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!

Baumgartner's Daredevil Parachute Jump From Space Put On Hold

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the not-a-satisfying-reason dept.

Space 248

Velcroman1 writes "For years, an Austrian daredevil named Felix Baumgartner has been planning to take a 23-mile plunge from the edge of space — and in the process, become the first parachutist to break the sound barrier, plummeting toward the ground at 760 miles per hour. The engineers and scientists behind The Red Bull Stratos project, an effort to break the record for the highest freefall ever, billed the jump as more than a stunt. The leap from 120,000 feet was to yield volumes of data that would have been used to develop advanced life support systems for future pilots, astronauts, and even space tourists. But a promoter feels that the jump was his idea, and filed a lawsuit in April to prevent the event from taking place. And now Red Bull has pulled the plug on the project, FoxNews.com reports. 'Due to the lawsuit, we have decided to stop the project until this case has been resolved,' Red Bull said."

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

WTF (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33880422)

So if someone tells you to jump off a bridge, you're not allowed to do do it if they suddenly decide that no actually it was their idea and they want to keep it?

Re:WTF (5, Funny)

AMindLost (967567) | about 4 years ago | (#33880438)

Are you kidding? I jumped two whole steps on my way downstairs this morning and found the cease and desist letter already waiting for me on the doormat!

Re:WTF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880974)

Are you kidding? I jumped two whole steps on my way downstairs this morning and found the cease and desist letter already waiting for me on the doormat!

It was delivered by a big nigger.

Re:WTF (3, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 years ago | (#33880448)

I think it depends on the detail. If someone came up with detailed plans and engineering drawings of something that would enable you to jump safely off a bridge then they would have rights over this - though you would be free to come up with a different design and do it. I don't know if this is the case here though.

Re:WTF (1)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | about 4 years ago | (#33880546)

Well, as it's a *promoter* that's suing I doubt the plaintiff has any involvement in the actual science or engineering of the project.

Re:WTF (2, Insightful)

Eraesr (1629799) | about 4 years ago | (#33880620)

No, but apparently commercial interest is involved as well. It's probably not about the sole fact of executing someone else's idea, it's more likely about the money involved with sponsorship deals and stuff like that. If Red Bull is going to get lots of commercial exposure with this and the other party wants a bigger slice of the pie because they came up with the campaign to begin with, then it's understandable that they don't want to be snowed under by a behemoth like Red Bull.

Re:WTF (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33880756)

That's exactly the case. He claims he planned and devised the project, brought it to Red Bull, and they rejected it. They then took those plans and implimented them anyway.

Re:WTF (2, Insightful)

smallfries (601545) | about 4 years ago | (#33880880)

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second: why shouldn't they? When did we grant Intellectual Property rights to plans for promotional stunts. How exactly does he feel that he has been violated - copyright (not applicable), patent (no applicable).... Unless he got them to sign some sort of contract before showing them the plans he has no protection..... and now I'll probably RTFA to discover which of these was true.

Re:WTF (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33880914)

Trade secrets. If someone brings a secret, non-obvious idea to you, in confidence, and you then exploit that idea to their detrement, then you've done something illegal. It's like a patent, except you lose your protection when the idea goes public. From that point it's open season.

Re:WTF (1)

smallfries (601545) | about 4 years ago | (#33880962)

But trade secrets don't have any actual protection under law though - that was the original point of patents. Surely to qualify as a trade secret he would have needed a non-disclosure agreement, and that contract would have offered him the legal protection anyway?

The future of IP (4, Insightful)

khchung (462899) | about 4 years ago | (#33880496)

This is what you get for promoting the idea of "Intellectual Property".

If you can, using IP, stop people from making and selling products, stop people from singing songs, stop people from telling stories that contain certain fictional characters. Then why not stop people from making a jump from space?

Trade secrets (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33880778)

He's actually saying that his specific plans for executing the jump were used by Red Bull after they reviewed and rejected the project. Those plans wouldn't be protectable if they were open knowledge, but given that he was shopping the plans around privately, looking for a partnership, the plans constitute a trade secret.

Trade secrets are the antithesis of most IP law. Once an idea's "out there", the protection disappears, as it should.

