I don't really get the point. 30,000 feet of altitude is only 0.002% closer to the moon than 0. Is this going to change anything?
Seems like just a marketing stunt (which, of course it is, but a pointless one at that).
Seems like just a marketing stunt (which, of course it is, but a pointless one at that).
So if turns out to be totally overcast wherever you would have been on the ground, this is going to change everything.
No it doesn’t. Very low probability, yes, guaranteed to not be clouds, no.
Cirrocumulus clouds are common on that flight path and can extend up to FL450. Is it rare that they are that high, for sure, but can it happen, definitely.
Cirrostratus clouds are also a possibility and they often extend up to FL400. Whenever the sky has a soft white haze, these are a common cause.
Will either of those guaranteed ruin an eclipse, probably not. But still saying guaranteed no cloud cover obstructing the view is very much inaccurate imho.
And a cloud in the dark sky looks the same from above vs below. The difference is how the sun itself looks.
You’re also guaranteed to be able to see the eclipse because you’re flying above any cloud cover.
Of course, the article makes no such claim that this is their plan. After all, planes don't go 2000 MPH. But they do go 600+ MPH, so maybe if things go perfectly you'll have 20 minutes of eclipse. Call it 10 minutes due to inability to rapidly correct for a slightly wrong departure time. Better than the 4 minutes you'd get standing still.
SR-71: hold my beer
https://eclipsophile.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/April-No...
If you have bad weather, it may ruin the eclipse. Don't let it ruin the wedding by letting it ruin your attitude.
I was able to catch the last eclipse in 2016/17 (?) and am using the wedding to trick all my loved ones into (hopefully) getting to experience one too.
For example: https://image.pbs.org/poster_images/assets/buac18-vid-epicmo...