Shuttle crashs

  • 360 Replies
  • 77458 Views
*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #150 on: June 17, 2008, 12:23:07 PM »
Then maybe you shouldn't spit in the general direction of the metric system either.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #151 on: June 17, 2008, 12:24:04 PM »
Stop telling me what to do.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #152 on: June 17, 2008, 12:25:13 PM »
Fine, carry on being backwards then.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #153 on: June 17, 2008, 12:25:46 PM »
Aye Aye.

*

Snaaaaake

  • 1089
  • +0/-0
  • ROUND000
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #154 on: June 17, 2008, 12:53:31 PM »
Then maybe you shouldn't spit in the general direction of the metric system either.

But we've always had the best education.  ???

Anyways seriously Tom prove us wrong fool.
We told you to go to rehab, but you were all like "no, no, no!" ::)

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #155 on: June 17, 2008, 12:54:14 PM »
Then maybe you shouldn't spit in the general direction of the metric system either.

But we've always had the best education.  ???


Since when?
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Snaaaaake

  • 1089
  • +0/-0
  • ROUND000
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #156 on: June 17, 2008, 12:56:13 PM »
Then maybe you shouldn't spit in the general direction of the metric system either.

But we've always had the best education.  ???


Since when?

As long as we've existed.

Ok Tom still waiting.
We told you to go to rehab, but you were all like "no, no, no!" ::)

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #157 on: June 17, 2008, 01:05:28 PM »
Then maybe you shouldn't spit in the general direction of the metric system either.

But we've always had the best education.  ???


Since when?

As long as we've existed.


Thats funny seeing as international comparisons put the US pretty low in education rankings, for instance they didn't even make it into the top 20 in the 2006 PISA report.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Snaaaaake

  • 1089
  • +0/-0
  • ROUND000
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #158 on: June 17, 2008, 01:08:55 PM »
Who cares were still all smart asses.

But that's not the point. This is honestly a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE hole in FE theory. It literally screams "round Earth!!"
We told you to go to rehab, but you were all like "no, no, no!" ::)

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #159 on: June 17, 2008, 01:11:07 PM »
Well I suppose compared to the average donkey you are probably smarter but thats not really saying much.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #160 on: June 17, 2008, 01:50:05 PM »
I never claimed it was specifically Lajes (though it may be). And the miss distance is baloney and you know it but won't admit it.   Your claims become less and less supportable by evidence so you abandon the attempt to support them and instead resort to repetition.
  Touchdown miss distance is almost always in excess of 1300 feet, you failed to account for that.

I showed that the rollout distances are possible well short of the numbers you are using. The fact they sometimes use a longer rollout means nothing. The second mission had a very short rollout (though not the shortest ever, which to my knowledge was 6000' but I'm too lazy to look it up) and accomplished this without a drag chute.
Same applies to miss distance. If I am landing deadstick and choose to land in the middle of the runway because (extra space is available and it increases my safety margin), it does not mean that I could not hit the keys if I wanted/needed to.

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

messierhunter

  • 511
  • +0/-0
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #161 on: June 17, 2008, 02:05:32 PM »
I never claimed it was specifically Lajes (though it may be). And the miss distance is baloney and you know it but won't admit it.   Your claims become less and less supportable by evidence so you abandon the attempt to support them and instead resort to repetition.
  Touchdown miss distance is almost always in excess of 1300 feet, you failed to account for that.

I showed that the rollout distances are possible
I didn't say it never happens, I said it usually doesn't happen.
Quote
well short of the numbers you are using. The fact they sometimes use a longer rollout means nothing.
Actually it means there would have been a disaster at wideawake in those cases.  In one case I posted, the rollout was longer than 10,000 feet, touchdown miss distance not included.  A TAL-style abort should also cause the shuttle to come in hotter than it otherwise would have.
Quote
accomplished this without a drag chute.
The drag chute is irrelevant, I was waiting for to fall into that trap.  Drag chutes were employed in 1992, only a few years before ISS assembly started.  They were not employed during the early missions and later missions to the ISS were launched in a direction that would not allow access to wideawake.

The point here is that in general the shuttle does not have the touchdown distance+rollout distance necessary to make a safe landing on a 10,000 foot runway.  That's not to say it could never happen safely, that's to say it wouldn't happen safely every time.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 02:07:33 PM by messierhunter »

*

Snaaaaake

  • 1089
  • +0/-0
  • ROUND000
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #162 on: June 17, 2008, 02:18:37 PM »
Well I suppose compared to the average donkey you are probably smarter but thats not really saying much.

Stop being a dumbass.

I'm serious here this literally proves Earth's roundness. Do I have to draw a picture for the Fe-ers?
We told you to go to rehab, but you were all like "no, no, no!" ::)

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #163 on: June 17, 2008, 02:41:48 PM »
Well I suppose compared to the average donkey you are probably smarter but thats not really saying much.

Stop being a dumbass.

I'm serious here this literally proves Earth's roundness. Do I have to draw a picture for the Fe-ers?

I'm not a donkey though  :-\

Go on then, draw a picture
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #164 on: June 17, 2008, 03:14:36 PM »
Actually it means there would have been a disaster at wideawake in those cases.  In one case I posted, the rollout was longer than 10,000 feet, touchdown miss distance not included.

  You're being obtuse (whether it is deliberate or not, I'm not sure).  ??? The ability to stop in a shorter distance was demonstrated. That they sometimes or even often choose to use more runway is meaningless.


Quote
The drag chute is irrelevant, I was waiting for to fall into that trap.  Drag chutes were employed in 1992, only a few years before ISS assembly started.  They were not employed during the early missions and later missions to the ISS were launched in a direction that would not allow access to wideawake.

Right, which is why the 6000' run is even more impressive. It was accomplished without a chute. Feel free to repeat these things over and over again, but I grow weary of answering with the same answers.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • +0/-0
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #165 on: June 17, 2008, 03:51:04 PM »
Quote
And if Columbia was faked then those Astronauts are alive?  Are the families paid off as well?  All of them including cousins and whatnot?  Or are they just kept out of the loop.

The astronauts and their immediate families were likely relocated by federal agents to a different part of the country (or even another country depending how recognizable they are), names changed and given homes to live in. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a nice big salary bonus in the package as well. The entire procedure is probably similar to the witness protection program.

Quote
And your telling me all those Astronauts were willing never to see a large majority of their families ever again in the name of the "conspiracy"?

How about in the name of the military and national security?

You, tom are an ass and a COMPLETE PoS. I know the McAuliffes. I went to school where she taught. i watched first hand the destruction of the challenger from the CHS auditorium. Judge Steven McAuliffe still practices here. You are as bad as those religious freaks that picket soldiers funerals, telling the mourning families that it was Gods punishement.

Go Die you ignorant jerk.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #166 on: June 17, 2008, 04:21:27 PM »
Quote
And if Columbia was faked then those Astronauts are alive?  Are the families paid off as well?  All of them including cousins and whatnot?  Or are they just kept out of the loop.

The astronauts and their immediate families were likely relocated by federal agents to a different part of the country (or even another country depending how recognizable they are), names changed and given homes to live in. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a nice big salary bonus in the package as well. The entire procedure is probably similar to the witness protection program.

Quote
And your telling me all those Astronauts were willing never to see a large majority of their families ever again in the name of the "conspiracy"?

How about in the name of the military and national security?

You, tom are an ass and a COMPLETE PoS. I know the McAuliffes. I went to school where she taught. i watched first hand the destruction of the challenger from the CHS auditorium. Judge Steven McAuliffe still practices here. You are as bad as those religious freaks that picket soldiers funerals, telling the mourning families that it was Gods punishement.

Go Die you ignorant jerk.

Bots don't die, they just get switched off
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #167 on: June 17, 2008, 04:32:52 PM »
Can you do that for us Prof?

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #168 on: June 17, 2008, 04:57:01 PM »
Can you do that for us Prof?

Do what? *glares suspiciously*
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #169 on: June 17, 2008, 07:16:52 PM »
Switch off the bot that is Tom

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #170 on: June 17, 2008, 07:20:17 PM »
I can't, you'll have to ask Daniel to do that
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45166
  • +98/-138
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #171 on: June 17, 2008, 07:26:22 PM »
Quote
The drag chute is irrelevant, I was waiting for to fall into that trap.  Drag chutes were employed in 1992, only a few years before ISS assembly started.  They were not employed during the early missions and later missions to the ISS were launched in a direction that would not allow access to wideawake.

Right, which is why the 6000' run is even more impressive. It was accomplished without a chute. Feel free to repeat these things over and over again, but I grow weary of answering with the same answers.

Navy pilots have the skills necessary to land a jet fighter on a moving, pitching aircraft carrier.  But they don't get it right every time, so they have the ability to take off again when they miss and then try again.  The shuttle gets one shot and one shot only at landing.  Just because the shuttle can and has stopped in 6000' in the past, that does not guarantee that it will stop in 6000' every time.

P.S.  BTW, what were the conditions for that 6000' roll out?  What was the shuttle's landing weight compared to more recent missions?  What were the conditions like at the landing site?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 07:32:05 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #172 on: June 17, 2008, 09:33:07 PM »
I think the most important question may be, what were the winds?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #173 on: June 17, 2008, 10:02:33 PM »
I think the most important question may be, what were the winds?

Or density altitude.

I already granted that the conditions were probably optimal in an earlier post. There is still a large cushion in the distances involved on a 10000' runway. Use of a drag chute theoretically could shorten the rollout to 4000' (though I think it more likely 5000') using NASA's estimate.
Again, I have no information that the runway involved is limited to only 10000'; I am simply struck by the arrogance in assuming it would not be possible -- Nay, stating for a fact that it is not possible and would result in the destruction of the orbiter.
If you are willing to spend the money, I would bet the use of EMAS would enable an even shorter strip to be used (though with a smaller safety margin in the event of accidental overshoot).
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #174 on: June 17, 2008, 10:06:40 PM »
Im not saying its not possible.  I am saying that the margin of error would be near zero.  Which is even more tricky considering a go-around or bolter is not an option.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #175 on: June 17, 2008, 10:13:18 PM »
Im not saying its not possible.  I am saying that the margin of error would be near zero.  Which is even more tricky considering a go-around or bolter is not an option.

 You were not the person I was referring to.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #176 on: June 17, 2008, 10:16:37 PM »
I know. ;)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45166
  • +98/-138
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #177 on: June 18, 2008, 05:20:20 AM »
Im not saying its not possible.  I am saying that the margin of error would be near zero.  Which is even more tricky considering a go-around or bolter is not an option.

 You were not the person I was referring to.

Were you referring to me?  I didn't say it was impossible either.  I'm pretty much saying the same thing as Wardogg in that you can not always count on optimal conditions (whatever they may have been).  In fact, usually you count on conditions being very far from optimal.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #178 on: June 18, 2008, 07:58:39 AM »
I wasn't commenting on you either. I agree that conditions are not always optimal, but the fact that the rollouts are most often short of 10000' is an indication that even sub-optimal conditions would allow operation from a field of that length.
I was talking more about fact manufacturing like the following:

  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 seems to be the RE motto that if you can't support an argument invent something and claim it is common knowledge or has authority. Then cross your fingers and hope no one can call your bluff.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

messierhunter

  • 511
  • +0/-0
Re: Shuttle crashs
« Reply #179 on: June 19, 2008, 06:34:09 AM »
Actually it means there would have been a disaster at wideawake in those cases.  In one case I posted, the rollout was longer than 10,000 feet, touchdown miss distance not included.

  You're being obtuse (whether it is deliberate or not, I'm not sure).  ??? The ability to stop in a shorter distance was demonstrated. That they sometimes or even often choose to use more runway is meaningless.
No, it's up to you to prove that they could stop shorter every single time if they needed to, not that they could stop a lot shorter on an extreme minority of cases.  The question is not whether a disaster would happen every single time, the question is would a disaster would often happen.  With well over a hundred successful landings under its belt, the shuttles would have to be capable of an equal number of consecutive safe landings at wideawake without fail.  You have failed to prove that that is likely or even possible.  Come back to me when you can show 100 consecutive rollouts + touchdown misses that occured in less than 10,000'.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 06:39:50 AM by messierhunter »