Protecting Your Tablet From a Fall From Space

First time accepted submitter xwwt writes "G-Form has a nice video of an iPad launched into the stratosphere via weather balloon and protected using its new protective gear 'Extreme Edge' to see how well the gear worked in the iPad free fall to Earth. The gear is being introduced at this year's CES where our own timothy will be attending and reviewing new products. The cool part of this whole video is really that the iPad survives the free fall from space, remaining fully functional."

Comments

Could've been awesome.

[nman64]

...the iPad survives the free fall from space...

Aw, shucks! I would've preferred video of a different outcome.

Also, we've had better slashvertisements.

Re:Could've been awesome.

[wiedzmin]

Also, we've had better slashvertisements.

G-Form *cha-ching* 'Extreme Edge' *cha-ching*...

Re:Could've been awesome.

[PNutts]

Why a different outcome? It just a bunch of electronic components squeezed together. The less moving parts the less to break. It's not like they dropped Apple the company (however seeing an actual apple smash at the end would be cool).

Re:Could've been awesome.

[chrismcb]

Aw, shucks! I would've preferred video of a different outcome.

Also, we've had better slashvertisements.

Non-newtonian stuff is pretty cool. Seems like something the slashdot crowd would like. If you don't care for dropping the ipad from the heavens (because it doesn't land the way you think it should) check out their video of dropping a bowling ball onto the glass side.

Re:Could've been awesome.

[RockDoctor]

What is terminal velocity for an apple? A couple of hundred metres/second? You could probably do the experiments with a medium size housing block.

Re:Could've been awesome.

[Alsee]

But does it blend?
I bet that video will have a more entertaining result.

-

Re:Could've been awesome.

[MikeBabcock]

Luckily it seems this case would also fit devices I actually care about, not just ipads.

and the camera they took it with?

[BabaChazz]

Appeared on Fark a couple days ago, with the comment that the (unprotected) camera they used to document the flight and fall also survived. So...

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[countertrolling]

So did the unprotected metal rod.

Did it win an 'Employee of the Month' award and get a parade?

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[doramjan]

Wow! Did you actually get to *see* the rod?

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[Anonymous Coward]

Appeared on Fark a couple days ago, with the comment that the (unprotected) camera they used to document the flight and fall also survived. So...

Hardly "unprotected". It looks like a GoPro, which has a very nice polycarbonate shell.

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[Cyphase]

My point was that, like the metal rod, the camera surviving unprotected doesn't mean the iPad would have survived unprotected. That said, they probably could have spared some cash to show that an unprotected iPad would not have survived.

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[The Great Pretender]

Apparently it was also weighted so it wouldn't land screen down.

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[Lumpy]

Honestly, the way it was falling tells me it was weighted to fall with the face pointing up. Plus it lands face up, let's try that again making sure it lands face down without an arm making sure it does not land on the glass front.

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[Jjeff1]

The camera isn't exactly unprotected. It's a GoPro Hero, which comes with a fairly thick acrylic case. They're designed to be attached to all sorts of stuff for extreme sports. Among other things, they're water proof to 180 feet.

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still VERY impressive that the camera continued to work perfectly even after a good hard impact.

I was much more impressed with the GoPro than I was with the strategically weighted and FUCKING HUGE iPad case.

Why would anyone want to turn their iPad into a bright yellow Toughbook?

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[BabaChazz]

So maybe GoPro should make an iPad case?

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[smitty97]

Stupid carbon rod. It's all just a popularity contest!

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, they were about to show some closeups of the rod...

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[akilduff]

Assuming it was a GoPro, that doesn't surprise me. Those things are made to take damage, while an unprotected iPad is obviously not.

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[gmhowell]

Why would anyone want to turn their iPad into a bright yellow Toughbook?

It's hard to stand out at starbucks amongst all of the other iPads.

Re:and the camera they took it with?

[IwantToKeepAnon]

Apparently it was also weighted so it wouldn't land screen down.

Perhaps, but it looks like their tracker beacon was on the back. How much would that weigh? Was it placed on the back strategically? Perhaps.

