Protecting Your Tablet From a Fall From Space

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Protecting Your Tablet From a Fall From Space

Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @06:22AM from the nobody-can-hear-your-ipad-fall dept.

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."

103 of 130 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Could've been awesome. by nman64 · 2012-01-10 06:22 · Score: 5, Funny

...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.
1. Re:Could've been awesome. by wiedzmin · 2012-01-10 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Also, we've had better slashvertisements.
  G-Form *cha-ching* 'Extreme Edge' *cha-ching*...
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
2. Re:Could've been awesome. by PNutts · 2012-01-10 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  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).
3. Re:Could've been awesome. by chrismcb · 2012-01-10 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Could've been awesome. by RockDoctor · 2012-01-11 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
5. Re:Could've been awesome. by Alsee · 2012-01-11 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  But does it blend?
  I bet that video will have a more entertaining result.
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
6. Re:Could've been awesome. by MikeBabcock · 2012-01-11 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Luckily it seems this case would also fit devices I actually care about, not just ipads.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
and the camera they took it with? by BabaChazz · 2012-01-10 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...
1. Re:and the camera they took it with? by countertrolling · 2012-01-10 06:45 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So did the unprotected metal rod.
  Did it win an 'Employee of the Month' award and get a parade?
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
2. Re:and the camera they took it with? by doramjan · 2012-01-10 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  Wow! Did you actually get to *see* the rod?
3. Re:and the camera they took it with? by The+Great+Pretender · 2012-01-10 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  Apparently it was also weighted so it wouldn't land screen down.
  
  --
  A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
4. Re:and the camera they took it with? by Lumpy · 2012-01-10 08:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
5. Re:and the camera they took it with? by Jjeff1 · 2012-01-10 08:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:and the camera they took it with? by BabaChazz · 2012-01-10 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  So maybe GoPro should make an iPad case?
7. Re:and the camera they took it with? by smitty97 · 2012-01-10 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Stupid carbon rod. It's all just a popularity contest!
  
  --
  mod me funny
8. Re:and the camera they took it with? by akilduff · 2012-01-10 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming it was a GoPro, that doesn't surprise me. Those things are made to take damage, while an unprotected iPad is obviously not.
9. Re:and the camera they took it with? by gmhowell · 2012-01-10 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
10. Re:and the camera they took it with? by IwantToKeepAnon · 2012-01-11 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
Misleading title by Hentes · 2012-01-10 06:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Contrary to popular belief, balloons still can't fly in space.
1. Re:Misleading title by tripleevenfall · 2012-01-10 06:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They don't really fly in the atmosphere, either.
2. Re:Misleading title by pahles · 2012-01-10 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see the word 'balloon' in the title, so how can this be funny?
  
  --
  Sig?
3. Re:Misleading title by JabberWokky · 2012-01-10 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
4. Re:Misleading title by chrismcb · 2012-01-10 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Contrary to popular belief, balloons still can't fly in space.
  What do they do? Fall to the ground?
5. Re:Misleading title by Hentes · 2012-01-10 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  But that satellite didn't flew, it freefell.
6. Re:Misleading title by JabberWokky · 2012-01-10 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  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".
  
  --
  "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Why so high? by rHBa · 2012-01-10 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wouldn't it reach terminal velocity from a few hundred meters?
1. Re:Why so high? by MetalliQaZ · 2012-01-10 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Publicity.
  
  --
  "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
2. Re:Why so high? by Whiternoise · 2012-01-10 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  The amusing part is that it would actually reach a slower terminal velocity as the atmospheric density increases.
3. Re:Why so high? by ricky-road-flats · 2012-01-10 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  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?
4. Re:Why so high? by jd · 2012-01-10 06:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If it was running telnet, then all velocities would be terminal.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
5. Re:Why so high? by mcmonkey · 2012-01-10 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Publicity stunt.
6. Re:Why so high? by khallow · 2012-01-10 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's only true in the denser parts of the atmosphere. It would be in near free fall until perhaps 50-60k feet.
7. Re:Why so high? by FunkyELF · 2012-01-10 08:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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?
8. Re:Why so high? by gurps_npc · 2012-01-10 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
9. Re:Why so high? by Shotgun · 2012-01-10 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but it was configured with the attached weight to fall flat, increasing its drag and lowering it's terminal velocity.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
10. Re:Why so high? by Shotgun · 2012-01-10 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  And me with no mod points to make this informative. I was wandering how that happened in the video.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
11. Re:Why so high? by JTsyo · 2012-01-10 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  yea but impact velocity is the same and that's what counts.
12. Re:Why so high? by JTsyo · 2012-01-10 09:41 · Score: 2
  
  don't forget low temperatures. I doubt the cover does much for those conditions though.
13. Re:Why so high? by troon · 2012-01-10 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
14. Re:Why so high? by HTH+NE1 · 2012-01-11 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  Well, if you presume a perfectly spherical iPad....
  
