| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
If so, why did the guy have to go out into the cargo bay to operate it? A camera could be operated by remote control . . . can't it? It's easier that way . . . isn't it? It could've been a conspiracy between bush and sharon - the ultra arab hating primeminister of israel. the phone booth sized one time only use camera supposedly preloaded with film in israel and to be brought back to isreal ind its "film" developed to aid in the study of the "health effect of sand storms". . . ?! The spring loaded launching device to deploy a phonebooth sized satellite could also have contained a self-destruct device for the shuttle so that the entire shuttle crew would be sacrificed to forever eliminate the possibility that any one of them might have, sometime during his lifetime, reveal that the phonebooth sized device is still up in space, ready to drop who knows what on who knows where and who knows when. That might be bush's "solution" to North Korea. Bush has said "i loathe that man" The spring loaded launching device that remained in the shuttles cargo bay could have contained enough explosive to destroy the mission without even the knowledge of the zionaut who operated the launcher. Unlike pre internet space missions during which astronauts "phoned home" to their delighted families, personal space to ground communications have now been restricted to e-mails. There was never an opportunity for anybody on board to "phone home". in other words, prior censorship became possible. Its the most plausible explanation to be considered besides the shuttle just being too old. Let's hypothesize for a second that the phone booth sized device that was built in israel, taken up to space on board the space shuttle as supposedly a camera to study dust storms and to be brought back, like the worlds largest disposable camera Is it possible a satellite was secretly launched that was designed to drop who knows what on who knows where on who knows when with "no fingerprints". Such a satellite could not have been built in the united states. Both bush and sharon could not let anyone survive EVER to Tell the story that the phone booth sized camera was actually a satellite that was deployed. . . . . . to have the capability of dropping bombs from space which is STRICTLY prohibited by one treaty that bush does not want to break publicly. |
perhaps they extracted the phonebooth? |
it's also interesting that some of the debris fell on Nacogdoches, Texas. "Nacogdoches" is apparently the name of an ancient space civilization that was thought to have colonized many of the starclusters in the Milky Way. they are also thought to have at least orbited earth, although experts disagree as to whether they actually landed and, if they did land, whether they were responsible for introducing the process by which fossil fuels are created to earth. or something like that. |
piece of styrofoam debris from one of the shuttle's main booster rockets. This damage cracked the heat shield on the shuttle's left wing, which protects the shuttle upon atmospheric re-entry. The space shuttle Columbia was around 22 years old, and apparently experienced thermal damage to its heat shield before without incident. Note that even naval warships are not in commission for this long. Columbia was currently the second oldest shuttle in NASA's fleet, with Enterprise being the oldest. When space shuttles enter the atmosphere they are travelling around Mach 15 at a heat shield temperature around 2500-3000 degrees. Mach 15 is 15 times the speed of sound. Rockets aside, only the space shuttle is capable of attaining speeds this high without structural failure. The damage to the heat shield on Colombia's left wing caused ion plasma to burn into the left wing, causing the temperature gauges to fail in that section and eventually causing the entire wing to rupture and burn off. With the left wing burned off, this caused the shuttle to cartwheel causing what engineers call catastrophic structural failure. If NASA continues to engage in using its aging shuttle fleet, more shuttles will be lost, eventually all of them. It is just simply the law of averages. This is also the price that must be paid to advance human knowledge and understanding. When volunteers fuel the shuttle on the launch pad, they are well aware of the risk that a pad explosion would vaporize themselves as well as any shuttle craft. In my opinion, these are the true brave people. When astronauts and cosmonauts board shuttle and rocketcraft they are well aware that they may not return, this is the risk they engage in every mission. The risk factors are simply not zero, and eventually the probabilities catch up with them. NASA and other space agencies are all parts of a cooperative international effort. It should not be a surprise to find an american astronaut aboard a russian rocket or a russian aboard a NASA space shuttle. It is all part of this international effort. Although politics are involved it is rudamentary and redundant. As for sabotage, the only sabotage was from the United States Federal Government for reducing funding for the NASA Space Agency. NASA's current national budget is only around US$15 Billion a year. However note that this was not in malice, but an attempt to regulate the national budget and reduce deficit. And of course, without funding from the government, there would not be a national space program at all, and there would never have been any Apollo missions. As for photographic equipment aboard the shuttle, it is primarily optical equipment purely for geological and ecological research. The United States CIA spy satellites are far more sophisticated then the simple research camera equipment aboard the shuttle. The simple fact of the matter is that if both men and women from every nationality are not being lost on these missions to explore