Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Giant Survival Ball Will Help Explorer Survive a Year On an Iceberg

Posted by Soulskill on from the rolling-the-seven-seas dept.

HughPickens.com writes: Ben Yeager reports in Outside Magazine that Italian explorer Alex Bellini plans to travel to Greenland's west coast, pick an iceberg, and live on it for a year as it melts out in the Atlantic. It's a precarious idea. Bellini will be completely isolated, and his adopted dwelling is liable to roll or fall apart at any moment, thrusting him into the icy sea or crushing him under hundreds of tons of ice. His solution: an indestructible survival capsule built by an aeronautics company that specializes in tsunami-proof escape pods. "I knew since the beginning I needed to minimize the risk. An iceberg can flip over, and those events can be catastrophic." Bellini plans to use a lightweight, indestructible floating capsules, or "personal safety systems" made from aircraft-grade aluminum in what's called a continuous monocoque structure, an interlocking frame of aluminum spars that evenly distribute force, underneath a brightly painted and highly visible aluminum shell. The inner frame can be stationary or mounted on roller balls so it rotates, allowing the passengers to remain upright at all times.

Aeronautical engineer Julian Sharpe, founder of Survival Capsule, got the idea for his capsules after the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. He believes fewer people would have died had some sort of escape pod existed. Sharpe hopes the products will be universal—in schools, retirement homes, and private residences, anywhere there is severe weather. The product appeals to Bellini because it's strong enough to survive a storm at sea or getting crushed between two icebergs. Bellini will spend almost all of his time in the capsule with the hatch closed, which will pose major challenges because he'll have to stay active without venturing out onto a slippery, unstable iceberg. If it flips, he'll have no time to react. "Any step away from [the iceberg] will be in unknown territory," says Bellini. "You want to stretch your body. But then you risk your life."

128 comments

  1. Next up... by pigiron · · Score: 4, Funny

    going over Niagra Falls in a barrel.

    1. Re:Next up... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Niagara Falls is in Ontario. You're not making it to Quebec unless you swim across Lake Ontario, into the St. Lawrence River, and downriver for 50 miles or so. If you can do that learning French should be easy.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Next up... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      i thought niagara falls was in buffalo?

    3. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude is in a barrel floating downstream.

      Heaven help him if he ends up on Newfoundland.

    4. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only when it gets diarrhea.

    5. Re:Next up... by nightcats · · Score: 1

      wait, is this the same thing as the Yes Men Survivaball?

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    6. Re:Next up... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The niagra falls every knows is in Canada, the buffalo side or american side isn't as impressive.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:Next up... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a matter of perspective. I've been there numerous times and have found that the Canadian side has the best views but the American side is less of a tourist trap. The Canadians have done a piss poor job of keeping development in check, in fact, there's a school of thought saying that the Horseshoe Falls are perpetually mist covered (historically they weren't) because of changes in the local wind currents brought about by development on the Canadian side.

      Besides, the coolest thing there is the Cave of the Winds, and that's in good ole USA. No trip would be complete without seeing both sides, but there are plenty of people (myself included, obviously) that think the American side is at least the equal of the Canadian side.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right wingers spend so much time cooking up fantasy to showcase their victimization, it's sort of pathetic.

    9. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. When people go on their honeymoon to Niagara Falls, they ain't going to fucking Canada.

    10. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you they are going to Canada for their honeymoon. The Canadian side is a gaudy tourist trap, but the American side is just urban blight and seedy motels.

      Most border towns are like that. The Canadian side will have the less shitty town, although the motels will cost twice as much.

    11. Re:Next up... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      If they aren't going to Canada, they are half-assing their honeymoon.

    12. Re: Next up... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      How can it be? Everyone knows there aren't any in Canada because it's too cold for them.

    13. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to say the same thing.

  2. Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >The product appeals to Bellini because it’s strong enough to survive a storm at sea or getting crushed between two icebergs.

    Survive getting crushed between two icebergs? Does anyone else believe this?

    1. Re:Skeptical by Adriax · · Score: 2

      They did extensive testing with scale models and some ice cubes from the pub down the road.
      Per their tests it can even survive an iceberg falling in it from hundreds of feet up.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    2. Re:Skeptical by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      Any pub worth it's hand pull taps wouldn't let an ice cube in the door. You're implying that they would serve soft drinks or cold beer. The horror!

