Startups Are Building Balloons To Hoist Tourists Into the Stratosphere (cnbc.com) 66
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: CNBC spoke to three startups -- France-based Zephalto, Florida-based Space Perspective and Arizona-based World View -- that aim to hoist tourists to the stratosphere using pressurized capsules and massive gas-filled balloons. "The capsule itself is designed to to carry eight customers and two crew into the stratosphere," said Ryan Hartman, CEO of World View. "There will be a center bar where people can gather, and then, of course, there will be a bathroom aboard the capsule." The balloon rides will last around 6 hours, but will not take passengers all the way to space. Most will reach heights of 15 to 19 miles above the earth's surface, flying in an area known as the stratosphere. The start of space is generally accepted by the U.S. government to be around 80 kilometers, or about 50 miles, above the earth's surface.
Jane Poynter, founder and co-CEO of Space Perspective, has a differing view. "There is no universal definition of space," Poynter said. "We are regulated as a spaceship. If we go over 98,000 feet, we are a spaceship. Outside the capsule, it's essentially a vacuum. We're above 99% of Earth's atmosphere, which is why the sky is so deep black." Compared to rocket-powered space tourism, the physical sensation that passengers will experience on a stratospheric balloon ride is more comparable to being on an airplane. Passengers will not experience weightlessness. "We don't need any physical requirements to board the balloon," said Vincent Farret d'Asties, the founder and chief pilot at Zephalto. "If you can board a standard plane, you can board the balloon."
All three companies told CNBC that they were pleased with consumer interest. World Views says it sold 1,250 tickets so far while Space Perspective has sold 1,800. Zephalto did not tell CNBC how many tickets it sold, but said its initial flights were fully booked. 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. Only Zephalto has performed crewed tests so far, though not at the company's target altitude of about 15 miles above the earth's surface.
Jane Poynter, founder and co-CEO of Space Perspective, has a differing view. "There is no universal definition of space," Poynter said. "We are regulated as a spaceship. If we go over 98,000 feet, we are a spaceship. Outside the capsule, it's essentially a vacuum. We're above 99% of Earth's atmosphere, which is why the sky is so deep black." Compared to rocket-powered space tourism, the physical sensation that passengers will experience on a stratospheric balloon ride is more comparable to being on an airplane. Passengers will not experience weightlessness. "We don't need any physical requirements to board the balloon," said Vincent Farret d'Asties, the founder and chief pilot at Zephalto. "If you can board a standard plane, you can board the balloon."
All three companies told CNBC that they were pleased with consumer interest. World Views says it sold 1,250 tickets so far while Space Perspective has sold 1,800. Zephalto did not tell CNBC how many tickets it sold, but said its initial flights were fully booked. 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. Only Zephalto has performed crewed tests so far, though not at the company's target altitude of about 15 miles above the earth's surface.
One question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
High enough to see the curvature of the earth. I would be willing to chip in a few bucks to send a few flat-earthers to get them to shut the hell up.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's high enough to see the curvature, rather it would look like a giant shallow bowl.
If anything, it would FUEL flat earthers' beliefs.
Also, anyone knows what happened with other companies which were promising the same thing 11 years ago?
https://www.wired.com/2013/10/... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
According to some quick searching, you can theoretically see the curvature once you reach about 7 miles up, but at that altitude you need to be looking at the ocean so you have a nice, "straight" horizon to look at. I'd guess that more than double that height, which is where these balloons will be, would give you a good shot at seeing it.
I think one of these companies should do a PR campaign where they give a free ride to a couple of the most well-known flat earth influencers and see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
"THAT IS NOT REAL VIEW"
"YOU CHEAT ME WITH SCREENS"
And stuff...
And of course Slashdot thinks I am yelling.
Re: (Score:2)
"THAT IS NOT REAL VIEW" "YOU CHEAT ME WITH SCREENS" And stuff...
And of course Slashdot thinks I am yelling.
Or some weird claim like "you put curved windows in the capsule to fool me!" No proof is enough...
Simple Solution (Score:3)
Or some weird claim like "you put curved windows in the capsule to fool me!" No proof is enough...
There is a simple to solution to that, send them up in an open gondola and without any helmet (since any helmet glass might distort the view too). That much that much proof should be enough to keep anyone happy for the rest of their life.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a simple to solution to that, send them up in an open gondola and without any helmet (since any helmet glass might distort the view too). That much that much proof should be enough to keep anyone happy for the rest of their life.
It may solve it for that person, but it does no good for their friends on the ground... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
High enough to see the curvature of the earth. I would be willing to chip in a few bucks to send a few flat-earthers to get them to shut the hell up.
That wouldn't work. They'd just claim they'd been drugged or hypnotized. In fact at that altitude they'd have to be in a pressurized cabin, looking through windows, so they'd probably fall back on one of their favorites: the windows are (a) video screens showing a CGI video of a fake curved Earth; or (b) the windows are acting as fisheye lenses to distort the view and make the flat Earth look curved.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the edge of the flat Earth.
