Slashdot Mirror


Skydiver Leaps From 18 Miles Up In 'Space Jump' Practice

wooferhound writes "A daredevil leapt from a balloon more than 18 miles above the Earth today, moving one step closer to a so-called 'space jump' that would set the record for the world's highest skydive. Austrian adventurer Felix Baumgartner stepped out of his custom-built capsule at an altitude of 96,640 feet (29,456 meters) above southeastern New Mexico, officials with Red Bull Stratos — the name of Baumgartner's mission — announced today. In today's jump, Baumgartner experienced freefall for three minutes and 48 seconds, reaching a top speed of 536 mph (863 kph), project officials said. Baumgartner then opened his parachute and glided to Earth safely about 10 minutes and 30 seconds after stepping into the void."

192 comments

  1. First words by EricScott · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's one small step for a man, One giant leap for me.

  2. Pretty Cool by jomama717 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Makes me wish I'd been alive to watch live coverage of people LANDING ON THE FREAKING MOON.

    --
    while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    1. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0/10

    2. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obvious Idiot is Obvious.

    3. Re:Pretty Cool by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If NASA took all the trouble to fake the moon landing, then why haven't they, in the past 40 years, faked another milestone, like landing on Mars?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Pretty Cool by digitig · · Score: 2

      Meh. The picture wasn't all that clear. The Pink Floyd improvisation that we got as soundtrack here in the UK was pretty cool, though.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      you didn't miss much since it never happened.

      http://www.google.com/#hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=stanley+kubrick+moon+landing

      We really, truly did land on the moon.

      That's why Armstrong punched out that reporter who asked if they really did it. Y'know, because the Neanderthal who responds to an honest question with unprovoked violence is definitely the more rational, superior man. No, he really landed but had something to hide, something so enormous that it shook his very own idea of how the world worked, that made him so irrational to the point of violence.

      The videos were faked because they didn't want us to see what was actually there. Evidence of extraterrestrial life actually near Earth doesn't jive well with keeping the population fat and stupid and dependent on gov't/media (same thing really) and the older influences of religion to define the meaning of their lives. The moon is hollow because it rang like a gong when one of the Apollo spacecraft was crashed into it. The moon perfectly obscures the sun during an eclipse, the dark side never faces the earth, the orbit is not elliptical, it is large compared to the Earth, and therefore generally it could not be a captured body. It's artificial. Whoever built the pyramids at Giza built the moon too. The Bhagivad Gita describes nuclear fucking warfare thousands of years ago, perfectly to the letter the effects of radioactive fallout, then archaeologists found residual radiation in the areas it describes.

      See if something is too different from what you were taught to believe by vested interest who want your thinking to be limited to nation-state affairs, then you automatically reject it, just like a good conditioned subject. Facts are facts. Dare to find your own.

    6. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't Armstrong, it was Aldrin you doofus.

    7. Re:Pretty Cool by tragedy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "reporter" lured Aldrin to a hotel under false pretenses, wasting his whole day. Then he ambushed him, making ridiculous demands. I found a brief snippet from the video, immediately before the punch and I've transcribed what I heard below:
      "...you're the one who said you walked on the moon when you didn't. Calling the kettle black, if I ever thought I would say that"
      "Would you get it away from me!"
      "You're a coward, and a liar, and a thief..."
      Then comes the punch. That doesn't really seem like responding to and honest question with unprovoked violence to me. Heck, even Sibrel himself sent a letter of apology (according to Sibrel, anyway) to Aldrin.

      I have no idea what to say to the rest of your post. Hollow, artificial moon, built by the same people who built the (extremely small and unimpressive compared to their work on the moon) pyramids at Giza? You just never know quite what to say to that kind of thing. Backing away slowly while smiling reassuringly seems to be the only way to go.

    8. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aldrin should have gotten a copy of the clip and printed T-shirts of the hit.
      I would have bought one.

    9. Re:Pretty Cool by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Two Words:

      Capricorn One.

      OK. Bad example - OJ Simpson can't act.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    10. Re:Pretty Cool by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

      Condensed version:

      That's no moon... it's a space station.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    11. Re:Pretty Cool by SlashDev · · Score: 1

      I think you would be disappointed, the broadcast video would arrive in HD, perfect colors, video and sound, would look too much like a sci-fi film, people would believe this landing even less.

      --

      TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
    12. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If NASA took all the trouble to fake the moon landing

      Oh, but NASA did actually land on the moon, it's just the pictures that are faked.

    13. Re:Pretty Cool by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      If only the video on the link had shown some real footage instead of only CGI...

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    14. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they had to leave out the frigging huge robots.

    15. Re:Pretty Cool by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      You just made me think of the Johnny Cash Finger t-shirt.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    16. Re:Pretty Cool by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      The truly funny and also incredibly sad thing about this post is that some people out there truly feel exactly this way, even so much as to eating up that bit about Aldrin becoming violent "unprovoked" proving the conspiracy is true. I'm sure this particular post is just is all in jest (I hope), but I've actually spoken to people who act just like this, and it truly makes me sad.

    17. Re:Pretty Cool by kill-1 · · Score: 1

      Because they almost blew it with the faked moon landing and don't want to risk that again. Also the cold war is over, so there no good reason to fake such accomplishments.

    18. Re:Pretty Cool by manixrock · · Score: 1

      Ad hominem attack is ad hominem.

    19. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why the Russians didn't tell everybody that the moon landings weren't real?

      Maybe they couldn't detect a pretend moon landing despite having their own extensive space/military programmes ...

    20. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody still alive remembers how to roto footage and NASA doesn't have the budget for after effects, much less Michael bay.

    21. Re:Pretty Cool by wooferhound · · Score: 1
      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    22. Re:Pretty Cool by c · · Score: 3, Funny

      They've tried. No luck.

      Lucas' script has Mars completely populated with cutesy aliens who speak broken English with a (for reasons he refuses to explain) Cockney accent.

      Michael Bay's script has the Mars lander crashing in a symphony of explosions.

      Kevin Smith's script is entirely about the dysfunctional relationships between the crew during the trip out.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    23. Re:Pretty Cool by netwarerip · · Score: 2

      Well, I guess it kinda makes sense that an ancient Hindu document describes nuclear war and aliens building the moon, since you know the aliens would have outsourced the IT parts of the project to India.

    24. Re:Pretty Cool by NoahsMyBro · · Score: 1

      Man, I wish I had MOD points today. I'd absolutely mod you up, funny.

      Thanks for the chuckle.

    25. Re:Pretty Cool by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure asshole, I'll go and believe whatever I'm told is the truth by people who
      keep secrets in underground vaults such as the Vatican Library where none of
      us cattle are admitted.

