View Full Version : OMG @ Space Shuttle
Black Death
01-02-2003, 14:48
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1078668,00.html
Scary **** :(
Aye, bad news. Should have landed 45 minutes ago, but no contact. Can't help but fear the worst. :{
Cannon_Fodda
01-02-2003, 15:02
I lived in Florida when the other shuttle accident happened. I used to watch all the launches, was at the first ever one, and I remember being at the shopping mall when it blew up, saw the vapour trails shoot off in different directons over the top of the car park. Radio stations all started playing "Broken Wings" as a tribute as soon as everyone realised what was going on.
This is bringing back some sad memories.
Fear the worse? Tonster watch the video clip in the above link..
I tried to but all it showed me was a blank screen :/
[edit]Just tried the narrow band option and that works.
Feck :{
[scw]proud
01-02-2003, 15:31
poor sods :(
Wildfire
01-02-2003, 15:35
omg :{
The Space Shuttle Columbia, has broken up on re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere. A Nasa spokesman said: "Today a lot of astronauts died." The Columbia had a crew of seven.There has been no official confirmation of the disaster.
Defragmentor
01-02-2003, 15:47
Poor astronauts ;(
Tragic. Nowadays you just assume these things run like clockwork.
Lt. Sex Machine
01-02-2003, 15:56
Columbia was the first one they built too wasn't it? Must be over 20 years old now and without knowing much about this kinda thing that seems kinda old to me :/
aye but before they are sent up there they are checked. Remember watching a documentry and it showed you all the tests and stuff they do before take off - months of hard work :|
watching the video you can see lots of stuff going off and a few miniture explosions :{
must of been horrible for their families :|
Rex_Omar
01-02-2003, 16:11
Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, was on board.
Any possibility of fowl play?
Lt. Sex Machine
01-02-2003, 16:13
NASA have not ruled out the possibility of an evil plot by disgruntled poultry if that's what you mean.
;(
from the near faultless track record of nasa take off's/landings it shows the dangers involved in space travel.
damn shame :/
Columbia was indeed the first shuttle to go into orbit..and has recently been fully refubished to be at the exact same standard as the others in the fleet, so it is brand new really as its been taken apart and put back together.
From the piccies on tv it looks like a massive failure of the heat tiles...it can survive with quite a few falling off..30% if i remember right but the pics showed it coming in sideways.
It should come in with the nose high to get rid of the heat..but sideways..ouch time.
My thoughts are with the astronauts...brave isnt the word for what they do.
Tbh im totally shocked, i was watching the live piccies last night of pre landing activities.
Cant say anymore.:bigcry:
Cnn are reporting that a failure in the hydraulics..and attitude thrusters.
Basically if this is the case then the poor sods onboard could not position the orbiter at the correct angle for re entry..it would just tumble in and burn up.
terrible ;(
After Challenger the space programme went tits up, lets just hope this isn't another nail in nasa's coffin :|
Also like Bloke said, the age isn't a problem as they're completely rebuilt after each mission. Being a bit of an astronaut nerd I'm gutted, hearing the reports suggesting it came in sideways is the *worst* thing that could happen, as it's basically an unpowered glider so there was nothing they could have done
What a waste :/
Apparantly..dunno if this is right, it was reported that on launch one of the tiles didnt fall off but came loose..maybe the tiles surrounding it were loose too.
On re entry maybe a critical system..ie the control surfaces were affected by heat biuld up..they went tits up and they lost control.
btw schnor if you are a space nerd..like me self go ere and get this:
http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orbit.html
iirc something broke off during launch and hit the wing damaging it slightly..
:{
Don't see why it should be a nail in NASA's coffin, planes crash and they don't stop running them so why stop running shuttles?
FireStorm_tfc
01-02-2003, 17:13
Remember, no matter what the cost in human lives - the space program must go on.
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
;(
UKTwister
01-02-2003, 18:07
Well space travel hasn't got us anywhere really.. O.k we've been to the moon(allegedly) and sent some stuff to a few planets but we arent really any better off for it.
If they are lookin for aliens then just let the bugger's come to us!
Wildfire
01-02-2003, 18:15
< slightly confused - where is this information about mechanical failure coming from?
[scw]proud
01-02-2003, 18:26
Space missions have improved the whole level of technical devices we have today, from microwave oven to god knows wat.
Well space travel hasn't got us anywhere really..
so it has, its got us a lot.
as well as mankind is a natural explorer..
After Challenger, the Senate didn't like the idea of spending billions of dollars just to see Americans die, so they cut back NASA funding, and NASA administrators were forced to cut back further planned missions.
Also, the experiments that were to be conducted aboard Challenger were to convince the US government that they could really achieve things in space, and there were even rumours that they'd been planning to build an equivalent to Mir.
Obviously the whole space thing became too risky to keep on throwing in dollar after dollar because even after a few hundred billion, people were still dying so naturally they didn't want to be seen wasting money and having further loss of life. Also bear in mind basically the whole of America was watching at the time (the teacher being the first civilian in space) and people were very upset.
As a consequence NASA pioneered unmanned missions that were cheaper and easier than manned flights, but the downside is you need people up there to do proper experiments.
As for planes there are thousands of planes out there, all of different design and pretty much designed to perfection, if a plane does crash (which really doesn't happen anyway, a vast majority are caused by freak accidents or human error).
There are now only *three* shuttles left (umm Discovery, Endeavour and Atlantis) and they cost in the region of about two billion each - I read somewhere they're the most complicated structures ever made with literally millions of parts each, with the state of NASA funding if it turns out that the reason Columbia crashed was because of a serious issue they simply can't afford another 10 billion to crank out a few more, they'll just scrap the whole thing.
Consider if Boeing found a dodgy piece of equipment that could cause a crash, the answer is quite simple - replace the part on the whole fleet, commercial craft being much simpler than shuttles, at minimal cost because of their modular design.
BTW the experiments conducted onboard Columbia involved (amongst the 80 odd) were new and improved carburettor designs so it’s unfair to imply space flight hasn’t improved the lot of mankind.
I'll STFU now ( :dork: ), but suffice it to say people didn't like it, NASA received less money and had to cut back space flights, this will surely have a similar effect and space flights will be similarly curtailed to the detriment of science and mankind as a whole :{
Well within the last couple of weeks President Bush has announced plans for space program development, specifically the use of nuclear materials as fuel. So I imagine, even after an accident, they won't be going back on this...
Yes, though it'll probably take a decade to get something useful out of it, and to be fair if anything it'll be put it on the back burner as it'd be difficult convincing the public of the relative benefits of a nuclear reactor or plain old rocket fuel exploding if it happened to blow up.
He's also spending $20 billion on the National Missile Defense system - almost double the NASA budget. Personally speaking, that's not what I'd call scientific advancement :P
Black Death
01-02-2003, 20:01
That tw@t bush is trying to set up some kind of weapons system tat lauches from space. Im sure of it.
wtf would he do that? if he cant hit the target from the air then he aint even gonna hit the right country from space ffs :P
~Dear Old Granny~
01-02-2003, 20:07
I don't care I'll reflect his death rays with my shiny tin-foil hat. I don't know what to do about the black helicopters though.
Mr.Wh1te
01-02-2003, 22:35
hide in an american airport DoG, they arent allowed there :stare:.
[WiZ]Prodigy
01-02-2003, 23:53
I say f*ck the space program. What's the point in going to the sh*tty little planets and rocks nearby. It's gonna be of no use. Don't bother doing anything with space unless there's some big breakthrough such as space folding - the only way space travel can ever be viable (and it's only theoretical at that).
No point putting someone on mars just to say you did it.
"Yes we put a man on Mars, killed 20 people in the test flights and spend 400 times the GNP of the entire 3rd world".
"Why?"
"Cos we can. We put a flag there too, see"
if it wasnt for the space program we wouldnt have mobile phones/sky tv and many other ace things
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 00:22
Of course we would. We'd get them eventually. Why not spend the money soley on researching things like this rather than pointless things?
Just doesn't make sense to me, but then again, I am very small.
its not just about what you achieve, alot of it is about better yer self an mankind, giving you something to aim for and try to achieve
let the space missions go on, let them go deeper and further into space, but also put more money into it so they can research faster ways to get there
[scw]proud
02-02-2003, 00:50
agreeeeeed hilly, it all futhers man kind :D
faster and safer i hope :)
got this off the bbc website, you can listen to the live feed of the mission control when they lost contact with columbia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/events03/world/amer/shuttle/smil/columbia01feb.ram is the URL, very harrowing (if thats the word).
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 01:17
Yes but one of the problems is - even if they were travelling at say 1/10th the speed of light we'd never get anywhere worth phoning home about in the remaining lifetime of the human race. Sad but true.
if you can go one tenth you can also work towards two tenths and so on....
FireStorm_tfc
02-02-2003, 07:02
You doubters have got to remember that mankind is only just beginning to step into space - just because we can't zip to other worlds in an instant or haven't been visited/contacted by E.T.'s then that doesn't mean that our interest in exploring space is unfounded/unwarranted.
We have been technologically advanced for only a few years now so to be fair, we are still only starting our space explorations and it will be many many years before we can get a man on Mars (even though it can be done now I agree) and then on the outer planets' moon's to advance our exploration even further.
Also remember that we will all be long dead when man eventually reaches the outer moons and even dares thinks abouts travelling to other solar systems but we have to start somewhere... no matter the cost in life that this exploration entails.
Originally posted by Dr.Tom
if it wasnt for the space program we wouldnt have mobile phones/sky tv and many other ace things
"Of course we would. We'd get them eventually."
wtf are you on prod? we get sky through SATELLITES which are in SPACE :P. You don't get to space without a space program :P.
And by your thinking, sit at home and do nothing all day huh? We got jet engines... testers died... we got cars... people de in them every day... we got submarines... look at the kursk...
It's a sad fact, but people die for the sake of exploration. without people willing to put themselves on the line we'd rarely get anything. Many technologies are derivitive of pushing the boundaries in completely different areas. creating things which are useful in everyday life because of their necessity in a cramped space capsule that needs to be weight efficient to make it out of orbit.
