Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HD Video From the Edge of Space, On the Cheap

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the commendably-few-casualties dept.

Earth 205

SoundDoc75 links to a page describing the motivations and problem-solving behind "a 10-minute HD video taken on August 24th with a Canon Vixia HF20 HD camera suspended from a 1500g hydrogen balloon and launched near Edmonton, Alberta. This is the first known amateur video taken from this height — 107,145 feet."

cancel ×

205 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How misleading! (5, Funny)

celibate for life (1639541) | about 5 years ago | (#29520913)

The title made me think we had finally reached the outer edge of the Universe, where God lives!

Re:How misleading! (1)

eln (21727) | about 5 years ago | (#29521093)

God really needs to set a better example than that. Living that far out, his commute must be terrible, and he probably does it in a giant SUV. How can he expect us to take care of his little planet if he's going to be out there spreading his pollution all over the Universe?

Re:How misleading! (-1, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | about 5 years ago | (#29521541)

When we find God, maybe we can get him to stop the Slashdot editors from posting so many dupes?

I mean honestly. I logged in, looked down the page, and had to check the date thinking I'd somehow slipped back into last week.

Re:How misleading! (0, Flamebait)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 5 years ago | (#29521795)

When we find God, I would like to ask him why so many of his followers (Pudge, RailGunner, Sarah Palin, Adolf Hitler) are such assholes.

Re:How misleading! (3, Informative)

nairnr (314138) | about 5 years ago | (#29521819)

When we find God, maybe we can get him to stop the Slashdot editors from posting so many dupes?

I mean honestly. I logged in, looked down the page, and had to check the date thinking I'd somehow slipped back into last week.

The last one was a team from MIT, with normal digital stills which is getting fairly routine, this one has hi-def video... Same Idea, different beast...

Re:How misleading! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 5 years ago | (#29522593)

And audio too... totally hip. Total bummer that my mini could only play about three frames a second though.

Re:How misleading! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521455)

Yeah, well, it's good exercise to get caught out that way. Like that brown horse over there; so far, all we know is it's brown on /this/ side.

Re:How misleading! (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 5 years ago | (#29522709)

What does GOD need with a Balloon?

Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29520923)

editors are cracksmoke

Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks (5, Funny)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | about 5 years ago | (#29521513)

editors are cracksmoke

And I'm glad. You see, this information comes from Edmonton. To get it to Slashdot, brave Canadian Voyageurs and their faithful Eskimo sidekicks must trek through millions of miles of frozen wastelands filled with polar bears, undead elk that thirst for dwarven blood, and the occasional crazed Frenchman. It is only the far and distant beacon of crack smoke billowing from the obsidian tower of Slashdot HQ that prevents them from getting lost in the soul-destroying wilds and eaten by madding tundra, a close cousin to the dread gazebo.

Re:Why is slashdot always behind like 2 weeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29522887)

Eskimos suck!

Go Lions!

weird (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | about 5 years ago | (#29521059)

It looks like slashes become backslashes in that height

DUP (0)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 5 years ago | (#29521079)

Seems like a DUP timothy.

Re:DUP (1, Interesting)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 5 years ago | (#29521131)

Re:DUP (2, Informative)

DrData99 (916924) | about 5 years ago | (#29521485)

So clearly you didn't look at either article (I know, this is slashdot).
Completely different projects.

Re:DUP. *NOT* (5, Funny)

schon (31600) | about 5 years ago | (#29521639)

Yeah, it's the same thing.

Except that the other story was about different people. And they were from MIT, not Sherwood Park, Canada. And they used a still camera, not a video one.

So yeah, except for the fact that everything is different, it's completely the same.

Re:DUP. *NOT* (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 years ago | (#29522839)

Well, one thing they do have in common is that neither group got anywhere close to the 100km (330,000ish ft) altitude which is the internationally recognized edge of space.

Re:DUP (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about 5 years ago | (#29521993)

Nah, its just that everyone is doing it but you.

Free HD Camera for Farmer in middle of nowhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521083)

Well someone just got a pretty nice new video camera. Assuming the camera was transmitting it's GPS coordinates it's finders keepers.

Re:Free HD Camera for Farmer in middle of nowhere (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 5 years ago | (#29521651)

How exactly do you think they got the video from it?

Re:Free HD Camera for Farmer in middle of nowhere (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | about 5 years ago | (#29522205)

Is this joke from monty python and the holy grail?

First amateurs? Not quite! (4, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about 5 years ago | (#29521121)

That's not the first amateur video from that height, I've seen the quality of the video astronauts shoot. If they're not amateur cameramen, who is?

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521177)

They are taking the videos while being paid. Astronauts are therefor professional cameramen.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (5, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about 5 years ago | (#29521245)

No, they're professional astronauts with a hobby. I was a professional fireman for years, and sometimes at night I played Pokemon. That doesn't make me a professional Pokemon Trainer.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 5 years ago | (#29521421)

IIRC. The Apollo astronauts were trained by a professional photographer on how to use the custom (Hasselbak or something close to that.) cameras for use on the moon. They carried them around for months and practiced shooting with them everywhere. For learning how to shoot a picture without getting to look through the view finder I think they did a fairly good job. With those cameras, in that environment they were definitely trained professionals.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (5, Informative)

the 99th penguin (1453) | about 5 years ago | (#29522817)

The Apollo astronauts were trained by a professional photographer on how to use the custom (Hasselbak or something close to that.) cameras for use on the moon.

They were modified Hasselblad [wikipedia.org] cameras (a very nice medium format film camera). They brought the film back but left the cameras on the moon.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

jgarra23 (1109651) | about 5 years ago | (#29522097)

No, they're professional astronauts with a hobby. I was a professional fireman for years, and sometimes at night I played Pokemon. That doesn't make me a professional Pokemon Trainer.

It does if you're playing Pokemon whilst putting out fires :)

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 5 years ago | (#29522945)

That would make me a professional multitasker!

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521259)

Only if they're being payed to shoot the video.

So, if taking the video is part of their official duties, they're professional cameramen. If it's not, then it's amateur video. And if they weigh less than a duck, they're a witch, and should be burned.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 5 years ago | (#29521323)

Actually, judging from the videos of a spacewalk, they do weigh less than a duck.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29521341)

You can't tell how much something weighs by how fast it falls. :p

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521429)

Try telling that to the Medieval villagers.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (2, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | about 5 years ago | (#29521525)

That's typically true, but there are seldom exceptions - This being one of them.

If something falls at 0 ft/second, it weighs nothing. If it falls up, it weighs less than nothing.

These things, of course, tell you little about the object's mass.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29521763)

Good points... although these exceptions still wouldn't help you tell whether an astronaut weighed less than a duck. Unless the astronaut fell up, I suppose, but that would be an astronaut with one serious case of gas.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

Fanro (130986) | about 5 years ago | (#29522155)

If something falls at 0 ft/second, it weighs nothing. If it falls up, it weighs less than nothing.

Since science has so far not found anything that weighs nothing while at rest, nor anything that wheights less than nothing, that is pure speculation. It is unknown how such objects would behave

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

Jurily (900488) | about 5 years ago | (#29522583)

You can't tell how much something weighs by how fast it falls. :p

I think you're confusing mass with weight. In Newtonian physics, mass is constant, and weight = mass*gravity.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | about 5 years ago | (#29521451)

Personally, I'd love to see them bring a duck into space in order to test this hypothesis.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521289)

I get paid while taking a shit. What's that make me?

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521535)

This guy? [goatse.cx]

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | about 5 years ago | (#29521653)

A slashdotter?

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

RabidMoose (746680) | about 5 years ago | (#29521251)

Well, if you want to get technical, the astronauts aren't taking any video at 100k feet. They're still strapped in at that point, cameras stowed away.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

rarel (697734) | about 5 years ago | (#29521495)

I think their point is that it's the first HD video, not the first video.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29521865)

This is the first known amateur video taken from this height â" 107,145 feet."

they weren't taken at the height, were they? Yes this is the first from the height...not the highest over all~

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (3, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | about 5 years ago | (#29522189)

"This is the first known amateur video taken from this height -- 107,145 feet."

Yes, the 218 videos from 107,146 feet and the 342 from 107,147 feet are not the same as this one.

Re:First amateurs? Not quite! (5, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 5 years ago | (#29521907)

Who cares? What matters is that they did something that was awesome to do. Imagine yourself lifting up a baloon with a camera attached to it, wondering what will happen. Later on you find your camera back. You wait for what seems to be like forever for the 32GB to get transfered onto your computer. You watch the video from when you were standing in a grass field and watch what happened when you were there on the ground. You watch your camera fly into outer fscking space. You feel like "WOW! Dude that's beautifull... we freakin done it! We actually did it! It worked!".

And then you feel awesome for a complete month, figuring out what to do next, while the world gets to see what you saw.

You're suppose to like this, given the fact that you are on /. What's wrong with you?

This seems to be getting pretty routine (1)

wandazulu (265281) | about 5 years ago | (#29521141)

But it's still way way cool and I'd love to do something like this myself.

I was thinking of a short-lived TV show I immediately loved and can't think of its name (and sadly, google hasn't been my friend to find it) about a group of people who launch a spaceship to the moon using stuff from a junkyard. In a similar vein, I suppose, as a way of "upping the ante", what would be the chances of attaching a couple of rockets to the side so that, when the balloon has gotten as far as it's going to go, the rockets kick in and push it up that much further? Heck, what would it take to get it into some sort of orbit? I suppose, though, the pictures would look pretty much the same as taken from the balloon; you'd really have to work hard to get a good pic of the earth. Of course, INARS so I'm likely being incredibly naive in my ideas here.

Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine (1)

mshannon78660 (1030880) | about 5 years ago | (#29521461)

Ask, and ye shall receive... Salvage [imdb.com]

Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about 5 years ago | (#29521581)

You know what would make it not routine? If they were use 3 or 4 cameras pointing in different directions and "stitch" the videos together to get a panoramic view, if that capability exists.

If not, then at least they can display the separate videos on multiple screens for a similar effect.

Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine (2, Informative)

kuldan (986242) | about 5 years ago | (#29521789)

That Show would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1 [wikipedia.org]

Re:This seems to be getting pretty routine (1)

kuldan (986242) | about 5 years ago | (#29521851)

Oh, and just to add another bit of Information - if you are into this kind of Science Fiction, I can highly recommend a book series by John Varley - Red Thunder (followed by Red Lightning and Rolling Thunder) where the invention of "Bubble Drive" enables a few off-the-shelf people to build a rocket out of Junkyard scrap and come to the rescue when the "real" mission by nasa goes poof.. It is a highly interesting read and continues nicely in the following Novels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Thunder_(novel) [wikipedia.org]

There's a reason this doesn't happen often (1, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 years ago | (#29521143)

Woah did anyone watch that movie? I'm about ready to vomit on my keyboard. My eyes are still spinning. DO NOT WATCH THAT IF YOU GET MOTION SICKNESS! Woah, just ruined any desire I had to fly in a balloon. Gives new meaning to the words vomit comet.

Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often (5, Insightful)

joggle (594025) | about 5 years ago | (#29521601)

It's a shame they didn't put some gyros and a free mount to get better video. If you're going to bother buying a new HD video camera, fly from Japan to Canada and (presumably) help pay for this balloon launch it seems it would have been worth it to put at least one gyro on there. It would have added to the weight (both due to the gyro and due to the extra batteries needed to power it), but it would have dramatically improved the video quality.

(I'm not referring to expensive professional, bulky gyro mounts like http://www.camerasystems.com/rentals.htm [camerasystems.com] -- any gyro would have been better than nothing -- heck, even a spindle mount with a wind vane on the styrofoam cube would have been a big improvement).

Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often (4, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 5 years ago | (#29522725)

Just a motor attached to a spinning disk would have halped a lot, two of these mounted perpendicular to each other should be enough to greatly dampen the spinning and oscillation.

Re:There's a reason this doesn't happen often (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | about 5 years ago | (#29521645)

You should wait until it gets to the top when the baloon bursts, and it starts falling.

I was fine up until then.

Ummm no, some Canadians are higher... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521161)

Here in British Columbia, we get A LOT higher than 107,000 feet.
(hey! What's that in REAL units? :-)

Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy (3, Interesting)

swb (14022) | about 5 years ago | (#29521187)

Can they control or limit the camera spin? It makes sense they can't right after the balloon bursts, but I would think there might be some kind of tricks they could do in the atmosphere on ascent and descent.

Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy (1)

Jaqenn (996058) | about 5 years ago | (#29521271)

Can they control or limit the camera spin? It makes sense they can't right after the balloon bursts, but I would think there might be some kind of tricks they could do in the atmosphere on ascent and descent.

Seems to me it would be better to digitally scrub the video, and keep your hardware cheap.

Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29522765)

Removing motion blur is very difficult and computationally expensive. The typical deshaking results in bursts of blur in an otherwise steady picture. Here's an example where a very shaky video has been processed: It shows police brutality at the "freedom instead of fear" demonstration in Berlin on 2009-09-12. [kickyoutube.com]

Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521563)

I'll bet you could rig up a nice gyro using a modified CD/DVD drive, but then that would add to the weight. Long record time, directional stability, resolution, altitude. Pick 2. A windsock/windvane/sail would be another option to help keep it pointed in a direction for long enough to grab a sharp frame.

Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 5 years ago | (#29521747)

What would have been cooler would have been a mirror that panorama makers use (the 360 ones). Point the camera at that. Do some trickery to do some anti spin, and then you could have a full 360 ascent.

CPU processing would be insane though.

Re:Kind of cool, but it made me dizzy (2, Insightful)

TimeTraveler1884 (832874) | about 5 years ago | (#29521915)

Adding a long streamer to the payload to act like a tail on a kite should have done the trick.

They could add a rudder... (4, Interesting)

t0qer (230538) | about 5 years ago | (#29521953)

Watching the video I thought the same thing about controlling the spin. All it would take is a rudder mounted on a boom (no elevator).

Then again, why not add an elevator, wings, ailerons, etc? They could add a pico pilot

http://www.u-nav.com/picopilot.html [u-nav.com]

And have the camera always pointed towards home. Then when the balloon bursts, instead of an out of control fall, they could have a nice controlled glide back to earth.

By giving the wings a ton of dihedral, it would automagically keep the camera steady on descent.

Re:They could add a rudder... (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | about 5 years ago | (#29522549)

Those are interesting ideas. I hope that the hobbyists will get into a friendly competition to see who can make the best video and achieve the highest altitude. It would be fun to see what they come up with. I'd consider trying it myself.

Repeat (-1, Troll)

spudnic (32107) | about 5 years ago | (#29521207)

Repeat

107,145 feet (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29521291)

This is the first known amateur video taken from this height — 107,145 feet.

Yes, and I bet it remains the only one taken from that (exact) height. ;)

(If they'd said "this high", I'd have interpreted it to mean "or higher", but strangely "this height" doesn't strike me the same.)

Re:107,145 feet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521441)

Don't worry about the grammar -- the author of the article certainly doesn't.

The video is dizzying and so is the text. Oy.

Hell of a skydive! :D (3, Insightful)

rarel (697734) | about 5 years ago | (#29521371)

Dupe or not, I don't care, I missed it the first time and I'm glad I didn't this one.

In the beginning it reminded me of how cool it is to fly, and I don't mean airliner, I mean small plane, ideally old-school open cockpit. It's not only all kinds of fun, it always detaches you from the world below and its petty concerns, in a way. Up there, you're literally free as a bird, it's magic.

