Jump to content

Pure Awesomeness


TaleSpinner
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If it's the same story, other media is headlining this with "New Jersey cater and son launch spacecraft".

 

They got up to 19 miles (maybe KM). Which is impressive, but no where near space. And that would in no way survive in actual space.

 

Idiot media

 

The people from "It's effin' science" on G4 did the same. Surprised mythbuster hasn't done this already, but with the prerequisite explosions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

If it's the same story, other media is headlining this with "New Jersey cater and son launch spacecraft".

 

They got up to 19 miles (maybe KM). Which is impressive, but no where near space. And that would in no way survive in actual space.

 

 

True, by pure definition, it is a balloon and can only function in an atmosphere environment where it is buoyed but the gas particles around it. However, it is still pretty cool to have gotten high enough to clearly see the curvature of the earth, the sun as a very bright star, and the rest or space as a dark void.

 

I wonder what FAA permits they needed to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's the same story, other media is headlining this with "New Jersey cater and son launch spacecraft".

 

They got up to 19 miles (maybe KM). Which is impressive, but no where near space. And that would in no way survive in actual space.

 

Idiot media

 

The people from "It's effin' science" on G4 did the same. Surprised mythbuster hasn't done this already, but with the prerequisite explosions.

 

First, survival:

 

Air pressure at 19 miles (30+ km) MSL is around 1.7% of standard sea level pressure. I see no reason that their device wouldn't have worked at .01% just as well. It's the differential from whatever the device was designed for, not the actual pressure that matters for devices like this.

 

Temp at 30km is just about as meaningful as at 3000km -- the atmosphere (such as it is) at neither altitude has enough heat capacity for convection cooling to be important.

 

The inner edge of the inner Van Allen belt doesn't reach closer than 100km MSL, so radiation shouldn't be a significant problem.

 

I don't see much problem with survival going up, given what they've already survived. Re-entry might be interesting, but since we're not talking about orbital velocities, the problems are fairly small. For instance, the package they used didn't approach the velocity attained by Joseph Kittinger when he jumped from 102,000 feet. Slowing a low-density, low-mass package isn't really that difficult.

 

Second, as to whether it's "no where {sic} near space":

 

That depends both on how you define "space" and how you define "near".

 

Defined by temp and pressure, it's pretty close by my definitions. Defined by distance to whichever popular altitude threshold you prefer, it's not very close, though they were closer to "space" than to Buffalo. (So am I, for that matter. rolleyes.gif ) By potential energy, they were about 40% of the way to the potential at 50 miles (stationary). Of course, the potential at 50 miles (stationary) is only about 10% of the potential at a moderately stable LEO, but most people would agree that at 50 to 60 miles, you're in space. How do you want to measure it?

 

I think the significant elements are temp and pressure; please feel free to disagree, but there's no canonical answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First, survival:

 

My comment on surviving space was more for the craft than for people, since it doesn't actually hold any passengers. Obviously the balloon would pop way before it got to a point where everyone would agree as 'space'. Any compartment for passengers would make the payload so heavy, I doubt it could get aloft to a height that anyone would consider 'space'. That's kind of where I was coming from.

 

That depends both on how you define "space" and how you define "near".

 

The most often quoted definition of space is starting at 62 miles/100 km. While there is some 'fuzziness', 19 miles, or even relatively near that, has never been close to any definition of space I've heard of.

 

Despite how the media is portraying it, they never say they are going into "space."

 

The very first line of the text in the video is "In August 2010, we set out to send a camera to space". Additionally, they declare their family the '2010 Brooklyn Space Program'.

 

Close enough to still be AWESOME.

 

I agree, I think this would be hella fun to do. I guess I just don't see why the media is over-hyping this. People launch weather balloons all the time. Plus the inaccuracy is annoying too. It is not a 'spacecraft', balloons do not go into, or travel through space; they travel through atmosphere. A jetski on land does not make it a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...