I say if people are willing to put their lives on the line to do it, that's their choice and theirs alone. they're adults, they know the risks and it's up to them.
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 11:17
Fair enough about the satellites but I think you'd find that even if man had no desire to go to the moon or any other planets they would eventually have figured out that they can bounce signals around the earth using satellites and then invest in putting them up there. That's definately got some uses.
Problem I have with "space exploration" is that is costs a SH*T load of money but it's hardly going to achieve anything.
Gokou - 1/10th the speed of light is going to be pretty impossible to reach. Even if we did do it we could NOT travel anywhere near the speed of light or for the sake of argument - AT (or faster) than the speed of light. Even travelling at such a speed we wouldn't get ANYWHERE in the scope of things. It'd be like an amoeba swimming throuh the pacific ocean, except worse.
space exploration on it's own is a little fruitless at the moment yes - but what if one day we were to get to a level of science that allowed us to send say a foetus which would only grow when certain surrounding environmental conditions are met in a space ship which could be capable of flying semi on it's own. I'm talking a loooooong way off in the future, but we could explore more of space that way. I know it sounds far fetched and would almost certainly never happen, but if you included the right teaching materials or summat, perhaps you could start a small colony that way and have them send their results back here. We wouldn't have to roam the universe to explore, just create a network of inhabited planets sharing their findings.
Okay so it's all bull**** made up on the spot, but I'm sure people far cleverer than me could think up a better way to get tyhe same end result :). I mean for gods sake - a few hundred years ago people were afraid of sailing across vast oceans in case they fell off the world which they KNEW was flat. we used to KNOW the earth was the center of the universe. drilling into peoples heads was KNOWN to cure people of having evil spirits taking them over.
To quote a film I can't remember the name of, "just think what we'll KNOW tomorrow". Unless we try to work around these problems, we WON'T work around them. who says we've discovered all the laws of physics. Who says all the calculations are right. Have you personally checked them? :). how do you know we won't come up with an uber efficient, powerful fuel in the next 200 years that would make extended space flight at high speeds possible? or a habitat in space that could support life. Not necessarily one generation, but a group of people who then grow up in space and explore like that? I personally don't think it's likely - but then if I were an 18th century peasant I'd say we'd be unlikely to ever see the moon close up or travel faster than a horse, fly, stay under the sea for months on end, or even have an electrical toothbrush.
Ya just don't know til you've tried :).
eh? you can say bull**** but not ****? :/
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 11:49
Oh I agree it's true that we can make incredible discoveries and will go on to do so. But even if we did create some kind of cold fusion powered ship that could travel extremely fast for hundreds or thousands of years we'd still not get very far at all but the cost would be immense.
Ah I can't be arsed trying to argue about it I guess we just don't KNOW (although I've got a pretty good idea of what I think is likely to be the future...) what's going to happen.
I jus think we should concentrate more on saving what we've got at the moment cos the rate we're going things are gonna get pretty nasty in a couple of hundred years.
by which time it might be useful to be able to nick basic materials from other planets in our solar system and ferry them back :cheese:
I say space exploration is the most important of all man's endeavors. If the human race can live long enough we will need to find elsewhere to live eventually as our sun will one day burn out.
That's forward looking of the highest order.
but sure prodigy, let's not bother because you know what the future will hold.
Black Death
02-02-2003, 12:33
the earth will be 100% covered by water before the sun burns out.
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 12:33
You're funny.
You were joking right?
Sun burning out? Classic. Sure it will do. Do you have any idea how much life is left in the sun? A HELL of a lot more than the human race has. So what do you want to do? Travel faster than the speed of light so that you can escape all the suns in this galaxy that will burn up eventually? There's no way of doing that so like I say, you might as well try to investigate folding space and other ALTERNATIVE methods of exploration as those are the only practical solutions.
but even WITH space folding you'd need space ships still. Unless you intend to go from your house directly onto the surface of another planet :E.
I don't even know why I'm replying to this any more :{.
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 13:08
agreeeeeed hilly, it all futhers man kind
Thats clearly not true. It furthers a small part of the western world. (Ignoring the american belief that the Western World is mankind and no-one else really matters.) The majority of the world live in relative poverty, with awful hygene, little education and no justice. How much more would it further 'mankind' if the billions of dollars put into the american space program were ploughed into Africa? I'd give up Sky TV and mobile phones to make the lives of a billion people fitter, happier and more productive. If any of you would even pause for thought on that choice then you make me sick.
if you can go one tenth you can also work towards two tenths and so on....
Lets put this into perspective. The speed of light is 186,414 Miles Per Second. In the time it takes you to blink, light has travelled far enough to belt the globe many times over. It takes light 8 and a half minutes to get here from the Sun which is very close. The next nearest Stars (there are 3: Proxima Centauri, Rigil Kentaurus and Alpha Centauri B) are 4.3 light years away. Thats 1,053,276,382,800 miles away (1.05 trillion miles).
Imagine the absolutely phenomenal amount of energy it would take to carry a spacecraft over that distance, then imagine the time it would take, the G-force involved, the amount of supplies you would need and the mental strain. Theres no way you would be coming back again, how would it feel to know you will never see Earth or any of your friends ever again, the loneliness of it and to what end.
Not even the slightest sign, trace or hint of life has been discovered by all the telescopes, astronomers and astronauts in the world. The only things we have found are vast balls of burning gas a million times bigger than the Earth, burning at temperatures that would destroy anything, huge black voids of nothing at 'absolute zero' the coldest temperature possible and the odd rock flying in between. No usable resources, no climate that could sustain any kind of life and no extra-terrestrial life-forms.
Originally posted by Tuff
but even WITH space folding you'd need space ships still. Unless you intend to go from your house directly onto the surface of another planet :E.
I don't even know why I'm replying to this any more :{.
perhaps they're betting on the teleporter in Earth 1.1.1.1
Originally posted by [WiZ]Prodigy
. Do you have any idea how much life is left in the sun? A HELL of a lot more than the human race has.
Like I said, you clearly know the future so you are allowed to be so cynical about this. For those of us not gifted with the ability to predict the future, we have to have some kind of hope.
I fully understand how entropy works thanks.
As for folding space, I feel that being able to get into space would be useful. That's kind of like a tautology.
However, I must congratulate you on being hugely patronising.
yaya, so Mr White because it hasn't been seen yet, IT'S NOT THERE!!!
If ya don't look, you won't find. If you don't try, you won't do. Who says our conventional thinking today will be what gets us off this rock? Who says striving to create some sort of food that will grow in the meek conditions we'd have on a space shuttle wouldn't create a strain of wheat that would grow and survive in the parched soils of africa?
Just because it doesn't seem to have any direct effect on anything else doesn't mean it won't. It's not like it would only advance one sphere of technology, it would be necessary to improve a hell of a lot of other things too.
Why don't we try wiping out their debt before we divert other monies which will only be used to pay off that debt. Encourage the creation of useful industries and teach them about replanting the forests that they cut down, creating more desertification and even more reducing what they have to live on? Education and gently helping them toward making for themselves what we could provide would be FAR more helpful to African states than ceasing the space program and simply diverting the money to creating handouts for them.
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 14:06
But using the space program in its current form and saying "well occasionally we get things which are useful outside of exploration" and "eventually we might discover something good" is utterly pointless.
It's a MASSIVE waste of resources (especially time and money). These resources could be spent like Mr. White says - on issues somewhat closer to home (oh hahaha) rather than wandering just outside our own backyard in the insanely optimistic hope of finding something anyone cares about.
like? :o
The bods at NASA are paid to come up with more efficient fuels, more efficient appliances, lighter and stronger alloys, they look into the best sorts of diet, ways to defend the planet against meteors/asteroids (at the mo we really have no way - which is why it's good to try and FIND a way), ways to detect these things coming in, alternative ways of creating power once we're out there (solar panels and making them more efficient for satellites therefore making them more efficient and more viable down here), oxygen renewal which could be useful in submarines, using water as a fuel (hydrogen for the fuel, oxygen to burn it), and the continued understanding of the way physics work which ALL have important applications here on earth.
I'll agree with you - it we didn't have the space program these things would eventually be found anyway - but why wait? whats the point?
[SCW]Scoot
02-02-2003, 14:34
186,414 Miles Per Second
that figure for the speed of light looks a tad inaccurate too me, but hey maybe it is :p
Dr.Octogon
02-02-2003, 14:35
i could not disagree more with both Mr.White and Prodigy .
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 15:24
WTF do you want to get off this planet spaz? There are far more urgent matters to deal with. Fossil fuels have got what, 30 years left? Then space exploration is completely ruled out because we wont be able to get the f*cking shuttles off the ground. How about researching into new energy sources? How about new medicines? How about making the world we live in a better place?
You all have this rosey view of a united mankind exploring this brand new frontier. Looks like you all watch way too much Star Trek to me. Not in all the history of the Earth has mankind been united in anyway and guess what? chances are it never will be. We arent well equipped explorers setting out to travel, discover and colonise, making our mark on the universe. The fact is that in the grand scheme of things all the power we possess amounts to nothing. There are countless things in the universe with the capacity to completely destroy us, the Sun being just one of them. Mankind is not some glorious race of explorers that will always endure "boldly going where no-one has gone before." We are a spec on a spec on a spec of dust.
IMO we should fix the world we live in before we go out and f*ck another one up. But I know full well that neither of these things will ever happen.
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 15:33
Dont get me wrong though, I'm not without hope. Who was it who said "Some men see things as they are and ask 'Why?' Others prefer to dream things that never were and ask 'Why not?'" I am the latter kind of person, I just think that the way forward for mankind is not in the black morass of space, but in hearts, minds and attitudes.
Originally posted by Mr.Wh1te
There are far more urgent matters to deal with. Fossil fuels have got what, 30 years left?
We are indeed running out of resources, but would you not agree the most prudent measure would be for us to improve current technology (within our grasp in the short term) with the view to eventually mine the asteroid belt and ship resources back to earth, rather than waiting for someone to eventually harness Zero point energy, or other exotica in social and economic squalour, when the chances of such discoveries being surely out of reach.
