Shuttle crashs

What part of that Wiki quote showcases the Shuttle as not being a glider?

The hydrazine propellant bit. How does this glider get into the sky anyway? Have you seen the size of them? They're massive. No plane could tow a shuttle into flight

How does this glider get into the sky anyway?

SRBs.

Have you seen the size of them? They're massive. No plane could tow a shuttle into flight

Probably not.

The SRBs gets them up in the first place. Are you suggesting that something the size and shape of a shuttle could just glide around in the air for days without using any fuel until their mission is supposedly finished, at which point they can make a much publicised landing? For the conspiracy angle to work they'd have to land secretly and take off again secretly to make the public landing.

Are you suggesting that something the size and shape of a shuttle could just glide around in the air for days without using any fuel until their mission is supposedly finished, at which point they can make a much publicised landing?

That depends on many things, for which I don't want to do the math.

For the conspiracy angle to work they'd have to land secretly and take off again secretly to make the public landing.

That's one possibility.

That's your answer for everything. "That's one possibility". You only say it to cast doubt on whatever it is you're replying to, without actually saying anything meaningful.

Not seeing the truth in that, or the meaning is your fault, not mine.

That's one possibility. Another is that you're so desperate to be seen as a radical open minded thinker you'll defend any old bollocks with this nothing is impossible shite

Lol if you're points didn't leave such huge obvious flaws in them, perhaps we could agree with you.

You claim something the "size and shape" of the shuttle couldn't glide around for days. The mass is much more important than either of those things. If it weighed 1 lb then it easily could float for a very long time.

Has a thread ever been started here that doesn't get off topic?

Yeah. Once. It was a Thursday.   

Has a thread ever been started here that doesn't get off topic?

Yeah. I believe it simply said fuck you. It got locked before anyone posted.

Tom Bishop claims that we have never gone into space along with other FE'rs.  My question is what about the shuttles that crashed on their return trip?  Where they not coming from space?

Wow...a little miffed here. Couldn't find an answer in the FAQ section. You do know about the FAQ section? Don't you?

Let me enlighten you. It answers all your questions on a flat earth. Should you read it and not find you're answer...well son...you're f'd because it holds all the answers and you should take them verbatim. Don't question the FAQ section. It IS right. How do I know, I've been told by members here already.

I doubt anybody has claimed recently that the FAQ "holds all the answers".  The specific questions you asked, if something like that was stated, were probably just blatantly answered in the FAQ.

Like where the ice wall is. 

Lol if you're points didn't leave such huge obvious flaws in them, perhaps we could agree with you.

You claim something the "size and shape" of the shuttle couldn't glide around for days. The mass is much more important than either of those things. If it weighed 1 lb then it easily could float for a very long time.

2,029,203 kg, or 4,474,574 lb for any colonials reading. It's not going to float for a very long time, is it?

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 30, 2008, 06:37:07 PM

Lol if you're points didn't leave such huge obvious flaws in them, perhaps we could agree with you.

You claim something the "size and shape" of the shuttle couldn't glide around for days. The mass is much more important than either of those things. If it weighed 1 lb then it easily could float for a very long time.

2,029,203 kg, or 4,474,574 lb for any colonials reading. It's not going to float for a very long time, is it?

You said an object of its size and shape. You did not mention the weight. Hence I brought this up.

You then, of course, have to trust that.

The SRBs gets them up in the first place. Are you suggesting that something the size and shape of a shuttle could just glide around in the air for days without using any fuel until their mission is supposedly finished, at which point they can make a much publicised landing? For the conspiracy angle to work they'd have to land secretly and take off again secretly to make the public landing.

Actually the SRBs get the shuttle out of the denser lower atmosphere.  The SSMEs get the shuttle into orbit.  Alas another dropped shuttle topic.  Win for RE.

Have you guys heard of Ascencion Island ? A little US Air base in middle of the Atlantic Ocean. - Britain used it to refuel on the way to the Falklands in the 80s.

A perfectly convenient place to store the shuttle without anyone knowing it is there.

The problem with shifting off to a distant base is that the shuttle can't really fly sidewards very easily. The base would also have to be quite a distance from civilisation to prevent anyone seeing the shuttle touch down and launch from there.

Have you guys heard of Ascencion Island ? A little US Air base in middle of the Atlantic Ocean. - Britain used it to refuel on the way to the Falklands in the 80s.

A perfectly convenient place to store the shuttle without anyone knowing it is there.

The problem is getting it back up for landing.  IE 17,500 mph at about 100 miles up.