Misleading title

[Hentes]

Contrary to popular belief, balloons still can't fly in space.

Re:Misleading title

[tripleevenfall]

They don't really fly in the atmosphere, either.

Re:Misleading title

[pahles]

I don't see the word 'balloon' in the title, so how can this be funny?

Re:Misleading title

[JabberWokky]

Better let NASA know that they haven't sent up balloons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite

For balloons ascending to space *as* balloons, you don't need orbital velocity, just get high enough. None have broken 53km. Since the height varies between agencies (usually 100km, with some using 50 miles, which is about 80km), different people have been recognized as astronauts (USAF vs. NASA). Repeat in different countries. Looking up this balloon, it got to 30km, which is well below either definition.

So, yes... balloons have been sent to space (with other means of propulsion). No, this one did not. It failed to get halfway to the most generous limit, and less than a third of the most commonly accepted threshold.

Re:Misleading title

[chrismcb]

Contrary to popular belief, balloons still can't fly in space.

What do they do? Fall to the ground?

Re:Misleading title

[Hentes]

But that satellite didn't flew, it freefell.

Re:Misleading title

[JabberWokky]

True. But rather than picking on the word choice, I am answering the intended assertion that they don't {movement/travel verb} in space. Space is used in the title, not "fly", so I was answering in an assumption that the complaint was regarding the term "space".

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran called and said the reason it did not "fly" in space is that they used their superior tech and shot it down. "See akmeir, I shot the infidels balloon! "

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Float in atmosphere? Take vacation snapshots of space?

Why so high?

[rHBa]

Wouldn't it reach terminal velocity from a few hundred meters?

Re:Why so high?

[MetalliQaZ]

Publicity.

Re:Why so high?

[Whiternoise]

The amusing part is that it would actually reach a slower terminal velocity as the atmospheric density increases.

Re:Why so high?

[ricky-road-flats]

Maybe to get that beautiful video of the awesome view of the Earth from so high it was curved? And the cool way the balloon got so big it almost looked like a straight line on the video and then popped - also cool. Or to put it another way, why the fuck not?

Re:Why so high?

[jd]

If it was running telnet, then all velocities would be terminal.

Re:Why so high?

[mcmonkey]

Why? Publicity stunt.

Re:Why so high?

[khallow]

No, that's only true in the denser parts of the atmosphere. It would be in near free fall until perhaps 50-60k feet.

Re:Why so high?

[FunkyELF]

It was curved because of a wide angle lens.
With that lens you can see a curved earth from sea level if the center is above the horizon.
When the center is below the horizon you get a concave looking earth.
Didn't you notice how the earth appeared concave up there too?

Re:Why so high?

[gurps_npc]

Yes. Anything over 1000 meters is overkill if you care about impact.

But if you also want to demonstrate the ability to continue to work when exposed to excess radiation/sunlight and lower air pressure, then the "edge of space" drop makes more sense.

Re:Why so high?

[Shotgun]

Not only that, but it was configured with the attached weight to fall flat, increasing its drag and lowering it's terminal velocity.

Re:Why so high?

[Shotgun]

And me with no mod points to make this informative. I was wandering how that happened in the video.

Re:Why so high?

[JTsyo]

yea but impact velocity is the same and that's what counts.

Re:Why so high?

[JTsyo]

don't forget low temperatures. I doubt the cover does much for those conditions though.

Re:Why so high?

[troon]

It isn't the same. The package would have been falling faster at 5000m than it was at ground level, and the impact onto a surface at that height would have been larger.

For this reason, landing on Venus is a doddle as 90atm pressure means you barely need parachutes. Surviving after landing is a different matter, of course.

Re:Why so high?

[HTH NE1]

Well, if you presume a perfectly spherical iPad....

"Space", my ass

[fnj]

30,500 meters is NOT space, and falling from stationary at 30,500 meters is nothing at all like re-entering from REAL space at full orbital velocity.

Re:"Space", my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

video claimed 150,000 and sped the rise and fall with montage

Re:"Space", my ass

[fnj]

The article says "The high-definition video shows the iPad falling from a height of 100,000 feet (30,480 meters)".

Re:"Space", my ass

[mpe]

30,500 meters is NOT space, and falling from stationary at 30,500 meters is nothing at all like re-entering from REAL space at full orbital velocity.

In terms of impact survival you could just as easily drop from 1km.
A dropped object can't exceed its terminal velocity and will be going more or less straight down.Whereas an object entering the atmosphere can hit the ground at higher than terminal velocity and have a substantial horizontal component to its motion.

No reentry

[bflong]

No reentry. It wasn't falling from space. Put it in orbit next time and see what happens.

Re:No reentry

[jd]

If it's designed to make sure an exec dropping an iPad out the window of a Virgin Galactic can retrieve it later, there's no point in reaching orbit.

Re:No reentry

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it in orbit next time and see what happens.

It would probably go round and round and round a lot. Oh, and the battery would probably run out. That power cable always seems to be just a little bit to short.....

Re:No reentry

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it in orbit next time and see what happens.

Aliens destroy us, after a fanboy calls the iPad to make ET jokes.

Re:No reentry

[HTH NE1]

Aliens destroy us, after a fanboy calls the iPad to make ET jokes.

Do you think going with using Facetime to make a Superman II joke would be received better?

Irrelevant stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

The "height" of the fall doesn't really mean much given how it falls. If the thing falls level then the force of the impact will be well distributed. The protective cover helps, but in real world application, it isn't going to offer much protection if you drop your coffee mug onto a tablet's glass surface.

Re:Irrelevant stunt

[Splab]

Dropped my iPad from a table unto concrete; corner took the impact (it's dented now), but tablet worked just fine afterwards.

As long as you aren't hitting the screen they can take quite a lot of abuse.

Also, I call BS on the "freefall", that thing was extremely stable during the decent - most likely they fitted some form of guiding parachute to make sure the back of the casing took the impact - gotta wonder how it would have survived hitting on a corner (screen on rocks would obviously have killed the ipad).

Re:Irrelevant stunt

[GameboyRMH]

The remains of the balloon are enough of a parachute, and the placement of the camera and mount can help it fall level as well.

Re:Irrelevant stunt

[Lashat]

Give this man a cee-gar!

Re:Irrelevant stunt

[JTsyo]

I wouldn't call it a parachute, maybe a drag device.

Re:Irrelevant stunt

[chrismcb]

The "height" of the fall doesn't really mean much given how it falls.

How does "how it falls" matter?

If the thing falls level then the force of the impact will be well distributed.

So you think an iPad will last if dropped from a few feet, IF it lands level?

The protective cover helps, but in real world application, it isn't going to offer much protection if you drop your coffee mug onto a tablet's glass surface.

Yes you are right, if you don't use the cover it won't do a very good job protecting the device. This cover isn't designed to protect your iPadwhen you are using it, it is designed to protect your iPad when you are moving from one location to another, and accidentally drop it.

Re:Irrelevant stunt

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Heck, watch the will-it-blend video of the iPad - it still was playing the video even after he smashed it back-over-edge a couple of times and not only the screen was shattered but the iPad was actually bend quite a bit.

Eh...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unless the protective case is shaped like some sort of hyper-aerodynamic reentry vehicle, wouldn't the relatively low terminal velocity make the vast majority of the fall completely irrelevant?

Re:Eh...

[d4fseeker]

Who said irrelevant? Marketing is NEVER irrelevant
Especially not if you can show that you $EXPENSIVECOVER can fall a few km while the $LESSEXPENSIVE cover from the next boot was only thrown down of a bridge...

Very good

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then, this means the iPad will not mind falling from the top position as a tablet.

Rules?

[hawguy]

What are the laws for sending something high up in the atmosphere and dropping it to the earth at high speed like a poor-man's ballistic missile? Is there a law that keeps people from doing this over an inhabited area? What counts as an "inhabited area"? The last thing I'm thinking of when hiking in an uninhabited wilderness is that someone's iPad might land on my head.

It seems that these amateur baloon experiments are becoming more common (or maybe Youtube just makes them better publicized), but in any case, I'm wondering what the rules are for dropping random things from the sky.

