Meenzer 14055 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Renton's going nowhere near a shuttle now! Keep this up lads, we'll make him a hermit! 86572[/snapback] Did you see that documentary about the pavement that ate that fella's leg? He didn't suffer, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 During those 4 seconds thought Rob, do you claim they didn't feel a thing? 86533[/snapback] I understand that the pilots last words in most accidents is "Ah SHIT!" - 86536[/snapback] Avoiding the actual question I see. 86538[/snapback] 4 seconds is a very short time...... most people would agree that if you've got to die 4 seconds of pain is about as good as its likely to get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6307 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 During those 4 seconds thought Rob, do you claim they didn't feel a thing? 86533[/snapback] I understand that the pilots last words in most accidents is "Ah SHIT!" - 86536[/snapback] Avoiding the actual question I see. 86538[/snapback] 4 seconds is a very short time...... most people would agree that if you've got to die 4 seconds of pain is about as good as its likely to get 86576[/snapback] But you said they didn't feel a thing, so what happened during those 4 seconds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17811 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 During those 4 seconds thought Rob, do you claim they didn't feel a thing? 86533[/snapback] I understand that the pilots last words in most accidents is "Ah SHIT!" - 86536[/snapback] Avoiding the actual question I see. 86538[/snapback] 4 seconds is a very short time...... most people would agree that if you've got to die 4 seconds of pain is about as good as its likely to get 86576[/snapback] Four seconds will feel a lot longer when something horrific is occurring - surviving witnesses often state this. In any case, read the other comments, it could have been minutes if they are to be believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 During those 4 seconds thought Rob, do you claim they didn't feel a thing? 86533[/snapback] I understand that the pilots last words in most accidents is "Ah SHIT!" - 86536[/snapback] Avoiding the actual question I see. 86538[/snapback] 4 seconds is a very short time...... most people would agree that if you've got to die 4 seconds of pain is about as good as its likely to get 86576[/snapback] Four seconds will feel a lot longer when something horrific is occurring - surviving witnesses often state this. In any case, read the other comments, it could have been minutes if they are to be believed. 86578[/snapback] they are wrong - simple. I (as usual) am right - not bad for a Tuesday - I'm quite enjoying this topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 During those 4 seconds thought Rob, do you claim they didn't feel a thing? 86533[/snapback] I understand that the pilots last words in most accidents is "Ah SHIT!" - 86536[/snapback] Avoiding the actual question I see. 86538[/snapback] 4 seconds is a very short time...... most people would agree that if you've got to die 4 seconds of pain is about as good as its likely to get 86576[/snapback] Four seconds will feel a lot longer when something horrific is occurring - surviving witnesses often state this. In any case, read the other comments, it could have been minutes if they are to be believed. 86578[/snapback] they are wrong - simple. I (as usual) am right - not bad for a Tuesday - I'm quite enjoying this topic 86581[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6307 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Disintegrated?? The cabin looks pretty intact to me There is a supposed transcript of the astronauts talking after the explosion going around the net which is indeed bollocks... However, they were alive as the PEAPs (Personal Egress Air Packs) had been activated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 It's a terrible reponsibilty being responsible for keeping everyone straight on all the facts I can tell you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Disintegrated?? The cabin looks pretty intact to me There is a supposed transcript of the astronauts talking after the explosion going around the net which is indeed bollocks... However, they were alive as the PEAPs (Personal Egress Air Packs) had been activated. 86589[/snapback] One of the last things on the list appears to have been them hitting the emergency kit - of course you can't eject from a shuttle and it doesn't have the little emergency rocket to pull you clear that the Apollo's had If you think anyone survived the explosion I think you are kidding yourself - about 2 million lbs of fuel went off 20 feet from them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6307 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 If you think anyone survived the explosion I think you are kidding yourself - about 2 million lbs of fuel went off 20 feet from them86597[/snapback] Really? Suppose this guy is as well then? 7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disasterIt didn't explode, the crew didn't die instantly and it wasn't inevitable By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst Myth #1: A nation watched as tragedy unfolded Few people actually saw what happened live on television. The flight occurred during the early years of cable news, and although CNN was indeed carrying the launch when the shuttle was destroyed, all major broadcast stations had cut away — only to quickly return with taped relays. With Christa McAuliffe set to be the first teacher in space, NASA had arranged a satellite broadcast of the full mission into television sets in many schools, but the general public did not have access to this unless they were one of the then-few people with satellite dishes. What most people recall as a "live broadcast" was actually the taped replay broadcast soon after the event. Myth #2: Challenger exploded The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word. There was no shock wave, no detonation, no "bang" — viewers on the ground just heard the roar of the engines stop as the shuttle’s fuel tank tore apart, spilling liquid oxygen and hydrogen which formed a huge fireball at an altitude of 46,000 ft. (Some television documentaries later added the sound of an explosion to these images.) But both solid-fuel strap-on boosters climbed up out of the cloud, still firing and unharmed by any explosion. Challenger itself was torn apart as it was flung free of the other rocket components and turned broadside into the Mach 2 airstream. Individual propellant tanks were seen exploding — but by then, the spacecraft was already in pieces. Myth #3: The crew died instantly The flight, and the astronauts’ lives, did not end at that point, 73 seconds after launch. After Challenger was torn apart, the pieces continued upward from their own momentum, reaching a peak altitude of 65,000 ft before arching back down into the water. The cabin hit the surface 2 minutes and 45 seconds after breakup, and all investigations indicate the crew was still alive until then. What's less clear is whether they were conscious. If the cabin depressurized (as seems likely), the crew would have had difficulty breathing. In the words of the final report by fellow astronauts, the crew “possibly but not certainly lost consciousness”, even though a few of the emergency air bottles (designed for escape from a smoking vehicle on the ground) had been activated. The cabin hit the water at a speed greater than 200 mph, resulting in a force of about 200 G’s — crushing the structure and destroying everything inside. If the crew did lose consciousness (and the cabin may have been sufficiently intact to hold enough air long enough to prevent this), it’s unknown if they would have regained it as the air thickened during the last seconds of the fall. Official NASA commemorations of “Challenger’s 73-second flight” subtly deflect attention from what was happened in the almost three minutes of flight (and life) remaining AFTER the breakup. Myth #4: Dangerous booster flaws result of meddling The side-mounted booster rockets, which help propel the shuttle at launch then drop off during ascent, did possess flaws subject to improvement. But these flaws were neither especially dangerous if operated properly, nor the result of political interference. Each of the pair of solid-fuel boosters was made from four separate segments that bolted end-to-end-to-end together, and flame escaping from one of the interfaces was what destroyed the shuttle. Although the obvious solution of making the boosters of one long segment (instead of four short ones) was later suggested, long solid fuel boosters have problems with safe propellant loading, with transport, and with stacking for launch — and multi-segment solids had had a good track record with the Titan-3 military satellite program. The winning contractor was located in Utah, the home state of a powerful Republican senator, but the company also had the strengths the NASA selection board was looking for. The segment interface was tricky and engineers kept tweaking the design to respond to flight anomalies, but when operated within tested environmental conditions, the equipment had been performing adequately. Myth #5: Environmental ban led to weaker sealant A favorite of the Internet, this myth states that a major factor in the disaster was that NASA had been ordered by regulatory agencies to abandon a working pressure sealant because it contained too much asbestos, and use a weaker replacement. But the replacement of the seal was unrelated to the disaster — and occurred prior to any environmental ban. Even the original putty had persistent sealing problems, and after it was replaced by another putty that also contained asbestos, the higher level of breaches was connected not to the putty itself, but to a new test procedure being used. “We discovered that it was this leak check which was a likely cause of the dangerous bubbles in the putty that I had heard about," wrote physicist Richard Feynman, a member of the Challenger investigation board. And the bubble effect was unconnected with the actual seal violation that would ultimately doom Challenger and its crew. The cause was an inadequate low-temperature performance of the O-ring seal itself, which had not been replaced. Myth #6: Political pressure forced the launch There were pressures on the flight schedule, but none of any recognizable political origin. Launch officials clearly felt pressure to get the mission off after repeated delays, and they were embarrassed by repeated mockery on the television news of previous scrubs, but the driving factor in their minds seems to have been two shuttle-launched planetary probes. The first ever probes of this kind, they had an unmovable launch window just four months in the future. The persistent rumor that the White House had ordered the flight to proceed in order to spice up President Reagan’s scheduled State of the Union address seems based on political motivations, not any direct testimony or other first-hand evidence. Feynman personally checked out the rumor and never found any substantiation. If Challenger's flight had gone according to plan, the crew would have been asleep at the time of Reagan's speech, and no communications links had been set up. Myth #7: An unavoidable price for progress Claims that the disaster was the unavoidable price to be paid for pioneering a new frontier were self-serving rationalizations on the part of those responsible for incompetent engineering management — the disaster should have been avoidable. NASA managers made a bad call for the launch decision, and engineers who had qualms about the O-rings were bullied or bamboozled into acquiescence. The skeptics’ argument that launching with record cold temperatures is valid, but it probably was not argued as persuasively as it might have been, in hindsight. If launched on a warmer day, with gentler high-altitude winds, there’s every reason to suppose the flight would have been successful and the troublesome seal design (which already had the attention of designers) would have been modified at a pace that turned out to have been far too leisurely. The disaster need never have happened if managers and workers had clung to known principles of safely operating on the edge of extreme hazards — nothing was learned by the disaster that hadn’t already been learned, and then forgotten. NBC News space analyst James Oberg spent 22 years at NASA's Johnson Space Center as a Mission Control operator and an orbital designer. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11031097 Rob knows more than everyone else else of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Even Snopes has said that 3 of the manual air bottles had been activated, indicating that at least 3 of the crew were alive after the explosion. However, they say the same thing as the above article, that no-one will ever know if they were conscious or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6307 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Even Snopes has said that 3 of the manual air bottles had been activated, indicating that at least 3 of the crew were alive after the explosion. However, they say the same thing as the above article, that no-one will ever know if they were conscious or not. 86627[/snapback] It's all lies - they were dead......Rob said so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 "all investigations indicate the crew was still alive until then" funny its not mentioned in the official report then - where are "all these investigations" I'd bet 2 million tons of fuel going off would cause a shock wave that would knock anyone's brains out Any volunteers for a test??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Even Snopes has said that 3 of the manual air bottles had been activated, indicating that at least 3 of the crew were alive after the explosion. However, they say the same thing as the above article, that no-one will ever know if they were conscious or not. 86627[/snapback] It's all lies - they were dead......Rob said so! 86628[/snapback] Correct as ever Mr Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 "all investigations indicate the crew was still alive until then" funny its not mentioned in the official report then - where are "all these investigations" I'd bet 2 million tons of fuel going off would cause a shock wave that would knock anyone's brains out Any volunteers for a test??? 86656[/snapback] Wouldn't feel a thing either By the way, it says that there was no explosion. And as Craig pointed out, the official report was never going to admit to them being alive!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 "all investigations indicate the crew was still alive until then" funny its not mentioned in the official report then - where are "all these investigations" I'd bet 2 million tons of fuel going off would cause a shock wave that would knock anyone's brains out Any volunteers for a test??? 86656[/snapback] Wouldn't feel a thing either By the way, it says that there was no explosion. And as Craig pointed out, the official report was never going to admit to them being alive!! 86685[/snapback] CONSPIRACY!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6307 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 "all investigations indicate the crew was still alive until then" funny its not mentioned in the official report then - where are "all these investigations" I'd bet 2 million tons of fuel going off would cause a shock wave that would knock anyone's brains out Any volunteers for a test??? 86656[/snapback] As was mentioned earlier (and in this article, if you read it), NASA were never going to put that in the official report. On top of that, I'd wager that a bloke who worked for 22 years at Mission Control has a better insight than a 'plane spotter' who subscribes to "Flight" magazine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Need Another Seven Astronauts tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14055 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 CONSPIRACY!!!!!!! 86691[/snapback] Best. Emoticon. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchard Chops 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 I have no intention of using a "shuttle" in the near future. If I were to I would follow Rob's advice to the letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 "all investigations indicate the crew was still alive until then" funny its not mentioned in the official report then - where are "all these investigations" I'd bet 2 million tons of fuel going off would cause a shock wave that would knock anyone's brains out Any volunteers for a test??? 86656[/snapback] As was mentioned earlier (and in this article, if you read it), NASA were never going to put that in the official report. On top of that, I'd wager that a bloke who worked for 22 years at Mission Control has a better insight than a 'plane spotter' who subscribes to "Flight" magazine 86692[/snapback] and a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society so shut up peasant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Fucking hell, Rob's trying to out-nerd Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34533 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Fucking hell, Rob's trying to out-nerd Craig 86748[/snapback] It can't be done! Surely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 one does one's best...................... pearls before swine but I try Lord, I try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Fucking hell, Rob's trying to out-nerd Craig 86748[/snapback] He's on a fucking hiding to nothing then tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now