"The jpoint in making down such an effort isnt a hunt for exactness, the point is jealousy. "
I am rooting the lack of comparative knowledge until it grows to ignorance.
The fact I am not submarine commander doesn't means I cannot tell submarine from missile cruiser.
And it doesn't mean I am jealous of somebodys spending one third of his life in a steel can.
I believe making false titles is hurting people doing real progress. Putting astrounauts and sunday balooners in the same group is bordering with ignorance, to put it more clear.
The problem with space is, for example, if a force is imbalanced, you can spin arbitrarily fast, decomposing all onboard electronics. This isn't even a problem for balloneers, they just drop something in temperature-stabilised box and the main problem is finding it based on dying beacon modem.
The guy did an impressive achievement compared to somebody sitting in front of TV, but is nothing compared to what Albatross High Altitude Glider did a few years ago.
He didn't titled his work 'look we are touching space'. http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/
thats it? my Civil air patrol flight is doing this! but we are using more than a used takeout container and an iphone
we are using a small lunch box and a digital camra instead if you would like to know more information about this contact Leslie Roblin he is a member on this site (name might be wrong if so search les and click on simular name)
for the civil air patrol if you would like to know more go to are website: and also if you look around you will find Mr.Roblin there to along with me
Despite of other people, for me, this is close enough for space. And this is a great project. And I appreciate the effort! SO whats the point in saying "hey this isnt space"? The jpoint in making down such an effort isnt a hunt for exactness, the point is jealousy.
For me a spacecraft is significantly different than aerostat. It's a completely different ballpark. They operational zones differ by some 50km, few orders of magnitude of money, and at least an order of magnitude in atmospheric pressure.
If we say making aurora pictures plus black sky is the reason, we can use snowplow and make aurora photo from Arctic Circle.
If we say having curved horison on the photo is the name of the game, we can use styrofoam plane with camera that has wide angle lens ;-)
Not denying the photos are really cool, but calling it space for me is like mixing dinosaurs with stone age.
"That sounds pretty close to vacuum of space. "
The definition of closeness is: in the wiki page. It is calculated in such a way, that in order to have enough lift from moving through air, you would have such high speed that tha greavity wouldnt hold you anymore.
Therefore you start 'celestial navigation' and stop 'flying' at this altitude. If you change a few assumptions about airfoil used fo rthat task, you can move that limit a few (dozen?) km here or there.
So of course this is almost vacuum for few persons, but still far from vacuum for others.
But it is not the pressure that defines, but the type of phenomenon that dominates movement at that height.
A baloon that flies there will have 1000 more capacity that at sea level. Can you make a baloon light enough to be lifted from the ground when 999/1000 of its surface is not used for containing lighter-than air gas? I don't think so.
Comments
I am rooting the lack of comparative knowledge until it grows to ignorance.
The fact I am not submarine commander doesn't means I cannot tell submarine from missile cruiser.
And it doesn't mean I am jealous of somebodys spending one third of his life in a steel can.
I believe making false titles is hurting people doing real progress. Putting astrounauts and sunday balooners in the same group is bordering with ignorance, to put it more clear.
The problem with space is, for example, if a force is imbalanced, you can spin arbitrarily fast, decomposing all onboard electronics. This isn't even a problem for balloneers, they just drop something in temperature-stabilised box and the main problem is finding it based on dying beacon modem.
The guy did an impressive achievement compared to somebody sitting in front of TV, but is nothing compared to what Albatross High Altitude Glider did a few years ago.
He didn't titled his work 'look we are touching space'.
http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/
we are using a small lunch box and a digital camra instead if you would like to know more information about this contact Leslie Roblin he is a member on this site (name might be wrong if so search les and click on simular name)
for the civil air patrol if you would like to know more go to are website: and also if you look around you will find Mr.Roblin there to along with me
If we say making aurora pictures plus black sky is the reason, we can use snowplow and make aurora photo from Arctic Circle.
If we say having curved horison on the photo is the name of the game, we can use styrofoam plane with camera that has wide angle lens ;-)
Not denying the photos are really cool, but calling it space for me is like mixing dinosaurs with stone age.
The definition of closeness is: in the wiki page. It is calculated in such a way, that in order to have enough lift from moving through air, you would have such high speed that tha greavity wouldnt hold you anymore.
Therefore you start 'celestial navigation' and stop 'flying' at this altitude. If you change a few assumptions about airfoil used fo rthat task, you can move that limit a few (dozen?) km here or there.
So of course this is almost vacuum for few persons, but still far from vacuum for others.
But it is not the pressure that defines, but the type of phenomenon that dominates movement at that height.
A baloon that flies there will have 1000 more capacity that at sea level. Can you make a baloon light enough to be lifted from the ground when 999/1000 of its surface is not used for containing lighter-than air gas? I don't think so.
Time to go back to your High School physics class.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next