Some educated speculation from FlightGlobal:

"Crews taking off from military bases like Bagram in hostile territory normally plan to climb at the maximum climb angle, to put them at the greatest height above ground level achievable by the time they cross the airfield boundary. This entails a high nose attitude that is maintained for longer than normal, rather than trading climb angle for greater airspeed to make the aircraft easier to handle and safer in the event of an engine failure.

In this film there is no clear visual evidence of a missile travelling toward the aircraft, nor of the explosion or fire that a missile would cause if it were to detonate.

The risks of a maximum angle of climb departure are many. If an engine fails very soon after take-off there is a lower airspeed than normal. Slower speed reduces the rudder authority that keeps the aircraft straight and lowers the margin above stalling speed. In the event of an engine failure it is essential for the crew to push the nose down fast to maintain a safe speed with the lower power output.

Another major risk is that if any cargo is not adequately secured in the hold, the high climb angle will cause the payload to slide backward. This could unbalance the aircraft and cause the nose to pitch up, possibly overwhelming the elevator authority available to the pilots if they attempt to push the nose down."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-flightglobal-expert-analyses-bagram-747-crash-sequence-385338/?cmpid=SOC|FGFG|twitterfeed|Flightglobal

A stretch? Not really. They're not planning to land the entire rocket that launched, only the second stage. Of course it'll cut into the operational payload, but at least some of that loss will be made up by the economy of landing at the same spaceport you'll be taking off from next flight.

>> ^jimnms:

...Jeep removed weight not added. They worded it strange, but read it again, it says "Jeep-Chrysler loaded the car with 470 kilos (1 036 lbs), 132 kilos (291 lbs) under the official maximum payload." The previous tests were performed at the maximum official payload the car can carry.
It looks like Jeep could fix it with a suspension upgrade. The Jeep compared to the other two vehicles rolls farther into the turn and bounces where the other two roll into the turn without the bounce.


I was quite confident that you were wrong ...and then I actually read the documentation from the link in the description. It does seem that the initial tests were performed with the vehicle at maximum payload and then they (Jeep engineers or the testing company? both?) removed weight (100kg) for followup tests. So, thanks for setting me straight! In particular, it makes me more impressed with the other vehicles that apparently can handle the increased stress on the tires even at full payload.

That being said, some of this just doesn't seem to add up to me. It seems that after they subtracted weight, they blew the tire in a great majority of the tests (7 in 10?). That kind of failure rate, at or even below the "maximum payload" suggests that the official load ratings are screwed up. The information from the testing team says that there was some discrepancy between Jeep's listed curb weight and the actual curb weight of their test vehicle, and other weird stuff. Suffice it to say that I'm much more confused about their test procedure, the actual sequence of events, and why they were hoping to improve the results from the first (?) test by removing weight.

Interesting comments thread here all around.

@Stu If a kid runs out in front of your Jeep, are you going to "pink mist" it too? It should be renamed to the high speed avoidance test. We have lots of deer down here and they say the same thing about deer too, to just hit the breaks and take the hit. Of course that never happens as you instinctively want to avoid the crash, so we get a lot of good 'ole boys rolling their trucks over swerving to avoid hitting a deer.

@charliem and @MilkmanDan Jeep removed weight not added. They worded it strange, but read it again, it says "Jeep-Chrysler loaded the car with 470 kilos (1 036 lbs), 132 kilos (291 lbs) under the official maximum payload." The previous tests were performed at the maximum official payload the car can carry.

It looks like Jeep could fix it with a suspension upgrade. The Jeep compared to the other two vehicles rolls farther into the turn and bounces where the other two roll into the turn without the bounce.

"The roughly 15 feet of rocket above the intertank bulkhead, including the fuel tank, composite pressurization tank, computer, payload, four HD cameras, and recovery flyback system were compressed into about two feet. "
Ouch

Yes, because developing military systems that can reach any point on this planet in less than sixty minutes while carrying "more payload than just a camera" is the perfect answer to her question what should be your ultimate goal to work on if you knew you couldn't fail. What about world peace? ;-) I know, i'm some sort of hippie...

Nevertheless: One of the best TED talks i've seen so far and besides the military agenda a great motivator. Should be shown in schools to encourage young minds to keep an open mind towards engineering and science careers instead of just focusing on business and management positions.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Rail guns have the potential to send payloads into orbit. The problem is that the acceleration is so sudden that anything besides a metal slug gets smooshed. The solution is to have a really long rail gun that provides more gentle acceleration. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/railguns-for-space-launch.html

>> ^rychan:

>> ^juliovega914:
I am guessing that the project is using a hybrid system, a powder propellant and an accelerating coil. Gets the acceleration of both systems.

Really? That seems unlikely to me.
Although I was wondering what the explosion was, but I figured it had some exotic explanation related to the vaporized metal.


The friction of the payload ignites the air as it fires.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/943-railgun-weapons.html

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
No scanner would see a program in an image, realize it's an executable and execute the program all without the user's knowledge.
It's barely possible that you could transfer a workable program that way through fractals, and the people on the other end would have to spend weeks or months decoding the program before they could make it run IF they could figure out what it was in the first place.
pattern might be constructed in such a way that when scanned it can confuse any piece of software in the chain to cause a buffer overrun, at which point they could craft the following data to actually be executable and contain malware payload.
This is kinda what happened in a few instances of MP3-based viruses. MP3 file's metadata was malformed in such a way that it would crash the player and execute trojan payload that was embedded in that MP3 file.
Look up information about MP3Concept(MP3Virus.Gen)
There was another incident that involved MP3 file played in Winamp player. I can't find link about it now.
So while realistically unlikely, it's possible.

The main difference there being that the MP3 was a digital file which had been manipulated, not a sound recording. The file was corrupted in a very clever way. In the show the bone 'picture' was taken by the forensics team. They did not bring in a file the guy had created, they took a photograph. You can't insert corrupted data, because the data is coming from the camera they own.
you've never had a legitimate program crash while working with a legitimate file? this is when malware gets to do its stuff.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
No scanner would see a program in an image, realize it's an executable and execute the program all without the user's knowledge.
It's barely possible that you could transfer a workable program that way through fractals, and the people on the other end would have to spend weeks or months decoding the program before they could make it run IF they could figure out what it was in the first place.
pattern might be constructed in such a way that when scanned it can confuse any piece of software in the chain to cause a buffer overrun, at which point they could craft the following data to actually be executable and contain malware payload.
This is kinda what happened in a few instances of MP3-based viruses. MP3 file's metadata was malformed in such a way that it would crash the player and execute trojan payload that was embedded in that MP3 file.
Look up information about MP3Concept(MP3Virus.Gen)
There was another incident that involved MP3 file played in Winamp player. I can't find link about it now.
So while realistically unlikely, it's possible.


The main difference there being that the MP3 was a digital file which had been manipulated, not a sound recording. The file was corrupted in a very clever way. In the show the bone 'picture' was taken by the forensics team. They did not bring in a file the guy had created, they took a photograph. You can't insert corrupted data, because the data is coming from the camera they own.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

No scanner would see a program in an image, realize it's an executable and execute the program all without the user's knowledge.
It's barely possible that you could transfer a workable program that way through fractals, and the people on the other end would have to spend weeks or months decoding the program before they could make it run IF they could figure out what it was in the first place.
pattern might be constructed in such a way that when scanned it can confuse any piece of software in the chain to cause a buffer overrun, at which point they could craft the following data to actually be executable and contain malware payload.

This is kinda what happened in a few instances of MP3-based viruses. MP3 file's metadata was malformed in such a way that it would crash the player and execute trojan payload that was embedded in that MP3 file.
Look up information about MP3Concept(MP3Virus.Gen)
There was another incident that involved MP3 file played in Winamp player. I can't find link about it now.

So while realistically unlikely, it's possible.

No one is saying it is money well spent, except you. But that doesn't mean you can't marvel at what it is. Pyramids are a terrible example of slave labor, but they are still impressive. Governments are good at spending money, every once in awhile, the product of their spending is very impressive...even if ill conceived.

>> ^messenger:

Defending a $320 billion jet program by highlighting its efficiency?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'

You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".
The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?

Defending a $320 billion jet program by highlighting its efficiency?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'

You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".
The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?

>> ^robbersdog49:

I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'


You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".

The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?