Re:Rules?

[Rudisaurus]

What are the laws for sending something high up in the atmosphere and dropping it to the earth at high speed like a poor-man's ballistic missile? Is there a law that keeps people from doing this over an inhabited area? What counts as an "inhabited area"? The last thing I'm thinking of when hiking in an uninhabited wilderness is that someone's iPad might land on my head.

It seems that these amateur baloon experiments are becoming more common (or maybe Youtube just makes them better publicized), but in any case, I'm wondering what the rules are for dropping random things from the sky.

Your survivors will be able to sue for wrongful death (provided they can find out whose random thing from the sky it is).

Re:Rules?

[rHBa]

The only thing I'm legally allowed to drop from my paraglider is water, that's over inhabited or uninhabited space

Re:Rules?

[PPH]

Coke bottles, OK. At least they are worth a few cents for returns.

iPads, no. Not unless they've been rooted and we can load something useful.

Re:Rules?

[vlm]

in any case, I'm wondering what the rules are for dropping random things from the sky.

This is a secondary source, but pretty good

http://www.eoss.org/pubs/far_annotated.htm

If you mean legal civil liability its not a whole heck of a lot different than dropping things from a bridge, or tossing something off the top of a building.

Re:Rules?

[TheCarp]

Ahh well there is the difference, you may drop water...but they launched the ipad with an external gravitational acceleration engine. The whole case story is just a cover to make it seem like it worked. It was actually a complete failure as the computer models, based on dropping frictionless point masses, roughly equivalent to that of an ipad, indicated that it should continue to gain velocity until the engine shut down, but, somehow it stopped accelerating early due to some unseen force.

Re:Rules?

[OzPeter]

The only thing I'm legally allowed to drop from my paraglider is water, that's over inhabited or uninhabited space

Is that before or after you have drunk it?

Re:Rules?

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

(provided they can find out whose random thing from the sky it is).

That's easy: Their video is on YouTube.

Re:Rules?

[tompaulco]

What are the laws for sending something high up in the atmosphere and dropping it to the earth at high speed like a poor-man's ballistic missile?
I don't think they have made laws for that yet since it is pretty uncommon. But Federal Aviation Regulations Section 91.15 allow for dropping whatever, so long as if doesn't create a hazard to person or property.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, you're allowed to drop anything you want as long as you ensure that anyone or anything on the ground will not get hurt or damaged from it. That is spelled out in FAR 91.15.
 
Bill

Re:Rules?

[rHBa]

My mistake, I was thinking competition rules, only water and fine sand is allowed as jettisonable ballast.

Re:Rules?

[Medievalist]

In the US, you're allowed to drop anything you want as long as you ensure that anyone or anything on the ground will not get hurt or damaged from it. That is spelled out in FAR 91.15.

Wow, you don't see common sense lawmaking like that very much any more.

Although some people are still trying to enshrine common sense, I guess.

Re:Rules?

[JTsyo]

I remember seeing that in elementary school. Had to get my parents' permission first though.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure about unmanned balloons, but I am allowed to drop anything from my airplane if I ensure that it does not pose any risk to persons or property on the ground.

Re:Rules?

[subreality]

We shouldn't create laws just because someone might do something stupid. That's part of the mentality that creates the convoluted mess of laws we have now.

Wait until people are actually doing something stupid, and if they won't stop after it's pointed out, then make a law.

ok nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

this thing you're buying is to protect your ipads from the pavement. Seeing it protect from a fall from any height higher than 5 feet, while unnecessary, is still proof that it works.

I agree it would be nicer to see it fall on a corner or face down on cement or something, but that rocky cliff wasn't too far off.

Re:ok nerds

[hawguy]

this thing you're buying is to protect your ipads from the pavement. Seeing it protect from a fall from any height higher than 5 feet, while unnecessary, is still proof that it works.

I agree it would be nicer to see it fall on a corner or face down on cement or something, but that rocky cliff wasn't too far off.

