Posted Friday 9th January 2009 12:52 GMT
And there was I thinking that NASA was going to wrap the Antarctic in clingfilm to stop it melting.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 13:51 GMT
And it turned out to be useless anywhere there was aerial wildlife?
Also, they're cheating- launching it in winter in the Arctic when the air's at its densest...
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 13:51 GMT
Could they make one big enough to fill the hole in the ozone layer?
All obvious But Plug jokes implied.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 13:51 GMT
"The team has further work to do to enable the super pressure balloon to lift a one-ton instrument to a float altitude of 110,000 feet, but they are on the right path." And what happens WHEN it gets a leak and this ONE TON brick comes crashing down from 22,000 feet?! Bang! Nuke! Wipeout! Ooops! sorry???!
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 13:51 GMT
I watched a documentary the other day about this and a research team including NASA has done this on a smaller scale and floated a telescope collecting data on stars and looking for new objects in space - the telescop was a serious peice of kit but didnt transmit its data back to base and meant the team had to collect the instuments after landing somewhere in the antartic - it landed okay but the parachute didnt detach and dragged the machine 150 miles across the ice - it took a few days but they evetually recovered the disk drive with all the data and was a real success. worth a watch if you like this stuff!
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 13:51 GMT
A 1 tonne instrument package falling from 111,000ft ..hrrmmm
Polarbear Pate' anyone ?
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:19 GMT
The balloon would have to be seriously off course to hit one as they're all in the Arctic...
As for dropping the payload...
Unless the material splits all the way from top to bottom I would imagine that it would lust leak out slowly, as on every other balloon, and you'd get a slow(well, slower than terminal velocity... ) descent.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:19 GMT
Looks more like a giant floating Terry's Chocolate Orange to me.
Good luck to them. An idea like this deserves to succeed, as I love Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:19 GMT
There are no polar bears in the Antarctic. In fact, the name 'Antarctic' specifically means "no bears"
</pedant>
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:19 GMT
Maybe, but there aren't may birds at 100,000 feet and up. Even Concorde didn't fly that high.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:19 GMT
"A 1 tonne instrument package falling from 111,000ft ..hrrmmm"
Is it just coincidence that NASA's balloon department is based as Wallops Island?
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:19 GMT
Polar bears at the Antarctic? I know global warming is supposed to cause freak migration of animals, but WOW!
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:19 GMT
Polar bears don't live in the antarctic - you might like some penguin pate though
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:19 GMT
Polar bears in the Arctic, penguins in the Antarctic.
Maybe the Greenpeace types can get it to hit a whaling ship?
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:35 GMT
They're launching it where the penguins live, not the polar bears. It's summertime down under and I don't think there's much flying around (Superman lives in the Arctic)
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:35 GMT
Polar Bears? It tends to be penguins that live in the Antarctic. Or that balloon is way off course.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 14:35 GMT
One ton of equipment sure is a lot of stuff this day and age... or just one or two really nice items plus a boatload of parachutes, buoys and heavy-duty impact protection...
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:16 GMT
One ton(ne) is enough for a giant big ray gun that harnesses the power of the sun and magnifies them through man-made diamonds to melt the polar ice caps and therefore rule the world by threatening to unleash the power of Goldeneye.
Repeat...
I must stop watching my James Bond DVDs
I must stop watching my James Bond DVDs
I must stop watching my James Bond DVDs
I must stop watching my James Bond DVDs
I must stop watching my James Bond DVDs
I must stop watching my James Bond DVDs
I must stop watching my James Bond DVDs
I must stop watching my James Bond DVDs...
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:16 GMT
I doubt that it would be the case that the whole thing will go pop and drop to earth with a thud. I think NASA will just make it a single air bag. I presume the whole will contain multiple bags so that, should one pop it will slowly descend a few thousand feet and stop.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:16 GMT
I've just noticed. CREAM bag? You're having a laugh right? Next you'll be telling me that there are two spheroids within the CREAM bag, or that the aim of the CREAM bag is to fulfil the needs of the Thing We Attached To-it (or TWAT).
