Dude jumps without a parachute...? And lands in a net? [Archive]

Skybird

07-31-16, 05:03 AM

I am surprised, Neal, I would have thought you applaud the man. I do. Just short before his jump, I read about him in a German magazine. During the tests of the net with crash dummies it broke I think twice. Most project workers panicked, he just said something like - "That's fine, thats' what tests are there for - to find out what does not work." And continued. Asked why he does this insane stunt, he answered like this: "I want to show how much farther you can reach with good planning and preparation - and that then you can even do what is considered to be undoable." That's what hooked me.

Cojones! :up:

Did you dislike the jump bei Felix Baumgartner, too? :hmmm:

Betonov

07-31-16, 05:05 AM

What's the point?:doh:

He had fun.

I garden and trek, my friend washes his car 5 times a day, ex eats children and burns villages.

The point is to have fun.

Onkel Neal

07-31-16, 05:27 AM

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 06:10 AM

What's the point?:doh:

It's just stupid. You've heard of the Darwin Awards (http://www.darwinawards.com/), right? :D
My thoughts exactly.
Everyone made a big fuss out of it.
"Oh my God, first time someone did this!!!!"
Uh yeah... so?

It's no achievement. He jumped into a net and put his life at complete risk for nothing of value.
Honestly, I would have smirked if he would have missed.

Natural selection and all that...

Skybird

07-31-16, 06:30 AM

Nope, not buying it. What's next? Drop a case of sharp knives off a ledge above you and see if you can dodge them all? It's just stupid. You've heard of the Darwin Awards (http://www.darwinawards.com/), right? :D
Darwin Awards are for people taking daring risks while being too stupid to realise that they are taking a daring risk; or for doing something stupid that gets them killed while not seeing the chance that it could kill them.

He knew what he was doing. Not my cup of tea, I would never overcome my fear to try such a thing like him, or Baumgartner. But he overcame his fear, and that is the achievement.

Finally, and that is what ultimately decides this action, he did not put anybody at risk, he did not play with the lives of others. His wife supported him, and being such a star in his business that he is, I take it that he has done what was needed to secure his family financially in case he did not survive.

You see, I'm the type of guy who would not at any cost try to prevent somebody committing suicide with a pistol, or pills. I would try my share to make sure that he is not just in a deranged state of mind, suffers some mental disease, or is choosing a method that also would affect others. Jumping before a train is unacceptable, putting a bullet into your head is. In principle I leave everybody the right to decide over his life all by himself, and if somebody decides that it has been enough on this world for him, that is to be accepted, and must not even be morally commented, that would just be presumptuous.

And so, people also are free to take risks - if potential costs are at their costs indeed, not at the costs of anyone else. Your risk taken must be your risk, and yours alone.

You see, by now I have done several hundred laps on the Nordschleife - a laserscanned, highly accurate simulation representation of it. I know it inside out, and I can move a car around it quite fast, in a sim. Without taking any risks. Whether I would be able to do that in a real car, when the pucker factor drives its teeth into my mind and fear sits in my neck and my mind knows that any crash would not be cured by hitting the reset button - that is what differs a jump off a plane with a parachute on and aiming for a small landing zone - or hitting that landing zone while jumping off a plane without a parachute. This little difference - no safety, no second chances, no reset buttons - makes all the difference.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 06:44 AM

Your risk taken must be your risk, and yours alone.
He's married.
His risks automatically affects his family.

Skybird

07-31-16, 06:51 AM

He's married.
His risks automatically affects his family.
And his wife supported him, I read;
and as I wrote, I assume being a star in his business he has money, and has done what was needed to make sure his widow would be able to raise their 4 year old kid in material safety. He had done 18 thousand jumps, he did dangerous stunts for the movies, he had jumped off planes without parachute before and got one handed wile in flight. and they tested the net with three or four dozen dummies.

Did you guys dislike what Baumgartner did, too? All I recall was that everybody was applauding. While Baumgartner later admitted he was almost brought to his knees by his fear. From the video of his fall, how he frantically had to fight for regaining control and would have been cut to pieces while being inflight if he had failed, I think this net jump now was the much safer thing to do.

Fear is the ultimate frontier. We obey it - and will stay belittled by it. And yes, I include myself in that.

That is not what Homer has written about.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 06:52 AM

And his wife supported him.
Nobody said she's smart...

Skybird

07-31-16, 07:01 AM

Nobody said she's smart...
That is your prejudice, based on your moral sentencing of this action. Or did you met her to form an impression based on first hand experience?

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 07:02 AM

That is your prejudice, based on your moral sentencing of this action.
No, that was a joke.

Skybird

07-31-16, 07:07 AM

As a German you should not try jokes. Especially not on another German.

Jimbuna

07-31-16, 08:27 AM

So if his actions had resulted in the serious injury or death of anyone else would those skydivers who assisted him have been charged with 'Aiding and abetting' (or the American legal equivalent)?

Onkel Neal

07-31-16, 08:29 AM

Darwin Awards are for people taking daring risks while being too stupid to realise that they are taking a daring risk; or for doing something stupid that gets them killed while not seeing the chance that it could kill them.

Those people are just ignorant, if they are not aware of the risks. This guy was stupid, the risks were insane--any mistake = instant death; for zero gain.

August

07-31-16, 08:34 AM

Those people are just ignorant, if they are not aware of the risks. This guy was stupid, the risks were insane--any mistake = instant death; for zero gain.

Not zero gain. He got himself in the history books.

Onkel Neal

07-31-16, 08:35 AM

True, for what that's worth. So did the Elephant man.

Skybird

07-31-16, 08:49 AM

Those people are just ignorant, if they are not aware of the risks. Yes. The ignorance is what the Darwin really is awarded for, in the end.

This guy was stupid, the risks were insane--any mistake = instant death; for zero gain.You mean like the Red Devils, or the Navy's Blue Angles doing formation fly-overs at low altitude over crowds of people and everybody applauding, and doing insane manouvers at high speed at closest proximitiy to each other, and to crowds of audience? Or a mountain climber, maybe even a free climber doing the El Capitano in Yosemite without ropes, just with his toes and fingertips? Or Felix Baumgartner doing his stratosphere jump? All these things are insane risks - any mistake = instant death, for zero gain.

Maybe no gain for you. But those doing it, obviously see a gain, else they would not do it. And the often applauded military jet shows over crowds of people - I recall that many years ago you and me even banged heads over that, at least I think it was you. I attacked these shows, you said they are spectacular. Ramstein, anyone? Such shows are what I would call insane risks and no gains, since they put others at risk. But all and everybody is applauding.

The free climber in the mountain wall, Baumgartner in the Stratosphere, or now this jumper at least do not ramstein anyone else than themselves, if things go wrong.

I could even say that sending a man on Mars also is insane. One mistake, one broken chip worth ten cents - and mission over.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 08:51 AM

Not zero gain. He got himself in the history books.
Anders Breivik achieved that as well.

Betonov

07-31-16, 09:04 AM

He did a controlled stunt with private funds with full knowledge of risks.
The only one in danger was himself.

My god, so much opposition to people doing what they love.
But if I said something about how people are weird because they watch the computer screen for hours looking for a few dark pixels in a bright blue background and theny yelling in German, I'd get verbally murdered.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 09:08 AM

My god, so much opposition to people doing what they love.
Zero opposition, he can jump every day if he wants, I just agreed with Neal that, in my opinion, this is completely retarded for many reasons and that I personally do not acknowledge his "historical achievement."

Betonov

07-31-16, 09:17 AM

Zero opposition, he can jump every day if he wants, I just agreed with Neal that, in my opinion, this is completely retarded for many reasons and that I personally do not acknowledge his "historical achievement."

Calling something retarded is opposition.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 09:18 AM

Calling something retarded is opposition.
No, it's called having an opinion.
If I'd make any attempts of stopping him, or anyone, from this nonsense, then yes.

Aktungbby

07-31-16, 09:24 AM

:k_confused:WHO Can forget the original:http://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1104/evel.knievel.classic.photos/images/snake-river-jump.jpgThe thought in everyone's mind was ..."he really pushed the button" and innately anyone who can 'fly the envelope' has cajones! We've admired 'cajones' since...forever:up:http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/files/2010/08/pollice_verso.jpgand do so to this day. http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ayne.gif (http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ayne.gif) This one got my attention Too:http://share.gifyoutube.com/vOQZrW.gif:k_confused:

Betonov

07-31-16, 09:25 AM

No, it's called having an opinion.
If I'd make any attempts of stopping him, or anyone, from this nonsense, then yes.

And my opinion is that I think it's retarded to outrage about things that are harmless (except for the one that willingfully chose the risk), not tay payed and not influencing one's life sipmply becasue it doesn't fall into the ''things I like category''.
Or as I call it the grumpy old man syndrome when one has to constantly cry about things other people like just becasue one cannot do that anymore or neve rhad the chance.
Like having a cell phone, listening to rock and roll and spending vacation abroad. I have to deal with people like you every day and the only crime I commited is being further away from the grave.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 09:47 AM

And my opinion is that I think it's retarded to outrage about things that are harmless (except for the one that willingfully chose the risk), not tay payed and not influencing one's life sipmply becasue it doesn't fall into the ''things I like category''.
That's... good for you, I guess? :yep:

Or as I call it the grumpy old man syndrome when one has to constantly cry about things other people like just becasue one cannot do that anymore or neve rhad the chance.
So, everyone who opposes this stunt is automatically some grumpy dick?
How ironic...

Oh btw: I go Skydiving every once in a while - with a parachute.

I have to deal with people like you every day and the only crime I commited is being further away from the grave.
People like me? Oh, OK.
And further from the grave?
Even if I'd be 60 or so... that's not how it works, you know?

Platapus

07-31-16, 10:02 AM

Not zero gain. He got himself in the history books.

I guess. I just read the story and I have already forgot his name.

As long as he used private funds and did not hurt destroy anything, I don't have a problem with this, but at the same time, don't really have any interest either.

There are so many other ways to "make history" by helping people and trying to make the world a little bit better. What could he have accomplished if he had taken this money and effort and put it to something else?

Betonov

07-31-16, 10:03 AM

So, everyone who opposes this stunt is automatically some grumpy dick?
How ironic...

When one opposes it with such a passion that would go argue with Sky about it, yes.

There's a difference between an opinion and a tirade.

And about skydiving, good for you. Your money, your risk.
Skydiving without a parachute, his money, his risk.
And you have a lot bigger probability of killing someone than this guy since they likely closed off the area he might hit if he missed while they won't close off the highway you might hit if there's a parachute malfunction. Or playground, or public square.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 10:14 AM

When one opposes it with such a passion that would go argue with Sky about it, yes.

There's a difference between an opinion and a tirade.
Must be true if you say so.
After all, you seem to know a lot about tirades and opposing people's opinions passionately. :salute:

To remind you. All I said is: I think this is retarded/not worth the fuss.
Wow, take cover everybody! :har:

And about skydiving, good for you. Your money, your risk.
Skydiving without a parachute, his money, his risk.
And you have a lot bigger probability of killing someone than this guy since they likely closed off the area he might hit if he missed while they won't close off the highway you might hit if there's a parachute malfunction. Or playground, or public square.
Yeah, something something whatever.
Do you wish to continue with your prejudicial crusade in the name of "TOLERATE OTHER PEOPLES HOBBIES OR I WILL TELL YOU HOW MUCH I DON'T LIKE YOU NOT LIKING SOMETHING!" and assume even more things about me (old, not able to skydive, ...) or are we done here calling others grumpy and 'passionate' while a close look in the mirror wouldn't hurt?

Personally, I really don't really need this.

Buddahaid

07-31-16, 10:25 AM

Is it stupid to argue about stupidity? :hmmm:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zQAE9gslbgc/UXfqevb2vAI/AAAAAAAAC6U/4pW4epFTM-g/s1600/stupid-is-as-stupid-does.jpg

August

07-31-16, 10:33 AM

I guess. I just read the story and I have already forgot his name.

As long as he used private funds and did not hurt destroy anything, I don't have a problem with this, but at the same time, don't really have any interest either.

There are so many other ways to "make history" by helping people and trying to make the world a little bit better. What could he have accomplished if he had taken this money and effort and put it to something else?

Assuming that it was his money to give but either way that's a question we can all ask ourselves. Is playing subsims and doing all the other recreational activities we love to spend money on really necessary compared to making the world a little bit better? How can we criticize him without criticizing ourselves?

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 10:35 AM

How can we criticize him without criticizing ourselves?
Who says we aren't?

Betonov

07-31-16, 10:46 AM

Assuming that it was his money to give but either way that's a question we can all ask ourselves. Is playing subsims and doing all the other recreational activities we love to spend money on really necessary compared to making the world a little bit better? How can we criticize him without criticizing ourselves?

I spent €400 on my garden this year. Another €250 on hiking gear.

€650 is more than some fammilies have as their monthly budget.
Do I feel bad for spending my money on my hobbies ?? No, I don't.
I helped people on many occasions and will continue to do so and one can have himself as a priority without being selfish.

Plus, what's better, give money away or put that money into circulation ??

August

07-31-16, 11:11 AM

Who says we aren't?

Who says we are?

August

07-31-16, 11:13 AM

I spent €400 on my garden this year. Another €250 on hiking gear.

€650 is more than some fammilies have as their monthly budget.
Do I feel bad for spending my money on my hobbies ?? No, I don't.
I helped people on many occasions and will continue to do so and one can have himself as a priority without being selfish.

Plus, what's better, give money away or put that money into circulation ??

Exactly my point. :salute:

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 11:19 AM

Who says we are?
Right... :doh:

Sailor Steve

07-31-16, 11:29 AM

Zero opposition

So, everyone who opposes this stunt is automatically some grumpy dick?
Which one is it? :O:

My own opinion is that he did something no one has ever done before, and likely will never top. He did something amazing, and he deserves his accolades.

Betonov

07-31-16, 11:32 AM

My own opinion is that he did something no one has ever done before, and likely will never top. He did something amazing, and he deserves his accolades.

