Skip to content
HomeVideos
AllLongsCategoriesPlaylists
BooksBlogsPodcasts
HistoryListsWatch laterLiked videosFollowing

The videos, books, blogs and podcasts Hacker News keeps recommending, all in one place.

VideosBooksBlogsPodcastsAboutPrivacySettings

Data from Hacker News, HackerTube, HackerBooks, HackerBlogs and Open Library. Credits · Not affiliated with Y Combinator.

HomeVideosBooksBlogsPodcasts
Ctrl K

    Total Destruction Redux: F4 Phantom vs. Concrete Wall - Additional Camera Angles

    What You Haven't Seen

    4 HN mentions · mentioned in 4 months, 2021–2026

    YouTube

    2:53 · 946K views · Nov 20, 2017

    Additional camera angles of the 1988 Sandia National Laboratories rocket-sled test in which an F-4 Phantom was crashed at about 500 mph into a block of reinforced concrete. The footage shows the aircraft disintegrating against the wall.

    HN commenters cite it in nuclear and engineering debates as evidence that concrete containment structures can withstand aircraft impacts.

    Engineering, Transport & MakingAviation & aerospace engineeringCivil engineering & constructionNuclear power & fusion
    1. 3:17
      Boeing 777 Wing Testmtthw02M views • 16 years ago
    2. 2:19
      Plane Crash Boeing 727 - HD Crash Test9,999,999 views842K views • 10 years ago
    3. 3:19
      Cask Test - 1978miSci - museum of innovation and science107K views • 14 years ago
    4. 56:11
      Always/Never: The Quest for Safety, Control, and Survivability - Part 1Sandia National Labs303K views • 11 years ago
    5. 13:20
      How Kodak Exposed Nuclear TestingVeritasium6.7M views • 6 years ago
    6. 2:08
      For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENTpurgatoryironworks14M views • 10 years ago
    7. 5:36
      A380 Blade Off TestManuito2.6M views • 19 years ago
    8. 11:17
      Can A Metal Bowling Ball Survive Inside a Nuclear Explosion?Scott Manley737K views • 6 years ago
    9. 23:37
      Rotating Detonation Engine (RDE) -- Dynamics and BifurcationsNathan Kutz88K views • 6 years ago
    10. 22:48
      Demo and teardown of an X-ray fluorescence gun (measures chemical composition)Applied Science369K views • 6 years ago
    11. 7:53
      Sand Castle Holds Up A Car! - Mechanically Stabilized EarthPractical Engineering5M views • 10 years ago
    12. 15:42
      Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040Improbable Matter2M views • 5 years ago
    13. 37:23
      Walls, Floors, & CeilingsUncommentatedPannen386K views • 9 years ago
    14. 14:25
      A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao HashimotoaConcernedHuman16M views • 16 years ago
    15. 0:32
      Tesla crashes into concrete barrier....ON AUTO PILOT!McLovin62K views • 9 years ago
    16. 15:22
      Nuclear Weapons: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)LastWeekTonight22M views • 12 years ago
    17. 1:13
      Tacoma Bridge Collapse: The Wobbliest Bridge in the World? (1940) | British PathéBritish Pathé4.5M views • 13 years ago
    18. 1:13
      1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash testIIHS11M views • 12 years ago
    19. 10:00
      1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made by Werner Mehl from KurzzeitMatt Rece16M views • 17 years ago
    20. 9:11
      What is Concrete?Practical Engineering2.5M views • 8 years ago

    4 comments from Hacker News

    1. @adamcharnockJun 2022· in “Whatever hit the Moon in March, it left a double crater”

      I don't think anything manmade and space-borne is going to have enough structural integrity to perform any kind of summersault upon impact at that velocity. See the fighter jet vs concrete wall video [1]. That was going at 500mph, and notice how the tail of the craft doesn't even perceptibly slow down. And a change in velocity would be required for the tail to rotate around (whether the impact is on an angle or head on) This space object was travelling at 5800mph, 11+ times the speed. Sure a meter or so of moon dust may be a bit softer, but its solid rock underneath right? I'd guess the equivalent would be putting a kitchen sponge between that fighter jet & concrete wall. [1] this video

      CitesView on HN
    2. @nitwit005Apr 2026· in “For the First Time in the U.S., Renewables Generate More Power Than Natural Gas”

      They were designed with that in mind though. They were built to withstand an plane crash or attack. You may have seen the famous test of ramming a F4 Phantom into a reinforced concrete walls without much effect: this video It's certainly possible to blow them up, but they very unlikely to melt down like Chernobyl did anymore due to all the effort put into preventing that. Easier to just launch radioactive materials at your enemy if that's the result you want.

      CitesView on HN
    3. @rwcarlsenJun 2021· in “Wyoming site of new nuclear power plant from Bill Gates' TerraPower”

      Regulations require all nuclear reactor containment domes to be able to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger jet. It is literally a requirement - see [LINK] . You can also check out this video of experiments investigating the strength of containment-dome-like reinforced concrete: this video

      CitesView on HN
    4. @pawsforthoughtJul 2022· in “Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy”

      To your fifth point, nuclear reactor containment vessels can easily withstand a plane crashing into them [1]. [1]: this video

      CitesView on HN