Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

uss-la-ca135.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 274 posts

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#41

Post by djmips »

rootusrootus wrote: post #18

This happened in 1963. Planes had only been flying for 60 years at that point; it really is pretty amazing how quickly we progressed on technology during those early years. We still fly 737s, which are descended from a design that first flew in 1967. As well as the C130, which was part of this story. And don't get me started on B-52s, which are even older. We have made great strides since then, of course, but it does…

The same is true of computers which seem to have been created in practically final form so concisely summarized by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Draft_of_a_Report_on_the...

On a whim I have investigated old computer architectures and was surprised to find myself completely at home despite when they call the 'instructions' 'orders'. :)

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#42

Post by gibspaulding »

rootusrootus wrote: post #18

This happened in 1963. Planes had only been flying for 60 years at that point; it really is pretty amazing how quickly we progressed on technology during those early years. We still fly 737s, which are descended from a design that first flew in 1967. As well as the C130, which was part of this story. And don't get me started on B-52s, which are even older. We have made great strides since then, of course, but it does…

The progress of aviation technology fascinates me. We went from the wright flyer to the B-52 in just 50 years and then in the next 70 years went from the B-52 to... pretty much still the B-52 (at least in terms of payload/range/airspeed).

You could probably come up with something similar to Moore's law for for those stats over those first 50 years. Makes me wonder if/when computing will reach a similar plateau. It's felt like we're close for a while, but at least if you allow for a somewhat flexible definition, it just keeps trucking along.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#43

Post by djmips »

soperj wrote: post #40
ISL wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have made great strides since then, of course, but it does feel like 90% of the fundamental aviation technology we have today was created just in the first few decades. That's because the seminal work rapidly evolved into something that's good-enough, and in some cases, close to optimal. If you look around, wherever you're sitting, you'll find plenty of other human-engineered objects from a similar design-trajec…

On the other hand snowshoes though look nothing like snowshoes from 50 years ago.

'nothing like' is quite the hyperbole - but yes even airplanes and computers are quite a bit more advanced than F-8 Crusaders and Whirlwind machines of 1955. Probably at least as much more than snowshoe advances. It's just the basics are all still there.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#44

Post by googlryas »

rtkwe wrote: post #19
snarg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, once you've reached terminal velocity, all fall distances are equally impressive. At that point, it's probably best to judge by outcome.

Cliff was almost definitely falling slower than Vesna though because he had the partially deployed parachute providing extra drag.

But vesna was stuck in the fuselage, not just free falling. So she may have had a higher speed, but she have experienced fewer Gs as the fuselage crushed upon landing, giving her a greater distance to decelerate.

But really, it's silly to compare these. Neither relied on any personal qualities to achieve the outcome, it is basically just blind luck in both cases. Without Cliff's lack of spleen or Vesnas weirdly low blood pressure, both probably would have died. Or if they just landed oriented slightly differently.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#45

Post by jacksonkmarley »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #2

The whole description is wordy but astonishing. It is strange that the part that strikes me the most though is this one: "The Coast Guard amphibian gained altitude and flew off. (I learned later that he headed for a squadron of minesweepers that was returning to the United States from a tour of the Western Pacific. He was unable to tune to their radio frequency for communications. But this ingenious pilot lowered a w…

> The whole description is wordy

I for one really enjoyed reading this story, it was quite exciting and I never noticed anything 'wordy' about it. I thought it was very well written.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#46

Post by googlryas »

hsnewman wrote: post #16

Quoted post unavailable.

If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct. "Absolute zero" is basically always referring to temperature, and space is not absolute zero. You're probably thinking of zero g. And in any case, zero g isn't even pedantically correct because you're still in Earth's gravitational field, so it should really be something like zero g-forces.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#47

Post by dxbydt »

michael_fine wrote: post #22

In a story of insane luck (and unluck!), the craziest part is definitely this " He said that if I had had a spleen, it almost certainly would have ruptured when I hit the water, and I would have bled to death. Of the 25 pilots in our squadron, I am the only one without a spleen. It gives me something to think about. Maybe it does you as well."

aesop #1 - king spots an ant drowning in the pond. king uses a leaf to rescue ant. courtiers admonish king for wasting his busy schedule on trivia like ants. at night the king sleeps & the snake opens his fangs to strike the king's leg. the ant bites the king's toe & king moves his leg in the nick of time. the next morning the king admonishes his courtiers - if not for the ant i wouldn't be alive.

aesop #2 - man falls off horse and breaks leg. pretty damsel unwilling to wed man because he is lame. everyone says, you are so unlucky. lost your leg. lost your lady. now what ? king announces war and all the able men of the village are drafted. our man stays home because he is lame. the able soldiers are killed off by the enemy. pretty damsel marries sole surviving lame man.

many more where that came from :)

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#48

Post by lazide »

rtkwe wrote: post #19
snarg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, once you've reached terminal velocity, all fall distances are equally impressive. At that point, it's probably best to judge by outcome.

Cliff was almost definitely falling slower than Vesna though because he had the partially deployed parachute providing extra drag.

Terminal velocity varies a LOT based on body position and individual mass to surface area ratio, so honestly hard to know.

A ‘standard’ human falls between 110-130 mph in a ‘flat’ belly to earth position (which actually requires non-trivial training to achieve reliably).

Someone tumbling in an uncontrolled fashion will have wildly varying and often higher speeds.

Someone ‘tracking’ can have highly reduced descent rates, even as low as 90mph (no wing suit required).

Someone falling with a drogue chute or partially deployed chute can fall slower, or faster, depending on what body position it ends up putting them in and how much drag it actually produces. If it wraps around their leg or arm for instance, it can put them in a feet down or head down position, which will have them falling a lot faster. Head or feet down can easily be 150+ mph without special gear.

Having done it, it’s quite noticeably faster, and you have to watch the altitude a lot more as your floor comes up much faster than your intuition expects.

Source: licensed skydiver (C for anyone who cares), with a decent number of relative formation work and free flying in my logbook.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#50

Post by londons_explore »

I assume the failed automatic cut-off switch was in the tanker...

If so, upon a refuelling the day before which caused a flame-out and loss of a plane, there is no way they should have been reusing that same tanker until the root cause was understood.

There could have been other causes, like a bad batch of fuel (could easily cause a flameout), debris in the fuel, water in the fuel, a subtle leak in the connector, something that causes foaming of the fuel, etc.

Exception: A major war where risking loss of a few more planes and people is worth it to avoid missing a military maneuver that cannot be delayed.

Post reply on HN