|
hobbesmaster posted:There is no way jetpack guy is actually a guy in a jetpack. That of course leads to the question of what they're actually seeing. Wingsuit maybe? It doesn't quite fit though. The dullest option is that someone attached a dummy to a drone.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:That's great, thanks. I highly recommend reading this book. It's loving amazing. Stiles had a way with words.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
Rascar Capac posted:The dullest option is that someone attached a dummy to a drone. Still got some impressive altitude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
Rascar Capac posted:The dullest option is that someone attached a dummy to a drone. TBH I feel like "dummy" is a pretty good description for anyone getting 30 yards away from a flying airliner, even were they an actual human and Nazi puncher
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
Phy posted:TBH I feel like "dummy" is a pretty good description for anyone getting 30 yards away from a flying airliner, even were they an actual human and Nazi puncher How else is a jetpack owner gonna skitch their way to Cincinnati?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
I'm absolutely willing to believe that some dumbass disruptor techbro would develop a jetpack and then not bother to tell the FAA about it, or about testing it, because ~disruption~ Didn't that already happen with attempts at Uber-a-plane, and it got torpedoed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:I'm absolutely willing to believe that some dumbass disruptor techbro would develop a jetpack and then not bother to tell the FAA about it, or about testing it, because ~disruption~ Physics are actually the biggest problem with that. If some tech bro has a "jet pack" that can get them a thousand+ feet in the air for a long period of time they've solved some impressive problems. There have been many, many attempts at "uber for planes" that are constantly shot down by pesky FAA regulations about commercial aviation that exist to prevent you from killing yourself and your passengers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
I’m willing to bet it’s some kind of a bad prank with a person shaped RC plane
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:I’m willing to bet it’s some kind of a bad prank with a person shaped RC plane Or a balloon if its up there for a long time
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
Or, like many “drone” sightings, actually loving nothing
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I hate hearing that particular turn of phrase to describe a landing but yeah. Putting all those Alaska STOL pilots to shame. I'm really glad to learn I'm not the only one who think this! I think it started when I watched a documentary which included some high-speed camera footage of a duck landing on water. As you said, you could see it pitching up and down to adjust its 'glideslope' as it headed for whatever patch of water it had chosen to land on. As it got closer it 'pitched up' and spread its primary feathers (like the first stage of flap when the flap surface moves back but doesn't drop much, so it's increasing wing area rather than curvature/drag), then it straightened its legs (gear down and locked) and angled its wings (flaps down...). Then, just before it came into ground effect it deployed its alulae (leading edge slats out...), then it adjusted its course, flared and came down on its feet, planing across the water until it lost lift and dropped onto its belly, like a seaplane coming down off the step. Almost every one of the duck's actions and anatomical features had an aviation parallel, but it was all done instinctively and by millions of years of evolution and instinct. Same when I watch gulls skimming across the front of large sea rollers - they must have an incredible combination of finely-honed sense of aerodynamic forces that are acting on them (and different bits of them) at any one moment and the ability to anticipate local air currents as the wave moves across their path (and they across the wave), which allows them to go for long distances without beating their wings just by riding the turbulence and wash of the moving waves. I also wish I was a bird...
