This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astronauts

Why Doesn't NASA Mention The Jump From The Edge of Space?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 15, 2012
Filed under , ,


@NASAWatch Tweet: 24 hrs – nothing from #NASA.gov mentioning Baumgartner’s jump from the edge of space – just one single tweet yesterday bit.ly/RN6PiR
Keith’s note: Buzz surrounding Felix Baumgartner’s parachute jump from 24 miles, with a top descent speed of Mach 1.24, is still all over the media and clearly captured the public’s imagination. 8 million people watched on YouTube – a new record. Tribute and parody YouTube videos have already gone viral (cats anyone?). Yet, other than a single tweet yesterday (unless I missed something) NASA has not said a single thing about this amazing feat. Yet there was constant mention by the news media as to how such a jump could lead to better spacesuits for NASA (among others). Alas, NASA was originally approached to participate in this activity but declined the offer to do so. Sources tell me that many NASA managers went out of their way to find ways to say “no” to this.
Its now clearly possible for non-NASA entities to approach – and reach space – and do things NASA cannot do. And, after half a century, NASA’s increasing absence from these efforts doesn’t even seem to be odd anymore. Is this the end of an era – and the beginning of another?
Has NASA even noticed?
Yes, the Space Jump Mattered, Mashable
“So pay no attention to the naysayers. This was just as giant a leap as it felt. It reminded us that making a taller iPhone does not have to be the ultimate ambition of the technically minded. We can dare to look up from our Star Trek-inspired smartphones, gaze at the heavens, and dream of doing things that seem completely ridiculous.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

39 responses to “Why Doesn't NASA Mention The Jump From The Edge of Space?”

  1. Yohan Ayhan says:
    0
    0

    I’m not sure why NASA needs to respond. I don’t see any application for this jump. How would this further space exploration?

    • Tom Sellick says:
      0
      0

      Hi altitude abort scenario?

      • Yohan Ayhan says:
        0
        0

        Yeah, if all your astronauts were highly skilled like Felix and with luck on their side.

      • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
        0
        0

        his jump from a pretty stable floating capsule is far different from any high altitude abort. his conditions were pretty benign compared to what velocities, roll, pitch, yaw, tumble a crew trying to jump out would be under so that I doubt they would survive.

        • tutiger87 says:
          0
          0

          Yeah, but Tuna, the basic question of: Can he even survive at that altitude had to be answered first. Everything else flows from there..

      • Brian Thorn says:
        0
        0

        Not many high altitude abort scenarios start with zero velocity, though. There’s a reason Shuttle had to be subsonic before the crew could bail out.

    • Christopher Larkins says:
      0
      0

      Better pressure suits?

  2. meekGee says:
    0
    0

    Because he was going the wrong way.

    • meekGee says:
      0
      0

      Replying to myself here, but why not…
      Felix’s jump was from 39 km, barely higher than Kittinger’s, which was from 31 km, 40 years ago!
      The only seminal things about it was that he went a tad faster, and only because they intentionally rigged the jump to go fast – something you’d never do on a bail-out scenario, where stability is your goal.

      Also in the 60’s, as part of a real situation, an SR-71 pilot unintenionally tested his bail-out mechanism at mach 3.2 and some 80,000 feet.  He was blacked out for most of the ordeal.

      So if someone, 40 years later, wants to go “where no man has gone before”, they need to address something like bailing out of a rocket at Mach 20 and 200,000 feet – which might have been useful in the case of Columbia.

      • Steve Pemberton says:
        0
        0

        Barely higher? It was a 25% increase over an already phenomenal 102,800 feet.  A tad faster?  It was a 35% increase over the previous free fall record of 614 mph.  How often do you see those types of increases in aerospace records in one flight?  Not very often.

        And I think that maybe you are missing the point of what constitutes a milestone.  There was less than a thousand feet of vertical difference between Tenzing Norgay’s 28,200 foot climb up Mt. Everest in 1952, and his 29,000 foot climb a year later with Edmund Hillary.  The difference between going 95% of the way around the world and a complete circumnavigation is a little over a thousand miles. Chuck Yeager’s flight of October 10th, 1947 which recorded a speed of Mach 0.997 is now just a historical footnote.  It was Yeager’s flight four days later on October 14th, just a “tad” faster at Mach 1.06 that we still talk about sixty five years later.

        Joe Kittinger went Mach 0.90 in freefall.  Baumgartner went Mach 1.2.  There’s no law that says that anyone has to be impressed with that achievement, or to consider this or any particular milestone important. To each his own.

        As to what should have been done instead that would be more relevant to safety research, you’re not seriously suggesting that a privately funded venture like this would be going Mach 20 at 200,000 feet?  And even if someone ever does, wouldn’t Baumgartner’s jump be a necessary incremental step towards that eventual goal?

  3. Yohan Ayhan says:
    0
    0

    The experiment that NASA should be preforming is creating a smart crash dummy with sensors and put it inside an inflatable shield with drag chutes then launch it from space station on a decaying orbit and see whether the dummy survives based on the analysis of the measurements that it takes.

  4. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    I am reluctant to reopen a good discussion from another thread that got a little passionate at times. But I can’t help but suggest that the reason that NASA doesn’t want to be attached to this could be that NASA doesn’t see any relevance of this to what they do, aside from brave people doing hard things.

    Don’t be fooled. This isn’t space. He’s got a suit on, but that doesn’t make it space. The suit may be impressively designed, but not particularly for use in space, NASA might feel. We’re told that this work could enable people to jump out of rockets that are misbehaving. NASA probably doesn’t want to touch that picture with a ten foot pole. If NASA valued that information, they’d be up there pushing people out of balloons.

    It’s now clearly possible for non-NASA entities to approach – and reach space – and do things NASA cannot do. But that doesn’t mean that NASA has to endorse or support those things. NASA doesn’t “own” outer space and everything that looks a bit like outer space. It’s fallacious to think that everything that has to do with space has to be relevant to NASA. It just isn’t. Most commercial space these days doesn’t even involve NASA.

    If this had ended badly, and NASA was a conspicuous partner, the agency could have taken a lot of heat for not committing more safety resources to it.

    Yes, it mattered, but the fact that it didn’t formally matter to NASA really isn’t a big deal. I guess Charlie Boldin could have offered congratulations to the Stratos team for bravery, and for doing hard things, but there are a lot of people that might deserve such congratulations.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      Helen,

      Reading between the lines of this and your previous comments about the scientific and other worthiness of Baumgartner’s free fall, I get the sense that your opinion of the accomplishment itself has evolved during the discussion. Or perhaps it hasn’t changed and I simply misunderstood it due to your initial comparison of it with the Evel Knievel Snake River jump. In later comments you made it clear that you were in fact very impressed with the achievement, however other than “brave”, “hard” and “impressive” I am still not quite exactly sure what you think of it.

      Baumgartner’s accomplishment in my opinion would be better compared with the Voyager circumnavigational flight in December 1986, or the flight into space of SpaceShipOne in June 2004. The similarity being that these were not mere stunts, they were seminal achievements years in the making, accomplished after a long process of incremental testing and technical improvements by a highly qualified and committed team, in order to reach a very difficult aerospace milestone.  Making the achievement of these goals even more noteworthy is that they were all privately funded non-government projects.  And none of these achievements could be done by just hiring a stunt daredevil, the flights themselves (and the jump) were done by people heavily involved in the projects from the early stages, who also possessed the requisite exemplary skill and experience to perform in these extreme test environments.  Adding to all of this, Felix Baumgartner was also the originator of and the driving force behind his project.

      Clearly Baumgartner didn’t invent the idea, he was fully aware that people had been trying for fifty years to push beyond what Kittinger had accomplished.  This brings to mind the accomplishment of Charles Lindbergh in 1927.  Lindbergh was also aware that the Orteig Prize had gone unclaimed for eight years since first being offered in 1919.  He knew that many had tried, and even died in the attempt to make the first non-stop flight between New York and Paris and claim the prize.  Lindbergh, far from being “Lucky” or just brave, knew full well the technical challenges involved, and he very carefully managed a project (funded by sponsors) which led to his successful flight.  Besides being very knowledgeable about aircraft design, Lindbergh was also one of if not the most skilled aviators of his day.  Of course he couldn’t do it alone, he required a team including aircraft manufacturer Ryan.  And Lindbergh’s accomplishment of course also required a huge amount of bravery and perhaps a bit of luck also, which is what he is mostly remembered for.  But bravery and luck alone were not nearly enough to be successful.  I would say the same for Felix Baumgartner’s achievement.

      Maybe you agree with some or perhaps even all of this but if so it wasn’t completely clear from your comments.  I realize that you were making other points and didn’t directly address this topic.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      At 128,000 ft, the standard barometric pressure is 0 kPa (1 mmHg). This means that there is 0% of the oxygen available at sea level. Add in the UV flux, cold temps/hot temps simultaneously (depending on illumination) and increased radiation flux and it is remarkable close to “space”.  Why does NASA like to put telescopes on balloons that fly this high?  To get away from most of the Earth’s atmosphere.