Re:The future of IP (1)

mcvos (645701) | about 4 years ago | (#33880946)

I now see a future where you can't do anything at all unless you have the appropriate license from an IP holder.

Re:The future of IP (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 4 years ago | (#33880998)

This is saying: "Have a lifelong childhood dream? Well, that dream belongs to us now, and it is only fair because money changed hands, and we bought and paid for that dream."

Thank god that Martin Luther King Jr. didn't accept sponsorships.

Re:The future of IP (1)

SamSim (630795) | about 4 years ago | (#33881030)

I had the idea to post that comment first, please remove it immediately.

Re:WTF (1)

Fengpost (907072) | about 4 years ago | (#33880504)

Only if you made money off it!

Re:WTF (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 4 years ago | (#33880560)

If you have enough lawyers and a weak enough legal system, you can stop anyone doing just about anything. From here, it's a short step to actually getting anyone to do whatever you want.

Short step? (3, Insightful)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | about 4 years ago | (#33880622)

Are you sure you don't mean "leap"?

Wait... I'm being informed by my attorney that "leap" is too significantly similar to "jump", which is already another's IP. I'm sorry for wasting your time.

Re:WTF (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33880800)

It's more like, someone comes to you with detailed plans on how to make a lot of money jumping off a bridge, you tell them to fuck off, and then you take the plans and try to do it anyway. And then they come along and point out that you've essentially performed corporate espionage by stealing their trade secret.

Re:WTF (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33880850)

Depends what kind of agreement they entered into before the talks I suppose. I don't know the relevant laws for automatic/unspoken/unwritten contracts between two parties in such a scenario. It seems like it would be a very hard business to make a living in, presenting your ideas before you are paid, with no possibility of any patents on your ideas.

Re:WTF (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33880858)

The test for a cause of action for breach of confidence in the common law world is set out in the case of Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd, (1969) R.P.C. 41 at 47:

        * the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it;
        * that information must have been imparted in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence;
        * there must be an unauthorized use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.

Frankly I'd rather the "ideas economy" worked on trade secrets than on patents.

"Intellectual property" (4, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | about 4 years ago | (#33880434)

When saying "wouldn't it be cool to do a parachute jump -- from outer space!!11" gives you a monopoly on draining money off the people actually doing it, the concept of "intellectual property" really shows how childish and immature it is.

Re:"Intellectual property" (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#33880594)

It worked for "... using a computer!11"

Re:"Intellectual property" (1)

clickety6 (141178) | about 4 years ago | (#33880634)

Presumably, as the links suggest, the guy had done a little more planning than just the basic idea. As this is mainly being pitched as a publicity stunt (albeit one from which some interesting scientific studies may result), I guess we're looking at something more analogous to presenting a planned advertising campaign to a company, having it rejected and then finding that the company is running the same campaign idea with another advertising agency. As to how advanced and detailed his plans were, I guess we'll have to see when/if the case comes to court. If it was just a simple idea, then it probably won't go far.

Re:"Intellectual property" (1)

MrHanky (141717) | about 4 years ago | (#33880736)

Yes, it's more likely a case of breach of contract, but I was trying to get first post.

Re:"Intellectual property" (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 4 years ago | (#33880860)

To be fair, this sort of thing seems to happen in Hollywood quite a bit I hear. Someone pitches a movie idea, it is rejected and then the same movie is being produced a few weeks later. If someone has a good idea and even writes up a plan, it would seem appropriate that the people who make it happen should give credit and probably even pay the originator of the idea.

That said, there are ample examples of this happening a lot. It would seem to me that if someone were interested in pitching their idea, they should do so with a signed NDA in hand. If they refuse to sign an NDA, the chances are good they either don't believe you have a good idea or intend stealing it. Whatever the case, if you have an NDA in hand, you can nail them for breech.

Re:"Intellectual property" (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33880898)

There's too many valuable ideas being pitched without NDAs for that to fly. It's not worth the time and money, in attorney's fees to review the NDA, on the part of the recipient.

Re:"Intellectual property" (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 4 years ago | (#33880864)

1. Prior to presidential elections, get IP protection for all likely campaign elements.
2. When campaigns start, send C&D letters to all parties.
3. ????
4. Profit.

They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 4 years ago | (#33880442)

Prior art for the masses.

Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) (1)

toQDuj (806112) | about 4 years ago | (#33880476)

The project has been around for a little longer, though.

Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) (1)

DarthBender (1071972) | about 4 years ago | (#33880488)

How long? Because ST Voyager had something similar. It was in the holodeck though. Torres(sp?) turned off the safety systems and simulated a jump from space. It was part of her self destructive phase or something.

Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) (2, Informative)

EdZ (755139) | about 4 years ago | (#33880732)

And Project Excelsior [wikipedia.org] occurred even before that.

Re:They did a space jump in Star Trek (2009) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880602)

Actually they did that jump in the Sixties, and it was the Air Force that did it, though Star Trek was around at the time.

Pull the plug (4, Interesting)

captain_dope_pants (842414) | about 4 years ago | (#33880444)

The promoter who claims it was his idea and Red Bull stole it is, as always, in it for the money. Red Bull should just abandon the whole thing leaving him with the square root of fuck all. It'd save them legal fees too.

Re:Pull the plug (1)

toQDuj (806112) | about 4 years ago | (#33880484)

... which is exactly what they do as indicated in TFS

Re:Pull the plug (4, Insightful)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | about 4 years ago | (#33880536)

They invested heavily in the project and the resarch to make this possible. Just to "pull the plug" because some asshole sues them does not only leave the asshole with the "square root of fuck all", but also everybody involved in this project.

Unfortunately the US is such a big market, else I'd say they should simply pull their producs out of the country and let the sucker try to sue in a more sane jurisdiction.

Re:Pull the plug (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33880832)

The promoter's claiming that he invested in fundimentally devising the project and how it could be pulled off, though. If Red Bull believed in this project so badly they could've launched it legitimately, instead of (allegedly) rejecting it and then doing it anyway.

Re:Pull the plug (1)

santax (1541065) | about 4 years ago | (#33880712)

Or they just find a suicidal dude, let him jump, make sure he doesn't open the chute and then sue that bastard for liability. It was his idea after all.

Re:Pull the plug (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | about 4 years ago | (#33880870)

Well, they stole it from the USAF (or was it one of the research agencies), breaking of sound barrier and all.

Solution! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880456)

Ok fine! It's your idea...

Come on. You're going to space!

You need to be a daredevil (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 years ago | (#33880458)

You need to be a daredevil to go around with a name like Felix Baumgartner. I'll be buggered if I would.

Re:You need to be a daredevil (4, Informative)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | about 4 years ago | (#33880482)

Its a pretty ordinary name in german speaking countries. It basically means "The lucky tree gardener". Daredevil indeed.

Re:You need to be a daredevil (4, Funny)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 4 years ago | (#33880556)

Yes, but in English speaking countries it comes across as "The man who trims arse hair".

Re:You need to be a daredevil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880990)

Yes, but in English speaking countries it comes across as "The man who trims arse hair".

No it doesn't. Only in the same way that in English speaking countries Bilbo Baggins comes across as 'The man who sticks a vibrating replica penis up your bum'. Dildo Buggers!

Do you giggle every time you read the words count, funk, ship and winker?

Re:You need to be a daredevil (2, Interesting)

Eskarel (565631) | about 4 years ago | (#33881052)

I don't know about funk and ship, but winker is pretty funny.

Re:You need to be a daredevil (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33880618)

Well kinda. Felix isn't a german name though, it's latin. So in German it means Felix Tree Gardener, and maybe in French it means lucky Baumgartner.

Re:You need to be a daredevil (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about 4 years ago | (#33880762)

At least he wasn't named Sue.

Joseph Kittinger (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880464)

Nice to see TFA made a nod to Joe [wikipedia.org] .
Not sure why it [wikipedia.org] was omitted from the summary.

Re:Joseph Kittinger (2, Informative)

worf_mo (193770) | about 4 years ago | (#33880492)

In the first 1:30 of this video on youtube you see Kittinger's leap [youtube.com] , and other videos [youtube.com] show parts of the preparation. Truly impressive.

Re:Joseph Kittinger (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33880734)

He flew the observation/chase plane which monitored flight surgeon Colonel John Paul Stapp's rocket sled run of 632 mph (1,017 km/h) in 1955

Rocket sleds had chase planes? What did they expect to happen?

Re:Joseph Kittinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880876)

They wanted to perhaps observe and be near the rocket sled throughout the experiment?

Nah, they just wanted to pull him over for speeding.

Re:Joseph Kittinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880928)

He flew the observation/chase plane which monitored flight surgeon Colonel John Paul Stapp's rocket sled run of 632 mph (1,017 km/h) in 1955

Rocket sleds had chase planes? What did they expect to happen?

Well a chase plane makes sense. Not like you can just hop in the old Studebaker and punch it up to 632 miles per hour. As for what they expected to happen? No idea but I suppose they figured having film from a chase plane might be useful in case something bad or unexpected happened. You know, like (body) parts flying off or rockets suddenly deciding to go and get all explodey.

Nice catchy title... (3, Interesting)

geogob (569250) | about 4 years ago | (#33880468)

but 37 km is nowhere near space in my book. My personal boundary for space is the end of the Mesosphere. Official boundaries oscillate between 80 and 130 km.

Re:Nice catchy title... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880760)

Don't bother, the article is from Fox'News'.
I am flabbergasted that people even discuss it here.

Re:Nice catchy title... (1)

MosesJones (55544) | about 4 years ago | (#33880978)

but 37 km is nowhere near space in my book. My personal boundary for space is the end of the Mesosphere. Official boundaries oscillate between 80 and 130 km.

Now here is a person with serious personal boundary issues.

Sick of lawsuits (5, Insightful)

toQDuj (806112) | about 4 years ago | (#33880470)

Anyone else sick of ridiculous lawsuits? Can we get a public vetting vote for lawsuits to determine whether they are worthwhile or not?

Re:Sick of lawsuits (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33880606)

I refer the poster to YouTube. Pick a video. Basically any video. Now, look at the comments. Do you really want these guys deciding what lawsuits are "worthwhile"? I think they'd actually get more ridiculous. These people are the ones that sue when they accidentally kill their dog in a microwave.

Re:Sick of lawsuits (2, Interesting)

toQDuj (806112) | about 4 years ago | (#33880616)

True, but you can appoint a weight to their votes through a short questionnaire at the onset of the vote (testing their relevant knowledge level). The questionnaire can be designed in parts, 1/2 general test, and the other quarters by the opposing parties involved.

Re:Sick of lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880766)

Yeah but then you might as well have a judge decide on the merit of the case (as it is done now), because he would have the highest weighting anyway.
We just need to have more critical judges who throw out more useless cases. Same goes for the patent offices, by the way.

Re:Sick of lawsuits (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 years ago | (#33880926)

Right, that should only cost a few billion dollars in administration costs and tie up the entire population of the United States in assessing and voting on lawsuits. There will be no time to sue anybody and no money to sue anyone with. Great idea.

Re:Sick of lawsuits (1)

aepervius (535155) | about 4 years ago | (#33880794)

Baum=tree gartner=gardner, I guess you could call that an horticulturist, or similar (forester?).

Re:Sick of lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881094)

I think the term you are looking for is shepard of the forest, or Ent.

So did this lawsuit happy promoter come up with the idea of an Ent parachuting from space? I don't think so...

Orbit (1)

symes (835608) | about 4 years ago | (#33880522)

Is it possible that this guy could jump out of his plane and, rather than plummet, go into orbit? I want to know so that when I'm showing my kids the night sky I can point out Jupiter, Orion and Felix Baumgartner. Assuming, that is, this lawsuit goes away.

Re:Orbit (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 years ago | (#33880544)

The main component of 'orbit' is speed, not height.

Re:Orbit (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 4 years ago | (#33880610)

The short answer: No

The long answer: Orbit is a condition where gravity and lateral velocity are sufficantly well balanced that the object keeps going arround without either reentering the atmosphere or flying off into space. The lateral velocity required for this condition is high enough that no conceivable accident with a stunt like this would put a human into orbit.

Not by a factor of 1000 (1)

mangu (126918) | about 4 years ago | (#33880718)

Is it possible that this guy could jump out of his plane and, rather than plummet, go into orbit?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: as others have pointed out, speed is necessary to achieve orbit, and the balloon from which he will jump is essentially standing still over the earth. In those conditions, he would only be in orbit at the geostationary altitude, about 36000 km high, which is about a thousand times higher than he will be.

Space = 100km above sea level (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880534)

Is it possible for Slashdot to avoid the marketing-speak? Space begins 100km (62 miles) above sea level. [wikipedia.org] 36km is not "the edge of space".

Re:Space = 100km above sea level (4, Insightful)

zebslash (1107957) | about 4 years ago | (#33880604)

We're talking about a Foxnews report here... Scientific accuracy is not their priority.

Re:Space = 100km above sea level (1)

scsirob (246572) | about 4 years ago | (#33880862)

It's a wide edge...

Why is this tagged Switzerland ? (5, Informative)

dafdaf (319484) | about 4 years ago | (#33880558)

Baumgartner is (as the article says) Austrian, so is Red Bull... Ah, and by the way. The guy who sued Red Bull for 'prior idea' (or whatever) is named Daniel Hogan. More infos here [avstop.com] .

Re:Why is this tagged Switzerland ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880702)

Felix Baumgartner and Red Bull are from Austria, so please change the tag.

At least for once we are not confused with Australia! ;)

It was my impression.... (0)

f3rret (1776822) | about 4 years ago | (#33880566)

It was my impression that NASA already did this, and did it from a higher altitude.

Oh yeah and they did it 51 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excelsior [wikipedia.org]

Re:It was my impression.... (0, Troll)

jcr (53032) | about 4 years ago | (#33880792)

And as we speak, some promoter is trying to figure out how to sue NASA for fifty one years of back royalties.

-jcr

Re:It was my impression.... (3, Informative)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 4 years ago | (#33880878)

31 kilometers is less than 23 miles, and he didn't break the speed of sound.

Re:It was my impression.... (1)

f3rret (1776822) | about 4 years ago | (#33880968)

Oh yeah...imperial units. Damn those, always foiling my attempts at thunder stealing.

Idea not original... (3, Insightful)

charleylc (928180) | about 4 years ago | (#33880574)

No one can tell me that others have not, at the very least, though about pushing the envelope for free falling from the edge of space and beating Air Force Captain Joseph Kittinger's previous record. Unless the promoter has filed for a patent on the idea of falling from that high, which I highly doubt (even if it is something that could be patented), I don't see what kind of legal claim the promoter would have. Truly, this sounds like an attempt at a greedy money grab. The Austrian skydiver, Felix Baumgartnen, is pretty crazy even considering a stunt like this, though. Breaking the speed of sound, which is apparently highly likely, without being inside an actual machine, is nothing to sneeze at. Plus, in the event of equipment failure, all kinds of fun physical maladies could appear, like the blood boiling and bleeding from the eyes due to low atmospheric preassure or freezing from -140F tempratures. You would think the promoter would be more concerned about the person actually taking the risk rather than his own bank account. But, I guess that would be too much to ask from the greedy corporate world.

Re:Idea not original... (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 4 years ago | (#33880904)

Could be a contractual thing, if Hogan had entered into some kind of agreement with Baumgartner or the engineers, then he could have a case to stop Red Bull from using his team.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880578)

The Joe Kittinger jump:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81gn2oLeC_U

3

This (2, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | about 4 years ago | (#33880588)

This is why all Intellectual Property laws, with the possible exception of Trademarks, need to be systematically dismantled.

Starting now.

far from it (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 years ago | (#33880784)

Copyrights and patents NEED to remain. The problem with copyrights is that the shear greed is pushing for longer and longer time. And the issue with patents is that it went from physical manifestations that take long times to create, to being applied on software, and methods.

Re:This (1)

Eivind (15695) | about 4 years ago | (#33880920)

I think that's overdoing it -- though absolutely zero protections would be preferable to the current situation for many industries.

I favor a balanced approach. Say a decade of protection, similar to todays copyright, but with an explicit exception for private noncomercial copying, and for copying needed to format or timeshift a protected work, or to preserve it.

One problem is, that this is much too LONG for some stuff, like software, while perhaps too short for some classes of works. Hell, if you look at games, the curve is even steeper. A typical $59 game falls to $19 in 2 years, suggesting that there's little comercial value in games over 5 years old. (there'll always be exceptions - monkey island is still making money - but the exceptions shouldn't define the laws)

A story from Fox News? (2, Funny)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 4 years ago | (#33880614)

Uh, did this come from their "It really, truly is news!" side, or from their "It is just opinion." side? I think I better wait for independent verification.

I just got popped (1)

re_organeyes (1170849) | about 4 years ago | (#33880632)

For walking out of the front door. Seems as though there was some guy from 235 years ago that came up with the idea.

Go figure

In other news... (1)

srussia (884021) | about 4 years ago | (#33880642)

GM scraps plans to launch its "Fuse" garbage-powered car, after receiving a call from one Robert Zemeckis.

Which sound barrier? (2, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | about 4 years ago | (#33880654)

Out of curiosity, is the sound barrier here defined as the speed of sound on earth, or the speed at the temperature of air 23 miles up?

Re:Which sound barrier? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33880698)

"Breaking the sound barrier" is at any time defined as going from subsonic to supersonic. If you do that, you've broken the barrier otherwise you haven't, no matter what speed you've been travelling. So umm somewhere on the way down, at whatever the local speed of sound is there?

Re:Which sound barrier? (3, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33880704)

Out of curiosity, is the sound barrier here defined as the speed of sound on earth, or the speed at the temperature of air 23 miles up?

Mach one is determined by air pressure primarily and it does depend on altitude. Wolfram won't give me the answer below 0.1 bar of pressure. At 50000 feet the speed is pretty much the same as at sea level [wolframalpha.com] . I think 50k feet will be the point where the guy in free fall really starts to decelerate.

Re:Which sound barrier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880930)

> Mach one is determined by air pressure primarily

No, no and no again. It is a function of air temperature.

Debunk that myth [physlink.com]

The wrong payload!!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880656)

Can we push a lawyer out at 120,000 feet?

Re:The wrong payload!!! (2, Funny)

DMiax (915735) | about 4 years ago | (#33880772)

Only if you somehow make it illegal to open the parachute. The if he makes it to the ground alive, disbar him. It's a win-win situation.

Re:The wrong payload!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880994)

We could, but the aim was to collect data on the effects on humans. If we use a lawyer that misses the point.

Re:The wrong payload!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33881068)

So you want to spray the world with partly incinerated lawyer DNA? The bits that survive inceneration whilst falling at terminal velocity through the atmosphere will be the worst of the worst.

SS2 (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33880672)

Now that 120 thousand feet doesn't sound like much if you can jump from 100 km. I wonder if somebody will try it from SpaceShipTwo?

Wait... (0, Offtopic)

atari2600a (1892574) | about 4 years ago | (#33880686)

who the fuck keeps thinking it a good idea to cite Fox "News"?

Re:Wait... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33880788)

horses.

Re:Wait... (0, Offtopic)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 4 years ago | (#33880988)

Is there something wrong with the article or do you just like to complain about Fox News?

And yes, I understand what Fox News is and don't trust them either... but occasionally they do have real stories. If it's such a negative thing, don't read it.

They changed to imperial units??? (1)

Rashdot (845549) | about 4 years ago | (#33880708)

In Austria???

Space flight using a balloon? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 4 years ago | (#33880900)

According to the article, he was going to go to space using a weather balloon (and then jump into 23 miles of "nothingness")

For so many decades, nations have been spending huge amounts of money designing rockets and space shuttles, and now it turns out they could have just used a balloon!

Oh, good... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33880924)

Oh, good: another life saved.

Ground Control to Major Tom? (2, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | about 4 years ago | (#33881022)

FTA: Hogan claims the daredevil stunt would be worth $375 million to $625 million in advertising to any corporate sponsor.
If this type of lawsuit was as prevalent in the past, NOTHING would be accomplished.
Again, science and innovation are stifled by simple, unabashed greed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?