Second half of the vid was one hell of a skydive! :D

Awesome flight, kudos guys!

"Edge of Space" is 100 km (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521373)

This kind of error gets posted routinely.

The boundary of space is conventionally defined at 100 km, or about 260,000 feet. Sending a weather balloon to 107,000 feet is nice, but it's only 40% of the way to the "edge of space."

Which, of course, you could have realized just by thinking about it. We define "space" as meaning "above the sensible atmosphere," and if you get there in a balloon, it couldn't be above the atmosphere.

Re:"Edge of Space" is 100 km (4, Informative)

jguthrie (57467) | about 5 years ago | (#29521663)

100Km is about 328,000 feet. That's why Space Ship One had a tail number of N328KF.

Also, the North Texas Balloon Team [edtexas.com] and the South Texas Balloon Project [qsl.net] routinely (with launches approximately annually) send balloons with video cameras to altitudes in excess of 100,000 feet. Those are just the two balloon projects I'm familiar with. I am sure there are others because it's not particularly hard to do.

So, this is pure ho-hum to me. Let me know when they've done it a couple of dozen times.

Not a dupe... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 5 years ago | (#29521449)

Not a dupe...

Before the days of HD ... (5, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | about 5 years ago | (#29521543)

... and memory cards, ham radio operators did this one [youtube.com] in 1989, which was just standard definition, but it went further (from Illinois to nearly Indianapolis) and higher. It just transmitted the signal back via the UHF transmitter on board.

Re:Before the days of HD ... (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | about 5 years ago | (#29521701)

That one had a much better soundtrack, too. 4 stars.

Re:Before the days of HD ... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29522001)

I wonder how accurate the altimeter is.
At 4 minutes it goes 125k, 110, 119 k per-second.

Re:Before the days of HD ... (1)

confused one (671304) | about 5 years ago | (#29522603)

The altimeter was a GPS device. The post-flight analysis showed that the camera's DC-DC converter was interfering with the GPS reciever; so, the signal was intermittent.

Re:Before the days of HD ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29522355)

Too bad he didn't get "munched by the columbine" at the end. What he didn't tell you is that Columbine is what he calls his wife.

legal? safe? ATC? (1)

blackfrancis75 (911664) | about 5 years ago | (#29521569)

I haven't read TFA but one thing that springs to my mind whenever I read stories like this is: who do you have to get permission from? I mean, it can't be safe for people to randomly be launching electronic equipment, potentially into the flight path of commercial or amateur aircraft. Is this simply not an issue, or is there a controlling body who schedules such launches?

Re:legal? safe? ATC? (1)

nairnr (314138) | about 5 years ago | (#29521721)

It is legal and not controlled. You can/should file a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) to warn of the activity. The FAA has restrictions but devices like this falls beneath the weight/size that are limited and controlled by the FAA.

A friend of mine did a project like this as well with a a regular digital camera, no video. It flew from Vulcan, AB to Hanna AB.

Re:legal? safe? ATC? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 years ago | (#29522969)

Fortunately, we here in Canada do not have to worry about FAA regulations.

Transport Canada regulations - now that's a different story.

Re:legal? safe? ATC? (1)

hondo77 (324058) | about 5 years ago | (#29522039)

I don't worry about the launch, I worry about the landing. A camera from space crashing into a house, person, car, etc. would be a bad thing (think parachute failure).

Re:legal? safe? ATC? (4, Informative)

fatboy (6851) | about 5 years ago | (#29522833)

I am a member of the Tennessee Balloon Group [nt4bg.net] . We had a parachute failure on one of our flights. TABEL-5 if I remember correctly. It burned in at a whopping 55 MPH and landed in a tree. We only launch if the predicted burst and landing is over a rural area.

Valve (2, Interesting)

l0b0 (803611) | about 5 years ago | (#29521589)

IANAAE, but I can't help thinking that a valve on the balloon would enable it to survive longer, siphoning off gas when the inner pressure gets too high. What other cheap improvements are available to these guys?

Re:Valve (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29522013)

Encasing it in a plastic shell.

Re:Valve (4, Informative)

TheHawke (237817) | about 5 years ago | (#29522117)

Weight restrictions vs performance. The envelope is filled to 25% capacity with helium, then released. As the balloon ascends, the gas expands, filling the envelope completely. Once it reaches altitude, it will stay there until either the membrane fails or programmed cutter severs the the tether, letting the payload descend back to the ground. A release valve would prolong the flight, but with amateur rides like this, they usually let it ride up until it bursts at a calculated altitude from the overpressure. 100K feet is impressive and the video is stunning.

Re:Valve (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 5 years ago | (#29522665)

Why wouldn't they fill it with hydrogen?

Re:Valve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29522629)

Why would you add a syphon? Wouldn't the gas release under it's own pressure? Seems stupid to me.

now I know (3, Interesting)

Luyseyal (3154) | about 5 years ago | (#29521627)

Now I have some idea of what it was like for Joe Kittinger [wikipedia.org] , a guy who sky-dived over 102,000 ft. back in the Fifties.

-l

Always found these interesting (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | about 5 years ago | (#29521731)

What size balloon would need to have attach a small craft that would be able to break thought the atmosphere?
I.e. attaching a rocket. Let alone keeping it on the correct trajectory.

unobscured sun (1)

SethJohnson (112166) | about 5 years ago | (#29521739)

My favorite parts were the brief glimpses of the sun surrounded by black space. That's a very rare sight and I feel like I might not have even seen that before. Every other image I've ever seen of the sun has the bluish atmosphere surrounding it. Very offputting to see the brightness of the sun surrounded by black.

Seth

Re:unobscured sun (1)

grahamwest (30174) | about 5 years ago | (#29522151)

NASA records video from the Solid Rocket Boosters on Space Shuttle launches. 6 minutes or so from the pad up to around 200,000ft and then all the way down to the sea. You can see the orbiter fly away, the other SRB as they both tumble, and the sun in the blackness of space although it's often too bright for the camera to cope with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FadV-VwuXWo [youtube.com]

Not again :/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521741)

Yay.. another slashdot "from space" article where hasn't even left the atmosphere. Anyone wanna fight about it?

I can see my house from here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29521799)

Well, almost. The part of the town that the camera kept spinning past as it rose... somewhere over there.

Insta-cred for me! (1)

Itninja (937614) | about 5 years ago | (#29521897)

I can tell from the canned graphics they edited the video using Pinnacle Studio. Since I also use that for home movies [blogspot.com] , I am giving myself 5 Insta-cred points (tm). Who ever said a $99 application has no place in space (well space-flavored sky anyway)? Suck it Adobe Premier Pro!

Not first. (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about 5 years ago | (#29522441)

As long as you consider a couple of guys on a BBC show to be amateurs in the sens that they were only professional TV presenters, not pro space people, they did it for about $500. They showed the footage on the TV show "Bang! Goes the Theory."

Hitchhikers? (1)

Kazlor (1020030) | about 5 years ago | (#29522461)

Am I the only one that thought of the sperm whale being called into existence, several miles above the surface of an alien planet?

Out of focus... (1)

ScottPhill (1532089) | about 5 years ago | (#29522529)

I wonder if they could lock the focus at infinity for better quality?

airspace coordination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29522741)

are there any rules for clearing airspace for this kind of thing? What happens when another aircraft hits one?

Safety? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29522763)

Seems like now that people are able to do these types of projects for relatively cheap, is that a concern for safety since the "secret" is out? Certainly a number of people randomly sending up weather balloons without notice could pose a problem for air traffic, no?

Questions for Someone who knows this stuff... (1)

popo (107611) | about 5 years ago | (#29522777)

1) How much power would it take to get to orbit from that height?

2) How hard would this be for a person to accomplish? (Human flight)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?