: Extreme skydiving record this morning. Streamed live.


steviewhy
Oct 9th, 2012, 03:35 AM
sudo rm -rf /

Dr.G.
Oct 9th, 2012, 05:28 AM
When I heard the distance he was going to freefall, I thought that I had heard incorrectly. Amazing speeds in that fall. I wish him well.

Macfury
Oct 9th, 2012, 07:43 AM
Interesting. When I watched the demo video a little message came up saying "Language professors hate him." This seems rather small of language professors.

Dr.G.
Oct 9th, 2012, 07:51 AM
Interesting. When I watched the demo video a little message came up saying "Language professors hate him." This seems rather small of language professors.

:confused::confused::confused:

Macfury
Oct 9th, 2012, 07:59 AM
:confused::confused::confused:

Here:

groovetube
Oct 9th, 2012, 08:07 AM
tell him it's just an ad G, not to worry :lmao:

This is cool, I'm going to watch this.

Macfury
Oct 9th, 2012, 08:16 AM
i wonder if professors hate him in general, and only the language professors felt eloquent enough to express their hatred.

macintosh doctor
Oct 9th, 2012, 09:09 AM
wonder if he will burn up in re entry? What will happen to his space junk he leaves behind? soo much to think about? , Maybe I will just go have a Monster Energy Drink.. ;)

bryanc
Oct 9th, 2012, 09:44 AM
wonder if he will burn up in re entry?

That won't be a problem; he's jumping from a balloon, not an orbital vehicle, so his velocity relative to the atmosphere is very small... less than 1000kph at his top speed (part of the goal here is to break the sound barrier during the fall). An object coming into the atmosphere from orbit is about 18,000 kph (Mach 25), and the friction from the atmosphere increases exponentially with speed, which is why things without heat shielding will burn up on re-entry. None of that applies to a guy starting at a relative velocity of zero (with respect to the air), and accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 to a speed at which drag matches the force of gravity (likely about Mach 1.2, depending on the how far up in the atmosphere this occurs).
What will happen to his space junk he leaves behind?
When the balloon deflates, it'll settle back down to earth just like all those home-made weather balloon contraptions with iPhones in them that people were sending up a few years ago.

What isn't completely straight forward is wether he can keep himself from tumbling in that cumbersome space suit, and wether he can deploy his parachute without getting tangled. But they've practised this and worked out the techniques over the past few years, so I doubt there'll be any problem.

macintosh doctor
Oct 9th, 2012, 09:47 AM
That won't be a problem; he's jumping from a balloon, not an orbital vehicle, so his velocity relative to the atmosphere is very small... less than 1000kph at his top speed (part of the goal here is to break the sound barrier during the fall). An object coming into the atmosphere from orbit is about 18,000 kph (Mach 25), and the friction from the atmosphere increases exponentially with speed, which is why things without heat shielding will burn up on re-entry. None of that applies to a guy starting at a relative velocity of zero (with respect to the air), and accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 to a speed at which drag matches the force of gravity (likely about Mach 1.2, depending on the how far up in the atmosphere this occurs).

When the balloon deflates, it'll settle back down to earth just like all those home-made weather balloon contraptions with iPhones in them that people were sending up a few years ago.

What isn't completely straight forward is wether he can keep himself from tumbling in that cumbersome space suit, and wether he can deploy his parachute without getting tangled. But they've practised this and worked out the techniques over the past few years, so I doubt there'll be any problem.

thank you.. I appreciate the answers.. makes sense what you have said..
Now the excitement begins..
:)

steviewhy
Oct 9th, 2012, 10:07 AM
sudo rm -rf /

macintosh doctor
Oct 9th, 2012, 10:27 AM
here is a dumb question, I wonder if he will be able to the Space station when he is up there?

answered my own question.. space station is 370 KMs
space jump is 23.. so probably not..

okcomputer
Oct 9th, 2012, 10:58 AM
Update coming in about 30mins. Launch could be at 11:30MDT.

Macfury
Oct 9th, 2012, 11:02 AM
here is a dumb question, I wonder if he will be able to the Space station when he is up there?

answered my own question.. space station is 370 KMs
space jump is 23.. so probably not..

Just depends on where he is in relation to its orbit. He has a better chance of seeing the sun glint off it than we do.

macintosh doctor
Oct 9th, 2012, 11:30 AM
Just depends on where he is in relation to its orbit. He has a better chance of seeing the sun glint off it than we do.

Jump hasnt even occurred and I have learned more than I expected.. :)
so even if he sizzles up; it was worth it as he has brought awareness to the greatness of space for me. :)

steviewhy
Oct 9th, 2012, 11:58 AM
sudo rm -rf /

MazterCBlazter
Oct 9th, 2012, 12:59 PM
.

bryanc
Oct 9th, 2012, 01:43 PM
Looks like it's off for today due to the winds. Bummer.

steviewhy
Oct 14th, 2012, 11:29 AM
sudo rm -rf /

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 11:31 AM
Really great in depth article on the jump and all it's prep here:

All systems go: Fearless Felix gets all-clear for supersonic skydive from space TODAY (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217412/Felix-Baumgartner-23-mile-supersonic-skydive-ahead-delays.html)

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 11:32 AM
Looks like launch is minutes away. :clap:

Do you know to go to pick the online feed of the jump?

Answered my own question... it is here:

MrIxH6DToXQ#!

steviewhy
Oct 14th, 2012, 11:38 AM
sudo rm -rf /

macintosh doctor
Oct 14th, 2012, 11:53 AM
So exciting !!!! Watching it with the whole family

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 12:33 PM
Looks like there is a problem with the heating of Felix's visor.... hope they can fix it.

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 02:18 PM
:clap::clap: Freaking amazing!!!!! :clap::clap:

That was the most exciting thing I have seen in a long time...