    27. Re:Pretty Cool by sjames · · Score: 2

      "You're a coward, and a liar, and a thief..."

      Those were certainly fighting words and Aldrin was absolutely right to throw a punch. If more people understood that today, we might have a little less crime, a little more polite society, and possibly even a bit less corporate nonsense.

      As far as the hollow moon, I guess that's where the bats in his belfry live in the winter.

    28. Re:Pretty Cool by twistnatz · · Score: 1

      Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1074/

  3. Dyslexic much? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

    From the article:

    Red Bull Stratos is a mission to the edge of space to an altitude of 37.000 meters to break several records including the sound of speed in freefall

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:Dyslexic much? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, the faster you fall, the soundier your speed becomes. The goal is to make a proper *kaboom* instead of the ordinary *swiiish*.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Dyslexic much? by c0lo · · Score: 2

      From the article:

      Red Bull Stratos is a mission to the edge of space to an altitude of 37.000 meters to break several records including the sound of speed in freefall

      Somebody should tell them that breaking this record may lend them into troubles with RIAA (label: Rhino/Warner Bros)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Dyslexic much? by Tastecicles · · Score: 4, Funny

      if you want a "kaboom" try an illudium Pu-36 explosive space modulator.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    4. Re:Dyslexic much? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      Or just don't open the chute.

    5. Re:Dyslexic much? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      the sound of speed

      vroom, vroom.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Dyslexic much? by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 1

      The creature has stolen the space modulator!!!
      Delays... delays...

    7. Re:Dyslexic much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also: what unit is "kph"? Kernels per harddisk?

    8. Re:Dyslexic much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      well you both got your figures wrong this is taken from the mission website and not some made up figures like faster than sound freefall (which probably cause real problems when opening a shoot unless you find a way to slow down first ... also a human body has a terminal velocity of that wayyyy before the sound barrier. just saying)

      Felix Baumgartner landed safely near Roswell, NM following a test jump from (preliminary) 96,640 feet / 29.455 meters, after 3 minutes and 48 seconds of freefall leading up to a 10 minute and 36 second decent. It's an incredible achievement considering this is the fastest and highest jump for Felix so far.

      In March, Felix completed the first manned jump, a culmination of testing equipment, the team, and the procedures together under real flight conditions. Felix is only the third person to have ever jumped from 71,615 ft. Although, this won't be his highest freefall attempt, it's high enough to verify the functionality of the pressurized space suit and the capsule's abilities.

      This stems from five years of testing and intensive work. The effort takes more than 100 expert personnel who have been building and creating one-of-a-kind technology, and sometimes coming together from across the world.

      Data from the International Air Sports Federation (FAI) shows how the 1st manned test measured up.

              Altitude reached: 71,615.2 ft / 21,828.3 meters

              Parachute opened at: 8,210.6 ft / 2,502.6 meters

              Freefall time: 3 minutes and 40 seconds

              The fastest ascent rate of the capsule: 1,200 feet per minute (estimate)

              Speed reached in freefall: 364.69 mph / 586.92 km per hour

    9. Re:Dyslexic much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while this guy managed to reach speeds of 536mph/862kph in free fall. maybe due to thinner air or lack there of.

      Terminal velocity of a human is 117-125mph in random posture. If the human has uses the bullet shaped position, (sometimes used by experienced sky divers or seen in movies), there terminal velocity can reach speeds up to 210mph.

      Terminal velocity is when the gravity force upon an object is equal to that of the wind resistance.

      Downforce (gravity)=Upforce (wind resistance)

      Therefore, the aerodynamics/surface area of an object greatly affects the terminal velocity.

    10. Re:Dyslexic much? by MS · · Score: 1

      I thought the same. The unit is "km" per hour (therefore "kmh"), while "k" alone only means a thousand of those units. So "kph" means "a thousand of nothing per hour". :-)

    11. Re:Dyslexic much? by Pope · · Score: 1

      Somebody should tell them that breaking this record may lend them into troubles with RIAA (label: Rhino/Warner Bros)

      Pfft. Buncha latecomers

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    12. Re:Dyslexic much? by tokul · · Score: 1

      Funny, but there is this little annoying thing called terminal velocity. If he manages to break speed of sound, it won't be unassisted human descent and any supersonic fighter pilot can do it. Or he will have to go a lot higher and get on high calorie diet. The higher he goes the bigger chances are that he won't reach the ground without the chute.

    13. Re:Dyslexic much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the same. The unit is "km" per hour (therefore "kmh"), while "k" alone only means a thousand of those units. So "kph" means "a thousand of nothing per hour". :-)

      No, kmh would be kilometre-hours. Instead of kmph, which looks similar to mph, it gets abbreviated to kph.

    14. Re:Dyslexic much? by MS · · Score: 1

      No, the unit "m", which stands for "meter", cannot be omitted - it's central to the measurement. While the copula "per" could be omitted. Even "mph" has the unit "m", where it stands for "miles". Otherwise you americans would write "ph" ("per hour"), which means nothing.

  4. Not exactly space as many know it by pegasustonans · · Score: 2

    While these things are somewhat debatable, Baumgartner's future "space jump" is not due to take place in what most consider "space."

    FTFA:

    Baumgartner has his eyes on an even bigger leap, a "space jump" from 125,000 feet (38,100 m) in the next month or so. (Space, however, is generally considered to begin at an altitude of 62 miles, or 327,000 feet.)

    It's still a great feat and laudable they went ahead with it despite ridiculous legal challenges:

    Baumgartner and his team had hoped to attempt his record jump in 2010, but they were delayed by a legal challenge that claimed the idea of the dive was earlier suggested to Red Bull by California promoter Daniel Hogan.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    1. Re:Not exactly space as many know it by Teresita · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you're saying we have patent trolls asserting their exclusive right to the "look and feel" of a balloon jump.

    2. Re:Not exactly space as many know it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had assumed as much. It's a space jump like those weather balloon projects are space balloons. Stratosphere territory... way the hell up, and from there, looks like you're in space.

    3. Re:Not exactly space as many know it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      err... Prior Art:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excelsior

    4. Re:Not exactly space as many know it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we have patent trolls asserting their exclusive right to the "look and feel" of a balloon jump.

      Are they Apple employees? I guess a roughly spherical balloon has "rounded corners" then?

    5. Re:Not exactly space as many know it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daniel Hogan should have been introduced to the 'look and feel' of a 38km balloon jump in person.. Now the question is, does Daniel Hogan have the patent rights to the 'look and feel' of a suitable spacesuit?

    6. Re:Not exactly space as many know it by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Kittinger's a consultant on the project.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  5. Dayvan Cowboy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I sincerely hope they get Boards of Canada to provide the theme song for the actual space jump.

    -gz612

  6. The Most Question Is Of Course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Was he wearing the Google Glasses and will the replay be on YouTube later?

  7. Fastest Human? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did he also attain distinction of being fastest non-propelled human?

  8. air resistance by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Air resistance up to typical skydiving altitude provides sufficient drag to keep the person from accelerating to the point where deceleration would result in so much friction as to vaporize the person. If this guy's really dead-set on jumping from the actual threshold of space...

    1. He'll need thermal insulation until he's in the earth atmosphere properly. I hear it's pretty cold up there.

    2. I think it's safe to assume he has the oxygen problem licked, because at 12 miles, he'd have suffocated.

    3. I understand objects falling from that altitude tend to encounter very little air resistance, which means they pick up a lot of speed. The kind of speed that causes brilliant fireballs to appear in place of anything falling from that height, like asteroids, satellites, and space shuttles.

    ... I don't see how anyone could survive those kinds of physical stresses while maintaining any level of mobility, or having a silhouette even vaguely resembling a person. The low mass of a person (even one encased in inches-thick ceramic heat shielding, would mean the bow wave shocks would turn anyone inside into goo. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of physics clear up for me why this isn't the case, since I'm pretty sure Red Bull doesn't want their energy drink to be associated with what in my eyes is essentially suicide by thermodynamics?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go read up on kittinger. Its been done before.

    2. Re:air resistance by Telvin_3d · · Score: 2

      The air pressure increases gradually on the way down. Perhaps terminal velocity goes down gradually enough to provide a smooth transition. After all, the objects that typically end up as fireballs entered with quite a bit of extra velocity to start with.

    3. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current record jump, at 102,800 feet, is not all that far off from what Baumgartner is attempting, so it's not that far fetched.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excelsior

    4. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you have very little air resistance, you're not going to be generating any heat (you get hot from the friction caused by the air resistance).

      Asteroids, satellites, and space shuttles don't just fall out of the sky, they were already moving fast enough to stay in orbit. Their massive speed helps make them hot. The jumper will not be traveling at orbital speeds, thus the increasing air resistance will be enough to slow him down before the speed+air friction gets high enough to burn him.

    5. Re:air resistance by aapold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kittinger's story is amazing. He used to call into a florida talk show I listened to when I lived there from time to time to talk about some of the stuff involved with his jump. He is consulting on this attempt, so while this attempt might seem a stunt, at least Kittinger is apparently getting paid for it.

      --
      "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    6. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kind of speed that causes brilliant fireballs to appear in place of anything falling from that height, like asteroids, satellites, and space shuttles.

      Most of the energy for those objects is translational. The kinetic energy is much larger than the gravitational potential energy. The exact amount of course depends on the details, but ballpark figure off the top of my head, it can easily be a factor of 20. (Don't shoot me if I'm a bit off - been 30 years since I last calculated it).

      So there's a lot of energy involved here, yes, but it's nothing at all like objects re-entering from orbital velocities. He won't burn up in a fireball.

    7. Re:air resistance by tragedy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Asteroids, Satellites, and space shuttles don't just "fall" from that height. They're already going very, very fast (at least 25,000 km/h) before they hit the atmosphere. There's no way this guy would ever manage to go that fast even if he were dropping from the height of LEO (to be clear, I just mean dropping from the height of, not actually being in LEO). For an idea of what kind of heating he could experience, the Concorde apparently got up to around 120 degrees celcius at its nose travelling at Mach 2. That's clearly too hot for bare skin, but it's not much of a problem for an insulated pressure suit for just a few minutes (and it probably wouldn't even be that long), and his goal of Mach 1 will be pretty hard to reach, let alone Mach 2.

    8. Re:air resistance by PPH · · Score: 5, Informative

      3. I understand objects falling from that altitude tend to encounter very little air resistance, which means they pick up a lot of speed. The kind of speed that causes brilliant fireballs to appear in place of anything falling from that height, like asteroids, satellites, and space shuttles.

      Not really. Most things that cause brilliant fireballs have a very high initial velocity (and kinetic energy) which must be dissipated when they first reach the atmosphere. This skydiver started with a vertical velocity of zero.

      And since the density gradient of the atmosphere is low, a skydiver's air resistance will build up slowly bleeding off this energy gradually.

      All that must be done is to bleed off the skydiver's potential energy. For a 115kg (person + gear. I'm pulling figures out of my *ss here) at 29,500m altitude, this is aprox. 32,700 Joules. Dissipated in 630 seconds, this is an average rate of 51 Watts. Warm, but not out of line with being wrapped in an electric blanket.

      That same individual hitting the atmosphere at 7750 m/sec (Shuttle re-entry velocity) would have kinetic energy of 3.45E9 Joules. Over 630 seconds this would be 5.5 megawatts, although the 630 second figure does not represent the re-entry time anymore. That time would be less, giving a higher average dissipation rate. And nothing but a few ashes reaching the ground.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order for a ballon to reach the edge of space, it doesn't have to be moving at all relative to the earth. In order for the ISS or space shuttle to stay in low earth orbit, it has to be traveling horizontally at ~7 km/sec. This is really fast, above Mach 25 when you graze the top of the atmosphere on reentry. Asteroids typically come in from solar orbits going even faster.

      This big difference in speed means that a high altitude sky diver has to dissipate a lot less energy than the space shuttle, and consequently he doesn't need nearly the heat shield that the space shuttle has.

    10. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space shuttles and asteroids get so hot when reentering the atmosphere not because of the height from which they fall, but from the fact that they are moving ridiculously fast before they even begin to fall (~17,000 mph for low Earth orbit). Now, I think he *is* going to be going more than 1000mph by the time he starts hitting an appreciable amount of atmosphere if he does jump from height he wants. Atmosphere comes in gradually, though, so. I'm not going to do the math to figure how much air resistance he's going to be hitting as a function of height.

    11. Re:air resistance by camperdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, you don't get hot from the friction; you get hot from compressing the air in front of you.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what can I read to learn this stuff?

    13. Re:air resistance by Megane · · Score: 2

      FWIW, the reason re-entry from orbit produces so much heat is that you have to get rid of the horizontal orbital velocity. You could probably retro rocket thrust to get rid of the orbital velocity if you took up enough fuel, but that would be a luxury for anything launched from Earth into orbit on a rocket. This guy is going up in a balloon, so there is no horizontal velocity involved beyond Earth's rotation.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    14. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would the 'space jump' that kirk performed in the latest Star Trek be possible then? I loved that shot...

