iPad Survives 100,000 Foot Fall From "Space"

[cmwade77]

Ok, I'll say it....FAKE!, FAKE!, FAKE!

Honestly, if they were going to do that kind of test, they would have covered the screen as well to protect it.

[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.

[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.

[Destindia]

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.

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.

[poynter32]

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.

[z3r01]

damn, and im heading to space sometime next week...i need this just in case i drop my ipad while im orbiting earth

im not that impressed, even the camera survived the fall without a case on it.

the camera looks like a GoPro HD



those things can take a beating

[PatrickGSR94]

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.

[tylerdurdenvoge]

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.

[PatrickGSR94]

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.