posted 10-23-2012 03:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
How about testing high-altitude survivability and supersonic flight unaided by a vehicle as objectives?

---

Did Red Bull Stratos specifically state that those were their objectives...or are you just putting words into their mouths?

I don't see any need to test high altitude survivability, since astronauts who have conducted EVAs in the vacuum of space have already demonstrated that ability. If you're referring to possible ejection from a re-entering spacecraft, this "experiment" forgoes the major factor that could limit survivability...namely, the re-entry speed of a spacecraft. (And no, Mach 1.24 doesn't come close to simulating that.)

As for supersonic flight without an aircraft, is that really a valid objective to achieve, from a scientific standpoint? It's a neat accomplishment and highly entertaining (as long as one doesn't go splat on the ground), but scientific? Highly doubtful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
According to Red Bull Stratos, the support team consisted of nearly 100 top experts recruited from diverse fields of science

---

Obviously, they needed help from many scientists and engineers to make their mission a success. But that doesn't mean the mission itself was scientific in nature. Professional stuntmen often have to employ science and engineering to be successful. Otherwise, they tend not to live very long.

posted 10-23-2012 10:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
Another thought - how did they measure the speed of the fall?

---

It was clear from the beginning that GPS was the only practical technology that would provide the necessary data record in the environment of the jumps. But there were a number of challenges.

...was the fact that the stratospheric environment — and Felix's goal of supersonic speed — were beyond any previous use of GPS for FAI certification. Further, because of U.S. Department of Defense restrictions for security purposes, most GPS devices don't support measurement of altitudes above 60,000 feet.

Once the team selected a GPS system, scrupulous testing was carried out to verify its accuracy. Evaluations included twice dropping an unmanned test pod to simulate manned flight from stratospheric altitudes and comparing the results to those of a Doppler radar.

Utley uses this verified system to retrieve Felix's jump data and, employing software programs that he has created, produces the analysis and reports that are submitted to the NAC and, ultimately, the FAI for "homologation" (certification).

posted 10-23-2012 10:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Here's the litmus test: If the Red Bull Stratos project was really about science, then surely there is no reason to stop after breaking Kittinger's altitude record. If there truly is science to be gained by pushing higher and faster with these jumps, why stop now?

---

Who says "stop"? He didn't just beat JK's height record; he crushed it by 20%. You could say that the litmus test for this being a "stunt" was beating JK's record by one foot, but he didn't - he went way beyond the necessary, with all the incremental risk.

I believe the highest an unmanned balloon has been is around 175,000 feet, so yes, there's still scope for higher jumps but ultimately the payoff between science and risk becomes heavily mono-directional.

posted 10-23-2012 10:10 AM               

On future applications for this experimental jump, I think we should step back and see where this goes. There are going to be applications for this technology that we might not immediately see.

The David Clark suit he wore is the latest generation of a design going back to the Gemini days. While the program was not intended to develop an escape option for manned spacecraft, it came along at a time when commercial suborbital spaceflight is becoming closer to reality. There are other companies currently designing pressure suits for passengers on these flights, as will be required by the FAA.

I always found it quite risky that Scaled Composites chose to conduct their SS1 flights without pressure suits. The simplicity of the ship's design I feel led to a complacency about what could go wrong. A popped window, fuselage crack, or failure of the openable nosecone could have immediately killed the pilot. The bailout procedure was understatedly simple, and did not account for the pilot having to remain with the ship, possible under incapacitating G-forces, until at a low enough altitude to survive without a suit.

The Stratos project did responsible incremental testing in a progressive series of jumps from 70K, 92K, then finally 128K. Each of these provided data points on speed, stability, temperature, etc. which helped meet the goals of the program. When added to other data points from other projects and accidents, a suit/ parachute design and escape envelope can be developed which may aid future space travelers.

We knew from Kittenger's jumps that 100,000' was survivable. We knew from an inflight breakup of an SR-71 that 80,000' and Mach 3 were survivable, although it was impossible to know for sure at what speed the crew was ripped out of the aircraft (the ejection seats were not actuated before they blacked out). We now know that 128,000' and supersonic speeds are survivable. We know from the Columbia accident that some upper limit of survivability exists, but where is that?

I think all of this feeds into current and future spacecraft designs. The shuttle itself had an aftertought escape system which was extremely limited in usefulness. It would do no good to put, say, an escape hatch on a suborbital passenger ship without knowing what speed and altitude the crew and passengers could leave through it. I would bet that the folks involved in building these craft and the new suits have payed close attention to Stratos, and can't wait for the test results.

posted 10-23-2012 11:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
Who says "stop"? He didn't just beat JK's height record; he crushed it by 20%. You could say that the litmus test for this being a "stunt" was beating JK's record by one foot, but he didn't - he went way beyond the necessary, with all the incremental risk.

---

He wasn't just aiming to beat Kittinger's record, though. He was also aiming to beat the record for the highest manned balloon flight (122,907 feet) set by Nicholas Piantanida in 1966. Simply put, he was trying to capture as many records as possible in one fell swoop.

posted 10-23-2012 02:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Did Red Bull Stratos specifically state that those were their objectives...

---

I'll refer you back to my post on page 3 of this topic on October 18, which was directly transcribed from the Red Bull Stratos Mission webpage on that date.

If you visit the Red Bull Stratos Mission webpage currently and hover over [THE MISSION], you will see the following continue to be stated:

Red Bull Stratos is a scientific mission to 120,000 ft. Jumping from a stratospheric balloon one man will attempt to break the speed of sound in freefall.

Red Bull Stratos seeks to advance scientific discoveries in aerospace for the benefit of mankind.

The purpose of the Red Bull Stratos mission is to transcend human limits.

His successful feat on Oct. 14, 2012 holds the potential to provide valuable medical and scientific research data for future pioneers.

Although researching extremes was part of the program's goals, setting records wasn't the mission's purpose.

Today Felix and his specialized team want to take what was learned from Joe's jumps more than 50 years ago, and combine that with data acquired during Felix's supersonic freefall.

"Red Bull Stratos medical director Dr. Jonathan Clark, who was the crew surgeon for six Space Shuttle flights, wants to explore the effects of acceleration to supersonic velocity on humans: "We'll be setting new standards for aviation. Never before has anyone reached the speed of sound without being in an aircraft. Red Bull Stratos is testing new equipment and developing the procedures for inhabiting such high altitudes as well as enduring such extreme acceleration. The aim is to improve the safety for space professionals as well as potential space tourists."

Red Bull Stratos aims to provide information that will further the progression of aerospace safety. The key benefits for the science community are as follows:

- To aid development of a new generation of space suits - including enhanced mobility and visual clarity - and other systems to lead toward passenger/crew exit from space.

- To aid development of protocols for exposure to high altitude/high acceleration.

- To aid exploration of the effects on the human body of supersonic acceleration and deceleration, including development of the latest innovations in parachute systems.

By definition, the flight was going to be a test of human high altitude and supersonic survivability - nobody had done this before at that altitude and speed in earth atmosphere and proven that biomechanically this was humanly possible and survivable. Theory is one thing, proof another.

The flight parameter data increases the knowledge base about human stratospheric flight. Who knows what vehicle flight profiles will be flown in the future and where this may be applicable? Preliminary aerospace research made Kittinger's flights possible, which made Baumgartner flights possible, which in turn will make future flights possible at higher altitudes. All of this helps characterize and define the human flight envelope and its limits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Here's the litmus test: If the Red Bull Stratos project was really about science, then surely there is no reason to stop after breaking Kittinger's altitude record. If there truly is science to be gained by pushing higher and faster with these jumps, why stop now?

---

Although researching extremes was part of the program's goals, setting records wasn't the mission's purpose.

Perhaps Red Bull Stratos will redefine a new objective in future. However they will need a new test subject as Baumgartner has indicated he is not willing to risk another such high altitude flight. There is also the matter of funding - Robert Goddard's pioneering rocket flights were, in part, possible because Buzz Aldrin's father secured support from Charles Lindbergh and Daniel Guggenheim, and the funding was curtailed because of the 1930s Depression.

posted 10-23-2012 05:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Carey:
Not trying to promote or dismiss any of the perspectives voiced, but here is a Yale physicist's take on the dive.

---

For someone so educated, I found her analysis to be shallow, glib, naive, and contemptuous toward the entire Stratos Project. I very much doubt she has any practical subject matter expertise in the fields of high altitude flight or aerospace medicine. She effectively insulted the project team by her insinuation that all these technical experts had been engaged for years on a "PT Barnum" stunt with little real value. I'm glad she was never one of my lecturers.

Connecticut is not New Mexico, theory is not practice, and wind tunnel/computer modeling is not actual stratospheric flight.

Meg Urry is no Robert Goddard, thankfully!

[On Edit]: The (mainly negative) comments under the article are actually more interesting than the article itself.

I reckon the funniest is this one

"Who cares? It's not like the Red Bull pure physics research budget is being dangerously diverted toward frivolous purposes, while the Red Bull Particle Collider falls into disrepair!"

posted 10-23-2012 08:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
The mission webpage also currently states:

The purpose of the Red Bull Stratos mission is to transcend human limits.

---

That sounds like another way of saying breaking records.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
Although researching extremes was part of the program's goals, setting records wasn't the mission's purpose.

---

It's interesting that they stopped doing jumps as soon as the three biggest records were broken (highest manned balloon altitude, highest altitude jump, and fastest freefall). Apparently there was some elusive scientific reason to jump at 128,000 feet and break the speed of sound, but not go any higher or faster.

posted 10-24-2012 06:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Apparently there was some elusive scientific reason to jump at 128,000 feet and break the speed of sound, but not go any higher or faster.

---

"moment when the Halusian Gulp is opening"

"when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

As an aside, if this really was a stunt then Felix completely fluffed his lines and blew the moneyshot as he stood on the edge of the capsule about to jump into the history books with millions of people watching live around the world.

I can just imagine some Red Bull marketing exec clenching his fists and shouting at the TV - "Come on Felix, say the line, say the line, SAY THE LINE!!"

"Red Bull gives you wiiiiings! Whahey!"

posted 10-24-2012 09:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
Baumgartner was interviewed on BBC Newsnight last night.

---

Remove the science from this endeavour and Felix would not have gone supersonic in jeans/t-shirt/flip-flops from a party balloon floating over his back garden.

posted 10-24-2012 09:41 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
Meg Urry's dismissive article is that of a physics professor operating from behind the sheltered walls of Ivy League/Ivory Tower academia.

---

I believe her assessment is accurate. In my opinion this was a stunt driven by marketing dollars, not science. Just because Red Bull talks about "scientific reasons" in their publicity doesn't mean they are true.

posted 10-24-2012 01:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
That's a very dismissive statement itself.

---

At no point did I indicate that academic scientific research was not important or valuable. It is. But academic research and modelling in the lab can only simulate real world conditions to a limited degree. At some point a good researcher is required to vacate the lab and prove their research under real conditions in the field. That is the true proof of theoretical research.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
I believe her assessment is accurate. In my opinion this was a stunt driven by marketing dollars, not science.

---

posted 10-24-2012 01:42 PM               

NASCAR races require science and produce scientific results. NASA physiologists and engineers has studied NASCAR technology for future spacecraft crew safety systems. That doesn't mean NASCAR is a scientific activity.

Felix Baumgartner jumped out of a balloon-lofted gondola to break records. His driving force wasn't to explore the science of upper atmosphere physics or physiology.

That the scientists he enlisted to achieve his own goals were also able to derive data for their own areas of study, and add those to the project's overall outcome does not change the fact that the primary goal was to break records.

Here's the very simple litmus test:

Had Baumgartner failed to set a single record but collected data in the process, would Red Bull Stratos have been declared a success? No, clearly not.

But had Baumgartner broke the records (as he did) but the scientific data that was collected had been somehow corrupted or lost in the process, would the project have been declared a failure? Clearly no.

It's clear your hang-up is on the term stunt. I personally don't think there should be any negative connotation to that label in this context, but I'll grant you others might. So how about feat?

posted 10-25-2012 10:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
That doesn't mean NASCAR is a scientific activity.

---

NASCAR

Inside NASCAR - The Science Of The Tandem Draft

Particular highlights were the insistence that Newtonian Mechanics are behind every decision engineers make in NASCAR, and the section on wind tunnels and computational fluid dynamics models and their fallibility (Meg Urry take note!).

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

US NSF - The Science Of Speed

"You can't win NASCAR races without getting the science right. NASCAR teams push science to its limits to eke out the tenths or hundredths of a second that separate the winner from the also-rans. This video series uses the elements of NASCAR to show that a racecar really is a science experiment on wheels."

What is sport actually about? Beating your opponent? Winning? Setting records? Survival in extreme sports? Sport is a substitute for warfare (the origins of the Olympic Games lie in military disciplines). Warfare is not about winning - it is about surviving and being less incapacitated than your enemy. There are no winners on a battlefield, just survivors. No one is setting records. It is first and foremost a test of survival. Formula 1 and NASCAR drivers used to get killed in high numbers until advances in science intervened to enable drivers to push limits and still survive.

The forces of nature and laws of physics don't care one iota about human records. Gene Kranz said it best on NASA's Greatest Missions:

"Space is basically a test of survival - our ability to invent things that will allow us to use very limited resources."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Felix Baumgartner jumped out of a balloon-lofted gondola to break records ... the primary goal was to break records.

---

The flight was pioneering aerospace exploration, pushing an experimental flight envelope and applied science to its limits.

It shouldn't be degraded by Meg Urry with dismissive descriptions like "human cannonball descent" equating it to a mere circus stunt and positioning it as something that has no "higher purpose" and impedes "genuine progress in science and engineering". As if pure science is somehow more real or important or noble than applied science.

Gene Kranz also said in NASA's Greatest Missions:

"The power of space was to raise our aspirations to those things that are possible if we will commit."

posted 10-25-2012 12:10 PM               

I work in NASCAR and I can assure you that its main goal is marketing. The sport is designed to sell product by associating it with winning personalities and automobiles. It doesn't matter if the product is soap, cereal or the US Army - all use NASCAR to market their products.

posted 10-25-2012 01:44 PM               

Regardless of what term best describes Felix's dive (and frankly, I think any single word describing or dismissing such an event is too simple for something with a high level of complication), to me it helped fulfill a longing that I hadn't felt for something that seemed cool and worth while since July of last year.

Personally, I could care less about the Red Bull product. I don't drink it as it tastes kind of disgusting (unless one drinks it very cold). But, I will concede that they are different from other marketing driven companies. Red Bull maintains an air museum/restaurant in Europe and helps to restore rare aircraft to flying status (something considered more of a money pit than marketing). For someone like me who is a fan of all things aviation, I have to respect that.

Red Bull doesn't really do anything different than what Richard Branson did when he built a boat to try to set the atlantic crossing record or do the circumnavigation balloon flights in the 1980s and 90s (culminating with a few failed attempts at circumnavigating the globe). All those endeavors had his "Virgin" brand splashed across it.

It seems ultimately that a science gathering endeavor or a record setting expedition for pure science sake doesn't really happen anymore. Many of the greatest expeditions of the 20th century required financial backing (with explorers like Shackleton having to do campaigning for funds himself). Charles Lindberg had to put together a team of St. Louis businessmen to finance construction of his airplane for the Atlantic crossing (with a goal of winning the Orteig prize, a financial incentive). The X-Prize was a similar impetus for the development of Spaceship One. The missions to the moon required something more than somebody saying "we can do it" as it needed a justification to do so (to beat the Soviets). The military has plenty of their own justifications for doing the research they do and Kittenger didn't do his balloon flights to just set records.

Given that tax dollars aren't as forthcoming for pure science projects these days, we may have to get used to the fact that if any future records are broken or new exciting missions are flown, it will likely be the Red Bulls, Virgins and SpaceXs (and Jim Camerons) who are going to be funding such projects more so than government agencies, unless the agencies can come up with some justification for them that gets their financial backers (i.e. Congress) to foot the bill.

posted 10-25-2012 02:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
I think you've defeated your own argument with your auto racing analogy. I work in NASCAR and I can assure you that its main goal is marketing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
The sport is designed to sell product by associating it with winning personalities and automobiles.

---

posted 10-25-2012 07:56 PM               

"The technology of space travel and exploration is moving forwards every day, and we look forward to taking on new challenges as we move closer towards commercial space flight. Who knows, the next record leap could one day be from Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo.

Haven't had a challenge myself for a while. Could be fun for Virgin to give Red Bull a run for their money."

posted 10-25-2012 08:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
For someone so educated, I found her analysis to be shallow, glib, naive, and contemptuous toward the entire Stratos Project.

---

Whether you like her opinion or not, Meg Urry is a phenomenally gifted scientist. Your attitude towards the Ivy League and the comment about an ivory tower are, frankly, rude. I don't know if you've ever spent time at an Ivy League school, but I have and the students and faculty have been, in my experience, kind, fiercely intelligent, and genuinely enthusiastic about sharing knowledge.

posted 10-26-2012 05:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
science is applied directly on the track every 1/1000th sec from the tyre compounds, fuels, carbon fiber monocoques to the engines, brakes, suspension, gearboxes through to the NOMEX suits, HANS devices, timing systems etc.

---

I couldn't agree more but that does not make the purpose of the acitivity science. The purpose of NASCAR is entertainment! The marketing dollars brought in by the entertainment allow the engineers to practice their science! It doesn't start with a research investigation, it starts with a sponsorship proposal about getting a brand in front of X faces for Y dollars.

By your standards everything done by humans - watching TV, going potty, cooking dinner - is a scientific activity. We fry an egg to learn about thermodynamics, we drink wine to learn about anti-oxidants. Everything, even sitting still in a chair, involves some science and is therefore a scientific acitivy? I do not agree.

And your statements about dead drivers are incredibly rude and insulting, doubly so as the company I manage has saved hundreds of lives and prevented thousands of injuries. We're now working with NASA on crew restraints - can you tell me if NASA likes people with pulses? We don't understand complex scientific problems like that.

posted 10-27-2012 05:14 AM               

So I think we should perhaps spend all the money [which is] going to Mars to learn about Earth. I mean, you cannot send people there because it is just too far away. That little knowledge we get from Mars I don't think makes sense.

Referencing Richard Branson's recent comments he said, "It sounds like he wants to use our positive momentum and gain publicity on his side and that is kind of lame."

posted 10-27-2012 11:24 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AJ:
I find your attitude towards this article and the author to be incredibly rude, simply because you didn't like what she had to say.

---

That is pretty arrogant, dismissive, condescending and uninspiring coming from a science educator and directed at professionals pushing an experimental flight envelope and the boundaries of human knowledge.

The pilot-in-command/test subject and the "technical experts" deliberately chose to participate in the project in the full knowledge of what it entailed and the associated risks. She insinuates that testing human survivability during supersonic freefall and the effects of such acceleration and deceleration on the human body under real-word conditions are, somehow, less worthy objectives than other types of science.

She suggested that "computers... powerful enough to simulate physical reality" or "tests in a wind tunnel or a freezer would suffice" to develop pressure suits yet we know from other disciplines that modelling is limited and reality in the stratosphere can be significantly different to artificial reality.

She suggested that "perhaps a bigger danger was that for the first 35 seconds, Baumgartner was tumbling out of control.". Preliminary review of the footage does not support that assertion. The exit appeared stable and in control, and the departure from controlled flight occurred later in the region of maximum speed.

posted 10-28-2012 07:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
I couldn't agree more but that does not make the purpose of the activity science. The purpose of NASCAR is entertainment!

---

Which reminds me to post the link to this: Formula 1 - Alonso: We have to fight Red Bull genius

Fernando Alonso believes he is having to contend with the genius of Red Bull's chief technical officer Adrian Newey just as much as he is with Sebastian Vettel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
By your standards everything done by humans - watching TV, going potty, cooking dinner - is a scientific activity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
And your statements about dead drivers are incredibly rude and insulting, doubly so as the company I manage has saved hundreds of lives and prevented thousands of injuries.

---

posted 10-28-2012 09:41 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AJ:
I don't intend to argue with you. I think your comments were needlessly rude and insulting.

---

posted 11-02-2012 05:18 AM               

Space Dive
Duration: 1 hour, 30 minutes

In this one-off documentary, Space Dive tells the behind-the-scenes story of Felix Baumgartner's historic, record-breaking freefall from the edge of space to Earth.

The world watched with bated breath when Felix became the first person to freefall through the sound barrier on 15 October 2012, after jumping from 128,100ft (24 miles) from the edge of space.

Space Dive features footage, which until now has been kept closely under wraps, from cameras attached to Felix, as he broke through the sound barrier. The documentary follows Felix as he underwent years of training under the watchful eye of 82-year-old colonel Joe Kittinger, the man who set the original record when he fell 19 miles to Earth (102,000 feet) 50 years ago, since which two men died in similar attempts.

During Felix's intense physical training, the cameras capture the basejumper as he struggles to overcome a severe claustrophic reaction to the movement-restricting pressure suit, and how the mission came close to aborting in the final stages of the ascent, and saw just how close Felix came to spinning and tumbling to unconsciousness during the jump.