I don't think he'd cut it off either. His Twitter banner image is debris from the failed CRS-7 launch, which shows that he doesn't hide from his failures.
Yup, I noticed that too when watching it live (even when they were saying they're different). I then re-watched it this morning and I noticed that they fixed the video so the bottom panels show different feeds.
They also fixed the fairing separation - I didn't see it happen live, just heard the music and the cheers, but now you see it how it happened.
To be pedantic, if a satellite in an eccentric orbit is climbing from perigee it would have a higher velocity than a satellite in a circular a orbit (with a lower semi major axis), and would have an "upward" velocity component, so it's possible.
Eg. Humanity Star (pe 296km, ap 537km) upon impacting a satellite in a circular 300km orbit will be travelling 66m/s faster (7796 vs 7730).
Of course, space is big so not only do you need them to collide, but you need it to collide with a specific satellite, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it happening.
Doesn't say much for the human driving it either - missing a great big read rectangle (probably covered in yellow chevrons) in front of him.
As for the white semi trailer, I'm sure most of us would admit that we've nearly driven into something because we didn't see it until the last moment because it didn't stand out enough. And there are plenty of people who have actually crashed for exactly that reason.
The problem is that you always hear about the times a Tesla crashes (but rarely the times that autopilot has successfully avoided a collision) and that list of crashes is not long. In fact you've only cited two incidents.
It's never going to be perfect - no autonomous system will ever be - just like human drivers aren't. Despite that, I'd be happy to use use a Tesla with autopilot, just like I'm happy to drive my mum's VW Golf with adaptive cruise control, because it's something that is likely to make things safer.
There are plenty of aircraft that are rated to be flown IFR with a single pilot - the Embraer Phenom, for example - that single pilot will spend time with their head in the cockpit going through checklists, looking at charts on a tablet, etc. As you say, the air is a lot more empty so collisions are far less likely, but then the outcome of collisions are fare more deadly - the best odds you have are in a glider (about 50-50 change of dying in a midair collision). There are also plenty of very simple autopilots (heading, altitude hold) found in GA aircraft that are far less capable than Tesla's system (no collision avoidance, etc), and for some reason people don't complain about them not being adequate.
I don't think that's correct. There were 5 partial shutdowns (where employees weren't furloughed) between 1977 and 1979 where the democrats had full control under Carter.
Yeah, compressor stall was completely incorrect, I was thinking of inlet unstarts which in at least one case had catastrophic (and fatal) results. I can see no reason why a ramjet couldn't suffer from unstarts.
There's only so much speed you can lose when you're flying at and above 80,000ft. Take the SR-71's flight envelope. At 70,000ft, you didn't want to be below 2M, and not above 3M, at 80,000ft the range was even less (2.75M to 3.3M). Plus the whole point was to be faster than any threats (or at least be out of range by the time they reacted).
Yeah, humans can handle high g loads, especially with suits and training, and like you say modern aircraft are capable of surviving higher loads than their fleshy inhabitants! Plus, as somebody mentioned it appears that this will be unmanned.
The reason I went with 5g is because of the upper limit of the SR-71 (3g), plus something that's designed to fly at hypersonic speeds is unlikely to be built to deal with the high loading that an F-22 - for instance - can handle (9g x 150%). You also have to keep the aircraft within the flight envelope, which gets narrower at high altitudes and speeds. Encountering a compressor stall at Mach 5 doesn't sound appealing.
For reference, at 9g, the turn radius is a mere 25km, and a 180 would take just 54 seconds.
Cute, you know a designation for an aircraft that doesn't have any evidence to support its existence. There is no TR prefix, just T for trainer, surely this should be a X (experimental) or Y (prototype). Not just that, you apparently know it's the 2nd in the series (B).
Not quite, but it's still quite a lot. At 85,000ft the speed of sound is about 300m/s (690mph) which is about 88% of that at sea level (340m/s). So at 85,000ft and Mach 5 it'll be travelling at about 1,500m/s (3,450mph). Depending on how many g the pilot wants to feel the turn radius might be as high as 343km (213mi) at 1.2g and as low as 47km (29mi) if the airframe can survive a 5g turn (the SR-71 had a limit of about 3g).