BTW, rocket fuel is primarily a blend of liquid Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen (much cleaner than the 60's/70's fuels though Perchlorate [chlorine based] levels are still high) so Malthusian limits with regard to fossil fuels is irrelevant; perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the subject matter before delving into specifics.
Maybe some people wish to pursue some form of Neo-Luddism, but I for one will be glad to see any progress that would eventually see off-world colonisation.
Wildfire
02-02-2003, 16:11
"Imagine the absolutely phenomenal amount of energy it would take to carry a spacecraft over that distance"
Very little actually... all you would need to do is get it up to speed and then its own momentum would carry it forward. Perhaps you forget that friction in space is practically non-existant. Look at the voyager probes, the same principle could apply to manned spacecraft; use gravitational acceleration from planets or the sun to increase the speed as much as possible, then just let it fly.
IMO the way forward with manned spaceflight will be cryogenics and the genetic engineering of plants that will photosynthesise far more efficiently to provide an unlimited supply of oxygen for the crew. Finding people willing to sign up for such a mission though... probably an even tougher prospect.
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 16:31
I think he was talking about the speed of light Wildfire.
There is not enough energy in the universe to make an atom travel at the speed of light nevermind a spaceship.
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 17:01
My problem with most of your arguments is that you got most of your ideas from fictional stories and films not scientific facts. For example.
with the view to eventually mine the asteroid belt and ship resources back to earth, rather than waiting for someone to eventually harness Zero point energy
What resources? Some Rocks? WOOHOO WE CAN TAKE ROCKS FROMA SPACe INSTAED OF EART!"`1. I dunno what zero point energy is so I wont comment on that.
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 17:12
Agreed.
Too many damn Star Trek fans without a clue.
Defragmentor
02-02-2003, 17:12
Halo in "totally ignorant" shocker!
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 17:19
got that the wrong way round there defrag YOU FCKING WNAKER.
I shall therefore defer to your superior knowledge of the subject, and admit defeat.
So not only can Prodigy tell the future but he also is in the position to label us all star trek fans without a clue.
Truly a champion among men.
To be honest with you, I feel that worthwhile space travel is achievable. Resources not spent on space projects will not automatically be transferred onto projects which benefit our terrestrial existence as a species. I accept it is a direct product of the western world's decadence but I still see it as a wholly worthwhile pursuit. Maybe that's a little ethnocentric.
I don't like star trek much at all to be honest.
Anyways, the point of the space program isn't to go off and colonize far away star systems!1!!1! It's to explore. We have more than enough in our solar system which is VERY reachable for now thanks.
And where did I say anything about mankind being united? At which point were you voted head of the interplanetary geological survey? I'm sorry, there CAN'T be any useable raw materials on other planets because you say so. Glad you've been out there and checked below the level of the crust. I'm not saying it's going to be a case of land on mars, step outside into the instantly changed to breatheable air and build my house with the instantly grown forest.
It will involve many many generations, many many failures and many many seemingly insurmountable problems. Along the way, new techniques will be found which will benefit us back on earth. It doesn't take us stopping the space program to examine what can be done in third world countries, as it may yeild some helpful technologies for that. Resources aren't exactly abundent in space!
What might help is education, responsibility by the larger petrochemical companies, research into genetically modified plants which could bear more fruit for less inward nutrient take (after all, most of a plants energy is spent in growing itself rather than growing its fruit) and MASSIVE replantation programs to bring nutrients back to the soils of countries such as senegal. The amount of deforestation the locals do there actually INCREASES the size of the sahara desert, meaning they can grow even fewer crops and even more people die of starvation. Same is happening in the amazon. Desertification.
We won't solve all our problems by stopping the space program because it doesn't CAUSE any of the problems. It's a place where some of the greatest minds on the planet gather to improve and streamline what we have, therefore making it more efficient and far less detrimental to the earth.
fossil fuels may run out soon, but we are still to tap into resources under antarctica. Wind energy is becoming more prevelant and solar cells are growing more efficient. recycling is far more common, thus reducing the need for oil for plastics. I'm not saying it's good that we use fossil fuels, but if we just stopped now the human world would stop turning. why don't we try and get people in the companies CAUSING the problems to research answers? Why don't we cancel third world debt? why don't we set up large scale initiatives to educate and upgrade third world people and technologies?
that all has nothing to do with the space program.
[scw]proud
02-02-2003, 19:00
Thats clearly not true. It furthers a small part of the western world. (Ignoring the american belief that the Western World is mankind and no-one else really matters.) The majority of the world live in relative poverty, with awful hygene, little education and no justice. How much more would it further 'mankind' if the billions of dollars put into the american space program were ploughed into Africa? I'd give up Sky TV and mobile phones to make the lives of a billion people fitter, happier and more productive. If any of you would even pause for thought on that choice then you make me sick
How and why the **** u going on about this for...........
Man kind = Man Kind.
it doesnt = the little western bits only.
mr.white - how can you have g force in space?
Anything could be possible in the future, centuries ago ppl thought the earth was flat and you could fall off the edge.
Prod and Mr White you seem to be disregarding it completely and seem quite narrow minded tbh.
Originally posted by Gokou
mr.white - how can you have g force in space?
By accelerating?
yes but since space doesnt have hardly any gravity (except well close to the planets i guess?) then there is no real gf (compared to a figher jet doing a sharp turn)?
ie in figher jets they can turn so fast you can have a black out cos of g-force..... if a plane could fly the same in space as it does in our atmosphere then you wouldnt get blackouts cos there is no real grav?
So did you fail physics at school Gokou?
If you're travelling in one direction and then try and go in another direction then then you'll feel a g force regardless of wether or not there's gravity. Gravity's just a force pulling you in a direction m8 ;)
If you're sat in a plane and it accelerates you feel a gforce pushing you in the opposite direction that you're travelling, not towards the groud in the direction of gravity ;)
/me thinks of a better response.
this is what im really replying to:
Imagine the absolutely phenomenal amount of energy it would take to carry a spacecraft over that distance, then imagine the time it would take, the G-force involved.
Ok at the moment we are all moving at 860mph (approx) with the earth yet we feel nothing (or is it 1 g?). Anyways the fact is you will be able to travel a lot faster in space and not feel the kind of effects you would feel on earth :O
tis better than meh jet figher example :P
dunno what i got in physics, but i got an A at GCSE
/me waves gold badge :P
But in response to mr.whites comment it still would be possible to travel at enourmous speeds without killing anyone with gforce.... i know thats right \o/
lol, we feel no gforces are we're not accelerating m8.
We could move a thousand mph and not feel any gforces. However, in accelerating to that speed we would. Like if we changed direction.
Question for you Gokou, when a motobike goes around the corner the driver leans into the corner. Why?
cos otherwise he would fall off? :P
but my point is still valid - even if ive explained it wrong :) If they accelerated at the right speed for a prolonged period they could reach very high speeds (when the technology is there to get us up to those speeds) and as i think wildfire said, they can just coast as there is no opposing force.
but yes i get what u are saying and u are right - i did explain it wrong, but the point is still valid :)
Yes, once you have stopped accelerating (because you've got to a certain speed, ran out of thrust, etc) then you don't have to keep pushing as you'll just continue at that speed until another force gets a hold of you :)
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 20:29
Resources not spent on space projects will not automatically be transferred onto projects which benefit our terrestrial existence as a species.
Thats true, but they should be.
I don't like star trek much at all to be honest.
Good its crap.
Anyways, the point of the space program isn't to go off and colonize far away star systems!1
But then you proceeded to write a load of far fetched bull-sh*t about colonising Mars. Heres a few things Mars lacks that make that impossible: Air, O-Zone Layer, Water, Fuel, Arable Land, any of the pre-requisites for life. Do you seriously believe that the american space program will lead to mankind being able to produce air, water, fuel and food for an entire planet. Along with a layer of O3 to stop us all getting instant skin cancer. We simply cant make a harsh desolate planet into a habitable, life supporting eco-system. We dont produce all these things, we use them up, we have never been able to give anything back to this planet, why would we be able to do so with a much further gone one.
Man kind = Man Kind.
it doesnt = the little western bits only.
I'm sure SKY TV and mobile phones are highly helpful to the people of the 3rd world. Oh wait no... they dont have those things, or anything else the space program has given us (not an awful lot).
mr.white - how can you have g force in space?
Hmmmppph, fair point :stare:.
But in response to mr.whites comment it still would be possible to travel at enourmous speeds without killing anyone with gforce.... i know thats right \o/
Didnt Einstein reckon that matter that travelled faster than light just became energy? To really explore space you would have to go much faster than light.
aye i remember my science teacher saying when you get to the speed of light gravity does something weird....
but then again if you told someone 100 years ago that there would be tin cans up in the sky that can take pictures of you in such a great details as they can today - they wouldnt believe you for a second...
only takes one great idea to change the course of the world forever mwhahahahhaha ;)
=KoolMoD=
02-02-2003, 21:09
Lets hope Essex people rise to power in the future Proud :P
[scw]proud
02-02-2003, 21:47
Essex is the backbone of the UK :P
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 22:46
only takes one great idea to change the course of the world forever mwhahahahhaha
There are two types of scientific development, evolutionary and revolutionary. Darwin and Capirnicus were revolutionary, the vast majority of scientific discovories dont come with one big idea, they come in small steps, which lead to further small steps and so forth.
The problem with revolutionary scientific development is that when it comes it tends to hold things up for a long time. Someone said "The measure of the eminence of a scientist is how long he holds up progress in the field." Darwin's name has held up progress in developing the theory of evolution properly for over 100 years. If you come up with a theory or idea that changes or add's to Darwin's in anyway you get shouted down and your reputation ruined. Just like the people that said the Earth was round. Science might have advanced but people havent.
Back to the point, big ideas are over-rated, in the long run science proceeds faster step by step, evolution not revolution.
WTF thats such a crap point, I wrote this whole post for that? I could have been watching TV :stare:.
???/Unknownone
02-02-2003, 23:11
As an object approachs the speed of light, it gets heavier, requiring more energy to accelerate it.
This is why the US Airforce uses the stargate to go to other planets, silly monkees.
