Shuttle crashs

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?

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.

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.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2008, 12:31:51 PM

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.

Good, guess we can stop taking him seriously markjo.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 24, 2008, 10:21:13 AM

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?

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.

Ok, a pratical question- how long before flight? At what point prior to the flight are they made airtight and no longer accessible?

I wasn't taking anyone seriously. Aftr two years, I have come to the conclusion that in most ways this is, to paraphrase MP, "a very silly place".


But the point still stands: if you can't answer my questions, then it is valid speculation. Anything else is beside the point.


Ok, so they're pressurised a week beforehand, give or take a day. Do people work on them 24/7, or are they simply supervised at certain points?

24 hours a day?

So, not 24 hours a day? Basically, it's only supervised, by a relatively small numner of people, outside working hours- correct?

Aftr two years, I have come to the conclusion that in most ways this is, to paraphrase MP, "a very silly place".

"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.

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

Quote

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.

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.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2008, 12:55:18 PM

Aftr two years, I have come to the conclusion that in most ways this is, to paraphrase MP, "a very silly place".

Congratulations, it took me two days to reach the same conclusion.

With 'live feed' from NASA? Why would I believe those NASA images if I don't believe any others? I wouldn't, and don't.

With 'live feed' from NASA? Why would I believe those NASA images if I don't believe any others? I wouldn't, and don't.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2008, 01:11:37 PM

With 'live feed' from NASA? Why would I believe those NASA images if I don't believe any others? I wouldn't, and don't.

Like I said, you can verify its veracity for yourself by going down there.

I didn't say they overshot the runway.

I said they proceed past the strip at altitude. Do you dispute that? I can show you route maps, if you'd like. By proceeding farther, and making a larger turn you use up more of that evil kinetic and potential energy.

Quote

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

The shuttle flares on approach.

Flaring slightly earlier on approach would put the orbiter at too high an altitude to safely land at the start of the runway.

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

Quote

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

I was unaware that the orbiter was supersonic slightly earlier than they normally flare on approach.

Quote

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.

NASA treats a TAL like a nominal entry. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because it isn't extraordinarily different than a normal reentry?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 25, 2008, 01:17:49 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2008, 01:11:37 PM

With 'live feed' from NASA? Why would I believe those NASA images if I don't believe any others? I wouldn't, and don't.

Like I said, you can verify its veracity for yourself by going down there.

But only during business hours, correct? Have I misunderstood?

Nah, I believe in the cause, but I'm not willing to fight for it. I think I could make the case that, with very few people being 'in the know', after it has been sealed, it is highly possible the cargo could be replaced with most technicians being none the wiser. As long as their tests are computer based, it would be possible to fake.

No; I mean one culd be swapped for a basically empty payload. It could be airtight as well, and pass every one of those tests. All it would take is a covert swap in the early hours of the morning.

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2008, 01:15:24 PM

I didn't say they overshot the runway.

That's how you try to make it sound.  Like I said, manipulative at best.

You won't be able to turn hard enough if you have too much energy.  At least, not without destroying your spacecraft.  But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your fantasy.

Flaring slightly earlier on approach would put the orbiter at too high an altitude to safely land at the start of the runway.
I thought you were talking about entering the HAC, not the flare.  As mentioned above, a premature flare = missed approach

Actually if you read the details of the astronaut's own manual you find that the final steps of a TAL landing are somewhat different; the astronaut is instructed to swerve back and forth to try and bleed off excess speed before reaching the end of the runway.  Wonder why that is?

Quote

You won't be able to turn hard enough if you have too much energy.  At least, not without destroying your spacecraft.  But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your fantasy.

If I proceed farther past the strip before commencing my turn to approach does my turn result in a lighter or heavier loading on my a/c?

Quote

Flaring slightly earlier on approach would put the orbiter at too high an altitude to safely land at the start of the runway.
I thought you were talking about entering the HAC, not the flare.  As mentioned above, a premature flare = missed approach

Only if you proceeded with a "normal" glide path not accounting for the flare.
You can flare several times before landing. Often one uses a series of small flares before the final flare is used.

Quote

In that case you'd have to place your "farther out than normal HAC" "farther out from the end of the runway."  See above, you'll never make it back if you wait for your velocity to be low enough to make the kind of tight turn normally found at a nominal landing's HAC.

Quote

Here's what I know. NASA says TAL aborts are treated as nominal entries. NASA's known TAL sites usually have less than 12000' and overruns to work with. Landing runs are routinely less than 9000' and have been demonstrated as low as 6000' without a chute. I see no basis for your claim that such a landing is any more hazardous than any other operation the vehicle performs.

Obviously you don't know enough and are not versed on the details of how the astronauts were actually trained to handle it.  You refuse to acknowledge the combined effects of a full payload, a fuller-than-normal RCS tank, and a runway lacking the grooves found at KSC and Edwards.

Quote

The sites are not the 15000' minimum for safe landing that you originally stated.

Horseshit.  I said 10,000' was the minimum that NASA decided for a safe landing.

Quote

They are substantially shorter. They also have the SOAS barrier, which I've given you ample time to mention but you've ignored. Probably because of the intellectual honesty you claim I have.

Oh I'm supposed to make your argument for you?  That's not what intellectual honesty means.  It means you acknowledge evidence when it is presented.  After you initially lied about the kind of barrier present I'm supposed to go find your evidence for you?  And by the way, why do you think they'd have the SOAS unless they expected the shuttle rollout would likely exceed the runway length?  It's actually a point in my favor in that regard, and although it could minimize potential damage I don't see any place where it says it will always eliminate it altogether.  In that case, we should expect that the shuttle is damaged on some percentage of its 100+ fake missions, but I don't see you having the intellectual honesty to admit any of that.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2008, 01:36:23 PM

No; I mean one culd be swapped for a basically empty payload. It could be airtight as well, and pass every one of those tests. All it would take is a covert swap in the early hours of the morning.

Somehow they manage to put everything back exactly where they found it, not a tool out of place, no one the wiser.  And when they use their crane to lift it into the pad transport vehicle, the crane operator doesn't notice how it suddenly got lighter?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 25, 2008, 01:41:35 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2008, 01:36:23 PM

No; I mean one culd be swapped for a basically empty payload. It could be airtight as well, and pass every one of those tests. All it would take is a covert swap in the early hours of the morning.

Somehow they manage to put everything back exactly where they found it, not a tool out of place, no one the wiser.  And when they use their crane to lift it into the pad transport vehicle, the crane operator doesn't notice how it suddenly got lighter?

Crane operator could be one of the few, and yes- we're talking about the government here. Do you really doubt the capacity of U.S. government agencies to do that?

But why do they have to be in on it? Only a small number of workers would have to be involved, not all of them.

If you're forced to proceed farther because of your velocity then there's a damn good chance you'll be forced to proceed too far to be able to return to the runway.

Quote

If I'm a poor pilot. I see no evidence to this effect. Nor do I see evidence that the Shuttle's PIC is typically a poor flier. All this discounting of course the fully automated landing system available.

Quote

  After you initially lied about the kind of barrier present I'm supposed to go find your evidence for you?  And by the way, why do you think they'd have the SOAS unless they expected the shuttle rollout would likely exceed the runway length?  It's actually a point in my favor in that regard, and although it could minimize potential damage I don't see any place where it says it will always eliminate it altogether.  In that case, we should expect that the shuttle is damaged on some percentage of its 100+ fake missions, but I don't see you having the intellectual honesty to admit any of that.

SOAS, like EMAS, is an emergency system. It is not used for standard flight. I see no evidence that NASA states all landing will need a restraint system. How did I lie about the system present? I suggested EMAC could slow an orbiter at a site. Is that false? Do you have evidence that EMAS is not used at the NASA site(s)? Are you admitting the secret sites exist but that they do not use EMAS and instead use SOAS? How did you come by this knowledge?