Congrats to Felix and Joe and the whole team!

eMacMan
Oct 14th, 2012, 02:26 PM
Incredible.

steviewhy
Oct 14th, 2012, 02:32 PM
sudo rm -rf /

bryanc
Oct 14th, 2012, 03:01 PM
That was fun. I think Felix may have pulled the chute early on purpose so that Joe could retain one record. :-)

I suspect his visor was so fogged up he couldn't read his altimeter, so he deployed early to be cautious.

I also found it amusing that Joe kept giving him incorrect information (wrong directions for the wind, incorrect altitudes, etc.)

It was a bit nerve wracking when he was getting out of the capsule and wasn't responding to communications... might've been some lag or radio difficulties.

I'm certainly going to look for the videos from his suit cameras; it looked like he did a lot of tumbling until he got into the lower atmosphere.

Kind of a crazy and pointless stunt; but still quite fascinating and fun to watch.

Macfury
Oct 14th, 2012, 03:04 PM
Kind of a crazy and pointless stunt; but still quite fascinating and fun to watch.

Thankfully people continue to perform thrilling and pointless stunts--because they are fascinating and fun to watch.

Rps
Oct 14th, 2012, 03:07 PM
Kind of a crazy and pointless stunt; but still quite fascinating and fun to watch.

I agree, I suspect there is something to be learned in all this, other than it can be done and, like the barnstorming entertainment of the 20s, watching wing-walkers or train-crashing, that someone will always be willing to watch.

Dr.G.
Oct 14th, 2012, 03:08 PM
Incredible.

I agree. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 03:29 PM
I suspect his visor was so fogged up he couldn't read his altimeter, so he deployed early to be cautious.

I also found it amusing that Joe kept giving him incorrect information (wrong directions for the wind, incorrect altitudes, etc.)

It was a bit nerve wracking when he was getting out of the capsule and wasn't responding to communications... might've been some lag or radio difficulties.

I'm certainly going to look for the videos from his suit cameras; it looked like he did a lot of tumbling until he got into the lower atmosphere.

Kind of a crazy and pointless stunt; but still quite fascinating and fun to watch.

I agree, I suspect there is something to be learned in all this, other than it can be done and, like the barnstorming entertainment of the 20s, watching wing-walkers or train-crashing, that someone will always be willing to watch.

What a kill joy.

It wasn't pointless. As they said this will help them to learn what may be possible for escape pods from space craft like the international space station for example...

In finding the limits of human endeavour there is always something to be learned. It was a massive undertaking that was 5 years in the making and I am sure they learned a lot just from the designing and engineering of the pod to the processes required to make this happen and have Felix come home safe and sound.

BigDL
Oct 14th, 2012, 03:50 PM
I suspect his visor was so fogged up he couldn't read his altimeter, so he deployed early to be cautious.

I also found it amusing that Joe kept giving him incorrect information (wrong directions for the wind, incorrect altitudes, etc.)

It was a bit nerve wracking when he was getting out of the capsule and wasn't responding to communications... might've been some lag or radio difficulties.

I'm certainly going to look for the videos from his suit cameras; it looked like he did a lot of tumbling until he got into the lower atmosphere.

Kind of a crazy and pointless stunt; but still quite fascinating and fun to watch.I suspect he pulled his shute to control the tumbling rather than an altimeter issue. But what do I know we shall find out in due course.

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:03 PM
One of the things that amazes me about this jump and others like it is that when the chute is deployed at such speeds and forces it doesn't rip itself free from the space suit.

It is really quite amazing what humans can design and engineer to sustain such extremes.

And then there is the balloon itself, 1/10th the thickness of a sandwich bag and still strong enough not to break as the helium expands. Truly amazing.

I so am glad I watched this from almost the beginning, made me feel like I did when watching Armstrong walk on the moon... front row seats to history in the making.

I can't wait for the BBC documentary that is being made.

jamesB
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:04 PM
I suspect he pulled his shute to control the tumbling rather than an altimeter issue. But what do I know we shall find out in due course.
The video I watched showed he had stopped tumbling and had total free-fall control for some time before he deployed his chute.

went and watched it again on youtube and Felix does state his face shield is fogging up moments before his chute deploys.
Too bad because he only missed that record by seconds.

bryanc
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:06 PM
What a kill joy.

I'm big proponent of doing crazy and pointless things. Very frequently we can't anticipate the value of something until long after we've done it.

It wasn't pointless. As they said this will help them to learn what may be possible for escape pods from space craft like the international space station for example...

That's complete rubbish. Any orbiting vehicle (or vehicle trying to achieve orbit, will be traveling so fast that parachuting out of it will never be an option. The only reason jumping from a ballon near the edge of the atmosphere is possible is that you start out at a essentially zero velocity WRT the atmosphere and accelerate until you reach terminal velocity (the speed at which drag = gravitational acceleration)... which they were hoping would be above Mach 1 in the upper atmosphere; we'll see if they were correct. If you bailed out of something going Mach 25, you'd be vaporized by the air friction instantly.

In finding the limits of human endeavour there is always something to be learned.

Absolutely; and it's usually not what you went looking for. Which is why "directed research" is almost always a waste of time and effort.

We shouldn't BS about this; it was something they wanted to try just to see if it was possible. There was no compelling reason to do this apart from the sprit of adventure and exploration... which is a great reason... don't tarnish it with pretending it's going to lead to some new discovery or technology (maybe it will, but that's icing on the cake, not the reason to do it in the first place).

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:07 PM
The video I watched showed he had stopped tumbling and had total free-fall control for some time before he deployed his chute.

Exactly, he absolutely did not deploy the chute to stop tumbling as he had already when he entered the "thicker" atmosphere and actually could gain control that he didn't have in the much thinner air.

bryanc
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:14 PM
One of the things that amazes me about this jump and others like it is that when the chute is deployed at such speeds and forces it doesn't rip itself free from the space suit.