(the wormhole theory is a valid one, and possibly the best way of traveling to other solar systems)
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 23:32
No, things do NOT get heavier as they approach the speed of light.
This is a common misconception.
They have an increase in momentum which doesn't mean they are heavier. It means they have more momentum - duh.
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 23:36
How do you know? How many items have you propelled close to the speed of light?
[WiZ]Prodigy
02-02-2003, 23:48
I have no idea whatsoever. I've never propelled something to the speed of light.
All I can go on is some crazy f*cker's ideas, Einstein or something they called him who set up some pretty goddamn fundamental laws about the universe that have held true and are the basis of a sh*t load of physics.
Besides, it's what we got taught in lectures.
Mr.Wh1te
02-02-2003, 23:59
Thanks! You just you proved the point I made earlier :stare:.
Cannon_Fodda
03-02-2003, 00:38
Can I just make a simple point here because you're all starting to get on my tits with this crap.
Our current understanding of physics, and our limited technology mean that in another few years, we could discover something that would turn all current theories on their heads.
Earth was flat, this was considered fact, not many people dared dispute it, then it was suddenly round.
Man will never fly, the amount of energy needed to make sustained flight possible is impossible to produce in an efficient power to weight ratio. Then man flies.
Nuclear power can't be harnessed, blah blah.
You starting to see a pattern here?
So how about all the so called experts shut up, and just face the FACT that what we know now will be overshadowed by the truth somewhere down the line.
All the star trek freaks might be getting it right.
Anyway, we have a stargate, why the hell do we need space ships?
Because space ships look a hell of a lot cooler than the stargate?
:laugh:
teleportation will come before travelling at the speed of light i reckon....
first test should be to see if you can teleport scotland to outta space :D
Dr.Octogon
03-02-2003, 02:21
you basing that on the knowledge you gained earning your A in GCSE physics?
For the "why bother" contingent:
If you'd been around in Kittyhawk at the turn of the century you'd have said "all that effort to fly across a beach?" to the Wright brothers, too?
Cos that never developed into something world-changing, oh no.
Why did Hilary climb everest?
How many explorers popped their cloggs "discovering" new areas on our own planet?
Of course space travel/exploration is worth doing in the long term. It expands mankind's frontiers of knowledge, it has valuable spin-off into all sorts of fields, it may even in the end give us a way off of this planet, where we are so vulnerable, not just to man-made disasters.
There are some problems we may not be able to cure. According to various astronomers, there is a ten-kilometre rock floating about in solar orbit that's due to hit us in 2880. Earth-impact from a rock that size would probably wipe out all non-primitive life on Earth, and would certainly knock any survivors back to the Stone Age.
Unfortunately, the demise of this planet as a viable biosphere is all but certain, it's just when that's important. Humankind may only be able to survive ultimately by leaving the planet.
Given the rise in the ground level of the Yosemite area and the resulting devastation from the eruption that is overdue we might not have that long.Space exploration is inevitable because thats the way humans are,otherwise we would still be sitting around in (Gokou's) 3 caves.
Without space flight we would not have had Hubble in the first place, and we would not have been able to repair (shuttle mission - remember?) and upgrade it.
Hubble has increased our knowledge of the universe by incredible amounts.
What's it worth to mankind?....well, "what worth has a new-born baby", to quote a famous scientist (ten Docca points for anybody who can correctly say who said it and to whom.)
Witey and Prod are sounding like politicians, wanting to bring issues back to the mundane, because that's what ordinary people understand- and it's ordinary people that vote them into office. It takes men of vision to make true progress for the human race, and they often have to fight the powers-that-be tooth and nail to achieve any progress.
Per Ardua Ad Astra.
Ironheart
03-02-2003, 04:22
Looks like I came in on this a little bit late, but...
I live in North Texas and heard a bang at around 8am Central time Saturday morning (woke me up, I was quite happily dozing). Mrs Iron's dad went outside and saw something streaking across the sky (although at the time he didn't know what it was) losing pieces on the way...
It was only 20 minutes later when it was first reported on the news that we pieced together what happened...it seems most of North Texas heard that bang (probably a sonic boom or just an explosion). Rescue teams were scrambled in the DFW area (Dallas/Fort Worth, I live about 40 miles from Fort Worth and 80 from Dallas) and they have found debris over a large part of Texas.
When you consider that they were flying at 12,500mph and were due to land in Florida at 8:16am but were still flying over Texas at 8am then that tells you how fast they were going...no chance of any survivors whatsoever, and the shuttle wasn't carrying any form of rescue pod anyway so it was always a moot point.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
03-02-2003, 10:18
Sad day for America.
Refering to Geforce in space, some might think that would be a good idea.
I heard that there are crashed shuttle parts available on the internet, how sick is that?
On the other hand, Nasa are looking for parts for their shuttles that have become obsolete
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/1985138.stm
Anyone got an 8086 intel chip? Might be worth a few bob
Btw, since when has the earth not been flat?
News to me, learn something new every day
apparently there were items on eBay that were claiming to be wreckage.
They have now been deleted and eBay have threatened legal action against anyone who tries to sell any parts.
[WiZ]Prodigy
03-02-2003, 10:35
Why's it a sad day for America? Perhaps it's a sad day for the friends and relatives of the people who died. Yes, that sounds more accurate.
As for what people saying about us "non-believers" (I guess you wouldn't appreciate the irony because you've never heard some of our lunchtime discussions...but anyway) - I don't think it's a bad idea to explore space.
What I do think is that for the time being we should channel our resources into something more productive. There's so much inbalance, suffering, pestilence - you name it, throughout the world that it beggers belief that we can spend billions on sticking a flag on mars or learning more about the universe.
Sure in the future when we've got our own problems sorted out go ahead - but people seem to be looking so far into the future that they can't see what's the immediate danger is. Either that or greed/denial is getting in the way.
Did you say the same thing on 9/11 Prodigy?
If you want a materialistic reason, if you can't offer sympathy or pity for the deaths of people you don't know personally, then the american people pay their taxes, which go into the space program. They've just lost a very valuable resource which america, as a whole, has worked for.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
03-02-2003, 11:32
Prod, you are so narrow minded.
Its quite true that there are many problems on this world, problems that will never be sorted out in our lifetime. All the technology (and money) in the world will never sort out mans hunger and greed, however it does go a fair way to sorting out many problems that already exist.
If man did not explore, and quest for technical advancement we would all still be living in caves and eating raw meat.
Fact is we live in an age that has seen massive advancement in technology, much has been put to good use, including in Third world countries where hunger, thirst and poverty are a way of life.
We constantly pour in Billions into underdeveloped countries, only to be accussed of "meddling", exploitation etc.
Having seen the way some chose to live in South Africa astounds me, they chose this life as they have done so for centuries, education and outside help has done much to alleviate some of the problems, but still they chose this way of existance
America has it own poverty, as does all countries of the world, throwing dollars at the problem does not work, there are just some folk in the world that are just happy the ways things are.
No amount of pressure or opportunaties to better their life will make one bit of difference.
[WiZ]Prodigy
03-02-2003, 11:43
Bull. You're saying that people starving and suffering don't care about it and choose to live this way? They are called the 3rd world countries because they amount to 1/3 of the world's population. I seriously doubt that 2 billion people choose to live in poverty and misery.
If the money was spent helping these people (as in properly setting up useful situations rather than just dumping bags on corn in their village) then we'd see a great improvement. Certainly there are some people who would rather live how they do but then they are not starving or suffering.
I'm not narrow minded at all. I have a rather open mind but I also have different ideas about how things should be done.
Oh and Nephand - I did say the same thing on 9/11.
I don't know them, why should i get upset?
Originally posted by [WiZ]Prodigy
I seriously doubt that 2 billion people choose to live in poverty and misery.
Why's it a sad day for America? Perhaps it's a sad day for the friends and relatives of the people who died. Yes, that sounds more accurate.
What's the line we're drawing where people have to be suffering and in misery before we offer sympathy then Prodigy? Or don't you have any sympathy for the third world's population either?
If you do, is their death, suffering and misery a more worthy target for you than "just seven people"?
No one is asking you to burst into tears (British), but a pang of appreciative sorrow for the hurt experienced by both the people on the shuttle and those whose lives that affects isn't exactly asking a lot out of your life. Either that or asking you to ignore a thread about it, instead of "going to all the effort" of posting how apathetic you are towards the death of people.
[WiZ]Prodigy
03-02-2003, 12:11
It might suprise you to learn that I'm actually quite an emotional guy. I do feel very sorry for the people suffering and think that the unbalance in the world is unfair. I feel sorry for people who die (who don't deserve it in some way). Whatever the situation (unless it's some kind of crazy suicide rampage but you get the idea...) I feel sympathy for the families that's for sure but I don't see why it is a sad day for America. It's a sad day for anyone who cares to feel saddened by the tradegy which isn't just limited to the country that most of the crew were from.
If my entire family died today it wouldn't be a tradegy for England. It wouldn't make national news, no-one would be talking about it but it would be a tradedgy for me and family friends. Not the country.
No one is asking you to burst into tears (British), but a pang of appreciative sorrow for the hurt experienced by both the people on the shuttle and those whose lives that affects
Thats fair.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
03-02-2003, 12:28
I am not saying that people chose to starve, who the hell would do that?
What happens is resources are directed to these countries, but much is squandered and "redirected" by their governments.
We cannot control what happens in many countries, only help as much as we reasonably can. Give a man a bowl of rice and he will feed himself for a day, give the man the means, and he will feed himself and his family for a whole year, give a Zulu some money, and he will buy grow cannabis, a gun and shoot most of his neighbours.
Iraq, dictatorship has caused much suffering, but how do you help the average Iraq citizen, educate, invade his country, give the governent some dosh so he can spend it on arms, give him a spade and tell him to plant some food?
Fact is, there are many countries like Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are many that live in poverty and misery, but too often there is no way to change that. India for example has neuclear weapons, but much of its country is overpopulated and live in poverty. No amount of money will change that.
As the saying goes "You just can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear". You cannot make the changes you would like overnight, much is being done to change these peoples lives, but money is not the only hurdle in the way.
Would the world be a better place without space exploration and the technical spin offs it provides? Solar powered water pmps from wells, better satalites monitoring adverse weather patterns that kill millions. There are many plus points to space exploration that have enriched our lives and indirectly, helped the poor.
If space exploration is a waste of money then so is helping the poor and needy.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
03-02-2003, 12:33
Originally posted by [WiZ]Prodigy
If my entire family died today it wouldn't be a tradegy for England. It wouldn't make national news, no-one would be talking about it but it would be a tradedgy for me and family friends. Not the country.
If they were flying a multi billion pound space shuttle at great risk to their lives, methinks the country might shed a tear.
heck, no matter what they're doing, if someone brought it to my attention I'd offer a thought for the family and relatives.
I can't disagree that the media using "it's a sad day for america" is exaggerative, but that's the sensationalist media for you, especially considering the international collection of crew.
???/Unknownone
03-02-2003, 12:45
The more energy an object has, the heavier it will be. When we speed it up a little bit it becomes a bit heavier, and so it also becomes a bit harder to speed it up further. In fact, the closer we are to the speed of light, the larger the force is needed to accelerate the object; an infinite force is needed to speed up a material object to the speed of light: it never happens!
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node83.html
Of course as things speed up they get more momentum (p=mv), so i cant argue with that..(of course it has no relevence that I can see..but still, cant argue with it!)
If things dont get heavier when they approach the speed of light, why is more energy needed to accelerate it up to that speed?
(if i am wrong, do tell me, ive got a level exams in a few months :D)
Crash Happy
03-02-2003, 13:29
This thread is depressing.
Gokou looks increasingly the spakz0r of the community, that whole gravity argument really shows how willing you are to dive in and spout off about things you obviously have no grasp of (been there before haven't we?).
And in the same post we have others that apparently fervently believe we would still advance without things like the space program. I mean... pur-leeeeease!
I'm pretty willing to criticise the program but even I understand that it has already made very real contributions to technology. I'd love it if we all mucked in and 'fixed the world' or however you put it, but since thats never going to happen I'll back the program.
Stick steadfastly to your opinions as I'm sure you will. I'll see if I can find that url for the Flat Earth Society for you.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
There you go.
Mr.Wh1te
03-02-2003, 13:34
teleportation will come before travelling at the speed of light i reckon....
Teleportation has actually already come. From an australian university of all places. Basicly they did it by mapping something at one end, transfering the data about it somewhere else, then rebuilding it there, all quite quickly too. This was at a very very low level though and technically its not teleportation because your still transfering the object (in data form) to another point. But that idea is a good one for the future. The very very distant future :stare:.
Sure in the future when we've got our own problems sorted out go ahead - but people seem to be looking so far into the future that they can't see what's the immediate problem is.
Agreed.
Its quite true that there are many problems on this world, problems that will never be sorted out in our lifetime. All the technology (and money) in the world will never sort out mans hunger and greed.
Yeah but these people agree with you and then believe that we will be able to make a barren mass of rock habitable. Cant cure world hunger but we can provide an atmosphere for an entire planet ;0.
If man did not explore, and quest for technical advancement we would all still be living in caves and eating raw meat.
Utter crap, completely unfair comparison. Man didnt leave his cave to explore and discover his place in the universe. He did it coz his f*cking cave was cold and a dangerous dead end. He did it because you dont get caves everywhere. He started cooking meat because it tasted better, was easier to chew and didnt kill quite so many people. He didnt quest for technical advancement or to explore. He quested for a better and easier way of life, for him and his people. I think he had the right idea.
We constantly pour in Billions into underdeveloped countries
We hold their debt against them.
don't you have any sympathy for the third world's population either?
If you do, is their death, suffering and misery a more worthy target for you than "just seven people"?
Quite simply yes. Its simple numbers, 2 billion > seven.
Obviously though I dont take pleasure in the death of anyone, seven people died before their time, thats terible. But millions more do every year, the majority of which could be prevented.
I can't disagree that the media using "it's a sad day for america" is exaggerative, but that's the sensationalist media for you, especially considering the international collection of crew.
The media make money out of it. They sell their stories to TV networks, newspaper sales rise, websites get more hits and more advertising revenue. They use tragedy to make money. That sickens me and I'm a Journalist :{.
"Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilisation"
- George Bernard Shaw
Sensational stories sell newspapers.
It seems that the cause of the crash was in the launch. an insulation panel on the main fuel tank fell off during launch and clipped the left wing. They didnt think it had done any damage (even if they did what could they do?) but it must have chipped some of the cermaic tiles that protect the shuttle from burning up on entering the Earth's atmosphere. The last known reading from the sensors inside the left wing noted that it was 4 times hotter than the right wing. This means the heat shield cant have been working because thats the temperature underneath the tiles. Travelling at 12,500MPH with no engine, no brakes, no means of escape, temperature rapidly increasing. I doubt their deaths were painful, but the mental strain and panic, the shear terror they must have faced, the hopelessness of their situation. A tragedy.
bring to my attention the simultaneous death of 2 billion and I'm right up there with you on the figures issue.
Life constantly trickles away, sure, but not every single death, or collection of deaths, is/are reported on the news. This thread is about the death of seven people, ultimately and it's as easy for me to feel a sense of shame for the death of one person as it is the death of thousands (although not instantly simultaneous, I'd say within 24 hours is close enough).
Quantifying the validity of feelings against the number of people being hurt isn't really a standard practice for me.
Sure, if I had that one wish to change a certain group of people's lives, I'd go for the biggest number but the little amount of time I do spend giving thought to the people dying every day, I don't think "hmm, those poor people in Africa have suffered the worst today, lets give them some extra time".
It's probably hypocritical of me to say that, because I only give the people who have died in the shuttle a second thought because their accident has been brought to my attention by the media and this thread. If it hadn't, I'd go on oblivious to the fact that these people have died.
Crash Happy
03-02-2003, 13:48
Originally posted by Mr.Wh1te
Cant cure world hunger but we can provide an atmosphere for an entire planet ;0.
It's strange that you say that. Later on you appear to show that you should understand why the above statement is incorrect.
Oh, and teleportation is a very poor concept imho but I don't understand why you say 'it has been done' only to follow with 'but it wasn't really teleportation'.
It wasn't and I was suprised that it was reported as if it was.
Mr.Wh1te
03-02-2003, 13:56
well it sort of was teleportation and it sort of wasnt.
bring to my attention the simultaneous death of 2 billion and I'm right up there with you on the figures issue.
I cant do that put there are plenty of instance of many thousands dying and even a few where millions died.
You do understand that that was a sarcastic statement crash happy? I cant work out what your trying to say with that post :/.
???/Unknownone
03-02-2003, 14:02
Basic theory of teleportation:
Computer scans the arrangment of all your basic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons). This would take several terrabytes of memory alone.
You are "melted" into these constituant particles, which are then transported to another machine, and reconstructed using the data taken.
No guarentee each electron would be in the same place it was before, bringing about the problem..would the teleported you really be "you"?
Erm anyway, they claim to of teleported a photon a few metres. Unsure how they did it...but..yea. Could of been any photon, since they move a lot faster than that anyway. (I think thats what it was getting at anyway)
Crash Happy
03-02-2003, 14:09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2049048.stm
Which shows what White was (apparently) trying to say about it not really being teleportation even if in an easy to read state.
I'll not bother dwelling on the whole feed the world statement since either you're not explaining yourself at all well (although I am very tired to be fair) or you're equally confused about what you mean as I am. If it's the latter then best change your name to Gokou. :bomb:
Any decent url's re: folding space gratefully recieved.
Dr.Octogon
03-02-2003, 14:28
added to my earlier waffle....
if it was not for the hubble...we would not have the insy-winsy biopsy needles they use during breast cancer screening procedures.
onwards and upwards
Originally posted by [WiZ]Prodigy
All I can go on is some crazy f*cker's ideas, Einstein or something they called him who set up some pretty goddamn fundamental laws about the universe that have held true and are the basis of a sh*t load of physics.
I'll take a wild stab in the dark here, and guess the subsequent years of counting out the requisite number of McNuggets has made you forget what little you evidently learnt at school.
Originally posted by Mr.Wh1te
What resources? Some Rocks? WOOHOO WE CAN TAKE ROCKS FROMA SPACe INSTAED OF EART!"`
Let me put this easily shall I? Billions of years ago (that's a *long* time ago - older than your Mummy AND Daddy put together!) the planets formed from a giant cloud of gas, the process is complicated so I'll spare you the mental anguish.
The Asteroid Belt is made up of "rocks" that couldn't accrue sufficiently to form a planet. Through tidal forces and fearsome voodoo magic between Mars and Jupiter, the Asteroid belt was formed. Stay with me here, it gets complicated.
We find metals on Earth, yes? But nasty mankind is running short, so ask your teacher if you can start a recycling project!. There are metals on Mars too, the Asteroid belt (basically a small broken up planet) of which it's constituent parts of "rock" also contain metal. They also contain carbon, and also large quantities of water.
Like on Earth these resources but can be utilised more easily, and are much more plentiful. It is thought that even one small asteroid (Quick! Google me the three basic types!) could revolutionise Earths economy, but I digress. On these asteroids there are sufficient resources with which explorers could "boot strap" relatively easily, and quite soon become self sufficient in terms of the manufacture of rocket fuel and the necessary rockets to send back home, and also glass, plastics and many other things essential to live there; why not look up "mining the Asteroid belt" for more information.
Originally posted by Mr.Wh1te
I dunno what zero point energy is so I wont comment on that.
To be fair, and trying to remain polite, that seems to be the case with every post you and Prodigy make on this thread.
Sicknote
03-02-2003, 14:37
<<<<<laugh out loudz! Patronising posts will indeed slow them down!>>>>>
Lol the funny thing here Is Prodigy and co are harping on about 3rd world people starving and troubles we should be addressing but by thier attitude I doubt they care about that they are just using it as a "debating" point.
Mr.Wh1te
03-02-2003, 15:35
cant comment for others but I do care about it and have put my money where my mouth is.
Wildfire
03-02-2003, 15:53
Why does the motorcyclist lean into the corner? CentriFUGAL!!!1 force :P
honestly! this centripetal thing is all lies! ahem :)
< B in physics A-level if that means anything
shoulda taken physics at uni but id already signed up for a biosciences course by the time I started to understand and get good at it :(
lol @ all the bull**** flying around on this post btw, some people need to go back to basics and think about what exactly it is that causes you to "feel" a force acting on you :)
g-force is nothing to do with gravity, it's a derivative of "G's" or the factor G - the acceleration caused by gravity at the earth's surface. 2 G's for example is simply an acceleration equal to 19.62ms^-2
Jesus christ prodigy is a patronising f*cker.
A few lectures and a lunchtime discussion group do not make you the authority on anything. Now get your head out of your saggy ringpiece and just concentrate on trying to impress your intellectual chums with your incredibly insightful suggestions on how the worlds problems can be solved by stopping the space program.
There's nothing more anoying than undergraduates on internet forums.
Sicknote
03-02-2003, 16:05
What is a lunchtime discussion group anyway? When I was doing one of those really, really hard 133t lolz chick pulling degree things I spent most lunchtimes in the pub discussing Football.
Well prodigy spends his lunchtimes telling people how to make the world a better place and trying to impress debbie, the militant feminist.
FireStorm_tfc
03-02-2003, 16:17
Who cares about the starving 3rd world people? I don't. Perhaps if birth control was used in Africa then there wouldn't be so many babies born into poverty.
Think about it - Mr and Mrs Ngatu live in abject poverty in Ethiopia, they struggle to get water and food to support themselves and their three children. Basically they are living like animals.
So, what happens next?
I'll tell you what happens next - Mr and Mrs Ngatu go into their blooming mud hut and have sex - hey presto; nine months later and little Bgangi Ngatu is born.
Therein lies the problem in Africa and other 3rd world places. There are too many people for the country they live in to sustain them with food. If there was a birth control program in the 3rd world then there would be less people which means more food to go around.
I've a feeling our resident postman is going to be flamed for that last post.
Mr.Wh1te
03-02-2003, 16:23
Well prodigy spends his lunchtimes telling people how to make the world a better place and trying to impress debbie, the militant feminist.
ROFLMFAO ;D
they have so many children to support them when they're older
Sicknote
03-02-2003, 16:24
Episode II - Attack of the Trolls - is imminent.
SEND 'EM BACK. SEND 'EM ALL BACK.
[WiZ]Prodigy
03-02-2003, 18:27
I'll take a wild stab in the dark here, and guess the subsequent years of counting out the requisite number of McNuggets has made you forget what little you evidently learnt at school.
Currently studying the 1st year physics core at Cambridge University. Doesn't make me an expert on the matter, hell it doesn't even mean I have a clue about physics but it gives you some idea. Perhaps I'm not talking out of my ringpiece.
It's only my opinion anyway. No need to get so offended about it. If it makes you feel any better go have a cry, get it out of your system. You'll feel better, trust me.
Originally posted by [WiZ]Prodigy
It's only my opinion anyway. No need to get so offended about it. If it makes you feel any better go have a cry, get it out of your system. You'll feel better, trust me.
sounds like someone was bullied at school, no wonder your such a tit now.
[WiZ]Prodigy
03-02-2003, 18:48
Have you got a degree in psychology? You read me like a book!
Originally posted by Mr.Wh1te
Teleportation has actually already come. From an australian university of all places. Basicly they did it by mapping something at one end, transfering the data about it somewhere else, then rebuilding it there, all quite quickly too. This was at a very very low level though and technically its not teleportation because your still transfering the object (in data form) to another point. But that idea is a good one for the future. The very very distant future :stare:.
it wouldn't be all that great an idea for the future, at least not for transporting living things because for it to be exactly the same person, dog, whatever at the other end you'd have to map out all the orbits of all the electrons, atoms and other bits and pieces, simultaneously take a snapshot of EVERY SINGLE ONE and transfer all the data, and then SIMULTANEOUSLY reassemble it all. But who knows, maybe they'll be able to do that.
and if you're willing to dispute that nasa technology hasn't helped the needy or brought life saving techniques for terminally ill people, have a browse around here...
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
or maybe even look here
http://www.nasa.gov/about/AdministratorVision.html
to get an idea of what you're deriding first.
Hell though, while we're at channeling all the funds from NASA to the third world, lets put all of the profits from companies like hoover, sony, dyson and all the rest in there. They don't do anything to help us thats all that important do they? why don't you stop buying yourself stuff and give all your money to the third world countries?
Hell of a lot easier to say someone else is wasting their money than to look at yourself and make your own sacrifices.
What about MR MICROSOFT himself? What's he on? a few hundred dollars a minute? why don't you write him a letter telling him how disgusted you are about the way he has a personal fortune so huge when there are people dying in africa? no? carry on using his products will you? Oh okay then...
I take it you're quite willing to enjoy everything the space program has gotten you with a clear concience. Essentially, you're talking about class divisions? like victorian britain only on a far grander scale. One class has everything, one has nothing? What on EARTH (do you see what I did there?) does that have to do with the space program? you make it sound like the only evil thing in the whole wide world, when in fact it's doing us far more good than most companies. What about the tobacco companies? all they do is kill us and profit from it.
[WiZ]Prodigy
03-02-2003, 19:45
Yes, you're right. But that doesn't mean we SHOULD bugger off into space and have a good old nosey around.
Not saying it's the only thing that can be done to save mankind - hah, far from it. Just saying that I think we should save exploring space till a bit later on.
tbh I'm not of much of an opinion either way, I simply like playing devils advocate. Although I've almost covinced myself it's a really good thing. I've always been for it, just not thought about it before this thread :E.
Originally posted by [WiZ]Prodigy
Have you got a degree in psychology? You read me like a book!
No but like you I can speak **** too.
Originally posted by Twisted
No but like you I can speak flibbyflobby too.
really? and where do they teach that? :E
Acctualy I do have an A-level in Psychology, which by the flow of this thread makes me an expert :P.
Tuff its taught in the school of life ;) (although flibby flobby was from noels house party :P)
I seem to be reminded of Janet and John...
pfft, psychology. You were one of THOSE eh? ;).
And omg noels house party. I actually used to watch that :crinkleybottom:.
[WiZ]Prodigy
03-02-2003, 21:32
Even worse: I used to like it :{
Cannon_Fodda
03-02-2003, 21:35
I just have another strong urge to tell you all to shut the fu©k up, you're just spouting one of the following:
1) What you think is right.
2) A warped version of what your think you remember being taught.
3) Current accepted beliefs.
It's all going to change anyway, so who the hell cares? As long as mankind survives, he will strive to learn, and everything going on in this thread detracts from the main point that 7 people were killed in mans strive for knowledge.
It's sad, not as sad a millions that die of starvation, not as sad as thousands being killed in a terrorist attack, not as sad as the old biddies dying because they can't afford to turn their heaters on, not as sad as the kids that get hit by drunk drivers etc.
I also recall reading once that the amount of cables in the shuttle would stretch across several football pitches, is that the 100 mile area they are talking about on the news?
???/Unknownone
03-02-2003, 21:40
If something with several million parts explodes 200 000 feet above the earths surface, theres going to be a hell of a spread of the debris.
Originally posted by Cannon_Fodda
I just have another strong urge to tell you all to shut the fu©k up, you're just spouting one of the following:
1) What you think is right.
2) A warped version of what your think you remember being taught.
3) Current accepted beliefs.
so which of those is it that you've just done?
Cannon_Fodda
03-02-2003, 21:45
I'm stating fact, I'm not trying to get involved in the physics and humanitarian debate, just saying that everyone on here is more interested in the flame than the point.
I don't remember being such a pedantic pretentious fu©k when I was a child like most people on here seem to be, kind of funny until you realise many of them can, or nearly can vote.
Lt. Sex Machine
03-02-2003, 22:14
Originally posted by Cannon_Fodda
I also recall reading once that the amount of cables in the shuttle would stretch across several football pitches, is that the 100 mile area they are talking about on the news?
I think there are 100 miles of cabling and looms in the shuttle itself. I would assume that the debris will be spread over an area of thousands of square miles given the height, speed and time it took to break up. Statistically everything about those vehicles makes for impressive reading, sadly that follows through to the failures too.
Seems to me that NASA have a bit of a PR problem, not that PR should be an issue but there seems to be a lot of ignorance (me included) as to what those missions are intended to accomplish.
Trouble is, as I see it, they talk about things like Teflon, Freeze Dried Foods, Ceramics etc. coming as a result of the space programme, thing is all that stuff was developed right here on earth to enable space travel in the first instance - they would probably have been invented anyway for other applications just aeronautics had the kind of immediate need - and most importantly skills and resources - to develop this stuff.
What they ought to be doing is making it far more obvious of useful benefits they are bringing us right now and not focussing too much on the sci-fi element because I think that is really not doing them too much good at all, the general public don't really care what life will be like in 100 years time as they very likely wont be around to benefit from any progress.
Some of you guys obviously know your onions but for the average Joe Bloggs (hello) this stuff seems of little relevance to their everyday to'ings and fro'ings.
Cannon_Fodda
03-02-2003, 22:29
Originally posted by Lt. Sex Machine
I think there are 100 miles of cabling and looms in the shuttle itself. I would assume that the debris will be spread over an area of thousands of square miles given the height, speed and time it took to break up. Statistically everything about those vehicles makes for impressive reading, sadly that follows through to the failures too.
Me thinks my comment was wasted on you :P
Mr.Wh1te
03-02-2003, 23:05
Hell of a lot easier to say someone else is wasting their money than to look at yourself and make your own sacrifices.
I make my own sacrifices, not just money too but time which is much more valuable.
Of all the things that NASA developed that help the world (there are a lot as we have now established) tell me how many they got actually from space? What have we gained from space?
That isnt a point, its a question. I'm willing to be educated.
Lt. Sex Machine
03-02-2003, 23:07
Your comment went completely over my head CF (pun entirely intentional) :P
Mistar Muscle the aid worker.
