h a l f b a k e r yIf you can read this you are not following too closely.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As a sort of automatic and compact parachute using one of those old World's Fair flying belts mated to a ground-proximity computer. The gizmo aligns for landing and boosts as the skydiver noses in toward the ground.
Would make for a very exciting last few seconds of free fall as well as offer the
opportunity to switch to directed flight and hover to locate an appropriate landing site.
Chief disadvantage: These are Mighty Noisy machines, so far as I recall.
Secondary disadvantage: OK, it's not safer.
Chief advantage: Slap it on and let the computer do the work--no ripcord, no worries. And a very simple thing. The pressure valve squirts the juice onto the catalyst, and there you are. Or it doesn't and there you are and there and a bit over there and...
[link]
|
| |
What would you use as a 'backup chute' if the jet pack malfunctions or doesn't start? |
|
| |
Umbrella Man can do this in stealth mode without computers. |
|
| |
Safer for DuPont and Degussa I suppose. |
|
| |
Have you ever *been* skydiving?? |
|
| |
How yours would be safer eludes me as well. |
|
| |
As for exciting - it's exciting enough as it is.
If you're falling from the sky and then wondering where to land... tsk tsk tsk. Deserve to be stuck in a tree or some such. |
|
| |
What would make it more exciting is if you used the jetpack to *accellerate* yourself towards earth even more. |
|
| |
Ditto all of the above (-) |
|
| |
When done carefully and attentively, skydiving is reasonably safe. Most of the injuries and fatalities are caused by pilot error, trying to turn sharply when close to the ground. Very few incidents occur where the equipment is at fault, and even then it's usually a result of poor packing technique. I have absolutely no idea how your system would be safer. (-) |
|
| |