I'm sure it's quite a yank, but it's no different than any other parachute deployment. Falling from 128,000 ft or 10,000 ft makes no difference; the parachuter is moving at terminal velocity (which is determined by the air density and the drag of the suit/position of the parachutist), which will be on the order of a couple hundred miles an hour in the lower atmosphere. The drogue chute will slow the fall significantly before the main chute fully opens, so the decelleration is generaly on the order of a few Gs. Still quite an experience for the parachuter, but nothing that pushes the mechanical limits of the harness/lines/etc.

And then there is the balloon itself, 1/10th the thickness of a sandwich bag and still strong enough not to break as the helium expands. Truly amazing.

Yeah, that was pretty cool... I thought it was interesting that near the end of the ascent, it appeared to be accelerating and they had to vent some helium... if they'd made the envelope bigger they could've gone even further!

I am so glad I watched this from almost the beginning, made me feel like I did when watching Armstrong walk on the moon... front row seats to history in the making.

I completely agree; there's something very distinctive about images coming from space... probably due to the completely un-diffused sunlight. That weird lighting combined with somebody doing something that has really never been done before is always inspiring.

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:18 PM
I'm big proponent of doing crazy and pointless things. Very frequently we can't anticipate the value of something until long after we've done it.

That's complete rubbish. Any orbiting vehicle (or vehicle trying to achieve orbit, will be traveling so fast that parachuting out of it will never be an option. The only reason jumping from a ballon near the edge of the atmosphere is possible is that you start out at a essentially zero velocity WRT the atmosphere and accelerate until you reach terminal velocity (the speed at which drag = gravitational acceleration)... which they were hoping would be above Mach 1 in the upper atmosphere; we'll see if they were correct. If you bailed out of something going Mach 25, you'd be vaporized by the air friction instantly.

Absolutely; and it's usually not what you went looking for. Which is why "directed research" is almost always a waste of time and effort.

We shouldn't BS about this; it was something they wanted to try just to see if it was possible. There was no compelling reason to do this apart from the sprit of adventure and exploration... which is a great reason... don't tarnish it with pretending it's going to lead to some new discovery or technology (maybe it will, but that's icing on the cake, not the reason to do it in the first place).

Sigh... Clearly an escape pod would be deployed into the stratosphere before any parachuting would occur undoubtedly replete with retro rockets to control descent velocity and attitude etc..

It may very well be rubbish but it was stated that it was part of the project... one that I think you have no experience with whatsoever so please do lose the higher than mighty attitude for once on this history making day.

Wasn't decoding the human genome "directed research" as well as the other countless directed research to solve problems and come up with concrete answers to actual real world situations that can be of benefit to human and non-human kind?

Not quite sure what you are getting at here? So research that isn't "pure" without application is really a waste of time and effort in your opinion? I sure am glad that the many other "pure" and applied scientists that came before you didn't feel that way.

Of course it is not the reason why they did it in the first place but YOU were the one to say it was a "pointless stunt"... demeaning the significance of the accomplishment completely.

As I said before... kill joy...

Sex without the possibility of procreation is also pointless to you I guess. ;)

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:21 PM
I'm sure it's quite a yank, but it's no different than any other parachute deployment. Falling from 128,000 ft or 10,000 ft makes no difference; the parachuter is moving at terminal velocity (which is determined by the air density and the drag of the suit/position of the parachutist), which will be on the order of a couple hundred miles an hour in the lower atmosphere. The drogue chute will slow the fall significantly before the main chute fully opens, so the decelleration is generaly on the order of a few Gs. Still quite an experience for the parachuter, but nothing that pushes the mechanical limits of the harness/lines/etc.


Yes that makes complete sense.

I was mistakenly thinking of what might have happened had the chute been deployed before he slowed down to terminal velocity.

groovetube
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:51 PM
holy crap are we already fighting about this?

This was pretty incredible. Glad he made it safely.

Rps
Oct 14th, 2012, 04:54 PM
[QUOTE=groovetube;1225002
This was pretty incredible. Glad he made it safely.[/QUOTE]

I can almost guarantee that everyone will agree with this statement .... maybe a first for ehMac!

fjnmusic
Oct 14th, 2012, 05:30 PM
I love reading geek analyses of big stunts like this. The rest of the world is just, like, "Holy Crap!"

Macfury
Oct 14th, 2012, 06:07 PM
He bought his ticket. He knew what he was getting into. I say, let him crash!

macintosh doctor
Oct 14th, 2012, 07:28 PM
this is the best ever experience.. when the shuttle door opened my whole family gasped for air..
it was truly my version of the moon landing.. I will never forget it..

that is two amazing things I watched this year.. what a year Nik in Niagara Falls and Felix in space.. At least now we know if a space shuttle is unable to return to earth for what ever reason they can space jump back LOL..

also I hope red bull retracts their statement or hires a spell check staff..



Red Bull Stratos · 5,392 like this.
5 hours ago ·
Congratulations to Felix in a successful landing. We knew we could **** on you! You are a hero.

still LMAO - it was to read count.. but they left out the o :)

screature
Oct 14th, 2012, 08:13 PM
He bought his ticket. He knew what he was getting into. I say, let him crash!

What? :confused:

groovetube
Oct 14th, 2012, 08:33 PM
Don't know if he's aware that the jump already occurred and he was a success!

Rps
Oct 14th, 2012, 08:34 PM
What? :confused:

Screature, I'm sure MacFury was joshing with my post #42 above.

Macfury
Oct 14th, 2012, 08:51 PM
Screature, I'm sure MacFury was joshing with my post #42 above.

Yes, it's a line from the movie Airplane!


Pn0WdJx-Wkw

steviewhy
Oct 14th, 2012, 08:55 PM
sudo rm -rf /

macintosh doctor
Oct 14th, 2012, 09:12 PM
To put the argument to rest.
Here is an interview after he landed.
He said he opened his parachute at 5,000 feet because that was the plan.

