing like the other two). They land pretty much intact and ready for disassembly until the next flight.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
44. Re:Kind of unsafe? by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2011-08-18 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Part of my concerns are with the CG rendered, relaxing couches in the video. Are they going to hit negative gees (freefall or upward force) during descent? Do they have specific plans to restrain people to protect against negative gees, or deceleration shocks? I could see seatbelts, but certainly some of their customers would want to be up and about for part of the descent; negative gees are something you rarely see in any reasonable duration.
  But yes, it's definitely survivable, the main question is engineering both the capsule and the situation so that everyone comes out uninjured except when something truly unusual happens.
45. Re:Kind of unsafe? by wfoxworth · 2011-08-18 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  Hi Bill, You seem like you have a pretty good working knowledge of zero pressure balloon systems. Would you consider contacting me with more info? foxworthw@gmail.com Thanks in advance,
46. Re:Kind of unsafe? by qxcv · 2011-08-18 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  The U2 only goes to 70, 000 ft. A lot of cold war aircraft (case in point: SR-71) get undeserved cult followings because people tend to overstate their flight envelopes. Most of those planes do one thing and one thing only, and that is go very, *VERY* fast.
  
  --
  "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
47. Re:Kind of unsafe? by arisvega · 2011-08-20 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  No. I assume I can read the data coming from the accelerometers. No further assumption required.
  Fair assumption, calm down now. I also assume that the previous poster meant to make a point that the force that is felt on impact depends on the duration of the impact. That is exactly the reason why I asked you initially where did you get this number from. Anyhow, 10g does not fit very well into the comfort zone (nor do impacts!)
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
48. Re:Kind of unsafe? by MichaelSmith · 2011-08-20 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Fighter jets generally rely on ejection seats for situations where they lose power. None of them glide well and many can't glide at all. Parachutes are cheap and the payload for a balloon should be able to use one.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
49. Re:Kind of unsafe? by geogob · 2011-08-21 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's a fair question. Asked this way, it will also gets a nice answer.
  So the sensors i'm referring to are on an instrument and not direct on the gondola. That means that the impact goes first through the crash pads (single-use deformation padding) and through cable springs. I don't have any deceleration times in mind, but I will check them out again.
  I have no idea how this relates, for example, to the Soyuz capsule at its landing and how it relates to passenger comfort, be at normal landings we often have structural damage to the gondola, which hints at fairly uncomfortable events.
  Sorry if I seemed on the nerves. I didn't like the tone of some of those replies.
Warning! by SethThresher · 2011-08-18 03:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Watch out for monkeys throwing pins, those guys will RUIN your day.
1. Re:Warning! by CraftyJack · 2011-08-18 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Paint it black, you'll be fine.
What kind of "near"? by jimmerz28 · 2011-08-18 03:34 · Score: 3, Informative

So if I'm correctly informed from wikipedia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth) this is still only in the Stratosphere.
This doesn't seem very "near" space at all...
1. Re:What kind of "near"? by PhrostyMcByte · 2011-08-18 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's about 3x higher and far nearer to space than most people will ever get to experience. It looks pretty cool.
2. Re:What kind of "near"? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  Add to that it costs THE SAME as a proper Virgin Atlantic flight.
3. Re:What kind of "near"? by geogob · 2011-08-18 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct. It doesn't fit in any definition of space. The only other group of people that dare call this altitude space is those kids flying compact cameras on small balloons. Not that this isn't a cool feat, but it isn't space.
4. Re:What kind of "near"? by arisvega · 2011-08-18 04:21 · Score: 2
  
  Still, the sky looks black, and you can see Earth's curvature.
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
5. Re:What kind of "near"? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  And you think any of the other megalomaniacal "space" tourism scams, er, outfits, ("Galactic"???) are anything like space either?
  We've had private "really high" flights for years.
  http://www.skyandspacetravel.com/space_programme/included_space.html
  And? Why aren't there stories about MiGs every other day on Slashdot? Only rockets are holy enough to be mentioned by the International Church of Bugfuck Insane Space Nutters and Jihadists?
6. Re:What kind of "near"? by countertrolling · 2011-08-18 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Near space?
  We're already in space... On Spaceship Earth .. Please take the time to RTFM :-)
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
7. Re:What kind of "near"? by frenchbedroom · 2011-08-18 06:04 · Score: 1
  At a human level, I'd say it's very much like space. Sure, you won't be in micro-gravity, but :
  
  - you will die without a pressure suit or a pressured cabin, it's no place for men.
  