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:Skeptical by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Gin & tonic, for the layyyyyydies.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. "Indestructible" by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    So he built a nice, indestructible, iceberg-proof capsule. I assume he has an unsinkable ship to go with it?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:"Indestructible" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      No, but he has his Oracle database.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:"Indestructible" by udippel · · Score: 1

      + 0.5 - Quite Funny

  4. James Bond by bkmoore · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think James Bond beat him to it....will that ball come with a foxy KGB agent inside?

    1. Re:James Bond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why did you think a giant balloon would stop them?"

    2. Re:James Bond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The balls always come with the foxy KGB agent inside.

    3. Re:James Bond by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think James Bond beat him to it....will that ball come with a foxy KGB agent inside?

      No. Sadly, the Survival Ball will only come with a Companion Cube.

    4. Re:James Bond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The KGB agent is a survival cube?

  5. Halliburtons survivaball? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3a3XBnMe5Q

  6. Bad use case by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aeronautical engineer Julian Sharpe, founder of Survival Capsule, got the idea for his capsules after the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. He believes fewer people would have died had some sort of escape pod existed

    What the Indonesians needed was a warning, not an escape pod. With no warning, the pods are useless. With warning, just get out of the path.

    1. Re:Bad use case by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What the Indonesians needed was a warning, not an escape pod. With no warning, the pods are useless. With warning, just get out of the path.

      The key here is how much warning. Having been to indonesia, I can tell you that if you're on a beach you'll see signs everywhere pointing out the most efficient tsunami escape path. The problem is, even if you see it coming, and you start running, you might not be able to cover the kilometer or so to safety in the time you have warning. (Contrary to popular opinion tsunamis are not a giant wave, but more like a tide rolling in)

      This provides a solution that allows you to survive with less reaction time. Which may be a good thing.

    2. Re:Bad use case by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      This provides a solution that allows you to survive with less reaction time. Which may be a good thing.

      Only if it is more accessible by many people than the escape paths. Imagine 5 people panicking and fight to get into one of these things. It really makes no sense. Is it even remotely realistic that a country would line its beaches with thousands of these things? Then everyone that does manage to get into one of these gets swept out to sea. Seems like a very poor solution path to me.

    3. Re:Bad use case by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I think it's a given that better warning systems are needed. We're actually extending our system in the Pacific after the latest tsunamis, and hopefully they emulate our Hawaii-based Pacific early warning center in the Indian ocean as well.

      I actually saw a story a few years ago about the company that are designing these survival capsules, which, IMO, is a lot more interesting than someone pulling a stunt like this. We actually have a very tsunami-vulnerable coastline in many US states ourselves, of course, and it's difficult to know exactly how to protect people who don't have immediate access to higher ground. If the tsunami is generated by a subduction zone earthquake close to the coast, you may only have fifteen or twenty minutes warning before it hits. "Just get out of the path" is not always possible when the nearest high ground is miles away.

      Unfortunately, the cost of these devices is so high ($12K to $20K each for the prototypes), and when compared to the likelihood of needing them versus the population density of the typical tsunami-prone coastline, it's unlikely that large populations would ever be completely protected by these things. It would be great if these could be mass produced cheaply, bringing the price down where they could be affordable. Unfortunately, for the Indian Ocean regions, you're talking about a population that, on average, doesn't exactly have a lot of discretionary income. Still, very few people have come forward with better solutions, aside from better early warning systems and public education (i.e. when the surf disappears, RUN!).

      Japan is now talking about a seawall that will reportedly cost 7 billion dollars. For that price, they could afford to protect about 1.4 million people with these safety capsules, assuming the cost is around $5000 per person. Of course, the downside is that these capsules would do nothing to protect against massive property damage.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:Bad use case by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I agree warnings have limitations, but they didn't have anything in Indonesia at the time and they have since been deployed. They may be a 'given' but that doesn't matter in a discussion of what is likely to be most beneficial in an event.

      Walls pretty much ruin a beach, so if you have a beach, tourist area a wall is not really desirable. I get the concept of personal or small group type protective devices, but they must be low cost and deployed in an easily accessible manner, and this particular solution doesn't fit that. Then, when you do deploy a solution, you must make sure everyone on the beach knows what to do and how to use them in an organized manner. Not an easy thing to pull off, and made more complicated if you want to a parent with children, etc.

      To protect a sea side village, sea walls make more sense. Probably a lower cost than moving a large community.

