New high jump record
Discussion
Apparently Google exec Alan Eustace has broken Felix Baumgartner's high jump record
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/science/alan-eus...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/science/alan-eus...
Agreed, I love how low key it was in comparison to the Red Bull one.
But in the telegraph this morning it says he broke the record by 8 feet? This must be a typo unlesssomeone can explain how that works? He jumped from 136k feet yet Felix jumped from 128k?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11187385/...
He started his dive at 135,908 feet - remaining in freefall for about 4.5 minutes, hitting a top speed of 822 mph.
Mr Eustace cut himself loose from the balloon with the aid of a small explosive device and plummeted toward the earth, setting off a small sonic boom heard by observers on the ground.
Baumgartner became the first person to break the sound barrier in free fall just two years ago. His dive was from an altitude of 127,852 feet.
But in the telegraph this morning it says he broke the record by 8 feet? This must be a typo unlesssomeone can explain how that works? He jumped from 136k feet yet Felix jumped from 128k?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11187385/...
He started his dive at 135,908 feet - remaining in freefall for about 4.5 minutes, hitting a top speed of 822 mph.
Mr Eustace cut himself loose from the balloon with the aid of a small explosive device and plummeted toward the earth, setting off a small sonic boom heard by observers on the ground.
Baumgartner became the first person to break the sound barrier in free fall just two years ago. His dive was from an altitude of 127,852 feet.
Edited by Flat6er on Saturday 25th October 09:01 caus im a spelltard.
Edited by Flat6er on Saturday 25th October 09:12
Well done sir - and there was a practical reason behind the jump as well i.e. the development of a privately funded pressure suit (a bit like the Joe Kittinger jumps in the early 60s).
It's a pity the camera coverage was a bit limited.
I don't think that the airport used is "abandoned", as the newspaper report says. It looks like it's used for the storage and scrapping of old airliners - so is an active airfield.
It's a pity the camera coverage was a bit limited.
I don't think that the airport used is "abandoned", as the newspaper report says. It looks like it's used for the storage and scrapping of old airliners - so is an active airfield.
Eric Mc said:
Well done sir - and there was a practical reason behind the jump as well i.e. the development of a privately funded pressure suit (a bit like the Joe Kittinger jumps in the early 60s).
It's a pity the camera coverage was a bit limited.
I don't think that the airport used is "abandoned", as the newspaper report says. It looks like it's used for the storage and scrapping of old airliners - so is an active airfield.
I doubt the camera coverage was limited - everything that's been released has been watermarked by a production company, so I guess they're saving it for a documentary. It's a pity the camera coverage was a bit limited.
I don't think that the airport used is "abandoned", as the newspaper report says. It looks like it's used for the storage and scrapping of old airliners - so is an active airfield.
Eric Mc said:
Well done sir - and there was a practical reason behind the jump as well i.e. the development of a privately funded pressure suit (a bit like the Joe Kittinger jumps in the early 60s).
It's a pity the camera coverage was a bit limited.
I don't think that the airport used is "abandoned", as the newspaper report says. It looks like it's used for the storage and scrapping of old airliners - so is an active airfield.
You are correct, but read the article again it states an "abandoned runway at the airport". Not a abandoned airport.It's a pity the camera coverage was a bit limited.
I don't think that the airport used is "abandoned", as the newspaper report says. It looks like it's used for the storage and scrapping of old airliners - so is an active airfield.
V8FGO said:
You are correct, but read the article again it states an "abandoned runway at the airport". Not a abandoned airport.
"Disused Runway" would have been a better term then. Lots of active airports have runways that are no longer in use - including places like Heathrow and Farnborough.Maybe he was doing it for his own personal satisfaction rather than a publicity stunt. Also, it seems that he is involved in testing a new pressure suit that will be made commercially available to those who want to take part in privately funded space flights - which we will certainly see over the next few decades.
The original high altitude jumps made by Joe Kittinger in the early 1960s were made as part of a programme to test the integrity of pressure suits that would work in a vacuum or near vacuum - something that the US military and NASA knew would be needed in in the near future.
So, it looks like both these high altitude balloon test programmes share a common purpose - i.e. the testing of equipment for future spaceflights.
As far as I can tell, the Baumgartner jump was a 100% promotional exercise for Red Bull.
The original high altitude jumps made by Joe Kittinger in the early 1960s were made as part of a programme to test the integrity of pressure suits that would work in a vacuum or near vacuum - something that the US military and NASA knew would be needed in in the near future.
So, it looks like both these high altitude balloon test programmes share a common purpose - i.e. the testing of equipment for future spaceflights.
As far as I can tell, the Baumgartner jump was a 100% promotional exercise for Red Bull.
There seems to be no released footage of the separation and stabilising drogue phase. I'm sure footage exists, so this is either because:
1. The technology is novel and sensitive, hence no video to expose the novel technology to rivals. This technology could be related to civil space tourism escape capabilities, and hence lucrative.
2. The separation did not go to plan and revealed some failures that were not catastrophic but would result in bad publicity.
3. They are just saving the footage for a documentary.
1. The technology is novel and sensitive, hence no video to expose the novel technology to rivals. This technology could be related to civil space tourism escape capabilities, and hence lucrative.
2. The separation did not go to plan and revealed some failures that were not catastrophic but would result in bad publicity.
3. They are just saving the footage for a documentary.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff