Jump to content

Fact of the Week; you are not fast


Science Abuse

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...