Given that it was hit a grass and dirt covered hillside, and was strapped to a camera bracket (and possibly the remains of the balloon to help slow its fall), I don't think it's even a good representation of what would happen if you dropped your iPad to the hard pavement. Even if the hillside was covered with small stones, the dirt would have a certain degree of springiness to help absorb the shock.

Instead of this stunt from 100,000 feet, I'd rather have seen them drop the iPad a number of times from 5 feet in different orientations to a hard surface to see how it held up.

Re:ok nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Any chance that the heavy lock on the back side played a part to insure that it falls screen side up? I too would have like to see how it fared had it landed on a corner or face down.

Re:ok nerds

[mrchaotica]

I want to see them drop the iPad screen-side-down directly onto a pointy rock. Surviving that would be impressive!

Re:ok nerds

[chrismcb]

I agree it would be nicer to see it fall on a corner or face down on cement or something, but that rocky cliff wasn't too far off.

How about face down on the pavement from 60 feet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI6_gNVPLs

But how many drops will survive from the couch?

[itsme1234]

If this "protective device" becomes popular can we take bets how long it'll take a poor soul to crack the display from a "couch drop"?

Fall? Hell, What About The Cold?

[cmholm]

Per the Apple iPad 2 spec: Nonoperating temperature: -4 to 113 F (-20 to 45 C)

We didn't get a *real* good look at the display post-flight, but it seems the system was still usable after a cold soak down around at -23 F. Ok, so it wasn't that far out of spec, the system probably enjoy some solar heating, and it was a *dry* cold.

Re:Fall? Hell, What About The Cold?

[jellomizer]

I would expect the insides would probably warmer then the outside, with the padding to keep it isolated a little better.

Besides these specs are not the limits, but the first 2 standard deviations of normal. So still a lot of them can handle far more extrams but don't expect it to be normal conditions for long period of times.

the -4 to 113 F means Keep it stored in a heated storage area, not in your outside shed with your snow blower, and don't keep it on your car dashboard.

Re:Fall? Hell, What About The Cold?

[ILongForDarkness]

A lot? No about 2.5% of them given a two tailed distribution. How many $500 bills are you willing to launch in space with a 0.025 probability of recovering it?

Why is everyone here so underwhelmed?

[Pausanias]

I can't quite explain why, but this is the most amazing thing I've since on slashdot in quite some time. Something about that little lonely iPad going all the way up there... my colleagues were just gathered around my computer and everyone exclaimed aloud.

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed?

[na1led]

It's a pointless stunt. There is no difference in dropping it from 100,000 feet or 5 feet, the impact would be the same. Everyone knows this gimmick is not going to protect your iPad from a serious fall, because it all depends on where and how it lands.

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed?

[icebraining]

lonely iPad

I guess we're underwhelmed because we don't quite see iPad as pets yet.

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering that too. Guess there's no pleasing geeks. Not that there's a problem with liking accuracy but that video was pretty freaking cool and I think all of us would agree that an unprotected iPad (making the same fall) would not have survived.

My biggest disappointment is that they don't appear to be water-proof. I'm much more likely to drop my electronics into a river than I am from space.

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no difference in dropping it from 100,000 feet or 5 feet

You mean 500 ft, as terminal velocity won't be achieved until that height, roughly (assuming > 200 mph terminal velocity).

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed?

[chrismcb]

. Everyone knows this gimmick is not going to protect your iPad from a serious fall, because it all depends on where and how it lands.

So 100,000 feet isn't a serious fall? Then what is?

I'm not sure what you mean about "this gimmick" but the whole point of the video is that the case WILL protect your iPad from a serious fall. If it lands differently. If a drop from 100,000 feet doesn't convince you, what will? What about dropping a bowling ball from 3 feet above the iPad?

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed?

[ooshna]

actually i would be more impressed with a few different drops on different parts of it at about 4 feet then this.

Sadly too late

[nescientist]

Would tiling the bottom of the shuttle with iPads have been less expensive? Perhaps this technology would have kept those beautiful birds in service.

Re:Sadly too late

[jellomizer]

Why would you say that?
The shuttle tiles are designed to insolate the heat. iPads don't do that yet. Perhaps the iPad 20 designed to protect you from fire.