"I was putting everything out there, and hope for the best and if we left one record for Joe — hey it's fine," he said when asked if he intentionally left the record for Kittinger to hold. "We needed Joe Kittinger to help us break his own record and that tells the story of how difficult it was and how smart they were in the 60's. He is 84 years old and he is still so bright and intelligent and enthusiastic".

bryanc
Oct 14th, 2012, 09:50 PM
Sigh... Clearly an escape pod would be deployed into the stratosphere before any parachuting would occur undoubtedly replete with retro rockets to control descent velocity and attitude etc..

If you can get an escape pod slow enough that a human being has any hope of surviving getting out of it, it's easier and safer to stay in the pod until it lands. The fact that this is exactly what they were going to do with Baumgartner's pod if anything had gone wrong underscores this simple fact of physics.

It may very well be rubbish but it was stated that it was part of the project... one that I think you have no experience with whatsoever so please do lose the higher than mighty attitude for once on this history making day.

I'm not being 'high and mighty', I'm just saying that they shouldn't tarnish the cool stuff they've done by trying to spin it as "research"... it was a totally gnarly stunt and I'm amazed they pulled it off. But it didn't have anything to do with developing escape procedures for the ISS, regardless of what some PR flacks may have said.

Wasn't decoding the human genome "directed research"...

Great example. Because no, it wasn't. People had no idea what value sequencing the human genome might have (although the people trying to get money out of the politicians to fund it made up a lot of BS about curing cancer and that sort of crap). We were pretty sure we'd discover cool and potentially useful stuff, but not much idea of what it would be in advance. And it was done primarily for the same reason as Baumgartner's jump: because we wanted to see if we could.

As it turns out, like most basic, curiosity-driven research, it has turned out to be spectacularly useful... but most of the value of having the human genome sequenced is probably yet to come; we still don't know what to make of most of the data, but there will be lots of people digging about in it for a long time to come, and I'm sure they'll discover lots of interesting and possibly even useful stuff.

This is my point; we shouldn't be doing science to answer some specific question... we should be doing it for the same reason we write symphonies, or make sculptures, or try to swim across the English Channel, or break the sound barrier by jumping out of a tin can at the edge of the atmosphere, or any of the other crazy, inspired things we do... because we're explorers, and adventurers, and creative imaginative people with lots of ideas... because we can. If some of it turns out to be useful (and lots of it surely will) well that's icing on the cake.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here? So research that isn't "pure" without application is really a waste of time and effort in your opinion?

No, it's called engineering and it's wonderful.

Sex without the possibility of procreation is also pointless to you I guess.
Sex among primates and most other mammals has multiple roles, the most important of which is social (pair bonding/dominance/etc...this probably explains why homosexuality is so pervasive among so many species). So basically the point of sex is fun, reproduction is a side-effect.

eMacMan
Oct 14th, 2012, 10:02 PM
Someone mentioned earlier that wing walking was just a stunt.

Dad's cousin flew C-47s AKA DC-3s over the Burma Hump. He told a story of the wing de-icers failing and his Radio man having to crawl out onto the wing, secured only by a parachute cord, to fix the de-icers. He remarked it was the only time anyone in the flight crew was grateful for the weight they had lost because of dysentery. Have heard at least one second hand story from another WWII crew member that confirmed this had happened on more than one occasion.

jamesB
Oct 14th, 2012, 10:14 PM
To put the argument to rest.
Here is an interview after he landed.
He said he opened his parachute at 5,000 feet because that was the plan.

Somebody's fibbing here, if you watch the video closely, he is under chute for a full minute at least and they then report he is still at 6000 feet.
More like he popped that chute at something like 8000 feet at least.

bryanc
Oct 14th, 2012, 10:23 PM
Somebody's fibbing here, if you watch the video closely, he is under chute for a full minute at least and they then report he is still at 6000 feet.
More like he popped that chute at something like 8000 feet at least.

Chute opened at 8,254 feet according to the telemetry data.

steviewhy
Oct 14th, 2012, 10:33 PM
sudo rm -rf /

eMacMan
Oct 14th, 2012, 10:43 PM
True. I saw the press conference afterwards and he says he pulled at around 5000ft because that was the plan.

I recorded the broadcast of the jump and I went back and watched it again. At 3:40 into the free fall he says, "I have to pull before because my visor's fogging out". He then pulls the chute at 4:15 into the free fall. A full 1:30 later the ground crew reports him at 6000ft.

So whether it was an intentional early pull only Felix will know for sure. Personally, that's what I'm going to believe since it seems like a classy move on Felix''s part. :D

I believe he was still going roughly 500 MPH which translates to over 700 feet per second. Even had he held on for another 3000 feet I suspect he would not have set the record. Might have come close as atmospheric drag was slowing him down but probably not fast enough.

Ironically accelerating in about 30 seconds to nearly 800 MPH may have built up so much speed that setting the time record would have been impossible.

EDIT. Probably would have been between 32 and 35 seconds when he hit peak velocity.

Kazak
Oct 14th, 2012, 10:57 PM
Ironically accelerating in about 30 seconds to nearly 800 MPH may have built up so much speed that setting the time record would have been impossible
Never thought of that. A victim of his own success, perhaps.

macintosh doctor
Oct 15th, 2012, 08:30 AM
I believe he was still going roughly 500 MPH which translates to over 700 feet per second. Even had he held on for another 3000 feet I suspect he would not have set the record. Might have come close as atmospheric drag was slowing him down but probably not fast enough.

Ironically accelerating in about 30 seconds to nearly 800 MPH may have built up so much speed that setting the time record would have been impossible.

EDIT. Probably would have been between 32 and 35 seconds when he hit peak velocity.

i think your right.. he was a cruise missile so that makes sense to me..
this is an amazing shot.. I am sure if he had more than 10 mins of air he would stay and take it in..

http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/felix-baumgartner-red-bull-stratos-jump-01.jpg

Rps
Oct 15th, 2012, 11:29 AM
I remember when man first walked on the moon. I remember my grandfather saying that he thought the most amazing thing was not that we got there, but that we could all see it happening in real time back on earth. I sort of had the same sense yesterday as I watched the event unfold and the moment before he jumped, standing on the platform, as in the shot above. I'm thinking being able to share in this ( visually ) was the greatest thing. And no matter what your view of the worth of the leap, I don't think anyone can argue that the fact that "we were there" was probably the highlight .... like the moon landing we were there when one man stepped off the platform into history.

bryanc
Oct 15th, 2012, 12:17 PM
the fact that "we were there" was probably the highlight .... like the moon landing we were there when one man stepped off the platform into history.

Yes. Like a lot of things we do (the genome project that was brought up earlier is a good example), it's something that you could look at and say "well, that's theoretically possible, but it'd be really hard to pull off" and then you've got to respect the amount of skill and effort it took to actually make it happen. So even if there's nothing fundamentally new here; it's pretty cool to see that much technology all working at the same time.

screature
Oct 15th, 2012, 12:21 PM
i think your right.. he was a cruise missile so that makes sense to me..
this is an amazing shot.. I am sure if he had more than 10 mins of air he would stay and take it in..



macintosh doctor could you post a link to the photo instead as it is now it makes it really hard to read anything on the page because it spreads everything out horizontally so much.

groovetube
Oct 15th, 2012, 12:44 PM
i think your right.. he was a cruise missile so that makes sense to me..
this is an amazing shot.. I am sure if he had more than 10 mins of air he would stay and take it in..

http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/felix-baumgartner-red-bull-stratos-jump-01.jpg

awesome photo!

screature
Oct 15th, 2012, 12:48 PM
If you can get an escape pod slow enough that a human being has any hope of surviving getting out of it, it's easier and safer to stay in the pod until it lands. The fact that this is exactly what they were going to do with Baumgartner's pod if anything had gone wrong underscores this simple fact of physics.

I'm not being 'high and mighty', I'm just saying that they shouldn't tarnish the cool stuff they've done by trying to spin it as "research"... it was a totally gnarly stunt and I'm amazed they pulled it off. But it didn't have anything to do with developing escape procedures for the ISS, regardless of what some PR flacks may have said.


So you say but you don't know, it is conjecture on your part.

Great example. Because no, it wasn't. People had no idea what value sequencing the human genome might have (although the people trying to get money out of the politicians to fund it made up a lot of BS about curing cancer and that sort of crap). We were pretty sure we'd discover cool and potentially useful stuff, but not much idea of what it would be in advance. And it was done primarily for the same reason as Baumgartner's jump: because we wanted to see if we could.

The project began with the culmination of several years of work supported by the US Department of Energy, in particular workshops in 1984[4] and 1986 and a subsequent initiative of the US Department of Energy.[5] This 1987 report stated boldly, "The ultimate goal of this initiative is to understand the human genome" and "knowledge of the human is as necessary to the continuing progress of medicine and other health sciences as knowledge of human anatomy has been for the present state of medicine."

Human Genome Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project)

Nope no intentions there what-so-ever.

As it turns out, like most basic, curiosity-driven research, it has turned out to be spectacularly useful... but most of the value of having the human genome sequenced is probably yet to come; we still don't know what to make of most of the data, but there will be lots of people digging about in it for a long time to come, and I'm sure they'll discover lots of interesting and possibly even useful stuff.

It wasn't purely curiosity driven it had the intentions of continuing to drive the "progress of medicine and other health sciences".

This is my point; we shouldn't be doing science to answer some specific question... we should be doing it for the same reason we write symphonies, or make sculptures, or try to swim across the English Channel, or break the sound barrier by jumping out of a tin can at the edge of the atmosphere, or any of the other crazy, inspired things we do... because we're explorers, and adventurers, and creative imaginative people with lots of ideas... because we can. If some of it turns out to be useful (and lots of it surely will) well that's icing on the cake.

There are many different motivations and intentions for doing all the things you mentioned and no one motivation "should" be/is the "correct" one. You in your subjectivity choose to take on a sense of moral superiority as if it were objective truth but it is not, it is simply your point of view.

No, it's called engineering and it's wonderful.

Uhhm you said this previously:

Absolutely; and it's usually not what you went looking for. Which is why "directed research" is almost always a waste of time and effort.

It seems that based on your own arguments that the "best" science is pointless so I guess calling his jump a "pointless stunt" was meant as a compliment.

BigDL
Oct 15th, 2012, 04:02 PM
Just a quick question.

Which impressed you the most;
the assent;
the descent;
or both the assent and descent?

For me the assent and the shots from altitude held my interest the most.

Dr.G.
Oct 15th, 2012, 04:08 PM
It was both for me. His view as he stepped out, preparing to jump, was amazing. Then watching him spinning down was .......... well, I can't imagine what he was experiencing. Then, as he glided down to Earth as if he jumped from a few thousand feet left me wondering what he must be thinking as he knelt on terra firma once again.

macintosh doctor
Oct 15th, 2012, 04:10 PM
Just a quick question.

Which impressed you the most;
the assent;
the descent;
or both the assent and descent?

For me the assent and the shots from altitude held my interest the most.

both.. but the most breathe taking moment for me was..
when the pressure released and the door opened.. You seen the mist and the great out doors of space. That was the moment you knew the only way home was down by jumping :)

bryanc
Oct 15th, 2012, 04:23 PM
It wasn't purely curiosity driven it had the intentions of continuing to drive the "progress of medicine and other health sciences".
Good grief! Re-read that and think for a minute. How is "we want to drive the progress of medicine and health sciences" a specific question? We knew getting the human genome sequenced would provide great opportunities to learn, but we didn't really know what we'd learn; it was classic curiosity-driven science. A fishing trip. We did it because we wanted to see what was there. The biggest problem at the time was that the project was criticized for not being "hypothesis driven."