    15. Re:air resistance by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, you don't get hot from the friction; you get hot from compressing the air in front of you.

      Kind of like this: Relativistic Baseball

      Q: What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light?
      A: The answer turns out to be “a lot of things”, and they all happen very quickly, and it doesn’t end well for the batter (or the pitcher).
      ... [ more w/illustrations ]

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    16. Re:air resistance by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      Nasa successfully tested, an inflatable heat shield not to long ago, I imagine something like that could be used.

    17. Re:air resistance by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      For an idea of what kind of heating he could experience, the Concorde apparently got up to around 120 degrees celcius at its nose travelling at Mach 2.

      Concorde's crusing altitude was about 55,000 feet, or 17,000 meters. This guy stepped out at almost twice that altitude, with zero velocity.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    18. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were in what was effectively stationary orbit so yes it would've been possible

    19. Re:air resistance by retchdog · · Score: 2

      this particular thing you can learn just by using a bicycle pump (and if you're still not convinced, compare it to rubbing a piece of rubber against an aluminum pipe).

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    20. Re:air resistance by SlashDev · · Score: 1

      So when you rub your hands together, it's air compression that is causing heat?

      --

      TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
    21. Re:air resistance by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      1. He'll need thermal insulation *after* he gets into reasonably dense atmosphere, not before. The reason is that the loss of heat by radiation (the only mechanism in vacuum) is comparatively slow. Fast air flow, even one of rarefied air, facilitates a much faster heat removal process.

      3. The heat given off by a subsonic object can hardly be likened to a falling meteor.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re:air resistance by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Concorde's crusing altitude was about 55,000 feet, or 17,000 meters. This guy stepped out at almost twice that altitude, with zero velocity.

      And reached a maximum speed of Mach .75. That wouldn't even generate enough heat to burn bare skin (although obviously you couldn't safely expose bare skin to those conditions). The point is that there's no way he's going to turn into a "brilliant fireball" as the GGP post suggested. A little insulation, which is needed for the cold anyway, and the heat is not a problem. The Concorde example was just to demonstrate a high upper limit on what could possibly be expected for his jump.

    23. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod this down. It's been mentioned already that this type of jump has been done at a higher altitude.

    24. Re:air resistance by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      For a geostationary satellite, ground velocity is zero. So roughly the same as the speed of the balloon this person jumped from (not taking wind speeds into account). Jumping off a geostationary would involve pushing oneself down towards earth, slowly picking up vertical speed (now I have heard before that it doesn't work exactly like that but I'm not a rocket scientist and it's not important for the sake of the argument). And you would also start to pick up horizontal speed compared to the Earth's surface during your descent down. Basically to go in a straight line down from geostationary to the surface, one would have to lose a lot of angular velocity in the process. Calculating entry speeds is getting more tricky now.

      Now such a balloon is only a tiny way up to geostationary orbit, so this won't have much of an effect.

      And another point that I start to wonder: how high above the surface would one have to go before reaching sufficient speeds to become a human torch during free-fall? Terminal velocity will increase rapidly with higher altitude due to lower air resistance.

    25. Re:air resistance by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, now that you mention it, I remember reading the leading theory on the Tunguska meteor/comet is that it exploded 5 or 10 miles above the earth because of the heat from the air compressed in front of it.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    26. Re:air resistance by Majkow · · Score: 1

      no its friction of rubbing your hands together.

    27. Re:air resistance by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Recommended reading: Poul Anderson's Wings of Victory .

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    28. Re:air resistance by duinsel · · Score: 1

      The brilliant fireball objects tend to have an orbital velocity, ie a significant horizontal component to their speed. I have not done the math, but if you get out of a balloon with 0 ground speed I can imagine it is less likely to hit fireball speeds before the atmosphere gets denser.

    29. Re:air resistance by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      No the velocity relative to the ground is quite high.

      Think of the following experiment:

      Take a object like a yo-yo at the end of a string and hold the other end of the string in one hand
      Standing in one place spin in a circle as fast as you can
      The yo-yo will start to move away from you in a bigger circle. It will "look" like it is not moving and the world is going round.
      It is obvious that it is moving fast however and if someone walks up to you they will be hit by it.

      If you jumped off a geosynchronous satellite, you would float near the satellite and gradually move away from it. It would be years before air resistance and tidal effects brought you out of orbit.

      A geosynchronous satellite is one where the orbital period in terms of angular velocity happens to be equal to about the same as the rotational velocity of the earth. There are small thrusters on these to correct for tidal and other factors.

      The timing of these orbits is basically a coincidence that we strive for and maintain for our own purposes. If the earth were to suddenly slow down (or speed up) these satellites would not be effected by the change. They would stay in the same orbits until someone on earth ordered the thrusters to compensate for the drift.

    30. Re:air resistance by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      A geostationary satellite should have 0 ground speed (discounting collisions, tidal forces, whatever).

      This as when there is a geostationary satellite, I can point my dish to that point in the sky, and that point is not going to change. So, by the very definition of speed (change in distance per time), the speed of that satellite relative to me on the ground is 0.

    31. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meteors and other space debris cause fireballs because they're moving several miles per second. Objects reentering the atmosphere from orbit do so from orbital velocities. This guy isn't going into orbit, and so he never has to obtain an orbital velocity. he's riding a balloon (essentially) straight up, and falling straight down. He'll get up to several hundred miles per hour, but no faster than a sub-sonic jet aircraft. He's in no danger of melting.

    32. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how anyone could survive those kinds of physical stresses while maintaining any level of mobility, or having a silhouette even vaguely resembling a person.

      Well, the Eleventh Doctor survived such a fall, albeit crammed inside a hastily-donned alien "emergency landing" spacesuit with the helmet on backwards. I can't say that the warship whose occupants had just threatened the people of Earth was so lucky.

    33. Re:air resistance by metacell · · Score: 2

      Jumping off a geostationary would involve pushing oneself down towards earth, slowly picking up vertical speed (now I have heard before that it doesn't work exactly like that but I'm not a rocket scientist and it's not important for the sake of the argument).

      If we discount friction (wind resistance), this is not enough to reach the surface of the Earth. The momentum gained when pushing down from the space station, will only move the jumper very slowly towards the Earth, and once he has orbited half a revolution and is on the other side of the Earth, the same momentum will take him *away* from Earth again. The net effect is that the orbit will become slighty elliptical.

      I doubt he will reach the surface in a reasonable amount of time even if we take friction into account.

    34. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA's RAM jets hit speeds of mach 15 or there abouts ... none have landed as all have fallen apart and melted due to AIR FRICTION, air passing by at such speeds it causes friction on the surface materials and the heat and fall apart.