space, then we are all simply not trying hard enough to get there. As for astronauts that are lost on these missions, as a scientist we understand that for every advancement and human achievement in science, there is always a price to pay. As for this scientist, would I volunteer for a mission in which I would not return? If I believed the scientific advancement was greater than the risk, and the quest noble enough, I most would certainly volunteer. I am certain that a lot of people would from any walk of life, just for the opportunity to experience space and the nature of the Universe in which we all exist. It is just simply the nature of an explorer which ultimately is probably the true nature of a scientist. As for returning from a scientific mission, it is purely convenience that our equipment and technology allows us to return at all. The debris field covering Texas and Louisiana is the largest I have ever seen, It is simply not possible to recover all of it. Debris from this incident will continue to be discovered for an indefinite number of years. Most of the heaviest debris, having the greatest atmospheric resistance, landed in Texas. The particled debris, having the least atmospheric resistance, landed in Louisiana. As for the astronauts lost, I choose not to mourn them, but choose to celebrate the memories of their lives and their scientific achievements and celebrate the memories and scientific achievements of the astronauts that will be lost after them. For it is in the nature of knowledge to a scientist to pass their knowledge and understanding to the generations of scientists that will follow them, with the loss of those scientists that lead passing the torch of human understanding to those that follow. This is the price of human understanding and the advancement of science....any volunteers??? |
i dunno. my dad served on the USS Enterprise before i was born. that ship is still in commission. most of american airlines' fleet of boeings is over 30 years old. all these mistruths- you must be a liberal. |
|
Apparently aircraft carriers are an exception to the rule as they are probably easier to refit then rebuild! However, I know of no other aircraft carrier that is older, since I believe that this was the first nuclear powered vessel. http://www02.clf.navy.mil/enterprise/ To my knowledge all other non-nuclear aircraft carriers have long since been decommissioned. There is also a NASA shuttle called 'Enterprise', this was the first prototype built, early on in NASA's shuttle program, it experienced aerodynamic testing aboard the back of a Air Force 747. However no rocket propulsion engines were known to be installed and this shuttle was never launched. The Challenger disaster really was caused by an O-ring failure. The company which manufactured those O-rings is Thiokol, which is located in Ogden, Utah. http://www.thiokol.com/ |
Enterprise - prototype Endeavour Atlantis Discovery Challenger - destroyed Columbia - destroyed NASA Shuttle Destruction Probability: P = (2 destroyed/113 total flights) = 1.77% destroyed/flight P^-1 = 56.5 total flights/destroyed (the next shuttle is expected to be destroyed in 56.5 total flights regardless of shuttle name) NASA Shuttle launch frequency: F = (113 total flights/20.3 years) F = 5.567 flights/year T = (F*P)^-1 = (56.5 total flights)/(5.567 flights/year) = 10.15 years T = 10.15 years (the next shuttle is expected to be destroyed in less than 10.15 years.) Total life expectancy of total NASA fleet: L = (3*T) = (3 shuttles*10.15 years) = 30.447 years. L = 30.447 years. (NASA's entire shuttle fleet is expected to be destroyed within 30.447 years, except Enterprise.) Challenger - (10 flights) - destroyed Columbia - (28 flights) - destroyed Discovery - (30 flights) Atlantis - (26 flights) Endeavour - (19 flights) Enterprise - (0 flights) Average flight expectancy until destruction: A1 = (38/2) = 19 flights A1 = 19 flights Average total flight number A2 = (113 total flights/5 shuttles) = 22.6 flights/shuttle A2 = 22.6 flights/shuttle Next NASA shuttle expected to be destroyed = Discovery (30 flights) NASA shuttle destruction sequence: 1. Discovery - (30 flights) 2. Atlantis - (26 flights) 3. Endeavour - (19 flights) No conspiracies here!, just statistics and the law of averages! |
|
that is an extremely simplistic statistical model. you left out a few thousand variables. |
The astronauts were our martyrs. Their religion was technology, in particular the NASA culture that promised to never "strap our friends in unless they were really really really really sure" they weren't going to blow up. |
that's the best name yet. |
But to trust their lives to a Russkie gadget. . . that would have violated "NASA culture." As the Bible thumping minister in Florida (near Cape Whatsis') said Sunday "We're aaaaall gonna die-uh, the question is. . . Hooow we're gonna diiieeeeeeya" |
It beats buying a hundred Hummers. |
|
i don't understand how you can keep getting basic facts so wrong. |
I have been saying we are way behind in the space program as it was, litteraly spinning our wheels with low-level orbits when we should be building a base on the moon. We could build larger star ships on the moon then we can on earth. Then all we would need is an automated supply shuttle to fly supplies to the moon and one small personel shuttle. We could have a group that resides on the moon to service the satelites and telescopes in earth orbit. Let the unmanned rockets deploy new sattelites... |
the space station, lunar base and a mars trip were outlined by NASA as goals for 2000-2020 way back in 1990. |
"Most of the heaviest debris, having the greatest atmospheric resistance, landed in Texas. The particled debris, having the least atmospheric resistance, landed in Louisiana." Exactly OPPOSITE from reality. :) The guy likes using big words like "atmospheric resistance" without knowing what they mean, apparently. |
I dont think anything should be scrapped. First, there is a crew out there "hello??????Id like to get down now!!! Hello?????" Imagine the voice of that old prune man on the simpsons. Second, NASA has been drastically underfunded for decades. I agree we should have had a 7-11 on the moon by now, but they cant when they are constantly the first item to get cut off the budget. But you dont scrap what you got until you got something to replace it. Its like stepping stones. |
|
|
I loved this. I have been thinking the exact same thing ever since I saw the notice that they were suspending further shuttle launches until further notice. All I could think was "Let's see if the people up there will starve, because we aren't going to fly up their necessary supplies!" Ugh. |
i think the space shuttle program is a good one...as a workhorse transport. but we definitely need to be bringout something new. eri can't you see the little portals on the space station with the two cosmonauts and one american, their eyes, bulging, tapping on the window, with the muffled voices. "hello??????????' our space program should be more resistant than this, lets send another one up tomorrow, and then another, and then another. |
They have dumbed down their reportage so much that they don't use the conditional case of verbs anymore. In other words they don't say "might have" even when it's a condition contrary to fact. You can dumb down the way you collect your "facts" and you can dumb down the way you report your "facts." Right now it's 50/50 whether 60 minutes or NPR will do an "expose'" based on fresh reporting or just copying from the other one. |
No shuttle missions will be launched until they get to the bottom of this, to the Nth degree. It took several years last time because, on top of investigating the disaster, they had to change the entire culture of NASA to be more open and safety conscious. That's not the case this time. Should be quicker. |
Yes Patrick, I see those little faces in the portals with the help signs and the "Will work for food and full tanks of oxygen" signs and the hitchiking signs that say "Earth, don't care where as long as it's land". Thank God they will be getting supplies. I wasn't aware that Russia was sending supplies up and got upset when I heard they suspended flights because of those stuck out there needing supplies from here. |
That's what you get for believing science reporting, period. Journalists are usually not too science savvy. They're just repeating, and not generally digesting and understanding, science related stuff. Saturday I was watching CNN reporters mangle facts willy nilly. It was kinda funny. |
That was the best thing I read all day. Thanks for the smile! The best article I have read so far comes from of all places, Time Magizine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030210-418518,00.html Sorry, commas are in the link, so you will have to copy and paste. The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped It's costly, outmoded, impractical and, as we've learned again, deadly ....the space shuttle was designed under the highly unrealistic assumption that the fleet would fly to space once a week and that each shuttle would need to be big enough to carry 50,000 lbs. of payload. In actual use, the shuttle fleet has averaged five flights a year; this year flights were to be cut back to four. The maximum payload is almost never carried. Yet to accommodate the highly unrealistic initial goals, engineers made the shuttle huge and expensive. The Soviet space program also built a shuttle, called Buran, with almost exactly the same dimensions and capacities as its American counterpart. Buran flew to orbit once and was canceled, as it was ridiculously expensive and impractical. cont'd |
|
It is Ragnarok. |
"It is time NASA and the congressional committees that supervise the agency demonstrated a tiny percentage of the bravery shown by the men and women who fly to space—by canceling the money-driven shuttle program and replacing it with something that makes sense." Rock on. |
Space Trace =Space Ghost? Then Patrick = Zorak? Nate =Moltar? Who would be Brak? |
|
(I'm Brak. Duh!) |
|
Space Ghost = Trace (good call, Sem!) Zorak = Nate Moltar = Antigone Lokar = Patrick and I can't remember the others... |
|
id prefer to be Moltar if its ok with you. |
Amazon.com: Moltar is a notable absence on your CDs. With his voice, I bet he'd be able to do a great Leonard Cohen or Lou Reed. Are there any plans for him to get on the mic? Space Ghost: Moltar's harmonic frequencies, while unpleasant to listen to, are quite harmless in our thin atmosphere. On earth, his singing would make things explode. Moltar: Cool... |
|
|
phone booth? conspiracy???? i figured it all out. i think this may have something to do with two men: Bill S. Preston Esquire and Ted Theodore Logan. strange things are afoot at the Circle K |
One time I hired a monkey to take notes for me in class. I would just sit there with my mind a complete blank while the monkey scribbled on little pieces of paper. At the end of the week the teacher said, "class, I want you to write a paper using you're notes." So I wrote a paper that said, "Hello, my name is Bongo. I like to climb on things. Can I have a banana? Eep eep!" I got an F! When I told my mom about it she said, "I told you never trust a monkey!" The End. Patrick: Lokar is the king of the killer locusts. You can find his picture here (scroll down a bit). My casting you as Lokar has to do with his voice and temperament. Antigone has to be Moltar because they're both rather laid back and (I imagine) have deep rumbly voices. Moltar voices one of my favorite lines -- Space Ghost: What's a refractory period? Moltar: Aah, I'll show you later. |
|
|
Does anyone know if that is available on line? I think he still puts it out but it's not carried by either free paper here. |