February 2nd 13, 02:14 PM
posted to sci.space.history
|
|
Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface
On Feb 1, 1:34*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:11*pm, Dean wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 3:46:04 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:40*am, Dean wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 9:27:53 AM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 1, 5:01*am, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:50*am, Dean wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:31:45 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 31, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:11:36 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
ok to make it clear you believe that if anyone dies in space its best
to not attempt recovery of their body?
the challenger bodies and crew compartment were in deep water off the
coast......
but its ok to recover gus grissoms mercury capsule that sunk so long
ago in very deep water?
Do you have problems with common sense? *Which is easier? *Recovering a body from the moon or one in water off the coast of FL? *Really, Bob, you need to think a bit deeper sometimes.
It's clear that Bob is out of his depth.
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
really look at the efforts today to recover remains from korea or
second world war. why spend time and money the 2nd world war familys
who knew the victims have probably mostly died of old age.....
Jesus, Bob! *You really are denser than osmium, aren't you?
well heres a connected issue, if nasa decides a crew is doomed to die,
should the crew be told?
say the columbia crew, should they have been informed before re entry
if nasa was certain of their dying?
Should they have been told about the Boeing Phantom Works of TRW/
Raytheon testing out their nifty ABL capability of targeting an
incoming
LEO item, from an operationally cloaked altitude of 40,000+ feet?
*http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...itary/abl/pics...
*http://www.lb.boeing.com/defense-spa...s-clips/SMF071...
*http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-airborn...missile/12567/
*http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread298256/pg1
*BP Deep Horizon helipad platform hole:
*http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/0...explosion-on-t...
*http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/924...orm990x669.jpg
*The extra amount of thermal sensors incorporated within the underside
of Columbia, of which Boeing Phantom Works always had a direct
satellite link to, made for an ideal test target in order to fully
verify in real time, as to the effective heating caused by their ABL.
DoD contracts always require such demonstrated proof before moving on
with additional R&D funding. *These DoD contracts are worth billions,
and to pass up an opportunity of using Columbia as representing a
savings of at least 100 million to Boeing, should have been a wee bit
too tempting to pass up. *Of course If Columbia hadn’t been previously
damaged, the ABL test could have been relatively harmless.
No doubt whenever our DoD screws up, we don’t always get to see or
hear about it unless it was being live covered by some media group(s)
in charge of Pentagon and DoD hype, or as having been otherwise
leaked.
Can you please speak simply without the extraneous crap? *So you are claiming the ABL shot down Columbia now?
Not just now, but from the very get go, suggesting that the Phantom
Works team took full advantage of the opportunity, which probably
didn't go towards helping to prevent or moderate the demise of
Columbia.
Not one protective tile on Columbia was optional, meaning that each
and every one of those tiles was essential for a safe reentry. *Adding
even a minor pilot beam of ABL energy for obtaining those subsequent
thermal readings and confirming their tracking stability testing
probably didn't terminate Columbia, but it sure as hell wasn't helping.
Oh dear lord! How do you conspirowhackos come up with this stuff?
russia tried to blame the phobos grunt failure on that same alaska
radar setup.......
much later russia admitted the failure was caused by non space
certified electronic components
Exactly, there's too much bad sorts of radiation in space, just like
what zapped our Apollo missions and their sensitive Kodak film.
|