    35. Re:air resistance by tgd · · Score: 1

      I thought the same thing, and was going to post that, until I did a bit of math on it.

      From the altitude of space, in a vacuum at 1G you'll be going almost 3000mph when you hit the ground. If you assume the bulk of the atmosphere capable of slowing you down significantly starts, say, around 20 miles up, you'll still be going 2500mph as you hit that meatier part of the air.

      I can't say if that's something survivable or not, but 2500mph is fast enough at 20 miles up that an SR71 needed to be made of titanium to handle the heat.

    36. Re:air resistance by tgd · · Score: 1

      Dissipated in 630 seconds, this is an average rate of 51 Watts. Warm, but not out of line with being wrapped in an electric blanket.

      Why in the world would you think the average rate is even remotely relavent? Peak rate, while not exclusively so, is the primary factor for survivability.

      If I have a stick of dynamite with a timer on it, and set it for 23:59 hours, the average energy of the next 24 hours is not going to be my primary concern tomorrow morning.

    37. Re:air resistance by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      The fireballs are caused by objects hitting the atmosphere at high speed, mach 20 and upwards. Baumgartner will start from zero vertical velocity and hitting mach 1 is a challenge, the thermal effects are minimal compared to orbital velocities.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    38. Re:air resistance by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      If you were to jump from geostationary orbit you would need to jump towards the "rear" of the craft (ie the trailing edge) with nearly as much force as it takes to get you from the edge of the atmosphere to geostationary orbit, i.e. a LOT. You'd hit the atmosphere at a hell of a speed and burn up without some pretty funky thermal shielding. If you simply "jumped toward the Earth" then all you'll do is put yourself in a slightly more eccentric orbit. Geostationary orbits are only geostationary because the Earth happens to rotate at a certain speed, there's still a hell of a big delta-v between geostationary and earthbound. The big point to remember here is that he's jumping from near zero velocity, not orbital velocities (geostationary or otherwise, it doesn't make much difference once you're past mach 5 or so)

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    39. Re:air resistance by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      As an object approaches the speed of sound, it creates a shock wave. Along the shock wave the pressure and temperature increase dramatically. At hypersonic speeds, the shock wave becomes detached from the object, and the energy in the shock wave is enough to break the molecules in the atmosphere into ion. Behind the shock wave, the air is relatively stagnant. Since the air behind the shock wave is not moving, the heat cannot be caused by friction. The heat comes from compression, and is transferred to the object by radiation, much like a toaster. The heat from the elements is transferred to the bread primarily by radiation.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    40. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and I think the original poster was off by a factor of 10. The gravitational potential energy that needs to be dissipated is more like 30 megajoules.

    41. Re:air resistance by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Read up on the ideal gas law. Remember, Piv equals nert.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    42. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are trying to equate angular rotation with the velocity of the satellite.

      What happens when the radius is decreased (e.g. the sattelite "falls" from the sky)? Does it somehow magically decrease its velocity at the same time so that it does not disturb your angular rotation frame of reference? Or does it plow through the atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour?

      Ground speed is irrelevant.

    43. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      51W is roughly 1/20th of the peak power output of a healthy human during 30s (~900W). As a matter of fact, it's even less than the base metabolic rate of an adult (~100W). Therefore, even if the peak power was significantly higher than the average, It's still nothing to worry about - the pressure suit may already have (require) significantly more powerful cooling just to keep the human inside at a constant temperature.

    44. Re:air resistance by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if he strapped rockets to his ass and went for a power dive instead of a freefall.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    45. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter. His math is waay off anyway. Multiply everything by about 981.

    46. Re:air resistance by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      You are right but also, with thin air you get less heat transfer for cooling, so it is not as simply as that.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    47. Re:air resistance by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Um, huh? On reading your above post, then reading your previous reply to me, I've realized that you seem to be under some sort of misapprehension about what I'm saying. Perhaps you think I'm the poster I originally replied to? What _I_ am saying, is that the concerns girlintraining listed: cold, low oxygen, and heating due to atmospheric resistance are more or less a non-issue with basic protective gear (an insulated pressure suit). I gave the Concorde as an example of something that heated up to temperatures that would be tolerable for the jumper (with the protective suit) and pointed out that the jumper wouldn't even manage to reach those conditions, so they should be fine.

    48. Re:air resistance by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Sure, they won't be hot while the air is thin, but the air won't stay thin, and they'll be still going rather fast when that happens.

      Falling can accellerate you to arbitrarily high speeds - so high that you'd glow in x-rays when you hit atmosphere (though you'd have to fall for billions of years for that). A good proportion of all the matter in the universe is actually in that state.

    49. Re:air resistance by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      And I agree. I was just 'passing you some ammo.'

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    50. Re:air resistance by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Ah, ok. I think I misinterpreted you then.

    51. Re:air resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the vacuum that forms behind these objects, the difference in pressure probably contributed quite a bit.

  9. Fail by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    The secret of flying is to throw oneself at the ground - and miss.

    1. Re:Fail by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The secret of flying is to throw oneself at the ground - and miss.

      People, people ... PLEASE provide references/citations/URLs for stuff you didn't just make up yourself.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    2. Re:Fail by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I heard it prior to the publication of the HGTTG book, so who's to say the first published version was the first version?

    3. Re:Fail by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Anyone reading /. and not knowing the reference to THHGTTG has to hand in their nerd card and GTFO. For those remaining, providing a reference link is redundant.

    4. Re:Fail by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      And ruin the joke?

      --
      +1 Disagree
  10. Upon landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Upon landing Mr. Baumgartner simply requested a cigar and fresh undies.

    1. Re:Upon landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and fresh undies...

      ... which had to be specially made to have room for his enormous balls.

    2. Re:Upon landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He used his old undies to gag your mother while he stuffed the cigar in her arse. The expression on her face was priceless.

    3. Re:Upon landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hope he had a passport or immigration is gonna be on his ass!

  11. Still not the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the article, this jump is still over 6000 feet short of the record of 102,800 feet (31,333 m), which was set in 1960. It seems almost unbelievable that the record has stood for over fifty years.

    1. Re:Still not the record by camperdave · · Score: 1

      According to the article, this jump is still over 6000 feet short of the record of 102,800 feet (31,333 m), which was set in 1960. It seems almost unbelievable that the record has stood for over fifty years.

      Still not anywhere near space either. He'll need to go over three times higher before that happens. Balloons won't get you into space anymore than a life jacket can get you airborne.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  12. New Extreme Sport by sanman2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you could run this as a business operation, I wonder how much you could charge people for "space jumps"?

    1. Re:New Extreme Sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's already a business operation; did you miss the 'Red Bull' part? "Mission" my aunt fanny.

