Onto what can you fall from 15K feet without a parachute and survive?

When I was about five, I entertained the notion that this was a feasible way of training myself to be able to jump off sheer mountain faces and cliffs. 'Cos I could jump from a foot easily, two feet pretty easily, and three feet didn’t seem so bad. Thought I’d try working my way up gradually. Eventually I’d get a TV show where they’d film me jumping off Everest (which in my imagination was somehow just a 30000ft sheer drop) and taking a bow afterwards.

My sheer bone-idleness and inability to stay focused on one goal for more than a day is mostly a curse, but was perhaps a blessing in this instance.

[hijack]

How big a difference is the force of gravity at say, 14,000 ft, compared to the force of gravity at ground level (or sea level)?

Thanks

[/hijack]

Negligible at that height. Assuming standard gravity of 9.80665 m/s² at sea level, and ignoring buoyancy effects with altitude, the free air correction approximates 9.7674334 m/s² at about 14,000 ft, i.e. 99.6% of the force.

I’d want to fill the pit with the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders and some lotion.
But that’s just me.

How about ping pong balls? If you have a huge pit filled with ping pong balls, the uppermost portion will be fairly loose and <may> squash aside easily. Lower/denser/slower. Maybe.

So, if I fill the Grand Canyon with ping pong balls to the top, and step off into this, I’d probably live. If I had a foot deep layer of ping pong balls at the bottom and jumped, I’d die. Where’s the break even point? Not sure scientific calculation can help us on this one; it may take experimentation.

Here’s the problem with ramps, though.

If you start at 16,000 ft., you’ll survive 15,000 ft. grandly. Then next 1,000 ft. are problematic.

Actually you could start at 15,001 feet and make the same statement. That last foot could be a bitch however.

I was thinking of finding a locale that sits at an elevation of about 14990 ft. Probably in Nepal, or Tibet, or the Hindu Kush.

Probably be best to make your fall out of a helicopter, though. The horizontal vector of your velocity in an airplane might lead to a bad case of rugburn.

Can helicopters operate at 15k feet?

Yes sir, you can:
http://records.fai.org/rotorcraft/current.asp?id1=112&id2=1&id3=2
Scroll down to the part Altitude without payload : 12 442 m

The record was set in 1972, with a cutting-edge helicopter with all the essential bells and whistles, like having the starter removed, having the battery removed because the starter was removed, having the heater removed, etc.

The guy reached a height of 41,000 ft. so maybe a little bit over what you had in mind, but still, it’ll give that little bit of leeway for mistakes :slight_smile:

Not to be hijacking this thread, but weird coincidence that some people, namely me, already have a thread about jumping from high places. Not a helicopter, or a roflcopter, just a building, a high one, but then again not too high. And the brilliant members of StraightDope graciously answered my questions without a raise of that brow, thanks!

As is evidenced by the variety of posts, there are a number of different ways to approach this problem (some of which I can think of that haven’t been mentioned yet).

Part of the problem with water is the high surface tension it has. That’s what makes it act like concrete at high velocities. In theory, a non-flat water surface (Jacuzzi theory) should make for a “softer” landing than a flat water surface. Also, the addition of a surfactant to reduce the surface tension could help. However, at terminal velocity, I’m guessing neither of these would be enough to do the trick.

A previous poster mentioned density as being important, but I believe viscosity is really the property that would most affect a fluid’s ability to reduce your velocity. Ideally, the pit would contain layers of fluids of increasing viscosities from air to, say, water. This would be possible if the fluids were immiscible and had increasing density from the top to bottom. Unfortunately, most fluids meeting these requirements are flammable and/or toxic … not good for jumping into.

I also like the ramp idea, but agree with many of the limitations mentioned. An alternative might be to have a funnel (also mentioned previously) going down into a tube. The tube could then gradually decrease in angle from vertical to a cork screw. It may even make sense to have water flowing along the surface of the tube in a vortex (picture a water slide). That would decrease the heat of friction and decrease your velocity while maintaining an airway for breathing. Once your speed was sufficiently reduced, you could end up launching horizontally into a pool of water (again, picture the pool at the end of a water slide) at the bottom of the pit.