Does the jobs you hate.
Originally posted by Mr.Wh1te
Of all the things that NASA developed that help the world (there are a lot as we have now established) tell me how many they got actually from space? What have we gained from space?
That isnt a point, its a question. I'm willing to be educated.
Probably none directly but indirectly probably hundreds of little things. Most developments come indirectly anyway as im pretty sure a lot of them are spin offs from weapons developments etc.. E.g. Laser treatments the idea for a laser was as a weapon instead it was deamed inpractical and is now used for surgeory etc..
Although im willing to bet comunication is a big one not a huge development in its self but in terms of being able to talk to someone and exchange information with them in real time is a huge advance that while doesnt directly help anyone but if theres an earthquake somewhere instead of finding out the next day then sending relief, a releife agency knows about it with in minutes of it happening, thus saving time and maybe lives.
The-Bandido
04-02-2003, 01:58
Originally posted by Black Death
That tw@t bush is trying to set up some kind of weapons system tat lauches from space. Im sure of it.
He probably watched "Moonraker" and got some ideas from it:P
Would it not be commonsense to think that the Space Shuttle doesn't handle cold-weather launches very well? I seem to remember a similar scenario with the Challenger.
Originally posted by [WiZ]Prodigy
Currently studying the 1st year physics core at Cambridge University. Doesn't make me an expert on the matter, hell it doesn't even mean I have a clue about physics but it gives you some idea. Perhaps I'm not talking out of my ringpiece.
It's only my opinion anyway. No need to get so offended about it. If it makes you feel any better go have a cry, get it out of your system. You'll feel better, trust me.
It's not your opinion that offends people, it's your ignorance and patronising ways.
Give it a few years and you will probably be able to have a discussion without patronising anybody or resorting to insults.
[WiZ]Prodigy
04-02-2003, 09:31
I am capable of doing that right now. But when people start spouting at crap and getting all worked up about, perhaps hurling sly insults here and there I go out of my way to be as patronising as I can to wind people up.
Well to be honest that argument holds no water in this thread. You labelled us all star trek freaks (or something) because we didn't agree with your "I read this in the student activist weekly and agree with it" arguments.
You assumed I was beneath you after my first post so you decided to go into hugely patronising "I go to cambridge" mode. Now this might work against the usual internet denizen but you can't assume that just because you are doing your first year at university, you have the right to patronise anybody. To be honest, you are a typical first year student with ideas above your station.
You're a clever guy... surely you can see that when I say:
"Give it a few years and you will probably be able to have a discussion without patronising anybody or resorting to insults."
and you reply with:
"when people start spouting crap"
this makes you look even more foolish than you already do.
Good luck at university. What are you going to do if a lecturer disagrees with something you wrote? Accuse him of spouting crap? call him a star trek freak?
[WiZ]Prodigy
04-02-2003, 10:18
I'm not referring to peoples' ideas when I say "spouting crap".
What I'm talking about is the way people start going off on one - about how they start having a go at me (and in this case Mr. White) because we have different opinions. If you read back through the thread you'll see many examples of people refusing to have a proper discussion and instead just having a petty argument instead.
why not use names instead of 'they' and 'people'? You'll never get anywhere with ambiguity.
The thread starts out as people expressing their concern and sadness over what has happened. That's the extent of depth you should expect out of a thread here.
in case nobody has noticed, everyone continuing to post is as bad as each other. we're all saying what's OUR opinion and defending it. Except me, what I say goes.
And MR White, does the space program have to bring something back from space that's useful for it to be worth it? Does it not count that in the pursuit of space travel it has created hundreds or thousands of things which have become useful here?
Fair enough, you could take the "but it would have been found anyway given time" route. Fair enough. Maybe if man hadn't discovered fire to this point someones arse would be struck with lightning, catching ablaze and everybody would have a ball with this goofy new hot thing. Personally, I'm much happier that we discovered it millenia ago and now we can reap the benefits.
it's kind of like saying that in trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat, you stumbled on a way to turn carrots into diamonds, then saying that the initial trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat was pointless and should never have been done because no rabbit was produced (where the **** did that idea come from? :o).
It's proven to be a useful program. Your views are just as valid as mine. They're just not as right.
;).
ok, I know I'm not allowed to continue to post now... damn you Tuff, laying down the law :D
but I thought this [piece of an] article was relevant to some points made here:
The doomed flight of space shuttle Columbia carried ants, spiders, mold and worms, along with experiments that could shed light on problems from global warming to prostate cancer.
But its most important scientific cargo was less tangible: The 100 experiments on board the shuttle represented hundreds of combined years of work by scientists and technicians on the ground
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5101649.htm
Crash Happy
04-02-2003, 13:56
I'll go with Tuff on one point.
I really don't see how you can seperate advances made for the space program when trying to establish wether it has all been worth it.
I have a complete lack of faith that things like Teflon 'would have been invented anyway'. Progress requires commitment and I simply do not see any other industry being commited enough to engage in the research required. Think about it, the first application outside the program (that I am aware of) was for non-stick pans. You really think Tefal would go to all that expense instead of just flogging you a new one? I don't. As unexciting as it first appears we continue to find new ways to use such things and for a while now it has been used in medicine (for example).
The advances actually made whilst in space are small but personaly I think that if the ISS ever gets going this will speed up. Besides, I want that house on the Olympus Mons the guy down the pub sold me.
Dr.Octogon
04-02-2003, 14:21
m8. look over your left shoulder :)
I think ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030201_477.html) know something we don't :eek:
Columbia Streaks Toward Florida Landing
Shuttle Columbia Streaks Toward Florida Touchdown to End Successful 16-Day Science Mission
???/Unknownone
04-02-2003, 21:07
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/03/teleport030203
Something for the teleportation arguments.
Swiss researchers say they have successfully caused a quantum particle to disappear and reappear two kilometres away without it ever existing in between.
Mr.Wh1te
04-02-2003, 23:06
Its impossible to argue here. People read what they want to read and not what was actually written. They distort everything you say and take it out of context meaning the argument can never be resolved. If you just completely distort stuff because you cant beat it head on, well, we could go on for ever.
it's almost like real politics!
ChumbaWumba
05-02-2003, 02:47
just heard on the radio about a rumour of some photographer who regularly takes pictures of shuttles re-entering the atmosphere. He apparenly has images of an orange flash of light that looks like lightning striking the shuttle before it explodes :O
Lightning wouldn't cuase the shuttle to break up, or whatever. Shouldn't do any damage to it at all. Happens to planes alot, thinkthere was athread about this the other week.
Lt. Sex Machine
05-02-2003, 09:58
They are way wide of the mark with that one, surely I wasn't the only one to notice they sky was completely clear with no clouds whatsoever.
That and the fact that you don't get clouds / lightening at that kind of altitude anyway.
My way-wide-of-the-mark theory is the landing gear doors were damaged allowing too much heat in and causing the tyres to explode which ripped the wing apart.
Let's see how wrong I am (very) :)
Mr.Wh1te
05-02-2003, 10:13
On footage of the launch you can see a piece of the insulation on the fuel tanks fall off and hit the left wing. It probably chipped some of the ceramic tiles that form the heat shield meaning it reached too high temperatures on re-entry. The last reported temperature of the left wing before contact was lost, was 4 times higher than that of the right. Looks like that did it :{.
???/Unknownone
05-02-2003, 12:37
Losing a heat tile or two wont make any difference whatsoever.
Lose a whole row of the little bints, and then your in the poopies.
Lightning would of done "something" to the shuttle if it could of hit it, on planes it leaves an entry and exit hole.
LSM could be closer to the mark, the investigation was (yesturday at least) focusing on the fact that they had pictures of the landing gear doors having cracks in them, possibly caused by the falling insulation foam.
Mr.Wh1te
05-02-2003, 12:40
it was a pretty heft chunk of insulation, might have loosened a lot, then with all the friction etc involved in travelling at 12,500mph more came off? ;0
Crash Happy
05-02-2003, 12:42
Originally posted by Mr.Wh1te
They distort everything you say and take it out of context meaning the argument can never be resolved.
Fat am I? Well, ya mother was a race horse!
???/Unknownone
05-02-2003, 12:43
Well tiles routinely fall off the shuttles, usually the odd one here and there. The insulation only weighed a few lbs i thought? Still with enough speed could of loosened a fair few, and when one went so did the rest.
I think ill leave it up to the people at nasa to come up with a solution, they know a damn sight more about it than either of us ever will.
Crash Happy
05-02-2003, 13:09
They do know at least, seems like theres a fair possibility that they told them to come on home whilst they crossed their fingers.
ChumbaWumba
05-02-2003, 17:04
I'm not suggesting it was lightning that hit the aircraft if these images are real, much too high an altitude and it would do fk all to the shuttle. Perhaps some alien involvement? :P Or there was summit suggested bout a stray missile... or maybe not a "stray" one. Bring on those conspirasy theories ;)
Just searched google for 'fastest missile' and clicked for link for:
Air Force missile testers plan to build a $47 million track to propel warheads at speeds up to 10 times the speed of sound, or about 7,500 miles per hour"
thats more than 10 times slower than the shuttle was going....no way it could have been taken down - and also it would have been captured on tape.
cant put down ya alien theory though ;)
???/Unknownone
05-02-2003, 17:17
missles dont have to be from behind the target to hit them, you know this right?
A missle *could* of hit it from the front, with some advanced calculations done anyway.
If it was an inside job, the US would of had more than enough detail on its speed, height, longitude, latitude, etc. to hit it.
ChumbaWumba
05-02-2003, 17:20
yeh and they may have some advanced weaponry that no-one, EVEN GOOGLE! doesn't know about... From all those crashed alien spacecrafts maybe :P
googles knows all - and dont you say any different :P
Unknownone: The USA have spent millions upon millions of dollars to try and take down a missile (operation star wars or what ever they called it). So far its total sh*t and has failed loads of tests.
I doubt anyone else has anything better, and hitting a target going 10 to 15 times faster is impossible.