Mile High Club? (Score:2)
Suppose they DID go into "space" (Score:2)
...would they be weightless? It's my understanding that the weightlessness experienced by astronauts is caused by how fast they're moving. If you're just floating up up up.... at some point, the balloon won't go up more, right? Will gravity will hold it at a particular point?
Re: Suppose they DID go into "space" (Score:2)
Curious: what do you think keeps the Moon in orbit?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the moon is moving at an extremely high rate of speed, going around the Earth, and the mass of the Earth and the mass of the moon keep each other mostly "attached".
Now, if the moon were hoisted off of the Earth by way of a lot of helium, I suppose that the moon would only lift off and get to a point where the helium no longer was pushed out by the atmosphere, and then the moon would just hang there. I also suppose that the people on the balloon would reach a point where the helium no longer wa
Re: Suppose they DID go into "space" (Score:2)
Yes it's the speed of the moon orbiting the Earth and the resulting centripetal force being balanced by gravitational attraction that keeps the moon in orbit. It's the same basic physics of you twirling a string with a tennis ball on it except instead of a string keeping the ball from flying away, it's the gravitational attraction.
If the moon was simply hoisted off Earth by a balloon to some arbitrary distance (say 500 miles) but stationary relative to Earth, gravity would pull it right back down until the
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. A centripetal force is always towards the central point of the curved path. In the case of the moon orbiting the Earth, the Earth's gravitational force is the centripetal force.
No weightlessness (Score:2)
Remember, the "weightlessness" that astronauts experience is caused by free fall that is occurring while a body is in orbit. This balloon would be stationary, meaning gravity will still be pulling occupants downwards towards Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
even if gravity worked the way Newton imagined, the experience of weightlessness would be had on ballistic trajectory.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't experience weightlessness. That only happens when in orbit, which is basically falling but moving forwards so fast you keep missing the ground and instead going round and round the earth, over the horizon.
The other way to do it is by having a plane dive really fast, so that it's downwards speed equals the speed you are falling at. If the balloon fails they might experience that, for a short time.
Re: (Score:2)
If the balloon fails they might experience that, for a short time.
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I wonder how Hollywood can put out content with such bad physics. Thanks for explaining ./
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're just being mean.
I for one am happy the GP mustered a question, rather than saying "THAT IS NOT TRUE, I KNOW BETETR". Kudos to them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's good he asked, and it's a good reminder for me about how deep the effect (which I can't remember the shorthand for) where we see wrong info, note that it's wrong, and then continue to trust the source for topics we don't happen to be experts in. This allows Hollywood and other popular media to basically get almost everything wrong, if the stuff they get wrong which I'm knowledgeable about is to be used as a representative sample.
Re: (Score:2)
Some movies, I just turn my brain off and enjoy the SFX.
If not, I would probably not be able to enjoy any movie. They all have major issues.
Re: (Score:2)
people getting trapped by car airbags that stay inflated after a low speed bump is my pet peeve.
Re: Suppose they DID go into "space" (Score:1)
This has got to be trolling. Right? Sigh
Re: (Score:2)
In short: No.
The balloon gains height because it is lighter than the air around it. It can therefore never reach weightlessness on its buoyancy. The mass (and therefore the weight) of the balloon is not zero. So the balloon would never reach the upper limit of the atmosphere on buoyancy.
Also, the upper layer of our atmosphere is not reaching the escape velocity, as it would have leaked away a long time ago if it did. So while the balloon might speed up because of the drag with the atmosphere that is rotatin
Re: (Score:2)
>at some point, the balloon won't go up more, right? Will gravity will hold it at a particular point?
Yes, although practical limitations come into effect too - can the ballon material sustain the pressure difference.
It's my understanding, from a degree many years ago that I may have miss remembered, that astronauts in low earth orbit are in a gravitational field close in strength to the surface of the earth. It's just that they are in a vessel that is falling to earth continuously. Missing the earth due
Re: (Score:2)
Orbital mechanics is complicated, for sure. Gravity does not hold things in place. Everything is always falling, unless it is resting on the object it is falling towards. If you are suspended from a ballon, you are being pulled down by Earth's gravity. You are resting on the floor or your chair. The ballon is holding the chair aloft by its buoyancy.
If the balloon should fail, you will for a certain period of time feel weightlessness due to the fact that you do not have buoyancy in the atmosphere like the ga
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth is also being pulled up towards you with equal force.
Not space, but could be fun (Score:2)
However, it could be a neat ride, and will surely be far far cheaper than going to space, let alone the ideal space ride - into orbit.
Stockton Rush on Steroids (Score:2)
I wish I could be there in the board room to witness the question and answer session with their insurance provider.
Insurer: "Um, so, what happens, if, I don't know, the balloon goes pop?"