There was one that did it without a net
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

Onkel Neal

07-31-16, 11:49 AM

Maybe next time it will be a bucket of water. I can't wait!:rotfl2:

Sailor Steve

07-31-16, 12:00 PM

There was one that did it without a net
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

He's the highest, but not the only one. None of them did it on purpose, though.

August

07-31-16, 01:05 PM

Schroeder

07-31-16, 01:48 PM

Think of the military applications.

Free falling paratroops would be a lot more difficult to spot and engage than ones under canopy and aircraft could release their jumpers from much higher altitudes, out of range of ground fire. Maybe even from 50-75 miles away if glide suits are used.
I don't think that would be useful as it requires troops on the ground installing these nets which would be easily spotted and they can only catch one person at a time. That somewhat defeats the point of paratroops, doesn't it?:hmm2:

Betonov

07-31-16, 01:53 PM

I don't think that would be useful as it requires troops on the ground installing these nets which would be easily spotted and they can only catch one person at a time. That somewhat defeats the point of paratroops, doesn't it?:hmm2:

Enemy tent ??

If one can slow down enough to survive landing in a net, paratroopers can deploy parachutes at extremly low altitudes.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 02:16 PM

I don't think that would be useful as it requires troops on the ground installing these nets which would be easily spotted and they can only catch one person at a time. That somewhat defeats the point of paratroops, doesn't it?:hmm2:
I agree, it is nonsensical.
There are, for SOF at least, HALO and HAHO (night) jumps who suffice in irregular warfare scenarios (no enemy air superiority/AA threats etc.)

Throwing soldiers into a net...uhm...yeah, no. :rotfl2:

Onkel Neal

07-31-16, 02:25 PM

Throwing soldiers into a net...uhm...yeah, no. :rotfl2:

Haha, I almost spit my coffee :yep:

Buddahaid

07-31-16, 02:29 PM

Didn't I read the Russians dropped some troops into the snow during WW2? I can't remember the story now.

Onkel Neal

07-31-16, 02:31 PM

That's called a plane crash.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 02:41 PM

That's called a plane crash.
Now there goes my coffee! :har:

Oberon

07-31-16, 02:49 PM

Judging by how the Russkies used to drop their paras...well...

https://giant.gfycat.com/PowerlessPleasingButterfly.gif

Dowly

07-31-16, 03:30 PM

Didn't I read the Russians dropped some troops into the snow during WW2? I can't remember the story now.

Unfulfilled Promise: The Soviet Airborne Forces, 1928-1945 by Leroy Thompson, page 46-47
Later in 1939 on 30 November, Soviet paratroopers had the distinction of making the first combat jump in history when they dropped at Petsamo and other points behind the Finnish lines during the Soviet invasion of Finland. Due to poor navigation on the part of pilots and quick action on the part of Finnish snipers who picked off many as they landed, few of these paratroopers actually made it into combat. Those who did fought with courage, and many had even jumped without parachutes into deep snow drifts.
At least two Soviet airborne brigades fought in the Winter War although not all of them made combat jumps. Another batallion-sized jump was made later against the Mannerheim Line, also with little success, the poor navigation competency of the transport pilots combined with the weather causing the parachutists to be scattered over a large area.

Liberal use of salt recommended.

Buddahaid

07-31-16, 03:32 PM

That's it. Thank you Dowly.

August

07-31-16, 03:40 PM

I don't think that would be useful as it requires troops on the ground installing these nets which would be easily spotted and they can only catch one person at a time. That somewhat defeats the point of paratroops, doesn't it?:hmm2:

Mere technical details that can and will all be solved now that it's been proved possible. With any new idea there are always a bunch of negative nancy's ready to proclaim it impossible or once someone actually does happen and proves them wrong they then claim that it's useless.

After all the Wright Brothers invention was considered a dangerous and unreliable contraption that killed it's first passenger, the telephone was a useless curiosity that would never become popular let along replace the telegraph, any train reaching more than 30 mph would kill everyone aboard by sucking the air out of their lungs, submarines are expensive boondoggles that tend to kill their crews far more often than they kill the enemy and so forth.

A man has proven a new way to get to the ground safely besides using a parachute. I am confident that somebody will build upon this.

August

07-31-16, 03:44 PM

Haha, I almost spit my coffee :yep:

What do you Legs know about it?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiYapjgIQAAYSvr.jpg

Onkel Neal

07-31-16, 04:18 PM

I know that guy has a parachute.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 04:26 PM

Mere technical details that can and will all be solved now that it's been proved possible. With any new idea there are always a bunch of negative nancy's ready to proclaim it impossible or once someone actually does happen and proves them wrong they then claim that it's useless.

After all the Wright Brothers invention was considered a dangerous and unreliable contraption that killed it's first passenger, the telephone was a useless curiosity that would never become popular let along replace the telegraph, any train reaching more than 30 mph would kill everyone aboard by sucking the air out of their lungs, submarines are expensive boondoggles that tend to kill their crews far more often than they kill the enemy and so forth.

A man has proven a new way to get to the ground safely besides using a parachute. I am confident that somebody will build upon this.
The Wright brothers discovered a new era, the very idea of lift and drag and how to use/overcome it.
In 2016, we have a broad knowledge about aviation, gravity and other forces in question. It doesn't make any sense, there is no "maybe we just don't know" magic pony around the next corner that would make this a good idea, in any scenario.

Besides that, let's look at it from a military and logistical perspective.
So you want to drop paratroopers, regulars, by throwing them out of a plane so they can 'safely' land in a net on the ground. (The guy who did this stunt nearly missed, by the way...)

I mean...
Who will build the nets, the enemy?
And how many per soldier?
Does every soldier need his own net?
Will one net suffice for a chalk or two?
Will they jump all at once or with delays so they won't pile up in the net(s)?
Have you thought about this for more than 2 seconds?
What about the heavy equipment a soldier carries?
What about support equipment for hundreds of soldiers?
Throw them into the net too, or make them glide in from 75km out?
Have you thought about this at all?
I don't even!?

How intensive and expensive must the training be for these soldiers?
Military equipment and procedures are meant to be "idiot safe" whenever possible - for obvious reasons. You can drop any imbecile with a gun out of a plane by use of static line, not much he can screw up and still enough injuries happen.
Now yeah, let's train everyone to become some super military free fall expert who's gonna free fall into nets that... someone hopefully will build up(wat!?) because...uhm...it's totally useful and so much better than any other method in use? On top of all that, since when does the military (besides SOF operations) still perform *real* combat jumps, especially on a regimental level or something?
Meaning, your "ground fire" example is pretty much irrelevant anyways, since you can simply bring in paratroopers the actually safe and efficient way, by landing them, or dropping them via static line.

Anyways:
http://i.imgur.com/5HcQ0Eh.png

Frankly, this is crazy on every level.

Oberon

07-31-16, 04:43 PM

Out of idle curiosity, what's the RCS of the average parachute? :hmmm:

Sailor Steve

07-31-16, 04:52 PM

Out of idle curiosity, what's the RCS of the average parachute? :hmmm:
Out of general ignorance, what's an RCS? :88)

Oberon

07-31-16, 04:58 PM

Out of general ignorance, what's an RCS? :88)

Out of an effort to explain myself, in the context I meant it, RCS means Radar Cross Section. :yep:

Sailor Steve

07-31-16, 05:02 PM

Thank you, and I don't know (the answer to your original question).

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 05:04 PM

Me neither, but I know military as well as civilian radars can indeed pick parachutes up.

August

07-31-16, 05:20 PM

It doesn't make any sense, there is no "maybe we just don't know" magic pony around the next corner that would make this a good idea, in any scenario.
Says you. What qualifications do you have in this field?

Who will build the nets, the enemy?No, they're called Pathfinders, look them up. Preparing Drop Zones is what they do.
And how many per soldier?Which generation of net are you talking about? How many years after the Wright brothers did it take to make a reliable aircraft like the one in that picture? Ask me again in 50 years when people far smarter than you have had a chance to improve on what exists today.
Does every soldier need his own net?
Will one net suffice for a chalk or two?
Will they jump all at once or with delays so they won't pile up in the net(s)?Again that depends on technology that is still in the developmental stage.
Have you thought about this for more than 2 seconds?I don't claim to be an expert but for two years I was paid by the US Army to jump out of airplanes and I have kept an interest over the past 30 years. I'll bet I've thought about Airborne Operations and it's potential future capabilities more than you have.
What about the heavy equipment a soldier carries?
What about support equipment for hundreds of soldiers?
Throw them into the net too, or make them glide in from 75km out?Details. You think the systems they have now are no better than what they had when parachuting was in it's infancy? No it improved nearly constantly and continues to improve.Imagine that. Technology constantly improved upon for over 100 years and there is still room for more improvement but according to you that's impossible because all the questions weren't answered at the start.
Have you thought about this at all?Look, don't be a jerk. That's twice in one post you're resorted to a personal insult. Stop it now.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 05:33 PM

Look, don't be a jerk. That's twice in one post you're resorted to a personal insult. Stop it now.
Then don't insult anyone's intelligence by making up magic pony stories that don't make the slightest sense.
You jumping out of a plane 30 years ago doesn't qualify you for anything except jumping out of a plane 30 years ago - big deal!
I'm an ex-soldier and trained paramedic, won't help me on the subject of open-heart surgery, nor will it prevent me from studying the field for myself, meaning: Save yourself the "I jumped out of a plane, so you have no clue!" nonsense just because you have no actual argument, like so often.