There are many different motivations and intentions for doing all the things you mentioned and no one motivation "should" be/is the "correct" one.

It's entirely possible to do the right things for the wrong reason. But I take your point; there can be multiple good reasons for doing research, and often, as we learn more and more about some specific topic we get to the point where we can say there's a specific question that we can address here and we should do that too.

My point is that we should not dismiss the curiosity driven research on esoteric topics just because most people can't imagine what useful information might come out of it. Science is one of our most successful forms of exploration, and the universe is full of unknowns we can use science to explore. Knowing more is always good.

I guess calling his jump a "pointless stunt" was meant as a compliment.

It was a poor choice of words; I and anyone who knows anything about aeronautics and space can recognize that this has nothing to do with the stated objective of developing an escape protocol for the ISS or any other orbital vehicle, so I was put off by the obviously misleading spin, but I do think it was interesting/entertaining/impressive. It's clear that they did it because the wanted to see if they could; and that's a good enough reason. The don't have to pretend they're doing something useful.

screature
Oct 15th, 2012, 05:45 PM
Good grief! Re-read that and think for a minute. How is "we want to drive the progress of medicine and health sciences" a specific question? We knew getting the human genome sequenced would provide great opportunities to learn, but we didn't really know what we'd learn; it was classic curiosity-driven science. A fishing trip. We did it because we wanted to see what was there. The biggest problem at the time was that the project was criticized for not being "hypothesis driven."

Good grief! Re-read it yourself... there was obvious intent you're the one limiting it to being a "specific question" but there was the clear intent, the "progress of medicine and other health sciences'.

If they thought it was "pointless" would they have spent $3B on it... hardly. They did not know "specifically" what they would learn but they were pretty damned confident they would learn something that would make it worth spending $3B otherwise it would have in fact been pointless.

It's entirely possible to do the right things for the wrong reason. But I take your point; there can be multiple good reasons for doing research, and often, as we learn more and more about some specific topic we get to the point where we can say there's a specific question that we can address here and we should do that too.

Again you are putting a morale imperative (right vs. wrong) on research. Who decides what is right or wrong? You? Barack Obama? Stephen Harper? etc., etc... By putting a morale imperative on research you make the issue political... If you truly believe research should be "pure" then there should be no morale imperative placed upon it.

My point is that we should not dismiss the curiosity driven research on esoteric topics just because most people can't imagine what useful information might come out of it. Science is one of our most successful forms of exploration, and the universe is full of unknowns we can use science to explore. Knowing more is always good.

I completely agree.

It was a poor choice of words; I and anyone who knows anything about aeronautics and space can recognize that this has nothing to do with the stated objective of developing an escape protocol for the ISS or any other orbital vehicle, so I was put off by the obviously misleading spin, but I do think it was interesting/entertaining/impressive. It's clear that they did it because the wanted to see if they could; and that's a good enough reason. The don't have to pretend they're doing something useful.

I completely agree and they never said it was the stated objective and I never said they said it was. Their objective was "to go where no man has gone before" and they did that quite successfully.

It was stated however that what they learned from this could inform developments/deployment of escape pods for orbital vehicles (my error was in bad reporting of what was said... I said will help as opposed to could help... mea culpa) and quite frankly you don't know that what they did won't.

At any rate it was a great event and I was glad to have shared with the millions of others in watching it live. I found it to be "inspirational" as I am sure many, many others did as well. A testament to the human spirit to do that which in unthinkable/imaginable to most, thereby broadening and expanding vicariously what we think is possible even for ourselves... If there is no other "point" to be taken from this event I think that is part of the "point".

bryanc
Oct 15th, 2012, 06:23 PM
Good grief! Re-read it yourself... there was obvious intent

Okay, I think we are arguing for the sake of argument (which is also something I think can be worthwhile, even if it's pointless). I don't think we really disagree significantly. I never suggested that the human genome project or this skydiving (maybe we should call it "space diving") stunt was without intent. Just that stating the intents in both cases were to do something that had never been done before because it was really cool. The human genome project was almost certain to yield useful information, but it had to be sold to politicians so lots of BS about curing diseases was drummed up to spin it as research with a goal. But it was the archetype of exploratory research; we really didn't have a very good idea of what we'd be able to do with the data, and we're still figuring it out. But we did it anyway because we could.

Again you are putting a morale imperative (right vs. wrong) on research.

I didn't mean right/wrong in a moral sense; I meant correct vs. incorrect. Like you might believe that if you buy kippers it will not rain, and that might turn out to be true, but if it does, you were right for the wrong reason.

And as I said, I'm not opposed to engineering or even "transitional" research (where the details of a specific natural phenomenon that is fairly well understood are completely worked out so that the understanding can be applied as a technology). I think that's great too.

My objection is that many people (including Stephen Harper) seem to think that we shouldn't fund research unless it is going to lead directly to some marketable technology.

Most of the time when we're doing research, we don't know where it will lead, but it's almost always interesting, and it's very often useful.

screature
Oct 15th, 2012, 06:50 PM
Okay, I think we are arguing for the sake of argument (which is also something I think can be worthwhile, even if it's pointless). I don't think we really disagree significantly. I never suggested that the human genome project or this skydiving (maybe we should call it "space diving") stunt was without intent. Just that stating the intents in both cases were to do something that had never been done before because it was really cool. The human genome project was almost certain to yield useful information, but it had to be sold to politicians so lots of BS about curing diseases was drummed up to spin it as research with a goal. But it was the archetype of exploratory research; we really didn't have a very good idea of what we'd be able to do with the data, and we're still figuring it out. But we did it anyway because we could.

I didn't mean right/wrong in a moral sense; I meant correct vs. incorrect. Like you might believe that if you buy kippers it will not rain, and that might turn out to be true, but if it does, you were right for the wrong reason.

And as I said, I'm not opposed to engineering or even "transitional" research (where the details of a specific natural phenomenon that is fairly well understood are completely worked out so that the understanding can be applied as a technology). I think that's great too.

My objection is that many people (including Stephen Harper) seem to think that we shouldn't fund research unless it is going to lead directly to some marketable technology.

Most of the time when we're doing research, we don't know where it will lead, but it's almost always interesting, and it's very often useful.

This endeavour was in my understanding completely privately funded so your point is rather moot here...

But it is indeed an interesting topic of discussion...

Should the government, which purportedly exists to serve the interests of the "common good", (which is IMO a complete fallacy/misnomer as I believe it doesn't exist... at best all one one can say is in the plurality's or the majority's good) be involved in funding research that has little to unknown potential real return to tax payers who are funding said research?

If you involve public tax $$$ you can't dismiss this issue lightly (unless it is in your [the general your, not the specific] vested interest to do so) because then it exits the realm of "pure" research and enters into the realm of public policy.

Care to start a thread?... It could be interesting. ;)

As for the rest of your post I don't disagree. Except, I really take exception to your repeated use of the word "stunt" being applied to this endeavour as for me the word stunt has significant pejorative connotations e.g., "publicity stunt", even if it is not the literal meaning of the word.

bryanc
Oct 15th, 2012, 11:47 PM
Care to start a thread?... It could be interesting.

I, not surprisingly, have fairly strong opinions on the topic of publicly funded research (wish me luck on my upcoming NSERC renewal; in this climate, I'm thinking my prospects are grim). I'm not sure I want to start a thread on a topic that I actually care about.

I really take exception to your repeated use of the word "stunt" being applied to this endeavour as for me the word stunt has significant pejorative connotations e.g., "publicity stunt", even if it is not the literal meaning of the word.

I see this as a somewhat more technologically (and therefore interesting to me) oriented and sophisticated version of the kind of stuff that Evil Kenievel used to do in the 70's. It was clearly a stunt, but I don't mean that pejoratively. Baumgartner was pushing his limits, the limits of the technology, and the limits of his support team to do something that has no practical value, but which is pretty damned cool, and I applaud him for it.

screature
Oct 16th, 2012, 05:57 PM
I, not surprisingly, have fairly strong opinions on the topic of publicly funded research (wish me luck on my upcoming NSERC renewal; in this climate, I'm thinking my prospects are grim). I'm not sure I want to start a thread on a topic that I actually care about.

Hmm... A curious statement. I don't know why you would start a thread about something you didn't actually care about. Makes me wonder about the threads that you do start. I mean if you really don't care about the threads that you start then why should anyone else?

I see this as a somewhat more technologically (and therefore interesting to me) oriented and sophisticated version of the kind of stuff that Evil Kenievel used to do in the 70's. It was clearly a stunt, but I don't mean that pejoratively. Baumgartner was pushing his limits, the limits of the technology, and the limits of his support team to do something that has no practical value, but which is pretty damned cool, and I applaud him for it.

I don't agree at all.

Was what Joseph Kittinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger) did in 1960 just a stunt? Clearly the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories didn't think so at the time.

Felix Baumgartner's jump was an extension of what Kittinger did in 1960 and now we know that a human being, without the protection of an aircraft/spacecraft, can surpass the speed of sound without catastrophic consequences... something we didn't know before.

To in anyway equate this to jumping over a bunch of school buses on a motor cycle to me is extremely demeaning of the accomplishment and the information it provided as well as the effort of the team that was involved in the 5 year preparation for the endeavour.

Baumgartner's career has been filled with stunts but this endeavour went beyond being merely a stunt IMO.

It is your opinion that it was a stunt, but there is nothing clear about it, except in that it clearly is your opinion that it was a stunt and that we shall clearly have to agree to disagree.

macintosh doctor
Oct 16th, 2012, 07:00 PM
I don't agree at all.

Was what Joseph Kittinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger) did in 1960 just a stunt? Clearly the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories didn't think so at the time.

Felix Baumgartner's jump was an extension of what Kittinger did in 1960 and now we know that a human being, without the protection of an aircraft/spacecraft, can surpass the speed of sound without catastrophic consequences... something we didn't know before.

To in anyway equate this to jumping over a bunch of school buses on a motor cycle to me is extremely demeaning of the accomplishment and the information it provided as well as the effort of the team that was involved in the 5 year preparation for the endeavour.

Baumgartner's career has been filled with stunts but this endeavour went beyond being merely a stunt IMO. .

I agree with you.. that this will benefit us in future knowing that if we end up in space in a doomed aircraft or ISS is written off - we have a way to get our people home with out an air craft.. [but of course they would need an escape pod to get them down to 130,000ft first ]

bryanc
Oct 16th, 2012, 07:07 PM
Hmm... A curious statement. I don't know why you would start a thread about something you didn't actually care about. Makes me wonder about the threads that you do start.

I generally come here to relax and engage in discussions that aren't particularly important or serious to me. Like chatting with people at the pub. I think this is why you (and some others here) sometimes take my posts the wrong way; I'm rarely completely serious about what I say here.

Was what Joseph Kittinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger) did in 1960 just a stunt? Clearly the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories didn't think so at the time.

In 1960 we knew a lot less. So it was not clear that this sort of thing was even possible.

Felix Baumgartner's jump was an extension of what Kittinger did in 1960 and now we know that a human being, without the protection of an aircraft/spacecraft, can surpass the speed of sound without catastrophic consequences... something we didn't know before.

We didn't absolutely know it because it hadn't been done, but we had every reason to think it was at least theoretically possible (because we now know a lot more about aerodynamics etc. than was known in the '50s) and we also know that it's not really something that's in any way pertinent to current problems in aerospace. So yes, this was a stunt.

To in anyway equate this to jumping over a bunch of school buses on a motor cycle to me is extremely demeaning of the accomplishment and the information it provided as well as the effort of the team that was involved in the 5 year preparation for the endeavour.

As I as said; a highly technical and demanding stunt... more like jumping the Grand Canyon, rather than the Snake River Canyon, but it's just a matter of degree.

screature
Oct 16th, 2012, 07:12 PM
I agree with you.. that this will benefit us in future knowing that if we end up in space in a doomed aircraft or ISS is written off - we have a way to get our people home with out an air craft.. [but of course they would need an escape pod to get them down to 130,000ft first ]

I doubt that we will see a program that develops escape pods that aren't meant to take people on board a spacecraft all the way to earth safely without having to parachute from 130,000 ft. But now we know that if the pod fails while in the stratosphere that they can possibly safely descend to earth while passing the sound barrier with a parachute if need be.

screature
Oct 16th, 2012, 07:18 PM
I generally come here to relax and engage in discussions that aren't particularly important or serious to me. Like chatting with people at the pub. I think this is why you (and some others here) sometimes take my posts the wrong way; I'm rarely completely serious about what I say here.


Good to know.

I will respond to your posts going forward with the same lack of due consideration with which you, self admittedly, post to others.

As I as said; a highly technical and demanding stunt... more like jumping the Grand Canyon, rather than the Snake River Canyon, but it's just a matter of degree.

I would think that as a scientist, a matter of "degree" (granularity) would be all important to you... or maybe this is just you not being completely serious here on ehMac.

You know you pay great disrespect to others here who engage with you when you say:

I'm rarely completely serious about what I say here.


as if somehow we here are not worthy of the intellectual effort to be serious. But you know what... Actually, when I think about your posts, it fits your MO, you almost always post with a holier than though attitude.

bryanc
Oct 17th, 2012, 07:21 AM
You know you pay great disrespect to others here who engage with you
If you don't find my professed enjoyment of my interaction here sufficient evidence of my respect for the denizens here, you're welcome to ignore my posts.

as if somehow we here are not worthy of the intellectual effort to be serious.
Life is far too important and far too short to take seriously.

Actually, when I think about your posts, it fits your MO, you almost always post with a holier than though attitude.
I genuinely have no idea how you get this impression. Must be something cultural.

screature
Oct 19th, 2012, 10:07 PM
Back to post #38

[QUOTE=bryanc;1224989]I'm sure it's quite a yank, but it's no different than any other parachute deployment. Falling from 128,000 ft or 10,000 ft makes no difference; the parachuter is moving at terminal velocity (which is determined by the air density and the drag of the suit/position of the parachutist)...


I agreed with you at first but I had this nagging doubt that it was in fact incorrect and I found a source that validated that feeling...

Faster than terminal velocity (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/faster-than-terminal-velocity/)

...So, essentially the terminal velocity just depends on stuff about the object – mass, C A. But! What if the gravitational force is not constant? What if the density of air is not constant? In this case, the terminal velocity will change also.
Back to the Space Jump

If you jump out of a balloon at 120,000 feet above the ground, some things are different. Mostly, the density of air is really low so the jumper can really get going fast. When falling to a lower altitude, the density would then increase.

I will go ahead and modify my python calculation. Here is a plot of speed and terminal velocity (magnitude) vs. time. I am plotting the terminal velocity for the altitude the jumper is at that instant.

Untitled 7

I am not showing the speeds from time zero seconds. This is because when the jumper starts, the terminal velocity is HUGE. At at about 46 seconds, the jumper is going at terminal velocity, however as the height gets lower, the terminal velocity is also getting smaller. So right after this, the jumper is going faster than terminal velocity.
What about the acceleration?

One more plot, I promise. Here is a plot of the acceleration of the jumper as a function of time.

Acceleration Jump.png

When the jumper starts – the acceleration is essentially -9.8 m/s2. After the jumper goes faster than terminal velocity, the air resistance force is greater than the weight so that the acceleration is in the positive direction. The greatest positive acceleration is somewhere around + 8 m/s2. This is important because this is the acceleration the jumper will “feel”. The gravitational force pulls the same (per unit mass) on all parts of the body, so you don’t really feel that. Just imagine what it feels like in free-fall with no air resistance, you are weightless just like in orbit. Ok – I lied. Here is one more plot. This is a plot of the air resistance force divided by mass in units of “g’s”. So, if the air resistance is equal to your weight, you would experience 1 g.

Apparentaccel.png

The shape looks the same because the gravitational force is essentially constant. Here though, you can see his max “g-force” will be less than 2 g’s.

bryanc
Oct 22nd, 2012, 04:42 PM
I agreed with you at first but I had this nagging doubt that it was in fact incorrect and I found a source that validated that feeling...

This is a subtle point, and while you're correct that he would have spent some portion of the fall traveling faster than terminal velocity, by the time he deployed his parachute at ~8k, he would have decelerated to terminal velocity due to the air friction.

Since he was not wearing a rocket motor, or other propulsion system, his speed at any given time in the fall will be determined by gravitational acceleration and drag. Early in the fall, where atmospheric resistance was very low, the drag will also have been low, allowing him to accelerate to a velocity that could not be sustained at lower elevations; this was the period during which it was an open question as to wether he would exceed the speed of sound (although it's worth pointing out that this is also a bit of an oversimplification because the speed of sound is also affected by the density of the medium, and they used the speed of sound at sea level as their benchmark). As he descended and encountered denser atmosphere, the air resistance would slow his fall, such that by the time he deployed his parachute his speed would be no different than if he had jumped from a plane at 10k. Which was my point.

steviewhy
Oct 24th, 2012, 06:32 AM
sudo rm -rf /