 |
|
Topic started on 20-1-2006 @ 11:24 PM by Uber Fr0g
|
I saw this video recently and it appears to be impossible to me. I dont know alot about the earths atmosphere but this guy go 30 times higher in the
air than jet liners can go....i believe thats what it said. It says he then jumps and falls back to earth at the speed of sound. This is where my
question comes from....Would he or would he not burn up in earths atmosphere?
Heres the link.
www.thatvideosite.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-1-2006 @ 12:00 AM by Zaphod58
|
No. He was inside the atmosphere already. The part that burns you up is when you are in space, and reenter through it. He was at around 100,000 feet
when he jumped. True story btw, I've seen interviews with him.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-1-2006 @ 12:28 AM by turbokid
|
i looked into this and the first thing i noticed is that they couldnt be talking about 30 times the altitude of airliners (32000ft.) 32000x30=960,000.
Thats 181 miles. The Thermosphere is about 50 miles and is the upper levels of the atmosphere..
heres what i dug up..
"On 16 August 1960, US Air Force Captain Joseph Kittinger entered the record books when he stepped from the gondola of a helium balloon floating at
an altitude of 31,330 m (102,800 feet) and took the longest skydive in history. As of the writing of this supplement 39 years later, his record
remains unbroken.
The air is so thin at this altitude that it would make for a moderate laboratory vacuum on the surface of the earth. With little atmosphere, the sky
is essentially black and the sun's radiation is unusually intense despite polar temperatures.
Sitting in my gondola, which gently twisted with the balloon's slow turnings, I had begun to sweat lightly, though the temperature read 36 degrees
below zero Fahrenheit. Sunlight burned in on me under the edge of an aluminized antiglare curtain and through the gondola's open door.
The density of air at 30 km is roughly 1.5 % that at sea level and thus drag is essentially negligible.
No wind whistles or billows my clothing. I have absolutely no sensation of the increasing speed with which I fall. [The clouds] rushed up so
chillingly that I had to remind myself they were vapor and not solid.
This is not true for skydivers at ordinary altitudes, which is why they reach terminal velocity and cease to accelerate.
According to Captain Kittinger's 1960 report in National Geographic, he was in free fall from 102,800 to 96,000 feet and then experienced no
noticeable change in acceleration for an additional 6,000 feet despite having deployed his stabilization chute. This gave him an unprecedented 3900 m
(12,800 feet) over which to accelerate. At such extreme altitudes the acceleration due to gravity is not the standard 9.81 m/s2, but the slightly
lower value of 9.72 m/s2. Using these numbers, it is possible to calculate the maximum theoretical velocity experienced during this record-setting
jump. The result is amazingly close to the value recorded in National Geographic.
As one would expect the actual value is slightly less than the theoretical value. This agrees with the notion of a small, but still non-zero, amount
of drag.
At nine-tenths the speed of sound, Captain Kittinger also holds the record for the greatest speed attained by a human without the use of an engine.
The standard value of the speed of sound in air at 31,000 m is 300 m/s (670 mph).
Given this, why then do so many sources report that Kittinger exceeded the speed of sound? One possible answer comes from the relatively obvious
similarity between Kittinger's self-reported value of 614 mph and the most frequently misreported value of 714 mph (319 m/s). Somebody must have
heard 614 but entered 714 accidentally into some officious document (like an encyclopedia). Some other people read the error and then reported it as
fact. Many more people read these "facts"and suddenly nearly everyone was remembering the day Captain Kittinger broke the sound barrier. Another
factoid is born."
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-1-2006 @ 12:48 AM by Uber Fr0g
|
Woot, okay thanks for clearing that up for me!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-1-2006 @ 01:42 AM by MCory1
|
turbokid--excellent post  Not that I don't believe you, but where did you dig that up at? I've never even heard of this before; sounds like
it'd make an interesting read.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-1-2006 @ 08:05 PM by turbokid
|
i guess i could have posted the link.. sorry guys.
heres where i found it about half way down. it also talks of other aspects of the velocity of falling objects and such.. kinda cool.. enjoy.
hypertextbook.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 26-1-2006 @ 03:36 PM by Shadowbear
|
Not to nitpick, but at the altitudes we are dealing with here the density of the air, and the resulting true speed of sound, are vastly higher than at
sea-level speed of sound.
It's apples and oranges. This guy got nowhere near the speed of sound.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 26-1-2006 @ 03:50 PM by Dr Love
|
I thought terminal velocity was the fastest any free-falling object could fall. That's nowhere near the speed of sound.
Am I wrong?
Peace
edit: yeah, like the guy above me said.
[edit on 26-1-2006 by Dr Love]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 26-1-2006 @ 04:47 PM by One Man Short of Manhood
|
At 102,000 feet the speed of sound is 676.5089 (speed of sound drops the higher up you are)
If he was traveling at 614 MPH, his true airspeed would have been 533 (aprox) and he reached mach 0.9076
All aprox without knowing actual temp and pressure.
www.aerospaceweb.org...
- One Man Short
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 26-1-2006 @ 05:19 PM by Zaphod58
|
Originally posted by Shadowbear
Not to nitpick, but at the altitudes we are dealing with here the density of the air, and the resulting true speed of sound, are vastly higher than at
sea-level speed of sound.
It's apples and oranges. This guy got nowhere near the speed of sound. 
Uhm, you're exactly backwards here. The higher the altitude, the less dense the air, the SLOWER the speed of sound is.
 The speed of sound (otherwise known as Mach 1) varies with temperature. At sea level on a “standard day,” the temperature is 59°F, and Mach 1
is approximately 761 mph. As the altitude increases, the temperature and speed of sound both decrease until about 36,000 feet, after which the
temperature remains steady until about 60,000 feet. Within that 36,000–60,000 foot range, Mach 1 is about 661 mph. Because of the variation, it is
possible for an airplane flying supersonic at high altitude to be slower than a subsonic flight at sea level.
www.factmonster.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 26-1-2006 @ 07:05 PM by GradyPhilpott
|
The film "The Right Stuff" and the book it is
based on made the name Chuck Yeager a household term, even though before, he was barely known for his phenomenal feats, eclipsed by the original
Mercury astronauts. I would have to say that Captain Joseph Kittinger must have had the same kind of stuff to take that ride, up and down.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 26-1-2006 @ 09:46 PM by DarkHelmet
|
If you have taken any basic Physics class in High School... you would know the correct formulas and such to calculate Velocity, time, etc. Using the
different air resistences and the pull of gravity (9.81 m/s^2), you should be able to figure out fairly easily how high one would have to be to travel
at Mach 1, and you could see how fast he himself actually went. I'm actually interested in doing the work... but that might take a while...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2006 @ 10:57 PM by bigx01
|
speed of sound is relative. at sea level it's about 1100 ft/s at 100,000 feet it is quite a bit slower so it would be quite easy to go faster than
the speed of sound
[edit on 30-1-2006 by bigx01]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2006 @ 11:02 PM by groingrinder
|
If Joe Kittinger says he went through the speed of sound, then that is good enough for me.  He was a test pilot for God's sake and knows all
about this kind of stuff.
According to the July, 1999 issue of Aviation History magazine he was also a pilot in Vietnam with one Mig credited and was shot down and held
prisoner in North Vietnam. He was also the first to pilot a balloon solo across the Atlantic in Sept of 1984. Aviation History also credits him with
exceeding the speed of sound.
I forgot to mention that his free fall was four and a half minutes. WOW!!
[edit on 1-30-2006 by groingrinder]
[edit on 1-31-2006 by groingrinder]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2006 @ 11:23 PM by djohnsto77
|
Originally posted by Dr Love
I thought terminal velocity was the fastest any free-falling object could fall. That's nowhere near the speed of sound.
Am I wrong?

The effect of terminal velocity only occurs because the force of air resistance balances out the force of gravity. At high altitude where the air is
thin, the terminal velocity would be much higher than it would be for a normal skydiver until the diver fell into denser air and slowed down.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 31-1-2006 @ 01:37 AM by nightwing
|
The official statements, from where it happened.
"Captain Joseph W. Kittinger Jr. stepped out of an open balloon gondola at 102,800 feet on August 16, 1960, in an attempt to evaluate
techniques of high altitude bailout. Capt Kittinger’s jump lasted 13 minutes reaching a velocity of 614 miles per hour. That jump broke
four world records: highest open gondola manned balloon flight, highest balloon flight of any kind, highest bailout, and longest free fall."
www.holloman.af.mil...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 31-1-2006 @ 11:58 PM by aftershock13
|
its not that he was allready in the atmosphere its thats he wasnt going fast enough to burn up..the reason the space shuttle heats up is it going like
18 thousand miles an hour a far cry from 614
also actually his glove did take on thermal damage
in the edge of our atmosphere the air is almost none existant it is slowly slowing nown the space shuttle... if it were as thick up there as it were
down here the space shuttle would turn its a fire ball as soon as it touched it at18000 miles an hour....most of the heavy atmospher is under 11
miles
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-2-2006 @ 02:21 AM by aerospaceweb
|
Joe Kittinger did not exceed the speed of sound during his fall, nor did he claim to have done so. The belief that he did emerged years later when
someone misprinted the peak speed he reached during his jump. The actual speed was 614 mph (about Mach 0.9) but many sources still incorrectly state
that he reached 714 mph (Mach 1.05).
Even so, Kittinger still holds the record for the highest speed ever reached by a person in freefall. Several other parachute experts have announced
attempts to break his record in recent years and exceed Mach 1 in the process, but none have been successful so far. You can read more about
Kittinger, his records, and those hoping to break them here:
www.aerospaceweb.org...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-2-2006 @ 07:37 AM by FLYIN HIGH
|
I would bet that was a female dog. I can't understand a freefall from that height. It sounds unreal.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-2-2006 @ 09:08 AM by ludaChris
|
What exactly is terminal velocity? Ive heard of it but dont know the exact definition or anything.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |