Talk:Red Bull Stratos

Why was mission data deleted?

Mission data

Elevation data
Time, min	Elevation, ft	Delta time, min	Speed, ft/min
0	0		0
9.77	14800	9.77	1,515.36
10.47	15500	0.70	1,000.00
11.47	16500	1.00	1,000.00
12.43	17500	0.97	1,034.48
13.40	18500	0.97	1,034.48
14.35	19500	0.95	1,052.63
18.23	23500	3.88	1,030.04
20.08	25500	1.85	1,081.08
21.87	27500	1.78	1,121.50
23.70	29500	1.83	1,090.91
25.48	31500	1.78	1,121.50
27.40	33500	1.92	1,043.48
29.32	35500	1.92	1,043.48
33.85	39500	4.53	882.35
36.00	41500	2.15	930.23
40.03	45500	4.03	991.74
42.23	47500	2.20	909.09
43.30	48500	1.07	937.50
45.32	50000	2.02	743.80
47.18	51500	1.87	803.57
49.95	53500	2.77	722.89
51.55	54500	1.60	625.00
54.75	56500	3.20	625.00
56.70	58500	1.95	1,025.64
58.80	60000	2.10	714.29
61.45	61500	2.65	566.04
64.78	64500	3.33	900.00
66.97	66500	2.18	916.03
71.58	68500	4.62	433.21
72.85	69500	1.27	789.47
75.77	71500	2.92	685.71
77.57	73000	1.80	833.33
78.97	74500	1.40	1,071.43
80.00	75500	1.03	967.74
81.87	77000	1.87	803.57
83.88	78500	2.02	743.80
85.77	80000	1.88	796.46
86.65	81000	0.88	1,132.08
87.52	82000	0.87	1,153.85
88.35	83000	0.83	1,200.00
89.45	84000	1.10	909.09
90.85	85000	1.40	714.29
92.55	86500	1.70	882.35
93.45	87500	0.90	1,111.11
94.43	88500	0.98	1,016.95
96.70	90500	2.27	882.35
97.78	91500	1.08	923.08
99.00	92500	1.22	821.92
100.93	94500	1.93	1,034.48
102.22	95500	1.28	779.22
103.22	96500	1.00	1,000.00
104.25	97500	1.03	967.74
105.20	98500	0.95	1,052.63
105.70	99000	0.50	1,000.00
106.15	99500	0.45	1,111.11
106.53	100000	0.38	1,304.35
107.30	101000	0.77	1,304.35
108.33	102000	1.03	967.74
110.73	104500	2.40	1,041.67
111.23	105000	0.50	1,000.00
112.35	106000	1.12	895.52
113.93	107000	1.58	631.58
116.63	108500	2.70	555.56
117.97	110000	1.33	1,125.00
120.50	112288	2.53	903.16
121.17	113000	0.67	1,068.00
122.17	114000	1.00	1,000.00
123.45	115000	1.28	779.22
125.30	116000	1.85	540.54
127.43	117000	2.13	468.75
128.92	119000	1.48	1,348.31
129.57	120000	0.65	1,538.46
130.00	120500	0.43	1,153.85
130.38	121000	0.38	1,304.35
130.90	121500	0.52	967.74
131.73	122000	0.83	600.00
133.00	122077	1.27	60.79
133.50	122157	0.50	160.00
134.00	122439	0.50	564.00
134.50	122925	0.50	972.00
135.00	123687	0.50	1,524.00
135.50	124608	0.50	1,842.00
136.00	125737	0.50	2,258.00
136.50	126641	0.50	1,808.00
137.00	127268	0.50	1,254.00
138.00	127889	1.00	621.00
138.50	127774	0.50	(230.00)
139.00	127518	0.50	(512.00)
139.50	127314	0.50	(408.00)
140.00	127242	0.50	(144.00)
140.50	127357	0.50	230.00
141.00	127547	0.50	380.00
141.50	127672	0.50	250.00
142.00	127701	0.50	58.00
142.50	127708	0.50	14.00
143.00	127794	0.50	172.00
143.50	127818	0.50	48.00
144.00	127815	0.50	(6.00)
144.50	127783	0.50	(64.00)
145.00	127741	0.50	(84.00)
146.00	127688	1.00	(53.00)
150.00	128043	4.00	88.75
150.50	128087	0.50	88.00
155.00	128057	4.50	(6.67)
Time, min	Elevation, ft	Delta time, min	Speed, ft/min

*data manually collected from live video stream.

So where is this coming from? You watched the livestream page and typed numbers as they came by? Is there a log somewhere? -Koppapa (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just typed numbers in as I was watching it. I'm curious of the type and accuracy of the instrument that measured the elevation. Davemody (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is the data in feet and miles? That might be useful for Americans but the rest of the world (including English-speaking world) don't understand these figures. Why were figures in metres and kilometres used instead?--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to explain more clearly what is meant by "free fall".

