totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[RCgothic]

47 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Sorry to continue this aside for a moment, but that doesn't add up in my admittedly tired brain. If planes are safer per mile, it should be safer to travel by plane always.

No, because if the distance is fixed at the same for each, then the plane is no longer making up for being more dangerous per trip by going further.

As Tomf mentioned earlier, the risks of flying are concentrated around landing and take off. It's not much less risky to cut down the cruise phase, which is statistically the safest bit of the flight. 

And actually, short-haul aircraft are smaller, more vulnerable to sudden cross-winds and vortex interference, undergo more frequent landing, take-off, temperature and pressure cycling, and are less well maintained on average.

Trains easily come out on top over short distances.

Edit: Although now that I'm following that logic in the opposite direction, I suppose there might be a distance over which trains become less safe. Every section of track and every set of points crossed is a potential accident. So extending the trip linearly increases the risk of a train journey, whereas a plane is safely in cruise mode.

Edited 5 hours ago by RCgothic

[tater]

21 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

So you are comparing things that are very unlike each other. More so than apples and oranges.

I also imagine that fatal incidents involving trains are overwhelmingly with small numbers of deaths, which is quite rare for air travel (which is astoundingly safe). The total deaths on trains maybe dominated by a few huge derailments—which are still likely more survivable than air crashes (% killed). Here in NM, I think all of the 10s of deaths caused by our "Railrunner" system (famous only from being used on Myth Busters) were pedestrians, bikes, or cars hit (usually at level crossings, though I think a drunk who passed out on the track in Bernalillo was just on the line someplace).

Not really the same at all as you say.

[Deddly]

Sorry for contributing to the off topic

1 hour ago, Minmus Taster said:

It's interesting that the offset thrust doesn't immediately send it spinning in an intuitive direction. Must be because of all that liquid fuel sloshing around

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Deddly said:

Sorry to continue this aside for a moment, but that doesn't add up in my admittedly tired brain. If planes are safer per mile, it should be safer to travel by plane always.

in theory you are incorrect. Short plane trips are more dangerous as main danger is takeoff and landing while trains have an pretty constant risk / kilometers traveled. 
However in practice you are correct as short plane flights mostly exist then its rarely an train option.  Yes its some exceptions like inner city airports but you don't use them to an nearby hub, you might use them for an more remote one however. 

[Nuke]

2 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

The vibration of those engine nozzles is what catches my eye the most, I never thought of them as being flexible.

bells ring.

[GuessingEveryDay]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

What is this camera case glazing made of?

Could also be a system of mirrors. Camera behind some THICC glass, aimed at a mirror

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

Looks to me like a RUD instead of an FTS trigger. This is probably the upper half of the ship if I had to guess.

Now this is very cool, I know lots of the old Apollo ground shots was done with an 30-40 cm telescope on an radar guided mounts for Bofors 40 mm guns. Yes you want to modify it a bit as it was not designed to track supersonic targets leaving and using an transducer as you wanted to track the second stage. 
Today you could track it by the light I think, simple image processing,  probably with an manual override for staging. 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

No, because if the distance is fixed at the same for each, then the plane is no longer making up for being more dangerous per trip by going further.

As Tomf mentioned earlier, the risks of flying are concentrated around landing and take off. It's not much less risky to cut down the cruise phase, which is statistically the safest bit of the flight. 

And actually, short-haul aircraft are smaller, more vulnerable to sudden cross-winds and vortex interference, undergo more frequent landing, take-off, temperature and pressure cycling, and are less well maintained on average.

Trains easily come out on top over short distances.

Edit: Although now that I'm following that logic in the opposite direction, I suppose there might be a distance over which trains become less safe. Every section of track and every set of points crossed is a potential accident. So extending the trip linearly increases the risk of a train journey, whereas a plane is safely in cruise mode.

And probably an culture thing. 

Here the driver has problems looking ahead, now adding more carts would improve safety by orders of magnitude like if braking hard. it does not have to be passenger carts. 
 

[darthgently]

50 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

Could also be a system of mirrors. Camera behind some THICC glass, aimed at a mirror

I think you are correct.  That would explain the curved border that keeps bouncing around on the left.  Still, even the reflected radiant heat through the mirrors would be tough stuff.  

[Meecrob]

How's it going losers? I haven't been by in a while. You guys razzing @Exoscientist for me while I was gone?

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

How's it going losers? I haven't been by in a while. You guys razzing @Exoscientist for me while I was gone?

We mostly just watch him pwn himself these days