Re:Sadly too late

[hawguy]

Excellent idea - the tiles cost NASA around $1,000 a piece, and since an iPad is more than twice as big as an average tile, it would have been a nice cost savings. And everyone knows an iPad in an appropriate protective case can handle 2000+ degree reentry temperatures.

I bet Apple would have donated the iPads for free if they could put the Apple logo on the tail of the shuttle, *and* NASA could light up the iPads and play Goodyear Blimp style advertising for even more revenue. The advertising alone could have made the Shuttle revenue positive.

If only the iPad existed back when the shuttle was designed, it might still be flying.

now make it Child Proof

[na1led]

Hand the iPad to a bunch of 3 year olds and see how long it lasts then!

Worst thing I've see all day

[Anonymous Coward]

...this year's CES where our own timothy will be attending and reviewing new products....

Aw, shucks! I would've preferred a competent /. editor.

Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing

[ehud42]

In the clip I just saw, the whole assembly tumbles for a while, but as the atmosphere thickens, it stabilizes into a flat spin with screen facing up. The spin I'm sure generates some lift, which along with the large surface area results in minimum terminal velocity. Combine that with it landing nearly flat on its back - against the protective cover - results in maximum protection.

Curious how it would survive being dropped from a second story balcony onto pavement, oriented so that it lands on a corner - or even face down. Bet the screen is destroyed, and its brains scrambled.

Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing

[GameboyRMH]

With the iPad's shape, if any lift is generated at all it would be on the back side - in this case it could be called downforce.

I agree though that it wouldn't have survived if it landed any other way.

Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing

[tompaulco]

Maybe the next version will include a self right mechanism, so it can turn itself screen up in much the manner that cat does using its tail.

Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing

[Anonymous Coward]

just so long as they don't accidentally model it on bread that always falls butter side down...

Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing

[chrismcb]

Curious how it would survive being dropped from a second story balcony onto pavement, oriented so that it lands on a corner - or even face down. Bet the screen is destroyed, and its brains scrambled.

How about from 60 feet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI6_gNVPLs

Can't read the article on an ipad. :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, TFA wont load properly on an ipad.

Good Value

[Anonymous Coward]

And the protective cover is only 5 times the cost of the tablet. Where can I get one? I am always loosing my tablet out the side door of my space plane.

Re:Good Value

[chrismcb]

The cover is 50-90 dollars and you can get it at G-Form's website. http://shop.g-form.com/collections/our-products

Amature rocket second stage?

[sgt scrub]

The video made me wonder if the GPS and motion detection abilities of todays phones could be used to correct the object after the balloon popped then launch an amature rocket. Sounds like a potential way to get the phone all the way out of the atmosphere. I wonder how long the phone would last in space.

So does the iPad still work?

[Anonymous Coward]

So does the iPad still work? He doesn't turn it on to show it working after all that. If the electronics inside are jostled around so much that it can't turn back on what value is it that the glass didn't break?

What they don't show you...

[NimbleSquirrel]

What they don't show you is the all of other iPads they did this to that didn't survive the fall. How many takes was it until they got the money shot?

Cosmic irony

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

The video cannot be viewed on the iPad it features.

eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, that's all fine and good IF you drop it on it's back, but what about the front? I wonder how many iPads they had to go through in order to get it to fall on its back. There's probably no coincidence that everything's anchored onto the back of the 'sleeve'. Weighing the back down will cause it to fall on its back when it's falling from high up but this makes almost no difference when just holding it at normal 4ft or so from the ground. I guarantee that if someone dropped this from a normal height, it would have a much higher chance of landing on its touchscreen and breaking it. That is the weak point of tablet technology, though.

Ho hum...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually more impressed with the clip of an Extreme Edge protected iPad being thrown about 20 feet and hitting the concrete floor at CET.

You know what else works?

[elrous0]

A parachute.

I jumped off my bed

[istartedi]

I jumped off my bed, from the edge of what I call "space".

Excellent!

[roc97007]

Because I'm in space so much!

but will it survive the fall off my desk...