I am worried about NASA emptying a very large CREAM bag over all those penguins.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:16 GMT
guess who was watching QI on dave the other night.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:16 GMT
"There are no polar bears in the Antarctic. In fact, the name 'Antarctic' specifically means "no bears""
But the 'bear' in 'Arctic' refers to the constellation Ursa Major, the "Great Bear", not polar bears.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:16 GMT
One tonne hoo-dads falling from the sky is one thing, but what about stadium sized sandwich bags fluttering about the pristine wilderness of the Antarctic, shrink-wrapping entire penguin colonies for posterity?
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:58 GMT
"ONE TON brick comes crashing down from 22,000 feet?! Bang! Nuke! Wipeout! Ooops! sorry???!"
Yep, because when, for example, planes weighing far more than one ton crash there's always an accompanying nuclear detonation.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:58 GMT
"what about stadium sized sandwich bags fluttering about the pristine wilderness of the Antarctic"
Some dreary teenager will film it with a camcorder and use the arty footage to seduce his neighbour's grumpy daughter.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:58 GMT
"Zylon?"
There's not much to do on a Saturday night at McMurdo station. The "Z" is just an "N" that got drunk, and fell over.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:58 GMT
Whether Richard Branson's little space project might get a hold of this tech.
He's wondered about using a balloon to get his fatcats' space tourism vehicle part way into space to save using rockets before but was told (IIRC by Buzz Aldrin) they'd thought about it in the fifties/sixties and it was decided rockets were the best option. (presumably they were not as good at building balloons in those days)
I'd have thought you could build some sort of manned capsule and have it weigh less than a tonne. 'Course, the cats may have to go on a diet before wasting their 200 grand...
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 17:58 GMT
Zylon is the trade name for poly(p-phenylene-2,6-benzobisoxazole). It is stronger than Kevlar, but you would not want to smoke it.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 20:54 GMT
then hopefully they'll be fitting them with parachutes....
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 21:55 GMT
That's like 1/3 of the way to space right? Dump the 1 ton telescope and attach the super pumpkin to Richard Branson.
Posted Saturday 10th January 2009 00:19 GMT
Dennis, wrapping the antartic in clingfilm to stop it melting is only the first step - they'd need to find a pretty big freezer to put it in to finish the job.
Steven "I'll reheat the remains of that chow mein for breakfast tomorrow" R
Posted Saturday 10th January 2009 23:17 GMT
"I'd have thought you could build some sort of manned capsule and have it weigh less than a tonne. 'Course, the cats may have to go on a diet before wasting their 200 grand..."
It would probably be cheaper to just make an airlifter than develop a manned rocketship under one ton.
Plus the airlifter (White Knight II) can do other things.
They used a White Knight to test the X-37 space plane prototype. An orbital version is going up this year!
They're also hoping to flog them as flame retardant carriers for firefighting.
People will also be able to ride in the air-lifter.
Posted Saturday 10th January 2009 23:17 GMT
What's that in chains, furlongs, and perches?
If you're going to use imperial measure, shouldn't the payload be measured in tons (or bushels and pecks) rather than tonnes? Consistency, people.
Posted Saturday 10th January 2009 23:17 GMT
I read somewhere that if dollops of ammonia (NH3) gas were lobbed into the Antarctic air, that would kill off the CFCs ... don't know if one balloon-worth would be enough though ...
Posted Monday 12th January 2009 09:09 GMT
To be honest i wouldn't want to smoke Kevlar either.
Posted Wednesday 14th January 2009 10:33 GMT
Build a bigger one and plug the the ozone hole
I will take my MBE now ma'am
Posted Monday 19th January 2009 10:55 GMT
Is it a one tonne payload or a one ton payload? There is a difference!
Mines the coat with the chinese dumpling in the pocket.
Back to the article
