It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Quote from: hoppy on July 08, 2015, 08:05:03 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on July 08, 2015, 05:13:06 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on July 07, 2015, 10:41:33 PM

The wings of a space shuttle are way in the back and it doesn't look like it could fly, but that's just at first glance.

The space shuttle is made of very light weight materials so it will be less expensive to launch, but at the back it has 3 heavy engines.  Much of the shuttle is a cargo bay which is mostly empty space, the front part is the light weight cockpit, and the back is all the heavy engines and orbital maneuvering fuel.  The wings are so far back because they have to be, the center of mass is very far back.

Plus the shuttle was never designed to fly, but to fall gracefully......

Finally, some true words from you.

So you agree that the shuttle flies to space and then falls gracefully back down to a controlled touchdown on the ground.

If that's so then you also agree that spaceflight is possible and then ergo the earth is round as shown by all spaceflight achieved so far.

Round earth wins!

I agree with your original statement that the shuttle was never designed to fly, and that it falls back to earth.

Quote from: Mainframes on July 08, 2015, 08:33:46 AM

Quote from: hoppy on July 08, 2015, 08:05:03 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on July 08, 2015, 05:13:06 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on July 07, 2015, 10:41:33 PM

The wings of a space shuttle are way in the back and it doesn't look like it could fly, but that's just at first glance.

The space shuttle is made of very light weight materials so it will be less expensive to launch, but at the back it has 3 heavy engines.  Much of the shuttle is a cargo bay which is mostly empty space, the front part is the light weight cockpit, and the back is all the heavy engines and orbital maneuvering fuel.  The wings are so far back because they have to be, the center of mass is very far back.

Plus the shuttle was never designed to fly, but to fall gracefully......

Finally, some true words from you.

So you agree that the shuttle flies to space and then falls gracefully back down to a controlled touchdown on the ground.

If that's so then you also agree that spaceflight is possible and then ergo the earth is round as shown by all spaceflight achieved so far.

Round earth wins!

I agree with your original statement that the shuttle was never designed to fly, and that it falls back to earth.

And then when you strap some boosters and a big fuel tank to it, it is designed to rocket into space. Job done.

I wonder what has happened to all flying saucer type spaceships that were popular in the past. They were very environmental friendly. No noise, no fumes, they could land quitely anywhere on three or four legs, etc, etc. They were seen by millions of people.

If I were ever contemplating owning a Spaceship I would go for a Flying Saucer 601M that were built at Zwickau in the old times.

I wonder what has happened to all flying saucer type spaceships that were popular in the past. They were very environmental friendly. No noise, no fumes, they could land quitely anywhere on three or four legs, etc, etc. They were seen by millions of people.

If I were ever contemplating owning a Spaceship I would go for a Flying Saucer 601M that were built at Zwickau in the old times.

Don't tell me you are one of those conspiracy nutters...

Quote from: Heiwa on July 09, 2015, 08:10:23 AM

I wonder what has happened to all flying saucer type spaceships that were popular in the past. They were very environmental friendly. No noise, no fumes, they could land quitely anywhere on three or four legs, etc, etc. They were seen by millions of people.

If I were ever contemplating owning a Spaceship I would go for a Flying Saucer 601M that were built at Zwickau in the old times.

Don't tell me you are one of those conspiracy nutters...

Of course not - the Zwickau 601M Flying Saucer was the closest you could get to a Spaceship in GDR at the time (1949-1989). It was low cost but with a 16 years waiting list. Millions of people wanted to buy it ... in spite of the waiting list.

Mjarkjo: LOL!!!

Stick to just posting links; when you RESPOND instead of EXPLAIN you only undermine your case even further.

Really, you are a joke.

Okay, markjo; when I refer to 450 mph tops, I mean that the shuttle will be uncontrollable above this speed.

Easy enough for you, idiot?

Because of the transonic shockwave/buffeting effects that you clearly do not understand.

Okay, idiot?

'Evidence please'? Oh, like the evidence you never provide for anything you say, ever?

LOL!!!

You claim sharp edges are a bad idea for atmospheric re-entry?

Well; as they are absolutely necessary for hypersonic flight, then how can the shuttle get OUT of the atmosphere without them?

Ever seen the X-15?

Idiot.

& would 5 x 690 tonne thrust explosions be easier to 'tune' than 1 x 3,450 tonne thrust (ooh - it just got 50-tonne-thrust bigger! Thanks, markjo) explosion?

Are 5 strings on a guitar easier to 'tune' than 1, idiot?

