Shuttle crashs

All of whom weigh the 'satellite' they know nothing about before loading it. Think about it: how easy would it be to have a payload loaded that is not what it appears to be?

Not too easy considering that the payload is completely checked out and inspected at kennedy countless times before it is loaded.  "the 'satellite' they know nothing about" - what an insult to the workers at kennedy.  It's also just plain wrong, especially when it comes to space station hardware:
 
(This is the space station processing facility at kennedy.)
Everything is checked and rechecked for problems at Kennedy before it reaches orbit.

It's not an insult- I don't work at NASA, nor am I entirely familiar with it checks, processes and procedures. I will freely admit, I am speculating. All I am saying is that it is very possible that there are ways and means of creating an illusion. This is NASA; the nerve centre of the conspiracy- the very organisation through which the conspiracy is upheld. I mean, how do you check an airtight piece of equipment? I mean, they don't open up the payload and look at the wiring multiple times before it is loaded, do they?

It's not an insult- I don't work at NASA, nor am I entirely familiar with it checks, processes and procedures. I will freely admit, I am speculating. All I am saying is that it is very possible that there are ways and means of creating an illusion. This is NASA; the nerve centre of the conspiracy- the very organisation through which the conspiracy is upheld. I mean, how do you check an airtight piece of equipment? I mean, they don't open up the payload and look at the wiring multiple times before it is loaded, do they?

So you admit that you are speculating about a topic that you know nothing about.  I'm sorry, but why are we supposed to take you seriously?   

It's not an insult- I don't work at NASA, nor am I entirely familiar with it checks, processes and procedures. I will freely admit, I am speculating. All I am saying is that it is very possible that there are ways and means of creating an illusion. This is NASA; the nerve centre of the conspiracy- the very organisation through which the conspiracy is upheld. I mean, how do you check an airtight piece of equipment? I mean, they don't open up the payload and look at the wiring multiple times before it is loaded, do they?

Most of the modules flying to the space station are designed to be pressurized, if that's what you mean by "airtight," but they check them out on the ground inside and out before flight.  In the case of the logistics modules, Kennedy workers have to load and unload supplies and trash respectively into the module between missions.  They check for leaks once the module is sealed for flight after all other checks are completed.  It's easy to make broad sweeping dismissive statements when you're not familiar with the subject at hand.

Considering one of mine comes from an academic source, a much higher standard than yours, no, it's not. You should have dropped it back then, yet you persist.  FE theory seems to thrive on distractions and stupid shit like this.  Here's a PDF directly from the NASA technical reports site.  Page 14 of the pdf (A-26 of the document) confirms a horizontal landing velocity of 233 knots.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830014024_1983014024.pdf
Your source is full of failure, you should have dropped it a long time ago.

Yes, the search for the truth should always stop when confronted with arrogance.  I wonder if my source has the TAS, and not the ground speed. It doesn't really matter. A pilot screwed the pooch on recovery and almost wiped out the orbiter. That they rolled out exceptionally long because of brake damage (or even high speed) doesn't mean much to me. Are you going to say 5800' isn't enough room to safely operate 737's from because one once ran off the end of the runway due to pilot error?

No, my claim is that NASA couldn't use wideawake as a regular "interim" site because the shuttle launches in the wrong direction for nearly all current flights (HST repair might be the last exception, not sure what heading they need for that), and with a heavy payload on-board and fast TAL approach it would most likely not be able to stop in time without incurring some kind of damage, possibly heavy damage.

Great. My claim has never been that they used Lajes specifically or exclusively. Though I still think you've done a piss-poor job of showing how impossible it is. The runway would be of sufficient length and EMAS would prevent damage in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 24, 2008, 06:53:32 AM

Considering one of mine comes from an academic source, a much higher standard than yours, no, it's not. You should have dropped it back then, yet you persist.  FE theory seems to thrive on distractions and stupid shit like this.  Here's a PDF directly from the NASA technical reports site.  Page 14 of the pdf (A-26 of the document) confirms a horizontal landing velocity of 233 knots.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830014024_1983014024.pdf
Your source is full of failure, you should have dropped it a long time ago.

Yes, the search for the truth should always stop when confronted with arrogance. 

Sorry dumbass, but trusting an academic source to over-rule a random web source is prudent skepticism, not arrogance.

I wonder if my source has the TAS, and not the ground speed. It doesn't really matter.

Actually it does matter, it show you absolutely refuse to acknowledge you're wrong.

A pilot screwed the pooch on recovery and almost wiped out the orbiter. That they rolled out exceptionally long because of brake damage (or even high speed) doesn't mean much to me. Are you going to say 5800' isn't enough room to safely operate 737's from because one once ran off the end of the runway due to pilot error?

Invalid comparison.  The long rollout and brake damage prove that having excessive energy and/or inertia at landing is bad and has consequences.  When we're talking about a late TAL call we're talking about a faster approach with more mass than a normal landing.

Quote

No, my claim is that NASA couldn't use wideawake as a regular "interim" site because the shuttle launches in the wrong direction for nearly all current flights (HST repair might be the last exception, not sure what heading they need for that), and with a heavy payload on-board and fast TAL approach it would most likely not be able to stop in time without incurring some kind of damage, possibly heavy damage.

Great. My claim has never been that they used Lajes specifically or exclusively. Though I still think you've done a piss-poor job of showing how impossible it is. The runway would be of sufficient length and EMAS would prevent damage in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Ok genius, the first EMAS installation at an airport occured in 1996.  The only missions we could have been talking about with regards to wideawake, missions not going to the space station, mostly occured before then.  I think you've done a piss-poor job of defending your claim that wideawake airfield would have been a good place to safely and secretly land the shuttle in a TAL-style landing.  When did Lajes get brought up?  We were talking about ascension island, wideawake airfield, not Lajes field.

I never claimed it was at any of those locations. They could use an unknown (would make the most sense to me) site or Morocco for all I know. I just challenge your "They couldn't land in 10000' without crippling the crew or orbiter" assertions.

I never claimed it was at any of those locations. They could use an unknown (would make the most sense to me) site or Morocco for all I know. I just challenge your "They couldn't land in 10000' without crippling the crew or orbiter" assertions.

And you have yet to show that they could consistently stop in less than 10,000' following a late TAL abort and with a full payload bay and about 34% RCS fuel still in the tanks to boot.  For someone who never claimed they used wideawake you sure spent a good damn bit of time trying desperately to defend it, such as with the ridiculous EMAS claim.  The whole reason it was originally suggested was because moroccans or whoever was local to a "regular TAL" site would hear the sonic booms if it was landing there after each launch.  Ascension has no locals to speak of.

I've shown the orbiter is capable of safe flight at energy states sufficient to have a rollout of 6000' without a drag chute.

I've shown the orbiter is capable of safe flight at energy states sufficient to have a rollout of 6000' without a drag chute.

LMFAO!  How can you guarantee or even suggest that it's likely that a late TAL call would have an energy state permitting a 6000' rollout, especially when there's a cargo bay full of shit that wasn't present on those minority 6000' cases?

Because it is easy as hell to bleed off energy in flight.

Because it is easy as hell to bleed off energy in flight.

Provided that you have enough time and distance to bleed off said energy.  I'm guessing that may not be a valid assumption in an abort scenario when you are flying a glider with the flight dynamics of a brick.

The principles are exactly the same. The "brick" properties are a bit of a misnomer, but it certainly isn't as efficient as a glider in that respect, no. But that makes it easier to lose energy with a simple flare.
Or using S-turns which would put a higher stress on the airframe. They could also use the split rudder to burn off energy. There are lots of ways to lose energy in flight. It's not magic.

IN actuality, they throw all that rum overboard in order to slow down.

The principles are exactly the same. The "brick" properties are a bit of a misnomer, but it certainly isn't as efficient as a glider in that respect, no. But that makes it easier to lose energy with a simple flare.
Or using S-turns which would put a higher stress on the airframe. They could also use the split rudder to burn off energy. There are lots of ways to lose energy in flight. It's not magic.

Again, assuming that you have enough time and distance.  This is not a safe assumption in an abort scenario.

The principles are exactly the same. The "brick" properties are a bit of a misnomer, but it certainly isn't as efficient as a glider in that respect, no. But that makes it easier to lose energy with a simple flare.

Yeah, great, do a "simple flare" and overshoot the one and only runway that you are committed to landing at.  Pure genius, why didn't I think of that? lol.

Or using S-turns which would put a higher stress on the airframe.

They already use S-turns to bleed off energy in a nominal approach, a late TAL approach will have less time to do the same number of S-turns.

They could also use the split rudder to burn off energy.

Once again, they already use the speed brake in a nominal approach once they drop below mach 10 to induce a more positive downward elevator trim deflection. I'm not sure what the other structural limitations are on speed brake deployment, but I'd guess they can only partially deploy it while supersonic.  The main goal of the entry phase is to remain within the structural limitations of the orbiter while maintaining a trajectory that will neither cause them to burn up or skip off.  Controling the angle of attack and the bank angle are the two main ways of controlling the orbiter's energy, but both have strict limits based on the structural limitations of the orbiter.  If you bleed off the energy too fast you burn the orbiter up.

This has gone FAR ENOUGH!!!  I lost a loved one on the Columbia shuttle!  You fucking ASSHOLES!!!!  DONT EVEN TRY AND SAY HE DIDNT ORBIT THIS PLANET!!!!    YOU FUCKING DICK HEAD ASSHOLES FUCKFACED MORONS!!!!!!!!
          To say that the shuttle doesnt orbit the planet is bullshit!!!!
 It's one thing to have fun with this fourum as a joke, everyone knows that the Earth is round, but when you start saying that the shuttle is used for drugs, or that it is a conspiracy or doesnt orbit the planet is taking the joke too far!!!!!
                           We lost a very important and loved faimily member on Columbia and for anyone to make light of it and say it never ordited the ROUND Earth is WRONG!  Have fun with the flat earth joke, but when it involves the loss of life you need to stop and draw the line!  I would strongly suggest that people refrain from making statements about the incedents that involve the recent loss of lives!
            I am not aiming this at the people who are defending the shuttle, but towards the ones who state it is not real.

This has gone FAR ENOUGH!!!  I lost a loved one on the Columbia shuttle!  You fucking ASSHOLES!!!!  DONT EVEN TRY AND SAY HE DIDNT ORBIT THIS PLANET!!!!    YOU FUCKING DICK HEAD ASSHOLES FUCKFACED MORONS!!!!!!!!
          To say that the shuttle doesnt orbit the planet is bullshit!!!!
 It's one thing to have fun with this fourum as a joke, everyone knows that the Earth is round, but when you start saying that the shuttle is used for drugs, or that it is a conspiracy or doesnt orbit the planet is taking the joke too far!!!!!
                           We lost a very important and loved faimily member on Columbia and for anyone to make light of it and say it never ordited the ROUND Earth is WRONG!  Have fun with the flat earth joke, but when it involves the loss of life you need to stop and draw the line!  I would strongly suggest that people refrain from making statements about the incedents that involve the recent loss of lives!
            I am not aiming this at the people who are defending the shuttle, but towards the ones who state it is not real.

Nobody is forcing you to come to this website.

Quote from: Moon Unit on June 25, 2008, 07:55:20 AM

This has gone FAR ENOUGH!!!  I lost a loved one on the Columbia shuttle!  You fucking ASSHOLES!!!!  DONT EVEN TRY AND SAY HE DIDNT ORBIT THIS PLANET!!!!    YOU FUCKING DICK HEAD ASSHOLES FUCKFACED MORONS!!!!!!!!
          To say that the shuttle doesnt orbit the planet is bullshit!!!!
 It's one thing to have fun with this fourum as a joke, everyone knows that the Earth is round, but when you start saying that the shuttle is used for drugs, or that it is a conspiracy or doesnt orbit the planet is taking the joke too far!!!!!
                           We lost a very important and loved faimily member on Columbia and for anyone to make light of it and say it never ordited the ROUND Earth is WRONG!  Have fun with the flat earth joke, but when it involves the loss of life you need to stop and draw the line!  I would strongly suggest that people refrain from making statements about the incedents that involve the recent loss of lives!
            I am not aiming this at the people who are defending the shuttle, but towards the ones who state it is not real.

Nobody is forcing you to come to this website.

Burn in HELL asshole liar!!!!   I thought this was a funny forum until I noticed the mention of Columbia and the lies about it. I think I will mention this to some of the other family members and see how funny they think you are!   Dickhead!

Quote from: Robosteve on June 25, 2008, 08:02:46 AM

Quote from: Moon Unit on June 25, 2008, 07:55:20 AM

This has gone FAR ENOUGH!!!  I lost a loved one on the Columbia shuttle!  You fucking ASSHOLES!!!!  DONT EVEN TRY AND SAY HE DIDNT ORBIT THIS PLANET!!!!    YOU FUCKING DICK HEAD ASSHOLES FUCKFACED MORONS!!!!!!!!
          To say that the shuttle doesnt orbit the planet is bullshit!!!!
 It's one thing to have fun with this fourum as a joke, everyone knows that the Earth is round, but when you start saying that the shuttle is used for drugs, or that it is a conspiracy or doesnt orbit the planet is taking the joke too far!!!!!
                           We lost a very important and loved faimily member on Columbia and for anyone to make light of it and say it never ordited the ROUND Earth is WRONG!  Have fun with the flat earth joke, but when it involves the loss of life you need to stop and draw the line!  I would strongly suggest that people refrain from making statements about the incedents that involve the recent loss of lives!
            I am not aiming this at the people who are defending the shuttle, but towards the ones who state it is not real.

Nobody is forcing you to come to this website.

Burn in HELL asshole liar!!!!   I thought this was a funny forum until I noticed the mention of Columbia and the lies about it. I think I will mention this to some of the other family members and see how funny they think you are!   Dickhead!

I never claimed that the shuttle didn't exist. I just pointed out that nobody is forcing you to read the posts of those who do claim such a thing.

This has gone FAR ENOUGH!!!  I lost a loved one on the Columbia shuttle! 

My deepest condolences.  I had the honor of meeting Rick Husband about two years before 107 and the experience inspired me to press on in my education through some personally tough times.  I'm sure the family member you lost on that mission was equally inspiring to everyone who had the chance to meet them.

This has gone FAR ENOUGH!!!  I lost a loved one on the Columbia shuttle!  You fucking ASSHOLES!!!!  DONT EVEN TRY AND SAY HE DIDNT ORBIT THIS PLANET!!!!    YOU FUCKING DICK HEAD ASSHOLES FUCKFACED MORONS!!!!!!!!
          To say that the shuttle doesnt orbit the planet is bullshit!!!!
 It's one thing to have fun with this fourum as a joke, everyone knows that the Earth is round, but when you start saying that the shuttle is used for drugs, or that it is a conspiracy or doesnt orbit the planet is taking the joke too far!!!!!
                           We lost a very important and loved faimily member on Columbia and for anyone to make light of it and say it never ordited the ROUND Earth is WRONG!  Have fun with the flat earth joke, but when it involves the loss of life you need to stop and draw the line!  I would strongly suggest that people refrain from making statements about the incedents that involve the recent loss of lives!
            I am not aiming this at the people who are defending the shuttle, but towards the ones who state it is not real.

This would be fine if it wasn't a fallacy.

Quote from: Ski on June 24, 2008, 09:53:49 PM

The principles are exactly the same. The "brick" properties are a bit of a misnomer, but it certainly isn't as efficient as a glider in that respect, no. But that makes it easier to lose energy with a simple flare.

Yeah, great, do a "simple flare" and overshoot the one and only runway that you are committed to landing at.  Pure genius, why didn't I think of that? lol.

So your orbiter never turns? It's lined up on the runway from reentry? lol

Quote from: messierhunter on June 25, 2008, 07:04:12 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 24, 2008, 09:53:49 PM

The principles are exactly the same. The "brick" properties are a bit of a misnomer, but it certainly isn't as efficient as a glider in that respect, no. But that makes it easier to lose energy with a simple flare.

Yeah, great, do a "simple flare" and overshoot the one and only runway that you are committed to landing at.  Pure genius, why didn't I think of that? lol.

So your orbiter never turns? It's lined up on the runway from reentry? lol

Ok, do a flare during re-entry and see what happens.  Your orbiter will end up looking like this:

Now you CAN slightly adjust your angle of attack to try and increase drag provided you don't change it too much or cause your sink rate to increase too much, but I wouldn't call that a flare.  I already discussed that in my post though.

A flare during the final glide will cause you to overshoot, so it's not much good then either.

No one suggested a flare at hypersonic speeds  


Yet one could increase angle of attack later in the process before final approach and still have time/room to line up on approach -- even after proceeding past the intended landing site. We know this, because the orbiter routinely completes a 270 degree (or more) turn after passing over the landing site in FLA.

No one suggested a flare at hypersonic speeds  

Quote

It's lined up on the runway from reentry?

Yet one could increase angle of attack later in the process before final approach and still have time/room to line up on approach -- even after proceeding past the intended landing site. We know this, because the orbiter routinely completes a 270 degree (or more) turn after passing over the landing site in FLA.

It flies a heading alignment circle while bleeding off speed, but what part of that involves FLARING?!  And I find it incredibly deceptive and manipulative to describe that maneuver as "proceeding past the intended landing site," makes it sound like it's outside the fucking flight plan.  In reality it's just part of the process of lining up for landing.  Yes, technically it can take them to the other side of the runway, but they're constantly turning, not flaring to overshoot.

Ski, someone needs to revoke your conspiracy credentials.  messierhunter and I keep arguing for an abort scenario.  You should be arguing that it is not an abort at all, but a planned part of the mission.  Therefore the payload/fuel loads and flight profiles would be such that the shuttle could launch in a convincing manner and still be light enough to make a safe landing a secret landing site.  Not that it would be any more true, but at least it would sound a little bit more reasonable.

Sheesh!  Do I have to argue your side too?   

But that's the entire point. Even assuming a "normal" landing or an abort landing, there is no reason the orbiter could not proceed past the airport at altitude and make a wide turn burning off energy to land at a runway. Because that is what it does. If you had to lose more energy (ie you're too high above the site), you proceed farther than "normal" and make a wider, longer turn. Guess what happens when you do that. A flare is simply increasing aoa to bleed of airspeed and/or slow one's decent before landing. Doing this slightly earlier than "normal" would bleed off more speed.
I don't even have to argue that they secretly modify the shuttle to enable this. That they may is certain, but it would not be necessary.
I already said that I'm sure NASA is smart enough to ensure safe conditions at the landing site(s), wherever and whatever they may be. My beef is that his argument is laughable even assuming RE and NASA are correct. There is nothing super difficult about slowing an a/c in flight.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 24, 2008, 08:51:07 AM

It's not an insult- I don't work at NASA, nor am I entirely familiar with it checks, processes and procedures. I will freely admit, I am speculating. All I am saying is that it is very possible that there are ways and means of creating an illusion. This is NASA; the nerve centre of the conspiracy- the very organisation through which the conspiracy is upheld. I mean, how do you check an airtight piece of equipment? I mean, they don't open up the payload and look at the wiring multiple times before it is loaded, do they?

So you admit that you are speculating about a topic that you know nothing about.  I'm sorry, but why are we supposed to take you seriously?   

Why should I take anyone here seriously? You're on an internet forum where no-one has credentials and can say they are whoever they like. This is the problem with RE'ers- it's all about 'who are you?'

Who we are has nothing to do with it. Our ideas are what you shpould be considering. And whoever said I wanted you to take me seriously? I come here to speculate; nothing I or anyone else here posts is for your benefit; we come here for our own reasons, not just to be taken 'seriously' by you.

But that's the entire point. Even assuming a "normal" landing or an abort landing, there is no reason the orbiter could not proceed past the airport at altitude and make a wide turn burning off energy to land at a runway.

"Proceed past" what a bunch of deceptive bullshit.  They don't overshoot the runway, they make a downward spiral, but that can only help to a certain extent, an extent used on a nominal entry, let alone an abort with extra energy and extra inertia.  Add to that how a heavy payload will increase their stall speed and demand a faster landing speed with a longer rollout for a given speed and pretty soon you have a receipe for disaster.

Because that is what it does.

No, it doesn't, their turn is actually fairly tight considering how fast they're going and how massive they are.  You can't make the orbiter turn much harder than that without violating the loading limits, especially with a full payload bay.

If you had to lose more energy (ie you're too high above the site), you proceed farther than "normal" and make a wider, longer turn.
Guess what happens when you do that. A flare is simply increasing aoa to bleed of airspeed and/or slow one's decent before landing.

I've had it with this dipshit.  They're not flaring, they're turning.  A flare is to arrest one's descent rate.

Doing this slightly earlier than "normal" would bleed off more speed.

Or it would put too much stress on the spacecraft which would still be supersonic.

I don't even have to argue that they secretly modify the shuttle to enable this.

Oh yes, you do.

That they may is certain, but it would not be necessary.

For what you're suggesting, yes, it would be.

I already said that I'm sure NASA is smart enough to ensure safe conditions at the landing site(s), wherever and whatever they may be. My beef is that his argument is laughable even assuming RE and NASA are correct. There is nothing super difficult about slowing an a/c in flight.

What's laughable is the notion that it's easy to slow a fully loaded shuttle down from mach 25 in less time than normal and still hit a short runway without going over.