Remember me
▼ Content

Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat



Page 7 of 7<<<567
17-06-2022 23:46
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So there is no space station, no flag planted on the Moon, no visible launch platforms that you can see in a good telescope (the telescopes are lying), and no signals coming from the Moon's surface, and no laser being received from the Moon's surface. Gotit.

So what is all that?

No Skylab that fell out of orbit. No space shuttles. No GPS satellites. No weather satellites. No pictures from the Hubble satellite telescope, no spy satellites, etc. Gotit.
No pictures from any Mars lander. No Pioneer spacecraft. No Voyager spacecraft.

No meteors. No meteorites. No Columbia disaster. No Challenger disaster. No Mercury, Jupiter, or Apollo program. No ICBMs. No communications satellites.

Do you really believe all this is faked?

How the hell does your GPS receiver work, dude???


Any rocket launched up from Earth would be obliterated, if it kept rocketing up, by about 60 miles altitude, as it collided with Heaven.

How satellites work is not publicly known.


It is publicly known.

I've even put instrumentation on board some of them.

It is obvious that you simply want to deny the satellites (that you can even see fly by if the light is right), the space station, ICBMs, Stuff you can see in any good telescope, or even the ability to measure the temperature of the thermosphere (that you say is possible!).

You are being irrational. You've not only locked yourself in a paradox, you deny GPS systems, weather satellites, communications satellites, all the Hubble images, and even what you can see in a good telescope.


I haven't denied any of the things you accuse me of denying.

Lie.
Spongy Iris wrote:
News reports of rockets being launched into orbit are false cover stories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Spongy Iris wrote:
The technologies you mention are not understood by just about anybody.

Omniscience fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have actually put instrumentation on board the satellites that are truly in orbit, that means, you either have knowledge of secret technology, or you are deceived by your employer into performing make believe work.

I am my own employer. I own my own company making instrumentation for aerospace, industrial, medical, and entertainment system uses. I do not lie to my employees.

I know how GPS works. I know how various communications satellites work. I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project. I have built radio systems that bounce signals off of incoming meteors. Those systems are typically used for telemetry.

Any decent telescope will show that you are full of shit.


LOL you did all that and ended up here at the **** of the internet being nobody.

Were you the moron that totally fu-ked up the space shuttle project so bad that the USA ended up using Russian rockets?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the god damn meds already
18-06-2022 00:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So there is no space station, no flag planted on the Moon, no visible launch platforms that you can see in a good telescope (the telescopes are lying), and no signals coming from the Moon's surface, and no laser being received from the Moon's surface. Gotit.

So what is all that?

No Skylab that fell out of orbit. No space shuttles. No GPS satellites. No weather satellites. No pictures from the Hubble satellite telescope, no spy satellites, etc. Gotit.
No pictures from any Mars lander. No Pioneer spacecraft. No Voyager spacecraft.

No meteors. No meteorites. No Columbia disaster. No Challenger disaster. No Mercury, Jupiter, or Apollo program. No ICBMs. No communications satellites.

Do you really believe all this is faked?

How the hell does your GPS receiver work, dude???


Any rocket launched up from Earth would be obliterated, if it kept rocketing up, by about 60 miles altitude, as it collided with Heaven.

How satellites work is not publicly known.


It is publicly known.

I've even put instrumentation on board some of them.

It is obvious that you simply want to deny the satellites (that you can even see fly by if the light is right), the space station, ICBMs, Stuff you can see in any good telescope, or even the ability to measure the temperature of the thermosphere (that you say is possible!).

You are being irrational. You've not only locked yourself in a paradox, you deny GPS systems, weather satellites, communications satellites, all the Hubble images, and even what you can see in a good telescope.


I haven't denied any of the things you accuse me of denying.

Lie.
Spongy Iris wrote:
News reports of rockets being launched into orbit are false cover stories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Spongy Iris wrote:
The technologies you mention are not understood by just about anybody.

Omniscience fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have actually put instrumentation on board the satellites that are truly in orbit, that means, you either have knowledge of secret technology, or you are deceived by your employer into performing make believe work.

I am my own employer. I own my own company making instrumentation for aerospace, industrial, medical, and entertainment system uses. I do not lie to my employees.

I know how GPS works. I know how various communications satellites work. I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project. I have built radio systems that bounce signals off of incoming meteors. Those systems are typically used for telemetry.

Any decent telescope will show that you are full of shit.


LOL you did all that and ended up here at the **** of the internet being nobody.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think describing yourself and projecting YOUR problems on me is going to work????!? Do you REALLY think that describing climate-debate.com as the **** of the internet and claiming that anyone using it is a loser EXCEPT FOR YOU????!?
Swan wrote:
Were you the moron that totally fu-ked up the space shuttle project so bad that the USA ended up using Russian rockets?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think the Space Shuttle project ****ed up?????!? Only two shuttles were destroyed, dude. One by pilot error and the other by the EPA.

Only in America would we build an aircraft virtually out of stone and make it fly. Not only that, call it a GLIDER. What a country! This spacecraft was VERY SUCCESSFUL.

Swan wrote:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the god damn meds already

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think making this lame insult makes any difference?????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-06-2022 01:09
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So there is no space station, no flag planted on the Moon, no visible launch platforms that you can see in a good telescope (the telescopes are lying), and no signals coming from the Moon's surface, and no laser being received from the Moon's surface. Gotit.

So what is all that?

No Skylab that fell out of orbit. No space shuttles. No GPS satellites. No weather satellites. No pictures from the Hubble satellite telescope, no spy satellites, etc. Gotit.
No pictures from any Mars lander. No Pioneer spacecraft. No Voyager spacecraft.

No meteors. No meteorites. No Columbia disaster. No Challenger disaster. No Mercury, Jupiter, or Apollo program. No ICBMs. No communications satellites.

Do you really believe all this is faked?

How the hell does your GPS receiver work, dude???


Any rocket launched up from Earth would be obliterated, if it kept rocketing up, by about 60 miles altitude, as it collided with Heaven.

How satellites work is not publicly known.


It is publicly known.

I've even put instrumentation on board some of them.

It is obvious that you simply want to deny the satellites (that you can even see fly by if the light is right), the space station, ICBMs, Stuff you can see in any good telescope, or even the ability to measure the temperature of the thermosphere (that you say is possible!).

You are being irrational. You've not only locked yourself in a paradox, you deny GPS systems, weather satellites, communications satellites, all the Hubble images, and even what you can see in a good telescope.


I haven't denied any of the things you accuse me of denying.

Lie.
Spongy Iris wrote:
News reports of rockets being launched into orbit are false cover stories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Spongy Iris wrote:
The technologies you mention are not understood by just about anybody.

Omniscience fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have actually put instrumentation on board the satellites that are truly in orbit, that means, you either have knowledge of secret technology, or you are deceived by your employer into performing make believe work.

I am my own employer. I own my own company making instrumentation for aerospace, industrial, medical, and entertainment system uses. I do not lie to my employees.

I know how GPS works. I know how various communications satellites work. I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project. I have built radio systems that bounce signals off of incoming meteors. Those systems are typically used for telemetry.

Any decent telescope will show that you are full of shit.


LOL you did all that and ended up here at the **** of the internet being nobody.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think describing yourself and projecting YOUR problems on me is going to work????!? Do you REALLY think that describing climate-debate.com as the **** of the internet and claiming that anyone using it is a loser EXCEPT FOR YOU????!?
Swan wrote:
Were you the moron that totally fu-ked up the space shuttle project so bad that the USA ended up using Russian rockets?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think the Space Shuttle project ****ed up?????!? Only two shuttles were destroyed, dude. One by pilot error and the other by the EPA.