      • Helen Simpson says:
        0
        0

        You’re trying to say that “it’s just like space!”? Well, OK, but my point remains, why are things that are “just like space” of necessary concern to NASA?

        Comsats and recon sats are floating up there in zero g, in a vacuum, generating power from the Sun with giant panels, and they get there with big rockets. NASA doesn’t have anything to do with them. Why isn’t NASA partnering with their owners and designers, cheering them on, and acknowledging their feats?

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Read NASA’s PR literature. They promote this stuff all the time and have done so for half a century.  

          You are becoming like a broken record. Why not just take the rest of the day to focus on your work.

          • meekGee says:
            0
            0

            Keith – you’re the moderator here – this was a disrespectful post towards someone who takes great care to post carefully reasoned arguments on this site.

            It’s your readership that makes the site interesting.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            She keeps making the same, incorrect points. And I respond. That’s how it works.

          • Helen Simpson says:
            0
            0

            I think I’ve made my point. Thanks for the opportunity. I will indeed take the rest of the day to focus on my work, and I trust you will too. 

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      “If this had ended badly, and NASA was a conspicuous partner, the agency could have taken a lot of heat for not committing more safety resources to it. “

      Yup I agree NASA/ public space is to chicken$%^& to be on the cutting edge of exploration for the very reason you suggest. That is why they should be doing the R and D and providing the support for the new space kooks.

      We agree 🙂

      Let new space explore with NASAs help

      cancel  SLS, and Orion and put that money into the hard stuff

  5. Lambaster McCree says:
    0
    0

    What about the Discovery Channel’s recent crash test of a Boeing 727?  That test studied aspects of crash survivability.  Doesn’t this fall under NASA’s research portfolio?

  6. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    NASA had some involvement, but mainly it was fifty years ago and mainly it was the US Air Force, under John Paul Stapp and Joe Kittinger and others, developing the ejection systems and pressure suits that have been in use, including those used by NASA, and the sharp learning curve happened in the 1950s and 60s.

    Felix Baumgartner was a stuntman and daredevil and he did great using a suit based on and made by the same people who made the suits used on the U-2, and formerly on the SR-71 and Shuttle.

  7. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    It appeared that he developed a high spin rate several times but was able to stop it. I believe Kittinger had problems with spinning at high altitude as well. It’s a bit hazardous as an excessive spin rate can cause loss of consciousness due to the centrifugal force reducing blood return to the heart. It wasn’t clear from the video when and if he deployed a drogue. 

    It’s also unclear whether he asked for any NASA involvement. But I agree it would have been nice to have some collaboration, if only to collect data. NASA is responsible for studying flight in the air and space, so either way it would have been relevant; any pilot ejecting at high altitude is going to be falling vertically after the first few seconds. NASA is not and should not be restricted to serving the needs of NASA.

  8. Jackalope3000 says:
    0
    0

    Keith raises a great question.

    I was Program Manager for Red Bull Stratos from 2008-2009 and I can personally verify that certain NASA managers went out of their way to prevent any connection between NASA and the project.  They went to the point of making up irrelevant nonsense like the idea that the pressure suit controllers were “not certified for use above 100,000ft” and that the balloon was “not man-rated” as reasons for their inability to cooperate with an aerospace research project on a cost reimbursable basis.  
    That said, many extremely capable engineers and aerospace medical professionals within NASA were wildly enthusiastic about participating, to the point of wanting to do it on their own time, but were thwarted at every turn.  In addition to many other things, the project has proven the enhanced suit mobility features developed by David Clark to allow the jumper to assume different poses while inflated and thus control attitude and spin in descent.  It would take a book to list all the developments in Stratos that could enhance survivability for high-altitude bailouts.

    We were told by people connected with the Columbia investigation that Challenger might have been a bailout scenario if they had our system and that if Columbia’s crew module had survived to 150,000 feet some of them might have had a chance of survival with our system and the knowledge gained from this test.  While it comes clearly too late to help the shuttle program, the shuttle is not the last winged space transporter or high-speed, high-altitude aircraft.

    NASA made an official move to sit on the sidelines and that is really a loss for everyone.

    • jimlux says:
      0
      0

       NASA may or may not decide to get involved based on a whole raft of fairly quotidian mundane things.  Like, perhaps, whether the project can fit in the NPR7120.5E framework. Whether the software will be developed according to NPR7150.2.  This is also a “human experiment” so it would need to go through the Institutional Review Board process.

