NASA's Space Balloon Smashes Car In Australia 174
Humunculus writes "Of more worldly issues, NASA's latest multimillion-dollar stratosphere-bound balloon launch has gone horribly wrong and crashed into a car, turning it over and narrowly missing two elderly people who were observing the launch. The payload fared worse, reportedly being smashed into a 'thousand pieces.'"
Re:humm? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:humm? (Score:1, Informative)
massive miscalculation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:humm? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:In related news... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who authorized go on launch? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think that was a planned release, it seems more like an accident.
It looks as if the crane was rotating when the accident happened. The force of the balloon and the rotation of the crane seemed to have put a torque on the apparatus that was holding the rig in place. The apparatus snapped, releasing the rig and hijinx ensued.
Also, never part downwind of space balloon launches.
Re:How do you crash a balloon? (Score:3, Informative)
Then it comes slowly in a few days and crashes into a car ;)
That would be understandable.
How's my driving? Call 1-800-FUC-KYOU (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't like the way I drive, stay the hell off the sidewalk.
If you don't like the way I fly, keep your damn car the hell out of the field.
P.S.
He said the balloon was then seen lying partially-inflated above a paddock "like a white Uluru".
What the hell is an Uluru?
I guess it's something that kinda looks like a partially-inflated balloon over a paddock, except it's not white.
Ah... yeah... something like that. [wikipedia.org]
-
Conflicting articles. (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:massive miscalculation (Score:3, Informative)
The answer lies in the fact that your assumption is wrong. The vehicle is not used as a conventional crane.
In order to stop the payload swinging like a pendulum into the ground (as we just saw), you need the payload to be right underneath the balloon when you release it. There is usually some amount of wind, even if very slight, and so to satisfy the first condition, you have to have a vehicle at the bottom to drive the payload along at the same vector as the wind, right underneath the balloon which is also moving along with the wind. When you achieve this, it is safe to let go, as the resultant force on the payload should be purely vertically up.
In this case, it was clearly a premature release. You can see the vehicle moving, but it looks like the wind conditions were midjudged, resulting in the crane vehicle having to make a maneuver that over-strained the release mechanism, forcing it to give. As expected, given the very large off-vertical angle between payload and balloon, it crashed straight into the ground.
The documentary 'BLAST!', about a very similar project, is worth watching if you can. The trailer [1] has enough footage for you to see a launch more clearly. Launching these things is not easy, as you can tell.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebJglJaMBnA [youtube.com]
As an asside: yes, I'm new here, but why do people declare things so confidently when it's quite clear they don't have even the vaguest comprehension? It's baffling. There should be some kind of cost function attached to it.