Balloon Pics
Some MIT-types put a photographic balloon system into the stratosphere for 150 bucks.
There are some arguments that this is a bit disingenuous for a couple of different reasons. I agree with one argument, but not the other.
The idea that this is invalid because it wasn't targeted photography and was based upon decades of "giant's shoulders" in high-altitude balloon work is hogwash. The point is that they did it for $150. That's commendable in anybody's book, and is a prime example of how private interests, restricted by real-world budgets and incentives, can invariably beat the government at any given task. Given the budget for which NASA operates the space bus, is there any doubt that a private corporation could accomplish far more and in less time? That, I believe, was the point of the student's experiment.
Where I do have a problem with their claims is the "near-space launch" part. An altitude of 17 miles (27 km) is still well within what pilots term "operable atmosphere." (N.B. - They've amended their website near the bottom of the page to reflect this, but I find it curious they left the "near space" part in the headline... Marketing, I suppose.) In other words, purpose-designed, control surface type aircraft without auxiliary reaction control systems can function effectively in that region of the atmosphere -- albeit at severely reduced agility. The SR-71 is but one such example of an aircraft designed to operate in that part of the atmosphere. Admittedly, the air is so thin that the aircraft's turn radius at that altitude is about the size of Texas, but that's beside the point; it is still well within the Earth's atmosphere.
The accepted definition for the atmosphere/space boundary is 62 miles (100km) above mean sea level. Near-space is traditionally defined as that area near the boundary where air-effect control surfaces cease to function. The X-15 was designed to operate in that near-space region, and was specifically equipped with reaction controls for the purpose. In fact, if you really want to get technical, (which I obviously do), the Space Shuttle is not even a spacecraft, as it operates exclusively in the thermosphere.
All the technical quibbles aside, however, it's a nice accomplishment and the sort of thing one is occasionally (but regularly) delighted to see out of students in such schools as MIT and CalTech. Good on 'em. If we can just get the federal government to stop blowing our money on space Habitrails (excuse me, thermosphere Habitrails), deregulate space, and get the hell out of the way of entrepreneurs, maybe I'll get to witness some real human development of space before I head for the long dirt nap.
And on that cheery note, I'm heading home to drink scotch and further refine my iconoclastic misanthropy. (Hey, somebody's gotta do it, and I'm predisposed to the job.)
___
(Hat-tip to Jeff W.)
There are some arguments that this is a bit disingenuous for a couple of different reasons. I agree with one argument, but not the other.
The idea that this is invalid because it wasn't targeted photography and was based upon decades of "giant's shoulders" in high-altitude balloon work is hogwash. The point is that they did it for $150. That's commendable in anybody's book, and is a prime example of how private interests, restricted by real-world budgets and incentives, can invariably beat the government at any given task. Given the budget for which NASA operates the space bus, is there any doubt that a private corporation could accomplish far more and in less time? That, I believe, was the point of the student's experiment.
Where I do have a problem with their claims is the "near-space launch" part. An altitude of 17 miles (27 km) is still well within what pilots term "operable atmosphere." (N.B. - They've amended their website near the bottom of the page to reflect this, but I find it curious they left the "near space" part in the headline... Marketing, I suppose.) In other words, purpose-designed, control surface type aircraft without auxiliary reaction control systems can function effectively in that region of the atmosphere -- albeit at severely reduced agility. The SR-71 is but one such example of an aircraft designed to operate in that part of the atmosphere. Admittedly, the air is so thin that the aircraft's turn radius at that altitude is about the size of Texas, but that's beside the point; it is still well within the Earth's atmosphere.
The accepted definition for the atmosphere/space boundary is 62 miles (100km) above mean sea level. Near-space is traditionally defined as that area near the boundary where air-effect control surfaces cease to function. The X-15 was designed to operate in that near-space region, and was specifically equipped with reaction controls for the purpose. In fact, if you really want to get technical, (which I obviously do), the Space Shuttle is not even a spacecraft, as it operates exclusively in the thermosphere.
All the technical quibbles aside, however, it's a nice accomplishment and the sort of thing one is occasionally (but regularly) delighted to see out of students in such schools as MIT and CalTech. Good on 'em. If we can just get the federal government to stop blowing our money on space Habitrails (excuse me, thermosphere Habitrails), deregulate space, and get the hell out of the way of entrepreneurs, maybe I'll get to witness some real human development of space before I head for the long dirt nap.
And on that cheery note, I'm heading home to drink scotch and further refine my iconoclastic misanthropy. (Hey, somebody's gotta do it, and I'm predisposed to the job.)
___
(Hat-tip to Jeff W.)
posted by Jar(egg)head at 17:39
1 Comments:
I think NASA has a place in space, it is just not what they are doing now. NASA should be doing the science side of space not the glorified space truck that they are.
They have gone from an leader in technological development to nothing more than another political money pit.
As someone once famously said "Lead, or get the hell out of the way"
Post a Comment
<< Home