Never mind. I figured it out.

Glad that got cleared up. -Noha307 (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Footage

Will there be video taken from the balloon as Baumgartner jumps? Will he have a helmet camera? In general, what telemetry, documentation and footage will be collected? Speciate (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is loads (and I mean LOADS) of informkation at the Red Bull Stratos Newsroom. I've not had a chance yet to go through it and get most of it on the article though. If you're willing to help, that would be great. Cheers, matt (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"scientific"

Why is the jump scientific. Yes, it will indeed break a record, but is there anything that goes beyond a record? What could possibly be scientific about this jump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.225.250 (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of data from the jump will be analysed, including how pressure suits work in new environments (altitudes, speeds, pressures etc.). matt (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Selective Records

In the Records section, official and unofficial records are selectively mixed.

In the first category, "Highest manned balloon flight", Ross and Prather's 1961, 34668 metre (113,739.9 foot) flight is mentioned while Piantanida's 1966, 37642 metre (123,500 foot) achievement is ignored altogether. Even though Piantanida flew higher, his flight did not meet the requirements of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) (specifically, he did not return to earth with his balloon - something that Baumgartner will not be doing either). In my opinion, it is right and proper to list Ross and Prather's flight as the record, as it was certified by the FAI.

However, in the second category, "Freefall from highest altitude", the article lists Kittinger's 1960, 31,333 metre (102,799 foot) jump as the 'record', even though Kittinger's jump is not recognised by the FAI. In fact, FAI's website lists Baumgartner's July 2012, 29610 meter (97,145 foot) jump as the altitude record (as a 'preliminary record claim'.) Prior to that, Yevgeni Andreyev held the FAI record for his 1962 jump from 25,460 metres (83,523 feet). In my opinion, either Baumgartner's 2012 jump or Andreyev's 1962 jump should be listed in the article as the current 'record' because they have been recognised by the FAI, but it is not right or proper to list Kittinger's jump as the record to break since it was never recognised by the FAI.

So the article is in the position of discussing an unofficial 'record' (Kittinger's) that the Red Bull project plans to easily break, but omitting an unofficial 'record' (Piantandia's) that it may not break. Why does this article recognise the Kittinger feat and ignore the Piantanida feat? Thoughts on how to make this section more accurately reflect all the achievements of high altitude ballooning?

--212.139.244.241 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The records were pulled from the project's media web page (enlarge the graphic on the right column of that page). What do other sources state about the records? matt (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this page of FAI ballooning records confirms the Ross and Prather 1961 flight as the highest on FAI's record books. This page of FAI parachuting records (search 'Performance Records') shows Andreev's 1962 "Altitude Freefall Distance - General" record still stands pending the ratification of Baumgartner's July 2012 jump. It also shows Baumgartner is the current record holder in the "Vertical speed without drogue" category (as a result of his March 2012 jump), and notes the receipt of a "preliminary record claim" in the categories of "Vertical speed without drogue", "Exit altitude", and "Freefall distance" resulting from his 25 July 2012 jump.

The FAI page on parachuting makes no mention of Kittinger because it never ratified his 1960 jump. Here's how Kittinger explained his omission from the FAI record in his autobiography, Come Up And Get Me: "Although I’d set an unofficial record for the longest and highest parachute jump and the longest free fall in history – I free-fell for a total of four minutes and thirty-six seconds – the international aviation commission, the Federation Aeronautique International (FAI), never recognized it. That was just fine with me. Because Excelsior was an emergency escape program, setting records was never our mission. I had refused to give the FAI permission to install their measurement and recording equipment in the gondola or to pay one of their onsite observers. I didn’t believe the American tax payers ought to be asked to foot the bill so that we could establish a world record. Besides, the Air Force’s instrumentation was an order of magnitude more accurate than anything the FAI would have used. The whole procedure seemed silly to me."

There is another explanation sometimes cited as to why the FAI did not recognise Kittinger's jump. As it's told in Fundamentals of Aerospace Medicine, "Kittinger’s 1960 jump was not officially recognized, by the FAI, as a record because a small drogue canopy was deployed early during the free fall phase of descent." Or, in the words of Popular Science, "Although Kittinger jumped from the highest altitude, his record isn’t fully sanctioned by the skydiving community because his use of a drogue is considered a crutch."

The story of how Nick Piantanida got to 123,500 feet and back again is documented in the books The Pre-Astronauts and Magnificent Failure both by Craig Ryan. This article in Air & Space Magazine says "While the record is unofficial, there is no doubt he went higher than any other human has in a balloon—123,500 feet." This article in Der Spiegel, this article in The American Scholar and this article in The New York Times, entitled "Chutist Changes Mind 123,500 Feet in Sky", are among the many that document Piantanida's 123,500 foot achievement. Piantanida did not jump from that height so he did not set a parachuting record and he did not qualify for a ballooning record under the FAI's rules - because he did not return to earth with his balloon - but he does seem to have gone higher in a balloon than any human in history. Google "Piantanida 123,5000" for a rich seam of information about the attempt.