  - when you look up, it's dark, no more blue. - if in a pressure suit, you can experience scorching heat on the side of your body that's towards the Sun, and freezing cold on the other side at the same time
  
  - if you jump from the balloon, you won't experience any speed or acceleration because you're in a near-vacuum, there's not enough atmosphere to ruffle your suit and you're too high up to realize how fast the ground is coming at you.
  
  So to me, it's very near space, and it was very much "space" for Col. Kittinger in 1960. Read up on this guy.
8. Re:What kind of "near"? by spazdor · 2011-08-18 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  related music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZeWjGjl8
  
  --
  DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
scaring soundtrack by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

it's "lucean le stelle" (eng: the stars were shining), but it talks about a man that ig going to die in desperation (".. e muoio disperato") americans calls them "dead man walking"...
Isn't it funny? Takng off on a experimental vehicle with such a deadful soundtrack?
p.s.
the opera is Puccini's "Tosca" and the character singing is Cavaradossi that is going to be executed...
Rockets v. Helium Balloon, hah! by intellitech · 2011-08-18 03:44 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Kind of hard to imagine a helium balloon going any farther than that.
Let's face it: besides a propulsion technology revolution, or some spacelift or loop, rockets are going to be required at some stage to get "near" space.

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Looks like we'll be landing in Pakistan today.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:48 · Score: 1

Damn jetstream! The pickup bus should be here in about 3 days so have a shwarma and make yourself at home.....
One of these days, Alice by GodfatherofSoul · 2011-08-18 03:48 · Score: 1

You sure this wasn't just a threat of violence?

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Their secret to making the balloon fly higher by istartedi · 2011-08-18 03:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Their secret to making the balloon fly higher? Remove letters to reduce weight.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
1. Re:Their secret to making the balloon fly higher by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Their secret to making the balloon fly higher? Remove letters to reduce weight.
  Actually, they just took out al.... apparently he was quite heavy.
2. Re:Their secret to making the balloon fly higher by sloomis · 2011-08-18 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not anymore, he had gastric bypass
3. Re:Their secret to making the balloon fly higher by KowboyKrash · 2011-08-18 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  For all intensive purposes,
  the phrase is : for all intents and purposes" just saying
The next step by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:08 · Score: 0

But you don't get to experience free fall, and you're stuck in this balloon cabin!
Oh, wait... bungee jump from the balloon!
This is our post-modern Jules Vern? by adosch · 2011-08-18 04:08 · Score: 1

I think it's cool that someone is investing in a vision to near-space visitation for the common man (well, common man who's got TONS of money and has zero fear of death).
A few things that I just can't help but shake my head:
1) The nice, calm flow of launch-to-landing in the video. It just has that creepy aura of airline emergency landing documentation: all smiles, no fear, no chaos, and dawn your s/oxygen/ether/ mask before helping others!
2) Helium balloons in space is do-able. But it's just doesn't sound or have that captivating 'cool' feel to it. Feels like it's like a mosquito-leap up from the 'Elevator to space' idea.
1. Re:This is our post-modern Jules Vern? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  To point 2) It may only be useful if the elevator from space has a 'ground floor' somewhere near the stratosphere. It could possibly act as a ferry to such a hub. I don't know that this would be feasible, but a thought.
Cabin by SnarfQuest · 2011-08-18 04:10 · Score: 1

Why does the passenger cabin and altitude control system look like a lawn chair and a BB gun?

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
1. Re:Cabin by Thud457 · 2011-08-18 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  because Americans used to be CAN-DO GIANTS with ENORMOUS BALLS of STEEL
  
  as opposed to some nationalities...
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:12 · Score: 0

Didn't they know--you can actually go all the way to the moon that way?
Near space, funny definition of near by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:16 · Score: 0

Space starts at 100km. At 36km the BLOON will be closer to the ground than space.
MONKEYS!!!! by Trails · 2011-08-18 04:21 · Score: 1

What if there are monkeys with tacks on the clouds?
1. Re:MONKEYS!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, there are killer coder ninja monkeys floating around. They just have to take time off from being killers sometimes, so they do what they can to ruin balloonists's days.
Pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:41 · Score: 0

Hey that would be pretty cool - Unless you had to listen to that guy sing during the whole trip.
I could tell you... by Overzeetop · 2011-08-18 04:42 · Score: 0

...but than I'd have to kill you.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Baloney by CSMoran · 2011-08-18 04:54 · Score: 1

's all it is.

--
Every end has half a stick.
1. Re:Baloney by CompMD · 2011-08-18 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  I think you mean BLONY.
Waste of helium by hackertourist · 2011-08-18 05:21 · Score: 2

Helium isn't exactly abundant. Is it wise to vent such huge amounts of it into space just for tourism?
1. Re:Waste of helium by bussdriver · 2011-08-18 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Its harmless until Helium begins to cost too much; naturally, we will not regulate it or stop government from handing it over for nothing (because our corporate masters told us that doing anything they do not like is communist and will cost us jobs.) Actually, many in government probably want a shortage to be created so they can invest in it.
  It'll follow the pattern of our other natural resources we so wisely manage...
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
2. Re:Waste of helium by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Damn right! Next they'll want to waste Hydrogen! THEN WHERE WILL BE? Being the 2nd most endangered element, it MUST BE PROTECTED.
3. Re:Waste of helium by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, I see your problem. You're an idiot.
4. Re:Waste of helium by tmosley · 2011-08-18 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you blaming corporations for government's dumb policies? Blame the people doing it!
  
  If the government doesn't want to be in the helium business, they should have sold all their helium at once to a private company, rather than simply dumping it all on the open market. A private company would preserve what helium they had for a long time.
5. Re:Waste of helium by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  Hydrogen is, but releasing it so high would end badly after millions of flights.
6. Re:Waste of helium by m50d · 2011-08-19 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Even for millions of flights, we've got plenty of hydrogen, and we can always make more from water. Sure it's pretty flammable, but we manage to launch rockets full of it all the time, all it needs is sensible safety precautions.
  
  --
  I am trolling
Simulator is online now by Intron · 2011-08-18 05:44 · Score: 1

http://adventuregamesonline.org/bloons

--
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
None of you youngsters will recognize this quote.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 06:19 · Score: 0

From a movie/song....
"Hey Dad can I go ride my zoom. It goes 300 miles and hour and is suspended from balloons"
Huh? by Paracelcus · 2011-08-18 06:24 · Score: 1

It go's up with expensive irreplaceable helium and comes down by parachute?
if the balloon part is expendable why not use hydrogen?
This is just plain stupid!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they think the public would panic if it were to go BLOOM!
Coming up next... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 06:29 · Score: 0

... near-Hawaii cruises let you enjoy the experience of traveling to the middle of the Pacific.
$156K?? by wsanders · 2011-08-18 07:43 · Score: 1

Can't you get something like 10 hours in a MiG-25 for that? That's enough to get a type rating.

--
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
All together now, BLOOOOON! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 08:33 · Score: 0

Up, up, and away in my beautiful bloon.
Maybe they recompress it? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 09:05 · Score: 0

stuff comes out of the tank, then goes back in! like magic!
Re:OT response to sig by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 09:46 · Score: 0

For all intensive purposes,
the phrase is : for all intents and purposes" just saying
Successful troll is successful.
It's actually a rigid air ship by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 10:59 · Score: 0

Oh the humanity!
In Case Of by bansheebomber · 2011-08-18 20:30 · Score: 1

A drop in cabin pressure, please try not to dirty the seats as your lungs exit your body.

--
I am a complete Apple fanboy. Don't argue with me about Apple.
Dull by tehcyder · 2011-08-19 00:06 · Score: 1

How did they manage to make something so potentially exciting look so fucking tedious?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Rush to a party store! Buy TONS! Make millions. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 14:17 · Score: 0

>It's not replaceable since nothing else liquifies at 4K.
No offense my friend, but you suffer from a terrible lack of imagination. So helium is necessary for the current system and nothing can replace it in the current system.
Which means the whole darn thing needs to be rethought.
Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 14:35 · Score: 0

"an example of government at it's worst"
Don't you mean to say that it is an example of privatization at its worst? I mean, the issue at hand is that the government is getting out of the business. Your line "we can't have the government running something successful" would seem to indicate that you see this as a problem.