& it's you cultists who cannot apply Newton 3 correctly; if you could, then why did you try to change the term of reference from 'action-reaction pairing' to 'transfer of momentum' when you realised you were losing the debate on rockets working in a vacuum (lol no they don't - fact!)?

Again; Idiot.

& the rest of your post is just pure lies, without any regard for science, logic or anything but the slimiest gut-instincts of an ambulance-chasing lawyer...

You hate science & you disgust me.

Cultist Idiot.

As for everyone else; go learn about transonic aerodynamics.

Or carry on being IDIOTS...

Your choice.

Btw; the next lesson will be about ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVES & the temperatures at which they degrade; so bone up on em, Cultists...

LOL!!!

Okay, markjo; when I refer to 450 mph tops, I mean that the shuttle will be uncontrollable above this speed.

How do you know this?  Have you studied the shuttle's aerodynamics in a wind tunnel?

Because of the transonic shockwave/buffeting effects that you clearly do not understand.

Since when is 450 mph considered transonic? 

'Evidence please'? Oh, like the evidence you never provide for anything you say, ever?

I tend to present my evidence in the form of links.

You claim sharp edges are a bad idea for atmospheric re-entry?

Well; as they are absolutely necessary for hypersonic flight, then how can the shuttle get OUT of the atmosphere without them?

By strapping on some big ass rocket engines and making sure that you don't get into the hypersonic realm until you're above most of the atmosphere.

Ever seen the X-15?

Yes, I have.  The X-15 was designed for hypersonic flight within the atmosphere.  The shuttle wasn't.

& it's you cultists who cannot apply Newton 3 correctly; if you could, then why did you try to change the term of reference from 'action-reaction pairing' to 'transfer of momentum' when you realised you were losing the debate on rockets working in a vacuum (lol no they don't - fact!)?

Because momentum and action/reaction are very closely related.

& the rest of your post is just pure lies, without any regard for science, logic or anything but the slimiest gut-instincts of an ambulance-chasing lawyer...

Would you care to point out where I lied?

You hate science & you disgust me.

Actually, I quite like science, especially physics.  I'm just not crazy about calculus.

As for everyone else; go learn about transonic aerodynamics.

Just out of curiosity, what are your credentials regarding transonic aerodynamics?

Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.

But LOL at your comment on the shuttle NOT being designed for in-atmosphere hypersonic flight.

Anyhow; moving on...

What are the shuttle's laughable 'thermal protection' tiles stuck on with?

Seems it's something called ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVE.

Even the most modern of these degrade at temperatures above 200C; so we can only imagine how poor the performance of the 1970s versions were.

But still; let's go with 200C eh?

Well, the 'thermal protection' tiles (lol!) have to withstand 1650C temps at re-entry; how, exactly, they prevent 1450C of this from touching the very glue they're directly stuck on with is a mystery so ineffable it surpasseth all understanding...

NASA only knows how it's done!

Just LOL!!!

I'm not even going to entertain doubters on this one; you're either IN the Cult or you're OUTTA the Cult here!

Instead, we'll move on again.

So; for the next lesson; what is the burning temperature of ammonium perchlorate solid-rocket fuel?

Bone up, Cultists!

LMAO at YOU!!!

Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.

But LOL at your comment on the shuttle NOT being designed for in-atmosphere hypersonic flight.

Anyhow; moving on...

What are the shuttle's laughable 'thermal protection' tiles stuck on with?

Seems it's something called ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVE.

Even the most modern of these degrade at temperatures above 200C; so we can only imagine how poor the performance of the 1970s versions were.

But still; let's go with 200C eh?

Well, the 'thermal protection' tiles (lol!) have to withstand 1650C temps at re-entry; how, exactly, they prevent 1450C of this from touching the very glue they're directly stuck on with is a mystery so ineffable it surpasseth all understanding...

NASA only knows how it's done!

Just LOL!!!

I'm not even going to entertain doubters on this one; you're either IN the Cult or you're OUTTA the Cult here!

Instead, we'll move on again.

So; for the next lesson; what is the burning temperature of ammonium perchlorate solid-rocket fuel?

Bone up, Cultists!

LMAO at YOU!!!

The whole point of the tiles is to slow the transmission of heat through the "skin" of the shuttle. Last time I checked, you get skin burn from 70C and higher.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Oh! Another youtube!

The cultist's favourite evidence...

& what has the burning of skin got to do with the miraculous ability of NASA's 5-inch thick tiles to wick away 1450C of heat from direct contact with a glue that degrades at 200C?

Oh, & that's whilst hypersonic atmospheric drag is trying to rip them away, too...

LOL!!!

