Shuttle crashs

Quote from: messierhunter on June 25, 2008, 02:03:04 PM

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.

If I'm a poor pilot.

No, the situation will prevent you no matter how hot you think your shit is.  As an extreme example of what I mean; if you go screaming past your landing site at mach 2, sorry, there's no way you're going to be able to redirect all that momentum and still have enough energy to land.

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?
[/quote]
Considering that EMAS didn't exist in the timeframe we're talking about and is not documented to exist on any shuttle landing site, yes, you lied.  Considering that SOAS takes 8 hours to set up, it is "used" (in the sense that it is set up) for every flight, if only at the TAL sites.  But of course, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the 1/3rd reduced runway length at some TAL sites...

Do you have evidence that EMAS is not used at the NASA site(s)?

You made the claim, please provide evidence that EMAS is used at NASA sites in the timeframe we were talking about or admit you lied.

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?

Where did I say "secret sites exist"?  It's been documented that NASA uses SOAS at TAL sites, not EMAS.  It's reasonable to assume that if they were going to use a "secret site" they'd use SOAS since that's what they came up with. Once again though, the fact that they developed SOAS in the first place exclusively for use at TAL sites shows what I've been saying all along; it's reasonable to expect a runway over-run at a TAL abort.

I seem to remember saying "if EMAS was used..." several times. Since we're talking about a secret location, the only way you can know it has not been used is if you know the location and it's conditions. Are you in fact in on the conspiracy or just a paid lackey to troll our website?

I seem to remember saying "if EMAS was used..." several times.

That's a claim, let's see you support the notion that it's possible for them to have used something that wasn't invented yet while they apparently had an equivalent system at their disposal.  If you can't support it then admit you lied.

Since we're talking about a secret location, the only way you can know it has not been used is if you know the location and it's conditions. Are you in fact in on the conspiracy or just a paid lackey to troll our website?

I never said they used a secret location.  Ascension island is known, it's not a secret.  And I can know they didn't use EMAS at any secret location in the 80s to early 90s because IT WASN'T EVEN INVENTED YET!

The technology behind EMAS was started in the 60's by Great Britain. EMAS in its current form from ESCO is stated to have started in 1986, but the idea. of course, has been around a lot longer.

The technology behind EMAS was started in the 60's by Great Britain. EMAS in its current form from ESCO is stated to have started in 1986, but the idea. of course, has been around a lot longer.

Then you should have said ESCO.  Hell, you should have said SOAS but you seem to think I should have done your arguing for you.  You specifically said EMAS.

Surely, Messierhunter, your nit bag is full and you can head home and enjoy them.

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2008, 02:57:54 PM

The technology behind EMAS was started in the 60's by Great Britain. EMAS in its current form from ESCO is stated to have started in 1986, but the idea. of course, has been around a lot longer.

Then you should have said ESCO.  Hell, you should have said SOAS but you seem to think I should have done your arguing for you.  You specifically said EMAS.

ESCO is a company who developed EMAS along with the Port Authority. It's not it's own system. ESCO is the provider for EMAS systems (along with several other systems for vehicle arrest they have developed). Hence, "EMAS in its current form from ESCO..."   There. That's my nit from your hide. Do you eat them, I wonder?

Post Script: Guess who makes the Shuttle Orbiter Arresting System... Go on, guess.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2008, 02:15:14 PM

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 the modules are being secretly whisked away and replaced by identical modules prepared in an identical fashion at night, then there must be an army of workers equally as large that are in on it.  All you're doing is pushing the claim back from the 15,000 that we know work there to another 15,000 that are completely hidden from us.

No, because one set of workers could move the real module away, believing this was perfectly normal and what was supposed to happen, and another set could bring in the duds, not knowing they are duds, and believing this to be normal. And would it really take 15,000 people to remove a space shuttle module? The amount needed to check on, test and prepare the module for it's non-existent flight would be considerably less than that needed to simply transport it.

In summary, far less people would be needed than you suggest, and even then, they needn't know what they are doing.

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?'

It's because they are all about the fallacies.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 25, 2008, 03:30:41 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2008, 02:57:54 PM

The technology behind EMAS was started in the 60's by Great Britain. EMAS in its current form from ESCO is stated to have started in 1986, but the idea. of course, has been around a lot longer.

Then you should have said ESCO.  Hell, you should have said SOAS but you seem to think I should have done your arguing for you.  You specifically said EMAS.

ESCO is a company who developed EMAS along with the Port Authority. It's not it's own system. ESCO is the provider for EMAS systems (along with several other systems for vehicle arrest they have developed). Hence, "EMAS in its current form from ESCO..."   There. That's my nit from your hide. Do you eat them, I wonder?

Post Script: Guess who makes the Shuttle Orbiter Arresting System... Go on, guess.

So you should have said SOAS then?  Why did you say EMAS?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 25, 2008, 02:24:04 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2008, 02:15:14 PM

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 the modules are being secretly whisked away and replaced by identical modules prepared in an identical fashion at night, then there must be an army of workers equally as large that are in on it.  All you're doing is pushing the claim back from the 15,000 that we know work there to another 15,000 that are completely hidden from us.

No, because one set of workers could move the real module away, believing this was perfectly normal

Considering that even the tourists would know better, I'm sorry, that's just not possible.

And would it really take 15,000 people to remove a space shuttle module? The amount needed to check on, test and prepare the module for it's non-existent flight would be considerably less than that needed to simply transport it.

Did you mean considerably more?  Anyway, who's preparing the replacement module?  Who's making sure everything is put back exactly the way it was left after the previous day's tests?  Who's testing the empty replacement to make sure it passes all the same tests, or fails any tests that the other module was still failing?  It would take at least an equal team to prepare and test the secret module in exactly the same manner as the known employees, and they'd have to be in on it because they'd have to be deliberately covering their tracks perfectly every night.

Ugh, quote pyramids.


First point: I don't see how it's not possible. A small number of people given orders will follow them. There might nor appear to be anything wrong from their point of view.


As for the duplicate passing tests, if it's all computer testing after a certain point, it would not be hard to duplicate the results, and would not take a team that large. Once the dud, which only has to produce information, is placed, it's a fairly simple affair. Besides, the software would be very similar to that in the original module- no-one would have to 'work on it'. They can simply take it, modifiy it, and adapt it for the empty module.

Ugh, quote pyramids.


First point: I don't see how it's not possible. A small number of people given orders will follow them. There might nor appear to be anything wrong from their point of view.

Ok, these are civilian employees, not the military, and so sorry, but anyone with a brain knows that covering there tracks every night probably indicates that they're up to no good.  And since it takes such a huge number of personnel to prepare the real cargo for launch, why wouldn't it take an equally large number of personnel to prepare a fake cargo (made by whom?) to look, feel, and test exactly like the real cargo it is replacing.

As for the duplicate passing tests, if it's all computer testing after a certain point, it would not be hard to duplicate the results, and would not take a team that large. Once the dud, which only has to produce information, is placed, it's a fairly simple affair. Besides, the software would be very similar to that in the original module- no-one would have to 'work on it'. They can simply take it, modifiy it, and adapt it for the empty module.

They not only have to get it to look like the real thing, they have to set it up to have all of the same faults and modifications of the real thing.  Perhaps you don't realize this, but the astronauts themselves will occasionally show up to get hands on time with the equipment and will make suggestions for changes to make it easier to service once in orbit, move handrails, make a screw easier to access, that kind of thing.  You're going to need a team to prepare all of the parts to be in exactly the same configuration of the module that's being replaced AND you're going to have to do it and be out of sight without a trace in however many hours are left between the time the last poor overtime sap leaves and the first early bird arrives.  How you think that's acheivable time after time by a "small" team is beyond me.  I'm not even sure that it's physically possible in that time frame given the limitations of how slowly and carefully they move the crane when moving around several tons of fragile equipment in the high bays.

People like the astronauts would obviously be part of the conspiracy, seeing as they claim to go into space. And the employees used in the movement operation could be anyone. Orders are orders. Who would question it?

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2008, 03:48:20 PM

ESCO is a company who developed EMAS along with the Port Authority. It's not it's own system. ESCO is the provider for EMAS systems (along with several other systems for vehicle arrest they have developed). Hence, "EMAS in its current form from ESCO..."   There. That's my nit from your hide. Do you eat them, I wonder?

Post Script: Guess who makes the Shuttle Orbiter Arresting System... Go on, guess.

So you should have said SOAS then?  Why did you say EMAS?

Because there is no reason to suppose that they couldn't use some form of EMAS. The founding work for which was done in the 60's. It's not "rocket science". The fact that EMAS and the SOAS are both developed by the same corporation (ESCO) just demonstrates it is even more likely.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 06:46:40 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2008, 03:48:20 PM

ESCO is a company who developed EMAS along with the Port Authority. It's not it's own system. ESCO is the provider for EMAS systems (along with several other systems for vehicle arrest they have developed). Hence, "EMAS in its current form from ESCO..."   There. That's my nit from your hide. Do you eat them, I wonder?

Post Script: Guess who makes the Shuttle Orbiter Arresting System... Go on, guess.

So you should have said SOAS then?  Why did you say EMAS?

Because there is no reason to suppose that they couldn't use some form of EMAS. The founding work for which was done in the 60's. It's not "rocket science". The fact that EMAS and the SOAS are both developed by the same corporation (ESCO) just demonstrates it is even more likely.

I conclude that the fact that they developed SOAS instead and did not test their models with an EMAS system but only a SOAS system indicates that it is LESS likely.  You are a liar who refuses to admit it.  Admit you lied when you said they used EMAS.

People like the astronauts would obviously be part of the conspiracy, seeing as they claim to go into space. And the employees used in the movement operation could be anyone. Orders are orders. Who would question it?

You have a very odd idea of how civilian employees work.  You must think us florida yokels are complete idiots to not be able to figure something that obvious out.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 26, 2008, 07:37:02 AM

People like the astronauts would obviously be part of the conspiracy, seeing as they claim to go into space. And the employees used in the movement operation could be anyone. Orders are orders. Who would question it?

You have a very odd idea of how civilian employees work.  You must think us florida yokels are complete idiots to not be able to figure something that obvious out.

Right. Some guys come to a site in Florida, remove a payload. Some other guys come seperately and put in the dud. Their obvious conclusion, given they knew nothing of eac others operations, is that it's a round earth conspiracy. Is that what you're suggesting?

Quote

You have a very odd idea of how civilian employees work.  You must think us florida yokels are complete idiots to not be able to figure something that obvious out.

Right. Some guys come to a site in Florida, remove a payload. Some other guys come seperately and put in the dud. Their obvious conclusion, given they knew nothing of eac others operations, is that it's a round earth conspiracy. Is that what you're suggesting?

Oh right, so TWO entirely different groups of people come in and the second group puts the new payload in EXACTLY the same position as the old, tests the new payload to make sure it performs EXACTLY the same way as the old one, makes final changes to the configuration of the new payload to make it look EXACTLY like the old one, and puts all the tools back EXACTLY where the first team found them before the payload was removed, all without seeing the first payload that was removed or the state of the bay before that happened, and all in a few hours time without either team running into each other and without anyone on the day shift being the wiser?  That, sir, is complete bullshit.  You don't have to know the whole picture to figure out that what you're doing is fishy and would require a team at least as large as the real one.  Where's this phantom population of people?  Where's the late night traffic to and from the cape?  It doesn't exist.  Complete and total bullshit.

What do you mean "where is it"? What kind of a question is that to ask? Can you catagorically say there is no traffic of said size to the cape? Can you?

What do you mean "where is it"? What kind of a question is that to ask? Can you catagorically say there is no traffic of said size to the cape? Can you?

Having driven the roads going to and from kennedy many times late at night, I can categorically say there is no traffic of said size at that time.  You could see the guard gates, there was no one coming or going.  And when traffic starts letting out of the cape before 5 every day, you find out about it real fast.  You could almost set your watch to it.

I conclude that the fact that they developed SOAS instead and did not test their models with an EMAS system but only a SOAS system indicates that it is LESS likely.  You are a liar who refuses to admit it.  Admit you lied when you said they used EMAS.

Lol. I lied when I said they could increase safety margins using EMAS?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 08:54:38 AM

I conclude that the fact that they developed SOAS instead and did not test their models with an EMAS system but only a SOAS system indicates that it is LESS likely.  You are a liar who refuses to admit it.  Admit you lied when you said they used EMAS.

Lol. I lied when I said they could increase safety margins using EMAS?

Considering that EMAS wasn't invented yet, yes.  Admit it.

Unless you know that the secret base did not use EMAS, it would be impossible to say.

Unless you know that the secret base did not use EMAS, it would be impossible to say.

Considering it wasn't invented yet, it's quite possible to say.  Prove they used it or admit your lie.  See?  No intellectual honesty whatsoever.  You presented the fucking EMAS thing as if it were solid gold truth.  You're just full of it!

Please re-read through my comments and show me where I said the site must have EMAS. Saying "if the site has EMAS, the safety margin improves" is a far cry from the straw man you are building. And I'm the intellectually dishonest one?

Please re-read through my comments and show me where I said the site must have EMAS. Saying "if the site has EMAS, the safety margin improves" is a far cry from the straw man you are building. And I'm the intellectually dishonest one?

You said it as if it could have EMAS when you knew full damn well that EMAS didn't exist yet.  If I hadn't bothered to check I wouldn't have even known to call you on it.  And so yes, that makes you the intellectually dishonest one.

And the reason they couldn't use EMAS was because it wasn't commercially available although the technology was demonstrated in the 60's?

And the reason they couldn't use EMAS was because it wasn't commercially available although the technology was demonstrated in the 60's?

It wasn't available period.  EMAS is a specific name of a device not employed until 1996.  Prove it was used at airports before then or admit you lied and shut up.

Or admit that the technology was available for use since the 60's. I think I'll choose that one.