Because I like speadsheets, for a given g-force that the pilot feels, the turn radius & time to do a u-turn. g(pilot) - radius(km) - radius(mi) - time 1.2 - 343 - 213 - 12:02 1.5 - 204 - 127 - 07:08 2.0 - 132 - 82 - 04:36 2.5 - 99 - 62 - 03:29 3.0 - 81 - 50 - 02:49 3.5 - 68 - 42 - 02:23 4.0 - 59 - 37 - 02:04 4.5 - 52 - 32 - 01:49 5.0 - 47 - 29 - 01:38
FALSE. NK missles have gone a bit over Japan. There is zero indication they have the technology to hit anything besides the ocean.
FALSE. The missiles were a lot more than a bit over Japan, in one case the apogee was 4,500km. An ICBM will generally have an apogee of about 1,200km, so by flattening the trajectory the range can be greatly increased.
South Korea’s Yonhap news agency says that during its 53 minutes flight time, the missile soared some 4500km into space — that’s 10 times higher than the orbit of the International Space Station. Defence analysts say this demonstrates it has the power and range of a fully functional ICBM capable of travelling more than 10,000km - putting all of the United States mainland and most of the world within its reach.
Surely the customer would have said to SpaceX "we'd like you to keep the 2nd stage in orbit for a bit longer. 'Why?', you don't need to know that.
Although, if the second stage only had enough electrical power to get the satellite into orbit then they may not have had a choice, as they wouldn't have been able to de-orbit the stage later.
In wonder if there's any overlap between the group of people that believe that "officials confirm our was lost", and those groups that don't believe official explanations for HAARP, Apollo, climate change.
Rods from the gods aren't the satellite itself, they're launched from a satellite, and unlike most satellites they're designed to be dense, and temperature resistant. So you're right, steel wouldn't be used, tungsten would, which is even less likely to be used to make satellites (or aircraft).
Most of the shops in my town are 9 to 5:30, so they're not convenient if you have a full time job. Besides, whiles there's plenty of choice for fine jewelry, locally butchered meat and clothes, there's nobody that sells SSDs, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I was hoping the camera would pick up the music through the car chassis, couldn't hear anything though.
My google-fu is weak this morning, could you link to the technical webcast please.
I don't think he'd cut it off either. His Twitter banner image is debris from the failed CRS-7 launch, which shows that he doesn't hide from his failures.
They've fixed the video, it was definitely the same feed when broadcast live.
Yup, I noticed that too when watching it live (even when they were saying they're different). I then re-watched it this morning and I noticed that they fixed the video so the bottom panels show different feeds.
They also fixed the fairing separation - I didn't see it happen live, just heard the music and the cheers, but now you see it how it happened.
Yeah, he's pretty cool. I mean what can be cooler than cutting the penalties for paedophile priests...
Just Google "pope francis protecting paedophiles", reported on by both liberal and conservative publications.
To be pedantic, if a satellite in an eccentric orbit is climbing from perigee it would have a higher velocity than a satellite in a circular a orbit (with a lower semi major axis), and would have an "upward" velocity component, so it's possible.
Eg. Humanity Star (pe 296km, ap 537km) upon impacting a satellite in a circular 300km orbit will be travelling 66m/s faster (7796 vs 7730).
Of course, space is big so not only do you need them to collide, but you need it to collide with a specific satellite, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it happening.
The kind of idiot that does this...
Doesn't say much for the human driving it either - missing a great big read rectangle (probably covered in yellow chevrons) in front of him.
As for the white semi trailer, I'm sure most of us would admit that we've nearly driven into something because we didn't see it until the last moment because it didn't stand out enough. And there are plenty of people who have actually crashed for exactly that reason.
The problem is that you always hear about the times a Tesla crashes (but rarely the times that autopilot has successfully avoided a collision) and that list of crashes is not long. In fact you've only cited two incidents.
It's never going to be perfect - no autonomous system will ever be - just like human drivers aren't. Despite that, I'd be happy to use use a Tesla with autopilot, just like I'm happy to drive my mum's VW Golf with adaptive cruise control, because it's something that is likely to make things safer.
There are plenty of aircraft that are rated to be flown IFR with a single pilot - the Embraer Phenom, for example - that single pilot will spend time with their head in the cockpit going through checklists, looking at charts on a tablet, etc.
As you say, the air is a lot more empty so collisions are far less likely, but then the outcome of collisions are fare more deadly - the best odds you have are in a glider (about 50-50 change of dying in a midair collision).
There are also plenty of very simple autopilots (heading, altitude hold) found in GA aircraft that are far less capable than Tesla's system (no collision avoidance, etc), and for some reason people don't complain about them not being adequate.
I'll bite. When you say inner and outer diameter, what do you mean? I somehow doubt you're referring to the diameters of something like a washer.
I don't think that's correct. There were 5 partial shutdowns (where employees weren't furloughed) between 1977 and 1979 where the democrats had full control under Carter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Yeah, compressor stall was completely incorrect, I was thinking of inlet unstarts which in at least one case had catastrophic (and fatal) results. I can see no reason why a ramjet couldn't suffer from unstarts.
There's only so much speed you can lose when you're flying at and above 80,000ft. Take the SR-71's flight envelope. At 70,000ft, you didn't want to be below 2M, and not above 3M, at 80,000ft the range was even less (2.75M to 3.3M). Plus the whole point was to be faster than any threats (or at least be out of range by the time they reacted).
Yeah, humans can handle high g loads, especially with suits and training, and like you say modern aircraft are capable of surviving higher loads than their fleshy inhabitants! Plus, as somebody mentioned it appears that this will be unmanned.
The reason I went with 5g is because of the upper limit of the SR-71 (3g), plus something that's designed to fly at hypersonic speeds is unlikely to be built to deal with the high loading that an F-22 - for instance - can handle (9g x 150%). You also have to keep the aircraft within the flight envelope, which gets narrower at high altitudes and speeds. Encountering a compressor stall at Mach 5 doesn't sound appealing.
For reference, at 9g, the turn radius is a mere 25km, and a 180 would take just 54 seconds.
Cute, you know a designation for an aircraft that doesn't have any evidence to support its existence. There is no TR prefix, just T for trainer, surely this should be a X (experimental) or Y (prototype). Not just that, you apparently know it's the 2nd in the series (B).
Not quite, but it's still quite a lot. At 85,000ft the speed of sound is about 300m/s (690mph) which is about 88% of that at sea level (340m/s). So at 85,000ft and Mach 5 it'll be travelling at about 1,500m/s (3,450mph). Depending on how many g the pilot wants to feel the turn radius might be as high as 343km (213mi) at 1.2g and as low as 47km (29mi) if the airframe can survive a 5g turn (the SR-71 had a limit of about 3g).
Because I like speadsheets, for a given g-force that the pilot feels, the turn radius & time to do a u-turn.
g(pilot) - radius(km) - radius(mi) - time
1.2 - 343 - 213 - 12:02
1.5 - 204 - 127 - 07:08
2.0 - 132 - 82 - 04:36
2.5 - 99 - 62 - 03:29
3.0 - 81 - 50 - 02:49
3.5 - 68 - 42 - 02:23
4.0 - 59 - 37 - 02:04
4.5 - 52 - 32 - 01:49
5.0 - 47 - 29 - 01:38
On the other hand, I bet your trip from Berlin to North Africa with you Italian friends was fun while it lasted!
FALSE. NK missles have gone a bit over Japan. There is zero indication they have the technology to hit anything besides the ocean.
FALSE. The missiles were a lot more than a bit over Japan, in one case the apogee was 4,500km. An ICBM will generally have an apogee of about 1,200km, so by flattening the trajectory the range can be greatly increased.
South Korea’s Yonhap news agency says that during its 53 minutes flight time, the missile soared some 4500km into space — that’s 10 times higher than the orbit of the International Space Station.
Defence analysts say this demonstrates it has the power and range of a fully functional ICBM capable of travelling more than 10,000km - putting all of the United States mainland and most of the world within its reach.
http://www.news.com.au/world/a...
I love the thought of some rocket scientists saying "let's try sharing it loose on the upper atmosphere" ðY
Surely the customer would have said to SpaceX "we'd like you to keep the 2nd stage in orbit for a bit longer. 'Why?', you don't need to know that.
Although, if the second stage only had enough electrical power to get the satellite into orbit then they may not have had a choice, as they wouldn't have been able to de-orbit the stage later.
I didn't know this was done. To expand on the parent, here's a link to an article as to why venting for fuel is done, with the photos.
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.c...
In wonder if there's any overlap between the group of people that believe that "officials confirm our was lost", and those groups that don't believe official explanations for HAARP, Apollo, climate change.
Rods from the gods aren't the satellite itself, they're launched from a satellite, and unlike most satellites they're designed to be dense, and temperature resistant. So you're right, steel wouldn't be used, tungsten would, which is even less likely to be used to make satellites (or aircraft).
The MIG-25 however was primarily made of steel.
Most of the shops in my town are 9 to 5:30, so they're not convenient if you have a full time job. Besides, whiles there's plenty of choice for fine jewelry, locally butchered meat and clothes, there's nobody that sells SSDs, etc.