    5. Re:Bad use case by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2

      Maybe not the government, but if you are in a high end resort, and staying on a beach bungalow (or living on the coast), it might be comforting to have one out back.

    6. Re:Bad use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not a solution. How many of these things would you have to build to save the majority of potential victims? Hundreds or thousands, likely. Where will you keep them? It's daft. Longer warning times are what is needed.

    7. Re:Bad use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so. The warning is not "omg look at that wave comming". Its an alarm system that gives you many minutes or hours advance warnings.

    8. Re:Bad use case by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I think one solution I've seen that makes sense is being built on the coast of Oregon. A small city government building is being built on large reinforced concrete stilts, with parking underneath the building. There are external ramps up to the government offices on top. In the event of a tsunami, this structure is meant to hold a large portion of the town's residence as a temporary shelter.

      This seems like a reasonable way to protect large numbers of people in vulnerable areas. You don't have to build them everywhere, just in enough key locations, and they can be useable as office space during normal situations. It's not going to save the town's buildings, but material goods can be rebuilt or repurchased.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    9. Re:Bad use case by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      That idea just reminds me of people building nuclear bomb shelters in their backyard. Kind of cool if you want a clubhouse, but not completely thought out for their actual use, really.

    10. Re:Bad use case by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The downside is that you'd have to have 1.4 million people who are perfectly positioned to take advantage of these devices with sufficient reaction time to be able to get to them, and sufficient warning time to know to try and find one. And once they did, you'd probably have two people trying to fight their way into one, while another at a less useful location was completely unused.

      In the same vein, nuclear bomb shelters were an iffy idea even if you ended up being able to get to them and use them, but they never really addressed the issue of what happened if you got nuked while you were at work or school, or if you were on vacation. They only really made sense when tensions raised publicly and for a protracted period of time. Most ICBM attacks would have been done pre-emptively with very little time for even the military to react. You *might* be able to get to your shelter if you were at home, awake, and happened to have your TV or radio on or your neighbors clued you in.

      A 7 billion dollar seawall could not only save a lot of property, it could potentially save more than 1.4 million people because it heads off the problem at the most likely point of attack instead of relying on positioning of people in relation to an escape pod.

      This sort of thing could be useful, but only in high risk scenarios like the iceberg one where you know you have a high risk of needing it, and you also don't need to leave the near vicinity of the object (or even leave the object at all).

    11. Re:Bad use case by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      Except of course if there ever really was nuclear war, they'd be much safer.

      You could use the same line of argument for a lot of things: seat belts, guard rails, non-slip shoes

      Silly people spending money to prevent something that most likely won't happen.

      However as a society we accept sometimes that preventing a marginal risk is the best scenario

    12. Re:Bad use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >(Contrary to popular opinion tsunamis are not a giant wave, but more like a tide rolling in)

      Hence the old name, "Tidal Wave".

      I've never been a fan of the Tsunami "harbor wave" name. Can we go back to the old, perfectly good name please?

    13. Re:Bad use case by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Sure, the signs are there now...

      The only place where a warning was given in all of the eastern Indian ocean was on Maikhao Beach in Thailand, and that's only because one of the tourists there had been paying attention in school two weeks before. The whole of the Indian Ocean tsunami warning system only came into being as a result of the 2004 tsunami.

    14. Re:Bad use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know that much about Indonesia itself, but most of the Tsunami victims would be alive if the Mangrove had not been deforested for shrimp farms...

    15. Re:Bad use case by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      They had warning. It has been known for thousands of years that the water receding rapidly, leaving dry beach. indicates a tidal wave approaching.

      My parents told me that when I was very young and we were at the beach. I still remember it.

      But the "educated" people in the Tsunami areas apparently did not know, or didn't believe. However, the tribal people who had legends about the waters did believe and retreated from the beaches. The death rate among them was much less.

    16. Re:Bad use case by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I take that point, but my thought on reading the concept was "Great, so now you have hundreds or thousands of people bobbing around in the sea in indestructible survival capsules. Where they die slowly of thirst and starvation, as most of the local boats have been wrecked by the tsunami, or parked a kilometre inshore, or are being used by their owners to search for missing friends/ relatives, or to bring in supplies from nearby devastated areas.

      Then I look out of the window at the (nearly) indestructible TEMPSC ("lifeboat" to you landlubbers) and remember the 3 or 4 that were found floating around the wreckage of the Piper Alpha. (One was seen to impact the water a mile from the platform, having flown the intervening distance. It held two burned lifejackets and no bodies. Figure that one out.) They were found several times each, as different S&R assets came into the hot zone and moved back out. They got in the way of the search for survivors, and being composed of highly visible, highly buoyant materials, continued to be a problem until S&R assets were deployed to tow them away and tie them up out of the way.

      I'm sure the guy can engineer a fine piece of aerospace. But that doesn't make him the right man to engineer a marine safety system. (Note : a system ; it's more than just a device.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. "Because I had an idea to risk my life" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this an advertisement for personal safety pods or mountain dew?

    1. Re:"Because I had an idea to risk my life" by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      I think it's a rich person who has nothing better to do with his money.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:"Because I had an idea to risk my life" by udippel · · Score: 1

      I think it's a rich person who has nothing better to do with his money.

      ... money, plus an obvious desire for self-destruction. Mentally and/or physically.
      Serious, if it was about the resilience of the device, sensors of all sorts would do for a first go.

  8. This by BobSwi · · Score: 2

    Will not end well

    1. Re:This by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      I hope you're right: potential Darwin award winner.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:This by udippel · · Score: 1

      At least he has balls ...

  9. High Visibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Personally I hope he paints one half red and the other white, with a black ring dividing the two sections and also forming a circle around the hatch.

    Alex Bellini, I choose you!!!

  10. Attention whoring? by ah.clem · · Score: 2

    I have never understood this type of person. If you're going to do something, just do it, don't contact the press about it for the dramatic "look at me" moment. Perhaps Bellini didn't get enough parental attention as a child. Just my opinion.

    --
    "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
    1. Re:Attention whoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He makes a living by consulting, motivational speaking, and selling books; this sort of thing is advertising for his brand. Just doing it without bothering to tell anyone would rather defeat the purpose.

    2. Re:Attention whoring? by marcello_dl · · Score: 3, Funny

      > He makes a living by consulting, motivational speaking...

      Cool, then it's a big step forward for humanity if he succeeds. A smaller one if he doesn't.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:Attention whoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a motivational speaker? The biggest step for humanity would be having him crushed between icebergs. We don't really need motivational speakers, preachers, or other folks who exist only to separate fools from their money.

    4. Re:Attention whoring? by matfud · · Score: 1

      It has also been done before and for much longer.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    5. Re:Attention whoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They exist to motivate people. Isn't that worthwhile?

    6. Re:Attention whoring? by udippel · · Score: 1

      Cool, then it's a big step forward for humanity if he succeeds.

      It's politically incorrect, though I wonder if it wasn't the other way round!?

    7. Re:Attention whoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they exist to sucker people out of money without providing anything of value in return.

      You want some motivation? "Yay! Woohoo! You can do it! Believe in yourself! You're the BEST around!"

  11. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "spend almost all of his time in the capsule with the hatch closed"

    Not sure I understand the point of all of this. Seems like he could do the same thing from the safety of his mom's basement...

    1. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "spend almost all of his time in the capsule with the hatch closed"

      Not sure I understand the point of all of this. Seems like he could do the same thing from the safety of his mom's basement...

      With the added bonus of his mom's basement being unlikely to shift upside down, raining him with the contents of the toilet.

    2. Re:Why bother? by RoverDaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It really does seem like an odd 'adventure'. The guy is basically sentencing himself to a year in solitary confinement, with the added bonus of possible catastrophe at any moment. No indication from the article that he's doing it to raise awareness of global warming, or to raise money for some cause, or even to gain some scientific knowledge. I can't even imagine a particularly good book deal coming out of this.

      I think he could accomplish as much by spending a year in a Schrodinger box.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    3. Re:Why bother? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      This. He could just grab a kilo of meth and get arrested. He'd have his year(s) of solitary confinement, the potential for a catastrophe or two, better medical care and a good buzz.

      What's not to like?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Why bother? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yeah. There's no net gain in knowledge - no real science going on, to speak of. Really he could accomplish the same thing setting up this capsule in someone's back yard.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Why bother? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      He both could and couldn't accomplish as much by spending a year in a Schrodinger box. It isn't determined until you measure it.

    6. Re:Why bother? by hotdoghead · · Score: 1

      Agreed. His website says he wants to inspire sustainable living, but I really don't see how living in an expensive plastic-and-aluminum ball with packaged food and water does that.

    7. Re:Why bother? by udippel · · Score: 1

      With the added bonus of his mom's basement being unlikely to shift upside down, raining him with the contents of the toilet.

      'shift', are you sure?

    8. Re:Why bother? by udippel · · Score: 1

      His website says he wants to inspire sustainable living

      I hope sustainable living is not going to fail him!

  12. That will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spartan.

  13. Weird business model by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sharpe hopes the products will be universal—in schools, retirement homes, and private residences, anywhere there is severe weather.

    According to the website they sell capsules for 2-10 people. Can you imagine how big a 10 person capsule would be? For a small school of 300 kids you'd still need 30 of them! Even if you had the money where does he expect people to store them?! It doesn't even make sense for paranoid families.

    If you're that worried about the weather then you won't stick around for a bad hurricane (or you'd have a safe room built in).

    An earthquake won't give you time to reach the survival ball.

    Yes it might be useful for the tsunami they focus on, but those are incredibly rare and inconsistent, and if people were that worried they'd already be buying cheap air tanks and respirators.

    On the other hand a good usage might be what they're doing now, using it as a lifeboat (assuming the crew is small enough). If a really severe storm comes up and the ship is going down then an impregnable capsule where you can wait for rescue sounds appealing.

    Am I missing something or is that the only real market for their product? Their obsession with tsunamis just strikes me as bizarre.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Weird business model by belthize · · Score: 1

      You only need 1 for the school. Think of it as a big game of evolutionary musical chairs.

    2. Re:Weird business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site shows a drawing of a ten-person pod...it's not big at all...perhaps 7-8 ft diameter...

    3. Re:Weird business model by luther349 · · Score: 1

      and a little thing called cost its not like we cant build tornado proof houses etc we can but where just to dam short sighted and cheap to do so.

  14. Keeping warm? by Nkwe · · Score: 1

    So he is going to live in a 3 meter hamster ball on an iceburg for a year? I wonder what his plan to keep warm is. Putting aside the option of getting a sponsorship from Kia and waring a warm fuzzy hamster suit, I suspect there would be some serious technical challenges.

    The article says that he plans on a wind generator and solar panels. This would provide energy for light, but probably not for heat. Wind and solar generation would need to take place outside his sphere (as he is "planning" on having the icebug flip over at any time.) His reliable storage (area that won't be lost if the iceburg flips) is limited to the inside of his 3 meter sphere minus his other equipment and living space. This is not much space for fuel storage (in the form batteries, combustible stuff, or calories). I would be interested in seeing what his "energy budget" is in terms of planed energy generation, storage, and use.

    1. Re:Keeping warm? by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      Bah. Missed a line. Since external power generation would need to take place outside his sphere, and he his planning on the icebrug flipping, he would need to plan on losing any equipment outside the sphere, therefore he needs to have enough stored energy inside the sphere to last at least until rescue.

    2. Re:Keeping warm? by will_die · · Score: 1

      He has a team that will be with him providing supplies as needed. So would guess he will have generators, toilet, cooking heat source,elsewhere when not using those will stay in his ball.

    3. Re:Keeping warm? by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      He has a team that will be with him providing supplies as needed. So would guess he will have generators, toilet, cooking heat source,elsewhere when not using those will stay in his ball.

      I didn't get that from the articles. I read the following:

      This is a precarious idea. Bellini will be completely isolated, and his adopted dwelling is liable to roll or fall apart at any moment, thrusting him into the icy sea or crushing him under hundreds of tons of ice.

      The article may, of course, be incorrect, but from what I have read it appears he will be alone. If he is not alone, and he has a support team, How would the support team keep safe in the event that the iceberg they are all on collapses or tips over? I ask because the article talks about how he has to spend practically all of his time in the ball because the iceberg could tip over at any moment.

      Bellini will spend almost all of his time in the capsule with the hatch closed, which will pose major challenges. He’ll have to stay active without venturing out onto a slippery, unstable iceberg. If it flips, he’ll have no time to react.

      I would buy that Bellini or he and his team plan to live on an iceberg as it melts and collapses and their plan to survive during the actual collapse is to take refuge in survival balls, but I have a hard time believing what the article implies to me -- that he would live for a year within and be sustained solely by a survival ball.

  15. Why start small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should try living in the heart of a volcano instead.

  16. Hamster ball and a GoPro instead? by Steve1952 · · Score: 1

    If he's going to be spending the entire year inside the ball, why not simplify? I see a hamster ball, lined with solar cells, battery, extra memory, and one or more video cameras. Add a satellite location beacon to pick up the ball afterwards.