Quote from: TubewayAndy on June 15, 2008, 04:39:54 AM

Have you guys heard of Ascencion Island ? A little US Air base in middle of the Atlantic Ocean. - Britain used it to refuel on the way to the Falklands in the 80s.

A perfectly convenient place to store the shuttle without anyone knowing it is there.

The problem is getting it back up for landing.  IE 17,500 mph at about 100 miles up.

Here's another problem: nearly all launches take place with an azimuth of about 50 degrees - it heads north and stays visible basically until main engine cutoff - it's going northeast when it would have to be going southeast to reach wideawake. 

Another problem, wideawake's runway is 10,000ft long.  The shuttle's is 15,000ft plus runoff.  10,000ft is the bare minimum requirement for a survivable landing. The orbiter would melt its wheel brakes and/or run off the end of it and be heavily damaged.  It would also have to touch down with the bare minimum energy, an exceedingly risky approach to try once, let alone every single time.  In the event of a TAL abort the orbiter is supposed to go to a runway at least 10,000 feet long and swerve side to side in order to slow down enough before reaching the end of the runway, and the flight manual lays it out explicitly that it will probably result in heavy damage to the orbiter.  They call it an "intact abort mode," but that's actually a bit of a misnomer.  "Intact" means not fishing tiny pieces out of the atlantic.

Except a typical "rollout distance" (which is what is needed from wheels down to stop) is only 8,600 feet. You should probably fact check and get back to me.

Except a typical "rollout distance" (which is what is needed from wheels down to stop) is only 8,600 feet. You should probably fact check and get back to me.

That's assuming wheels down at the very beginning of the 10,000 ft runway.  Not a very good assumption.

If they put it down at the keys that's still plenty of room. The shortest rollout I know of was 6,000 feet and that was without a drag chute (I'm too lazy to really do the research, but feel free to find a shorter one).

Except a typical "rollout distance" (which is what is needed from wheels down to stop) is only 8,600 feet. You should probably fact check and get back to me.

How often do atypical rollouts happen? 

The point is that they can and do stop much shorter than 15k feet without sustaining damage. That they atypically use more landing space on some rollouts means nothing.
That's like saying a C-130 could never land with a 121,000lb gross weight on an aircraft carrier because they sometimes(or nearly always in this case) use more runway. Yet, it can and did land on an aircraft carrier (unarrested) using less than 500 feet on landing even at that gross weight (I choose this example for your familiarity).

The point is that they can and do stop much shorter than 15k feet without sustaining damage. That they atypically use more landing space on some rollouts means nothing.
That's like saying a C-130 could never land with a 121,000lb gross weight on an aircraft carrier because they sometimes(or nearly always in this case) use more runway. Yet, it can and did land on an aircraft carrier (unarrested) using less than 500 feet on landing even at that gross weight (I choose this example for your familiarity).

Actually Markjo brings up a better point than mine.  At what point on the runway does the shuttle normally touchdown at.  If you have a 10,000 ft runway that only gives him 1400 feet to play with.  Which is nothing when your moving at 230kts crossing the threshold.  Im not saying it can't be done I'm just saying there would practically be no margin for error considering a go-around is impossible. 

You're example is a great one.  I've actually flown on 798.  They only recently retired it.  It was a Navy crew with a Marine Herk.  They also took off unassisted as well.  No catapult.  The thing about their landings was they actually put the props to reverse before they hit the deck.  Which you would never (ever) do.

Actually Markjo brings up a better point than mine.  At what point on the runway does the shuttle normally touchdown at.  If you have a 10,000 ft runway that only gives him 1400 feet to play with.  Which is nothing when your moving at 230kts crossing the threshold.  Im not saying it can't be done I'm just saying there would practically be no margin for error considering a go-around is impossible. 

Let's say a rollout of 6000 feet is possible without drag chute (because it has been done). Estimates say that the drag chute lowers your rollout by one- or two-thousand feet. Now you're down under 5000' being conservative. That's 2500' at each end to play with. Plus whatever room there is on either side of the threshold and overruns. If you landed half way, you might eat up all 5000' (assuming the chute only gives you 1000' and not 2000' of extra margin). You'd still have your overrun area as a small margin.
I've never flown to Lajes (I think you mention you had RON'ed there, but I might be wrong and I'm too lazy to look it up). Does Lajes use EMAS? If the site NASA uses for landings has EMAS (again, I don't know that it is Lajes, but that might be an adequate if slightly less than ideal site), then a shuttle could land farther than midway down the runway and still manage a minimum of damage. The odds are against a shuttle landing a mile down from where it was aiming, but it would still be possible to land without major damage (also, I'll grant that the 6000 feet rollout was probably the product of ideal wind and atmospheric conditions, but there have been several 7000' rollouts without the chute as well).
My point is that one could operate the Orbiter with much less room than the 15000' that was said to be mandatory above. And that a landing strip of 10000' (or if daring, shorter) will not necessarily result in a landing fatal to the crew or airframe.

