Fact of the Week; you are not fast

[Science Abuse]

You are not fast.

Nothing you have ever seen or heard of is fast....

Unless you have seen or heard of this

3 mile, 6 seconds

6400mph, mach 8.6

And it never left the ground

My cure'all solution to slowness, solid fuel rockets, has been embraced by the scientific comunity for some time. A wonderfull little test bed known as a rocket sled held the world speed record, not just the land speed record, for 20 years. Set in 1982 at 6122mph, and broken by another sled in 01 at 6400mph. To go that fast you have to get a running start in space. Speeds never seen by powered craft of any kind, including aircraft, untill 2004's X43 mach 9.4 flight.

The record holder (click for vid)

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/lg_vibration-lg-1.jpg

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_rocket-lg-2.jpg

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/lg_light-lg-2.jpg

Nope, no brakes. This wasn't just for fun, $750,000 doesn't get blown on NASA fun. It was a USAF Missle test.

 

Another caught by highspeed film.

http://www.meggaflash.com/images/sled%20sandia%20220798B.jpg

[thorne]

You think he would give me 3 and the hit ?

[Cougar1647545494]

That bottom pic looks photoshopped as all hell.

[old dirty bastard]

Linn would race him actually I think thats him on the left in the back setting it up

[Kohones]

Linn would race him actually I think thats him on the left in the back setting it up

 

Very good!!!!! Haaaaa

[wnaplay1647545503]

Ask my wife, I'm faster than that.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Ask my wife, I'm faster than that.

hahahahahhahahahha

haha

hahahahhahaa

ha

sig material

[RangerTurbo]

That bottom pic looks photoshopped as all hell.

 

truth, if its a high speed camera then it would catch the missile while it was moving against the backround, not the backround moving against the missle, therefore the missile and backround should both look stationary barring the tiny details like flame and air movement, or the missile should look blurry and not the back round

[turbomark]

Saw it on tlc last night...

[smokin5s]

that thing is insaine.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Saw it on tlc last night...

 

 

same here.

[Tulo]

truth, if its a high speed camera then it would catch the missile while it was moving against the backround, not the backround moving against the missle, therefore the missile and backround should both look stationary barring the tiny details like flame and air movement, or the missile should look blurry and not the back round

 

Unless the camera was following the missile as it went by.

That's really fucking cool. :thumbup:

[Science Abuse]

Unless the camera was following the missile as it went by.

Yes

Saw it on tlc last night...

Ditto. :wtg:

[RangerTurbo]

Unless the camera was following the missile as it went by.

That's really fucking cool. :thumbup:

 

uhh, if the camera was traveling at 6400 mph, it would disentegrate

 

 

now the camera could have been moving ALOT slower then the missile, but even then it would still have a blurred effect on the missile/rocket

[Tulo]

No, you're not understanding what I mean. I don't know if I can explain it so that it makes sense either.

Relative to the ground, the camera is not moving, but rotating on a vertical axis. As it's rotating(at the same pace that the missile is going by at), the picture is taken. That's why the background would be blurry, but the missile is not.

Maybe someone else can explain it better.

[RangerTurbo]

i understand what you mean now,that would have to a super high speed camera i would think to accomplish that then

[Buckeye1647545503]

that would have to a super high speed camera i would think to accomplish that then

 

Well the missle was going 6000+ that is a little fast (no ZO6 or anything but)

[Science Abuse]

i understand what you mean now,that would have to a super high speed camera i would think to accomplish that then

It was. There was a string of numbers and specs in the image credits..uhh, which I lost.