  --
  Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
"Space", my ass by fnj · 2012-01-10 06:28 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:"Space", my ass by fnj · 2012-01-10 07:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The article says "The high-definition video shows the iPad falling from a height of 100,000 feet (30,480 meters)".
2. Re:"Space", my ass by mpe · 2012-01-10 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  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 by bflong · 2012-01-10 06:28 · Score: 2

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

--
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
1. Re:No reentry by jd · 2012-01-10 06:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
2. Re:No reentry by HTH+NE1 · 2012-01-11 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Irrelevant stunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 06:29 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Irrelevant stunt by Splab · 2012-01-10 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  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).
2. Re:Irrelevant stunt by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-10 07:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
3. Re:Irrelevant stunt by Lashat · 2012-01-10 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Give this man a cee-gar!
  
  --
  For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
4. Re:Irrelevant stunt by JTsyo · 2012-01-10 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't call it a parachute, maybe a drag device.
5. Re:Irrelevant stunt by chrismcb · 2012-01-10 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Irrelevant stunt by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-11 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
Eh... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-01-10 06:31 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:Eh... by d4fseeker · 2012-01-10 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 06:39 · Score: 1

Well, then, this means the iPad will not mind falling from the top position as a tablet.
Rules? by hawguy · 2012-01-10 06:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Rules? by Rudisaurus · 2012-01-10 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  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).
  
  --
  licet differant, aequabitur
2. Re:Rules? by rHBa · 2012-01-10 06:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The only thing I'm legally allowed to drop from my paraglider is water, that's over inhabited or uninhabited space
3. Re:Rules? by PPH · 2012-01-10 06:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:Rules? by vlm · 2012-01-10 06:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
5. Re:Rules? by TheCarp · 2012-01-10 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
6. Re:Rules? by OzPeter · 2012-01-10 07:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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?
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
7. Re:Rules? by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2012-01-10 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  (provided they can find out whose random thing from the sky it is).
  That's easy: Their video is on YouTube.
  
  --
  Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
8. Re:Rules? by tompaulco · 2012-01-10 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
9. Re:Rules? by rHBa · 2012-01-10 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  My mistake, I was thinking competition rules, only water and fine sand is allowed as jettisonable ballast.
10. Re:Rules? by Medievalist · 2012-01-10 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
11. Re:Rules? by JTsyo · 2012-01-10 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  I remember seeing that in elementary school. Had to get my parents' permission first though.
12. Re:Rules? by subreality · 2012-01-11 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
But how many drops will survive from the couch? by itsme1234 · 2012-01-10 06:48 · Score: 1

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? by cmholm · 2012-01-10 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
1. Re:Fall? Hell, What About The Cold? by jellomizer · 2012-01-10 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:Fall? Hell, What About The Cold? by ILongForDarkness · 2012-01-10 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  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?
Re:ok nerds by hawguy · 2012-01-10 06:52 · Score: 1

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.
Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? by Pausanias · 2012-01-10 06:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? by na1led · 2012-01-10 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
2. Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? by icebraining · 2012-01-10 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  lonely iPad
  I guess we're underwhelmed because we don't quite see iPad as pets yet.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
3. Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? by chrismcb · 2012-01-10 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  . 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?
4. Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? by ooshna · 2012-01-10 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  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 by nescientist · 2012-01-10 06:54 · Score: 2

Would tiling the bottom of the shuttle with iPads have been less expensive? Perhaps this technology would have kept those beautiful birds in service.
1. Re:Sadly too late by jellomizer · 2012-01-10 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:Sadly too late by hawguy · 2012-01-10 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
Re:ok nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 06:55 · Score: 1

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.
now make it Child Proof by na1led · 2012-01-10 06:57 · Score: 2

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

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Re:ok nerds by mrchaotica · 2012-01-10 07:00 · Score: 1

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

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing by ehud42 · 2012-01-10 07:06 · Score: 2

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.

--
I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
1. Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-10 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing by tompaulco · 2012-01-10 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
3. Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing by chrismcb · 2012-01-10 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  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. :( by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 07:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Ironically, TFA wont load properly on an ipad.
Amature rocket second stage? by sgt+scrub · 2012-01-10 08:02 · Score: 1

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.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
What they don't show you... by NimbleSquirrel · 2012-01-10 08:17 · Score: 1

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 by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2012-01-10 08:17 · Score: 4, Funny

The video cannot be viewed on the iPad it features.

--
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
You know what else works? by elrous0 · 2012-01-10 08:54 · Score: 1

A parachute.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I jumped off my bed by istartedi · 2012-01-10 09:07 · Score: 1

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

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Excellent! by roc97007 · 2012-01-10 09:14 · Score: 1

Because I'm in space so much!

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
but will it survive the fall off my desk... by Lindan9 · 2012-01-10 09:23 · Score: 1

..onto hard floor?
So the iPad made it... by Grelfod · 2012-01-10 09:41 · Score: 1

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

--
If bars don't serve drunk people, then McDonald's shouldn't serve fat people...
Re:Good Value by chrismcb · 2012-01-10 10:29 · Score: 1

The cover is 50-90 dollars and you can get it at G-Form's website. http://shop.g-form.com/collections/our-products
Re:ok nerds by chrismcb · 2012-01-10 10:33 · Score: 1

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
Falling Leaf effect by Dr+La · 2012-01-10 23:02 · Score: 1

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.

--
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
Good news tho by The+Creator · 2012-01-11 00:00 · Score: 1

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

--

FRA: STFU GTFO
Re:George M. Howell = admitted trolling asshole on by MikeBabcock · 2012-01-11 04:10 · Score: 1

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

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)