ASullivan 0 #1 March 5, 2005 found a website on Joe Kittinger and i read that he jump from 70,000 feet. I also read that he broke the sound barrier. I didn't know that this was possible. I thought that everyone had a terminal velocity. can someone explain. thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noctralucent 0 #2 March 5, 2005 The higher you go = less air = less friction = Higher speed. I'm sure It's been done from even higher then that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FFAddict 0 #3 March 5, 2005 Sounds pritty unlikely to me, but who knows there are all kinds of insane people out there you know! I guess if you jumped from that high terminal would be much higher due to the thin atmosphere (less drag). But i doubt very much the sound barrier is within the realms of reality, surely that sort of speed would pull a the human body apart without any protection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 102 #4 March 5, 2005 Kittinger jumped from 102000 ft...1962 I think.....reached 600 + mph with a 6 ft drogue to slow him down.... Part of the space programme...testing escape systems, parachutes, pressure suits..... Awesome achievement...even today....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smeger 0 #5 March 5, 2005 There has been a more recent one than that. I saw it on a science magazine about 2 - 3 years ago. Some guy called Rodd Milner. Jumped from 130,000ft from an platform suspended from a balloon. He reached up to 800 - 900mph or so. HE was the first person to break the sound barrier without the use of a jet engine. The speed of sound decreases with height as air particles become more sparse. Plus, the temperature can also effect the speed of sound. About 363mps in air at 30C. The colder the air, the slower the speed of sound, as the particles lose energy and struggle to vibrate. So the speed of sound on the surface of the earth is much faster than it is the higher you go, therefore easier to break . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 102 #6 March 5, 2005 Never heard of that one....when was that???....I know some guy was planning to beat Kitting record recently, but never heard he did it.....had problems getting to altitude.....Kittinger definitly went over 600 mph..... Another guy, Nick Piatenada (I think) did try in the 60's to beat Kittingers record, but died when his pressure suit failed at 80 grand on his way to altitude........ Incredibly difficult, dangerous and expensive to do....... I'd be surprised if anyones beaten Kittinger yet...My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smeger 0 #7 March 5, 2005 I apologies, the article I remember reading involved the preparation, not the actual jump . I never bothered to find out whether he did it or not, not heard or seen anything post that article, so I have know idea whether he did it or not. Probably not! "yes, I'm now officially the wanker of the week lol." http://www.livingstonmontana.com/access/dan/231jumpfromspace.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Foggy 0 #8 March 5, 2005 QuoteThere has been a more recent one than that. I saw it on a science magazine about 2 - 3 years ago. Some guy called Rodd Milner. Jumped from 130,000ft from an platform suspended from a balloon. He reached up to 800 - 900mph or so. HE was the first person to break the sound barrier without the use of a jet engine. IIRC Joseph Kittinger still holds the record at 102,800ft set in 1960 as part of Project Excelsior. There has been plenty debate about the freefall vs droguefall aspect but no-one has even come close regardless. There have been a few attempts in recent years but none seem to have got off the ground (pun intended), including Cheryl Stearns, Rodd Milner and "Tom Read" (Nish). Mostly lack of funding I guess. Foggy D21109 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #9 March 5, 2005 Quote IIRC Joseph Kittinger still holds the record at 102,800ft set in 1960 as part of Project Excelsior. There has been plenty debate about the freefall vs droguefall aspect but no-one has even come close regardless. Quote Actually... There was a Russian that DID beat that record. If memory serves he went to 121,000 without a drogue chute. It was shortly after Kittinger made his jump, and went higher without the drogue to test not only the 'Space Suit' but the feasibility of high altitude bailout survivability. Not many Russian 'records' were filed back then and the jumper wasn't around after the cold war ended... I believe the story as it was Col. Kittinger that told it! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 58 #10 March 5, 2005 Quote Actually... There was a Russian that DID beat that record. If memory serves he went to 121,000 without a drogue chute. That figure might be incorrect. From Guinness World Records book: "Eugene Andreev (USSR) hold the official FAI record for the longest free-fall parachute jump after falling for 80,380 ft (24,500 m) from an altitude of 83,523 ft (24,458 m) near the city of Saratov, Russsia on November 1, 1962". So, he jumped from 80,380 ft (24,500 m) without a drogue and opened at 3,143 ft (958 m). Kittinger's record (in terms of exit altitude) still stands... unless the jumper you are talking abot did not file for the record. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkiD_PL8 0 #11 March 5, 2005 QuoteQuote Actually... There was a Russian that DID beat that record. If memory serves he went to 121,000 without a drogue chute. That figure might be incorrect. From Guinness World Records book: "Eugene Andreev (USSR) hold the official FAI record for the longest free-fall parachute jump after falling for 80,380 ft (24,500 m) from an altitude of 83,523 ft (24,458 m) near the city of Saratov, Russsia on November 1, 1962". So, he jumped from 80,380 ft (24,500 m) without a drogue and opened at 3,143 ft (958 m). Kittinger's record (in terms of exit altitude) still stands... unless the jumper you are talking abot did not file for the record. As he said it was Kittinger that said his record was broken so I would guess that it is true. He also mentioned that they didn't file many records then. Greenie in training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miami 0 #12 March 5, 2005 QuoteI also read that he broke the sound barrier. I didn't know that this was possible. I thought that everyone had a terminal velocity. can someone explain. thanks. I researched this a while back...here is what I found. Hope this helps...Miami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #13 March 5, 2005 Quote As he said it was Kittinger that said his record was broken so I would guess that it is true. He also mentioned that they didn't file many records then. Quote My figures could be wrong... It was about 8-10 years ago I was talking with Col. K. But he did say it was a Russian and not he that went highest. Cool guy...acted like it was no big deal people jump from that high everyday! One thing I DO remember from our conversation was him telling about how when he first jumped...He thought for a moment he'd gone TO HIGH and wasn't falling away..but 'drifting' along side the gondola. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #14 March 6, 2005 Quote The speed of sound decreases with height as air particles become more sparse. Plus, the temperature can also effect the speed of sound. About 363mps in air at 30C. The colder the air, the slower the speed of sound, as the particles lose energy and struggle to vibrate. So the speed of sound on the surface of the earth is much faster than it is the higher you go, therefore easier to break . The "sparse"ness of the particles (molecules) really has nothing to do with it. Temperature is the only relevant variable. a = sqrt(gamma*R*T) where a = speed of sound, gamma = ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv), R = gas constant, T = temperature (absolute). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smeger 0 #15 March 6, 2005 It does dude. Thats why sound travels faster and longer though solids and liquids than it does through air. This is because the particles are tighter together Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 187 #16 March 6, 2005 QuoteIt does dude. Thats why sound travels faster and longer though solids and liquids than it does through air. This is because the particles are tighter together Penniless is right - in a gas, Mach is a strict function of temperature (it varies by the square root of Tabs). IIRC, the relation for incompressible media is M=sqr(k/rho) where M = speed of sound, k = compressiblilty and rho = density. In water the speed of sound is something like 30 times that in air. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Smeger 0 #17 March 6, 2005 ok, ok. I undersatnd that the speed of sound in a gas is not affected by pressure. Instead, the speed of sound is strongly affected by the absolute tempreture and the molecular weight of the gas. So we would expect the speed of sound in a light gas, such as helium, to be faster than that of a heavy gas, such as carbon dioxide, and air to be somewhere in between. As long as the weight of the gas remains constant that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #18 March 6, 2005 NASA - sound QuoteSound must have a material through which to travel. Prove this by placing an alarm clock inside a bell jar or a large jar. Set the alarm clock to ring. As it rings, slowly pull the air from the jar using a vacuum pump. Observe what happens to the sound as the air is sucked out. Sound is a physical wave that requires a medium to travel through. There is no sound in space. The speed of sound at sea level is often used as a reference point. Kittinger exceeded that speed. He could do this because their was no air friction at 102,000 ft. He later slowed down once the air increased in density at lower altitudes. Many skydivers have jumped at heights greater than 18K (myself included). They fall faster at the higher altitudes because of the decreased air friction. Kittinger Quoteon August 16, 1960, from 102,800 feet, the highest altitude from which man has jumped. In freefall for 4.5 minutes at speeds up to 714 mph and temperatures as low as -94 degrees Fahrenheit, Kittinger opened his parachute at 18,000 feet. Kittinger was a test pilot for the Air Force. He also volunteered for 3 tours in VN, was shot down, and was a POW. In 1984, he did a solo crossing of the Atlantic and set a record for the longest solo balloon flight as well as a distance record for this class of balloon. There is a ton of stuff on the internet about him. It is worth reading. He did some amazing things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #19 March 6, 2005 QuoteThe "sparse"ness of the particles (molecules) really has nothing to do with it. you're wrong. the density of molecules has everything to do with this topic. air is the medium for the propagation of the sound waves in question so, the density of the air is paramount to finding the speed of sound at any given altitude. as a side note, i'm no physicist but, specific heats are descriptors of a given material. you have the ratio of specific heat at a certain pressure over the specific heat at that certain volume...is that equation that you dug up to be used for the change in the speed of sound when sound waves travel through a boundry in different materials or what? not to mention that if you do a unit analysis here, you won't end up with a velocity as is required for any speed. i.e., the specific heat units cancel and what you're left with is the gas constant multiplied by a temperature which gives you energy/moles, not distance/time. please explain."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Smeger 0 #20 March 6, 2005 The density of a gas is given by: p(gas) m/v = PM/RT where m = the mass of the gas (in kg) M = the molecular mass of the gas (in kg mole-1) R = the gas constant (8.31 J K-1 mole -1) and T = the absolute tempreture in K. The you can determine the strength of the air spring (the bonding between each molecule). Given by: E(gas) = yp Where P = the pressure of the gas (in N m-2) V = the volume of the gas (in m3) and y = is a constnat whcih depends on the gas (1.4 for air). The speed of sound in the air can then be calculated though the apparent gas by V(gas) = square root of E(gas)/P(gas) = square root of yp/(PM/RT) = suare root of yRT/M Soory for the lack of mathmatical symbols . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,651 #21 March 6, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe "sparse"ness of the particles (molecules) really has nothing to do with it. you're wrong. the density of molecules has everything to do with this topic. air is the medium for the propagation of the sound waves in question so, the density of the air is paramount to finding the speed of sound at any given altitude. as a side note, i'm no physicist but . I am a physicist. You are wrong. I doubt you'll believe me so here it is from NASA... www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #22 March 6, 2005 QuoteI doubt you'll believe me so here it is from NASA... are you bitter about something else?"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #23 March 6, 2005 thanks for the clarification. "Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sirenoremac 0 #24 March 6, 2005 bitter? I think it's just frustrating for a man with some serious education and authority in his field to have people on some internet forum srguing physics with him... I personally think it's funny, bu then, I'm not in his position :P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mx757 4 #25 March 6, 2005 I met Joe Kittinger in June 1998 in Dallas / Ft. Worth Texas where he gave a lecture on his jump, and had movies, photos of it. real cool guy, he even signed my jump log book for me.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
winsor 187 #16 March 6, 2005 QuoteIt does dude. Thats why sound travels faster and longer though solids and liquids than it does through air. This is because the particles are tighter together Penniless is right - in a gas, Mach is a strict function of temperature (it varies by the square root of Tabs). IIRC, the relation for incompressible media is M=sqr(k/rho) where M = speed of sound, k = compressiblilty and rho = density. In water the speed of sound is something like 30 times that in air. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smeger 0 #17 March 6, 2005 ok, ok. I undersatnd that the speed of sound in a gas is not affected by pressure. Instead, the speed of sound is strongly affected by the absolute tempreture and the molecular weight of the gas. So we would expect the speed of sound in a light gas, such as helium, to be faster than that of a heavy gas, such as carbon dioxide, and air to be somewhere in between. As long as the weight of the gas remains constant that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #18 March 6, 2005 NASA - sound QuoteSound must have a material through which to travel. Prove this by placing an alarm clock inside a bell jar or a large jar. Set the alarm clock to ring. As it rings, slowly pull the air from the jar using a vacuum pump. Observe what happens to the sound as the air is sucked out. Sound is a physical wave that requires a medium to travel through. There is no sound in space. The speed of sound at sea level is often used as a reference point. Kittinger exceeded that speed. He could do this because their was no air friction at 102,000 ft. He later slowed down once the air increased in density at lower altitudes. Many skydivers have jumped at heights greater than 18K (myself included). They fall faster at the higher altitudes because of the decreased air friction. Kittinger Quoteon August 16, 1960, from 102,800 feet, the highest altitude from which man has jumped. In freefall for 4.5 minutes at speeds up to 714 mph and temperatures as low as -94 degrees Fahrenheit, Kittinger opened his parachute at 18,000 feet. Kittinger was a test pilot for the Air Force. He also volunteered for 3 tours in VN, was shot down, and was a POW. In 1984, he did a solo crossing of the Atlantic and set a record for the longest solo balloon flight as well as a distance record for this class of balloon. There is a ton of stuff on the internet about him. It is worth reading. He did some amazing things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #19 March 6, 2005 QuoteThe "sparse"ness of the particles (molecules) really has nothing to do with it. you're wrong. the density of molecules has everything to do with this topic. air is the medium for the propagation of the sound waves in question so, the density of the air is paramount to finding the speed of sound at any given altitude. as a side note, i'm no physicist but, specific heats are descriptors of a given material. you have the ratio of specific heat at a certain pressure over the specific heat at that certain volume...is that equation that you dug up to be used for the change in the speed of sound when sound waves travel through a boundry in different materials or what? not to mention that if you do a unit analysis here, you won't end up with a velocity as is required for any speed. i.e., the specific heat units cancel and what you're left with is the gas constant multiplied by a temperature which gives you energy/moles, not distance/time. please explain."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smeger 0 #20 March 6, 2005 The density of a gas is given by: p(gas) m/v = PM/RT where m = the mass of the gas (in kg) M = the molecular mass of the gas (in kg mole-1) R = the gas constant (8.31 J K-1 mole -1) and T = the absolute tempreture in K. The you can determine the strength of the air spring (the bonding between each molecule). Given by: E(gas) = yp Where P = the pressure of the gas (in N m-2) V = the volume of the gas (in m3) and y = is a constnat whcih depends on the gas (1.4 for air). The speed of sound in the air can then be calculated though the apparent gas by V(gas) = square root of E(gas)/P(gas) = square root of yp/(PM/RT) = suare root of yRT/M Soory for the lack of mathmatical symbols . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #21 March 6, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe "sparse"ness of the particles (molecules) really has nothing to do with it. you're wrong. the density of molecules has everything to do with this topic. air is the medium for the propagation of the sound waves in question so, the density of the air is paramount to finding the speed of sound at any given altitude. as a side note, i'm no physicist but . I am a physicist. You are wrong. I doubt you'll believe me so here it is from NASA... www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #22 March 6, 2005 QuoteI doubt you'll believe me so here it is from NASA... are you bitter about something else?"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #23 March 6, 2005 thanks for the clarification. "Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sirenoremac 0 #24 March 6, 2005 bitter? I think it's just frustrating for a man with some serious education and authority in his field to have people on some internet forum srguing physics with him... I personally think it's funny, bu then, I'm not in his position :P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mx757 4 #25 March 6, 2005 I met Joe Kittinger in June 1998 in Dallas / Ft. Worth Texas where he gave a lecture on his jump, and had movies, photos of it. real cool guy, he even signed my jump log book for me.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