    2. Re:New Extreme Sport by TheSpoom · · Score: 2

      Call me when we get the screw attack.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:New Extreme Sport by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how much you could charge people for "space jumps"?

      I'm not sure what the price level would be, but I can tell you that I have pretty much no interest in jumping out of an airplane, but I would do it multiple times if it were required to train for this kind of jump.

      I'm pretty sure I could be 117, dying on a bed and, remembering my space jump, say, "fuck yeah" and die happy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:New Extreme Sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have pretty much no interest in jumping out of an airplane, but I would do it multiple times if it were required to train for this kind of jump.

      Have you done it at least once?

    5. Re:New Extreme Sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't limit your vision.

      Take it to the next level!

      SPACE BUNGIE JUMPS!

    6. Re:New Extreme Sport by ch-chuck · · Score: 2

      I can't wait until we see an Ares V rocket launch with Nike etc logos emblazoned on it and the astronauts, like a nascar vehicle and driver.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    7. Re:New Extreme Sport by Paezley · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you could run this as a business operation, I wonder how much you could charge people for "space jumps"?

      I am a licensed skydiver, and I can tell you that the way "normal" jumps are priced is there is a boarding fee generally $10-13 USD and then you pay $1 per thousand feet of altitude. This is whether you get out at 3,000 feet or 13,000 feet. But this is out of an aircraft without needing supplemental oxygen or equipment.

      Specialized jumps cost more:

      Hot air balloon jumps are usually around $45 and you get out anywhere between 4-6k feet.

      Anything above 15,000 feet requires supplemental oxygen, so these jumps can be more expensive.

      A civilian HALO jump from 30,000 feet costs around $375.

      However none of that applies in this case because of all the specialized equipment for the stratos mission.

      For example, the bottom of the capsule is one-use-only. Upon landing, the capsule's bottom absorbs the force of impact and "crumples", so every flight requires a replacement. There is a pressure suit which needs to fit the jumper. There is a custom parachute rig made by Velocity.

      Also, the time to altitude takes a very long time, and the winds need to be just right. So it is not uncommon for them to wait days or weeks to have a window to try. They also have a large ground team. So this whole production would need to spin up for each "jumper" meaning at best you could do one or two jumpers every few weeks, at worst, one every month or two.

      Not to mention each jumper would need to have a base line skydiving skill set that exceeds what most sport jumpers possess. Figure you would need to have several thousands normal skydives, including HALO jumps, before you could even begin to train for a stratos jump. Training for stratos jump would include many jumps wearing the space suit and custom velocity rig, which is not a standard rig so it has different deployment and emergency procedures. This training would need to include wind tunnel time to work on falling in a stable belly to earth orientation. It would also need to include jumps from an aircraft.

      As a business operation you would likely need to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars per jumper, if not millions, and only allow "customers" who meet the qualifications.

      So really, you'd have to invest several years in skydiving and have a scrooge mcduck money pond waiting for you at the end of it.

      OR, you use the red bull money from all the idiots who drink red bull and you have an awesome adventure on their dime ;)

      USPA C-39657

    8. Re:New Extreme Sport by WildBlueYonder · · Score: 1

      Goddamnit, I just used my last mod point and here you are sitting at 2.

    9. Re:New Extreme Sport by ganesh.rao · · Score: 0

      USPA C-39657

      Finally. There are skydivers around this nerd town.

      USPA A-License :)

  13. Going for the record by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Funny

    Committees from both the Darwin Awards and Guinness will be on hand for the final jump. The Guinness people are hoping for multiple awards at the jump. Highest jump, longest free fall, highest velocity in free fall, longest scream in free fall, highest speed a human ever impacted the ground and greatest distance human remains were spread after impact.

    1. Re:Going for the record by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

      longest scream in free fall

      Clearly this is why he's not actually going into space.

      In Space No-One Can hear You Scream.

      Although, to be really picky, his scream will be really short. Given that he'll be wearing a fully-enclosed helmet I'd guestimate something approximating a couple of inches.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  14. Citius, Altius, Fortius? Not quite. by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did he also attain distinction of being fastest non-propelled human?

    No, I'm pretty sure that record was set by the Apollo 10 re-entry, at close to 40,000 km/h (almost 25,000 mph).

    He's not even the fastest skydiver - that record has held for 52 years now - Joseph Kittinger did a free fall in 1960 that lasted 21% longer and reached a top speed 15% faster than what Baumgartner just did.

  15. Not Really Freefall (Physics Lesson) by jaa101 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Freefall strictly speaking means 9.8m/s/s which, after 228 seconds, multiplies out to 5000mph. That's an order of magnitude more than Baumgartner's speed. Wikipedia explains:

    "The example of a falling skydiver who has not yet deployed a parachute is not considered free fall from a physics perspective, since they experience a drag force which equals their weight once they have achieved terminal velocity (see below). However, the term "free fall skydiving" is commonly used to describe this case in everyday speech, and in the skydiving community."

    Still, terminal velocity for a human at sea level is about 120mph which is 4.5 times slower than the quoted 536mph. Taking the square root gives an atmospheric pressure 2.1 times less than normal which translates to him popping the 'chute at about 25,000. Actually he had a pressure suit which would probably slow him down so it could have been higher than that.

    1. Re:Not Really Freefall (Physics Lesson) by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is really free fall, as this is a parachuting act, and the parachuting terminology would trump the physics terminology. Or do you go ape shit every time someone calls a cash register a "register" in a store and you pontificate about CPU architecture?

  16. Cold, but not as you know it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cannot convect heat directly into a vacuum, so where there is no (or very little) atmosphere you don't actually feel cold (nor do you lose much heat) no matter how cold that thin atmosphere actually is.

    You DO still lose heat, through radiation, but that process is quite slow so he won't even notice it during his short exposure.

    1. Re:Cold, but not as you know it... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      It's been postulated more than once that a helmet and tight spandex-like suit (well, more like neoprene than spandex, but those discussing it usually say spandex because of the recognizability of it) could be all that's needed to survive hard vacuum, but little money has been spent on verification. The full NASA suits are insulators, along with so many other functions. It would be interesting to see what would happen with $1,000,000,000 being spent on finding the minimum safe space suit for brief exposure to hard vacuum (brief being 1 hour, no more than once a month).

      The billion dollars would be money well spent if it reduced space suits to a $1000 specialized track suit that could be sold as a (semi) functional space suit to the geeks and nerds, simplifying travel in the future.

  17. Great minds fail alike. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is to say that he didn't just make it up?

    1. Re:Great minds fail alike. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I say. It's from Douglas Adams, can't recall which Hitchhiker's Guide book, but definitely one of the four part trilogy. Arthur Dent does indeed fly using this method as he is distracted by something right before hitting the ground and subsequently flies.

  18. Anyone remember Joseph Kittinger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I dont get the point on this since if you've ever seen the documovie the right stuff, you'd know the united states sent an air force pilot well here:
    On August 16, 1960, as research for a then-fledgling U.S. space program, Air Force Captain Joseph Kittinger rode his Excelsior III helium balloon to the edge of space, 102,800 feet above the earth -- a feat in itself. Then, wearing just a thin pressure suit and breathing supplemental oxygen, he leaned over the cramped confines of his gondola and jumped -- into the 110-degree-below-zero near-vacuum of space. Within seconds his body accelerated to over 600 mph in the thin air, approaching the sound barrier. After free-falling for more than four and a half minutes, slowed finally by friction from the heavier air below, he felt his parachute open at 14,000 feet, and he coasted gently down to the New Mexico desert floor.

    1. Re:Anyone remember Joseph Kittinger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, everyone remembers him, including this team, which hired him as a consultant. The ultimate goal here is to break the sound barrier starting from a height of 125,000 ft. This jump is a stepping stone toward that.

  19. Velocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it's a balloon jump, he'll be starting with zero velocity. He'll only get the acceleration due to gravity starting from zero, and that will be mitigated by air resistance. De-orbiting vehicles slam into the upper atmosphere with much more velocity. Natural meteors are moving even faster. That's why they burn up, and conversely it's why SpaceShipOne didn't require a particularly clever heat shield (although I'm sure it was somewhat of a factor). If SpaceShipOne can reach the top of a parabolic arc in space and come down without burning up, dropping from a balloon at less than half the altitude shouldn't be too much of a problem.

  20. We are catching up to the 1960s... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On Aug. 16, 1960, US military Col. Kittinger stepped from a balloon-supported gondola at the altitude of 102,800 feet to test the use of a parachute for escape from a space capsule or high-altitude aircraft. In free-fall for 4.5 minutes at speeds up to 614 mph and temperatures as low as -94 degrees Fahrenheit, Col. Kittinger opened his parachute at 18,000 feet.

    The jump set records that still stand today: the highest ascent in a balloon, the highest parachute jump, the longest free-fall, and the fastest speed by a man through the atmosphere.

    Video of the story

    1. Re:We are catching up to the 1960s... by Smork · · Score: 1

      And a nice description of his story on Damn Interesting: http://www.damninteresting.com/free-fall-from-near-space/

    2. Re:We are catching up to the 1960s... by AbRASiON · · Score: 2

      One of the 2 favourite things I have about that jump (if I recall, and no I didn't re-watch the video was)

      1. he had a hole in his glove but didn't tell anyone because he really wanted to jump and I think it was the last chance or some such.

      2. when he lands and the rescue team come to grab him - in one of the videos, his buddy walks up to him says something (there's a voice over) and he flips his pal the bird with a big smile.

      What a badass.

  21. We are catching up to the 1960s... by Mr.+White · · Score: 1, Redundant

    On Aug. 16, 1960, US military Col. Kittinger stepped from a balloon-supported gondola at the altitude of 102,800 feet to test the use of a parachute for escape from a space capsule or high-altitude aircraft. In free-fall for 4.5 minutes at speeds up to 614 mph and temperatures as low as -94 degrees Fahrenheit, Col. Kittinger opened his parachute at 18,000 feet.

    The jump set records that still stand today: the highest ascent in a balloon, the highest parachute jump, the longest free-fall, and the fastest speed by a man through the atmosphere.

    Video of the story

  22. The commenter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    above you is the one. That one's named Crypto Gnome.

  23. Re:Citius, Altius, Fortius? Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From wikipedia on Kittinger, it sounds like this wasn't even the highest jump. So what "record" did he set?

    quoting: " Kittinger's record-setting leap from over 102,800 feet "

  24. The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aliens, nothing! Here, read this before They brainwash you with more disinformation!

    The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

    1. Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so the moon is a spy satellite. The government admits that it is a satellite, but deliberately hides the fact that it was the government that put it there. OMG, everything makes sense now!

    2. Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      Kennedy said "We choose to go to the moon" at a speech at Rice University in Texas, not the State of the Union address.

  25. Re:Citius, Altius, Fortius? Not quite. by billstewart · · Score: 2

    The Apollo 10 astronauts were in a capsule, not skydiving, but that hadn't happened when Kittinger set the record in 1960. Even Yuri Gagarin's flight wasn't until 1961, and the U-2 planes only went up to about 70,000 feet.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  26. Re:Citius, Altius, Fortius? Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm pretty sure that record was set by the Apollo 10 re-entry, at close to 40,000 km/h (almost 25,000 mph).

    He's not even the fastest skydiver - that record has held for 52 years now - Joseph Kittinger did a free fall in 1960 that lasted 21% longer and reached a top speed 15% faster than what Baumgartner just did.

    Kittinger is part of Felix's team as an adviser. Their goal is to actually break Mach 1, which Kittinger nearly did.

  27. Almost Craig Breedlove Speed! by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Breedlove set world land speed records of 500 and 600 mph, and one of his cars got up to about 675 before crashing.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Almost Craig Breedlove Speed! by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

      Breedlove set world land speed records of 500 and 600 mph, and one of his cars got up to about 675 before crashing.

      Its still short of the current land speed record which is 763.035 mph, and slower than the current free fall speed record of 614 mph, which was set in 1960 by Joseph Kittinger.

    2. Re:Almost Craig Breedlove Speed! by Builder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Kittinger is a consultant on this project, so I guess he's ok with losing his record :)

    3. Re:Almost Craig Breedlove Speed! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Kittinger is a consultant on this project, so I guess he's ok with losing his record :)

      Well he's held it from 1960 to 2012 so he hasn't done too badly. Since someone will beat it sometime being a consultant for the guy who does is a bonus.

    4. Re:Almost Craig Breedlove Speed! by Jetra · · Score: 1

      Won't there be a limit to how high you can jump from? Eventually, you'll leave the atmosphere and, falling through it, the heat from friction will completely disintigrate you before you even think about getting near airplane levels.

    5. Re:Almost Craig Breedlove Speed! by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes.

      However, the reentry heat one normally thinks of comes from one of two additional vectors (sometimes both!) that make the effect larger than it would be from a simple drop from a balloon.

      First, most objects fall from orbit. Depending on how high of an orbit they were in, they were deliberately put at a high lateral orbit speed somewhere below escape velocity.Which as it turns out is pretty damn fast when compared to the atmosphere, so objects returning from orbit "skid in" at high speed compared to the surface.

      Some objects from from faster than escape velocity (space rocks, stuff coming back from orbiting the sun or to the moon) and have an additional "get there" velocity.

      While a super-atmosphere sky diver might have to contend with speed related friction heat, it's not a large given like it is with other scenarios. With proper propulsion breaking it is possible to step out of a "stopped" capsule after coming in from a moon mission (for example) and drop to the earth in just a specialized suit.

      It's not PRACTICAL to do so if you are running a space mission, but it's possible. Kittinger's missions were for investigating other things than reentry from orbit of humans though.

    6. Re:Almost Craig Breedlove Speed! by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      Plus
      The air at his Drop Point is very cold, around -70f

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    7. Re:Almost Craig Breedlove Speed! by billstewart · · Score: 1

      You can't get out of the atmosphere by floating on a balloon. It still needs to be enough less dense than the air around it to give you any lift. And no, "heat from friction" doesn't work that way.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  28. In Space ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... no one can hear the enormous "Whoooooooooooooooooooooosh" that just flew over your head.

    1. Re:In Space ... by tragedy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry, but everything in that post was stuff that some people actually, seriously believe. Makes it hard to tell when it's a joke. It would be nice if every crazy person out there were just kidding around, but most of the time, they're just crazy.

  29. Hope he's not wearing a Red Shirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when he takes the plunge. Command Gold or Science Blue is safer.

    1. Re:Hope he's not wearing a Red Shirt by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the shirt - but he's definitely wearing brown pants.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  30. charging? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 0

    You could charge them lots of money, but the real question is, would it be a sustainable business possibility. If you need to charge them more that they'd be willing to pay just to cover your costs, you wouldn't be able to make money on it.

    -- Captain Obvious

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  31. Ultimate Darwin award by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go so high that when you jump you miss the earth.

    Terms and conditions apply:
    Darwin awards can only be awarded to those who can prove they have no living children.
    Maximum of one award per applicant.
    Recipient must collect award personally and show proof of identity.

  32. Opening parachute at 863km/h by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    Free fall for more than 3 minutes, and reaching a speed of over 800 kilometers per hour that way must be an awesome experience!

    I'm wondering one thing though: If you open a parachute while going down at that speed, how does that work? It must be a rather strong parachute. How fast do you decelerate?

    1. Re:Opening parachute at 863km/h by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

      As the atmosphere increased, it would work as a natural break and slow the descent. Eventually you'd be going slow enough (120mph or so) to fall within a parachute's normal operating parameters.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  33. Who ever needs to land a spacecraft now by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2

    Astronauts returning home from ISS could just jump, all that's needed is a parachute.

    1. Re:Who ever needs to land a spacecraft now by gblackwo · · Score: 2

      The ISS orbit height is 230 miles, we aren't quite there yet.

    2. Re:Who ever needs to land a spacecraft now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The ISS is travelling at orbital speed around the Earth. Someone jumping out would not plummet toward the Earth, but would enter a decaying orbit. They would also hit the atmosphere at speeds much higher than the jumper of this article, and would burn.

    3. Re:Who ever needs to land a spacecraft now by Fnord666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ISS orbit height is 230 miles, we aren't quite there yet.

      I wouldn't worry about that nearly as much as the 17,227 miles per hour of lateral velocity that you will need to shed along the way down.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  34. Parachute - hu by Chrisq · · Score: 1
  35. Roswell, NM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone noticed that they launched from Roswell, NM? I suppose a couple of people might have looked up and pointed "hey, that's no weather balloon"...

  36. ODSTs are coming by thePowersGang · · Score: 1

    Just give him a gun, and he's ready to fight some aliens.

  37. Decompression time? by mattr · · Score: 1

    10 minutes is fast. Did he have to wait extra time to decompress? Or was his suit at ground level pressure from before launch from the ground?

    1. Re:Decompression time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In diving decompression is necessary because Nitrogen gets dissolved in the blood because the air being breathed is under high pressure.
      Here, you start at low pressure (near 0 atm), and gain pressure (to about 1 atm); there's no concern for dissolved gasses in the blood.

  38. Amazing by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Humans will always find new an innovating ways to die. Looking forward to the pending "Destroyed in Seconds" episode on Discovery Channel.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  39. They're just quoting Dan Rather by alispguru · · Score: 1

    ... who said this while reporting on the first landing of space shuttle Columbia.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  40. Heh by cje · · Score: 1

    I'm the original author of this little piece of satire, and it amazes me that it still continues to pop up regularly after more than a decade.

    --
    We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
  41. A most interesting man ... by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

    He lives vicariously through himself.

    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
  42. Why do it ? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    it seems to me that this jump represented almost identical risks without the reward of breaking the record or the sound barrier. Why not just go the extra 13,000 feet and have the record for all your trouble and risk?

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:Why do it ? by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      Having made more than a few parachute jumps myself, the question of "why" is one I hear often. The best answer I've heard was the one given by one Charles Lindberg on the subject, reprinted below:

      "... when I decided that I too must pass through the
      experience of a parachute jump, life rose to a higher level, to a sort of
      exhilarated calmness. The thought of crawling out onto the struts and wires
      hundreds of feet above the earth, and then giving up even that tenuous hold
      of safety and of substance, left me a feeling of anticipation mixed with
      dread, of confidence restrained by caution, of courage salted through with
      fear. How tightly should one hold onto life? How loosely give it rein? What
      gain was there for such a risk? I would have to pay in money for hurling my
      body into space. There would be no crowd to watch and applaud my landing.
      Nor was there any scientific objective to be gained. No, there was deeper
      reason for wanting to jump, a desire I could not explain.

      It was that quality that led me into aviation in the first place -- it was a
      love of the air and sky and flying, the lure of adventure, the appreciation
      of beauty. It lay beyond the descriptive words of man -- where immortality
      is touched through danger, where life meets death on equal plane; where man
      is more than man, and existence both supreme and valueless at the same
      instant. "

      Getting back to your topic, why didn't they go higher, the answer is that they will. This is just one of the dry runs, if you will, for the next jump.

  43. What happened to the capsule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they dispose it safely?

  44. speed of sound by tokul · · Score: 1

    If they want to reach speed of sound, then they are not only darevils. They are idiots too. You don't have to go that high to calculate when his terminal velocity breaks speed of sound. Even 100k feet jump was 50mph (~10%) short of sound speed.

  45. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, where's the GoPro video?? :)

  46. holy moly by WingCmdr · · Score: 1

    "A daredevil leapt from a balloon more than 18 miles above the Earth today"

    That would make me shit my pants.

  47. Joe Kittinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe this has already been done, in 1960.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=MRxaxNG2XoY