  17. Marketing genius! by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hi, all you citizens making an annual salary of $100 American eeking out a living on the coast of the Indian Ocean. Sign here to authorize delivery of your $50,000 pod you can use to escape that 1 in a 100 year event!

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Marketing genius! by darronb · · Score: 1

      I honestly cannot understand the positive comments I read on this idea.

      At $5000/person or so, the number of people in harms way, and the relative likelihood of needing it... it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

      It doesn't make sense even in rich countries.

      You'd think someone intelligent enough to design and build these would realize that (although sometimes not)... they are probably just spending sucker investor money.

    2. Re:Marketing genius! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You are right about the price but not about the 1 in a 100 year chance.

      Between 2003 and 2011 we already had seven!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Marketing genius! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sign here to authorize delivery of your $50,000 pod

      OK, OK. 50K is cool. Can you deliver quick? Like really, really quick?

    4. Re:Marketing genius! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A disaster is a "one in a century chance" if it averages one occurrence per hundred years at a given location. Quoting the nationwide or worldwide incidence rates is not relevant or helpful in this context. Similarly, a "hundred year flood" averages once a century here, not once a century anywhere in the world. And so on. Local disaster rates are the only consideration when deciding the cost effectiveness of prevention/mitigation techniques.

    5. Re:Marketing genius! by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      someone watched movie 2012, and thought... aha.... what if... a floating ball! And before you know it, we got a product out there.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    6. Re:Marketing genius! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the true genius of this ball. It knows where the net disaster will occur and goes there autonomously if you are going to be there.

    7. Re:Marketing genius! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      eeking out a living

      They farm mice?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Been there, done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes Men presentation to Haliburton

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzSMjSxM5Vo

  19. Supplies? by swb · · Score: 1

    If it's so dangerous to go out, how will he manage supplies? Even the 8' sphere won't hold a year of food and water.

  20. Well, at least we know it works by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    After all, there haven't been any complaints!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  21. Bullshit... by jcr · · Score: 1

    it’s strong enough to survive a storm at sea or getting crushed between two icebergs.

      An aluminum ball is strong enough to resist forces that have been known to crush steel hulls?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it’s strong enough to survive a storm at sea or getting crushed between two icebergs.

        An aluminum ball is strong enough to resist forces that have been known to crush steel hulls?

      -jcr

      Sphere...

    2. Re:Bullshit... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Think: Eggshell. 8-)

  22. Bad analogy by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    If you imagine shooting an arrow at a wooden ball, unless you hit dead center, it’ll ricochet.

    Being crushed between two icebergs is not a point force. A closer analogy would be a ping pong ball between two large blocks of wood. The ball gets crushed.

    1. Re:Bad analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you imagine shooting an arrow at a wooden ball, unless you hit dead center, it’ll ricochet.

      Being crushed between two icebergs is not a point force. A closer analogy would be a ping pong ball between two large blocks of wood. The ball gets crushed.

      It is very easy to crush a thin plastic ping pong ball between two wood blocks.... if you have a 3rd solid surface (i.e. the floor) with which to "grab" the ball int he first place. Try to bob it in water and it gets a LOT harder.

      Doesn't mean this isn't a stupid idea and a publicity stunt, but the sphere/physics isn't the issue here. I'd prefer a survival ball that lasts a week and has a damn radio.

  23. I don't say it very often, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... this seems like a waste of time and effort.

    I don't say that very often because some people like adventure, even though I don't.

    But I'm trying to imagine his day. He's in this giant hamster ball on an iceberg, all alone, he wakes up, asks himself "Am I dead yet?", looks out the portal, "Nope, not today", has a meal, does some exercise, maybe opens the door and sniffs some fresh air and then goes back to sleep. Day after day. For a year.

    Sounds like a year in solitary confinement in a Supermax prison. What fun.

    I don't see the point.

  24. Too much trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't he just spend a year in a closet at home?

  25. Location, location, location. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bellini will spend almost all of his time in the capsule with the hatch closed, ...

    So, the iceberg part is actually irrelevant. The ball could be anywhere.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Location, location, location. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but "living in a large aluminum ball in his parents' basement" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Location, location, location. by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      That would be a step up for the Slashdot contingent that is currently living in their parents basement without a giant aluminum ball.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:Location, location, location. by udippel · · Score: 1

      +1, Funny

  26. Doing it wrong. by formfeed · · Score: 1

    You have the pod attached to your ship. Then, when Darth Vader boards your ship you use it to send your roomba to safety.

