Space jumper is up!

[JustinR]

But I still don't get the point of jumping out of a balloon at high altitude. It's a stunt and nothing more.

When Kittinger did it there were important research issues, now it's just an extreme sport. It'll probably be on the X games next year with all those skateboarding and BMX idiots.

Kittinger's jumps helped to prove technology that would later be used in NASA space suits. By pushing the boundaries of technology, we can expand the safety envelope for crew bailout from a vehicle. The ultimate goal would be developing a space suit capable of keeping a human alive from orbit back down to earth. While this would undoubtedly be used by thrill seekers such as Captain Kirk to perform orbital skydiving, it doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing. Imagine if the crew of the Columbia had been wearing such a suit.

And of course, there's the Starship Troopers/ODST element, too.

[randy]

That is one thing I have not seen any info on... How did that capsule get back down? I would hope they had a mechanism to cut the balloon and then parachute it down...

Yes they did. They showed a shot of the capsule under a full canopy just before ending the live feed on Discovery Sunday afternoon.

[Highspeed]

Actually, for someone who doesn't understand the risks of being outside Earth's protective shell, it's a valid question/complaint.

I do though Mike. I have had an interest in manned spaceflight since I was a child. In fact I can't even remember a time when I wasn't fascinated by it. I have copies of just about every US spacecraft manual written, my idea of fun is a couple of hours reading them and tracing the schematics. Hell, I know how to operate the Apollo guidance computer and also it's internal architecture

The problems are not insurmountable, but I agree 100% with you on the difficulty.

Baumgardner was going in the wrong direction. If Red Bull want to put money into space research, great - but make it something useful that will get us off this rock. Our future is in the stars, or at least it should be.

[Yogimus]

They showed it was possible for a private company to do this, and there is now a financial paper trail for the costs involved. This provides better cost assessment to all those private companies that choose to follow, and more information is always good.

[MarkD]

The thing is, this is an important step that has to be taken to make going the other way practical. We have to figure out how to get people down, safely, from high up, for those instances where things go pear-shaped. Going up in a balloon is probably the most cost effective method, certainly cheaper than a rocket, and it's just the elevator that gets him up there so he can play "let's see what happens when I hit Mach I in a suit."

My understanding of the escape system in the shuttle is that it was based on a prayer, the likelihood of astronauts actually escaping a failed ship was so small it wasn't worth calculating. This is a step toward finding a way to make an escape likely.

Plus, it's just so frikken COOL!

[Highspeed]

I'm not sure there is a way to survive something like the Columbia incident. But then I'm a dumb redneck with an amateur interest in spaceflight and aviation.

[mekender]

My understanding of the escape system in the shuttle is that it was based on a prayer, the likelihood of astronauts actually escaping a failed ship was so small it wasn't worth calculating. This is a step toward finding a way to make an escape likely.

I'm not sure there is a way to survive something like the Columbia incident.

Really, the escape system in the shuttle was not designed for reentry problems so it would not have helped one bit. That said, the primary escape system was designed to be used on the ground, a series of cables with baskets that the crew could get into and then slide to bunkers in the event of a major failure on the pad. I am not all that sure it was very useful unless the problem was one that was evident early enough to give them a few minutes to GTFO.

During launch, there was no real escape and for quite a bit of the early launch, it was estimated that survival chances were zero even if the orbiter was intact. Everything after the SRBs burned out was planned for but before then (approximately 123 seconds), the likelihood of survival was nil.

There were bailout scenarios in place but they never had to be used. Challenger was destroyed in under 2 seconds from the first indication of a major problem, Columbia only lasted about 17 seconds from the time the first alarm sounded (the tire pressure warning in the landing gear), till the time they lost communication and telemetry. 5 seconds after that, hydraulic pressure was lost and the orbiter was uncontrollable. Crew escape would have been impossible in both cases, Columbia was traveling at ~Mach 18 and Challenger would have been at ~Mach 3 or 4.

I clearly remember some discussion locally in FL around the time Columbia was destroyed that said that even if they had known about the problem before descent, there was nothing they could have done. That the ISS would not have been an option and descent was the only real chance they had anyways.

[JustinR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes

Post-Challenger abort enhancements

Before the Challenger disaster during STS-51-L, very limited ascent abort options existed. Failure of only a single SSME was survivable prior to about 350 seconds into the ascent. Two or three failed SSMEs prior to that point would mean loss of crew and vehicle (LOCV), since no bailout option existed. Two or three failed SSMEs while the SRBs are firing would probably have overstressed the struts attaching the orbiter to the external tank, causing vehicle breakup. For that reason, a Return To Launch Site (RTLS) abort was not possible in the event of two or three failed SSMEs. Studies showed an ocean ditching was not survivable. Furthermore, the loss of a second or third SSME at almost any time during an RTLS abort would have caused a LOCV.

After the loss of Challenger in STS-51-L, numerous abort enhancements were added. With those enhancements, the loss of two SSMEs was now survivable for the crew throughout the entire ascent, and the vehicle could survive and land for large portions of the ascent. Loss of three SSMEs was survivable for the crew for most of the ascent, although survival in the event of three failed SSMEs before T+90 seconds is questionable. However, it is conceivable that failure of three SSMEs just after liftoff might be survivable, since the SRBs provide enough thrust and steering authority to continue the ascent until a bailout or RTLS. The struts attaching the orbiter to the external tank were strengthened to better endure a multiple SSME failure.

A particular significant enhancement was bailout capability. This is not ejection as with a fighter plane, but an Inflight Crew Escape System[12] (ICES). The vehicle is put in a stable glide on autopilot, the hatch is blown, and the crew slides out a pole to clear the orbiter's left wing. They would then parachute to earth or the sea. While this may at first appear only usable under rare conditions, there are many failure modes where reaching an emergency landing site is not possible yet the vehicle is still intact and under control. Before the Challenger disaster, this almost happened on STS-51-F, when a single SSME failed at about T+345 seconds. The orbiter in that case was also Challenger. A second SSME almost failed due to a spurious temperature reading; fortunately the engine shutdown was inhibited by a quick-thinking flight controller. If the second SSME failed within about 69 seconds of the first, there would have been insufficient energy to cross the Atlantic. Without bailout capability the entire crew would be lost. After the loss of Challenger, those types of failures have been made survivable. To facilitate high altitude bailouts, the crew now wears Advanced Crew Escape Suits during ascent and descent. Before the Challenger disaster, crews for operational missions wore only fabric flight suits.

[JustinR]

Baumgardner was going in the wrong direction. If Red Bull want to put money into space research, great - but make it something useful that will get us off this rock. Our future is in the stars, or at least it should be.

That's why I think NASA should be putting a majority of their budget into developing a space elevator, in cooperation with private companies that want to mine asteroids, launch satellites, book tourists, and sponsor orbital skydiving.

[Netpackrat]

I clearly remember some discussion locally in FL around the time Columbia was destroyed that said that even if they had known about the problem before descent, there was nothing they could have done. That the ISS would not have been an option and descent was the only real chance they had anyways.

From what I recall, they knew they had a problem, but its severity was in question. And evidently Columbia was too heavy to reach the ISS to begin with. Theoretically they could have held her in orbit long enough to rush another shuttle up, bypassing some of the safety procedures in the process. I don't remember any discussions about asking the Russians if they might have had enough Soyuz capacity available to reach Columbia in time, or if the Soyuz lifeboat(s) at ISS could have been maneuvered to Columbia's lower orbit.