On Friday, February 1, 2013 6:16:40 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 1, 1:11*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?



The same way you mainstream status-quo FUD-masters, except we're stuck

with using the best available science that's independently replicated,

and otherwise restricted to those pesky laws of physics.



Are you suggesting that Boeing Phantom Works wasn't smart enough to

know about all those extra thermal sensors of the Columbia shuttle?



Do you have independent objective poof that ABLs were grounded at the

time?

Do you have formal training in science? Hmmm?