HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

anothertroll456

no profile record

投稿

[untitled]

1 ポイント·投稿者 anothertroll456·昨年·0 コメント

コメント

anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
That's a really dumb response. Yes, it relies on closing the doors to achieve supersonic flight too.

The Boom plane doesn't rely on afterburners at any point in the trajectory to achieve supersonic flight. So yes, you would be reading the comments incorrectly.

Gosh this website is full of ignorant people.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
[flagged]
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
Not only that. His company makes money by betting on downturns. So... it's not like he doesn't have a vested interest in markets tanking.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
That was amazing! Thank you.

Wait, idlewords is still around??
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
Also what I do. Or try to do.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
Just gimbal lock. Drifting happens to all of them.

But also the gimbal mechanisms, gimbal low response time, etc.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
Yeah I thought about that some more and at that altitude and speed the FTS is usually already deactivated.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
That doesn't negate FTS.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
Maybe it did, or is it public that it didn't? A possible sequence (very typical in rocket failures) is: fire, engine failure(s), loss of control, rupture due to aero forces or FTS activation, explosion due to propellant mixture. Not all of these have to happen, but it's a typical progression. Before the days of AFTS the FTS activation would be pretty delayed.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
Nevermind. It was probably the FTS like other people pointed out.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
Nope. That's definitely an explosion (source: I'm in the rocket business). However it may not be an explosion of the whole stage. Probably of the engine section.
anothertroll456
·昨年·議論
[dead]