SpaceX News

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Giorgio
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: SpaceX News

Postby Giorgio » Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:29 pm

DeltaV wrote:It's unbelievably absurd to me that you are so opposed to the possibility that a nation-state, corporation, jihadi murder-cult or advanced hobbyists could bolt a short-duration "booster" (of unspecified configuration) onto well-known ducted-fan UAV technology and briefly push it supersonic to employ an unknown weapon on a thin-walled aluminum booster.

It's unbelievable that everytime something happens you drop any logic theory to embark immediately in baseless theories supported by mumbo jumbo hypothesis and no evidence whatsoever.
Plenty of conspiracy forums out there where you can exchange your views without dirting this thread.
Look, stars!

krenshala
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: SpaceX News

Postby krenshala » Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:48 pm

DeltaV wrote:
Maui wrote:by applying filters to a few pixels of a lossy video compression? Most of your source is already interpolation of the video's compression. You are then exaggerating that interpolation with filters.

If the object in my base image was only a few pixels high, you would have a sounder point. It seems to me that atmospheric turbulence is a much more important factor for an object about 70-80 pixels high (in my screenshot of the VLC zoom). Out of 8 snapshots of the object from the 4K video, the one above is the only one where (in my non-professional opinion) the atmosphere was calm enough to proceed with enhancement. If you disagree, post your own analysis, not just hand-waving. Surely someone reading this forum has the background knowledge to do this the right way. My approach is admittedly intuitive as image processing is not my gig.


Is this video from YouTube? based on the images you've posted, it definitely appears it is. If so, it is heavily compressed, which leads to (standard) MPEG4 compression artifacting, which appear as square blocks. It is a method of simplifying the image to make it stream better, but it sometimes (okay, most times) horribly corrupts what you see, making analysis of said artifacts imprecise at best.

paperburn1
Posts: 2375
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: SpaceX News

Postby paperburn1 » Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:17 am

My work is still flying today. So I think I got it right.
You can science the hell out of this and it still comes up.. No
It is easy to demonstrate that the power needed to improve performance is so great that the weight of the required engine grows faster than the power output of the propeller can compensate. This problem is why we have jet engines.
If you put some sort of rocket on the UAV when it did "dash" supersonic it would most likely just tear the propellers off at the hub.
It you diphase the propellers when super sonic they would twist off As the propellers pushes through the sound barrier another lateral shockwave is produced on the front of the propeller. There are now two shockwaves interacting on the prop. There's the radial shockwave, which will be on the leading edge of the propeller blades, an the lateral shockwave which starts forming on the face of the blade at the top of the blades rotation.
Eventually, the unbalanced lateral shockwave would create a varying force on the top and bottom of the propeller - the top of the prop would flex back, pushing the bottom forward which would compress the shockwave at the bottom causing it to flex back and the top to flex forward until they were torn off. Sso basically no aircraft in sustained flight could be propeller driven and keep above mach


FYI have some of Tom,s work just down the street, 2F217 RQ-7 trainer
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: SpaceX News

Postby KitemanSA » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:07 am

Can you all take this conspiracy crap to another thread and leave this thread to actual SpaceX NEWS?

paperburn1
Posts: 2375
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: SpaceX News

Postby paperburn1 » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:30 pm

http://www.space.com/34086-spacex-boeing-test-crew-vehicle-abort-systems.html

One of the difficult lessons learned from the space shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986 was the need for human-carrying spacecraft to come with emergency escape systems, a means of ejecting the crew vehicle from the rocket in an emergency.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

hanelyp
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: SpaceX News

Postby hanelyp » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:29 pm

Airliners don't have in flight escape systems for passengers. But airliners have the technology refined to the point where the aircraft can usually be brought to the ground in one piece in the event of a malfunction.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

paperburn1
Posts: 2375
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: SpaceX News

Postby paperburn1 » Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:29 pm

flying is actually the safest mode of transportation. In fact, the odds of a plane crash are one for every 1.2 million flights, with odds of dying one in 11 million. Your chances of dying in a car or traffic accident are one in 5,000. In a shuttle flight had a 1 in 9 chance of catastrophic failure — 10 times the risk of flights today.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: SpaceX News

Postby Tom Ligon » Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:53 pm

Commercial flying, on actual airliners, is the safest way to go.

Dirty little secret of aviation: private aircraft are about as risky as motorcycles.

Here's a ranking of the safety of various classes of pilots.

1) Pilots for major airlines are gods who can walk on air and almost don't have accidents at all. When they do, they may make movies about the miracle they pulled off. If one shows up for work drunk, it is international news, and that's the end of their career.

2) Commercial pilots, particularly corporate pilots, are almost as good as the major airline pilots.

3) The third group is a surprise. Student pilots actually have great safety records. They fly slow aircraft, they are restricted to flying in moderate conditions, they're watched like hawks, and their safety training is fresh. They are aware that they can get hurt and their skills are not net honed.

Way down on the list is the private pilot with 400 hours of experience. They think they are experienced but they are actually still newbs. They fly into weather that is over their heads and they die.

Flying US crewed rockets, well, I think the math says their survival rate is below that. Not due to crew incompetence, but just that 2 million parts supplied by the lowest bidder factor, holding enough fuel and oxidizer to qualify in the tactical nuclear yield range. Although if you include miles traveled once in orbit, they get much better.

hanelyp
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: SpaceX News

Postby hanelyp » Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:39 pm

The fact of rockets being practically assembled by hand, in small numbers, and then thrown away after flying once, means a lot of the quality controls that apply to airliners and road vehicles don't apply to space launch ... yet.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: SpaceX News

Postby Tom Ligon » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:25 pm

hanelyp wrote:The fact of rockets being practically assembled by hand, in small numbers, and then thrown away after flying once, means a lot of the quality controls that apply to airliners and road vehicles don't apply to space launch ... yet.


Notice I specified US crewed launch vehicles. The Russians have a better record and their rockets are both simpler and are produced on an assembly line.

It matters.

Skipjack
Posts: 5949
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: SpaceX News

Postby Skipjack » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:11 am

Tom Ligon wrote:Flying US crewed rockets, well, I think the math says their survival rate is below that. Not due to crew incompetence, but just that 2 million parts supplied by the lowest bidder factor, holding enough fuel and oxidizer to qualify in the tactical nuclear yield range. Although if you include miles traveled once in orbit, they get much better.

The Commercial Crew spacecraft will be safer than the Shuttle was and most likely also safer than the Russians. Part of that is the escape system that each supplier needs to have. The SpaceX Dragon 2 will be able to safely abort at any stage of the mission and in case of a pad accident like the recent, one, the crew would have been brought to safety by the LAS.
Biggest threat for the crew identified by NASA is MMODs (micro meteorites and orbital debris).
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08 ... -vehicles/

paperburn1
Posts: 2375
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: SpaceX News

Postby paperburn1 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:36 pm

Not spacex but space related
http://www.geek.com/science/china-has-lost-control-of-its-tiangong-1-space-station-1671528/
The one concern about this situation is how much of Tiangong-1 won’t burn up in Earth’s atmosphere during its uncontrolled descent.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: SpaceX News

Postby Tom Ligon » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:43 pm

Bringing this thing down in a controlled fashion, or better yet, putting it back up in a controlled fashion, sounds like a business opportunity to me.

It would really cause a squalk from the Chinese, tho', unless perhaps they hired someone like Musk to do it.

There is some speculation that the Chinese, who have been very tight-lipped about the situation, may have sufficient propellant and control to bring it down in a selected location, but only if they wait until nearly the end. There's too much variation in atmospheric drag to predict low orbits next year.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: SpaceX News

Postby Tom Ligon » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:45 pm

On a related note, OSC is going to try Antares again in October. With luck, maybe I can get my cameras on it. The last time I kept waiting to see that speck of fire rise above the horizon, then figured the launch had been aborted, and went inside to see the news of it failing spectacularly.

paperburn1
Posts: 2375
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: SpaceX News

Postby paperburn1 » Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:23 am

Tom Ligon wrote:There is some speculation that the Chinese, who have been very tight-lipped about the situation, may have sufficient propellant and control to bring it down in a selected location, but only if they wait until nearly the end. There's too much variation in atmospheric drag to predict low orbits next year.

A friend of mine who track satellites for a hobby ("not judging him just saying") said they think the Chinese space station is tumbling on all three axis and that is why they can not communicate with it to control it.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hanelyp and 9 guests