Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

Global Flyer Part 2 113

Posted by samzenpus from the never-coming-down dept.
nsasch writes "The Global Flyer just wasn't enough for Steve Fossett. He's going again, this time to make the world's longest (in length) flight, ever. He is currently over the Atlantic ocean and can be tracked online. He will be flying for 3 days with 18000 pounds of fuel (~8164 kilograms). More information, tracking, Microsoft Flight Simulator models, and background images are available from Virgin Atlantic."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Global Flyer Part 2 More

Global Flyer Part 2

Comments Filter:

  • Him again? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @10:40PM (#14674546) Journal
    What is so fascinating about Fossett? If he designed his own glider, I'd really be impressed. To me, he just seems like a rich guy who is doing what he wants to do in life... which I have no problem with. But, it seems like he has a PR staff who is constantly trumpeting: "Look at this guy! He is sooooo great" To me, that is a turn off.

    If you are breaking records to prove it to yourself... that is one thing. When you are buying media time to brag... then you are a loser in my book. A dam rich loser, but a loser nonetheless.

    • Re:Him again? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MyLongNickName ( 822545 )
      To me, that is a turn off.

      Why? Would you date him if he wren't so full of himself? Sheesh... get over it.
      • OT:

        from the never-coming-down dept.

        That was a great song by the Godfathers, on Birth School Work Death.

        • > He will be flying for 3 days with 18000 pounds of fuel

          Since I'm mathematically illeterate ("innumerate") I think, "What a waste of fuel!" We should ban him from doing this. Derring-do and records and forging new ground and exploration and "pushing the envelop" have no business in a modern democracy. If you don't have the permission of the people, you have nothing .

          My leaders tell me that! I voted for them.

          Tear him down! If he wants to do this, make him do it from some other stupid country.

    • Re:Him again? (Score:5, Funny)

      by aliscool ( 597862 ) * on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @10:54PM (#14674607)
      He's going to be a Billionaire that smears himself cross a half acre of land somewhere if he keeps this stuff up.
    • Wow. I'm used to Slashdot being two or three days behind Digg, but with this story, it's a week or more behind American televisiion news. This was on the local stations in Chicago last week! Glad I don't pay for Slashdot.
      • Wow. I'm used to Slashdot being two or three days behind Digg, but with this story, it's a week or more behind American televisiion news.
        So how far did he manage to go in his three day flight last week??
      • you're on crack, he took off yesterday morning.
      • My mistake. I confused last week's announcement of the flight with the more recent Slashdot artice saying he had actually taken off. I guess I should have more faith in /.

    • Re:Him again? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kozumik ( 946298 )
      Yeah, what's so amazing about what he's doing and why does our media cover this stuff? The endurance flights of old didn't have GPS, didn't have autopilot, they didn't have sattelite communications. It all individual skill done in isolation. What Fosset does could be accomplished by any decent pilot with a little determination, and a lot of money to blow on the technology, aids, and backups he has. A computer could fly it, with a monkey along for the ride, which is pretty close to how Fosset flies. Your
    • Burt Rutan and the Scaled Composites team designed and built his glider. They are the ones who should get the credit. The pilot, especially in this case, is just balast.

      I consider Melvil and the rest of the SpaceShipOne test pilots, "real" pilots...

      -B
      • In no particular order to the rants above:
        -- Lindberg didn't strap wings on and *fly*, he used ENGINES. With all that technology, anyone could have done it. Thus, no big deal. Besides, what'll ever come of it? Ditto every other pioneering act.
        -- Astronauts are, by your offhand and disparaging definition, just ballast.
        -- So are racecar drivers, stunt doubles, vice-presidents and moms. And don't even get me started on redundant hardware.
        -- Anyone that thinks that gadgetry prevents problems hasn't paid at

    • Re:Him again? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Darth_brooks ( 180756 ) <.clipper377. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday February 09, 2006 @02:54AM (#14675528) Homepage
      To me, he just seems like a rich guy who is doing what he wants to do in life... which I have no problem with. But, it seems like he has a PR staff who is constantly trumpeting: "Look at this guy! He is sooooo great" To me, that is a turn off.

      If you want to really get down to it, the whole X-prize was nothing more than a giant PR stunt. "Hey! look at us! we can get a bunch of rich guys to spend money! We're boldy going where man has been going for about 40 years now!"

      But before you break out the flamebait mods: It was a PR stunt with a purpose. Without the X-prize, private space flights would've remained a "neat idea." Now, in a few years, maybe (if you're rich enough. Or if you win a contest) you could take a quick flight into space. Ya blatant PR and shameless rich guy whoring!