10,000ft is the bare minimum requirement for a survivable landing. The orbiter would melt its wheel brakes and/or run off the end of it and be heavily damaged.

A well placed landing would enable a safe landing well short of the overrun. And EMAS would enable safe operation even in the event of an overrun (barring the most extreme example of missing well over half the runway due to incompetence).

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on June 15, 2008, 06:41:29 PM

Actually Markjo brings up a better point than mine.  At what point on the runway does the shuttle normally touchdown at.  If you have a 10,000 ft runway that only gives him 1400 feet to play with.  Which is nothing when your moving at 230kts crossing the threshold.  Im not saying it can't be done I'm just saying there would practically be no margin for error considering a go-around is impossible. 

Let's say a rollout of 6000 feet is possible without drag chute (because it has been done). Estimates say that the drag chute lowers your rollout by one- or two-thousand feet. Now you're down under 5000' being conservative. That's 2500' at each end to play with. Plus whatever room there is on either side of the threshold and overruns. If you landed half way, you might eat up all 5000' (assuming the chute only gives you 1000' and not 2000' of extra margin). You'd still have your overrun area as a small margin.
I've never flown to Lajes (I think you mention you had RON'ed there, but I might be wrong and I'm too lazy to look it up). Does Lajes use EMAS? If the site NASA uses for landings has EMAS (again, I don't know that it is Lajes, but that might be an adequate if slightly less than ideal site), then a shuttle could land farther than midway down the runway and still manage a minimum of damage. The odds are against a shuttle landing a mile down from where it was aiming, but it would still be possible to land without major damage (also, I'll grant that the 6000 feet rollout was probably the product of ideal wind and atmospheric conditions, but there have been several 7000' rollouts without the chute as well).
My point is that one could operate the Orbiter with much less room than the 15000' that was said to be mandatory above. And that a landing strip of 10000' (or if daring, shorter) will not necessarily result in a landing fatal to the crew or airframe.

Quote

10,000ft is the bare minimum requirement for a survivable landing. The orbiter would melt its wheel brakes and/or run off the end of it and be heavily damaged.

A well placed landing would enable a safe landing well short of the overrun. And EMAS would enable safe operation even in the event of an overrun (barring the most extreme example of missing well over half the runway due to incompetence).

I have been to Lajes, more times and longer than I care to remember.(theres not much to do there)  They don't use EMAS. Regardless, lets say for the sake of argument it does land at Lajes or any other small island runway in the pacific.  There are a couple of problems.  Whatever island you land on has to be in the conspiracy.  Lajes is MUCH MUCH too large for this.  It would be impossible.  Not just the Air Force personnel  but the entire population of the island.  Someone would have seen it.  I can't remember the name of the island Lajes sits on but its quite big.  Anyway so lets say its a remote island say in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia comes to mind. (Ive been there as well)  Much more remote.  There is a small Navy base there, hardly any civilian presence and you could put them on the payroll.  How do you fake that I (or anyone else in the world) can go out with my naked eye and see the shuttle orbiting?  Even in the southern hemisphere?  You have to remember NASA has to fake the shuttle orbiting a round earth at a specific azimuth at a specific altitude and at a specific speed.  And it has to be constant for when the shuttle is airborne.  All mapped out on a RE model and then applied to the FE map.  So that when tracking says I can see it...sure enough I can see it.  The other problem with the shuttle hiding out during orbiting ops is getting it back up to fake the re-entry to landing.  So what are we talking here a second launch?  You have to get it up to speed.  Columbia makes this part of the conspiracy hard.  For the most part re-entry occurs and no one takes notice except for the true hard core space fans.  I myself have never seen an re-entry but all the photo and video stuff from Columbia means that NASA also fakes the re-entries.  Numerous people filmed parts of the re-entry from California all the way to Texas where it finally broke apart.  Im too lazy to look up the timeline right now but I can guarantee that from the time of the first sighting in Cali to the time where it broke apart in TX just wont match up to anything possible in atmospheric flight.