• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • iPad Survives 100,000 Foot Fall From "Space"


    Don’t see this everyday. An iPad surviving a 100,000 foot fall. From space.

    The iPad might not have been in orbital space, but the video is down right amazing. Taking into account terminal velocity the fact the iPad survived that kind of fall, fully functional and intact, makes me want to purchase a G-Form Extreme Edge case.

    The company used a weather balloon to float the iPad up to the 100,000 foot marker where the balloon promptly popped and sent the iPad free-falling back to earth. The stunt is an apparent marketing tool to create some buzz around the company’s products heading into CES 2012.

    I wonder if they bought a new iPad or just asked an intern if they could borrow his/hers for the afternoon. The full press release is below. I’m going to watch the video again.

    PROVIDENCE, RI (January 6, 2012) – G-Form, a company well known for delivering the most extreme electronics cases and athletic pads, launched an iPad clad solely in the company’s 6oz Extreme Edge case into space and then let it free-fall back to Earth.

    The company released a stunning hi-def video Thursday where the nearly naked iPad is shown hanging above the Earth in the blackness of space. In the video, the iPad is lifted to over 100,000 feet by a weather balloon which bursts at altitude, then releasing the iPad to free-fall to Earth where it crash lands on a rocky hillside in the Nevada countryside. Perhaps even more remarkable than the dramatic hi-def footage itself is the fact that the iPad survives the adventure, remaining fully functional.

    “As far as we know, this is the first iPad ever in space,” said G-Form’s VP innovations, Thom Cafaro, “And definitely it’s the first iPad that’s ever free-fallen from space and survived to play more movies. We are usually known for making the most protective gear on the planet,” he continued,” so we decided why not raise the bar to off the planet too.”

    G-Form will be exhibiting its full line of products, including its rugged cases for electronics, protective gear for athletes, as well as unveiling its new iPhone case at CES 2012, which applies this same impressive technology to your mobile device to offer the utmost in protection. Live demonstrations will be done including dropping bowling balls on iPads, and more. Booth # 35661 South Hall

    For more information on G-Form, its latest stratosphere demonstration video, or its new iPhone case, please contact PR representative Kristen Bean at [email protected] or 305-371-9736 x 123.

    About G-Form

    G-Form is committed to changing the state of the art in athletic and electronics protection. Founded by athletes who use the products and compete, G-Form’s new technology including RPTTM – Reactive Protective Technology is truly Impact Protection, Revolutionized. http://www.g-form.com

    Media Contact:

    Kristen Bean Account Manager Max Borges Agency 305-371-9736 x123
    Would you drop your iDevice from 100,000 feet. Even with a guarantee it wouldn’t break or get sucked into orbit/a jet engine?

    Source: 9to5Mac
    This article was originally published in forum thread: iPad Survives 100,000 Foot Fall From "Space" started by Phillip Swanson View original post
    Comments 28 Comments
    1. steeda763's Avatar
      steeda763 -
      GoPro cameras are pretty bad-*** alright, but I'm pretty impressed with how the electronics of an unmodified iPad would have survived that altitude. I'm not intelligent enough in this field (meteorology?) to really speak on it, but what I do know tells me that there'd be a rapid build-up of moisture inside a warm iPad (heated from the functioning components) falling rapidly from extremely low temperatures and atmospheric pressures. The internals not being conformal-coated, I can only guess that the moisture has a potential to do some damage.

      I'm not calling this fake and I'm not saying that the iPad is zomg pwned!!1, just thinking critically. Guess that's what I do.
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      I don't know about y'all but it didn't look like it hit the ground at terminal velocity to me. Terminal velocity for most objects I think is somewhere in the 120-130 mph range, and it didn't look it hit the ground NEARLY that fast. The ground impact should have been wayyyy more violent than that, methinks.
    1. Destindia's Avatar
      Destindia -
      Quote Originally Posted by tocsoldier View Post
      This was a careless and pointless publicity stunt. No, it would not burn up, but it poses a significant danger to aircraft. Monitoring devices attached to weather balloons are made to be sucked up by a jet engine without damaging the aircraft. An iPad would do some damage. Even if they registered the launch with the FAA, they would not have approved an iPad being attached to it.
      You're wrong, this was not careless. If you watch the video on YouTube, the title clearly states that these people were near Area 51. No aircraft is allowed within 1,000 meters of Area 51, and I'm sure the FAA (or the military) doesn't consider an iPad attached to a weather balloon an aircraft.

      Quote Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94 View Post
      I don't know about y'all but it didn't look like it hit the ground at terminal velocity to me. Terminal velocity for most objects I think is somewhere in the 120-130 mph range, and it didn't look it hit the ground NEARLY that fast. The ground impact should have been wayyyy more violent than that, methinks.
      Actually, I think they just put the video in slow motion at the end so we could see it hit.
    1. poynter32's Avatar
      poynter32 -
      Quote Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94 View Post
      I don't know about y'all but it didn't look like it hit the ground at terminal velocity to me. Terminal velocity for most objects I think is somewhere in the 120-130 mph range, and it didn't look it hit the ground NEARLY that fast. The ground impact should have been wayyyy more violent than that, methinks.
      Everyone keeps talking about terminal velocity which, is far less than 120 because it depends on the weight and the surface area of the object that is falling, 120 would be for about a 200 pound person; and the atmospheric effects on the iPad albeit mostly correct, but overlook a major flaw in the video. The iPAd that was "still playing" seemed to be that the beginning of a Pixar movie because im pretty sure they dont show the Walt Disney or the Pixar logo at the middle or end of the movie.
    1. z3r01's Avatar
      z3r01 -
      damn, and im heading to space sometime next week...i need this just in case i drop my ipad while im orbiting earth

      Quote Originally Posted by epikarus View Post
      im not that impressed, even the camera survived the fall without a case on it.
      the camera looks like a GoPro HD

      Attachment 559952

      those things can take a beating
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      Quote Originally Posted by poynter32 View Post
      Everyone keeps talking about terminal velocity which, is far less than 120 because it depends on the weight and the surface area of the object that is falling, 120 would be for about a 200 pound person; and the atmospheric effects on the iPad albeit mostly correct, but overlook a major flaw in the video. The iPAd that was "still playing" seemed to be that the beginning of a Pixar movie because im pretty sure they dont show the Walt Disney or the Pixar logo at the middle or end of the movie.
      Terminal Velocity

      There you go folks, NASA's terminal velocity calculator. Down at the bottom, I entered 1.33 lbs as the weight and .48 sq ft as the cross sectional area based on the iPad's weight and dimensions from the Apple website. Drag coefficient of 1.28 as determined by Shape Effects on Drag for a flat plate, and finally an altitude of 100,000 feet. That results in terminal velocity 368 feet per second, or 250 miles per hour. Given that there was also a camera and the balloon's remains attached to that, terminal velocity would have been higher, closer to 350 mph if the total weight were around 2.5 lbs.
    1. tylerdurdenvoge's Avatar
      tylerdurdenvoge -
      Quote Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94 View Post
      Terminal Velocity

      There you go folks, NASA's terminal velocity calculator. Down at the bottom, I entered 1.33 lbs as the weight and .48 sq ft as the cross sectional area based on the iPad's weight and dimensions from the Apple website. Drag coefficient of 1.28 as determined by Shape Effects on Drag for a flat plate, and finally an altitude of 100,000 feet. That results in terminal velocity 368 feet per second, or 250 miles per hour. Given that there was also a camera and the balloon's remains attached to that, terminal velocity would have been higher, closer to 350 mph if the total weight were around 2.5 lbs.
      You did not calculate that correctly. Although nice job finding the site.
      The altitude you entered refers to the density of air at that height. Which the NASA calculator assumes as constant.
      Once the iPad hits the atmosphere it would slow down due to the increase in air density.
      So if you recalculate for the density of air at say 1 mile up you get, 46.185 feet per second. Which makes a lot more sense for this thing surviving.
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      Quote Originally Posted by tylerdurdenvoge View Post
      You did not calculate that correctly. Although nice job finding the site.
      The altitude you entered refers to the density of air at that height. Which the NASA calculator assumes as constant.
      Once the iPad hits the atmosphere it would slow down due to the increase in air density.
      So if you recalculate for the density of air at say 1 mile up you get, 46.185 feet per second. Which makes a lot more sense for this thing surviving.
      The explanation portion of the Java applet calculator doesn't display properly in Firefox for some reason. In IE the full paragraph appears, in which it states: "We have included models of the atmospheric density variation with altitude for Earth and Mars in the calculator." So apparently they have taken into account the increase in atmospheric density as the object gets closer to the ground. At least that's how I read it.