1

I asked the same question about the SR-71 Blackbird, and I'm also curious about the Perlan II sailplane which travelled above 70,000 ft, and is planned to be flown to 90,000 ft, if it could be used for nearspace tourism and what some issues might be with that. Its starting location would have to be near a high enough mountain range where it can use enough lift to climb that high, and this is best at certain times of the year I guess. A major advantage would be that this form of nearspace tourism would be 100% environmentally friendly (for those who bother).

Giovanni
  • 617
  • 6
  • 10
  • 4
    Well, environmentally friendly not counting the carbon footprint of launching, and of airline flights and ground transport to get the tourist to the launch site, and then back home again. – Zeiss Ikon Mar 23 '21 at 12:45
  • 3
    Considering that space is at 330,000ft I'm not sure if I'd call 90,000ft near-space. – GdD Mar 23 '21 at 12:53
  • 2
    Updrafts which would carry a glider to 70,000 ft are extremely rare. How long had the Perlan II crew to wait for the right conditions? This would make the experience extremely boring for tourists and impossible to plan ahead. – Peter Kämpf Mar 23 '21 at 12:57
  • @GdD I wrote nearspace without dash, one might call the area between 60,000 ft (Armstrong limit) and 282,000 ft (Mesopause) nearspace or mesospace. Space begins at the mesopause where there are also Kármán stall speeds depending on aircraft. – Giovanni Mar 23 '21 at 13:03
  • @ZeissIkon Maybe tourists came by sailship and e-mobile, and the glider is being launched on a winch or from an electrically-powered carrier plane. – Giovanni Mar 23 '21 at 13:04
  • @PeterKämpf The Andean Wave (which the Perlan gliders have used) is a pretty dependable phenomenon. – Zeiss Ikon Mar 23 '21 at 13:27
  • 1
    @Giovanni And maybe I'll win $200 million in the lottery... – Zeiss Ikon Mar 23 '21 at 13:27
  • @ZeissIkon So you oppose (near)space tourism per se? – Giovanni Mar 23 '21 at 14:07
  • What exactly are you defining as "nearspace tourism"? It's a very different question if you define it as >60k feet vs. something higher than the Perlan II has achieved. If it's the first, then we know the Perlan II can achieve it, and the question is asking about challenges with using this for tourism, but if its a higher threshold, then we get into technical questions about how high a similar glider can go. Which one is it? – divibisan Mar 23 '21 at 14:32
  • 2
    No, I oppose unfounded optimism, here seen in the form of claiming nearspace tourism can be eco-friendly. – Zeiss Ikon Mar 23 '21 at 14:32
  • 1
    Also, unrelated, but this question and your SR-71 question are from separate accounts with the same name. You should talk to the mods about getting them merged – divibisan Mar 23 '21 at 14:34
  • @ZeissIkon The flight itself is (also the carrier flight if it's carried by an e-plane to altitude). If this isn't eco-friendly for you, I don't know what is. – Giovanni Mar 23 '21 at 15:08
  • @divibisan I'm asking about the challenges with using the Perlan II for mesospace tourism (to the altitude it can achieve, ~77,000 ft is its record). – Giovanni Mar 23 '21 at 15:09

1 Answers1

3

No, Perlan II can't be used for tourism. It has only two seats, and every description of it talks about the crew of two, or the two pilots, or the chief pilot and co-pilot. Someone who gets certified for the type and carries that much responsibility isn't called a tourist.

Camille Goudeseune
  • 11,726
  • 1
  • 42
  • 78