      Yeah, we've already flown around the world and Fossett isn't exactly treading new ground. But maybe stunts like this spur on new advances in aviation. Maybe a company decides they want to be the next scaled composites and starts kicking money to R & D. Maybe somebody is inspired to look at the way things are being done and decides they can do better. Maybe.
      • Think of this as a proving ground for the technology. An extra step in the march forward. Various governments are currently after high altitude, long endurance aircraft. What better showcase for Scaled Composites than to say that they hold the record.
    • >>Fossett... a turn off.

      Fossett? Yeah, it's a turn off. The guy's a slow leak. Kind of a drip really. All wet. And his sucesses aren't consistant; really he runs hot and cold. Some say he's washed up, but that's sinking really low.

      Oh, Fossett? I thought you said Faucet. Nevermind.
  • Jump really high and let the world spin below you.

    Unfortunately, this Fossett guy is going to end up dead or in jail one of these days.

    (And if you're in jail...)
    • Interesting. What if he lands in Iran or Pakistan due to some failure. Will he be able to bribe his way out to freedom? And will the US commandos go in to save his arse?
      • If he isn't welcome in those countries he won't be overflying them anyway. He's unlikely to have any form of failure that would cause him to lose directional control. If he has to make a forced landing, well, the GF appears to be designed along the lines of a sailplain, he'll probably be able to travel a good few kilometers before landing.

  • How do they define "longest flight"? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by afaik_ianal ( 918433 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @10:44PM (#14674558)
    The reference on that site to "Virgin Galactic" got me thinking. How do they differentiate between "flight", and "orbit"?

    Do they say that the record is only available to jet-powered flight? Or do you have to be under power the whole time? Why doesn't a space agency hold this record?

  • At least someone . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Leroy_Brown242 ( 683141 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @10:47PM (#14674569) Homepage Journal
    . . . is pushing the flight envelope these days.

    It really puts a smile on my face to hear about this sort of thing. The sooner we make ultra distance flights old hat, the sooner our solar system won't seem so big.

    • Re:At least someone . . (Score:4, Funny)

      by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamecNO@SPAMumich.edu> on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @10:52PM (#14674601) Homepage Journal
      Yep, just wait, with longer wings we could build an aircraft that can fly to Mars. That's all it takes.
    • Look, http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/Aircraft/ Introduction/index.jsp [virginatla...lflyer.com]. It's not like it is any help whatsoever in researching/developing long distance passenger flights. It's a specially designed plane for one person and lots of fuel to make it able to fly long distances. It just proves he has money, not that he has any scientific merit.
      • Well of course, Steve Fossett didn't design it; Scaled Composites did.

        Long distance flights haven't mattered for heavier than air vehicles since the 1930s. People can fly anywhere on earth without more than a couple connecting flights. The distance problem today is largely solved; what matters now is speed. Two hours from NYC to Tokyo would be nice. Wing/body aerodynamics aren't the only issue there of course... vast reductions in flight times require improvements in propulsion that we've all heard abou
        • Somehow, I doubt new propulsion systems will really help since it takes a lot of expensive fuel to either be able to leave the atmosphere or to just go faster through the admosphere, there are basic physics that can't be surmounted by using more advanced technology or larger amounts of money. Also, either would seem to be environmentally damaging if adopted on a wide scale. The reason why Boeing didn't develop its own SST was because they found stratospheric flights to be damaging to the atmosphere. Euro

  • Oh No! (Score:1)

    by Aqws ( 932918 )
    It seems the Atlantic Ocean has consumed Africa!!!

    Seems the article has been in limbo for a while.

  • What about efficient use of our resources? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    18 000 pounds of fuel? That's roughly 2250 gallons. At 30 miles per gallon, that's 67 500 miles one could travel. Just how many hybrids does this cancel out?

  • The longest... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by syukton ( 256348 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @11:05PM (#14674658)
    The longest...in length...

    As opposed to what, exactly? Isn't "longest" usually a relative measure of, uhm, length?

    Do you mean longest in terms of distance or duration? I'm fairly certain you ment distance, but you were totally ambiguous in the posting even though you made an attempt to clarify parenthetically.
  • the world's longest (in length) flight

    "Duration" or "distance" might have been more informative IMO.

    Now I've got to read the damn article!

    • I was looking forward to the flight, and I've never made a post on /. I figured it was a race against others who probably knew of this flight. I wanted to make a clear summary, and noticed having to re-read the "longest" part, so I tried to clarify it, but obviously didn't read it over carefully enough to catch how redundantly pointless and repetitive (pun intended) the parenthetical clarification was. I knew I must've done something wrong, as it is my first accepted article. Oh well, only fools make the
  • longest (in length) flight

    Ah! Thanks for the explanation.
    • "Longest" can also very easily mean in time. You always hear people talking about how "long" movies are, that someone's been around a company "longer" than another person, etc.

