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!

Company Wants You to Visit Near-Space In Their "Bloon"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the more-up-than-up dept.

Space 135

cylonlover writes "While space tourism efforts by the likes of Space Adventures and Virgin Galactic are relying on the tried and true technology of rockets to launch paying customers into space, Barcelona-based company zero2infinity proposes a more leisurely and eco-friendly ride into near-space using a helium balloon called the bloon. Designed to carry passengers to an altitude of 36 km (22 miles), an unmanned scale prototype bloon was flown to an altitude of 33 km (20 miles) last year and the company is already taking bookings for passenger flights that are expected to lift off sometime between 2013 and 2015."

cancel ×

135 comments

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

Sounds cool (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130386)

1) But we're running out of helium.

2) You want to go up? Book a MiG-25. We already have private "space tourism" at this level of hopelessly deluded definition of "space tourism". And?

Re:Sounds cool (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130514)

I will consider if their CEO goes up first. So far they've only had an unmanned flight...

Re:Sounds cool (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130790)

Did you watch the safety video? Man, it felt like I was being doused with Kool-Aid.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130812)

Book a MiG-25. We already have private "space tourism" at this level of hopelessly deluded definition of "space tourism".

a) can a MIG-25 fly at 110,000 feet?
b) can a MIG-25 fly up there, fly around and return for less than the cost of a balloon flight? Older-generation jet fighters typically cost about $50k an hour, don't they?
c) can a MIG-25 do that safer than a balloon?
d) can you eat a meal in the back seat of a MIG-25 while watching the scenery go by?

All that said for $150k I think I'd just save another $50k and buy a real suborbital flight from Virgin.

Re:Sounds cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130992)

You forgot
e) can a MIG-25 execute a negative 4G dive?

I could tell you... (0)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131420)

...but than I'd have to kill you.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131478)

You forgot e) can a MIG-25 execute a negative 4G dive?

Ugh...why would you want to? I love roller coasters and I'm a pilot that has pulled a few maneuvers in the just-barely-negative-g range when flying. I'd gladly take a ride that included some +4G maneuvers, but I'll pass on the negative 4G pushover, thanks. Negative G-forces are particularly hard on the body. Unless you are a practicing aerobatic/fighter pilot, -4G wouldn't be fun...it would be painful.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

Alyred (667815) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131582)

I think he's referring to (and comparing) the weightlessness (such as that experienced in the so-called "vomit comet" for space training), rather than strapped-in red-out that you'd get from being in the MiG. I could be mistaken though.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

TheCabal (215908) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131640)

It's a Top Gun reference.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131692)

Whoooosh.

Re:Sounds cool (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131022)

I'd take the kinesthetic experience of the MIG over the balloony visuals any day.

As a USAF crew chief I got a backseat ride in an F-16D, puked for most of it, and would do it again in a heartbeat!

Rich Slashdotters:
Buy the fucking fighter ride. As to safety, balloons don't have flight controls or ejection seats. Ask around and of course cash speaks louder than words. You can figure how much most of their overhead is if you can find local jet fuel prices.

Quick Google yields this:
http://www.thirtythousandfeet.com/rentride.htm [thirtythousandfeet.com]

"d) can you eat a meal in the back seat of a MIG-25 while watching the scenery go by?"

Most people don't eat when they are getting laid. Using the "fuck metric", a fighter ride is worth MANY fucks. Go for it.

Re:Sounds cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131120)

Most people don't puke their guts out when they're getting laid either.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131436)

Never heard of deep throating, have you?

Re:Sounds cool (2)

TheCabal (215908) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131652)

You're watching the wrong kind of porn

Re:Sounds cool (3, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131366)

I'd take the kinesthetic experience of the MIG over the balloony visuals any day.

I'll take whatever gets me the closest to seeing the planet earth from space, soonest, and cheapest. I'll worry about other considerations like how exciting the ride itself later when picking my 2nd and subsequent trips. So let's see how it shakes out...

Mig-29: 22km, available today, $25,000 [bestrussiantour.com] (see the "price list" .pdf link, last page).

Bloon: 36 km, 2013-2015, and $150,000.

The Bloon has a significant altitude advantage, but that's irrelevant compared to the price difference! It may get cheaper at some point in the future, but that just means it fails on the 'soonest' criterion. Sure, I may not exactly have $25k (+ travel) lying around to spend on a Mig-29 flight, but it's clearly the best, most feasible option for me in the near future.

The Mig-29 wins! Then the fact that it's a jet fighter is just awesome-icing on the awesome-cake. :)

Re:Sounds cool (2)

MDMurphy (208495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132322)

Most people don't eat when they are getting laid.

That's what chocolate pudding skin singles were made for!

Re:Sounds cool (1)

Ken_g6 (775014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130986)

1) But we're running out of helium.

Which is why they should fill it with hydrogen instead. Keep the balloon in a separate building on the ground; once significantly above the ground the hydrogen should pose no fire threat - it would go up, not down. Plus, hydrogen is lighter, and might get you even higher!

Re:Sounds cool (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131494)

I wondered this myself -- first thought was I hope they are using hydrogen, or at least not venting the helium. Nope, helium, and they vent it.

How retarded! There's so little danger of a hydrogen fire in their case, it can lift so much more or use a smaller envelope, and it is so easy to generate that the cost alone ought to be the deciding factor.

The only fire danger is in the first few hundred meters of liftoff. Presumably they have emergency parachutes which could take over above that.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

Yamioni (2424602) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132478)

I wondered this myself -- first thought was I hope they are using hydrogen, or at least not venting the helium. Nope, helium, and they vent it.

Dude, just tether the balloon with a cable and tow it back down at the end of the ride. Simple, cheap, effective, and safe.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132672)

Every tried winding in 30 km of cable? Slower than molasses. People would starve to death.

Re:Sounds cool (1)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37133614)

Every tried winding in 30 km of cable? Slower than molasses. People would starve to death.

Ever tried to lift 30km of cable ? With a fscking balloon ?

Re:Sounds cool (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131412)

Running out of helium? Won't someone think of the children of the future? Those poor kids unable to enjoy chipmunk voices! Oh, the humanity!

Re:Sounds cool (2)

edremy (36408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131542)

Actually, the He situation is both serious and an example of government at it's worst

He is critical for a ton of stuff involving serious cooling. Ever had an MRI? Superconducting magnets, cooled by liquid He. It's not replaceable since nothing else liquifies at 4K

The government has run a stockpile [wikipedia.org] for decades, since it's a byproduct of some natural gas wells. But we can't have the government running something successful, so they have to shut down the He reserve. To do this, they are dumping it on the open market at far less than cost, so we have really cheap He for a bit longer. After that, who knows? Maybe private industry will step in, assuming they can find a way to make enough money at it. Expect prices to skyrocket.

Bloon? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130388)

Must be Ebonics...

Re:Bloon? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130494)

+1
Mod this up. NOW.

Saving extra energy by avoiding the shift key (2)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130410)

The company is saving extra energy by employing a strict lower-case policy. Lower case for higher altitude.

Spaniards... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130428)

Mr. Urdiales is another "illuminati" spaniard... It is a kind of "vaporware"

Kind of unsafe? (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130460)

I don't know, but balloons just seem rather unsafe when compared to a jet. If the balloon (or Bloon) pops, you are screwed. If a jet loses power in its engines, it still is a decent enough glider to safely get you to the ground in most cases.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (3, Informative)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130500)

It descends on a parachute, I'm sure they even have a back up for that.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131184)

Let's talk about parachutes. Parachutes only inflate when you're already moving in the direction they want to resist, ie downwards. Even if they start the downward plunge by leaking helium slowly rather than disconnecting the balloon, at some point they have to make the transition. Add that (and I admit ignorance) to the different atmospheric density at 20 miles, with however that may affect descent, and it could be a fairly rough ride back down.

It's not like I think they haven't planned for it in terms of safety, but it sounds like it could be a fairly unpleasant, and maybe frightening, part of the experience.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131374)

If it is "Safe but Scary". Can I pay extra and make sure it happens that way?

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131816)

If you go parasailing with a shady enough crew, that offer actually works. :)

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131604)

Check out Project Excelsior [wikipedia.org] : 102,800 feet (~19.5 miles), free-falling for 13+ minutes and reaching a speed of 614 mph at -94F...yeah, probably unpleasant and frightening, at least for most people, but definitely survivable.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131968)

I'd pay to do that..

Re:Kind of unsafe? (2)

frenchbedroom (936100) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132168)

Kittinger's impressions when he jumped off that platform at 102k feet was that there is no sense of acceleration, no sense of speed, because you're in a near-vacuum and there are no points of reference at this altitude for you to see how fast you're going. You're too high up to see how fast the ground is coming at you. He had to turn around and look at the gondola rocketing into space to understand that yes indeed, he was falling.

Besides, eventually you're going to decelerate because the atmosphere is getting thicker the closer you get to the ground, and it offers more resistance. So I don't think there's anything scary about free-falling from the edge of space. I'd bet those rides at amusement parks where they drop you from a height of 30 meters are scarier.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131686)

Private balloons have existed for 200 hundred years? or more, whereas private space ships for only a handful of years. So, in terms of safety, I'll stick with balloons for the next 10 years or so.

Don't misunderstand, I like thrills just like anyone else, but I'd rather they get the kinks out of their rocket technology without me on board. NASA with decades of experience still learn new stuff so ...

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131982)

You're right! If only those scientists had figured out how to take those giant parachutes and put them on little backpacks for people to wear.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

slshwtw (1903272) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130504)

parachute?

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130642)

it's in the damn video

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130534)

So design the capsule as a glider just in case...

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130686)

No jet that flies that can reach those altitudes is a decent glider. Check out a Mig-25 for example.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130794)

What about the U-2? (the spyplane, not the awful band)

Re:Kind of unsafe? (2)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131082)

What about the U-2? (the spyplane, not the awful band)

Wait wait, let's not be hasty. I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of the high-altitude gliding capabilities of these two options. You know, for, uh, science.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

KillaBeave (1037250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131554)

The awful band doesn't glide, they rise through the air as Bono is is so full of hot air their overall density is lower than the surrounding atmosphere.

(Really pretty impressive if you think about it. There is so much hot air in Bono that it counteracts the weight of all the shit he's full of.)

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131562)

What about the U-2? (the spyplane, not the awful band)

Altitude limit is around 80,000 feet. The balloon would be about 30,000 feet higher.

I believe all the jets that have gone over 100,000 feet were just performing zoom climbs where you climb until you stall (or push the nose down). That's not really 'flying' in the accepted sense.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37132618)

That's not really 'flying' in the accepted sense.

Nor does a balloon fly, it floats. But that doesn't matter anyway. What matters is the fact that it gets you there.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37133196)

When they came out with that "Elevation" song, they were talking about their own superiority to bloons?

Re:Kind of unsafe? (2)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130716)

I have to agree. We fly stratospheric balloon for atmospheric research. I wouldn't want to climb into one of those thing... especially for the landing. Even with the chute, that thing still comes down on its crash pads (yes, crash pads) at 10 m/s. You got at least 10g deceleration on impact. Not cool.

Plus, you'll never get me at 33 km without a pressure suit.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131078)

You got at least 10g deceleration on impact.

Where did you get this number from?

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131396)

You got at least 10g deceleration on impact.

Where did you get this number from?

Not sure where he pulled it from. I do know though that the statement smells like shit.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131902)

if you do not understand where something is coming from, you can ask for details. Nicely. Assuming I'm an idiot that spilling bullshit because you don't know better yourself is not very helpful to the community.

Considering your sig, I will go ahead and guess that respect isn't your strongest attribute.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37132184)

The point being made (effectively to most people I believe) was that you were pulling numbers out of your ass.
If I am wrong I am sorry.
Did you in fact get hard numbers from somewhere?

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132262)

Yes. In fact, I do. These numbers come form the accelerometers that are on our balloon gondola (which I said, we fly, if I do remember my original post correctly). But the variability is fairly large... 10 g is only a typical value. One of the hardest landing recorded (except for the crash where our first generation gondola was a total loss - this is an exceptional event), was recorded at 48g. The deceleration is very dependent on the impact terrain and how well the crash pads absorb the initial shock.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131740)

I'm guessing he assumes it take 0.1 seconds to come to a full stop from 10m/s.

(10m/s)/(0.1s) = 100m/s^2 == 10g's.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131916)

No. I assume I can read the data coming from the accelerometers. No further assumption required.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131880)

From the accelerometers... that's where the number is coming from. We gave many accelerometers on board (INU, Shock logs, etc.). We registered landings as high as 48g...

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132114)

"Plus, you'll never get me at 33 km without a pressure suit."

You don't think they'd be doing this WITHOUT a pressure suit, do you??

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132694)

Check their website... it looks like a very casual lounge, they are building ;)

Re:Kind of unsafe? (5, Funny)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130820)

In the unlikely event of the helium balloon bursting, the captain will yell the evacuation procedure in a chipmunk voice and everyone will die, of laughter.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130844)

Although your concern is a valid one, you can't really evaluate the safty features based on what amounts to a time share a video. There's simply not enough information here. Also Spain isn't the third world, I'm sure they have safety regulations like most other European countries.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131054)

I would rather compare the balloon popping to the wings on the jet popping off.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131062)

If a jet loses power in its engines, it still is a decent enough glider to safely get you to the ground in most cases.

Unless it is computers doing the actual bookkeeping that makes flight possible, in which case you ease down to the ground as elegantly as a rock.

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131130)

Well, it does have a parachute... sounds just as safe as a jet to me...

Re:Kind of unsafe? (1)

kryliss (72493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132688)

For an extra fee, I can sell you this little blue button to get you down...

Re:Kind of unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131518)

...if by "jet" you mean "not the MiG-29" and by "most cases" you mean "a handful of documented near-miracles".

Warning! (4, Funny)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130484)

Watch out for monkeys throwing pins, those guys will RUIN your day.

What kind of "near"? (3, Informative)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130492)

So if I'm correctly informed from wikipedia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth) this is still only in the Stratosphere.

This doesn't seem very "near" space at all...

Re:What kind of "near"? (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130564)

It's about 3x higher and far nearer to space than most people will ever get to experience. It looks pretty cool.

Re:What kind of "near"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130624)

Add to that it costs THE SAME as a proper Virgin Atlantic flight.

Rockets v. Helium Balloon, hah! (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130646)

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Kind of hard to imagine a helium balloon going any farther than that.

Let's face it: besides a propulsion technology revolution, or some spacelift or loop, rockets are going to be required at some stage to get "near" space.

Re:What kind of "near"? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130802)

You are correct. It doesn't fit in any definition of space. The only other group of people that dare call this altitude space is those kids flying compact cameras on small balloons. Not that this isn't a cool feat, but it isn't space.

Re:What kind of "near"? (1)

frenchbedroom (936100) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132380)

At a human level, I'd say it's very much like space. Sure, you won't be in micro-gravity, but :

  • - you will die without a pressure suit or a pressured cabin, it's no place for men.
  • - when you look up, it's dark, no more blue. - if in a pressure suit, you can experience scorching heat on the side of your body that's towards the Sun, and freezing cold on the other side at the same time
  • - if you jump from the balloon, you won't experience any speed or acceleration because you're in a near-vacuum, there's not enough atmosphere to ruffle your suit and you're too high up to realize how fast the ground is coming at you.

So to me, it's very near space, and it was very much "space" for Col. Kittinger in 1960. Read up on this guy.

Re:What kind of "near"? (2)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131098)

Still, the sky looks black, and you can see Earth's curvature.

Re:What kind of "near"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131530)

And you think any of the other megalomaniacal "space" tourism scams, er, outfits, ("Galactic"???) are anything like space either?

We've had private "really high" flights for years.

http://www.skyandspacetravel.com/space_programme/included_space.html

And? Why aren't there stories about MiGs every other day on Slashdot? Only rockets are holy enough to be mentioned by the International Church of Bugfuck Insane Space Nutters and Jihadists?

Re:What kind of "near"? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131596)

Near space?

