Yes, you've just hit on Noims' first two Laws of Aeronautics:
1) If you see a video of something flying and there's no audio, the thing is extremely loud.

2) If it's small, self-contained, and not super-light, it has an extremely short flight time.

While definitely aeronautically impressive, what makes this a real visual treat is the frame rate alignment with the propeller making it look like it's not spinning at all (when it absolutely is). Awesome on many levels.

Since I quite enjoyed the talk I'm willing to overlook that fact He did also have some good examples of actual cold welding.

NASA has an interesting lessons learned article about the Galileo high gain antenna failure, which also seems to be more nuanced than "it was cold welding" - http://llis.nasa.gov/lesson/492

p.s. I got curious about the reference to Gemini, and I'm not 100% sure but I think it might come from a 1991 paper "On-Orbit Coldwelding Fact or Friction?" by Dursch, H. & Spear, S. (Bibliographic Code: 1991NASCP3134.1565D) or else it's from the paper it references as ref 5 (I. Stambler "Surface Effects in Space", Space/Aeronautics, Vol 45 No. 2, 1966 pp. 63-67).

That paper gives the opposite impression to the start of Derek's talk, rather than cold welding being discovered around the time of Gemini, it was often thought to be a problem around that time but as he says later was subsequently found to be quite rare (Dursch and Spear found no actual cases of cold welding causing spacecraft issues, they were usually friction issues due to fretting or galling caused by loss of lubricants, but still recommended taking precautions to avoid coldwelding).

Aeronautical Propulsion and Stabilization Mechanism.

This is heartbreaking. Kenyan ingenuity is amazing (as it is everywhere in the world where people can't just throw away things and buy new). The vehicles they use would have been condemned decades ago here in the UK, but without a big spares network, dealer servicing or even a garage to work in they keep them running.

He's following his dream and good for him. It's just so painfully obvious that he's never going to get there. Anyone who looks at what he built and even think 'maybe...' is obviously completely oblivious to aeronautics!

There are some great examples of awesome, life changing technologies which have been created out of scraps in the African bush, like the kid who built windmills in Malawi: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8257153.stm

But it seems for every person who does great things, others fall by the wayside.

I'm glad I don't have to live like they do in Kenya, but I wouldn't mind a bit of their spirit. Dude's built more than I have...

looks WAY too heavy for a single....prop if that's what you can call that thing...prop seems kinda smallish too. But I am definitely not an aeronautical engineer.

I don't quite get this though. Is this just some independent hobbyist? Is someone pranking?

If you were a kid you would think this was the shizz-nizz....This is what you get your tyke who spends a lotta times in tall hotels traveling with you to aeronautics lectures...

>> ^qfan:

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth.

Agreed. On the other hand, the unassailable mountains of evidence for evolution means his views (at least on evolution) are truth. Or at least as much as it's possible to have any scientific "truth".


>> ^qfan:

Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.
What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He's not saying parents can't tell their children about creationism, he's saying they shouldn't. You can dance around the issue all you want, and believe in creationism, the tooth fairy or santa claus, but there comes a time when you have to grow up and accept reality. Right now, there's no debate about evolution, simply because there is no valid competing scientific theory that even comes close to matching the evidence. That I have to even spell this out is pretty sad.

>> ^qfan:

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory.

There might be "thousands of scientists that believe in creation", but they represent a tiny percentage of the overall scientific community and almost none of them work in relevant fields. You wouldn't ask a plumber about aeronautical engineering, so don't ask a physicist about biology.

And if you ignore evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the science of biology. You are cherry-picking which evidence you accept because it doesn't fit your world view.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

I have already conceded that you do not need to understand evolutionary biology to build rockets.

>> ^qfan:

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution".

If you're going to quote me, at least do me the courtesy of doing it fully and in context. What I said was:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.


I meant that Von Braun benefited from the study of evolution in the same way that every other human in the developed world did, through better medicines. It didn't really affect his work, but it did affect his life.


>> ^qfan:

Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

So what? He was wrong about evolution. Big deal. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time and he got time wrong. Science marches on, and I'm confident that Von Braun if he had the time and inclination to really study it, would eventually have accepted the facts of evolution. And if he still chose to ignore the evidence because it didn't fit his world-view, well, that's sad, but it changes nothing about the truth of evolution.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.


It's not unique to the U.S., but it's more prevalent than any other developed nation. What he's saying is that the U.S. should know better.

Denial of evolution in and of itself is bad, but it's symptomatic of the larger issues of anti-intellectualism and non-rational thought. The people who made the U.S. the most technologically advanced nation are not the same people that believe in a talking snake.

Besides, he's talking about potential. Maybe somewhere in the bible belt the next Alexander Fleming is having their future taken away from them because they are being lied to (intentionally or not) by their parents and/or preachers.

9 : 5
10 : 6
11 : 5
9 : 5 (or 10 : 5)

This is a website, not an SAT exam. A channel subdomain name should convey simply the general idea and do so succinctly.

If the idea of the channel is to be focused on teachers, students, classrooms, and the educational system, *school is well-suited.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^lucky760:
An alternate and maybe better channel name could be school maybe.

SAT vocab test:
economics : money
automotive : wheels
aeronautics : wings
education : ?
I say based on those past examples, the right name here is blackboard, not school.
Naming it school would be as ridiculous as calling our economics channel market, or our automotive channel street.
Or maybe we should just call it education, and not make it needlessly obscure...

>> ^lucky760:

An alternate and maybe better channel name could be school maybe.


SAT vocab test:

economics : money
automotive : wheels
aeronautics : wings

education : ?

I say based on those past examples, the right name here is *blackboard, not *school.

Naming it *school would be as ridiculous as calling our economics channel market, or our automotive channel street.

Or maybe we should just call it *education, and not make it needlessly obscure...

Seems similar to one I got a few years ago:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issed by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Big deal, 1st graders make batteries out of freaking potatoes. You don't know what it was used for or what specific purpose it was created for. That does not mean that it was a battery in the sense that you mean it.

You're stretching the "computer" a little bit, while technically the object in question "might have" been a computer, so is an abacus, and we don't get all up in arms over those.

What then? A drawing that looks like a helicopter? Give me a break, one drawing that looks like something does not a theory make.

Those gold items of jewelry? You saw quite clearly in the history channel video that the "model" the guy built was, speaking in terms of aeronautics, totally different. The cylinder that ran the whole length of the piece of jewelry needed to be thinned out on the flying model until it was just a twig where it met the tail. Again, speaking in terms of aeronautics, that's WAAAAY different. Don't you think it might be a more acceptable theory to say that it's a piece of jewelry that merely resembles a modern airplane? Wait, what am I saying, it's not a theory, because the fact that two pieces of jewelry that happen to look like something else does not make a theory.

Either way, science is full of anomalies, that's because science can't explain everything. Because rational people don't expect it to. Don't apply the omniscient, omnipotent aspects of god to science, because they don't make any rational sense there either.

Shit, I just have to say that watching this terrible video with this annoying used car salesmen was one of the hardest things I've done all week. And it proves nothing. This guy is just cherry picking from ideas that his poor warped brain does not have the ability to comprehend.

I'm not avoiding science because I don't accept this guy's premise. This guy is avoiding science by proposing it.

The space shuttle had lift off. Finally. After several weeks of delays, National Aeronautics and Space Administration decided to break with custom and the Space Shuttle launched. Though the mission was delayed for a number of weeks, the Shuttle Endeavour recently lifted off the launch pad and thundered to the skies. It is the final journey of the Endeavour.

That, is just simply amazingly cool to know! Let him know how much I enjoyed it. I have to check out his blog, and the music (I will definitely put that in the credits) thank you so much for posting it!
It is wild what you find digging around online!


>> ^timlombardo:

Hah, I can't believe this is on here...this was my brother's senior thesis as a student at Ringling in '06. He is a 3d modeler at Activision (recently designed the RC Bomb Car in Black Ops). He now posts some of his personal work on his blog - http://nicholaslombardo.blogspot.com/.
The music was written and performed by our cousin, Todd Lombardo. He writes and produces music in Nashville and is currently touring with Jerry Douglas - check out a performance from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORvfCJkhRm4.

>> ^gwiz665:

It seemed a little stiff to me, but a fun idea.


I have watched so Manny animations I really don't like the whole over animation with all the exspresoins and everything . its sort of taken for granted that having all the easing and momentum and stuff typically found in Disney style animation is the pinical of animation.

but i think your right aspects of this do seem a bit stiff or soleless but that kinda works with this animation its like keano reevs in the matrix he might be stiff and sole less as an actor but that works realy well in some films.