Only in America would we build an aircraft virtually out of stone and make it fly. Not only that, call it a GLIDER. What a country! This spacecraft was VERY SUCCESSFUL.

Swan wrote:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the god damn meds already

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think making this lame insult makes any difference?????!?


LOL says the leading architect of the space shuttle program who has nothing better to do with his time than entertain me at the as-hole of the internet.

2 out of 5 is 40 percent of the junk that you designed blew up. Would you buy a car if 40 percent blew up on the road killing everyone. Inside your psychosis this makes sense

Take you meds jack
18-06-2022 01:09
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So there is no space station, no flag planted on the Moon, no visible launch platforms that you can see in a good telescope (the telescopes are lying), and no signals coming from the Moon's surface, and no laser being received from the Moon's surface. Gotit.

So what is all that?

No Skylab that fell out of orbit. No space shuttles. No GPS satellites. No weather satellites. No pictures from the Hubble satellite telescope, no spy satellites, etc. Gotit.
No pictures from any Mars lander. No Pioneer spacecraft. No Voyager spacecraft.

No meteors. No meteorites. No Columbia disaster. No Challenger disaster. No Mercury, Jupiter, or Apollo program. No ICBMs. No communications satellites.

Do you really believe all this is faked?

How the hell does your GPS receiver work, dude???


Any rocket launched up from Earth would be obliterated, if it kept rocketing up, by about 60 miles altitude, as it collided with Heaven.

How satellites work is not publicly known.


It is publicly known.

I've even put instrumentation on board some of them.

It is obvious that you simply want to deny the satellites (that you can even see fly by if the light is right), the space station, ICBMs, Stuff you can see in any good telescope, or even the ability to measure the temperature of the thermosphere (that you say is possible!).

You are being irrational. You've not only locked yourself in a paradox, you deny GPS systems, weather satellites, communications satellites, all the Hubble images, and even what you can see in a good telescope.


I haven't denied any of the things you accuse me of denying.

Lie.
Spongy Iris wrote:
News reports of rockets being launched into orbit are false cover stories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Spongy Iris wrote:
The technologies you mention are not understood by just about anybody.

Omniscience fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have actually put instrumentation on board the satellites that are truly in orbit, that means, you either have knowledge of secret technology, or you are deceived by your employer into performing make believe work.

I am my own employer. I own my own company making instrumentation for aerospace, industrial, medical, and entertainment system uses. I do not lie to my employees.

I know how GPS works. I know how various communications satellites work. I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project. I have built radio systems that bounce signals off of incoming meteors. Those systems are typically used for telemetry.

Any decent telescope will show that you are full of shit.


LOL you did all that and ended up here at the **** of the internet being nobody.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think describing yourself and projecting YOUR problems on me is going to work????!? Do you REALLY think that describing climate-debate.com as the **** of the internet and claiming that anyone using it is a loser EXCEPT FOR YOU????!?
Swan wrote:
Were you the moron that totally fu-ked up the space shuttle project so bad that the USA ended up using Russian rockets?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think the Space Shuttle project ****ed up?????!? Only two shuttles were destroyed, dude. One by pilot error and the other by the EPA.

Only in America would we build an aircraft virtually out of stone and make it fly. Not only that, call it a GLIDER. What a country! This spacecraft was VERY SUCCESSFUL.

Swan wrote:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the god damn meds already

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think making this lame insult makes any difference?????!?


LOL says the leading architect of the space shuttle program who has nothing better to do with his time than entertain me at the as-hole of the internet.

2 out of 5 is 40 percent of the junk that you designed blew up. Would you buy a car if 40 percent of the model line blew up on the road killing everyone. Inside your psychosis this makes sense

Take you meds jack
Edited on 18-06-2022 01:11
18-06-2022 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So there is no space station, no flag planted on the Moon, no visible launch platforms that you can see in a good telescope (the telescopes are lying), and no signals coming from the Moon's surface, and no laser being received from the Moon's surface. Gotit.

So what is all that?

No Skylab that fell out of orbit. No space shuttles. No GPS satellites. No weather satellites. No pictures from the Hubble satellite telescope, no spy satellites, etc. Gotit.
No pictures from any Mars lander. No Pioneer spacecraft. No Voyager spacecraft.

No meteors. No meteorites. No Columbia disaster. No Challenger disaster. No Mercury, Jupiter, or Apollo program. No ICBMs. No communications satellites.

Do you really believe all this is faked?

How the hell does your GPS receiver work, dude???


Any rocket launched up from Earth would be obliterated, if it kept rocketing up, by about 60 miles altitude, as it collided with Heaven.

How satellites work is not publicly known.


It is publicly known.

I've even put instrumentation on board some of them.

It is obvious that you simply want to deny the satellites (that you can even see fly by if the light is right), the space station, ICBMs, Stuff you can see in any good telescope, or even the ability to measure the temperature of the thermosphere (that you say is possible!).

You are being irrational. You've not only locked yourself in a paradox, you deny GPS systems, weather satellites, communications satellites, all the Hubble images, and even what you can see in a good telescope.


I haven't denied any of the things you accuse me of denying.

Lie.
Spongy Iris wrote:
News reports of rockets being launched into orbit are false cover stories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Spongy Iris wrote:
The technologies you mention are not understood by just about anybody.

Omniscience fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have actually put instrumentation on board the satellites that are truly in orbit, that means, you either have knowledge of secret technology, or you are deceived by your employer into performing make believe work.

I am my own employer. I own my own company making instrumentation for aerospace, industrial, medical, and entertainment system uses. I do not lie to my employees.

I know how GPS works. I know how various communications satellites work. I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project. I have built radio systems that bounce signals off of incoming meteors. Those systems are typically used for telemetry.

Any decent telescope will show that you are full of shit.


LOL you did all that and ended up here at the **** of the internet being nobody.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think describing yourself and projecting YOUR problems on me is going to work????!? Do you REALLY think that describing climate-debate.com as the **** of the internet and claiming that anyone using it is a loser EXCEPT FOR YOU????!?
Swan wrote:
Were you the moron that totally fu-ked up the space shuttle project so bad that the USA ended up using Russian rockets?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think the Space Shuttle project ****ed up?????!? Only two shuttles were destroyed, dude. One by pilot error and the other by the EPA.

Only in America would we build an aircraft virtually out of stone and make it fly. Not only that, call it a GLIDER. What a country! This spacecraft was VERY SUCCESSFUL.

Swan wrote:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the god damn meds already

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think making this lame insult makes any difference?????!?


LOL says the leading architect of the space shuttle program who has nothing better to do with his time than entertain me at the as-hole of the internet.

2 out of 5 is 40 percent of the junk that you designed blew up. Would you buy a car if 40 percent of the model line blew up on the road killing everyone. Inside your psychosis this makes sense

Take you meds jack


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think you can word stuff like this????!? I never said I was the leading architect of the Space Shuttle program!

NONE of it just blew up. Do you REALLY think that space ships or aircraft just 'blow up'????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-06-2022 03:45
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So there is no space station, no flag planted on the Moon, no visible launch platforms that you can see in a good telescope (the telescopes are lying), and no signals coming from the Moon's surface, and no laser being received from the Moon's surface. Gotit.

So what is all that?

No Skylab that fell out of orbit. No space shuttles. No GPS satellites. No weather satellites. No pictures from the Hubble satellite telescope, no spy satellites, etc. Gotit.
No pictures from any Mars lander. No Pioneer spacecraft. No Voyager spacecraft.

No meteors. No meteorites. No Columbia disaster. No Challenger disaster. No Mercury, Jupiter, or Apollo program. No ICBMs. No communications satellites.

Do you really believe all this is faked?

How the hell does your GPS receiver work, dude???


Any rocket launched up from Earth would be obliterated, if it kept rocketing up, by about 60 miles altitude, as it collided with Heaven.

How satellites work is not publicly known.


It is publicly known.

I've even put instrumentation on board some of them.

It is obvious that you simply want to deny the satellites (that you can even see fly by if the light is right), the space station, ICBMs, Stuff you can see in any good telescope, or even the ability to measure the temperature of the thermosphere (that you say is possible!).

You are being irrational. You've not only locked yourself in a paradox, you deny GPS systems, weather satellites, communications satellites, all the Hubble images, and even what you can see in a good telescope.


I haven't denied any of the things you accuse me of denying.

Lie.
Spongy Iris wrote:
News reports of rockets being launched into orbit are false cover stories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Spongy Iris wrote:
The technologies you mention are not understood by just about anybody.

Omniscience fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have actually put instrumentation on board the satellites that are truly in orbit, that means, you either have knowledge of secret technology, or you are deceived by your employer into performing make believe work.

I am my own employer. I own my own company making instrumentation for aerospace, industrial, medical, and entertainment system uses. I do not lie to my employees.

I know how GPS works. I know how various communications satellites work. I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project. I have built radio systems that bounce signals off of incoming meteors. Those systems are typically used for telemetry.

Any decent telescope will show that you are full of shit.


LOL you did all that and ended up here at the **** of the internet being nobody.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think describing yourself and projecting YOUR problems on me is going to work????!? Do you REALLY think that describing climate-debate.com as the **** of the internet and claiming that anyone using it is a loser EXCEPT FOR YOU????!?
Swan wrote:
Were you the moron that totally fu-ked up the space shuttle project so bad that the USA ended up using Russian rockets?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think the Space Shuttle project ****ed up?????!? Only two shuttles were destroyed, dude. One by pilot error and the other by the EPA.

Only in America would we build an aircraft virtually out of stone and make it fly. Not only that, call it a GLIDER. What a country! This spacecraft was VERY SUCCESSFUL.

Swan wrote:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the god damn meds already

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think making this lame insult makes any difference?????!?


LOL says the leading architect of the space shuttle program who has nothing better to do with his time than entertain me at the as-hole of the internet.

2 out of 5 is 40 percent of the junk that you designed blew up. Would you buy a car if 40 percent of the model line blew up on the road killing everyone. Inside your psychosis this makes sense

Take you meds jack


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think you can word stuff like this????!? I never said I was the leading architect of the Space Shuttle program!

NONE of it just blew up. Do you REALLY think that space ships or aircraft just 'blow up'????!?


Well then you are currently violating your security clearances in this conversation dick;head

Yea in fact one blew up on takeoff likely when the Russian made main engine bolts failed, then they blamed it on an o ring, and the other blew up on reentry because the tiles were damaged on takeoff. Everyone knew that they were all going to die on reentry because the damage was seen and critical and there was no way to rescue the 150 IQ retards
18-06-2022 11:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think you can word stuff like this????!? I never said I was the leading architect of the Space Shuttle program!

NONE of it just blew up. Do you REALLY think that space ships or aircraft just 'blow up'????!?


Well then you are currently violating your security clearances in this conversation dick;head

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAT security clearances????!?
Swan wrote:
Yea in fact one blew up on takeoff

NONE blew up on takeoff! You are hallucinating again!
Swan wrote:
likely when the Russian made main engine bolts failed,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There ARE NO RUSSIAN BOLTS! Are you REALLY going to try to blame pilot error on the Russians????!?
Swan wrote:
then they blamed it on an o ring,

Pilot error. The O ring wasn't defective.
Swan wrote:
and the other blew up on reentry because the tiles were damaged on takeoff.

Because of the EPA, dumbass!
Swan wrote:
Everyone knew that they were all going to die on reentry because the damage was seen and critical and there was no way to rescue the 150 IQ retards

Do you think insulting shuttle crews makes any difference????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-06-2022 13:01
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think you can word stuff like this????!? I never said I was the leading architect of the Space Shuttle program!

NONE of it just blew up. Do you REALLY think that space ships or aircraft just 'blow up'????!?


Well then you are currently violating your security clearances in this conversation dick;head

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAT security clearances????!?
Swan wrote:
Yea in fact one blew up on takeoff

NONE blew up on takeoff! You are hallucinating again!
Swan wrote:
likely when the Russian made main engine bolts failed,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There ARE NO RUSSIAN BOLTS! Are you REALLY going to try to blame pilot error on the Russians????!?
Swan wrote:
then they blamed it on an o ring,

Pilot error. The O ring wasn't defective.
Swan wrote:
and the other blew up on reentry because the tiles were damaged on takeoff.

Because of the EPA, dumbass!
Swan wrote:
Everyone knew that they were all going to die on reentry because the damage was seen and critical and there was no way to rescue the 150 IQ retards

Do you think insulting shuttle crews makes any difference????!?


Again if you were involved in the space shuttle program you are in violation of your security clearances and will soon be arrested. If you do not know that two space shuttles blew up the nurse will bring your thorazine sooner if you ring the bell.

1. The Shuttle killed more people than any other space vehicle in history.

The explosion of the Challenger killed seven people, six astronauts and one Teacher in Space participant, during the launch of its 10th mission in 1986. The explosion of the Columbia killed seven more during re-entry of its 28th mission in 2003.

Let me spell it out for you: out of five Shuttles--Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor—two met a disastrous and fiery fate. That's a 40% vehicular failure rate (updated) and a flight failure rate of 1.5%. This would have grounded any other vehicle permanently.

To compare, the Apollo I mission resulted in the death three astronauts during a launch pad test. The Mercury and Gemini missions had no fatalities.

The Chinese space program has currently had no fatalities.

As for the Russian space program, one cosmonaut died during the re-entry of the Soyuz 1, and three died on the Soyuz 11 after being exposed to vacuum.

(There is no hard data available on the deaths of Soviet-era cosmonauts, but unsubstantiated rumors suggest that there may have been Soviet casualties in the early days of the space race.)

2. It was extremely expensive

You can't put a price on scientific research. But I sure as heck can. A total of 355 people flew on STS (Shuttle Transportation System), and not one of them was me. And I'm not just saying this because I'm jealous as hell, but the Space Shuttle missions cost too much and provided too little.

Although NASA says that it cost a trifling $450 million to launch each Shuttle mission, other sources find that price tag vastly underestimated. All five Shuttles flew a total of 135 missions. According to Space.com, in an article written in 2005,

[I]f the space shuttle program is terminated after 2010, then it will have a total lifetime cost of about $173 billion, Pielke reported.

...Given that flight rate, this will result in a total program cost per flight of $1.3 billion, Pielke explained. Of further interest is the average cost per flight from 2004-2010: It is $1.3 billion. The average cost per flight from the middle of 2005 through 2010, assuming 22 flights, is about $1.0 billion, he said.

Nature followed up in 2011:

The US Congress and NASA spent more than US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the shuttle from 1971 to 2010 (see 'A costly enterprise').... During the operational years from 1982 to 2010, the average cost per launch was about $1.2 billion. Over the life of the programme, this increases to about $1.5 billion per launch

One of the many reasons the Shuttles were so expensive was because some of the equipment used to launch, such as the external tank, were non-reusable and had to be replaced with each launch.

Yet another reason is that the equipment was so very old. Designed in the 1970s and completed in the 1980s, the Shuttle had some modifications over the years, but for the most part, it remained frozen in time. Watson explained.

"Over thirty years, some companies go out of business, or basically their entire business is that one component, which is being paid for purely by the government. So the cost goes up because they're not selling to anyone else besides the government, and their entire assembly line to build that piece needs to be maintained by the government. These issues led to rising and rising costs."

Famously, at one point, NASA had to find parts for the Shuttle--parts that no one else made anymore--on eBay.

On the other hand, the Soyuz, the vehicle of choice of the Russian Space Agency (RSA), is less expensive by an order of magnitude. So how much does it cost to launch?

Watson said, "That number has never been publicized by the RSA, but it's rumored to be as low as $45 million. Of course, in accordance with supply & demand, they're now selling seats for $63 million a piece: initially "tickets" were selling for around $20 million.

"But even if it cost [the RSA] $80 million to launch, it's still significantly cheaper than Shuttle.

According to MSNBC, "Russia is now seen as having the world's safest, most cost-effective human spaceflight system."

It's also—and the irony here is almost painful—the only one you can buy a seat on. This makes the Soyuz both the most capitalist and the least government-funded space transportation option.

3. It never went very high.

Watson said, "The public has this mental image of [the Shuttle] going somewhere between the Earth and the Moon, and the fact is, it's not true."

The Shuttle had an operational altitude of only 120 to 600 miles. However, the Shuttle's trip to the International Space Station (ISS) was only a 200-250 mile journey... approximately the distance between NYC and Boston. The Shuttle also flew to the Hubble Telescope, which is maintained at an altitude of 350 miles, a little less than the distance from NYC to Norfolk, VA.

In case you don't remember it from science class, the distance between the Earth to the Moon is 238,000 miles.

4. It never worked according to parameters.

Plans for the Space Shuttle were created in 1972 as a way to keep the cost of spaceflight down. (And see what happened there.) Each Shuttle was supposed to fly fifty missions per year...yet it averaged approximately four flights a year. And here's a shout-out to the late space station Skylab, which disintegrated in Earth's atmosphere in 1979 because the Shuttle wasn't built in time to boost its orbit.

Each Shuttle was designed for only ten years of life. Keeping the Shuttle flying for twenty years past expiration date stifled creativity and innovation.

Just how bad was the Space Shuttle? Even former NASA administrator Michael Griffin called it "a mistake."

So kid as usual your communist lies are going unheard
18-06-2022 18:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think you can word stuff like this????!? I never said I was the leading architect of the Space Shuttle program!

NONE of it just blew up. Do you REALLY think that space ships or aircraft just 'blow up'????!?


Well then you are currently violating your security clearances in this conversation dick;head

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAT security clearances????!?
Swan wrote:
Yea in fact one blew up on takeoff

NONE blew up on takeoff! You are hallucinating again!
Swan wrote:
likely when the Russian made main engine bolts failed,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There ARE NO RUSSIAN BOLTS! Are you REALLY going to try to blame pilot error on the Russians????!?
Swan wrote:
then they blamed it on an o ring,

Pilot error. The O ring wasn't defective.
Swan wrote:
and the other blew up on reentry because the tiles were damaged on takeoff.

Because of the EPA, dumbass!
Swan wrote:
Everyone knew that they were all going to die on reentry because the damage was seen and critical and there was no way to rescue the 150 IQ retards

Do you think insulting shuttle crews makes any difference????!?


Again if you were involved in the space shuttle program you are in violation of your security clearances and will soon be arrested.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAT SECURITY CLEARANCES?????!? Are you STILL going on about this?????!?
Swan wrote:
If you do not know that two space shuttles blew up the nurse will bring your thorazine sooner if you ring the bell.

Only one shuttle blew up, dumbass. The other burned up on reentry. NONE blew up on takeoff.
Swan wrote:
1. The Shuttle killed more people than any other space vehicle in history.

The explosion of the Challenger killed seven people, six astronauts and one Teacher in Space participant, during the launch of its 10th mission in 1986. The explosion of the Columbia killed seven more during re-entry of its 28th mission in 2003.

Let me spell it out for you: out of five Shuttles--Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor—two met a disastrous and fiery fate. That's a 40% vehicular failure rate (updated) and a flight failure rate of 1.5%. This would have grounded any other vehicle permanently.

To compare, the Apollo I mission resulted in the death three astronauts during a launch pad test. The Mercury and Gemini missions had no fatalities.

The Chinese space program has currently had no fatalities.

As for the Russian space program, one cosmonaut died during the re-entry of the Soyuz 1, and three died on the Soyuz 11 after being exposed to vacuum.

(There is no hard data available on the deaths of Soviet-era cosmonauts, but unsubstantiated rumors suggest that there may have been Soviet casualties in the early days of the space race.)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you REALLY going to quote random news articles as a proof??????!?

No, dude. Challenger was lost due to pilot error. They launched when temperatures were too cold. They knew it. They launched anyway. NASA tried to cover up it's stupid mistake by blaming the O-rings.

Columbia was lost due to the EPA, which required changes in the adhesive used to attach the foam to the fuel tank...an inferior adhesive. The idea was to reduce the ozone hole, of all things!
Swan wrote:
2. It was extremely expensive

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's a government program! What do you expect!
Swan wrote:
You can't put a price on scientific research. But I sure as heck can. A total of 355 people flew on STS (Shuttle Transportation System), and not one of them was me. And I'm not just saying this because I'm jealous as hell, but the Space Shuttle missions cost too much and provided too little.

Nah. You're just jealous as hell.

Swan wrote:
Although NASA says that it cost a trifling $450 million to launch each Shuttle mission, other sources find that price tag vastly underestimated. All five Shuttles flew a total of 135 missions. According to Space.com, in an article written in 2005,

[I]f the space shuttle program is terminated after 2010, then it will have a total lifetime cost of about $173 billion, Pielke reported.

...Given that flight rate, this will result in a total program cost per flight of $1.3 billion, Pielke explained. Of further interest is the average cost per flight from 2004-2010: It is $1.3 billion. The average cost per flight from the middle of 2005 through 2010, assuming 22 flights, is about $1.0 billion, he said.

Nature followed up in 2011:

The US Congress and NASA spent more than US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the shuttle from 1971 to 2010 (see 'A costly enterprise').... During the operational years from 1982 to 2010, the average cost per launch was about $1.2 billion. Over the life of the programme, this increases to about $1.5 billion per launch

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think making up random numbers is a proof?????!?
Swan wrote:
One of the many reasons the Shuttles were so expensive was because some of the equipment used to launch, such as the external tank, were non-reusable and had to be replaced with each launch.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not just the tank, dude!
Swan wrote:
Yet another reason is that the equipment was so very old. Designed in the 1970s and completed in the 1980s, the Shuttle had some modifications over the years, but for the most part, it remained frozen in time. Watson explained.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Presentism! Do you have ANY idea how silly you look pointing to a 1980's era launch system and claiming it is obsolete today?????!? The first flight took place in 1977, not after 1980!
Swan wrote:
"Over thirty years, some companies go out of business, or basically their entire business is that one component, which is being paid for purely by the government. So the cost goes up because they're not selling to anyone else besides the government, and their entire assembly line to build that piece needs to be maintained by the government. These issues led to rising and rising costs."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Rockwell builds a lot more than space shuttles, dumbass!
Swan wrote:
Famously, at one point, NASA had to find parts for the Shuttle--parts that no one else made anymore--on eBay.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Rockwell is still in business dumbass!
Swan wrote:
On the other hand, the Soyuz, the vehicle of choice of the Russian Space Agency (RSA), is less expensive by an order of magnitude. So how much does it cost to launch?

Watson said, "That number has never been publicized by the RSA, but it's rumored to be as low as $45 million. Of course, in accordance with supply & demand, they're now selling seats for $63 million a piece: initially "tickets" were selling for around $20 million.

"But even if it cost [the RSA] $80 million to launch, it's still significantly cheaper than Shuttle.

According to MSNBC, "Russia is now seen as having the world's safest, most cost-effective human spaceflight system."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now you tout a spacecraft that has NO reusable parts as BETTER??????!?
You're comparing Russia's blasted economy as BETTER?????!?
Swan wrote:
It's also—and the irony here is almost painful—the only one you can buy a seat on. This makes the Soyuz both the most capitalist and the least government-funded space transportation option.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Have you already forgotten the NUMEROUS PRIVATE SPACECRAFT that exist today?????!?
Swan wrote:
3. It never went very high.

Watson said, "The public has this mental image of [the Shuttle] going somewhere between the Earth and the Moon, and the fact is, it's not true."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting the Shuttle was ever designed to go to the Moon?????!?
Swan wrote:
The Shuttle had an operational altitude of only 120 to 600 miles. However, the Shuttle's trip to the International Space Station (ISS) was only a 200-250 mile journey... approximately the distance between NYC and Boston. The Shuttle also flew to the Hubble Telescope, which is maintained at an altitude of 350 miles, a little less than the distance from NYC to Norfolk, VA.

In case you don't remember it from science class, the distance between the Earth to the Moon is 238,000 miles.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your pathetic strawman fallacy is ridiculous! The Shuttle was never designed to go to the Moon!!
Swan wrote:
4. It never worked according to parameters.

Plans for the Space Shuttle were created in 1972 as a way to keep the cost of spaceflight down. (And see what happened there.) Each Shuttle was supposed to fly fifty missions per year...yet it averaged approximately four flights a year. And here's a shout-out to the late space station Skylab, which disintegrated in Earth's atmosphere in 1979 because the Shuttle wasn't built in time to boost its orbit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What do you think a Shuttle is going to do??? Shove on Skylab with it's nose???????!?
Swan wrote:
Each Shuttle was designed for only ten years of life. Keeping the Shuttle flying for twenty years past expiration date stifled creativity and innovation.

Just how bad was the Space Shuttle? Even former NASA administrator Michael Griffin called it "a mistake."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Shuttle wasn't designed for more than ten years of use! Why are you making shit up????!?
Swan wrote:
So kid as usual your communist lies are going unheard

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you REALLY going to try this inversion AGAIN?????!?


You are a hopeless idiot. You deny physics. You deny mathematics. You deny history (including the history of the Space Shuttle). You go off on contextomy switches comparing two different eras of space flight to try to condemn the Shuttle. You point to the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT of all places to point to a 'better system', when the Russian government couldn't even BUILD a Space Shuttle (they sure tried!).

You think some kind of security clearance is required to talk about the Space Shuttle, but only by me! You have obviously lost your mind!

You think I'm a communist, of all things! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You have NO IDEA WHAT THE WORD MEANS. Your inability to converse in English is well noted. Your own posts condemn you. You have spent many of them arguing over the meanings of words you do not understand, simply because you don't speak the language!

You think you are omniscience as well, speaking for everyone as if you were God, and describing events 20,000 (or some other random number) of years ago as if you were there to observe them!

You're a religious wackjob, dude. You don't know the language. You don't know history. You don't know science. You don't know mathematics. You are hopelessly illiterate since you have closed your mind to nothing but your religions.

Sucks to be YOU dude!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 18-06-2022 18:56
18-06-2022 23:37
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think you can word stuff like this????!? I never said I was the leading architect of the Space Shuttle program!

NONE of it just blew up. Do you REALLY think that space ships or aircraft just 'blow up'????!?


Well then you are currently violating your security clearances in this conversation dick;head

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAT security clearances????!?
Swan wrote:
Yea in fact one blew up on takeoff

NONE blew up on takeoff! You are hallucinating again!
Swan wrote:
likely when the Russian made main engine bolts failed,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There ARE NO RUSSIAN BOLTS! Are you REALLY going to try to blame pilot error on the Russians????!?
Swan wrote:
then they blamed it on an o ring,

Pilot error. The O ring wasn't defective.
Swan wrote:
and the other blew up on reentry because the tiles were damaged on takeoff.

Because of the EPA, dumbass!
Swan wrote:
Everyone knew that they were all going to die on reentry because the damage was seen and critical and there was no way to rescue the 150 IQ retards

Do you think insulting shuttle crews makes any difference????!?


Again if you were involved in the space shuttle program you are in violation of your security clearances and will soon be arrested.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAT SECURITY CLEARANCES?????!? Are you STILL going on about this?????!?
Swan wrote:
If you do not know that two space shuttles blew up the nurse will bring your thorazine sooner if you ring the bell.

Only one shuttle blew up, dumbass. The other burned up on reentry. NONE blew up on takeoff.
Swan wrote:
1. The Shuttle killed more people than any other space vehicle in history.

The explosion of the Challenger killed seven people, six astronauts and one Teacher in Space participant, during the launch of its 10th mission in 1986. The explosion of the Columbia killed seven more during re-entry of its 28th mission in 2003.

Let me spell it out for you: out of five Shuttles--Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor—two met a disastrous and fiery fate. That's a 40% vehicular failure rate (updated) and a flight failure rate of 1.5%. This would have grounded any other vehicle permanently.

To compare, the Apollo I mission resulted in the death three astronauts during a launch pad test. The Mercury and Gemini missions had no fatalities.

The Chinese space program has currently had no fatalities.

As for the Russian space program, one cosmonaut died during the re-entry of the Soyuz 1, and three died on the Soyuz 11 after being exposed to vacuum.

(There is no hard data available on the deaths of Soviet-era cosmonauts, but unsubstantiated rumors suggest that there may have been Soviet casualties in the early days of the space race.)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you REALLY going to quote random news articles as a proof??????!?

No, dude. Challenger was lost due to pilot error. They launched when temperatures were too cold. They knew it. They launched anyway. NASA tried to cover up it's stupid mistake by blaming the O-rings.

Columbia was lost due to the EPA, which required changes in the adhesive used to attach the foam to the fuel tank...an inferior adhesive. The idea was to reduce the ozone hole, of all things!
Swan wrote:
2. It was extremely expensive

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's a government program! What do you expect!
Swan wrote:
You can't put a price on scientific research. But I sure as heck can. A total of 355 people flew on STS (Shuttle Transportation System), and not one of them was me. And I'm not just saying this because I'm jealous as hell, but the Space Shuttle missions cost too much and provided too little.

Nah. You're just jealous as hell.

Swan wrote:
Although NASA says that it cost a trifling $450 million to launch each Shuttle mission, other sources find that price tag vastly underestimated. All five Shuttles flew a total of 135 missions. According to Space.com, in an article written in 2005,

[I]f the space shuttle program is terminated after 2010, then it will have a total lifetime cost of about $173 billion, Pielke reported.

...Given that flight rate, this will result in a total program cost per flight of $1.3 billion, Pielke explained. Of further interest is the average cost per flight from 2004-2010: It is $1.3 billion. The average cost per flight from the middle of 2005 through 2010, assuming 22 flights, is about $1.0 billion, he said.

Nature followed up in 2011:

The US Congress and NASA spent more than US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the shuttle from 1971 to 2010 (see 'A costly enterprise').... During the operational years from 1982 to 2010, the average cost per launch was about $1.2 billion. Over the life of the programme, this increases to about $1.5 billion per launch

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think making up random numbers is a proof?????!?
Swan wrote:
One of the many reasons the Shuttles were so expensive was because some of the equipment used to launch, such as the external tank, were non-reusable and had to be replaced with each launch.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not just the tank, dude!
Swan wrote:
Yet another reason is that the equipment was so very old. Designed in the 1970s and completed in the 1980s, the Shuttle had some modifications over the years, but for the most part, it remained frozen in time. Watson explained.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Presentism! Do you have ANY idea how silly you look pointing to a 1980's era launch system and claiming it is obsolete today?????!? The first flight took place in 1977, not after 1980!
Swan wrote:
"Over thirty years, some companies go out of business, or basically their entire business is that one component, which is being paid for purely by the government. So the cost goes up because they're not selling to anyone else besides the government, and their entire assembly line to build that piece needs to be maintained by the government. These issues led to rising and rising costs."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Rockwell builds a lot more than space shuttles, dumbass!
Swan wrote:
Famously, at one point, NASA had to find parts for the Shuttle--parts that no one else made anymore--on eBay.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Rockwell is still in business dumbass!
Swan wrote:
On the other hand, the Soyuz, the vehicle of choice of the Russian Space Agency (RSA), is less expensive by an order of magnitude. So how much does it cost to launch?

Watson said, "That number has never been publicized by the RSA, but it's rumored to be as low as $45 million. Of course, in accordance with supply & demand, they're now selling seats for $63 million a piece: initially "tickets" were selling for around $20 million.

"But even if it cost [the RSA] $80 million to launch, it's still significantly cheaper than Shuttle.

According to MSNBC, "Russia is now seen as having the world's safest, most cost-effective human spaceflight system."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now you tout a spacecraft that has NO reusable parts as BETTER??????!?
You're comparing Russia's blasted economy as BETTER?????!?
Swan wrote:
It's also—and the irony here is almost painful—the only one you can buy a seat on. This makes the Soyuz both the most capitalist and the least government-funded space transportation option.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Have you already forgotten the NUMEROUS PRIVATE SPACECRAFT that exist today?????!?
Swan wrote:
3. It never went very high.

Watson said, "The public has this mental image of [the Shuttle] going somewhere between the Earth and the Moon, and the fact is, it's not true."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting the Shuttle was ever designed to go to the Moon?????!?
Swan wrote:
The Shuttle had an operational altitude of only 120 to 600 miles. However, the Shuttle's trip to the International Space Station (ISS) was only a 200-250 mile journey... approximately the distance between NYC and Boston. The Shuttle also flew to the Hubble Telescope, which is maintained at an altitude of 350 miles, a little less than the distance from NYC to Norfolk, VA.

In case you don't remember it from science class, the distance between the Earth to the Moon is 238,000 miles.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your pathetic strawman fallacy is ridiculous! The Shuttle was never designed to go to the Moon!!
Swan wrote:
4. It never worked according to parameters.

Plans for the Space Shuttle were created in 1972 as a way to keep the cost of spaceflight down. (And see what happened there.) Each Shuttle was supposed to fly fifty missions per year...yet it averaged approximately four flights a year. And here's a shout-out to the late space station Skylab, which disintegrated in Earth's atmosphere in 1979 because the Shuttle wasn't built in time to boost its orbit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What do you think a Shuttle is going to do??? Shove on Skylab with it's nose???????!?
Swan wrote:
Each Shuttle was designed for only ten years of life. Keeping the Shuttle flying for twenty years past expiration date stifled creativity and innovation.

Just how bad was the Space Shuttle? Even former NASA administrator Michael Griffin called it "a mistake."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Shuttle wasn't designed for more than ten years of use! Why are you making shit up????!?
Swan wrote:
So kid as usual your communist lies are going unheard

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you REALLY going to try this inversion AGAIN?????!?


You are a hopeless idiot. You deny physics. You deny mathematics. You deny history (including the history of the Space Shuttle). You go off on contextomy switches comparing two different eras of space flight to try to condemn the Shuttle. You point to the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT of all places to point to a 'better system', when the Russian government couldn't even BUILD a Space Shuttle (they sure tried!).

You think some kind of security clearance is required to talk about the Space Shuttle, but only by me! You have obviously lost your mind!

You think I'm a communist, of all things! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You have NO IDEA WHAT THE WORD MEANS. Your inability to converse in English is well noted. Your own posts condemn you. You have spent many of them arguing over the meanings of words you do not understand, simply because you don't speak the language!

You think you are omniscience as well, speaking for everyone as if you were God, and describing events 20,000 (or some other random number) of years ago as if you were there to observe them!

You're a religious wackjob, dude. You don't know the language. You don't know history. You don't know science. You don't know mathematics. You are hopelessly illiterate since you have closed your mind to nothing but your religions.

Sucks to be YOU dude!


Says the buffoon who denies that the Earth has any kind of climate. Again your obamacare covers psychiatric care, but you have to take the first step.

So please, just do it



.
19-06-2022 02:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think you can word stuff like this????!? I never said I was the leading architect of the Space Shuttle program!

NONE of it just blew up. Do you REALLY think that space ships or aircraft just 'blow up'????!?


Well then you are currently violating your security clearances in this conversation dick;head

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAT security clearances????!?
Swan wrote:
Yea in fact one blew up on takeoff

NONE blew up on takeoff! You are hallucinating again!
Swan wrote:
likely when the Russian made main engine bolts failed,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There ARE NO RUSSIAN BOLTS! Are you REALLY going to try to blame pilot error on the Russians????!?
Swan wrote:
then they blamed it on an o ring,

Pilot error. The O ring wasn't defective.
Swan wrote:
and the other blew up on reentry because the tiles were damaged on takeoff.

Because of the EPA, dumbass!
Swan wrote:
Everyone knew that they were all going to die on reentry because the damage was seen and critical and there was no way to rescue the 150 IQ retards

Do you think insulting shuttle crews makes any difference????!?


Again if you were involved in the space shuttle program you are in violation of your security clearances and will soon be arrested.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAT SECURITY CLEARANCES?????!? Are you STILL going on about this?????!?
Swan wrote:
If you do not know that two space shuttles blew up the nurse will bring your thorazine sooner if you ring the bell.

Only one shuttle blew up, dumbass. The other burned up on reentry. NONE blew up on takeoff.
Swan wrote:
1. The Shuttle killed more people than any other space vehicle in history.

The explosion of the Challenger killed seven people, six astronauts and one Teacher in Space participant, during the launch of its 10th mission in 1986. The explosion of the Columbia killed seven more during re-entry of its 28th mission in 2003.

Let me spell it out for you: out of five Shuttles--Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor—two met a disastrous and fiery fate. That's a 40% vehicular failure rate (updated) and a flight failure rate of 1.5%. This would have grounded any other vehicle permanently.

To compare, the Apollo I mission resulted in the death three astronauts during a launch pad test. The Mercury and Gemini missions had no fatalities.

The Chinese space program has currently had no fatalities.

As for the Russian space program, one cosmonaut died during the re-entry of the Soyuz 1, and three died on the Soyuz 11 after being exposed to vacuum.

(There is no hard data available on the deaths of Soviet-era cosmonauts, but unsubstantiated rumors suggest that there may have been Soviet casualties in the early days of the space race.)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you REALLY going to quote random news articles as a proof??????!?

No, dude. Challenger was lost due to pilot error. They launched when temperatures were too cold. They knew it. They launched anyway. NASA tried to cover up it's stupid mistake by blaming the O-rings.

Columbia was lost due to the EPA, which required changes in the adhesive used to attach the foam to the fuel tank...an inferior adhesive. The idea was to reduce the ozone hole, of all things!
Swan wrote:
2. It was extremely expensive

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's a government program! What do you expect!
Swan wrote:
You can't put a price on scientific research. But I sure as heck can. A total of 355 people flew on STS (Shuttle Transportation System), and not one of them was me. And I'm not just saying this because I'm jealous as hell, but the Space Shuttle missions cost too much and provided too little.

Nah. You're just jealous as hell.

Swan wrote:
Although NASA says that it cost a trifling $450 million to launch each Shuttle mission, other sources find that price tag vastly underestimated. All five Shuttles flew a total of 135 missions. According to Space.com, in an article written in 2005,

[I]f the space shuttle program is terminated after 2010, then it will have a total lifetime cost of about $173 billion, Pielke reported.

...Given that flight rate, this will result in a total program cost per flight of $1.3 billion, Pielke explained. Of further interest is the average cost per flight from 2004-2010: It is $1.3 billion. The average cost per flight from the middle of 2005 through 2010, assuming 22 flights, is about $1.0 billion, he said.

Nature followed up in 2011:

The US Congress and NASA spent more than US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the shuttle from 1971 to 2010 (see 'A costly enterprise').... During the operational years from 1982 to 2010, the average cost per launch was about $1.2 billion. Over the life of the programme, this increases to about $1.5 billion per launch

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you REALLY think making up random numbers is a proof?????!?
Swan wrote:
One of the many reasons the Shuttles were so expensive was because some of the equipment used to launch, such as the external tank, were non-reusable and had to be replaced with each launch.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not just the tank, dude!
Swan wrote:
Yet another reason is that the equipment was so very old. Designed in the 1970s and completed in the 1980s, the Shuttle had some modifications over the years, but for the most part, it remained frozen in time. Watson explained.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Presentism! Do you have ANY idea how silly you look pointing to a 1980's era launch system and claiming it is obsolete today?????!? The first flight took place in 1977, not after 1980!
Swan wrote:
"Over thirty years, some companies go out of business, or basically their entire business is that one component, which is being paid for purely by the government. So the cost goes up because they're not selling to anyone else besides the government, and their entire assembly line to build that piece needs to be maintained by the government. These issues led to rising and rising costs."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Rockwell builds a lot more than space shuttles, dumbass!
Swan wrote:
Famously, at one point, NASA had to find parts for the Shuttle--parts that no one else made anymore--on eBay.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Rockwell is still in business dumbass!
Swan wrote:
On the other hand, the Soyuz, the vehicle of choice of the Russian Space Agency (RSA), is less expensive by an order of magnitude. So how much does it cost to launch?

Watson said, "That number has never been publicized by the RSA, but it's rumored to be as low as $45 million. Of course, in accordance with supply & demand, they're now selling seats for $63 million a piece: initially "tickets" were selling for around $20 million.

"But even if it cost [the RSA] $80 million to launch, it's still significantly cheaper than Shuttle.

According to MSNBC, "Russia is now seen as having the world's safest, most cost-effective human spaceflight system."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now you tout a spacecraft that has NO reusable parts as BETTER??????!?
You're comparing Russia's blasted economy as BETTER?????!?
Swan wrote:
It's also—and the irony here is almost painful—the only one you can buy a seat on. This makes the Soyuz both the most capitalist and the least government-funded space transportation option.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Have you already forgotten the NUMEROUS PRIVATE SPACECRAFT that exist today?????!?
Swan wrote:
3. It never went very high.

Watson said, "The public has this mental image of [the Shuttle] going somewhere between the Earth and the Moon, and the fact is, it's not true."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting the Shuttle was ever designed to go to the Moon?????!?
Swan wrote:
The Shuttle had an operational altitude of only 120 to 600 miles. However, the Shuttle's trip to the International Space Station (ISS) was only a 200-250 mile journey... approximately the distance between NYC and Boston. The Shuttle also flew to the Hubble Telescope, which is maintained at an altitude of 350 miles, a little less than the distance from NYC to Norfolk, VA.

In case you don't remember it from science class, the distance between the Earth to the Moon is 238,000 miles.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your pathetic strawman fallacy is ridiculous! The Shuttle was never designed to go to the Moon!!
Swan wrote:
4. It never worked according to parameters.

Plans for the Space Shuttle were created in 1972 as a way to keep the cost of spaceflight down. (And see what happened there.) Each Shuttle was supposed to fly fifty missions per year...yet it averaged approximately four flights a year. And here's a shout-out to the late space station Skylab, which disintegrated in Earth's atmosphere in 1979 because the Shuttle wasn't built in time to boost its orbit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What do you think a Shuttle is going to do??? Shove on Skylab with it's nose???????!?
Swan wrote:
Each Shuttle was designed for only ten years of life. Keeping the Shuttle flying for twenty years past expiration date stifled creativity and innovation.

Just how bad was the Space Shuttle? Even former NASA administrator Michael Griffin called it "a mistake."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Shuttle wasn't designed for more than ten years of use! Why are you making shit up????!?
Swan wrote:
So kid as usual your communist lies are going unheard

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you REALLY going to try this inversion AGAIN?????!?


You are a hopeless idiot. You deny physics. You deny mathematics. You deny history (including the history of the Space Shuttle). You go off on contextomy switches comparing two different eras of space flight to try to condemn the Shuttle. You point to the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT of all places to point to a 'better system', when the Russian government couldn't even BUILD a Space Shuttle (they sure tried!).

You think some kind of security clearance is required to talk about the Space Shuttle, but only by me! You have obviously lost your mind!

You think I'm a communist, of all things! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You have NO IDEA WHAT THE WORD MEANS. Your inability to converse in English is well noted. Your own posts condemn you. You have spent many of them arguing over the meanings of words you do not understand, simply because you don't speak the language!

You think you are omniscience as well, speaking for everyone as if you were God, and describing events 20,000 (or some other random number) of years ago as if you were there to observe them!

You're a religious wackjob, dude. You don't know the language. You don't know history. You don't know science. You don't know mathematics. You are hopelessly illiterate since you have closed your mind to nothing but your religions.

Sucks to be YOU dude!


Says the buffoon who denies that the Earth has any kind of climate. Again your obamacare covers psychiatric care, but you have to take the first step.

So please, just do it


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obamacare doesn't exist anymore! Most of it has collapsed!
Have you AGAIN FORGOTTEN my posts????!? Earth has many climates! There is no global climate. Do you think your word stuffing is going to make ANY difference?????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-06-2022 03:07
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Says the buffoon who denies that the Earth has any kind of climate. Again your obamacare covers psychiatric care, but you have to take the first step.

So please, just do it

[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obamacare doesn't exist anymore! Most of it has collapsed!
Have you AGAIN FORGOTTEN my posts????!? Earth has many climates! There is no global climate. Do you think your word stuffing is going to make ANY difference?????!?[/quote]

LOL if you do not have health insurance you can get obamacare here now in 2022.

https://www.obamacare-plans.com/?_ci=30241102&_ai=&_d=c;CQ0-3n1teJDpzIT3DJe2Z3Of47CyGNrRs9eC15gBCfO9jjG4_eW9xCgj6eQseUMSxfyJqOED0-s_vFSJfMLDAS8hckT1eg&gclid=CjwKCAjw77WVBhBuEiwAJ-YoJAD8fg3Y5Bu5AtvLwcYGwz1QKReUIfkIOTGecofIUOqRgBO_5HAaoBoCLhEQAvD_BwE

https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-2022/

Take the first step, sign up for obamacare now
19-06-2022 03:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
...repairing damaged quoting...
Swan wrote:
Says the buffoon who denies that the Earth has any kind of climate. Again your obamacare covers psychiatric care, but you have to take the first step.

So please, just do it

Into the Night wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obamacare doesn't exist anymore! Most of it has collapsed!
Have you AGAIN FORGOTTEN my posts????!? Earth has many climates! There is no global climate. Do you think your word stuffing is going to make ANY difference?????!?


LOL if you do not have health insurance you can get obamacare here now in 2022.

https://www.obamacare-plans.com/?_ci=30241102&_ai=&_d=c;CQ0-3n1teJDpzIT3DJe2Z3Of47CyGNrRs9eC15gBCfO9jjG4_eW9xCgj6eQseUMSxfyJqOED0-s_vFSJfMLDAS8hckT1eg&gclid=CjwKCAjw77WVBhBuEiwAJ-YoJAD8fg3Y5Bu5AtvLwcYGwz1QKReUIfkIOTGecofIUOqRgBO_5HAaoBoCLhEQAvD_BwE

https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-2022/

Take the first step, sign up for obamacare now


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you REALLY going to point to the Ministry of Truth as a proof??????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 19-06-2022 03:40
19-06-2022 04:32
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obamacare doesn't exist anymore! Most of it has collapsed!
Have you AGAIN FORGOTTEN my posts????!? Earth has many climates! There is no global climate. Do you think your word stuffing is going to make ANY difference?????!?[/quote]

Says the schizzo who actually says that obamacare does not exist, then says that most of it has collapsed. So which is it, obamacare does not exist, or it does exist?

This defines schizophrenia
19-06-2022 05:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obamacare doesn't exist anymore! Most of it has collapsed!
Have you AGAIN FORGOTTEN my posts????!? Earth has many climates! There is no global climate. Do you think your word stuffing is going to make ANY difference?????!?[/quote]

Says the schizzo who actually says that obamacare does not exist, then says that most of it has collapsed. So which is it, obamacare does not exist, or it does exist?

This defines schizophrenia[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you going to try your psychoquackery YET AGAIN????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-06-2022 13:24
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
LOL tell the group again that obamacare does not exist anymore.

Actually there is an entire world outside of your mom's basement, that you will never know about.

CIAO
Edited on 19-06-2022 13:27
19-06-2022 22:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:LOL tell the group again that obamacare does not exist anymore.

What's Obama-care?

Swan wrote:Actually there is an entire world outside of your mom's basement,

Actually, it's an incomplete world outside; it's missing a mom's basement.

20-06-2022 02:46
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL tell the group again that obamacare does not exist anymore.

What's Obama-care?

Swan wrote:Actually there is an entire world outside of your mom's basement,

Actually, it's an incomplete world outside; it's missing a mom's basement.



Sorry I am not certified to teach kindergarten.
20-06-2022 03:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Sorry I am not even certified to teach kindergarten, much less anything more advanced than that ... but I can show you how to give either your climate or yourself an enema

.
Attached image:

20-06-2022 04:17
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Sorry I am not even certified to teach kindergarten, much less anything more advanced than that ... but I can show you how to give either your climate or yourself an enema

.


Very intellectual indeed.
20-06-2022 08:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Very intellectual indeed.

I just want to build on your success.

If I can see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of mental giants, like you.
Attached image:

20-06-2022 13:18
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Very intellectual indeed.

I just want to build on your success.

If I can see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of mental giants, like you.


What does it feel like to be totally owned?

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/macroandmicroclimate-170324072613/95/macro-and-micro-climate-6-638.jpg?cb=1490340475

.
Edited on 20-06-2022 13:29
20-06-2022 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Very intellectual indeed.

I just want to build on your success.

If I can see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of mental giants, like you.


Like the addition of the polar bear on the truck!



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-06-2022 19:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Very intellectual indeed.

I just want to build on your success.

If I can see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of mental giants, like you.


Like the addition of the polar bear on the truck!


The Paris Louvre museum of fine art is going to be contacting you reguarding the purchase of your fine polar bear art
21-06-2022 00:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(918)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Very intellectual indeed.

I just want to build on your success.

If I can see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of mental giants, like you.


Like the addition of the polar bear on the truck!



I miss your sister. She was a voice of reason. Why'd you bannner?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_River_(film)
Edited on 21-06-2022 00:59
21-06-2022 01:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:What does it feel like to be totally owned?

It's way too funny when someone who is egregiously mistaken points to others on the internet who are equally mistaken.

How does it feel to allow your gullibility to cause you to be led astray by nameless, faceless strangers?

... but worry not! You'll always have me here to give you the correct answers.

Enjoy!
21-06-2022 02:42
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:What does it feel like to be totally owned?

It's way too funny when someone who is egregiously mistaken points to others on the internet who are equally mistaken.

How does it feel to allow your gullibility to cause you to be led astray by nameless, faceless strangers?

... but worry not! You'll always have me here to give you the correct answers.

Enjoy!



Bandžiau tai išversti, bet neatrodo, kad tai jokia žinoma kalba. Ar galite pabandyti dar kartą lietuviškai?

Yaen
21-06-2022 22:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Bandžiau tai išversti, bet neatrodo, kad tai jokia žinoma kalba. Ar galite pabandyti dar kartą lietuviškai?

Yaen

Žinoma, tai nėra problema. Visada duosiu teisingus atsakymus. Nebijokite užduoti man savo sunkiausių klausimų.

.
Attached image:

22-06-2022 05:34
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1109)
The perfect song to play when following along with the conversations between Swan, IBM, and ITN.

https://youtu.be/ZnHmskwqCCQ


22-06-2022 05:38
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1109)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Very intellectual indeed.

I just want to build on your success.

If I can see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of mental giants, like you.


Like the addition of the polar bear on the truck!



I miss your sister. She was a voice of reason. Why'd you bannner?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_River_(film)


As usual, little clue what you're talking about James.

Maybe i'll watch that movie Wind River to see if some inspiration strikes me. It's free on Pluto TV. Seems pretty heavy.


22-06-2022 06:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Into the Night wrote:Like the addition of the polar bear on the truck!

I forgot to mention, that polar bear pictured on the truck is Ralph, not Frank. Sven is the truck driver who was standing on the wrong side of the truck when the picture was taken. He's always in the wrong place at the wrong time.



I did not have permission to alter the image, but I'm not making any money off it.

Page 7 of 7<<<567





Join the debate Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Co2 ice samples1102-06-2022 22:44
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..7107-05-2022 20:14
The Real Proof Why Corona Virus COVID Is A Scam Event To Enslave People124-06-2021 16:48
CO2 sensor1219-06-2021 03:40
If CO2 Is The True Cause Of Climate Change So Why Ancient Lost Civilizations With Zero CO2 Collapsed ?!117-06-2021 18:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact