Arugela

It just happened an hour ago.

Hopefully this is ok in this forum. With the new footage I noticed something interesting. In one video angle on the NBC footage. A guy was coming out of his house and the crash seemed to be going directly towards him. It looks like it was going one way or almost a direct line then swirved sideways fairly steeply before crashing in a fireball. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/31/us/video/american-airline-plane-crash-washington-exclusive-video-ldn-digvid <- Starts at 0:17 seconds. https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/video-captures-moment-small-plane-crashes-in-philadelphia-230829125969 <- start at 0:19 seconds. Looking at it again maybe it was more jacknifed straight up and down than a 45 degree angle. But it appears to be sideways at one point. You will notice the explosion is centered far to the right of the and it was coming in at even when it disapeared. The other footage from the cars perspective is falling almost straight but in the end curves downwards. They are saying it crashed after takeoff. Edit: I can't find the footage outside of the livefeed from the cars camers on at the crossroad. The footage in question was on NBC's live feed on a roku with youtube. It was from a cars dashcam with a big car in front if it at or near a road crossing showing it decent in a slight curved downward path before hitting the ground. The video was titled: "BREAKING: Small plane crash in Philadelphia residential area | NBC" Possibly this: (looking for exact timestamp. Live doesn't allow timestamps. These primitive businesses need to catch up to modernia.) In the first example you can see what appear to be bright frontal lights moving on the front of the plane showing it's maneuvering. it appeara at some point ot be at around 45 degree angle just before swirving downwards in a curve. I'm wondering if after takeoff, and in this footage it was upside down at a 45 degree angle and then swirved upwards before crashing causing the bizarre sideways movement. If partway upside down might also explain the downwards arc of the second footage. Note: I originally thought it was debree from a fallen part plane or a metor/satelight. But Now I'm thinking the shiney lights are just the planes wing lights and it was much closer to the cameras than I thought. It also has footage with curved ground from the lenses. but I'm assuming the car footage is not curved. And that curve is not sufficient for the footage with the man running back into his home when it hits the ground. I think it going jacknife after takeoff helps explain the 45 degree angle and the weird curved trajectory.

I think the only solution would be to make a C130 into a drone on a one way trip and then you have a problem with the plane getting in the way of the explosion. I think one video says it's a super thin aluminum body just so it doesn't effect the explosion. So, it would need to be packed with more moabs and other explosives on a one way drone attack. Anything short of that would be a monumental waste of resources realistically as it's the existing method of delivery slightly modified. And then I'm guessing it would have problems in a real world scenario with being intercepted.

I wonder if you could then just slap larger wings on it and launch it from a c130... How much distance does a glider get like that? I'm not sure on the math for gliders. I'm assuming it would need ridiculously large wings. I believe it's: length: 31ft weight: 21600lbs(10.8tons) Diameter 3ft6inch? approximately. Current wings: 5 ft (10ft total or when popped out? I assume total.*C130 has a 10ft opening.) Unsure of the length. I'm assuming 10-15ft max. Current minimum safe launch in a c130 is 6000ft. Max altitude with payloads of C130 is max 33,000ft with older models down to 26,000ft at 42-45k lbs. Not sure on the wing loading currently. Plus it has the same fins as the bottom stage of the SpaceX rockets. I would assume you would need some sort of massive pop out wings as it's currently at the maximum for release in a C130. I'm assuming structural needs would make those some thick wings and limit the size drastically if it's not already at the extreme limits. Does anyone know what the current glide distance is for the Moab? If it has one effectively. I'm assuming not. (it might need 4 diagonal pop out wings) It's also designed with a fairly thin aluminum skin to maximize the filler. I wonder if it has limits for air drops from that also.

I was just wondering if it could be put on it since it doesn't have a method of launch besides C130's and it would be a cool combo. And midgetman is the only vehicle launcher I could find in the US arsenal to go with it. I didn't think about the total thrust of the rocket as an issue. Could a custom rocket of that size get the needed/ideal thrust?

I wasn't able to figure this out. I'm looking at an example of the Midgetman program prototype stuff. Assuming you could stick a moab on the top what range would it have. Assuming you didn't change the fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-134_Midgetman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87#Variants The rocket is listed on wiki as 30,000lbs with what appears to be up to 4 x 600 lbs(2400lbs) W87 warheads. Midgetman: 7000 miles; 30,000 - 2400 = 27,600lbs Moab: 21,600lbs 27,600+21,600= 49,200lbs. What would the range be if this was possible. I think the moab is exactly 9 times the weight of the 4 other warheads combined and around 1.64 times the weight of the basic midgetman(with warheads/30,000lbs). Is this a linear relationship or does it follow 2 or 3 dimensions? Or something else? (I used a calculator and I'm assuming it's somehow 2 dimensional) Edit: Would it get around 35 miles max range?

Or can you only direct more energy downwards? Does any patterning actually increase the overall yield or are you stuck with just your initial amount and how much you can get in a certain direction? I'm trying to design a hypothetical oversized military vehicle that would shoot moab bombs as artillery/mortar shells. Or if a giant space bomber could drop conventional in the amount to get a WWII level conventional nuke yield. If you are stuck with starting yield can you get more than half of it downwards? Maybe with something like a pyramid shape?

Can we have both and more units(including NM). Then add the conversion so people get used to them and learn them. Could be cool if each was in it's appropriate place by default. Like NM and other over the oceans etc. Then have options for which ones you want where. And have a mode for all measurements as a learning tool.

I'm trying to follow the calcualtions given in this thread on stack exchange I can't figure out how he got his answer. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/16550 He says it's 4kg of thrust but I can't figure out the other stuff. Ct*p*area*tip^2 0.03*1.225*?*0.6=4kg?!

I wish I still had my newtonian telescope and solar filter. I would have liked to have watched this with it. My brain forgot the lensese don't magnify it... Somehow I didn't mentally process that part. What is the biggest telescope with a solar filter that could watch this? did any large telescopes watch this with good detail and record it?

I'm pretty sure that is the definition of a bridge. Or are you joking?

Can or has anyone made a monitor that works like those old 2d flat holograms they put on toys? Could this allow wider vewing angles if the LCD worked like this and could even potentially move the entire screen to the side if you are off center via hardware/software techniques. Would this be feasible on curved monitors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

That video shows the lights going off then as the lights are off it turns directly into the bridge. then the lights come back on. Is that possible by accident? I hadn't seen that angle before. That is a bizarrely seemingly accurate and fast turn. If so that is a good reason to build structures and not assume good will will always be there. Or just in case of accidents for unforseen reasons. Was it trying to avoid a different obstacle? If the idea of ramps and various structures both directly around the base supports and possibly making guideing paths towards the allow areas with gaps for smaller vessels and several layers it might be interesting and at least save a bridges. I would think it would be better to safe the traffic in case of transport and logistics and to save lives. What if the build guide ramps under the water to stop boats of a certain depth from going over them easily and allow more shallow boats to go over the top? Or is that too expensive. Also dotted stone or concrete structures. Basically a guided path for larger vessels. Plus similar around the pillars just in case and for all other vessels. It's also sad if they didn't warn the construction crew. How could they miss that. Might be a good thing to look into to avoid this in the future. Edit: if you make the normal pillars around the bridge like the other bridge and an eye shapes deeper ramp like second structure around each base pointing in the same direction as the traffic with the surface cut off to allow shallow boats that might be useful. But I'm guessing it would need some pretty thick concrete laying to make it strong enough. I assume some ships would need to get in for maintenance or other odd things.

Could the bridge supports be rebuild strong enough to actually take a hit from those boats? I would assume it's not the worst idea, if possible, to make them strong enough for any traffic designed to go under them. If you made a new support as wide as those ships and in a circle at minimum how much damage could it take. What is the energy and max speed of those boats and how much could it take. Or can they be remade in a way to rebuild as fast as possible if hit again? And specifically avoid collapse if hit again at the worst case with existing potential ships.

Oh, I thought diamond could be melted in liquid oxygen more easily. This is also for an SSTO design and I hoped it would help cool a ship so it can survive the heat better.