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:I also wish I was a bird... 2020 Genie: "Very well. *poof* You're an ostrich."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
tired: aeroplanes wired: birds inspired: jetpacks
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
i own every Bionicle posted:Or, like many “drone” sightings, actually loving nothing There’s been multiple independent sightings at this point, all as jetpacks, so something is up. But whatever it is, 6000 ft is pretty serious
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:There’s been multiple independent sightings at this point, all as jetpacks, so something is up. But whatever it is, 6000 ft is pretty serious There were oodles of multiple independent sights of drones at Gatwick and it turned out to be nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
it's obviously swamp gas refracting off a weather balloone.pilot posted:I’m willing to bet it’s some kind of a bad prank with a person shaped RC plane this is my theory too, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgACwfl6FBI 6000 feet is still some impressive altitude for something radio-controlled. it's hot in LA too
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:6000 feet is still some impressive altitude for something radio-controlled. it's hot in LA too
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
A lot has been written about birds' instinctual air sense, and it all makes sense of course. But a few days ago I saw a neat little situation that showed the opposite, a very specific problem that probably doesn't happen often and the bird had no instinct to solve it quickly, where a bit of analytical reasoning would have helped it for sure. It was a small hawk flying with a dead mouse in its beak, and it accidentally dropped it. It was a pretty stiff wind and the bird took a little bit of distance to get stopped (relative to the ground) in mid air, with the mouse behind it on the ground. It obviously wanted to get the mouse, but it kept flying (in one spot) unsure of what to do. Where all it had to do was slow down a bit and go backwards over the ground (the wind speed was absolutely high enough for that), or, less elegantly, fly in a circle. But it did neither of those, it flew forward for a bit (looking like it was gonna ditch the prey, I couldn't believe it) landed, and walked back over to pick it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
some birds just like to walk ok
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
vessbot posted:A lot has been written about birds' instinctual air sense, and it all makes sense of course. I find  bird extremely relatable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Birds have mastered flying submersibles: Deteriorata posted:Blue-footed boobies: Are smarter than AI: And use advanced composite materials in their construction:
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Bats are better ærobats than birds. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Bats are better ærobats than birds. maybe in a linguistic sense there are no bats as fast as a falcon in a stoop or as maneuverable as a hummingbird or as practical as a duck
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
Birds as a class are more versatile, sure, but bat wings allow feats that no descendant of dinosaurs could ever pull off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNNAxCuaYoc&t=75s
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Let's compromise on all this and change the thread to be about ornithopters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qS7oN-3tA
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Let's compromise on all this and change the thread to be about ornithopters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Let's compromise on all this and change the thread to be about ornithopters. Jesus  Also, I think those fisher price video cameras that recorded on cassette tape in the 80s had better video quality than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Jesus I think it might BE one of those fisher price cameras. Also, lol@Wasserboxer chase truck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
Makes me wonder which one of them I'd least like to crash in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
Apparently nature hasn't figured out how to deal with gimbal lock avoidance on their inertial measurement unit design. Man 1, God 0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Let's compromise on all this and change the thread to be about ornithopters. This really demonstrates how much more there is to bird wing movement than "flap up and down." I don't think we're going to get real ornithopters until we invent some kind of artificial muscle material or something that allows the wings to bend and twist in real-time. Look at how birds change the shape of their wing constantly through the entire cycle. They actually produce lift on both the upstroke and the downstroke by varying camber and angle of attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-5xPpBxihI&t=161s
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
I think about the potential of nature evolving free-rotating bearings a lot, like jesus loving christ how terrifying would wolves on bicycles be
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
They exist but only on a microscopic scale:
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Apparently nature hasn't figured out how to deal with gimbal lock avoidance on their inertial measurement unit design. When does the bird go into gimbal lock?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:They exist but only on a microscopic scale: I thought you meant wolves on bicycles and was like wtf, really?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
I almost clarified “I mean freely rotating bearings, not wolf biker gangs”—not because I thought anyone would be confused; but because it might be worth a chuckle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:I think about the potential of nature evolving free-rotating bearings a lot, like jesus loving christ how terrifying would wolves on bicycles be I recall reading a detailed discussion on this somewhere and basically its very difficult to get nutrients to the axle of such a thing so evolution went a different direction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
The wheel part would have to either be a totally separate living entity that would need its own way to gain nutrients, or be fed by the man animal somehow, or it would need to be bone or keratin or something. No idea how the first option would work, and the second option could only be that one size for the animal's entire life. And if it breaks, you're screwed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
The animal could have chitin or keratin wheels and periodically molt and grow bigger ones, like a crustacean shedding its exoskeleton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The animal could have chitin or keratin wheels and periodically molt and grow bigger ones, like a crustacean shedding its exoskeleton. Still seems kinda finicky compared to legs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 17:41
|
|