ChumbaWumba
05-02-2003, 17:33
What I really think is that the star wars program is just a cheap option to defend against local planetside attacks. They already have this super all powerful weapon capable of defending us from attacks from space that clearly would cost 30 times as much as the star wars program ever will to fire. It just wouldn't be economically sound to use this as defence against measly nukes.
The Columbia was clearly contaminated with a deadly alien lifeform that would of taken over the world and had to be stopped at all costs.
:rolling:
???/Unknownone
05-02-2003, 18:00
Goks, the "son of star wars" missle program has only failed like two tests, (that im aware of), one because it detach properly from the launch vehicle.
Head on collision with bits of flak or something could of cause the shuttle to explode, missle only had to get into proximity of the shuttle (launched from say area 51 (DUNDUNDUN!)).
And the shuttle is larger than a missle, bigger target :P
Originally posted by ChumbaWumba
Perhaps some alien involvement? :P
It didn't take long - from the people who brought us "London Bus found on Mars" and "Killer Potatoes!" we have ALIEN STARCRAFT DESTROYED COLUMBIA SPACE SHUTTLE (http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/skies/skies4.htm) :rolling:
Mr.Wh1te
05-02-2003, 19:04
Missiles explode. There was no explosion.
???/Unknownone
05-02-2003, 19:07
missile
\Mis"sile\, n. [L. missile.] A weapon thrown or projected or intended to be projcted, as a lance, an arrow, or a bullet.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc
EXPLODING ARROWS, BEWARE!
ChumbaWumba
05-02-2003, 19:15
yay, found a link bout these pictures.... He ain't made them public yet tho........................
Armour peircing shots don't explode either, they penetrate armour so fast it casuses a vacum inside.
Useless (and probably incorrect) information GO!
This whole thread has been made worthwhile by unknowone's casual dismissal of Halo.
Timing:10
execution:9
panache:10
you lost a point on execution for the unessecary capitals.
Mr.Wh1te
05-02-2003, 19:38
you dont get armour piercing missiles?
Sicknote
05-02-2003, 19:45
The excorcet that hit HMS Sheffield in 1982 did not explode, but the rocket fuel caused intense heat within the superstructure which made fire control impossible.
This has no relevance really, but still...
[WiZ]Prodigy
05-02-2003, 19:48
EXPLODING ARROWS, BEWARE
Oh you wouldn't be mocking them if you got hit in the eye with one.
Would you, eh eh?
???/Unknownone
05-02-2003, 20:55
If i got hit in the eye with an exploding arrow I wouldnt be in a position to mock much really, would I. Seeing as my heads in several pieces and all.
[WiZ]Prodigy
05-02-2003, 21:27
Not if it was just a small explosion that merely damaged your eyeball and caused light structural damage to the socket.
Eh! EH?
Lt. Sex Machine
05-02-2003, 21:36
I would just like to take this opportunity to say you are all nuts. More conspiracy theories please!
Oh, and the Exorcet didn't work because it was French.
There I feel better now :rolling:
ChumbaWumba
05-02-2003, 21:51
well apparently some of the experiments taking place on columbia had a fair bit to do with weapons research. Obviously the russians would rather the americans didn't develop more advanced weapons so they blew it out the sky with one of their laser beam satelites!
then again i still think it was ET.
:alien:
???/Unknownone
05-02-2003, 22:02
It was the goa'uld, duh. They cant let earth develop technology to threaten the goa'uld (asgard planet protection act. thing.)
(star gate reference!)
And in that case prod, id sort of hold my eye and cry a bit, mocking its inability to send my head into several pieces.
Crying from my intact eye, obviously.
Wildfire
06-02-2003, 03:31
psst it's called an Exocet :P
missles won't function at altitudes like that, there isnt enough oxygen to burn - they'd just fall out of the sky
Maybe the aliens didn't use any weapons to destroy Columbia, but merely approached Columbia in their alien craft, causing Columbia's electronics and engines to fail due to the effect of the alien starcraft's electromagnetic fields
:laugh:
ChumbaWumba
06-02-2003, 05:34
Originally posted by Wildfire
missles won't function at altitudes like that, there isnt enough oxygen to burn - they'd just fall out of the sky
then how on earth do the rockets which propel shuttles up there go about it?
why don't we all just live in a ****in personal bubble, will be a lot easier :P
fossil fuels have like 30 years left in them? 50 if you count the oil from iraq we'll get in next year or so.
And tuff, as for that movie quote,
a few hundred years ago people were afraid of sailing across vast oceans in case they fell off the world which they KNEW was flat. we used to KNOW the earth was the center of the universe. Just imagien what you will know tomorrow. is taken from MIB fyi :)
its the part where will smith is sitting on the bench deciding whether or not to join up :)
You can have chemical reactions without oxygen WF, and most missiles dont need oxygen - they use some spangly solid fuel stuff.
Probably some old moldy cheese and some beer. A few hours after Iv'e had those 2 and I get all kindsa gases being exhausted out of me behind and great speeds
Mr.Wh1te
06-02-2003, 12:44
missles won't function at altitudes like that, there isnt enough oxygen to burn
at those kinds of heights theres O3 isn't there, which should burn much better than Oxygen??
as TK421, it would have to be a reaction without oxygen - or else htf would you fire ya boosters in space? pretty sure their aint not O2 or O3 there :P
Lt. Sex Machine
06-02-2003, 15:04
Solid fuel rockets do not need Oxygen, however the boosters (and main engines) on the Space Shuttle DO require Oxygen (and Hydrogen) to function.
They carry it with them :)
???/Unknownone
06-02-2003, 16:29
Some substances (some fuel used in aircraft for example) produce thier own oxygen as they burn.
Take white phosporus (sp!) for example, set it on fire, and itll burn underwater :D
{Edit}
Investigators said the chunk of debris, which came off during lift-off, was not heavy enough or travelling fast enough to have caused serious damage.
A collision with space junk and even a meteor strike are among other theories still being considered.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12241025,00.html
{/Edit}
Phosphorus is more reactive than hydrogen, so it reacts with the oxygen in the water.
For something to burn you need oxygen, period. There are other forms of reactions that are very violent and produce a lot of gas (propellant) that dont require oxygen tho - and this is what most missiles use for propellant (not the rockets and boosters for the shuttle tho, they use liquid hydrogen + oxygen and nitrogen as a compressor or saaing).
Mr.Wh1te
06-02-2003, 18:46
the angle the shuttle has to aproach on re-entry is very precise (36 degrees I think). Maybe a piolot error? If it was we would never know though, the way the americans feel about those who died ATM means they would never blame them.
i think they have a bit more scope - 26 to 36 degrees (or at least thats how the news show showed it).
However what they are saying is, there could have had a fault on the wing (as sensors went out in that first, then in the flap on the wing - pretty important for keeping the right angel) and this made the ship alter angel and break up - so doubtful its pilot error due to the sensors going down first.
N eed
A nother
S even
A stronaughts
Sorry :D
Also :
Investigators found a severed penis in a texas field.
Scientists claim it to be a shuttlecock.
And finally :
Anyone good at crosswords? You are?
Phone NASA, they're having trouble getting 7 down.
???/Unknownone
06-02-2003, 19:03
The pilots dont actaully do anything reguarding piloting it down to earth, its all computer driven. A few cm out can cause it to enter too quickly and burn up, or too shallow and bounce off.
And your a bad bad boy bitty :P
Fluffy Bunny Feet
06-02-2003, 19:27
Originally posted by ???/Unknownone
The pilots dont actaully do anything reguarding piloting it down to earth, its all computer driven.
Pah! Bloody microsoft eh!
The-Bandido
06-02-2003, 20:56
Interesting report....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/columbia/story/0,12845,889344,00.html
???/Unknownone
06-02-2003, 21:00
The very first words i said after i heard about the accident were "F*cking windows 98"
(From a certain south park movie ;))
Sicknote
06-02-2003, 21:05
One of the Astronoughts had dandruff.
They found his Head and Shoulders in a field.
:/
Mr.Wh1te
06-02-2003, 21:18
bitty, i heard that the space shuttle was sponsored by 7up :stareup:.
Sicknote
06-02-2003, 21:20
bu*ger, that was my next "joke" :P
Originally posted by ???/Unknownone
The pilots dont actaully do anything reguarding piloting it down to earth, its all computer driven.
The re-entry into the Earths atmosphere is not computer driven. It is piloted manually at that point. In saying that, the shuttle has no power, the pilot can only adjust his angle of entry etc by using the aerodynamic controls.
Essentially they are floating back to Earth at 12000mph.
???/Unknownone
06-02-2003, 22:12
Dont think so ron..
The extra drag on the left wing caused the computers (see...theres that word) so automatically steady the craft. One theory is that it over compensated and sent it spinning boom boom.
Also one guy was saying on sky news on the day of the accident that since the margin for error is so small, the computer does all of the flying, as it can do it a lot better than any human.
Or, as the case may be, not.
not to contribute to the tasteless frolics, but there's a weird coincidence of a movie on BBC1 later called "The Seven-Ups"....go look in your TV guide if you don't believe me!
/goes with tail between legs
As the news broke, Sky News Space Expert dude said re-entry was done by the pilot. The computers may alter the horizontal plane or saaain but the actual angle that the craft enters at is done by the pilot.
As far as I know the computers control the descent, as the shuttle has to do a series of "S" turns to bleed off speed, the pilot takes over at landing but can take over if the computer borks up at any point during the descent.
If you want to read the lengthy official nasa procedure for re entry go ere...bit long mind
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/events/entry/
The guy must have been wrong then, he definitely said the angle of 36 degrees was controled by the pilot :P
???/Unknownone
06-02-2003, 22:34
Cheers bloke, was looking for that, purely to prove ronnykins wrong ;)
Wub.
pffft, I am still not convinced. The guy has just told millions of viewers during a news flash that the pilot is in control of the shuttle when re-entering !
Most tv bods are numpties tbh...according to itv the shuttle fleet consisted of 2 now..one of em "enterprise" which is sitting doing nowt as it never went into space, only used as a drop test from a modified 747 ages ago....berks, btw if you want an ultra accurate shuttle and space flight sim go ere:
http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orbit.html
Download that and see for yourself..quite good.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.