This video is also proof of Einstein's Theory, "A Happy Idea" that states that a man in space would not be able to detect that he was falling under gravity. Click on the image above to play the video. Below is another image of the jump.
Monday, December 12, 2005
A Happy Idea - Skydiving from the Edge of Space
This is pretty amazing .. and daring .. and brave and .. well the list goes on mate. In 1960, Joe Kittinger was the first man in space. He lifted from earth in a helium balloon (experimenting effects of high altitude on the human body) and rose about 30 KM above earth in the emptiness of space. Once he reached the edge of space .. he did something amazing .. he JUMPED (with a video camera) .. see the video! ..
This video is also proof of Einstein's Theory, "A Happy Idea" that states that a man in space would not be able to detect that he was falling under gravity. Click on the image above to play the video. Below is another image of the jump.
This video is also proof of Einstein's Theory, "A Happy Idea" that states that a man in space would not be able to detect that he was falling under gravity. Click on the image above to play the video. Below is another image of the jump.
47 comments:
Very interesting. We dont get that sort of news here in Pakistan. Whenever, we hear or hear them, it sounds to come from some alien world.
It makes me ambivalent. I feel glee upon the progressive adventures of humanity, but then I feel pangs of pains upon our non-contributions.
blah.
is your neck really that small? :p
you still owe me that compliment. heh.
Been wanting to go skydiving......this on the other hand, i'm not sure i could do
Cool, but 30KM is nowhere NEAR what is recognized as space. You'd better check your facts...space starts at about 100KM above the Earth's surface.
The video said "gravity" did him no harm at all... but I'm pretty sure that a small tear in one of his gloves caused his hand to swell up a few times its normal size.
Still pretty ballsy to jump from the edge of space.
Yep, 100Km. Though, 30Km is high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
that's weird... i thought that as object enter the atmosphere, and as they pick up speed due to gravity, they start to burn...
but either that's not true, or only applies to our spacecraft when they reenter the atmosphere and for some reason not a fragile human body, or maybe whoever posted this is on crack... i just dont know...
The spacecraft only burn because they are traveling at such a high speed when leaving orbit and hit the atmosphere; and use it to slow down. This guy was not in orbit; just in space, or pretty darn close.
I believe the reason that spacecraft experience extreme heat during re-entry is because they are coming from orbit where they have horizontal velocities of thousands of km/hr. At those enourmous speeds, even the sparce air particles colliding with the hull cause tremendous heat.
Jumping from a balloon, this man would have experienced no tangential velocity to the air around him, only vertical drop speed, and so would not experience the same heat.
Ojects that burn up on entry (meteors, satellite) are already moving at many thousands of miles per hour when they crash into the atmosphere. The guy who jumped started at zero mph.
The burning is caused by friction when the ship comes back into the atmosphere. I'm not sure as to whether the angle has anything to do with it, you may want to ask a physics major. ;)
Hot Air Balloon?
Edge of Space?
You really need to check your facts.
Joe Kittinger's brave experiments were done with Helium ballons and his achieved altitudes are recognized as 'Near Space' - not 'Edge of Space'.
well... it Did say that he opened his shoot once he was in the 'more dense' atmosphere, and i daresay I parachute would be more effective at slowing a fragile human than a dense iron spacecraft.
besides, why would discovery chan make up something like this >.>
Fahd said: "We dont get that sort of news here in Pakistan".
Hey, Fahd... it happened 45 years ago. Not what I'd call news.
Ehm, so Kittinger was "first man in space" in 1960 because he went to 31,333 meters? And David Simons who went to 30,942 meters in 1957 wasn't "in space" then?
Who is it that makes up these silly texts on Discovery channel? They certainly seem to have their own private definition of "the edge of space2, being at an altitude somewhere between 310,942 and 31,333 meters...
Kittinger is probably still the record holder for 'highest balloon ascent', 'longest (parachute) freefall', 'fastest speed by a man (through atmosphere?' because of this ascent and jump.
Yeah obviously the "hot air balloon" is a misunderstanding, these ascents were made with helium balloons.
And heating up of objects traveling through the atmosphere is dependent on 1) speed 2) density of the atmosphere. He could survive the high speed parts of his jumps because they took place in atmosphere sparse enough, and he also had a lot of protective gear (a 60 kg suit I seem to recall).
He were using at least two different parachutes for his jumps. A smell one that was deployed almost instantly, and which stabilized him protecting him from "flat spin" death. At much lower altitude (5,000 meter-ish?) a more normal parachute was deployed.
I think it is generally thought that he did not reach the speed of sound (speed of sound at earth surface level, that is, not at his altitude), but something like 90% of this speed.
If anyone's interested in the physics behind all of this, check out this paper. One interesting fact: he came into the atmosphere going faster than terminal velocity and assymptotically slowed to terminal velocity. (I'll take the PDF down in a few days.)
Aparently re entry angle does matter. If a space craft were to attempt to re enter the atmosphere at the wrong angle it could bounce off back into space - something that a space shuttle would not be able to recover from.
I can't remember the source of that info - but I did hear it once.
I am a Physics Professor @ the University of Alabama - and to put it in every day terms:
The burning of spacecraft and other items (meteors, etc) upon re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere is due to the fact that they are travelling at an extremely high rate of speed. The friction of common air particles at that speed is more than enough to set anything on fire. This man would only reach terminal velocity - which, in our atmosphere is about 200 feet per second (about 135mph). While this is a high speed - it is nowhere near the speed needed to cause the heat due to friction that spacecraft endure.
Terminal velocity is the point where the acceleration due to gravity is balanced by the wind resistance on the air.. so if the air is thinner, ie at 30km, your terminal velocity would be a LOT faster. The closer to the ground he got, the slower he would go until he would hit what we would call a normal terminal velocity.
It would also make a difference if he was head first or laying 'flat'
Very interesting. We dont get that sort of news here in Pakistan.
hhhahaha it happend almost 50 years ago you stupid towelhead
"hhhahaha it happend almost 50 years ago you stupid towelhead"
"towelhead"? You'd think that reply was from 50 years ago, too...
Ja, The lack of atmosphere removes the coefficient of friction, therefor, all objects will accelerate at a constant rate. He could have burned up if he was comming into the atmophere from further away...
blah blah blah.... physics...blah blah...science b.s....blah blah blah...I still think the guy had a pair that clanked louder than most.
I am amazed anyone reading this info would be foolish enough to call another interested party a "towel head"...
Ignorance and intolerance the hallmark of our time's!
omg awesome
"hhhahaha it happend almost 50 years ago you stupid towelhead"
Funny how easy it is to recognize the stupid American in these anonymous forums!
Signed, Anonymous Norwegian.
"Funny how easy it is to recognize the stupid American in these anonymous forums!"
Instanty you assume that the racist is American.
Ironic, that you would use a racist insult attacking one using racist insults. I'm American, and I'm just as offended at the ignorant racism as anyone else. Perhaps you should be less ethnocentric in your assault on ethnocentrism.
Awesome video, though. :)
that came from apollo 13...not sure if it is fact or not.
"Funny how easy it is to recognize the stupid American in these anonymous forums!"
typical euroPEON. gotta love it when scandanavians with ZERO ethnic diversity cast stones @ America, which is more diverse and inclusive than ANY other country.
Hey, how about I skydive from 30km completely naked with a towel on my head and an american flag clenched between my butt cheeks. Is there a record for that?
only a europPEON would post about piss and shit- what is your obsession with being shat and pissed on? as Kyle from south park said, 'dude, what the fuck is wrong with germans?" thta and all of europe's perma brown nose that's been stuck up the ass of muslim lunatics like iran and your food for oil (ummm, i mean: fuck food, jsut line our pockets for oil) buddy sadam. next time we're not coming to save your asses- twice is enough. and, in case you've forgotten, i suggest a trip to 'omaha' beach @ normandy and take a look, as far as the eye can see, of American's who died so you could be an annon arrogant asshole on the internet.
sorry for the OT on your blog. the video is great- never even knew about this skydive. thanks.
"The burning is caused by friction
"when the ship comes back into the
"atmosphere. I'm not sure as to
"whether the angle has anything to
"do with it, you may want to ask a
"physics major. ;)
The idea that friction causes all or even most of the heat is wrong.
In reality, the burning is caused by radiation from an area of plasma in front of the object (called the shock layer) created by a tremendous increase in pressure. The temperature of this layer in Kelvins is approx equal to the speed in m/s. An object at 5,000 m/s would create a layer of plasma at 5,000 Kelvin. And this hottest point isn't even where the air is moving the fastest. It's actually at the place where the flow is stagnant, at the stagnation point.
It's sad that the physics professor in Alabama would get this so wrong.
Well, it is Alabama, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.
well thanks for all your comments :)
I understand the frustration caused by some of the comments .. but I have to moderate (u know how it goes) ..
so pretty please (with sugar on top) don't fight here. Appreciate science, and respect one and other. I feel amazed and educated with all the great comments that have been posted for this entry :)
Sincerely
nabeel
(here goes the same Anonymous as the one who wrote above about 1) David Simons, and 2) the different parachutes)
His freefall (well, freefall with small stabilizing parachute) time is said to have been 4.5 minutes, and the highest velocity he reached is said to have been 982 km/h (614 mph). The physics professor obviously forgot about terminal velocity being dependant on some things, and not a static value, especially at this altitude.
"damo" wrote about that it would make a difference if he was head first or spread out flat. He was neither. Because of the construction of his protective suit, and the lot of heavy equipment mostly being placed like a box to sit on, he was 'sitting down' during the descent.
The paper that Joseph Lorenzo Hall links to is interesting and recommended reading (the physics professor definitely needs to read the abstract or conclusion part of it). However, I don't understand what is meant by this sentence from the introduction:
"Kittinger had reached an elevation of 102 800 feet (~31 300 m!) where he was above 99% of the Earth’s atmosphere"
Above 99% of the molecules making up our atmosphere perhaps? I don't think there is a generally accepted definition of a certain altitude where the atmosphere 'ends' (it just gets thinner and thinner), and if there was one I'm pretty certain it would be a lot more than 31,300m/0,99. The wording seems a bit misleading.
Actually - like I said - I was putting it into every day terms.
Technically - this "layer of plasma" you speak of is always there. When the spacecraft enter's the earth's atmosphere at such a high speed, for a moment the air in front of the vehicle is compressed before flowing around the vehicle. This high level of compression causes the air to turn into a type of plasma. As a matter of fact, this is why the spacecraft has a hard time communicating to base - plasma is difficult to transmit through. In recent years however, spacecraft have started transmitting to a third party satellite that re-transmits back to earth. But back on track...
The friction between this layer of plasma and the spacecraft is what causes the heat... But like I said - in every day terms: Friction causes the heat.
And by the way - I dont appreciate that you think that Alabama is full of inbred know-nothings. Look a few miles west (Mississippi) or a little bit east (Auburn University) for your petty stereotypes.
Haha, the ones arguing over racism should really learn a bit about races and nationalities.
Racist!=Nazi.
Though Europeans still rule!
Professor G said:
"The friction between this layer of plasma and the spacecraft is what causes the heat... But like I said - in every day terms: Friction causes the heat."
Bullcrap. The shock layer forms well ahead of the object and this is where the plasma is created. It heats the object both through radiation and conduction.
By the time the heated air physically touches the object, it's already sub-sonic. If the cause of of the heating were friction, then we would expect other objects traveling at sub-sonic speeds to be similarly heated, but they're not.
Friction is the force that resists the motion of two surfaces in contact. As I said before the hottest area is actually the place where the air is stagnant! There is little motion to cause any sort of friction.
"And by the way - I dont
"appreciate that you think that
"Alabama is full of inbred know-
"nothings. Look a few miles west
"(Mississippi) or a little bit
"east (Auburn University) for your
"petty stereotypes.
You are such a hypocrite. You criticize me for using sterotypes then you go and do the same!
The bottom line is that you're talking about an area you obviously know little about. You throw around the title of "physicist" and expect everyone to swallow thoughtlessly what you spew. Well don't forget that you have the whole world listening to you. That's 6 billion people. It only takes one that knows better than you to trip you up.
The really sad thing here is that you have the resources available to correct your misapprehensions but are so proud you didn't even bother to double check what you said.
Read these. And next time make a point to be more right than proud.
You may have to use inter-library loan to get this:
Dynamics of Atmospheric Re-Entry
Frank J. Regan - Naval Surface Warfare Center, Silver Spring, MD (Author)
Satya M. Anandakrishnan - Naval Surface Warfare Center, Silver Spring, MD (Author)
AIAA Education Series
Published by AIAA, © 1993, 604 pages, Hardback
ISBN: 1-56347-048-9
http://www.mcrosolv.demon.co.uk/getwrong.html
How do you like them apples?
typical euroPEON. gotta love it when scandanavians with ZERO ethnic diversity cast stones @ America, which is more diverse and inclusive than ANY other country.
Err, Hello!?! Australia is more diverse than America. Or by 'any other country' did you mean countries that participate in your 'world series'.
"Err, Hello!?! Australia is more diverse than America."
You're full of crap.
Hell, New York City by itself is probably more diverse than Australia.
There are still parts of the city that speak nothing but Polish or Italian, or Hebrew, or Russian, etc. Or if you're in San Fransisco, nothing but Chinese or vietnamese.
Oh, you think because you didn't kill off all the Aboriginies you have diversity?
Seriously, anyone that claims Australia is more diverse than the US has never been to the US or at least not much of it.
And we haven't had a race riot recently either.
Aussie:
comments were directed @ the euro trash who decided to dis America. i stand by my comment that the US is more ethnically diverse AND inclusive. no matter, i shouldn't have taken teh bait anyway- i've just had my fill of arrogant euros irl lately. i've always gotten on quite well with Aussies, who display national pride without the look down the nose of euros.
on the original topic: i've found the arguments on heat terminal velocity educational and interesting enough to spend 2 hours bouncing around wiki. thanks.
Have a look at this "professor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_re-entry
This guy has some big ass nuts
People stop the racist shit and get back on topic. Gettin annoying.
i think i will try and jump from space.by the way i just learned about u today
That video is soooooooooo cool. That guy is nuts.
Post a Comment