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.

So, this is kind of like a skylon engine I think. As much as I can tell with how little I understand of this. I'm assuming diamond is good for the higher density. But I'm not sure what would be an ideal form of carbon. Diamond sounds more interesting though. Basically, you store metallic hydrogen for density of hydrogen. You then store diamond potentially like a solid rocket booster or otherwise melt and drip into the engine feed(or whatever is needed.). You then collect air and liquefy it and then use the liquid nitrogen for cooling the ship hull and other parts of the ship and collect the oxygen as liquid oxygen to pump as an oxydizer. Potentially, the idea is you melt the diamond to and mix with the metallic hydrogen in order to make literal methane or liquid methane fuel. Then use as a normal Methalox combo. Other side stuff would be used or dumped as needed. No idea how effective this would be or how much electricity would be needed. Still slowly learning things. Edit: And if there is enough nitrogen and/or stored liquid oxygen with it use one or the other as mono propellants for maneuvering thruster at various parts of the ship if it's safe. Would that do anything interesting if they were combined in a nozzle and released somehow? Would this allow more effective density of fuel? Would this be more effective than theoretically pure metallic hydrogen? I'm assuming you could both start with liquid oxygen and convert in flight potentially. I'm not sure how much you could get out of it yet. Could you get up to a 20% payload mass with this?

Normally you hear around 1700isp. What if it is combined with liquid air or LOX and used with an airospike and or any form or ramjet/scramjet to increase the ISP?

This needs multiple choices. If we can get an ssto or other cheap method to get large things up(and/or for cheap) but not people for safety reason. why not robots and space stations and limited people travel. I wonder if that would be possible before cheap people flight. This is assuming stuff that is cutting edge that might be able to do one before the other. I would prefer majority advanced robotic exploration and space stations for redundancies. The redundancies are for safety of people eventually or resources for aborting missions locally or full returns. IE, Build(/test) then explore.

Watching this video: Ran into something familiar playing with stuff on a calculator: 2*2*pi*pi = 39.47841760435743447534 4*pi*2*2 = 50.2654824574366918154 Spoilers = junk 50.2654824574366918154/39.47841760435743447534 = 1.27323954473516268615 2*2 = 4 pi*pi = 9.86960440108935861883 4*pi = 12.56637061435917295385 12.56637061435917295385/9.86960440108935861883 = 1.27323954473516268615 1.27323954473516268615*pi = 4 I'm used to this: (fundamentally derived from a cube. Or an equilateral triangle?) 1.5^1*1.3...^1 = 2 1.5^2*1.3...^2 = 4 = 2.25 * 1.777... 1.5^3*1.3...^3 = 8 = 3.375 * 2.370... In case it's not obvious:(And I'm not completely sure what this comes too.) When you stair step between values of 2 you use this for volume etc. 288x2=576. 288x1.5 = 432. 432x1.333... = 576. 2x2 = 4. 2x1.5=3. 3x1.333... = 4. 2/3/4 triangle stepping. This is also related to equilateral triangles as they are double a 234 triangle. And 234 triangles are 1/4th of a sqaure and 1/6th 1/12th of a hexagon if I'm not mistaken. Then I realized: (Is this the circle version somehow?!) 1.27323954473516268615*pi = 4 = sqrt(1.27323954473516268615)^2*sqrt(pi)^2 = 1.1283791670955125739^1*1.7724538 = 2 So: 1.1283791670955125739^1*1.7724538509055160273^1 = 2.000000000000000000 1.1283791670955125739^2*1.7724538509055160273^2 = 4.000000000000000000 = 1.27323954473516268616 * 3.14159265358979323847 1.1283791670955125739^3*1.7724538509055160273^3 = 8.000000000000000000 = 1.43669697700133249353 * 5.5683279968317078453 What are these called? They are different ways to derived dimensional change from a shape. IE linear 2d and 3d changes. 2 is linear, 4 is a square, 8 is a cube. BTW, those slices of partial circles are calculatable/identifiable if you do stuff with sacred geometry and euclids elements.(not sure off hand) They are probably definable proportionally also. But they represent the difference between those two formulas. pi^2 * r^2 and 4pi *r^2 Should pi be looked at as a 2 dimensional value? And it's root a 1 dimensional value? and sqrt(pi)^3 = 5.56832799683170784528 as three dimensional? Also notice the similarities of the value 1.7724538509055160273 to 1.777... I think it is some pivot point between the difference between the two variations of the formula. Is pie related to the difference fundamentally? This is derived from the 2/4 in the formula. But is this some alternative to the values in scaling of 2d and 3d shapes. Does this work for circles/spheres specifically somehow? Edit: To boot those curves if derived from a circle usually represent the length of 1 or the radius of a circle. Not sure how it translates into 3d from 2d. (ignore the outside patterns. They are not perfect because of how the program draws circles.)

He did apparently say it would be good on mars. And potentially said he wanted cities on mars. Unless it was just some investor stuff. But everything he makes looks like it goes with his mars colony ambitions. https://www.universetoday.com/127356/hyperloop-on-mars/ https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-mars-city-codex I think this is how he comes up with his ideas. He thinks of mars then builds it here for now. Maybe he's trying to escape personally. He even had a competition or something and got the pod idea from MIT. This means free ideas as well as testing of the idea for later. He picked the idea with passive magnets and the lowest easiest looking maintenance realities. Maybe he was thinking long term.

I'm under the constant assumption that all things made by elon musk are things that are made on earth but are test beds for martian or lunar colonies. It explains, in my mind, the rocket transport, hyperloop, Possibly tesla vehicles, you name it. I assume any money made on earth is merely a way to recoup r&d costs.

In these two pictures it looks like the engine is in slightly different positions. It could be the angle, but I wonder if they have a way to move the engine from side to side to balance the payload or something. the first picture appears to be directly under the circle on the back of the vehicles surface. The second is appears to be closer to the middle and slightly inside the from the hole above it. Or are these pictures from the same location and time? At minimum the plane is farther forward then the round object embedded in the runway in the first photo. And the shadow in the first picture appears to be almost straight back indicating it's aimed at the sun. While the second is almost parallel to the sun with a long shadow to the side.

Actually, I've seen business comercials advertising drone delivery via app with your location. I think it was drone vs vehicle. But if that is the case there may be some viable commercial option starting up. You would point on the app a mapp location(possibly with some location assist on the phone.)for delivery instead of an adress and it delivers. It seemed like it was for more than recreational city parks. It was advertising more extreme environments like on a mountain. So, I think it was drone delivery. It would specifically order food and pizza. This may lead to worse problems with people delivery to false locations though. Unless phones/apps have the ability to nullify this issue. I'm sure some pranks will come of it. It's possible the previous limitations were less hardware and more communications. If so the modern phone abilities might be bridging thins. Or maybe both are being reduced simultaneously. It could always be vehicle combined with drone also. A car could drive and to within a distance and then drone drop it. This might be more efficient overall and spare having to be in person saving many problems for everyone. Also no property damage. Being able to drive to the middle of a neighborhood and deliver 20 pizza at the same time would also be a godsend to logistics. You could deliver alot more at once without the food getting cold. Outside of the flying in the air adding more time to get cold that is. This was all a concept in the 50's before we realized nuclear had side effects. Think the jetsons.

I think I know how to make it happen. The problem is what would it be good for. So, start with this: Then do the obvious: Then take the next step: Is this the next step in amazon and pizza hut delivery systems. Flying drone warehouses/flying pizza ovens? Would it save on taxes? what would the shipping cost be. Local, but airbased... Could it work purely on solar power and electric? would it save money, or would it be a hybrid for some reason. Would this be useful in the military for some reason. I assume there might be a limit in range of drones. So, what could this do? Maybe it's good for food deliveries. If you can keep stuff cool with electric you could deliver stuff down to a fleet or anything else with drones and the mothership could take care of the rest. It could be the future of all mail/shipping. I've seen the ad for drone food delivery. So, just add the carrier. It's not like a machine couldn't put a pizza together and send it through a thin pizza oven potentially(Or, god forbid, some super high end frozen pizza.). Maybe for out of the way areas where a local store isn't located. Or for special events. Deliver food up with drones, cook, then deliver. Just imagine front line soldiers ordering their favorite pizza hut pizza's. Just make it a war crime to attack a pizza blimp. 8) Just have to be careful of the evil pizza the hutt getting out of hand: Seems the are looking into it. Probably old news: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-blimp-delivery-drones-viral-video-is-fake-2019-4 Apparently walmart wants in also. with their new quick return policy could drones drop off and return unwanted packages in record times. It would even just go back up to a blimp for storage until someone else buys it again. Might need some quality controls on that though. Yea, definetly need it to go back to a store for inspections.. https://www.geekwire.com/2017/battle-retail-blimps-amazon-walmart-propose-airship-drone-stations/ If a drone can carry up to say 500 lbs. And a tank shell weights 40 lbs. you could carry up to 12 abrams shells to a tank and reload it... Outside of nasty AA. Could a drone manage this at low altitude with flying supply ships. I assume the military has looked into this. I'm imagining too vulnerable. Although if it could be done it would cut a tone of potentially fuel and add an alternative to logistics. It could even drop in replacement soldiers(call it the stork.). IF not then what about emergency evac drones to replace helicopters. If you can safely drone carry up to an EM blimp you could do surgery on site instead of having to go to a hospital. Or at least get some pre surgery done like in an ambulance. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-cant-just-stick-pin-it-other-facts-about-blimp-n453221 Imagine automated supply lines. You defend and they just send it in. I assume to a neutral location for ground drones or fly low to hide the position as to not give away locations. Or any other similar function. I wonder how hard a stealth blimp and drones would be hard to develop to lower detection. So, yea: We may have this covered. Yep, sorry. Old news! ><

What if you made a drone body out of a very thin paper for screen material and painted it with a dual paint. Or Use something so the frame is nothing but paint? How much could you get out of one?