Startups building balloons to hoist tourists(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Startups building balloons to hoist tourists
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/13/balloons-to-hoist-tourists-100000-feet-into-the-stratosphere.html
72 comments
If the balloon malfunctions, they can feel weightlessness until they reach terminal velocity. The problem is they're also going to experience a pretty large acceleration when reaching the surface.
> If the balloon malfunctions, they can feel weightlessness until they reach terminal velocity
Until they start decelerating, which is immediately. They’ll also feel it fairly rapidly, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft#Opera... (emphasis added):
“The sensation of weightlessness is achieved by reducing thrust and lowering the nose to maintain a neutral, or "zero lift", configuration such that the aircraft follows a ballistic trajectory, with engine thrust exactly compensating for drag”
Until they start decelerating, which is immediately. They’ll also feel it fairly rapidly, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft#Opera... (emphasis added):
“The sensation of weightlessness is achieved by reducing thrust and lowering the nose to maintain a neutral, or "zero lift", configuration such that the aircraft follows a ballistic trajectory, with engine thrust exactly compensating for drag”
True. Air resistance is always there, although negligible in the first few seconds.
Weightlessness is very different than just equally balanced forces of drag and acceleration.
If you crush something in a hydraulic press, it might have balanced forces and zero acceleration.
For that matter, Im not accelerating when I lay on the surface of the earth, but I hardly feel weightless.
If you crush something in a hydraulic press, it might have balanced forces and zero acceleration.
For that matter, Im not accelerating when I lay on the surface of the earth, but I hardly feel weightless.
What do you feel if you're very far from any nearby planet sized object, then?
Falling and weightlessness are identical.
Weightlessness only feels weird because we rarely feel it.
If you were suddenly in empty space (e.g. in an area with zero intrinsic acceleration), you would feel like you are falling.
Because the feeling of falling is actually the feeling of NOT having the constant gravity (i.e. acceleration) you're used to.
If you were born in weightlessness, gravity would be the strange feeling (cue Bane saying, "you only adopted weightlessness, I was born in it").
Weightlessness only feels weird because we rarely feel it.
If you were suddenly in empty space (e.g. in an area with zero intrinsic acceleration), you would feel like you are falling.
Because the feeling of falling is actually the feeling of NOT having the constant gravity (i.e. acceleration) you're used to.
If you were born in weightlessness, gravity would be the strange feeling (cue Bane saying, "you only adopted weightlessness, I was born in it").
Falling. Falling towards a planet, star, or galactic core is all pretty much the same. Tidal forces will be a bit different, but those aren't on a feelable scale with most objects.
OK, but as a poor earthling who's never experienced low gravity... surely the force of gravity affects the feeling of "falling" even if you're not in an orbit around some nearby planet sized thing? Does that feel substantially different than, say, falling down an elevator shaft on earth?
"the feeling of falling" -- That's called weightlessness, free-fall, and zero-gee. Being in interplanetary space, being in earth orbit, being in the parabolic Vomit Comet, being in a drop tower capsule, being in an elevator compartment falling down a shaft, stepping off a diving board, there's no difference in the 'feeling'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tube -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tube -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall
In a hypothetical universe that contains only you + space, what would you feel?
Same thing: falling.
The opposite of falling is accelerating, and you feel acceleration. A rocket rocketing in an empty universe would feel the same as a rocket rocketing in orbit would feel the same as a rocket just sitting around on Earth. Wait, that last one's different...
We happen to live most of lives in a somewhat exceptional case of constant acceleration (with respect to falling). The ground below our feet has gotten us pretty used to acceleration. But, if you jump, you'll feel like falling too!
The opposite of falling is accelerating, and you feel acceleration. A rocket rocketing in an empty universe would feel the same as a rocket rocketing in orbit would feel the same as a rocket just sitting around on Earth. Wait, that last one's different...
We happen to live most of lives in a somewhat exceptional case of constant acceleration (with respect to falling). The ground below our feet has gotten us pretty used to acceleration. But, if you jump, you'll feel like falling too!
If you spent your entire life in an area with gravity prior to that moment, you would feel like you are falling even though you are NOT.
Our brain is used to gravity. That is why weightlessness feels weird.
But falling and weightlessness are indistinguishable to your brain. They are exactly the same thing.
So, if all the gravity around you suddenly disappeared, your brain would initially tell you that you are falling.
Only after some time would you convince yourself that, "No, I'm not falling... Gravity just disappeared. I'm just weightless."
Our brain is used to gravity. That is why weightlessness feels weird.
But falling and weightlessness are indistinguishable to your brain. They are exactly the same thing.
So, if all the gravity around you suddenly disappeared, your brain would initially tell you that you are falling.
Only after some time would you convince yourself that, "No, I'm not falling... Gravity just disappeared. I'm just weightless."
more accurately, you dont feel falling because the magnitude is so low.
Hmm, makes me wonder what percentage weight you would feel at, say, the height of the ISS if you were fixed in a relative location to the Earth (not orbiting at all).
Considering the same question for geostationary orbits had me confused for a moment and then I realised we are not in a fixed location relative to the Earth, thanks to the Earth's spin. I wonder what extra percentage weight we would feel if it weren't spinning.
Considering the same question for geostationary orbits had me confused for a moment and then I realised we are not in a fixed location relative to the Earth, thanks to the Earth's spin. I wonder what extra percentage weight we would feel if it weren't spinning.
F = g(m2*m2)/d^2. Earth surface gravity using Earth's radius as d; iss using that radius plus orbital height of 408km. Earth's surface gravity = 9.81m/s2, ISS gravity = 8.66m/s2.
So the answer is, if you could hold the ISS stationary without falling, people in it would feel almost as much gravity. You would have to go much higher than the ISS to feel weightless without orbiting/falling.
Assuming people feel weightless at 1m/s2 or less, you can solve for that! And the answer is 13,600 km.
So the answer is, if you could hold the ISS stationary without falling, people in it would feel almost as much gravity. You would have to go much higher than the ISS to feel weightless without orbiting/falling.
Assuming people feel weightless at 1m/s2 or less, you can solve for that! And the answer is 13,600 km.
Thanks to all the replies about the (very small) extra weight at the height of the ISS.
As for the centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation, Wikipedia puts it at about 0.3% (which, added to the effect of the Earth's bulge, means you feel a total of 0.5% less weight at the equator than at the poles).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude
As for the centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation, Wikipedia puts it at about 0.3% (which, added to the effect of the Earth's bulge, means you feel a total of 0.5% less weight at the equator than at the poles).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude
You can use Newton's equations for gravity to calculate this.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-acceleration-due-to-gravit...
At the ISS, the extra distance from the center of the earth is minimal compared to the radius of the earth itself. Therefore, there wouldn't be a great difference.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-acceleration-due-to-gravit...
At the ISS, the extra distance from the center of the earth is minimal compared to the radius of the earth itself. Therefore, there wouldn't be a great difference.
Gravity is proportional to 1/r^2 (r being distance), so you could take a stab at computing your ISS question with that info.
The centripetal force question is a little more challenging, but still in the realm of algebra. The complicated part is setting up the problem and understanding where the forces are coming from and if/how they cancel each other.
The centripetal force question is a little more challenging, but still in the realm of algebra. The complicated part is setting up the problem and understanding where the forces are coming from and if/how they cancel each other.
Since the inverse square law applies and you're only 100 miles away from a planet 25,000 miles in circumference, I think it would be in the high 90's percentage of your weight on earth.
You have to get pretty far away to experience true "weightlessness".
You have to get pretty far away to experience true "weightlessness".
Still, 19 miles vs 250 miles (and static not 17,500 mph) for the ISS - maybe the balloon passengers feel 0.98g?
They still might, depending on how rigorous QA is going to be...
I honestly had no idea this was the case! I assumed it was just space that "had no gravity" what you're saying makes sense though. Mind blown!
I've been part of a space industry non-profit that partners with the Government of Canada to put experiments run by students on planes that do "parabolic flights" to simulate "weightlessness" while falling. Around when I first started, I proposed writing the term "zero gravity" on a webpage we were updating. But as my supervisor adamantly noted at the time, that would have been inaccurate.
The convention was to never use the term "zero gravity," since using that term would perpetuate a common misunderstanding. Instead, we've used the term "microgravity" in its place—which makes sense, as there are still small gravitational forces acting on every object in space.
NASA also published a webpage with a good explanation of what microgravity is, with a nice diagram of how it works (including a visual of the parabolic flight): https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/for-kids-and-student...
The convention was to never use the term "zero gravity," since using that term would perpetuate a common misunderstanding. Instead, we've used the term "microgravity" in its place—which makes sense, as there are still small gravitational forces acting on every object in space.
NASA also published a webpage with a good explanation of what microgravity is, with a nice diagram of how it works (including a visual of the parabolic flight): https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/for-kids-and-student...
if you have a long enough rope, you could keep the balloon up there and freefall for a while and then brake close to the ground.
Air resistance means you only feel weightless for a few seconds on a long fall.
Indoor skydiving lets you ‘fall’ for hours, but you don’t accelerate so you don’t feel weightless.
Indoor skydiving lets you ‘fall’ for hours, but you don’t accelerate so you don’t feel weightless.
fair point, but 100k up hopefully it's a lot smaller. maybe you could pull harder on the rope from the ground as well to balance it somewhat. but yes, you won't be weightless the whole way.
I did not realize this, but makes completely sense. Still super disappointing!
I’d love for some flat earther influencers to board this.
That said this seems… dangerous. Giving me OceanGate vibes.
That said this seems… dangerous. Giving me OceanGate vibes.
It won't change any minds among the flerfers. Commercial airline flights regularly go to 40,000 feet. You can see the curvature of the earth just fine at 40k feet.
It's clearer at 100k feet, but if you're intent on not seeing it then you still won't see it.
I have doubts that even orbit would change their minds. They've already gone through contortions about why it's night in some places when it's day in others. I am quite certain they're up to the task of explaining why they're over America now and then Africa, previously out of sight, a few minutes later.
It's just not worth arguing with those on intent on being stupid. They can simply say "no" and no power of evidence or logic can force them to do otherwise.
It's clearer at 100k feet, but if you're intent on not seeing it then you still won't see it.
I have doubts that even orbit would change their minds. They've already gone through contortions about why it's night in some places when it's day in others. I am quite certain they're up to the task of explaining why they're over America now and then Africa, previously out of sight, a few minutes later.
It's just not worth arguing with those on intent on being stupid. They can simply say "no" and no power of evidence or logic can force them to do otherwise.
Where is Ocean gate was charged with dealing with pressures above one atmosphere, this company will have to deal with pressures between zero and one atmospheres. Probably the same outcome will occur at some point.
Could you talk us through this one? I am interested in the equation of "above one atmosphere" to between 0 and 1.
I’m not OP, but the startup ethos of the last few decades has been to move fast and break things, fake it til you make it, and generally operate on the bleeding edge to deliver incredible products (and, occasionally non-credible, cough Theranos).
My concern would be that the team would cut safety corners until the probability of success just barely rises above some threshold, rather than engineering everything to have as low a risk as is feasible. Is 0-1atm easier than 1-infinity atm? Yes, but that just means you can cut more corners.
My concern would be that the team would cut safety corners until the probability of success just barely rises above some threshold, rather than engineering everything to have as low a risk as is feasible. Is 0-1atm easier than 1-infinity atm? Yes, but that just means you can cut more corners.
I buy it. OP's comment struck me as interesting, because the "above 1atm" value turns out to be about 300atm; designing a pressure vessel to sustain a 300atm pressure difference is much more challenging than one to withstand 1atm, which is the case for these balloons. If we assume relative cost cutting due to cultural concerns, then the analogy makes sense.
1 atmosphere of pressure is a lot less than a few hundred atmosphere.
I also remember reading (but cannot find a reference) that it is easier to design a container for overpressure than to design it for underpressure.
In this case, I think providing a safety valve that fails before the container implodes violently may be a a good option (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel#Safety_feature...)
I also remember reading (but cannot find a reference) that it is easier to design a container for overpressure than to design it for underpressure.
In this case, I think providing a safety valve that fails before the container implodes violently may be a a good option (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel#Safety_feature...)
Oh yeah this definitely seems like a bad idea. Loosely regulated space, ultra confident start-ups running on fumes. What could go wrong?
It's like the cheaper knock off (poorly funded) version (not in a space ship) of going to space vs the well funded rocket based company.
It's like the cheaper knock off (poorly funded) version (not in a space ship) of going to space vs the well funded rocket based company.
I’d recommend the documentary BLAST! (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1190065/) for a look at the scientific side of stratospheric ballooning, which personally would put me off wanting to ride in one.
Why did it put you off?
I'd love to see a version of this where each passenger is in a glider, allowing a long distance controlled decent to a new destination. Maybe even use reusable balloons filled with hydrogen, that can be depleted with a fuel cell to create enough ballast, and electricity to do a controlled decent.
It would be an interesting new way to travel.
It would be an interesting new way to travel.
There's so little air up there that the gliders would go supersonic rather quickly until they got into denser air. This would mean you'd need low aspect dart like wings so they don't get ripped off but that means the landing performance would be abysmal. You'd have landing speeds nearing 200kts (as opposed to ~50kts for a normal glider). Since kinetic energy is the square of speed, any fuck up would be very fatal at those speeds.
The U2 was famous for this issue, the pilots were flying on a knife edge because a stall (a less aggressive situation that deploying from a static balloon) would mean the plane starts accelerating well beyond it's structural limit before you can do anything about it.
The U2 was famous for this issue, the pilots were flying on a knife edge because a stall (a less aggressive situation that deploying from a static balloon) would mean the plane starts accelerating well beyond it's structural limit before you can do anything about it.
Yeah, I was thinking about that...you'd likely need wings that could be pulled in close at higher speeds/altitudes or to not go quite as high. I would be happy for the later...just get rid energy needs of gaining altitude in a glider.
Funny enough, this was a thing in Pandora's Star. There's a weird chapter where the author gets bored and describes this exotic glider extreme sport where people ride variable geometry winged gliders through mega storms on another planet.
That price seems crazy to me. It's "just a balloon" I don't see what their hard costs are that make this more than the cost of a commercial flight.
I'm glad there are multiple players in this space so they can compete and drive the cost down over time.
I'm glad there are multiple players in this space so they can compete and drive the cost down over time.
> That price seems crazy to me. It's "just a balloon" I don't see what their hard costs are that make this more than the cost of a commercial flight.
Answer: exclusivity.
---
Or to explain the topic in economic terms: with their offering, these companies offer a given supply for balloon rides into the stratosphere. On the other hand, for a given price for such a ride, a demand to buy it for this price. What a company wants to optimize is
(number of sales for a given price) * price.
Since the supply is currently rather limited, the price can be set to a very high value to optimize this function.
Answer: exclusivity.
---
Or to explain the topic in economic terms: with their offering, these companies offer a given supply for balloon rides into the stratosphere. On the other hand, for a given price for such a ride, a demand to buy it for this price. What a company wants to optimize is
(number of sales for a given price) * price.
Since the supply is currently rather limited, the price can be set to a very high value to optimize this function.
> That price seems crazy to me. It's "just a balloon" I don't see what their hard costs are that make this more than the cost of a commercial flight.
They need to make back the cost of R&D. IE, based on how much it costs to design and certify the balloon, the first flight might operate at a loss. They will need to perform X successful flights before they break even on the cost of R&D.