      Sure, you can get waivers for all these things if needed, but at some point, you might decide it’s easier to send in a “no bid” response than to do something that is organized and arranged in a way that is orthogonal to your regular line of business and processes.  NASA may have decided not to do it for the same reason that they don’t support top fuel drag racing teams (even though there are lots of NASA employees who are personally interested and participate in such activities)  It’s not really in their line of business.

  9. FallingWithStyle says:
    0
    0

    This is the debate about human versus robotic exploration writ small.

    People divide sharply into two IMO. There are those who don’t need any reason for going to the moon, Mars, wherever, don’t even think you need a reason. People for whom the science and technology benefits, if we are honest with ourselves, are just a pretext. Musk is one of these and so are most of the commentators here.

    The others simply don’t get it. They wonder why. And, whatever it was for, couldn’t a machine have done it better? Can you quantify the benefits?

    Then we have tenuous arguments about why only humans can do things in certaim circumstances, yad, yada, yada. 

    All of which also misses the point. Which is to do it. In person. This is what motivates some people. Hugely. You either see it or you don’t.

    How inspiring would a latter day Tenzing and Hilary be, sending a billion dollar, sem-autonomous robotic device to the top of Everest?

    Baumgartner has the right stuff.  Whether that has any relevance to what NASA does is a moot point but as far as I am concerned, let’s have more of the same, please.

  10. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    It’s pretty obvious from this discussion that while people of many skills and talents are excited and ennervated about this project, that excitement and ennervation is not an indicator of what NASA is responsible for. These same people would probably also be excited about helping Evel Knievel rocket across the Snake River. (As would I!) You don’t define what NASA is legislatively responsible for by what its employees happen to be excited about. That’s pretty simple. NASA doesn’t exist to reflect the passions of its workers.

    To the extent there was an official move to distance NASA from this project, it probably was because the project just did not provide clear value to the agency, except perhaps in getting people excited about humans doing risky things. As I said, it may also have been because of the liabilities that close coupling could entail.

    As to bailing out of a human space flight vehicle, it seems pretty unlikely that they would do so by opening a door, exiting onto a porch, and doing a controlled leap. I can think of several approaches to saving astronauts in a malfunctioning vehicle, and none of them look like this. If you bail out of a high speed military aircraft, you sure don’t do it like this!

    • Jason Bachelor says:
      0
      0

       Ennervate???  That’s a NASA term that I’m not familiar with.

    • Jackalope3000 says:
      0
      0

      Apparently Helen Simpson has never heard of a controlled experiment.  Perhaps for her it would have been more scientifically relevant if they launched Felix on a rocket that exploded at 128,000 feet.

  11. SpaceTeacher says:
    0
    0

    This has nothing to do with NASA. It’s more like an Evil Kneviel performance.
    It is an accomplishment, true, but not for manned spaceflight.

    • Chris Holmes says:
      0
      0

      Teacher, I can’t imagine how any thinking person or educator can make that statement without looking at the data from the Stratos flight.  How do you KNOW none of it is applicable to manned spaceflight?  Above, we have a poster who has firsthand knowledge of the project and he claims there were some NASA employees who found value in the idea of a high altitude jump.  Is that not validation enough?I return to what I wrote in another thread and adopt what another poster here said; this is just the next step in determining what kind of envelope is available for a high abort scenario.  Next, maybe, is determining how much delta-v can be handled, or how much heating the David Clark suit can handle. 

      I read some of the posts here and shake my head.  People want to dismiss something because ‘it’s been done before,’ when clearly, it hasn’t.  To NOT look into this concept more is to fail future astronauts who might find themselves at 200,000 feet at Mach speed – and might have a chance to survive the incident.  Do you really want to dismiss that capability before we know if it exists? 

  12. HyperJ says:
    0
    0

    What is there to acknowledge? 

    It isn’t really even close to the typical demarcation of space. There is close to ZERO scientific or practical benefit from this – other than to improve suits for future stunts like this. (even though it is a very cool stunt) So why?

  13. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Let’s see if this works:

    tinker

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

       Folks:

      That was me trying to post the cat link Keith posted. It wouldn’t animate and I tried to delete the post. It is worth a look though. I LedOL.

      tinker

      • Steve Pemberton says:
        0
        0

        I’m thinking the tail might act like a drogue chute and help keep kitty from going into a flat spin.

  14. Jerry_Browner says:
    0
    0

    There is a Facebook posting going around “When you realize an energy drink has a better space program than your nation”. 
    Amazing how far we’ve fallen.

  15. MrGDS says:
    0
    0

    seems to me “space” starts about 62 miles up from here. I cannot see how anyone could call that jump from the “edge of space” it was not even half way there