I also never claimed technology didn't advance, otherwise I probably wouldn't have mentioned MFF operations, but of course you gotta make something up when there's literally nothing else.
So 30 years of thinking about airborne operations led to this?
Then I wouldn't exactly try to use it as an argument, to be honest.

And I do chose to be persistent about this, yes.
I can't stand it when people throw in complete nonsense and when challenged all they do is "muh they'll make it happen somehow, I jumped out of a plane, your argument is irrelevant!"

Stop the nonsense, I'll stop calling you out for it.

Edit: Also, nice try to claim I insulted you so a mod saves you. I did not.
I asked you if you actually thought about this, which - considering how silly the whole idea is - is surely justified since it appears you have not for reasons stated earlier (those you weren't able to answer).
If your pride took a beating because someone calls you out for what you spill out, go offline and create your personal safe space where no one questions your texts.

August

07-31-16, 06:05 PM

Insulting your intelligence? Nobody is forcing you to read it. Besides there is the ignore button pal, use it if my posts offend you.

I claim that this is possible and potentially useful, you claim that it is not. I don't claim to be an expert but you're going to have to deal with the fact that your opinion is no more valuable than mine. Time will prove who is right.

Alex

07-31-16, 07:10 PM

This is dumb at a whole new level. What's the point?:doh:
Fair question, I think. I agree with your point on that strange, very unexpected progress (?) from the USA - usually praised to the skies for everything they do first in a lot of areas. Yet that one is pretty weird still... Maybe no more than an attempt to distract attention of citizen of the USA from everyday problems (http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/51111244b.jpg) ?

Can't see another reason for the hype around that weird event myself.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 07:49 PM

August

07-31-16, 08:02 PM

The one who makes the initial claim has to provide the proof, not the other way around. Just saying.

So if I say I believe man will land on Mars some day i'm expected to prove it, to the likes of you? Please. I just said think of the military applications, you're the one who took offense so own it.

And ignoring you wouldn't be fun.

Like I care either way.

Nippelspanner

07-31-16, 08:21 PM

So if I say I believe man will land on Mars some day i'm expected to prove it, to the likes of you? Please. I just said think of the military applications, you're the one who took offense so own it.
As if this is even remotely the same...
It isn't a question of "is it possible". Of course it would be 'possible' to throw soldiers out of a plane and let them jump into friggin nets if you turn them into super free-fallers and suicidal maniacs while also providing the ridiculous logistics behind it, the point is how incredible nonsensical it is.
Going to Mars on the other hand...

Apples.
Oranges.

Good night.

August

07-31-16, 10:57 PM

..the point is how incredible nonsensical it is

Like I said you have no idea what is possible or not.

Dowly

08-01-16, 01:19 AM

Just because someone now actually did it, doesn't mean the method has not been thought about before for military.

Oberon

08-01-16, 05:52 AM

Me neither, but I know military as well as civilian radars can indeed pick parachutes up.

Then there would be some advantage to using the net approach rather than a HALO jump since it would reduce the risk of radar detection of the parachutes.
That being said, there is still the problem of getting the nets there, particularly since the nets need to be at a set height above the ground in order to arrest the fall of the paratrooper quickly enough before he becomes 'Blood upon the risers'. Drones might help, a series of them might be able to take a net to the correct height, although whether they'd have the power to be able to keep the net taut enough as the trooper hits it in order to arrest the fall, alternatively they could catch the trooper at a higher altitude and then slow the rate of descent before impact. Of course, the problem with all that is radar and whether it'll pick up the drones and the net and thus negate the whole point of not using a chute.

Ultimately the better option would be some form of shock absorbing material that the trooper could deploy themselves, or a form of momentum reduction via miniature engines or something similar. :hmmm:

August

08-01-16, 06:57 AM

There are plenty of technical problems to work out but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be rejected out of hand like Nipplespanner is doing.

Catfish

08-01-16, 07:40 AM

Maybe there could even be a *gasp* civilian application like for dropping goods.
But that would sure be boring compared with blowing something up :O:

Dowly

08-01-16, 07:43 AM

Maybe there could even be a *gasp* civilian application like for dropping goods.
Easier to just use parachutes. :hmmm:

August

08-01-16, 07:50 AM

Easier to just use parachutes. :hmmm:

When they work.

http://images.military.com/media/news/equipment/humvee-plummet-600.jpg

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/22/humvees-plummet-to-the-ground-in-parachute-drop-fiasco.html

Oberon

08-01-16, 08:01 AM

Couldn't hurt for it to be a back up system in case of chute failure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmpL2XJ6qM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKTVY57oXe0

Skybird

08-01-16, 08:46 AM

I assume that jumping chute-less into a net was just the first step, and the new trend will go from jumping down and onto a trampolin and then gaining altitude and re-board a hovering helicopter.

Okay, maybe better not a helicopter, just in case the upmove overshoots. Needs to be a plane, too, apparently.

Maybe SAM warning devices on military jets can be tuned to warn against upcoming parachuters, too.

August

08-01-16, 09:08 AM

Couldn't hurt for it to be a back up system in case of chute failure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmpL2XJ6qM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKTVY57oXe0

Now you know why they clear the DZ of all personnel before making heavy equipment drops.

HunterICX

08-01-16, 09:58 AM

When they work.

http://images.military.com/media/news/equipment/humvee-plummet-600.jpg

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/22/humvees-plummet-to-the-ground-in-parachute-drop-fiasco.html

Those Army humvees cost a pretty penny, what do they go for these days? $220,000?

Nippelspanner

08-01-16, 12:24 PM

Dowly

08-01-16, 12:38 PM

^ Yup, that's the problem. If you can get all the needed equipment in there in preparation for the paras, then you could just as well drive the paras there in the first place. :O:

Nippelspanner

08-01-16, 12:44 PM

^ Yup, that's the problem. If you can get all the needed equipment in there in preparation for the paras, then you could just as well drive the paras there in the first place. :O:
Can you please refrain from bringing your venomous common sense and logic into this beautiful land of wonders, yes?
You are disturbing the infantile fantasies and feelings of some people, that is not allowed, you don't know what is possible or not!
Thank you!

:rotfl2:

August

08-01-16, 12:50 PM

I don't know what is possible or not -> only August does! :har:

Funny up to now you've been claiming that it is NOT possible. How did you put it? Fantasy, nonsensical?, and now you "don't know what is possible or not". :roll:

Nippelspanner

08-01-16, 12:57 PM

Funny up to now you've been claiming that it is NOT possible. How did you put it? Fantasy, nonsensical?, and now you "don't know what is possible or not". :roll:
*facepalm*
Oh August...

Betonov

08-01-16, 01:00 PM

They wont drop troops in nets. Thats stupid.
But they will use the technology the guy used to slow his descent so he survived the sudden deceleration in hitting the net, to enable paratroopers to deploy chutes a lot later making them clay pigeons for a lot shorter time.
Not to mention the tech and know how of hitting that net from that altitude will enable more accurate drops.

God, you're all fixated on that net like me on redheads.

August

08-01-16, 01:25 PM

*facepalm*

Do it again but harder this time.

August

08-01-16, 01:32 PM

God, you're all fixated on that net like me on redheads.

Of course they did, just like those who took a look at the Wright Brothers plane and declared that it would never be suitable for trans-atlantic travel, or Bells telephone declaring it would never replace the telegraph.

And yes getting to the ground without a parachute does have potential military applications.

Betonov

08-01-16, 01:53 PM

And yes getting to the ground without a parachute does have potential military applications.

The final stop method could use work. Nets are unpractical.
Unless you already have a beachead established and you're landing reinforcements.

Nippelspanner

08-01-16, 02:05 PM

Do it again but harder this time.
To end up like you?
No, thanks. :har:

@Betonov
Nothing the guy did helped in any way or made anything clearer.
Of course one can jump into a net from whatever height - just no one did it before for rather obvious reasons.
Explain to me what we know now that we didn't know before, please? :hmmm:

And again, combat jumps aren't conducted anymore.
No air superiority -> no airborne operations.

The final stop method could use work. Nets are unpractical.
Unless you already have a beachead established and you're landing reinforcements.
Well then why not just land or drop them via plane/parachute?!

Betonov

08-01-16, 02:12 PM

@Betonov
Nothing the guy did helped in any way or made anything clearer.
.

Maybe not for you.
Maybe not for me.
But maybe smart people are going trough any data he might have produced.

Well then why not just land or drop them via plane/parachute?!

Because a paratrooper is a large clay pigeon under an even bigger piece of cloth that has a tendency to fail if perfurated by bullets.
The longer the soldier manages not to open the chute, the longer he is a veeeeeeeery hard target to hit and track.

Dowly

08-01-16, 02:17 PM

But maybe smart people are going trough any data he might have produced.
I would imagine a lot of calculations were done to make the jump as safe as possible. Calculations based on data we already know. :hmmm:

August

08-01-16, 02:20 PM

And again, combat jumps aren't conducted anymore.

Wrong Mr. Expert. The 173rd Airborne Brigade jumped into Northern Iraq on 26 march 2003 - 969 Jumpers. Every single one of them got a combat star for their jump wings, but of course you know better...

No air superiority -> no airborne operations.

That has always been the case, even during WW2.

August

08-01-16, 02:22 PM

I would imagine a lot of calculations were done to make the jump as safe as possible. Calculations based on data we already know. :hmmm:

Very true but so are the calculations for putting a man on Mars. Still have to prove it by actually doing it.