Just impossible.

Yup; you're definitely IN the cult, conker...

Enjoy the Fantasy!

LMAO at YOU TOO!!!

Oh! Another youtube!

The cultist's favourite evidence...

& what has the burning of skin got to do with the miraculous ability of NASA's 5-inch thick tiles to wick away 1450C of heat from direct contact with a glue that degrades at 200C?

Oh, & that's whilst hypersonic atmospheric drag is trying to rip them away, too...

LOL!!!

Just impossible.

Yup; you're definitely IN the cult, conker...

Enjoy the Fantasy!

LMAO at YOU TOO!!!

Why is thermal protection so miraculous, cultish and impossible? And please stop vomiting out the words "LMAO" "LOL" and "cult". It's disgusting.

Oh! Another youtube!

The cultist's favourite evidence...

& what has the burning of skin got to do with the miraculous ability of NASA's 5-inch thick tiles to wick away 1450C of heat from direct contact with a glue that degrades at 200C?

Oh, & that's whilst hypersonic atmospheric drag is trying to rip them away, too...

LOL!!!

Just impossible.

Yup; you're definitely IN the cult, conker...

Enjoy the Fantasy!

LMAO at YOU TOO!!!

Have you even seen the video? The guy is blasting with a mini propane torch to a single tile for the whole video, while holding it on his hand. Those torches can melt copper.

Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.

You have a hell of a lot of nerve to say that.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 09, 2015, 01:51:12 PM

Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.

But LOL at your comment on the shuttle NOT being designed for in-atmosphere hypersonic flight.

Anyhow; moving on...

What are the shuttle's laughable 'thermal protection' tiles stuck on with?

Seems it's something called ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVE.

Even the most modern of these degrade at temperatures above 200C; so we can only imagine how poor the performance of the 1970s versions were.

But still; let's go with 200C eh?

Well, the 'thermal protection' tiles (lol!) have to withstand 1650C temps at re-entry; how, exactly, they prevent 1450C of this from touching the very glue they're directly stuck on with is a mystery so ineffable it surpasseth all understanding...

NASA only knows how it's done!

Just LOL!!!

I'm not even going to entertain doubters on this one; you're either IN the Cult or you're OUTTA the Cult here!

Instead, we'll move on again.

So; for the next lesson; what is the burning temperature of ammonium perchlorate solid-rocket fuel?

Bone up, Cultists!

LMAO at YOU!!!

The whole point of the tiles is to slow the transmission of heat through the "skin" of the shuttle. Last time I checked, you get skin burn from 70C and higher.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So how are he gaps sealed when the landing gear is closed, plus how are the holes sealed when the wonder bolts shear off to release the shuttle from the struts?
Do they magically seal up?

Quote from: Conker on July 09, 2015, 01:58:38 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 09, 2015, 01:51:12 PM

Markjo: IGNORED until you have something to add other than cheap-shot cavils.

But LOL at your comment on the shuttle NOT being designed for in-atmosphere hypersonic flight.

Anyhow; moving on...

What are the shuttle's laughable 'thermal protection' tiles stuck on with?

Seems it's something called ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING SILICONE RUBBER ADHESIVE.

Even the most modern of these degrade at temperatures above 200C; so we can only imagine how poor the performance of the 1970s versions were.

But still; let's go with 200C eh?

Well, the 'thermal protection' tiles (lol!) have to withstand 1650C temps at re-entry; how, exactly, they prevent 1450C of this from touching the very glue they're directly stuck on with is a mystery so ineffable it surpasseth all understanding...

NASA only knows how it's done!

Just LOL!!!

I'm not even going to entertain doubters on this one; you're either IN the Cult or you're OUTTA the Cult here!

Instead, we'll move on again.

So; for the next lesson; what is the burning temperature of ammonium perchlorate solid-rocket fuel?

Bone up, Cultists!

LMAO at YOU!!!

The whole point of the tiles is to slow the transmission of heat through the "skin" of the shuttle. Last time I checked, you get skin burn from 70C and higher.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So how are he gaps sealed when the landing gear is closed, plus how are the holes sealed when the wonder bolts shear off to release the shuttle from the struts?
Do they magically seal up?

The landing gear would be easily sealed during flight, as the aerodynamic forces would push the plated onto the shuttle and they have that massive opening and closing mechanism. The external tank is not drilled into the shuttle with holes.

So are you telling me that this bolt was stuck on with glue or something?

Seriously though, how thick are those tiles on that shuttle? Now look at that skinny bolt and think that this bolt would have to go through those tiles to be anchored onto the metal frame work, somehow.
Now if you observe the bolt, it simply just POPS out. It pop's out maybe....what? a few inches?
This means it must have been stuck in the tiles. 

Unless some tefal head can explain how this bolt can actually attach properly and also hold this supposed heavy shuttle upright on a launch pad and then withstand thousands of miles per hour vertical flight and vibration.

Best explanations please that actually sound plausible. I won't mention the silly two legged strut. Oh crap I just did. 

[img=http://s21.postimg.org/q7i7spscz/wonder_bolt.jpg]

So are you telling me that this bolt was stuck on with glue or something?

Seriously though, how thick are those tiles on that shuttle? Now look at that skinny bolt and think that this bolt would have to go through those tiles to be anchored onto the metal frame work, somehow.
Now if you observe the bolt, it simply just POPS out. It pop's out maybe....what? a few inches?
This means it must have been stuck in the tiles. 

Unless some tefal head can explain how this bolt can actually attach properly and also hold this supposed heavy shuttle upright on a launch pad and then withstand thousands of miles per hour vertical flight and vibration.

Best explanations please that actually sound plausible. I won't mention the silly two legged strut. Oh crap I just did. 

[img=http://s21.postimg.org/q7i7spscz/wonder_bolt.jpg]

Does this answer your question?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2015, 02:37:01 AM

So are you telling me that this bolt was stuck on with glue or something?

Seriously though, how thick are those tiles on that shuttle? Now look at that skinny bolt and think that this bolt would have to go through those tiles to be anchored onto the metal frame work, somehow.
Now if you observe the bolt, it simply just POPS out. It pop's out maybe....what? a few inches?
This means it must have been stuck in the tiles. 

Unless some tefal head can explain how this bolt can actually attach properly and also hold this supposed heavy shuttle upright on a launch pad and then withstand thousands of miles per hour vertical flight and vibration.

Best explanations please that actually sound plausible. I won't mention the silly two legged strut. Oh crap I just did. 

[img=http://s21.postimg.org/q7i7spscz/wonder_bolt.jpg]

Does this answer your question?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

How does that answer my question?
Showing me a few glowing blocks is supposed to explain how this wonder bolt keeps the shuttle attached to the large fuel tank?

Open your eyes and look at the picture I put up. Look at the bolt popping out from underneath the strut. Now pay attention and try not to look up at the ceiling whilst blinking.

What is that bolt attached to of it only pops out a few inches. The tiles are about 6 inches thick by the looks of it, so is the bolt simply stuck inside the tiles with some glue or resin or whatever, or is the bolt attached to the frame of the shuttle.

Also, does the hole close up on that tile if the bolt is drilled into it?

Just a few things to answer. Oh and just to save you people wasting too much energy and aiding you on keeping on track to give me a legitimate or plausible answer, I do understand that , to you people, I am a nutter and unstable. A tin foil hat conspiracy nut bag. I should never be a parent and I shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. My mother is any name mentioned in any context and any other things that can be bestowed upon my family and myself.

Now that we have that out of the way, can anyone answer the questions about the shuttle?

How does that answer my question?
Showing me a few glowing blocks is supposed to explain how this wonder bolt keeps the shuttle attached to the large fuel tank?

Oh, I thought you were rambling about the tiles. I guess you moved on. The bolt appears to be stuck to a hole in the plates. Similar to RCSs, very small holes can be carefully made in the heat shield. (Nevermind, it seems there are a kind of airlock that closes the umbilicals after staging: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html#sts-etsep-sys. Endeavour, for example, uses some kind of doors that close and seal: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts134/120310endeavour/index3.html)


 Various bolt joints keep the shuttle joined to the external tank, as shown in this picture:

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_ET.html


http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html#sts-rcc
Does this answer your question?

Correct me if I'm seeing something different here, but are those rear struts actually fitted to the shuttle via open hatches?
Do the hatches shut after the shuttle jettisons the tank?

What about the front strut. It shows no hatch so how does that work, because that's actually the one I was concentrating on, hence why I posted the picture.

What about the front strut. It shows no hatch so how does that work, because that's actually the one I was concentrating on, hence why I posted the picture.

Here is a link to a thread on another site discussing that very question:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17437.2780

Here is a picture of the forward attachment after the ET is jettisoned.  It's the metal fitting right behind the landing gear door ceterline.

Correct me if I'm seeing something different here, but are those rear struts actually fitted to the shuttle via open hatches?
Do the hatches shut after the shuttle jettisons the tank?

What about the front strut. It shows no hatch so how does that work, because that's actually the one I was concentrating on, hence why I posted the picture.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html#sts-rcc
Does this answer your question?

You should have read my whole post.

So you're back to posting links, evasion & responses rather than genuine explanations?

GOOD little cultists!

Of course. if such a miraculous insulation material were available in 1978, it would be common by now; yet where are these wonder-tiles that can make 1450C of heat disappear as if it never existed?

Nowhere; that's where...

Oh, sorry; except youtube.

lol.

Anyhow; did anyone answer my question about the burn-temperature of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel?

How about chucking in the burn-temperature of thermite while you're at it?

Come on, Cultists; THINK!!!

lol.

P.s. To all neutral readers; look up the difference between Subsonic, Transonic, Supersonic & Hypersonic Aerodynamics, then look afresh at the Space Shuttle...

Oh! Seems you can't just blast through Mach 1 via brute force alone...

The laws of physics simply do not work that way.

Educate yourselves, folks, & get OFF the CULTIST'S bus...

&, as ever, LOL!!!

So you're back to posting links, evasion & responses rather than genuine explanations?

GOOD little cultists!

Of course. if such a miraculous insulation material were available in 1978, it would be common by now; yet where are these wonder-tiles that can make 1450C of heat disappear as if it never existed?

Nowhere; that's where...

Oh, sorry; except youtube.

lol.

Anyhow; did anyone answer my question about the burn-temperature of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel?

How about chucking in the burn-temperature of thermite while you're at it?

Come on, Cultists; THINK!!!

lol.

P.s. To all neutral readers; look up the difference between Subsonic, Transonic, Supersonic & Hypersonic Aerodynamics, then look afresh at the Space Shuttle...

Oh! Seems you can't just blast through Mach 1 via brute force alone...

The laws of physics simply do not work that way.

Educate yourselves, folks, & get OFF the CULTIST'S bus...

&, as ever, LOL!!!

I give up with arguing with you. Stupidity and blind faith wins every argument.

So you're back to posting links, evasion & responses rather than genuine explanations?

GOOD little cultists!

Of course. if such a miraculous insulation material were available in 1978, it would be common by now; yet where are these wonder-tiles that can make 1450C of heat disappear as if it never existed?

They don't make heat disappear. They are nothing but extremelly insulant ceramics. They get hot, but the heat moves very slowly through it. The trick is, though, to make them insulant, very fast dissipants when cooled via forced cooling, and resistant to such high temperatures. Aerogels would be the similar modern and affordable substitutes, but they are possibly too fragile for spaceflight.

Nowhere; that's where...

The NASA visitor center sells scrap tiles at the gift shop. They are quite popular. Where did you think the people at youtube got the tiles?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Anyhow; did anyone answer my question about the burn-temperature of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel?

Ammonium perchlorate is a solid fuel used in solid fuel boosters. They aren't used in orbital conditions as far as I know.

How about chucking in the burn-temperature of thermite while you're at it?

What's the relevance?

GOOD little cultists!

Could you stop calling us cultists?  Do you even know what the word means?

One of it's definitions is "A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. "

The fact that the vast majority of people believe that space travel is real makes it not a cult.  Under this definition, FET and the belief that space travel is all fake is actually a cult.

Of course. if such a miraculous insulation material were available in 1978, it would be common by now; yet where are these wonder-tiles that can make 1450C of heat disappear as if it never existed?

You don't buy refractory materials much do you?    Otherwise you'd know that you sound like a complete plonker.   

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

So you're back to posting links, evasion & responses rather than genuine explanations?

Mm-hmm?

So, is your argument "I don't own those tiles, therefore they don't exist," again?

I call you cultists because you believe in the existence of things despite all evidence being counter to their existence.

& I doubt the existence of a material that can make a 1450C temp. differential totally disappear because such a material cannot exist.

Emperor's New Clothes, you know?

It's all quite simple, despite your efforts to make it otherwise.

Cultists...

Also, stop posting links & youtubes as evidence & start using your own words to explain things.

You know; like I do.

Anyhow; I'd really like you to state the burn-temperature of ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel before we carry on.

I already know it, but let's get a consensus before the next lesson; I don't want to quibble over numbers.

The thickness & steel type of the casings of the shuttle SRB's would be useful too...

Come on, NASA cultists, spam me them 'facts'; it's all public-domain knowledge, surely?

P.s. to all neutral readers: investigate transonic aerodynamics then look at the leading edges of the shuttle's wings; a bit thick, aren't they?

Free your minds & get OFF the cult-bus; cos it's going nowhere good.

Are you saying that no material can withstand 1450C temperature?