      The disambiguation was completely necessary.
      • >The disambiguation was completely necessary.

        The point was that the disambiguation wasn't very good. Longest in lenght could refer to length... of time. "Longest (in distance)" would have been much better.

  • snark (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Herr Proktor ( 661586 )
    longest in length, huh? do you mean, as measured in units of length?

  • This is imporant for Aviation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FoxyFox ( 946748 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @11:20PM (#14674721)
    I believe this is important. To learn more about long flights is indeed useful. Also how long you can fly before the fuel weight works against you, how fast you can fly in order to get the longest distance etc. Boeing belives that in the future there will be a better market for direct planes, and less market for big planes between the big metropoles.(Airbus believes that this market is growing, so time will show who is right) Distance, speed and weight are therefore 3 very important variables for aviation, because in the future you can't make money only taking care of the number of passangers you can carry in a big jumbo. You need to fly longer and carry less passanger, that is, if Boeing is right.
    • > I believe this is important. To learn more about long flights is indeed useful.
      > Also how long you can fly before the fuel weight works against you, how fast
      > you can fly in order to get the longest distance etc.

      These were all burning questions - in 1935. Charles Lindberg did exactly this sort of analysis in 1927 and the basic concepts are completely unchanged since then. The only reason this couldn't have been done in the 30's is that the engines weren't reliable enough.
      • >>These were all burning questions - in 1935. Charles Lindberg did exactly this sort of analysis in 1927 and the basic concepts are completely unchanged since then. The only reason this couldn't have been done in the 30's is that the engines weren't reliable enough. In computer science we don't stop developing CPUs because there exists an 386. In medicine we do not stop research on AIDS because there are some medicines out there. The distance, weight and speed variables are indeed useful, I do believ
  • Next country to cross is Libya

    Sounds like a blast to me.

  • his wings are feeling better this time?

    he was planning on setting a new record a couple months ago with global flyer, but the crew scrapped up one of he wings, iirc.

    3530 lbs unloaded. Pretty cool.
  • I'd rather see an ultra light weight air craft make the distance with little or no fuel. 18,000 lb. of fuel is such a waste.

  • Drugged up? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @12:23AM (#14674964) Journal
    Three days with no real sleep, only catnaps, then he has to land an airplane.

    Does he get to take amphetamines during this time? Or are US drug laws too strict to allow this (given that he started in Florida.)
  • If these guys are so advanced, can't they come up with a video stream that works on more than one platform? At least this time their tracking web site seems to be keeping up with the traffic. I found it ironic that for all Branson's money, they couldn't handle all the page views last time.
  • and boy are his arms tired.... sorry. i'll go back to my corner now.
  • the world's longest (in length) flight
    I'm wondering whether there can be other types of length [wordreference.com] where this flight cannot be the longest one.
  • Here [x-plane.org]. It's a little out of date (v7.63), but for those of us who don't slum around with MSFS, it's a nifty little toy. And a real pain to fly, I couldn't manage 80 hours no way.
  • Well, their feedback page doesn't work. "Document contains no data".
    "Video requires a Windows Media compatible player - the free Microsoft Windows Media Player is available for download for your platform."

    That's a little presumptious. Don't think Microsoft do a download for Linux.
    Perhaps next time you might use a fully open video codec?
    I'm hoping I'll get a personal reply/visit from Richard Branson regarding this.
  • I did the math (using rough numbers from memory for weight of fuel), and came up with about 41 gallons (US) per hour fuel consumption. We're supposed to be impressed by this? Granted, it doesn't fly (or carry 18,000 lbs of fuel), but my car could run for 30 hours on 41 gallons of fuel.
    • what a waste of limited resources for someone's ego-stroking.
    • Granted, it doesn't fly (or carry 18,000 lbs of fuel), but my car could run for 30 hours on 41 gallons of fuel.
      Granted, it doesn't drive, but my cat could run for 30 hours on a half cup of cat food.
      • Point taken--comparing apples and oranges here. My original point was that 18,000 lbs of fuel just to stay aloft for 72 hours does not seem efficient at all. Anyone know what the normal fuel consumption for an aircraft is?
  • My company generated the tracking images being posted on the Global Flyer website. Using the individual images we created showing Global Flyer's position, we generated a time-lapse animation of Steve Fossett's latest trip [metaltoad.com]. Kind of fun...!

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close