Betonov

08-01-16, 02:27 PM

I would imagine a lot of calculations were done to make the jump as safe as possible. Calculations based on data we already know. :hmmm:

Since Newton.
But practical data is always good to compare.

Oberon

08-01-16, 02:39 PM

Because a paratrooper is a large clay pigeon under an even bigger piece of cloth that has a tendency to fail if perfurated by bullets.
The longer the soldier manages not to open the chute, the longer he is a veeeeeeeery hard target to hit and track.

:yep:

Even with HALO jumps, the trooper still has to open the chute at a high enough altitude to arrest his fall before he hits the dirt, and that means that radar will detect it. Which means there are two (at least) potential solutions, find some method to make the parachute RCS as small or non-existent as possible, or create a different way to arrest the fall of the trooper before he hits the deck.

August

08-01-16, 02:41 PM

Interesting graphic related to the discussion:

http://www.combatreform.org/parachutealtitudetables.jpg

http://www.combatreform.org/llparachute.htm

Nippelspanner

08-01-16, 02:45 PM

Wrong Mr. Expert. The 173rd Airborne Brigade jumped into Northern Iraq on 26 march 2003 - 969 Jumpers. Every single one of them got a combat star for their jump wings, but of course you know better...

That has always been the case, even during WW2.
That jump was LATER classified as a "combat jump" although(!) it was conducted onto an airfield that was HELD BY COALITION FORCES!

Classic August! :har:

Oberon

08-01-16, 02:50 PM

It doesn't mean that combat jumps are never going to be conducted though, just because their rate has reduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_forces#Recent_history

Dowly

08-01-16, 02:54 PM

Very true but so are the calculations for putting a man on Mars. Still have to prove it by actually doing it.
Going to Mars is a very different thing because much of it relies on calculations without past experience.

Past experience from both sky diving and safety nets (+other experiments like G-forces) have provided us with a lot of data.

I really am a bit confused as to what new data this jump was supposed to bring us? :doh:

Nippelspanner

08-01-16, 03:07 PM

It doesn't mean that combat jumps are never going to be conducted though, just because their rate has reduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_forces#Recent_history
I think the problem here is the definition.
A combat jump is basically just a jump into a real combat operation - but it doesn't mean you jump into ground fire, which is my point.
You don't drop paras into fire, it just doesn't happen (anymore).

So the whole point of being under fire while under a canopy is moot.

Platapus

08-01-16, 03:59 PM

I have fond memories of the T-10B. Very fond memories since it saved my sorry butt despite my doing practically everything wrong on my first jump. :yep:

I think this skydiver, should start with a full sized parachute. Every subsequent jump, he should use a parachute slightly smaller. Each jump smaller and smaller parachute to get his body used to the impact. Soon he will be able to land completely without a parachute or net.

Skybird

08-01-16, 05:23 PM

By the way, this is the net used. Look at the size. The dimensions.
Man, I can't wait until the military will use this to drop airborne brigades - but after all, I don't know what is possible or not -> only August does! :har:

http://i.imgur.com/p7hlotL.png
A second net...! Cheater...!!!

Serious, point landings are nothign too special for trained jumpers. Huge formation forming in shows is an old hat and shows that you can influence your direction and course and speed within certain parameters even wiothout an open parachute. Grabbing another jumper in free fall with your legs and maybe then even sharing one parachute with him, also is nothing new, has been done for movies many times. Seen that way, that stunt with the net now maybe was far less an "incalculatable risk" than at first hear one might think. I could even imagine now that the greatest challenge maybe was not the jump and its aiming, but the construction and material of the net.

But consider the grim irony if luck would have not been with himand he would have landed right on the tip0 of one of those cranes, getting punctuated like an olive by a toothpick. A whole lot of emtpy land - and then that... :D

AndyJWest

08-01-16, 05:35 PM

Personally, I can't imagine any circumstances where the military would find it useful to be able to drop no-parachutists into a net. Maybe that's a problem with my imagination though. I doubt I would have given much credence to the 'skyhook' (the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system) if I'd not seen the evidence. Which makes me wonder - has anyone considered the military potential of going over Niagara Falls in a barrel?

August

08-01-16, 05:59 PM

That jump was LATER classified as a "combat jump" although(!) it was conducted onto an airfield that was HELD BY COALITION FORCES!

Classic August! :har:

Go ahead keep showing your ignorance.

Only a Leg like you would not understand that drop zones are supposed to be in friendly hands! One only has to ask the Poles at Arnhem what happens when the enemy holds the DZ. Really read up on Airborne Pathfinders before you start ridiculing others because you're not the expert you think you are.

And BTW here is a complete list of US Combat Jumps.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/airborne-jumps.htm