[Lindan9]

..onto hard floor?

So the iPad made it...

[Grelfod]

What about our non-Ipad tablets??
The ones that can play the video *hehe* is this tech available for them? If not then it is nothing more than a PR stunt for the i-zombies to swoon over :P

Good Old Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing what they always do. Take a relatively simple problem, (dropping your iPad from say, waist height), and take it too it's absolute furthest extreme, (the edge of space), and fix a way to fix THAT.

How could he tell it was working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both times that guy commented as if to say they iPad was working, but due to the reflective screen and being outside in daylight.. we couldn't see anything!!!

Falling Leaf effect

[Dr La]

1) Along with the iPad's flat shape, the metal rod and the cylindrical thing (the GPS tracker?) underneath it acted to weigh and stabilize it. Look at the video: after some initial tumbling, it stabilizes and takes a flat, horizontal attitude throughout the fall. The bottom of the iPad is always level with the horizon.

As a result, the flat iPad starts to create it's own lift-effect, slowing the ascend down. It starts to glide, kind of like a falling leaf.

Analyzing the the video, especially the imagery of the last second before impact on a frame-by-frame basis, you can see that the ground upon impact is not smeared in individual frames, but visible in all detail. This simply shows that the speed upon ground impact was not high at all. It makes a relatively gentle, gliding landing with a speed of at best a few meters/second.

2) As others remarked, it did not drop from space. 30 km is nowhere near the boundary of space. Even (a few, military) aircraft can and do fly at 30 km altitude. It's airspace, not Space.

Good news tho

[The Creator]

..reviewing..

Some chance of seeing him suffocate, freeze, fall from space and crash to his death!

George M. Howell = admitted trolling asshole on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Informing others about this scumbag punk gmhowell (who thinks it's cool to harass others online, with his diabetic fatass pal tomhudson).

"I've been trolling people for 36 years. Why would I stop now? I've also never denied trolling you. Why would I?" - by gmhowell (26755) on Sunday April 17, @05:03AM (#35846218) Homepage

QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2087330&cid=35846218

"I never denied trolling you" - by gmhowell (26755) on Tuesday December 14 2010, @01:55AM (#34543612) Homepage Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34543612

gmhowell posts journal on trolling myself, years ago now -> http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"The best thing about trolling APK?" - http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/journal/266768/the-best-thing-about-trolling-apk

---

gmhowell says he will stop next below (after I got on his case) too:

"But seriously, I may stop" - by gmhowell on Thursday June 16, @09:38PM (#36470452) Attached to: The best thing about trolling APK?

and

"Hmm... Maybe oughta lay off for a while." - by gmhowell (26755) on Thursday June 16, @09:38PM (#36470452) Homepage

I took him @ his word, & then laid off on retrolling he, but?

gmhowell starts up YET again (now by AC posts only)!

Proof? Ok, this week -> http://slashdot.org/journal/276148/now-this-is-entertaining

---

gmhowell's part of the "trolltalk.com" crew (a domain tomhudson, a total scumbag troll actually keeps no less).

gmhowell hangs around with (or is just another alternate registered 'luser' guise tomhudson keeps) tomhudson, a known troll

(tomhudson = a miserable fat diabetic wreck too that can't program for shit & *thinks* she can but hasn't been noted for it in anything in publication in the realm of the computer sciences, fact)!

Example:

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544

"BTW - if you're going to tell this guy to stop spamming his hosts file crap, make sure you do it anonymously" - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16 2011, @11:45AM (#35840680) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM DIRECTLY FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086920&cid=35840680

---

(This "trolltalk.com" pack of weasels? Heh - They're all "scumbags of a feather that flock together")

---

gmhowell & crew from trolltalk.com also CHEAT THE MODERATION SYSTEM HERE, & others noted it also -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2236608&cid=36442386

"I do whatever amuses me at the moment. Sometimes that i

Re:George M. Howell = admitted trolling asshole on

[MikeBabcock]

So you're what, bullying him because that gives you moral superiority? Way to go.

Couldn't see anything

[Anonymous Coward]

The screen was too glossy.