I couldn't seem to find any threads talking about yesterday's "skydive from the edge of space" here at SciForums (I'm sure there's got to be somewhere) - but something I've been pondering since watching the event live is the reported top speed during the descent. The debriefing and news outlets all reported he reached ~ 830 mph - but during the actual event, he seems to have leveled off at ~ 7:30 mph. Additionally, there is this mysterious moment that -for some totally bizarre reason- the Stratos production crew cut to the scene in the control room at the crucial moment when Baumgartner was supposedly supersonic. I found that to be a bit suspicious. Maybe he didn't actually break the speed of sound? [video=youtube;HXOcYExulKk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXOcYExulKk[/video] Oh well - I'm just putting this in the conspiracies subforum for no other reason than for my own personal catharsis. I assume there may have been a difference in what we actually saw on live TV and the data they got from other more accurate instruments. It was still really cool to watch.
Since this event was done over 50 years ago why is it we need to be doing it again? I do not understand all the commotion about some person doing this dare devil stunt all for the publicity of some energy drink not to provide anything scientific that hasn't already been known about or done before. What a waste of helium! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thankfully he landed safely and nothing went wrong.
You can do a quick math to see that did. After all he jumped from higher, but still arrived earlier than Kittenberger 50 years ago, so he had to fall faster.
Is the speed of sound that he tried to exceed the one at sea level? What would be Mach 1 at the altitude he hit his top speed? The actual speed varies with a lot of factors, but I can't find anything for very thin atmosphere. Does it count if there's too little air to make a sonic boom? I get that he went faster than anyone else has unaided by machine, but the speed of sound is not a constant either.
Syzygys, Yeah I should probably look at whatever stats are available and see what I come up with. However, I don't think landing or "arrival time" would be relevant. There are too many variables that can be adjusted to modify landing times to make it repeatable in all instances. Example: if a car travels 80mph for 20 minutes, and 55 mph for 40 minutes, the person driving 75 miles an hour for one hour would arrive faster, but the first car achieved the highest speed at one point. It's kind of the same deal when you think about parachutes (how low was it deployed? What effect did the particular parachute have on the descent? etc). Hypothetically speaking, if one skydiver's jumps from a lower altitude, but their parachute didn't open at all, their arrival time would probably be significantly faster, but you couldn't meaningfully assume they achieved the highest speed. ....at least I hope I've got that right.
I take the opposite stance. In this age of daredevils, PCP addicts, crazy Russians on Youtube doing parkour stunts on top of radio towers, etc., I can't believe it took 50 years for someone to go ahead and repeat this. Thought it was pretty cool that an energy drink company with a big macho brand name was the one responsible for this event, no longer just the domain of governments and militaries.
Here's an explanation by a physicist: http://specials.msn.com/msnvideo/vi...468b-bb96-f0068d601ae7&from=en-us_msnhpvidmod