IE, it might cost $10,000 to pay the staff on the balloon ride, but the vessel itself might cost 10 million to design. It might use $200,000 worth of parts, but the factory cost $20 million to build. Those costs need to be amortized by paying passengers.
I'm sure the cost will come down, just like everything else. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
They need to make back the cost of R&D. IE, based on how much it costs to design and certify the balloon, the first flight might operate at a loss. They will need to perform X successful flights before they break even on the cost of R&D.
IE, it might cost $10,000 to pay the staff on the balloon ride, but the vessel itself might cost 10 million to design. It might use $200,000 worth of parts, but the factory cost $20 million to build. Those costs need to be amortized by paying passengers.
I'm sure the cost will come down, just like everything else. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
Almost no prices are set based on cost to produce. When you shop for eggs, do you care if the producer’s costs were higher or lower than normal? Essentially all prices are based on the value people receive from the good.
That is a new development and the massive shift away from cost plus pricing to value based pricing is a big part of the financial squeeze of the lower and middle classes.
Simultaneously, from all sides sellers are now constantly testing the elasticity of consumer budgets to maximize profit until they exclude the bottom x%, it's a huge financial strain for the poorest among us.
Simultaneously, from all sides sellers are now constantly testing the elasticity of consumer budgets to maximize profit until they exclude the bottom x%, it's a huge financial strain for the poorest among us.
Cost plus was never a pricing model differentiated goods. Human psychology just doesn’t work that way; nobody says “having a nice reliable car is worth $20k to me, but I’ll pay $30k because their cost to produce is high”.
That’s kind of the whole point of the capitalist / consumerist model: first movers take high risks with investment and can reap outsized returns if successful, while success breeds competition from new entrants who have a proven market and a product to copy. The expansion of the market means more price competition, driving prices and returns down.
I’m not saying it always works like that, just that it generally does.
That’s kind of the whole point of the capitalist / consumerist model: first movers take high risks with investment and can reap outsized returns if successful, while success breeds competition from new entrants who have a proven market and a product to copy. The expansion of the market means more price competition, driving prices and returns down.
I’m not saying it always works like that, just that it generally does.
[deleted]
> Ticket prices range from $50,000 per seat with World View to around $184,000 with Zephalto. Space Perspective sells tickets to its experience for $125,000 per seat. That’s all assuming commercial service gets off the ground.
This suddenly makes paying for a 0g flight a steal.
This suddenly makes paying for a 0g flight a steal.
This is a local startup in my hometown, I have been following them for 4 years or so, and have met the founders on several occasions. Decided to pull the trigger on a reservation for a seat for ~2028 flight. Excited to keep tabs on their progress.
Three companies are mentioned--which one are you flying with?
I tried to find out how these balloons intend to navigate and descend. I read that World View completed a parachute test earlier this year but I'm not sure if that's intended during normal operation or during an emergency. Details of how each of these companies intend to operate is thin on the ground.
This is one of those situations where "move fast and break things" is not good advice.
That's the website of the startup from the article https://www.worldview.space/space-tourism
100k feet in altitude may not be quite high enough to get that 'in space' feel. I think you can see the curvature of the earth and the sky above you is dark / blackish.
That page would read better if it played the tune from the Lemmings.
> If we go over 98,000 feet, we are a spaceship. Outside the capsule, it’s essentially a vacuum.
This CEO of a balloon company doesn’t seem to understand how balloons work.
This CEO of a balloon company doesn’t seem to understand how balloons work.
Put some flat earthers so they can see the curve
I feel like we tried to do something similar to this and it didn't go very well.
https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-o...
https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-o...
I read it as “Starbucks” at first, which didn’t make any sense.
The inverse of OceanGate? Call it StratosphereGate or AirGate?
One prick and it's gone. Just saying...
If this needs to be said, i think its not clear to everyone... being "in space" is not what causes weightlessness. "Falling" towards your local gravitational source does it. This includes orbiting.