Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: CypherNinja on December 21, 2015, 10:58:23 PM
-
SpaceX finally did it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bTbVbe4e4
Launch at 22:48
First stage landing at 32:30
[ar15]
EDIT: Don't trust those times. I just had to change them because they are apparently editing the video.
-
Awesome. :cool:
SpaceX finally did it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bTbVbe4e4
Launch at 32:10
First stage landing at 41:50
[ar15]
They must have edited the video, because liftoff was right around 23:00 for me and they started showing the landing at around 32:24.
I'm a little surprised they have the crowd right outside the control room (unless that's not mission control....maybe it's the media control room?). All the cheering can't make it easy to do your job.
-
Ho-lee-crap!
I'm stunned at the first stage maneuvering.
Explanation and animation starts about 31:50.
Paraquoted:
"Like launching a pencil over the Empire State building, have it flip over, and land in a shoebox. Standing up. On its eraser. In the wind."
My gast has been truly and well flabbered.
Well done!
-
How long before the government wants to take it over.
-
So, as more companies get in on this rocket thing, i'm starting to wonder, do ICBM's fall under the second ammendment.
-
So, as more companies get in on this rocket thing, i'm starting to wonder, do ICBM's fall under the second ammendment.
Only with a background check and a permit. No ICBM-show loophole and no ICCWBM.
-
So, as more companies get in on this rocket thing, i'm starting to wonder, do ICBM's fall under the second ammendment.
Uranium and any other radiation source falls under hazmat rules over a certain amount.
You'd definitely need a DD tax stamp.
There's unfortunately treaties that also limit the number of nuclear weapons, which could reasonably be argued as constitutional even if it would theoretically be an infringement on your RKBA rights.
It's illegal to detonate under Title 18, Chapter 113B, § 2332a. Not to mention EPA regs, state law, OSHA, etc.
So, yes, if you got the approval of BATFE and NRC, you could legally make a nuke. Which would then be subject to treaty conditions. Then, you'd legally be able to have a nuke but not legally be able to use it. Or want to use it, technically.
-
Only now is Fox News reporting this on their site.
APS often scoops the "news" organizations for important events.
-
No where does it say an ICBM has to be a nuke.
-
Getting irritated all the people in comments saying "Hurrr-durrr... But Bezos' rocket did this a few weeks ago!" :facepalm:
-
Getting irritated all the people in comments saying "Hurrr-durrr... But Bezos' rocket did this a few weeks ago!" :facepalm:
That's nothing. On another website, someone said this was no big deal because the concept is OLD OLD OLD! The Apollo moon lander did the same thing!
-
Awesome.
So all those old science fiction movies I watched on late night TV where the rocket lands upright on its fins is the actual future instead of NASA's Space Shuttle boondoggle thing or deploying chutes to being back only a tiny fraction of the vehicle.
-
I've landed a few of my rockets close to the launch point, too. Though the outcome wasn't always so good.
-
Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department.
-
No where does it say an ICBM has to be a nuke.
Don't even need explosives, just mass and velocity.
-
No where does it say an ICBM has to be a nuke.
True, you could put a load of tungsten at the top. =D
-
True, you could put a load of tungsten at the top. =D
Or dirt.
Or concrete (actually, likely the best option)
Shape (pointiness more accurately) and L/D are going to matter more for this purpose than density.
Besides, for optimum boomage, density and penetration are bad.
A 1m (approx 2 tons) concrete sphere with a pointy aluminum nose-cone (covered with cork) and tail fins should basically deposit all of its energy in a depth of about its diameter in the ground...so, assuming you can keep it up to 3+ km/s at impact, the effect should be to release the equivalent of 2-3 tons of explosives in about 2-4 tons of material...meaning the resulting impact would look almost identical to replacing a 1m sphere of the ground with a 1m sphere of TNT And setting it off.
The only time tungsten would be better is if you wanted penetration (a tungsten rod should penetrate 5-6 times its length into dirt or concrete), or a "hotter" boom (making a shallow disk with a long non-tungsten nose, to minimize penetration and maximize energy transfer).
-
So... "Rods from God" should be changed to something like...
"Balls for y'all" ?
-
Or dirt.
Or concrete (actually, likely the best option)
Shape (pointiness more accurately) and L/D are going to matter more for this purpose than density.
Besides, for optimum boomage, density and penetration are bad.
A 1m (approx 2 tons) concrete sphere with a pointy aluminum nose-cone (covered with cork) and tail fins should basically deposit all of its energy in a depth of about its diameter in the ground...so, assuming you can keep it up to 3+ km/s at impact, the effect should be to release the equivalent of 2-3 tons of explosives in about 2-4 tons of material...meaning the resulting impact would look almost identical to replacing a 1m sphere of the ground with a 1m sphere of TNT And setting it off.
The only time tungsten would be better is if you wanted penetration (a tungsten rod should penetrate 5-6 times its length into dirt or concrete), or a "hotter" boom (making a shallow disk with a long non-tungsten nose, to minimize penetration and maximize energy transfer).
this is why we're friends. lol
-
birdman always posts the coolest stuff. And we don't have to pay him for it, either. Win-win. =D
-
birdman always posts the coolest stuff. And we don't have to pay him for it, either. Win-win. =D
Awww. Thanks! :)
Don't worry, you pay for it...YOU WILL ALL PAY FOR IT.
Giggle...my earlier post said "penetration"
-
Awww. Thanks! :)
Don't worry, you pay for it...YOU WILL ALL PAY FOR IT.
Giggle...my earlier post said "penetration"
Some of us already did. All those outlet cutouts...
Speaking of which, I need to buy some pretty 550 cord to cover the wires for that ODroid temp sensor project. And don't be surprised if you find that Molex crimper missing one of these days.
-
Some of us already did. All those outlet cutouts...
Speaking of which, I need to buy some pretty 550 cord to cover the wires for that ODroid temp sensor project. And don't be surprised if you find that Molex crimper missing one of these days.
That crimper isn't mine, it was part of the big equipment purchase for the current experiment, and gets sent back. I might get all the stuff back early in January...we shall see.