  27. Won't work! by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

    It's right there in the article "They can hold from two to ten people, depending on the model ...." The minimum number of inhabitants is two.

    1. Re:Won't work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and probably three by the end of the year.

  28. This is a publicity stunt. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    So, the iceberg part is actually irrelevant. The ball could be anywhere.

    The iceberg part is relevant. With this thing packed inside an iceberg, where does he plan to store a years worth of rations? How does he realistically expect to dispose of a years worth of shit? He's going to be pretty rank after a year inside a small ball.

    And, if it just sits on top of the berg, who cares? If it's inside the berg, again, who cares? there is no actual science that can not be done in a much more reasonable way.

    is Red Bull sponsoring this? Seriously, why does crap like this make it to the front page of Dicedot? Oh, that's right...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:This is a publicity stunt. by anyGould · · Score: 1

      And, if it just sits on top of the berg, who cares? If it's inside the berg, again, who cares?

      My read was that he planned to sit on an iceberg while it melted (presumably to draw attention to global warming)? It's a stunt, but sometimes those are fun too.

      Personally, I'd take one of those 10-man ones for houseboating. Just pop that sucker in the middle of the lake, and float around for a couple weeks...

  29. Just marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's obviously just a marketing stunt for the idiotic lifepod. The icebears would peel the aluminium pod to get to munch him. The forces delivered by a catapultic swing into the water might allow the pod to survive, but the g-forces inside the pod will probably be too high. It might get stuck under water under the iceberg (everybody who has been diving underneath icebergs can confirm that one). And there is sooo much more wrong with this,... stupid marketing consultant...

  30. Already done: The Yes Men's Survivaball by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Survivaball
    http://theyesmen.org/hijinks/s...

    Did somebody not get the joke?

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
  31. Christen it the Unsinkable Titanic II by trout007 · · Score: 2

    So it can survive being crushed between icebergs? I guess it depends on how big they are.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Christen it the Unsinkable Titanic II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here for this, did not disappoint.

  32. Well that is how the old-school explorers did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huge balls.

  33. Ranulph Fiennes by MobileC · · Score: 1

    Spent several months on an iceberg with only a tent and the occasional polar bear.

    --

    Fran
    :):):)
    1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

  34. It doesn't depend on how big they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it depends on how HARD the icebergs are. Imagine trying to crush a marble with two pieces of cheese.

    If it doesn't work with small pieces of cheese, much bigger blocks of the same variety won't help you that much.

    1. Re:It doesn't depend on how big they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some guy called E.J. Smith called.

    2. Re:It doesn't depend on how big they are by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I could kill you by smashing 2 100 ton pillows together with you in the middle.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  35. Dave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.'

    1. Re:Dave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like: 'Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL?'!

  36. "made from aircraft-grade aluminum" by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 1

    Has anyone told him what sea water does to aluminium? Or mentioned that's why almost nobody operates flying boats commercially any longer? The constant corrosion? The constant leaks? The constant repairs?

    Reminds me of those clowns who set out to cross the oceans in a small boat without no radio or nav equipment, and only a school atlas. Other people have to risk their lives to rescue them.

    Let's hope the USCG makes him post a bond big enough to cover the cost of the rescue before he departs. That should slow him down a bit.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  37. I'll say one thing... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    he's got ball.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  38. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly what insightful scientific observation will he be able to do in the bubble that remote instruments couldn't provide?

  39. Please Pre Pay for your Rescue by R2D5 · · Score: 1

    Please contact the Canadian Search and Rescue Centre before starting your trip. Link to JRCC Halifax, Nova Scotia below. You will need their number on your speed dialer. Also, please pre-pay a deposit of $100,000 CDN for your rescue. Have a great trip. http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/ope...

  40. Monocoque by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Bellini plans to use a lightweight, indestructible floating capsules, or "personal safety systems" made from aircraft-grade aluminum in what's called a continuous monocoque structure

    So a giant ball... made out of a monocoque? Unless I'm mistaken, the emphasis should be on the monoball, since monocoques are the most common variant, while monoballs are somewhat of an exception.

    And sometimes you have bivalves or whatnot, and a monocoque just isn't sufficient. Sometimes what's required is a bicoque. I think the engineers might be relying on false information if they believe the motion of the ocean is going to compensate.

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere