greatfriscofreakout wrote:It's just such an odd thing to take issue with. Out of all the balls-ass-crazy technology on that thing, he picks the bolts?!
scott60561 wrote:We get it already: everything is fake and nothing happens.
neifirst wrote:Well, I was skeptical, but once I learned the author was a fan of Formula 1 racing for several years, well, I was convinced.
Knight_of_autumn wrote:I couldn't even figure out what he was trying to explain in that part of the rant. He learned about how F1 cars generate downforce so now he wants to apply it to the Space Shuttle? Why? Why the hell does an orbiter need to produce downforce?!
hopsafoobar wrote:The man doesn't understand that the wings were no help in going up... They only produce drag and trouble. They are useful only for coming down like an airplane.
MyCommentIsSarcasm wrote:This crap fascinates me -- the many cognitive failures that combine to make up the average conspiracy theory. I'll just mention one: the fallacy that true engineering experts don't need to perform actual calculations anymore: the genuine master has so assimilated the entire field that he just goes by "gut" or instinct. If he sees a video or article and something "doesn't smell right", this is infallible proof of its falsity.
VerlorenHoop wrote:Bees can't fly. WAKE UP SHEEPLE
naisb wrote:Knew who this was written by as soon as I saw it. Check out his "forum" for more of his incoherent ramblings. Guy fails at physics on so many levels it hurts my brain a little.
Tar_alcaran wrote:Can't he see that in the very picture of that bolt, there's also clearly a far more solid attachment point in the rear of the shuttle?
Besides, the tank isn't pushing/pulling the shuttle into space, or vice versa. They're both going up at roughly the same speed and direction
Tar_alcaran wrote:so the connection doesn't have to be that strong.
The argument is a classic.
1 - Make a wrong assumption (external tank pulls shuttle up),
2 - Find a problem with that (you can't hang a shuttle from two bolts),
3 - Disprove one impossible solution to the problem (There's no venturi effect between shuttle and tank)
And there you have your argument. No venturi effect --> the bolt would break --> the shuttle can't go into space --> Spacetravel is fake --> Illuminati?
ArgonNightmare wrote:Ok rant time:
This is so unbelievably retarded I am utterly struck speechless. How in God's name do they propose that everybody who contributes to this, who perhaps even just reads NASA spaceflights forums, is a part of this lunatic conspiracy? Millions of people? Seriously dude, are you trying to suggest that this gigantic community of scientists and nobel laureates are just either secretly retarded or perhaps privvy to such a ridiculous conspiracy? All the data was also faked huh? Gigantic multi terabyte libraries of experiments and society contributing discoveries such as Teflon - god this is a huge tangent, but seriously this "fake" including the ISS apparently is minutely related to the fact that space flight has caused discoveries and innovations which lead to our high tech lives.
I just cannot believe that you would not take the time to read the scientific data and experiment results. So uneducated and idiotic, truly these people are a disrespect of everything we stand for as an intelligent society.
xthorgoldx wrote:For the interested, because I haven't seen anyone get through enough of this nonsense to notice this gem at the end: what's the purpose of the "vibration-inducing pipe?"
It's a LOX vent. It's a design feature of pretty much every LOX using rocket ever designed. Including the rocket which got us to the moon, the Saturn V. And the workhorse launcher, the Atlas V. Or our other workhorse, the Delta IV.
jrandom wrote:That guy needs some Kerbal Space Program + Realism Overhaul + RealSolarSystem in his life...
linehan23 wrote:Oh my god no... They've finally got us. We all knew this day was coming...
Darkfire wrote:That's pretty bullshit. I can't believe some people actually believe shit like this...
DarfWork wrote:Some people just have half the facts, and think they know the whole stuff.
thisguy60 wrote:Confirmation bias is a helluva drug.
syringistic wrote:I'm sure the phenomenon he's talking about actually takes place, but within 30 seconds of launch the shuttle is already high up enough where things such as lift generated by the wings becomes negligible. He fails to take into account that by the time the shuttle is doing 10k mph, theres no air pressure to speak of. Also, the tank is a round surface, its not like all of the shuttles wing area is 2 feet awag from a flat surface.
syringistic wrote:Sidenote: I'm writing this for those who might want to dismiss this guy outright. His ideas are valid, he's just unable to appy critical thinking.
thisguy60 wrote:The point about the "pipe" (which looks more like a seam to me, but I could be mistaken) moving, is pretty curious. I speculate the tank probably grows in length due to thermal expansion of aerodynamic heating but this is totally speculation.
syringistic wrote:I generally suck at physics of all kinds, so I am just using common sense here.
Firebar wrote:I liked being told that the ISS is fake when you can see it with the naked eye. And you can see detail with a telescope.
Lars0 wrote:He's right that the anchoring struts in the front do see enormous loads, but the flight path is modified to reduce them as much as possible. That is why the space shuttle does a roll program and then flies "upside down", pitching up as it does a gravity turn rather than pitching down.
mtnspirit wrote:It's not about competing designs. It uses solid fueled rockets which can't be shut down, and has no viable abort modes prior to staging the solids. It has no launch escape system. If anything bad happens with the SRBs on ascent, everyone inside dies.
The shuttle was designed by a committee, compelled by the DOD to do things that they never ended up using it for - because making it as big as they required made it terribly expensive. Its predecessor, the Saturn V (or even the Saturn I) was safer in that launch abort was possible and heat shield damage on launch was not an issue.
It's possible that a fully expendable design could have been cheaper than the Shuttle as-designed. While the US did novel and interesting things with it, the compromise that resulted was arguably a step backward from what came before. Its "reusability" was in-name-only. Sure, you get the vehicle back, but with so much refurbishment required that any cost savings was dubious at best. The fuel tank gets replaced every flight. The SSMEs were removed and rebuilt every flight. The orbiter was re-tiled every flight. The SRBs were dunked in seawater and rebuilt almost from scratch every flight. The complexity and extra mass required for a massive spaceplane makes the simplicity of capsules look very attractive.
mtnspirit wrote:I'd like to point out that this guy has no idea how big that bolt is.
For some other references to the items in that picture with a better size comparison:
Frangible nut with the parachute mortar
Frangible nut in somebody's hand
OF COURSE space shuttle exterior parts are going to look model sized out a wide-angle onboard camera. They aren't. Rocket parts are unbelievably gigantic.
der_innkeeper wrote:Does not understand that, at the height of the cold war, the US had an adversary that had the radar and imaging capabilities to falsify any American claims to making it to the Moon and back.
Feznik wrote:Have you had any communication with anyone who has analyzed the data and found something potentially interesting? What are your hopes for how this open data will be used? How was the small selection of data which has been made open selected?
askCERN wrote:We know of ongoing work using our data and it is very interesting. We are hoping to see scientific studies and to see them used in education.
The data made open is not actually a small selection, it is approximately half of the collision data we've collected for each year of data taking. No special selection there, for 2010 it was the second part of the data taking period, and for 2011 it was the first part of the data taking period.
"NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners."
MyCommentIsSarcasm wrote:the many cognitive failures that combine to make up the average conspiracy theory. [he] just goes by "gut" or instinct.
ARTIFICIAL_SAPIENCE wrote:It's cute, they think their insanity is worth taking seriously.
venthos wrote:I think that's probably my favorite part of it all. They're dissecting each comment as if they were all a product of a well-researched genuine retort.
In reality, this whole subreddit is the equivalent of a theme park tour through the insanity of conspiracy theorists and we're all just pointing and laughing. We know they've all seen the evidence already, and re-hashing it with them would serve no purpose since they've long chosen to reject rational thought.
There's no "serious debate" in this subreddit.
I don't come here to argue or convince conspiracy theorists otherwise. It's a zoo that gets populated with cracked out conspiracy theorist postings/videos. A very, very hilarious zoo that provides with untold amounts of comedy.
thefugue wrote:My favorite part was when they completely ignored my comments on the tread
thefugue wrote:Why does he think the lift isn't for re-entry?!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests