Talk:Felix Baumgartner

Free fall query

"In freefall" and "using a wing" are contradictory.75.80.46.153 (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Richard Maine

Actually planes can go into a free fall even though they have wings. According to wikipedia, this is the definition of free fall:

Free fall describes any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it, at least initially. Since this definition does not specify velocity, it also applies to objects initially moving upward. Although strictly the definition excludes motion of an object subjected to other forces such as aerodynamic drag, in nontechnical usage falling through an atmosphere without a deployed parachute or lifting device is also referred to as free fall.

66.54.212.101 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So, using the non-technical, falling-through-an-atmosphere definition of "free fall", a plane _can_ go into free fall when :it is no longer getting lift from its wings (for example, plunging downwards in a vertical attitude). Presumably FB was getting lift from his wing, or why was he wearing it? If so, he was not in free fall (either definition). --63.81.2.130 (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In free-fall there is no additional downward component of force aside from gravity. Lifting surfaces are irrelevant to the matter. Further, lift is generated perpendicular to the direction of travel, therefore is independent of the altitude axis. Unless, the wings in question allowed him to propel forward. I direct you to the question of dropping a ball from a height of 10 meters downwards, and shooting a bullet parallel to the horizon from the same height. Both arrive to ground level at the same time, irrespective of their forward velocities (zero for the first case, and speed of bullet in the second case) 146.87.52.53 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Anon.

Your novel definition of free fall is nowhere supported by the Free fall article. 63.81.2.130 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Next time I'll read the article. My point was not relevant and stemmed from a misunderstanding of the question. In the instance of crossing the English Channel using wings would imply gliding. A friend has pointed out to me that this would imply components of potential energy in the forward direction, followed by a lifting component (and others) thus not making this a free-fall case. Off-topic, my bullet/ball statement still stands true - try applying the Newtonian Equations of motion on the Free-fall page. 146.87.52.53 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Anon.

I removed the reference to "freefall". 63.81.2.130 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

First to break sound barrier?

By some accounts, Capt. Joseph W. Kittinger USAF already did that half a century ago, jumping out of a stratospheric balloon in 1960.

• "The Long Lonely Leap", by Captain Joseph W. Kittinger USAF, with Martin Caidin (E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc., New York 1961), if you can still find it in a secure library. The book has been long out of print and copies are rare and expensive. It is a first-person account of the U.S. Air Force's Project Man High and Project Excelsior.
• Talk:Project_Excelsior#Query on speed, moved from article page.
• "Kittinger still holds the record for the highest parachute jump and first man to exceed the sound barrier (714 mph) in free-fall, for the Excelsior III jump." —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. He is also one of the team of advisors there. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

50.9.97.53 (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the claim should more accurately be "First to exceed the speed of sound at sea level" - I haven't checked but surely the speed of sound depends on the air pressure and thus altitude - in the stratosphere, where the air is extremely thin it must be much faster than at sea level, so it is probably impossible to 'break the sound barrier' by passing through a transision shock front and generating a bang and conical shock wave behind you. 109.144.167.3 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The speed of sound does not depend on the air pressure. (Quote from the speed of sound article: " It is a function of the square root of the absolute temperature, but is independent of pressure or density for a given ideal gas.") He actually did break the sound barrier. However, the effects of breaking it are much weaker in thin air. 46.237.193.22 (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Slight editorializing there to 'win' an argument, the next sentence on that page states "Sound speed is slightly dependent on pressure only because air is not quite an ideal gas". On the Kittinger page it says he achieved a speed of "614 miles per hour (988 km/h)", which sounds like it may not have broken the sound barrier. I haven't done the maths and don't see any references to say that he has. So perhaps Felix was first after all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.141.188 (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The explanation is extremely simple. Somebody added 100 mph to the real maximum velocity of the Excelsior III jump: 614 + 100 = 714 mph, which would be around 1150 km/h. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.201.155.154 (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So we need to know what the speed of sound is at the altitude Baumgartner jumped from. How slightly is 'sightly'?

86.189.13.169 (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Kittinger was not the first. Taking 295 m/s as the speed of sound at 25km of altitude, and converting to mph gives: 295*3,6/1,6=673,5mph. Data taken from US-standard atmosphere. 178.115.251.68 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe we would put the fact that he broke the sound barrier (or at least the fact it is widely believed he did so) at the top of his article for its extraordinary significance and importance. Not just buried within the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthParadox (talk • contribs) 00:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Some people believe in the easter bunny, should we add that too? 77.116.247.37 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Red Bull Stratos

If you are an editor please help create a separate article for the Red Bull Stratos [1], thanks Gimelthedog (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Claustrophobia

According to this article from the New York Times, Felix has had some difficulties with claustrophobia: Although he had no trouble jumping off buildings and bridges, and across the English Channel in a carbon-fiber wing, he found himself suffering panic attacks when forced to spend hours inside the pressurized suit and helmet. At one point in 2010, rather than take an endurance test in it, he went to the airport and fled the United States. With the help of a sports psychologist and other specialists, he learned techniques for dealing with the claustrophobia. Any thought on whether this is worth including in the article? -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 16:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely this is worth including in the article! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! Added. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mach 1.0955

Should be noted, 833.9mph is equal to Mach 1.0955, not Mach 1.24 (which is about 943mph). Not sure why they called is Mach 1.24, but hopefully they'll shed some light on that. 24.147.248.148 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking in modern terms, I think you are trying to say that his speed was about 373 m/s and 1.24 times this results in a speed of 425.6 m/s. The speed of sound at sea level and 20 °C temperature is 343.2 m/s. But, at 39 km altitude down almost to the earth, the speed of sound is much lower due to the colder temperatures. Someone obviously calculated the true speed of sound in the upper atmosphere from the "practical formula for dry air" found on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

As you see in the formula, negative temperatures would result in a speed of sound being less than 331.30 m/s. Taking 373 m/s and dividing it by 1.24 would give me a speed of sound of 300.8 m/s. Working this speed of sound into the equation in reverse and solving for the temperature, gives me a temperature of -48 °C, which is perfectly normal at 39 km altitudes above the earth. I hope this now makes sense to you. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, speed of sound nominally falls with altitude until about 30K feet, at which point it is more or less stable at 88% of speed of sound at sea level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.113.199 (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In the real world, that would be 10 km. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Baumgartner reached his top speed somewhere in between 25 and 30 km of altitude. At this altitude, mach 1 is around 295 m/s, so mach 1.24 is quite reasonable. Please check the US-standard atmosphere data given in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg&page=1 for comparison. And yes, aircraft manufacturers never present their maximum speed figures at sea level. 178.115.251.68 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and this is exactly why mach numbers should never be referred to unless there is a base point. Without the base point, the mach number is meaningless. The same is true with "g", the acceleration due to gravity. In calculations, 9.80665 m/s^2 is the most often used but this value only corresponds to a specific location and at another location, this value is incorrect. Usually if standard "g" is referenced it is properly noted as g_sub_0. This is why g and mach terms should be avoided as they do more to confuse then to offer a proper reference. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2012

I'd like to be able to edit the Felix Baumgartner Wikipedia's page to add some information about the latest press conference at the Red Bull Stratos and add some photos that I have take from the conference.

Regards Axl magnum (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll be able to edit when your account becomes autoconfirmed. See WP:AUTOC. In short: your account needs to be at least 4 days old and you need to make 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

1 mph=1.60934 kmh

833*1,60934=1340,58 kmh
1Mach=340,3 m/s =1225 kmh
1340/1225=1,093 Mach  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.237.100 (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC) 

The speed of sound at sea level and 20 °C dry air is 343.2 m/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound ). This would be considered mach 1. But since the speed of sound increases with higher temperatures and decreases with lower temperatures, it is not always true that Mach 1 is 343.2 m/s. In your example, you give it as 340.3 m/s, which implies it was calculated at a temperature other than 20 °C. Mach numbers should really never be used unless some reference is given, otherwise errors will result. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 October 2012

I wanted to fix something, the speed reached by felix was actually 1173 km/hour not 1342, in the stratosphere the speed of sound is different, it is 1110 km/h. Rmantilla26 (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(comment retracted)

Martin Kealey (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Telemetry shown in videos

Previously I made edits 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.

(If anything, the ascent would have sped up slightly after the door was opened, due to jettisoning of the air inside.)

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

Martin Kealey (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

All of this proves the absolute stupidity and ignorance of allowing supplemental obsolete units to appear in articles. There is a literal war between those who use standard modern units and those who cling to obsolete units out of the stone age. This back and forth converting and then changing numbers to obtain roundness results in more errors than are acceptable. Wikipedia really needs to nip this nonsense in the bud and end this bad practice once and for all. Declare the SI as the only system of units permitted in all articles with no exceptions and keep out the old and obsolete. Those who pretend not to know SI can either learn it or do their own conversions. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Helmet malfunction and failure to break the longest time in freefall record

So did he answer any questions about why he did not break the Kitinger record of longest freefall? Was it intentional nod to Kitinger? Was it because the helmet heater had failed and his visor was completely frosted over and he could not see the ground and judge how far he had till he had to pull the cord? Before he pulled the chute I could hear him asking 'how long' and saying 'it seems like long time' and complaining that his visor was frozen over. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Kittinger doesn't hold the free fall record. You were misled by media frenzy. Kittinger's fall was assisted by a stabilizer parachute (drogue). Free fall means no chute (not yet deployed).

And the longest lasting freefall is held by another colonel Eugene Andreev. Baumgartner (due to his visor trouble?) opened his chute a minute too early.

Relatives involved in the Holocaust

I heard today that several of his uncles and his Grandads were in the SS and took part in the Holocaust, can someone please verify this? This should be part of the article120.144.130.166 (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be? Doesn't that (were it true in the first place) concern his relatives, not Baumgartner? After all, it's basejumping what Baumgartner is notable for. 86.50.136.64 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

well, of course. A lot of germans and austrians have their grandparents being nazi or involved in this. it's not a surprise and it doesn't matter, he's not responsible for their past mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.90.165 (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you need a reliable source if you want to include that in the article. Second of all, not everyone who served in the Schutzstaffel was directly involved in the Holocaust; for instance, the Ahnenerbe was concerned with anthropological and cultural research, and the Leibstandarte was Hitler's personal bodyguard. Third of all, I doubt it would merit any inclusion as it is hardly notable; due to the Nazi policy of "total war", a lot of Germans and Austrians have relatives that served in the Schutzstaffel, the Hitler-Jugend, the Wehrmacht or the Volkssturm. --190.19.96.181 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There was an Austrian Paul Baumgartl who developed a back-pack helicopter the 'Heliofly' in 1940 for the German military - the name and the endeavour is so close one wonders if there is a connection? 86.189.13.169 (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm, no, I don't think one does really. 86.50.147.109 (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is still another name. --194.24.138.1 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I have never heard about that.--194.24.138.1 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Free fall record

Baumgartner was in free fall for 4 minutes and 19 seconds, 17 seconds shy of mentor Joseph Kittinger's 1960 jump.
How about the length of that free fall? That could be more than the elder record's due to higher speed. Or is it even measured at all? 82.141.95.66 (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Felix Baumgartner hat hiermit den Ärmelkanal überquert.jpg

Is the lead image a picture of Baumgartner, or is it a dummy wearing Baumgartner's clothes? The caption says one thing, but the image description says another. If it's just a mannequin, it's pretty silly to even have it there. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, this is a dummy in a museum. I don't think Mr. Baumgartner would be keen on standing there all day and night. 178.115.251.68 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Why did somebody remove the controversy part? It is also part of the German version of this article, why not have it here? Rattila (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because there was nothing in the article that showed it was actually a "controversy". I read the source (through Google Translate) which showed Baumgartner made a fleeting comment in an interview. If it is worth mentioning in the article, then we should have a source that shows it's actually a controversy rather than us just repeating everything that he says in interviews. For that reason I felt its inclusion was giving undue weight. matt (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

At least implicitely rejecting democracy and promoting a "moderate dictatorship" led by a few business tycoons instead isn't noteworthy? He's a public person, idol of many and going to work for a United Nations initiative which aims at inspiring young people and women. I wonder what he's going to tell them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.47.74 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily notable to this article—if it isn't really covered by lots of news sources, then us giving it its own section in the article is undue weight. If it is a controversy, we should provide a reference to show that reliable sources have described it as such. We shouldn't label his comments controversial unless we can cite it; the original reference given did not describe the interview in that manner. matt (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm let's see now, an infamous middle aged Austrian male with black hair, a stern face and no multicultural blood (cough Hitler cough) states that he wants to make a National Socialist government and this isn't newsworthy? Next he'll be talking about supporting palestine and throwing Jews into the gas chambers, but I guess that won't worry you gentiles enough to label it as 'contreversy'. You 'people' make me sick124.180.142.216 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Anybody noticed Baumgartner's birthday by the way? ;) Rattila (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolega2357 (talk • contribs)

Where did he say anything about National Socialism? Span (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Birthday

Hi admin, pls check and fix the man's bday. Compare intro and first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.233.235 (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Illuminati

The Illuminati edit this page just as they do so many others. The whole thing was a hoax and there is more than sufficient evidence to support the fact it was all staged. Check a few You Tube videos and you'll see (very quickly) for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:797B:EA00:D888:9F63:3645:B896 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felix Baumgartner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227014738/http://www.redbullstratos.com:80/JumpOnHold.aspx to http://www.redbullstratos.com/JumpOnHold.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Felix Baumgartner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redbullstratos.com/JumpOnHold.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150515094350/http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/Default.aspx to http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016215515/http://www.esquire.com/felix-baumgartner-skydive-0810-4 to http://www.esquire.com/felix-baumgartner-skydive-0810-4
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CsgEHKcv?url=http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/pr-jippo-kan-sluta-med-atal to http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/pr-jippo-kan-sluta-med-atal-1.682661
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220021402/http://www.bambi-awards.com/home/detail/baumgartner-millennium-bambi-/105 to http://www.bambi-awards.com/home/detail/baumgartner-millennium-bambi-/105

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Felix Baumgartner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215231303/http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=16669 to http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=16669
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150629231803/http://www.fai.org/record-parachuting to http://www.fai.org/record-parachuting
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160908172221/http://www.fai.org/record-ballooning to http://www.fai.org/record-ballooning

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Felix Baumgartner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6F7ZfaO2M?url=http://www.fai.org/fai-slider-news/37012-baumgartners-records-ratified-by-fai to http://www.fai.org/fai-slider-news/37012-baumgartners-records-ratified-by-fai
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6F7ZfaO2M?url=http://www.fai.org/fai-slider-news/37012-baumgartners-records-ratified-by-fai to http://www.fai.org/fai-slider-news/37012-baumgartners-records-ratified-by-fai
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121230092725/http://www.fai.org/news-of-records/36072-baumgartner-breaks-the-maximum-vertical-speed-world-record to http://www.fai.org/news-of-records/36072-baumgartner-breaks-the-maximum-vertical-speed-world-record

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)