Approach the self-hyping, publicity-seeking Red Bull Stratos pages with great caution and try to independently verify everything you use from that source. The whole project is one big advertisement, after all. --212.139.244.241 (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Due to the ambiguous meanings of the word 'record' (see the conflicting 'records' discussed above), I've removed references to specific record holders (Prather & Ross, Kittinger) from the article, as well as the Records section from the bottom of the page. I think it's appropriate to say that the Red Bull Stratos project hopes to set a record in such-and-such a category, but it'll be less contentious to not have to decide right now what qualifies as a verifiable record (FAI vs. Guiness Book vs. widely reported). Maybe after the Red Bull Stratos attempt things will get a little easier to sort out (maybe the FAI can certify a record in each category). --212.139.244.241 (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Although, if he only gets to 120,000 feet he won't have broken Piantanida's unofficial world record of 123,500 feet. 86.131.248.248 (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"gusty winds"

Not wanting to interfere at this time in the article, I think that it should be mentionned that there were no "gusty winds", but ONE_SINGLE gust of ~30km/h, which forced the balloon to ground, risking it to be seriously damaged. According to Baumgartner's later interviews, it was irrelevant that one of two radio communication channels were broke. [w.] 12:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

23 miles

Article introduction says approximately 23 miles, it's actually approx 32

No, it's definitely ~23 miles—compare this to this. matt (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speed of sound

What is, in fact, the speed of sound at 100,000 feet altitude? Acmthompson (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Tables shows speed of sound to be 1083 km/h at 29 km. So he did break the speed of sound at 1173 km/h (or more) shown on feed. 80.220.71.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say the same — 1173km/h is ~325m/s and at that altitude the speed of sound would have been below 300m/s. -- samj _in^out 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources:

• Skydiver Felix Baumgartner breaks sound barrier
• Skydiver breaks sound barrier
• Skydiver Breaks Sound Barrier In Record Jump
• Skydiver goes supersonic
• Austrian skydiver 'broke sound barrier'
• 'Fearless Felix' dives from the stratosphere, breaks the sound barrier
• Austrian daredevil Felix Baumgertner breaks sound barrier in 23 mile freefall
• Who Is Felix Baumgartner? The Space Jump Daredevil's Earlier Stunts
• etc. -- samj _in^out 19:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of non-SI units

I think that the metric units should go first and the US/imperial units should go into the brackets. This article is clearly not US-related but of international interest. See WP:MEASUREMENT. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this can be disputed, as it took place in the US and was coordinated in part by an American. 129.3.128.182 (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It was paid for by Red Bull (Austrian company) and the dude who jumped was Austrian. See a pattern here? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure why that should have any bearing on using accepted international standard units? Turkeyphan^t 19:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia manual of style clearly says that "non-science US-related articles" can use non-SI units. This is not a US-related topic but of international interest. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur, it should be SI with US units in brackets. Speciate (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Altitude definitions

The article seems to freely interchange AGL and ASL altitudes. Can someone clarify which is meant when altitudes are given? Turkeyphan^t 19:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe this still needs clarification. Is anyone aware of data sources that are explicit about this? 82.152.144.89 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Free fall vs Kittinger

We need to find out what the consensus of sources is for the record free fall. In the eyes of some, Kittinger's "record" is marred by use of a drogue parachute, and by failure to have the records submitted to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Kittinger dropped from a lower height, and opened his main chute at a higher height, and yet the times were about the same, so the drogue did slow his fall a lot. Please provide links to sources, as I don't really want to use my personal opinion, so we can sort this out. Speciate (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this a lot in the past few days too. Just because an accomplishment was not certified by the world governing body in this area, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) (or the Guiness Book, or whoever) doesn't mean that the event did not happen (e.g. Nick Piantanida's 123,500 foot flight in 1966 - although the Stratos project conveniently ignored it altogether). One possible solution might be to differentiate between "official records" and "unofficial records". For example, Baumgartner's achievement will not be ratified by the FAI as the highest manned balloon flight (so won't be the "official record" in that category) because under FAI rules the pilot has to return to earth with his balloon, but for Wikipedia to ignore it would defy logic and history. I'd suggest we note he holds the "unofficial record" in that category. I'd also suggest we note that Kittinger holds an "unofficial record" in whatever categories he still holds a record (since his accomplishments were never FAI sanctioned). More to the point of your question, the FAI doesn't keep records for the timed duration of free fall - it measures in meters (look here and search 'Performance Records'). As a result of today's jump the FAI will eventually sanction that Baumgartner holds the record for "vertical speed without drogue" - in fact he already holds that record for his March 2012 jump (see, here). As for Kittinger's free fall, I'd say he holds the unofficial record for longest timed free fall with a drogue parachute - but that's a lot of qualifications. --212.139.244.241 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Capsule

How did they get the capsule safely back down? Where did it land? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.140.157 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I Think it landed in one of these three locations: Possible Felix Baumgartner The Stratos Project Red Bull Landing Zones

1) 33°21'17.94"N 103°48'18.29"W

2) 33°19'38.64"N 103°45'12.96"W

3) 33°20'24.00"N 103°46'49.08"W

Take Off:

33°18'39.24"N 104°32'21.12"W

mickrussom (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Top speed

This article contradicts itself when it comes to Felix's top speed. The lead shows a top speed of 832 mph while the article only has him reaching 706 mph. Some resolution would be nice. Hellbus (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's resolved now?—the initial reports of his speed were 706 mph, though later (see here) the FAI were analysing data that suggested top speed was 832. Obviously it's yet to be confirmed, but it took a while for this to trickle through to the news services. matt (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The FAI stated that the maximum speed was 373 metres per second. This corresponds with a velocity of 1,342.8 kilometres per hour (833.5 mph). The speed of sound at that altitude is 1,083 kilometres per hour (672.7 mph) and so the Mach number is 1,342/1,083 = 1.239889, rounded up to Mach 1.24. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

YouTube

I read somewhere that the youtube live stream record was also broken (previous record of concurrent streams was the London Olympics opening ceremony at ~500.000 concurrent connections?) I believe that at the point where he was about to jump the number of concurrent connections passed the 8 million mark? 77.250.38.17 (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Found a link: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/millions-watch-as-felix-baumgartner-378859 Apparently the previous records were way better than the Olympics, but still- a record for the live stream. Felsir (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Another link: http://mashable.com/2012/10/15/space-jump-youtube-record/ Felsir (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yevgeni Andreyev

There have been some edits to the article stating that Yevgeni Nikolayevich Andreyev previously held the record for longest free fall. I've removed these, as they did not provide a source (and removed a source in the process). Can anyone verify this claim with a reliable source? I can't find anything except reports on how far he fell—even if he had the farthest free fall, that doesn't necessarily equate to the longest, and it's the duration that we're talking about here. Can anyone help? matt (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it may be duration that you are talking about here, but again I point you towards the website of the world governing body in these matters, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale; (its parachuting records page is here - search under "Performance Records"). There are of course two different ways to measure the 'longest' free fall; in time and in distance. The FAI only certifies in distance (not time) and indeed Yevgeni Nikolayevich Andreyev is the official record holder in the category "Freefall distance - General - Altitude Records". He set that official record in 1962 (in fact, it's the oldest record in the FAI's parachuting category). You may also note that the FAI has received a preliminary record claim from Felix Baumgartner in regard to his March 2012 flight. If certified, he will become the official free fall distance record holder. Until then, I'd urge the restoring of Andreyev's record to the article. --212.139.244.241 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Another quick thought: You can't really compare Andreyev's free fall and Kittinger's jump in terms of TIME because, except for the first thirteen seconds, Kittinger was dragging a drogue chute which slowed him down (and prolonged the time it took him to return to earth). It would be more accurate to say Kittinger holds the unofficial record for the longest timed fall with drogue chute. --212.139.244.241 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not just me. Every last newspaper is talking about the time of the freefall, not the distance of the freefall. I'm not disputing that Andreyev holds the longest distance free fall, but no news reports on Stratos have been talking about Andreyev's record—as it's the time that is being reported, we should stick to mentioning that. I have no problems with mentioning Andreyev if it's relevant and if a third party also does, but we as editors mustn't decide what is relevant to the article—we should include what has been published related to Baumgartner. matt (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Great minds (and yours and mine, too) can disagree; I'd say that as editors we must decide what is relevant to the article, and not to unthinkingly throw in everything (and only that) which is published in today's news cycle (which has pretty much gobbled up and spat out the story as framed for it by the Stratos publicity machine). Andreyev's record is relevant to this article (he holds the world record that Baumgartner's jump bettered) and the third party in this case is the world governing body for the sport of parachuting (the FAI). I can't think of a better source, or a more compelling reason, to include a mention of Andreyev and his feat in this article. --212.139.244.241 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yevgeni Andreyev still holds the record of the longest free fall duration without a drogue parachute. His time of 4:30 is 10 seconds better than Baumgartner's. Kittinger used a drogue which atrificially extended his time by about one minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.168.137 (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Telemetry shown in videos

Previously I made edits (here and on Felix Baumgartner) to remove apparently spurious "accuracy", where a figure of 128097 feet was given. (This was obviously due to cumulative rounding errors: converting 128100 feet (as quoted in newspapers) to 39044.88m, then converting 39044m back to 128097.11ft, truncating both times.)