We're already in space... On Spaceship Earth .. Please take the time to RTFM [bfi.org] :-)

scaring soundtrack (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130582)

it's "lucean le stelle" (eng: the stars were shining), but it talks about a man that ig going to die in desperation (".. e muoio disperato") americans calls them "dead man walking"...
Isn't it funny? Takng off on a experimental vehicle with such a deadful soundtrack?

p.s.
the opera is Puccini's "Tosca" and the character singing is Cavaradossi that is going to be executed...
     

Looks like we'll be landing in Pakistan today.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130690)

Damn jetstream! The pickup bus should be here in about 3 days so have a shwarma and make yourself at home.....

One of these days, Alice (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130692)

You sure this wasn't just a threat of violence?

Their secret to making the balloon fly higher (4, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130742)

Their secret to making the balloon fly higher? Remove letters to reduce weight.

Re:Their secret to making the balloon fly higher (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130868)

Their secret to making the balloon fly higher? Remove letters to reduce weight.

Actually, they just took out al.... apparently he was quite heavy.

Re:Their secret to making the balloon fly higher (1)

sloomis (1326535) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131102)

Not anymore, he had gastric bypass [wikipedia.org]

The next step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130930)

But you don't get to experience free fall, and you're stuck in this balloon cabin!

Oh, wait... bungee jump from the balloon!

This is our post-modern Jules Vern? (1)

adosch (1397357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130932)

I think it's cool that someone is investing in a vision to near-space visitation for the common man (well, common man who's got TONS of money and has zero fear of death).

A few things that I just can't help but shake my head:

1) The nice, calm flow of launch-to-landing in the video. It just has that creepy aura of airline emergency landing documentation: all smiles, no fear, no chaos, and dawn your s/oxygen/ether/ mask before helping others!

2) Helium balloons in space is do-able. But it's just doesn't sound or have that captivating 'cool' feel to it. Feels like it's like a mosquito-leap up from the 'Elevator to space' idea.

Re:This is our post-modern Jules Vern? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131394)

To point 2) It may only be useful if the elevator from space has a 'ground floor' somewhere near the stratosphere. It could possibly act as a ferry to such a hub. I don't know that this would be feasible, but a thought.

Cabin (2)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37130954)

Why does the passenger cabin and altitude control system look like a lawn chair and a BB gun?

The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37130990)

Didn't they know--you can actually go all the way to the moon [wikipedia.org] that way?

Near space, funny definition of near (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131038)

Space starts at 100km [wikimedia.org] . At 36km the BLOON will be closer to the ground than space.

MONKEYS!!!! (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131090)

What if there are monkeys with tacks on the clouds?

Pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37131410)

Hey that would be pretty cool - Unless you had to listen to that guy sing during the whole trip.

Baloney (1)

CSMoran (1577071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131550)

's all it is.

Re:Baloney (2)

CompMD (522020) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132192)

I think you mean BLONY.

Waste of helium (2)

hackertourist (2202674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37131894)

Helium isn't exactly abundant. Is it wise to vent such huge amounts of it into space just for tourism?

Re:Waste of helium (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132472)

Its harmless until Helium begins to cost too much; naturally, we will not regulate it or stop government from handing it over for nothing (because our corporate masters told us that doing anything they do not like is communist and will cost us jobs.) Actually, many in government probably want a shortage to be created so they can invest in it.

It'll follow the pattern of our other natural resources we so wisely manage...

Re:Waste of helium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37132626)

Damn right! Next they'll want to waste Hydrogen! THEN WHERE WILL BE? Being the 2nd most endangered element, it MUST BE PROTECTED.

Re:Waste of helium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37132788)

Ah, I see your problem. You're an idiot.

None of you youngsters will recognize this quote.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37132532)

From a movie/song....

"Hey Dad can I go ride my zoom. It goes 300 miles and hour and is suspended from balloons"

Huh? (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 2 years ago | (#37132584)

It go's up with expensive irreplaceable helium and comes down by parachute?

if the balloon part is expendable why not use hydrogen?

This is just plain stupid!

Coming up next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37132652)

... near-Hawaii cruises let you enjoy the experience of traveling to the middle of the Pacific.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>