Company Wants You to Visit Near-Space In Their "Bloon" 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."
Sounds cool (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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. [thirtythousandfeet.com]
Re:Sounds cool (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Most people don't eat when they are getting laid.
That's what chocolate pudding skin singles were made for!
Re: (Score:1)
Never heard of deep throating, have you?
Re: (Score:3)
You're watching the wrong kind of porn
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to the internet, we know the number is much more than zero.
I could tell you... (Score:1)
...but than I'd have to kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Top Gun reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoooosh.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Every tried winding in 30 km of cable? Slower than molasses. People would starve to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh ... didn't think of that! Space elevator, here we come!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah what they need is to be able to take on ballast at the end of the flight. My best guess would be to use solar energy to compress and liquefy air, and then dump the gas at the start of the next flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 t
$156K?? (Score:2)
Can't you get something like 10 hours in a MiG-25 for that? That's enough to get a type rating.
Saving extra energy by avoiding the shift key (Score:3)
The company is saving extra energy by employing a strict lower-case policy. Lower case for higher altitude.
Kind of unsafe? (Score:3)
Re:Kind of unsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
It descends on a parachute, I'm sure they even have a back up for that.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
If it is "Safe but Scary". Can I pay extra and make sure it happens that way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay to do that..
Re: (Score:3)
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 getti
Re: (Score:2)
Part of my concerns are with the CG rendered, relaxing couches in the video. Are they going to hit negative gees (freefall or upward force) during descent? Do they have specific plans to restrain people to protect against negative gees, or deceleration shocks? I could see seatbelts, but certainly some of their customers would want to be up and about for part of the descent; negative gees are something you rarely see in any reasonable duration.
But yes, it's definitely survivable, the main question is engi
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No jet that flies that can reach those altitudes is a decent glider. Check out a Mig-25 for example.
Re:Kind of unsafe? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about the U-2? (the spyplane, not the awful band)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
(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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does not go as high as we are talking about. Only powered "zoom" climbs get jets this high.
Re: (Score:1)
The U2 only goes to 70, 000 ft. A lot of cold war aircraft (case in point: SR-71) get undeserved cult followings because people tend to overstate their flight envelopes. Most of those planes do one thing and one thing only, and that is go very, *VERY* fast.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
You got at least 10g deceleration on impact.
Where did you get this number from?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
No. I assume I can read the data coming from the accelerometers. No further assumption required.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I assume I can read the data coming from the accelerometers. No further assumption required.
Fair assumption, calm down now. I also assume that the previous poster meant to make a point that the force that is felt on impact depends on the duration of the impact. That is exactly the reason why I asked you initially where did you get this number from. Anyhow, 10g does not fit very well into the comfort zone (nor do impacts!)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fair question. Asked this way, it will also gets a nice answer.
So the sensors i'm referring to are on an instrument and not direct on the gondola. That means that the impact goes first through the crash pads (single-use deformation padding) and through cable springs. I don't have any deceleration times in mind, but I will check them out again.
I have no idea how this relates, for example, to the Soyuz capsule at its landing and how it relates to passenger comfort, be at normal landings we often have
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Check their website... it looks like a very casual lounge, they are building ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like a pressure capsule.
Jenny is a lung buster. ( apologies to the Ramones )
Re:Kind of unsafe? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For an extra fee, I can sell you this little blue button to get you down...
Re: (Score:2)
I launch (fly? whatever) scientific balloons with a gondola of at least 6000 Lbs. I'm sure the passenger craft will be substantially larger but the principles should be similar enough to design. I've had one balloon fail during flight. It was a tear along the bottom portion of the balloon. Since the balloons I use are zero-pressure helium balloons, the gondola was able to float away from the general population and once the gondola was within a safe landing zone the it was separated from the balloon and para
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fighter jets generally rely on ejection seats for situations where they lose power. None of them glide well and many can't glide at all. Parachutes are cheap and the payload for a balloon should be able to use one.
Warning! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of "near"? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Rockets v. Helium Balloon, hah! (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
At a human level, I'd say it's very much like space. Sure, you won't be in micro-gravity, but :
Re: (Score:2)
related music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZeWjGjl8 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Near space?
We're already in space... On Spaceship Earth .. Please take the time to RTFM [bfi.org] :-)
scaring soundtrack (Score:2, Interesting)
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.... (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
You sure this wasn't just a threat of violence?
Their secret to making the balloon fly higher (Score:5, Funny)
Their secret to making the balloon fly higher? Remove letters to reduce weight.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
For all intensive purposes,
the phrase is : for all intents and purposes" just saying
Re: (Score:2)
Cabin (Score:1)
Why does the passenger cabin and altitude control system look like a lawn chair and a BB gun?
Re: (Score:2)
as opposed to some nationalities [darwinawards.com]...
MONKEYS!!!! (Score:2)
What if there are monkeys with tacks on the clouds?
Baloney (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean BLONY.
Waste of helium (Score:3)
Helium isn't exactly abundant. Is it wise to vent such huge amounts of it into space just for tourism?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If the government doesn't want to be in the helium business, they should have sold all their helium at once to a private company, rather than simply dumping it all on the open market. A private company would preserve what helium they had for a long time.
Re: (Score:1)
Simulator is online now (Score:2)
http://adventuregamesonline.org/bloons [adventuregamesonline.org]
Huh? (Score:2)
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!
In Case Of (Score:1)
Dull (Score:2)