Now having looked for more accurate data, I find that they're probably off by about 90 metres. But I'm not sure if this has sufficient validity to include in the main article:

The YouTube video includes the final 111 seconds of the ascent, of which the first 74 seconds included a telemetry display.

The video starts at 2h34m05s on mission clock, with telemetry showing 38906m/127645ft, and at 2h35m18s the final telemetry shown was 39058m/128143ft; the jump occurred 38 seconds later at 2h35m56s.

A simple calculation shows that the balloon was still rising by about 2.04 metres per second at this height, so the actual jump height was about 39137m, or about 300ft higher than the 128100 ft quoted in the news articles.

• Can a video be a primary reference?
• Is it reasonable to extrapolate 37 seconds' worth of ascent?

Martin Kealey (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No and no. -Koppapa (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course the video can be a primary source, nothing wrong with that so long as it is appropriately licensed. However, you are right that we can't extrapolate to get the maximum altitude (as that is original research). I recommend using press releases from the team, or any other similar source. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that extrapolation constitutes "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources"; however what about simply saying "he reached at least 39,058 metres (128,143 ft)", that being the final altimeter reading? I'd point out that this is within the +/- 16m margin implied by 100 ft rounding in news articles? Martin Kealey (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't know if those HUD displays are correct. They most likely are, but there should be some official record-documents apearing soon. If the record for highest ballon flight still only gives his jump-altitude, we should however stick to that. -Koppapa (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Video footage

Would be great if we could have some video footage of the jump on Wikipedia, if that's possible. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it would certainly be fair use. I'll try and see if I can get some in place of the stills we currently have. — cdwn 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

16 vs. 17 seconds

In this article, there are conflicting statements concerning the comparison of Baumgartner's free fall and of Kittinger's free fall:

• However, Baumgartner fell around 17 seconds short of reaching the longest-duration free fall record set in 1960 by Kittinger.
• Baumgartner's free fall time of 4 minutes 20 seconds was 16 seconds short of the current record.

Could someone please verify and correct the information for reason of consistency? -- White rotten rabbit (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe I can give you some insight to that as an experienced skydiver. If you review the video footage closely, you can see that drogue deployment occurred at 4:16. This suggests that Baumgartner 'pulled' a second or so before. The canopy was extended (but not open - still in freefall) at 4:18. Mission control stopped the clock prematurely at 4:19 on seeing the unopened canopy, but the 'slider' did not travel down the lines until 4:20 (or even 4:23) when the canopy was fully open and freefall arrested. If we agree that freefall was arrested at 4:20 and we know that Kittinger's unofficial record was 4:36, then he was 16 seconds short. The FAI will confirm the actual deployment time and distance.

As a previous writer above has suggested, Joe Kittinger's records are unofficial as they were never submitted to the FAI for verification. Furthermore, the FAI does not view duration as a record, but distance travelled. Baumgartner would therefore have the official record for distance (without a drogue) and technically duration too if the FAI counted it. However, Kittinger would still hold the unofficial record for duration in freefall, albeit that he was under a drogue (and much slower) whilst Felix was not.

There are some interesting points to consider out of this. If the FAI did consider duration as an official record, then Baumgartner would be given it based on the authentication of his jump data. If Baumgartner wanted to beat Kittinger's unofficial duration record, then he would have to jump higher than Kittinger, or use a drogue and open as low as Kittinger did. Alternatively, the only way to beat Kittinger's time would be for Baumgartner to jump much higher and open lower. The actual problem was that although Baumgartner jumped from a higher altitude than Kittinger, he was travelling a great deal faster (supersonic) and covered the same distance as Kittinger did in much less time. It was thought that the extra altitude would be enough for both speed, altitude and duration records. However, as Baumgartner went so fast he cheated himself out of the duration record.

The irony is that if Baumgartner had stayed in freefall for another 20 seconds, his Automatic Opening Device, CYPRES (Cybernetic Parachute Release System) technology to deploy the reserve automatically if he exceeds a vertical speed of 35 metres (115 feet) per second at a predetermined altitude (around 2,000 feet / 610 metres) would have deployed his reserve for him. That extra 3,000 feet would have been worth at least 15 to 18 seconds of freefall and Baumgartner would have had the duration record. However if there was a problem with the opening, he would have had only 10 seconds to correct this before hitting the ground.Nigelpwsmith (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the press conference again. The FAI representative Brian Utley (who curiously referred to the FAI as the Federation Aviation International - it is actually Fédération Aéronautique Internationale) says that the unofficial data being submitted (from the FAI instrumentation carried by Felix in his chest pack) said that the jump altitude was 128,100 feet and the distance (to opening) was 119,846 feet. This would correspond to an opening altitude of 8,254 feet. In these circumstances, Felix could have safely remained in freefall for another 36 seconds and still deployed above the automatic opening height set for the CYPRES 2 at 2,000 feet. It's been suggested that as Felix could not seen his altimeter due to the visor fogging, he decided that safety should come first and deployed earlier than the planned altitude of 1,500 metres (4,950 feet) to ensure that he descended under his main and not the reserve (which CYPRES 2 would have activated), thereby giving Felix a safety margin. A perfectly acceptable decision given that he was wearing a cumbersome spacesuit.Nigelpwsmith (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

References

1342 km/h is a dubious free fall speed

Same newspapers that are claiming now Baumgartner reached a speed of 1342 km/h, well beyond any sound speed at any altitude, were initially talking of a max. speed no more than 1137 km/h.

The BBC article ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19943590 ), quoted as reference here, just states "Austrian Felix Baumgartner has become the first skydiver to go faster than the speed of sound, reaching a maximum velocity of 833.9mph (1,342km/h)." without citing any source for that top speed of 1,342km/h.

I believe the citation is the official press conference afterwards. I don't know if the video is archived. Turkeyphan^t 13:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. At the press conference a FAI observer gave this figure, stating that all data is still preliminary and that it will take some weeks to have it officially confirmed. See the video of the press conference here (FAI observer starts to speek at about 0:55). Gugganij (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The FAI stated that the maximum speed was 373 metres per second. This corresponds with a velocity of 1,342.8 kilometres per hour (833.5 mph). The speed of sound at that altitude is 1,083 kilometres per hour (672.7 mph) and so the Mach number is 1,342/1,083 = 1.239889, rounded up to Mach 1.24. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Did Felix breathe pure oxygen to reduce risk of the bends

Some who attempted 'space diving' pre-breathed oxygen - Article doesn't seem to say if Felix did. - Rod57 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The metrics on the site suggested he was breathing between 20%-30% O2. Turkeyphan^t 13:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

He breathed pure oxygen since about 2 hours before takeoff. I think thats 100% O2. -Koppapa (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Balloon?

So what happened to the balloon? --68.17.126.75 (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The balloon was deflated shortly after the jump. It and the capsule landed somewhere in New Mexico before the team picked it up. LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Mission Control remotely separated the balloon from the capsule after the jump. There's no reference to say how this was done (explosive bolts), but separation did occur and the capsule then descended under canopy and was retrieved. The balloon continued upwards for some distance after separation and eventually reached an altitude where the envelope expanded and was torn. It then descended back to the surface and was retrieved from the desert.Nigelpwsmith (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

History and other issues

I agree that the article needs information about the fate of the balloon and the capsule.

I also think the article needs to debunk the "edge of space" claim.

Conscientia (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

From an astronautics perspective, it is generally held that space begins at 100 kilometres above the surface. The sub-orbital Virgin Galactic Spaceship Two is expected to reach 110 kilometres above sea level. However, technically speaking, interplanetary space begins at 100,000 kilometres (62,000 mi) where the exosphere finally ends. On that basis, even if one were considering the jump from an astronatical perspective, the jump could not be realistically considered at the 'edge of space', but could be viewed as a Stratospheric jump. Hence the name, Red Bull Stratos.

Richard Branson has since discussed the possibility of a jump from Virgin Spaceship Two at its apogee of 110 kilometres. This could be viewed as at the 'edge of space' and more than 3 times the altitude of Baumgartner's jump.

Leap from space Virgin-style Richard Branson Oct 18,2012 Nigelpwsmith (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

However, even Col. Kittinger himself has said that for all practical purposes, the harsh environment of space starts at Armstrong's Limit...around the 63-65,000 ft level, as that's where you MUST have a pressure suit to even survive (just ask Pyotr Dolgov). Given that the only real difference in atmospheric pressure between Felix's jump altitude and that at the Karman line is, for all intents and purposes, negligible, saying Felix jumped from the edge of space has some validity. It's just a reeeeealy big edge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.247.231 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reason for opening the parachute "early"

I think the following sentence in the article is partially not correct:

At the deployment altitude, Baumgartner could have continued to fall safely for another 20 seconds, but it was difficult for him to verify his exact altitude.

According to Baumgartner's answer to a question of a reporter at the press conference it was planned in advance to open the parachute at 5,000 feet. (see the footage here, at time 8:41). Thus, it seems that difficulties to verify the altitude was not the reason for doing it. Gugganij (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I heard he opened at 5000 ft as planne . He was just too fast to break that time-record. -Koppapa (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The planned deployment altitude was 1,500 metres (4,950 feet). The CYPRES 2 was set to go off at 2,000 feet. The text states that Baumgartner had difficulty with his visor fogging around the 3:40 mark. He could not therefore verify the correct altitude on his altimeter. The actual opening altitude was above 8,000 feet. As this is earlier than planned it must have been because either a)he could not verify his height or b) he lost his nerve and deployed early. As the latter is highly unlikely, we must assume that it was the former. From 8,000 feet, Felix could have skydived for another 6,000 feet, which corresponds with approximately 30 seconds. Therefore the suggestion that he could have skydived safely for another 20 seconds is perfectly correct.Nigelpwsmith (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, not according to his statement at the press conference (see the link above, at time 8:41). He clearly said that he opened the parachute according to plan at 5100 feet.188.21.83.78 (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you review the press conference carefully, then you will note some discrepancies in the facts. I accept that Felix may still have been unaware of his actual opening altitude, because he could not raise his visor until he was under the canopy. The helmet does tend to hinder the vision somewhat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyyy7QZT5mk

The first is when the FAI representative states that the jump altitude is 128,100 feet and the distance travelled in freefall was 119,846 feet. By simple deduction, this would indicate that the opening altitude was 128,100-119,846 = 8,254 feet.

At 08:40, the press conference is opened to questions from the floor. The first question from George McGlaughlin is to ask "What made you open the parachute at that moment? You decided that that was the moment? Felix responds to say:

"We had a plan, with a protocol and that said we have to open at 5,000 feet because that gives me, that still gives me enough time if something goes wrong with my main parachute, I have to release that parachute and it's not that easy if you're in a pressure suit and its already low enough if I need medical treatment. That's why we selected 5,000 feet and I think I opened at 5,200 ............ stick to the plan."

So Felix asserts that they stuck to the plan and opened at 5,200 feet, but the FAI figures indicate it was 8,254 feet.

At 13:50 you can hear Felix say this:

"Well I was talking about the altitude that I'm falling through then my visor starts fogging up on the way down and as I told Joe hey I really have to pull before my visors getting fogged up because I don't see anything."

So you see, Felix was having difficulty verifying his altitude because of the fogging. He told Joe and suggested that he really needed to pull before he could not see anything and that would explain why he pulled earlier than expected. I honestly believe that Felix wanted that duration record, but he was also very aware of not dying in front of his family and as the visor fogging was one of the problems they discussed before the jump, Felix wisely chose to pull early and be safe, rather than stay in freefall, having underestimated his actual altitude and then have the CYPRES 2 activate the reserve. At least if he opened his main, if there was a problem, he could cut away from it and open the reserve. As an experienced skydiver, I can tell you that I've seen plenty of main cutaways and plenty of reserves. Felix really did not need the hassle of a problem and being unable to see the cutaway and reserve pads with a fogged up visor! Nigelpwsmith (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the discrepancies may be down to the difference between altitude measurements being given variously in either ASL (Above Sea Level) and AGL (Above Ground Level). The FAI will no doubt be using ASL in all of their measurements for consistency, (take off point and landing point being at different heights relative to the sea). Opening height may well be given in AGL as that's the important factor for a skydive. It's no use opening at 5000ft ASL if you're landing on a 6000ft plateu - you'll hit the ground 1000ft before you intend to open your parachute.

I suspect therefore that when Felix says he opened at C5000ft, that's AGL. And when the FAI say C8000ft, that's ASL with the 3000ft difference being beacuse the ground was C3000ft above sea level. Does anyone have a source to confirm? --77.73.8.6 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What were the 4 records?

I'm having some difficulty trying to figure out the context of the following sentence: "After preliminary analysis, it was announced that Baumgartner broke three of the four planned records" What was the fourth record that he failed to break? 173.15.5.185 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

He aimed to break the record for the longest time spent in free fall. I've added a sentence to clarify this—thanks for bringing this up. matt (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

I propose swapping around the two images being used in this article. The project logo is currently being used as the lead image, but I feel that the photographs showing his actual jump are more relevant and contain more detail about what he was doing. The only problem is that the photographs might be a bit big. EryZ (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

coordinates and surface elevation of jump site

Is there any valid information about the coordinates and the elevation of the "ground zero" of the jump site? Do the 39000 metres refer to the altitude above sea level or above ground? According to Google Earth, the elevation at the launch site is more than 1100 m (or 3600 ft), and is probably similar at the jump/landing site, so this is clearly relevant (also when judging whether Baumgartner could have extended his free fall safely for another 20 seconds or not).--SiriusB (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The altitude should be measured AGL (Above Ground Level). Skydivers set their altimeters to zero on the ground at the drop zone before they jump. The altimeters work on barometric pressure. Air pressure rarely changes much during the climb to jump altitude because this tends to take only a few minutes. However, if the drop zone is some distance away from where the skydiver departs, it is possible for the air pressures to be different and for the altimeter to give a false reading. For this jump, Felix would have set his altimeter before launch. Mission Control would then update Felix on any air pressure changes. The data on true height AGL would be sent to Felix through the telemetrics console on his left hand side. It's unlikely that he would have adjusted the altimeter. The FAI certification equipment in the chest pack records the drop data and is recording the actual time and distance of freefall. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why then is the data table below the ascent graph labelled as "above sea level"? Is there any reliable source which answers the question whether Baumgartner dived from 39,000 or 40,000 m above sea level? And wouldn't it have been more reliable if the FAI used also pressure-independent methods (e.g. radar, maybe also GPS if still valid at such altitudes)? The same is true for the determination of the top speed (BTW I adjusted the indentation of your reply a bit).--SiriusB (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

All heights in the article are sea-level. He started with his ballon at about 3000 ft. The hud-grafic showed that. -Koppapa (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Uncontrolled Spinning

I have a problem with the following sentence:

Within two minutes he appeared to enter an uncontrolled spin which could have been fatal.

I've been over the data from the jump. It appears that Felix was accelerating during the first 30 seconds of the jump, supersonic during the next 30 seconds and then decelerating during the last 30 seconds before stable flight. Mission Control acknowledged that Felix was stable after 1 minute 30 seconds. In fact, it appeared that he was stable at about 1 minute 20 seconds to 23 seconds.

This would therefore correspond with the following flight profile (all figures are rough estimation and approximate):

Time: 0 seconds Altitude: 39,044 metres (128,100 feet) Speed: 0 kilometres per hour (0 mph) State: Stationary and Stable

Time: 30 seconds Altitude: 33,000 metres (110,000 feet) Speed: 1,000 kilometres per hour (621 mph) State: Still accelerating to maximum speed and spinning slowly

Time: 33 seconds Altitude: 32,000 metres (106,000 feet) Speed: 1,083 kilometres per hour (673 mph) State: Supersonic, but still accelerating to maximum speed and spinning slowly 109.149.112.31 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Time: 37 seconds Altitude: 30,000 metres (99,000 feet) Speed: 1,342.8 kilometres per hour (833.5 mph) State: At maximum speed and spinning faster

Time: 60 seconds Altitude: 18,000 metres (60,000 feet) height that Concorde flew (thin air building resistance) Speed: 1,342.8 kilometres per hour (833.5 mph) State: Deceleration starts, but now spinning rapidly on both horizontal and vertical axes

Time: 90 seconds (or about 1 minute 23 seconds) Altitude: 12,000 metres (40,000 feet) height that airliners fly (thick air) Speed: 320 kilometres per hour (200 mph) State: Deceleration complete and stable at terminal velocity (albeit faster in thin atmosphere)

My point is that the sentence says: Within two minutes he appeared to enter an uncontrolled spin which could have been fatal. However, the sentence is not strictly true because although he did enter an uncontrolled spin during the first two minutes of the jump, it was over by 1 minute 20 (or 1 minute 23 seconds). The sentence suggests that the spin lasted 2 minutes when it actually only lasted at most 53 seconds or 1 minute.

The sentence could be revised to say:

An uncontrolled spin started within the first minute of the jump which could have been fatal, but it ended at 1 minute 23 seconds when Felix regained stability.

Nigelpwsmith (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Couple of points

The article mentions "Joseph Kittinger [...] became involved with the mission [...]" only when the narrative has reached 2012, whereas in the documentary Space Dive I think it said he had been involved in the mission for 4 years.

The same documentary gave the impression that the extensive project delays resulted from a combination of engineering and team management problems, plus Baumgartner's fear of wearing the pressure suit. Neither of those factors is mentioned here. Instead the article mentions a lawsuit which the documentary didn't mention at all (maybe for legal reasons, I don't know).

86.167.19.237 (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Controversy"

The apparent 'controversy' header in the table of contents is more suggestive than what the actual 'controversy' really is. I understand it is a Wikipedia norm to use that header for discussion points, but I feel it's far too suggestive and 'clickbait' like. There's no need to create 'controversy' where there really is none except some semantics over one exclamation made by the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.12.141.84 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to make this into an edit; if anyone has a strong aversion to it, they can revert it. As it stands, this 'controversy' is the opinion of a lone Discovery writer of an article that no longer exists (inc. on the Wayback Machine).

Especially considering the Controversy section's wording relies on aversion to a marketing tagline being potentially slightly grandiose, I think it doesn't meet standards of notability. KJKent (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

After a closer look at the citations, there is a surviving critique of the "edge of space" label (Tony Rice for WRAL). That said, I believe the label is understood to be a little poetic. The "edge of space" statement is mentioned in social media posts and PR statements, but it still feels a far cry from a legitimate attempt to deceive. I'd still be happy to nix this section, but it'd be great to get some advice from someone more experienced. KJKent (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)