|
Speaking of rocket history and Wernher von Braun, Alan Shephard implies around the three minutes mark that von Braun's caution caused Gagarin to be the first man in space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wEp5-ce0ps
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
The guy who tweeted about seeing the SS2 crash unfold over his head does independent reporting on the private space race. He's been pessimistic about SS2 for a while and posted this rather eerily prescient article... on Thursday. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/10/30/apollo-ansari-hobbling-effects-giant-leaps/ I skimmed over his posts over the last couple years and found a lot of interesting stuff reported in earlier articles. Branson has relatively little of his own money in Virgin Galactic, it's mostly bankrolled by Abu Dhabi oil money. VG has burned something like $400M over 10 years (and another $200+M on the "spaceport" in New Mexico, which sounds like it was a horrible boondoggle in its own right) to produce one spacecraft which (prior to the crash) had fired its rocket motor in flight just three times, and made it to space zero times. Earlier this year, Branson made a big public show of promising that he (and his children!) would fly a mission to space in SS2 this year, which was either suicidally foolhardy or an attempt to preserve the illusion that things were going great. There's some hints that corners were cut to return to powered flight this year. Assuming this guy's reporting is reasonably close to the truth (he does seem to have had some run-ins with Virgin Galactic PR, it's not a very amicable relationship), I don't see much future for SS2. If I was in charge of the oil money I'd pull out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Branson has relatively little of his own money in Virgin Galactic, it's mostly bankrolled by Abu Dhabi oil money. That's SOP for Branson. Stick his brand and his smug face on everything, get some other poor gently caress to put up most of the money, then leave them holding the bag when it starts going downhill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
AzureSkys posted:Hardcore History is mentioned a lot on the forums. The Logical Insanity episode talks about issues around using the atomic weapons to end WWII. Mostly, it has a lot of talk about the adaptation of air power into war tactics through the turn of the century into WWII. Thought it fitting for the past few pages discussion. Hardcore history is fantastic and Dan Carlin is an amazingly gifted speaker and storyteller. His multi-part series on the East front and even this latest one on WWI are amazing. I also really liked his series on the ancients (Roman, Carthage, etc) and the Kahns because that history really isn't known by 99% of the population nowadays and he brings that right into your face. His current events show put an interesting spin on things too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
So I went to a model show today, which wouldn't be of much interest to this thread (although there were some spectacular aircraft models on display), except for the fact that the model show was held at Falcon Field inside of the CAF Hanger. I took over 470 photos, of which almost 150 were of the CAF stuff, not models. The entire album set is on Flikr, and I have separated it out into types of models, and the CAF photo's, so you can look at just the albums you are interested in if models aren't your thing, or if only a certain type of models interest you. I uploaded everything in full resolution of 2816x2112, but fair warning, it's all with a 12 year old Canon point and shoot camera, so don't expect better than the above photo of Sentimental Journey (except in higher resolution). Enjoy - https://www.flickr.com/photos/128316399@N05/collections/72157649090414075/
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Ola posted:That was beautiful. The whole Sagan Series is amazing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tijxMHhuwGQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The whole Sagan Series is amazing The Feynman Series is really good as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJLJ8PClVNA And the couple they did with Tyson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbOjZWjTLU
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Aeronautical insanity? Aeronautical insanity.  (Tom Cruise for next mission impossible movie)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
 Say what you will about Cruise but that is dedication. I'm assuming the white pod is the camera?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
At this point I think the Mission Impossible series is just attempts to come up with a stunt that Cruise won't do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Denounce Scientology. Speaking of the excellent rocket chat before I suggest you all watch the BBC series Space Race, it is 9 years old now but a very good docu-drama following Sergei Korolev and Wernher Von Braun on either side of the space race from WW2 to the Moon landing. Space Race - Part 1 - Race for Rockets (1944–1949) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST4emxOd9Qo Space Race - Part 2 - Race for Satellites (1953–1958) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Kc-Zi4tU0 Space Race - Part 3 - Race for Survival (1959–1961) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B94ftc9UVA Space Race - Part 4 - Race for the Moon (1964–1969) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZI8uLCsjlU Pro watch. drunkill fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
I usually have respect for cops, but this article just makes me think gently caress the po-lice. I don't care how unsafe the pilot was, those cops are simply un-Australianquote:A man who taxied his light plane down a main street in Western Australia's Pilbara region and parked it outside a pub is expected to be charged.   (article) Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
quote:I would assume there would be an offence under the Criminal Code that may fit the bill. That reminds me of of this line from the Larry Walters incident: quote:We know he broke some part of the Federal Aviation Act, and as soon as we decide which part it is, some type of charge will be filed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
So they had a press conference about SpaceShip Two, and apparently the co-pilot moved the feathering lock handle to the unlock position too soon. It's not supposed to start feathering until the separate feathering handle is also adjusted, but they were doing Mach 1 or so when he did it... Link e- holy poo poo and it was 9 seconds after ignition, so they were under power  Aeronautical Insanity: It was the last time I took a poo poo at Mach 1.0 Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
Do mind this part:quote:On top of that, the feathers aren't supposed to move until a separate feathering handle is activated. No one adjusted that handle; yet the feathers were still deployed, NTSB acting chairman Christopher Hart said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
It's sad that someone lost their life but also pretty good going that the co-pilot survived.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Do mind this part: I'm not sure that the feathers were designed to be unlocked at Mach, and it's not a leap to consider aerodynamic loads would override the feathering lever in those conditions. I'm not a member of the NTSB or an aerospace engineer, but that seems likely to a layman like me. freelop posted:It's sad that someone lost their life but also pretty good going that the co-pilot survived. The pilot survived, the co-pilot died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
The feathers are supposed to be deployed around speeds of mach 1.4. You aren't supposed to unlock them and not use them however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Ok, had no idea they could be unlocked supersonic. As sometimes happens, I'm an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Mach number has no direct relationship to the air load on the vehicle. The higher you go and the thinner the air gets, the dynamic pressure (what equivalent airspeed* is bases on) decreases for any particular Mach number. For example, at the U-2 operational altitude, its true airspeed was around 400 knots and .67 Mach, while it's equivalent airspeed was around a quarter of that, 100 knots... or the same as everyone's first solo cross countrty in a 152. A more extreme example is the space shuttle at the beginning of reentry. Mach 25 but an EAS of a few knots. So what matters here is not just that it opened at a high Mach number, but a high Mach number at a low altitude. And setting speeds and altitudes aside, even more important is that it opened at a totally wrong phase of flight. It's for drag and stabilization on reentry, so opening at the beginning of powered flight means something going terribly wrong. * roughly meaning indicated airspeed vessbot fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
priznat posted:At this point I think the Mission Impossible series is just attempts to come up with a stunt that Cruise won't do. Yeah, the Burj Dubai stuff from the last one was pretty crazy too: http://www.tomcruise.com/blog/2013/06/13/tom-cruise-sitting-on-top-of-the-burj-khalifa-real-or-photoshop/
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Small bit of news: the Uvar-Hazy He 219 is about to get its wings back, and may already be re-wing'd as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Doublepost: Somebody has spliced together footage taken from a airshow at Freeman Field in September 1945. Starts with footage of a Ju 290 landing. In addition to a bunch of captured Kraut machines, pretty much every aircraft in the US invintory does a flyby. The B-32 looks goofy as gently caress. Also, the only thing actually roped off is the Me 163 and two nazi helicopters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Which One of you Bitches Wants to Dance? Desperate the catch up with the Soviets and the R-7, while the US had somewhat caught up by launching Explorer 1 on top of the Jupiter rocket, and while the Jupiter had been rushed into IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) duty, it was not capable of the range of the Soviet R-7 (1,500 for the Jupiter-C/PGM-19 Jupiter versus 5,500 for the R-7, which made the R-7 truly capable of both Intercontinental range and above sub-orbital launches) So the US pushed quickly for a much longer range rocket The Thor was an attempt at that, but did not succeed at gaining much range, and was relegated to the same IRBM duty as the Jupiter. In the spirit of AI: I should mention that the guidance system was developed by Chrysler while the rocket itself was developed by McDonnell Douglas, and the engine was done by Rocketdyne, who would go on to do great things for NASA Thor IRBM  However, the Thor would find service elsewhere and with upgrades continues to serve as a launch platform as the Delta  The Thor served as the primary test platform for high altitude nuclear testing (Operation Fishbowl), but was heavily marred by launch failures due to engine cutoffs and power losses, but improved over time. The Thor and Jupiter were replaced and usurped by one of the more famous rockets and would set the stage for NASA and the USAF ICBM program: The Atlas But that is for another time.   Next, Atlas is holding up the world, he'll bring it down! CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
They successfully trapped an F-35C on a carrier today, just like a real airplane. http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/11/03/f-35c-completes-first-arrested-landing-aboard-aircraft-carrier/
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:They successfully trapped an F-35C on a carrier today, just like a real airplane. http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/11/03/f-35c-completes-first-arrested-landing-aboard-aircraft-carrier/ What the arresting hook didn't snap off then get sucked up by the lifting fan whereupon they realized "wait, what's a lifting fan doing in the navy version?!?" which then errantly set off the ejection seat into the carrier's radar dishes or something equally silly?  Awwwwwww, our lil' JSF is growin' up. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
The F-35C at least has wings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:They successfully trapped an F-35C on a carrier today, just like a real airplane. http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/11/03/f-35c-completes-first-arrested-landing-aboard-aircraft-carrier/ The really telling thing will be how long until they do it again. If it's about a month, they likely found a *small* anomaly that's easily fixable. If it's more or *significantly* more than a month, say hello to another year-plus of development. I hope someone got the BuNo of that thing, so they can ask why they're using a 'virgin' F-35C every time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Was the Thor the missile they would just set up outside in foreign countries with local NATO troops guarding them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was the Thor the missile they would just set up outside in foreign countries with local NATO troops guarding them? The Thors were all located in the UK under dual-key control. You're thinking of the Jupiters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter#Military_deployment Fun Fact: The Turkish government "deeply resented" the removal of the missiles, because I guess they liked the idea of dying first in WW3. To be fair, Castro was furious when the Soviets pulled theirs out as well. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
When I first heard that there was one seriously injured in the SpaceshipTwo accident, I though maybe pieces of it had hit White Knight Two, the mothership. But when I realized there were two people in the rocket plane and one of them survived, I am amazed. If he jumped or was thrown clear by luck isn't clear yet, but Peter Siebold did so - at Mach 1+ - at 50,000 feet altitude - without an ejector seat - without (I think) automatic parachute deployment - without a pressure suit There is of course the amazing story of Bill Weaver's Mach 3.18 SR-71 breakup. He credits his pressure suit for his survival. The fastest non-pressurized ejection I know of is Capt. Brian Udell who ejected from an F-15E. quote:Traveling at 1,200 feet per second - faster than a lot of rifle bullets - by the time the canopy blew off, White ejected at 4,500 feet. With the aircraft still picking up speed - more than 780 mph - Udell ejected at 3,000 feet. http://www.ejectionsite.com/insaddle/insaddle.htm He suffered very serious injuries. Using 3000 feet and 780 MPH TAS, I get Mach 1.02. In the NTSB briefing, they said the first feather unlocked signal was at Mach 1.04. So SpaceshipTwo might have set two unintentional records, fastest and highest unpressurized bailout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
The feather unlocked signal was at Mach 1.04, and it was still under rocket power. So that number might be higher at breakup
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The feather unlocked signal was at Mach 1.04, and it was still under rocket power. Exactly. It was under a lot of rocket power. This NTSB briefing has a timeline. I remembered wrong, the Mach number mentioned was 1.02. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOSNVJzZn90 10:07:19 - ship released 10:07:21 - engine start 10:07:29 - 0.94 Mach 10:07:31 - 1.02 Mach, feather unlocked 10:07:34 - telemetry lost If it wasn't as fast or as high dynamic pressure as Brian Udell from the F-15E, it's certainly the highest and fastest unpressurized, unpowered (as in the seat) bailout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
Besides the massive difference in dynamic pressure, M1 in terms of TAS is also much slower at +50000ft than below 10000ft due to the temperature difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Look up "Tiger Meet" photos on GIS - I'd bet money this is one from the past decade. They've got a dedicated website at http://www.natotigers.org/ As for the onslaught:                  drunkill posted:Aeronautical insanity? Aeronautical insanity. He should have done that stunt on a DC-8 fitted with jet engines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was the Thor the missile they would just set up outside in foreign countries with local NATO troops guarding them? BIG HEADLINE posted:The Thors were all located in the UK under dual-key control. You're thinking of the Jupiters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter#Military_deployment Pretty much, and the Turks actually guarded the missiles, near the end of their life, the only thing the US controlled was their launch ability and warheads. Hilariously, Castro admits that he didn't want the missiles in Cuba, but was pressured by Khrushchev to accept them, Castro was at least a little aware that having the missiles in Cuba would leave Cuba a burning strip of land if they were ever used, and despite the missiles being in Cuba, they were totally under Soviet control and guard, and the Soviets shot down a U-2 in Cuba during the Missile Crisis, and we knew it had to be them who did it because we reasoned correctly that the Cuban's didn't have any real SAM capabilities to speak of. Ironically, and one of the biggest fun facts of the crisis, was that they were pretty much obsolete by the time the secret agreement was concluded, as the Atlas was pretty much ready for full time use and all the major kinks worked out, so having an MRBM didn't make sense anymore, so in reality the removal of the missiles was something that was going to happen regardless of the Cuban Missile Crisis or not. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
The RF-8A's who overflew later that day almost certainly were fired upon by the Cubans, however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
For anyone who wants it: A Historical Look at US Launch Vehicles 1967 - 1997 It also covers 1950s vehicles. https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxqg04zoi8l3lxo/doc04221920141104121920.pdf?dl=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Besides the massive difference in dynamic pressure, M1 in terms of TAS is also much slower at +50000ft than below 10000ft due to the temperature difference. Very true, I just wanted to leave it at one variable. But this makes the effect of EAS reduction for a given Mach with rising altitude even stronger, yes. edit: Actually, wait. It's the opposite. If we ignore the EAS change due to density, and look at only TAS, then airspeeds for a given Mach go up with altitude. So the temp difference tends to make EAS rise at a given Mach number with altitude, but this is outweighed by the stronger effect of density reduction. second edit: No, I (and you) was right the first time. I got mixed up with what factor I was holding constant. With rising altitude (really, cooling temperature): A constant TAS yields a higher Mach number. A constant Mach number yields a lower TAS And with rising altitude: A constant TAS yields a lower EAS A constant EAS yields a higher EAS So EAS takes a double hit, first from the Mach to TAS, and then from TAS to EAS. vessbot fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
 I'm not going to lie... I'm suddenly turned on... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 04:44
|
|