Startup: "Hey, I don't know! I'm just the guy that comes up with the money-making idea! Let's make some money, baby!"
Seriously, what's their contingency if they lose buoyancy? The only practical solution I can think of (given the artistic drawings provided) is a parachute. Let's pretend for a moment that the balloon do
Re: (Score:2)
Do insurance providers ask what happens if the wings fall off a plane, or the engines fail over the middle of the Atlantic?
They understand that there is a risk of death, calculate it, and set their premiums accordingly.
I expect that the passengers have to sign a wavier, and their personal life insurance won't cover it, given that anyone who can afford it would be looking at a pretty massive payout in death. Expected rest-of-lifetime earnings kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
"I expect that the passengers have to sign a wavier"
And an application for a Darwin award
Re: (Score:2)
"I expect that the passengers have to sign a wavier"
And an application for a Darwin award
Every food we eat, every drug we take, every technology we use, is survivorship based on the willingness/necessity of a few hundred thousand/million humans before us to apply for Darwin awards.
You're very clever, but I'm afraid it's Darwin all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the bodies will have a greater chance of being recoverable. Not fully, but still...
Re: (Score:1)
wonder if they'd get freeze-dried by near-vacuum, -60 F cold, and terminal velocity winds, then have identifiable features shattered off?
Re: (Score:2)
wonder if they'd get freeze-dried by near-vacuum, -60 F cold, and terminal velocity winds, then have identifiable features shattered off?
If the atmo is thin enough, they probably won't be freeze dried because there's nowhere for the heat to go fast enough for the process to occur. It'd take a human body is flat vacuum You're likely dying of some combination of fluid / air expansion inside the body creating damage, and lack of ability to breathe. I'm not sure how much you'd swell up before the body started to freeze, but my guess would be the chances are high if you don't cool off fast, which you can't without much matter to transfer your he
Re: (Score:2)
Never surprises me.. (Score:2)
98,000 feet (Score:2)
"over 98,000 feet, we are a spaceship"
No, you're really not , you're still a balloon. Lifting balloons don't work in a hard vacuum so if you were in actual space you'd be accelerating towards the ground. HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush, you'll ruin their ticket prices.
Life imitating art (Score:3)
and when that thing hits power lines the damage bi (Score:2)
and when that thing hits power lines the damage bill will wipe them out.
Too expensive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The experience for your eyes will be identical.
The differences are all positive: no violent acceleration, no freefall causing nausea and disorientation, a longer hang to e 'in space', and a lower price tag than a suborbital rocket ride.
I'd absolutely choose the balloon over the rocket. It's not even a question.
Awesome (Score:2)
I love this- now we can see billionaires plummet to their deaths instead of being crushed into a thin paste at the bottom of the ocean.
Use of Resources (Score:2)
Or does the capsule have the ability to reduce its buoyancy and descend by compressing some of the gas back into a tank?
(The CNBC video [cnbc.com] starting at around 9:00 in, discusses some of
Re: (Score:2)
Well.... at least we can create it. If we turn on a fusion reactor. I'm being a *little* facetious, even though it's possible. I fundamentally agree it's a waste. I hope they use hydrogen... As long as they don't coat the thing with something akin to rocket fuel.
$50K?? No thanks. (Score:5, Funny)
If I want to die at high altitude I'll save money and take a Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
s/at/falling from
Happy?
Perchance is this called the Titan 2 project (Score:2)
Are they conducting visits to the site of the Columbia wreck ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, being high and flying at an altitude [youtube.com] can't be too healthy... :D
high as hell rn (Score:2)
Where do they land? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Once they hit the prevailing winds, they're off. High-altitude balloons have no way to counter winds, they just go along with the flow or get ripped apart. Imagine sailing in winds that shift from 10mph to 200mph. That's how wind behaves in altitudes around and above 30k feet. This company is talking about sending massive balloons to 100k feet. There are a few problems they've hopefully thought about before selling all these tickets:
Balloon size in relation to weight is linear.
Balloon size in relation to al
So, there was a bolt on a Saturn booster ... (Score:2)
And it reentered here, now, after decades in an elliptical orbit at a relative velocity of ~30,000kph and it hit your balloon. What're the odds? (remembers how much crap we the people of earth have collectively flung into orbit while learning the basics of spaceflight).
Never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Poof! Now you will experience a brief period of weightlessness.
I hope they're planning some kind of backup parachute
Why not Virtual? (Score:1)
I have no desire to go to dangerous places to see stuff. For instance, go see the Titanic. Even in a sub that was properly constructed, I can't touch the Titanic. I can't see it very well through the viewport. And their idea of a toilet on that sub doesn't interest me. Instead build a submersible with 3D UHD video, surround sound, and maybe hepatic feedback hands so maybe I could "touch" something. I'd be happy with VR glasses and headphones at that point, but a room with a wraparound screen and sound woul
$150,000 for a hot air balloon ride (Score:1)
Brilliant. Wish I thought of it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]