Yes, I've been following this guy's progress for a week or so. I can't help but think that this is just some prank that he's pulling on the press and the rest of us.
I read a little bit more about this guy and best I can tell he doesn't actually believe in a "flat earth", he's only using it to drum up financial support from internet idiots. I'd guess he's just an adrenaline junkie.
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
On a (somewhat) practical note, I am wondering how far "up" he would have to go to recognize that "No, I am wrong. The horizon is visibly curved and I am actually seeing it because I am here. Therefore, my theory of a flat earth is wrong."
Now, of course, this is a "religious" matter. A matter of obsession if you will, so he will be very, very unlikely to be "converted" from his obsession. Also, the standard of disproof is much, much higher than the standard of proof. (It takes much more objective evidence to change a convicted person's mind than it takes to reinforce a conviction already present. Hysterical hysteresis if you will.)
Nevertheless, how far would you have to go to actually see a curved horizon?
LittleInch, this is his second try, and his first one got off the ground. Apparently, he needed a walker for a few weeks after the "landing." Looking at the second-hand parachute he uses, I'm not surprised.
Of course, the idea of an amateur playing with that much steam pressure is rather scary.
I think that it's precisely because he eschews science that makes it an engineering disaster, because there is none. Even though he believes in formulas, he's obviously made no calculations on how high he needs to be to confirm the non-flat Earth, so at any height he actually achieves with his underpowered approach, he can declare that he saw no evidence of the curved Earth. Of course, he's at least an order of magnitude too low to see much of anything.
I just think it's fascinating how badly some people's brains are wired, that they believe something, even when confronted with a myriad of evidence that they're not even remotely close to the correct answer. I guess that applies even to presidents...
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
IRstuff: This is just a proof of concept before he makes the attempt at a higher elevation *shrug*
If we want to catalog things as "engineering failures", let's chalk the internet up as a societal engineering failure.
As great of a tool a limitless library with unfettered access to the wealth of information within could be; it is instead being leveraged with great effect to corrupt and misguide people.
You don't have to definitively prove your case to get people to question the validity of a principle (scientific or otherwise). All you have to do is plant a seed of doubt.
I imagine the parachute was in reasonable nick before the launch - the problem is the way it was deployed. Canopy-first deployment with no reefing is usually reserved for fast opening in low airflow. Using it for a high-speed deployment is a recipe for the burst panels you can see in the video. The fact that there's no obvious means of control of the lines as they deploy (and the canopy is allowed to start inflating before line-stretch is achieved) very nearly allowed the canopy to turn inside-out which is why there's severed lines all over the place.
If the rest of the rocket is assembled to the same standards, I'd like to be a long way away from it all.