The fan idea someone mentioned is interesting. However, I’d suggest that just as a method just to slow you down, with another method used for the actual landing. It seems like it would be difficult to be able to adjust the airspeed with enough precision to allow you to land on your feet (especially considering that terminal velocity can change drastically depending on your orientation … if you went from a skydiver fall position to a feet-down position for landing, you would start to pick up speed again).

However, I think the easiest solution could be an air pillow (such as that which is used by stunt men), or a series of air pillows of increasing resistance. The degree to which the air is restricted from escaping has an effect equivalent to increasing the viscosity of the air. With a series of air pillows, the first might “deflate” quite easily, while those below it could provide progressively more resistance. It would likely need to be much thicker than the typical stuntman air pillow, but I think that would provide the best, most repeatedly successful results.

See posts 12 and 24. I don’t see any issue from an engineering & survivability standpoint, the biggest problem will be hitting the airbag accurately.

How about the very substance you’re hurtling through on your way to a potentially VERY big headache- air. Big, and I mean BIG fans or whatnot.? The sort you see at these artificial skydiving buildings in various cities. The kind that keep you afloat. Just have the initial backdraft mild enough to not harm you and increase the power as necessary. Simple enough. Or am I overlooking something. Seems to me it would work, but talk about a bad hair day.

This is so simple.

You dig pit, fill it full of angels who are holding a giant styrofoam container filled with delicious chocolate syrup, marshmallows and maraschino cherries, then you cover the entire dessert with whipped cream.

Pfft, too easy.

Surface tension effects are neglible when compared with density effects; for most common liquids, the units are millinewtons per meter. Not only that, but surface tension effects are not velocity-dependent (at least not at the velocities we’re talking about here); it doesn’t matter how fast or slow you’re going when you break/stretch the surface of the water.

Crack open your nearest fluid mechanics text book and look up the formulas for bluff-body drag. Or check Wikipedia. Note that the equation includes density, but does not include viscosity. Viscosity does have an effect, but like surface tension, it’s usually negligible compared with density effects when we’re talking about drag on bluff bodies. The exception is extremely large, extremely streamlined bodies, which will have unusually small density effects (due to their streamlining) and unusually large viscosity effects/skin friction (due to their large total surface area). The classic examples would be blimps and nuclear (i.e. large) submarines.

As with anything, extreme cases may be found for which the above assertions do not hold. Case in point, pitch would probably exhibit non-negligible viscosity effects if used in the OP’s proposed scenario.

Density is the issue for sure. Water has mass, and therefore inertia. Hit it fast enough, and it simply won’t move out of the way until the force of impact has been absorbed by your body. It really has nothing to do with viscosity or surface tension.

Mythbusters could easily test the aerated water theory. All they’d need to do is build a rig big enough to aerate a large amount of water - say they build an aerator with a diameter of 10 meters. They’d need to hook it up to some pretty powerful air compressors to pump the air down as deep as it would need to be; it would require a lot of power, but it wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility. Take Buster up in a chopper, affix some shock pad-thingies (whatever they’re called) to him, turn on the pumps, drop him, note the results.

Is anyone here a member of the Mythbusters fansite?

Ahh, that explains the density vs viscosity vs surface tension problem well. Now I’m thinking aeration won’t help much.

Aeration would help, but not because it’s breaking the surface tension of the water. It would help because the bubbles displace the water, reducing the density of the region you’re impacting.

How much help it gives depends on how many bubbles there are, and how much displacement they create. I could imagine a super bubbler that might reduce the average density enough to make a difference.

Mythbusters did the surface tension myth. They dropped buster from a crane with a big weight hanging from him, so that the weight would hit the water first and break the surface. It made no difference.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501919888/m/3681908869?r=6371948869#6371948869

Someone posted something similar a few months ago. I can post a new question that’s more specific to this, if you wish.