Well Space X aced another controlled landing. Will be using really low IQ astronuts

Swan wrote:So anyone want to argue about the dumbest landing technique in the history of aviation?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So anyone want to argue about the dumbest landing technique in the history of aviation?

I want to argue it.

I claim that the Air Force F-16 pilot who pioneered the habit ... er, ummm, the "technique" of landing upon emerging from a full loop ... until he had to eject because he initiated the loop at too low of an altitude.

He flew a desk from that point thereafter.

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So anyone want to argue about the dumbest landing technique in the history of aviation?

I want to argue it.

I claim that the Air Force F-16 pilot who pioneered the habit ... er, ummm, the "technique" of landing upon emerging from a full loop ... until he had to eject because he initiated the loop at too low of an altitude.

He flew a desk from that point thereafter.

.

Nah would the pilots of the space x firecracker be desk jockeys after getting toasted?

LOL hardly

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So anyone want to argue about the dumbest landing technique in the history of aviation?

I want to argue it.

I claim that the Air Force F-16 pilot who pioneered the habit ... er, ummm, the "technique" of landing upon emerging from a full loop ... until he had to eject because he initiated the loop at too low of an altitude.

He flew a desk from that point thereafter.

.

Nah would the pilots of the space x firecracker be desk jockeys after getting toasted?

LOL hardly

It wasn't piloted. It was all remotely controlled by a computer. Funny story. When I was in the Navy, they used computers to control the landings of aircraft.
Then the airplane could match the pitch and yaw of the carrier more precisely.
You've probably never watched carrier landings but the planes would be rocking from side to side. They were matching the ships roll.

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So anyone want to argue about the dumbest landing technique in the history of aviation?

I want to argue it.

I claim that the Air Force F-16 pilot who pioneered the habit ... er, ummm, the "technique" of landing upon emerging from a full loop ... until he had to eject because he initiated the loop at too low of an altitude.

He flew a desk from that point thereafter.

.

Nah would the pilots of the space x firecracker be desk jockeys after getting toasted?

LOL hardly

It wasn't piloted. It was all remotely controlled by a computer. Funny story. When I was in the Navy, they used computers to control the landings of aircraft.
Then the airplane could match the pitch and yaw of the carrier more precisely.
You've probably never watched carrier landings but the planes would be rocking from side to side. They were matching the ships roll.

Dude it blew up, total failure. You wanna fly in that piece of shit?

You tell good stories.

Lay off the acid

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So anyone want to argue about the dumbest landing technique in the history of aviation?

I want to argue it.

I claim that the Air Force F-16 pilot who pioneered the habit ... er, ummm, the "technique" of landing upon emerging from a full loop ... until he had to eject because he initiated the loop at too low of an altitude.

He flew a desk from that point thereafter.

.

Nah would the pilots of the space x firecracker be desk jockeys after getting toasted?

LOL hardly

It wasn't piloted. It was all remotely controlled by a computer. Funny story. When I was in the Navy, they used computers to control the landings of aircraft.
Then the airplane could match the pitch and yaw of the carrier more precisely.
You've probably never watched carrier landings but the planes would be rocking from side to side. They were matching the ships roll.

Dude it blew up, total failure. You wanna fly in that piece of shit?

You tell good stories.

Lay off the acid

And you're a nobody. What's your point? It's a prototype. They anticipate losing their work in this way. It's not unexpected. This helps them to understand what they need to improve upon. That's the cost of research and development.
You're just buying into the headlines while ignoring the real story. Is this within Space X's budget for R & D? If it is, not a problem.

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So anyone want to argue about the dumbest landing technique in the history of aviation?

I want to argue it.

I claim that the Air Force F-16 pilot who pioneered the habit ... er, ummm, the "technique" of landing upon emerging from a full loop ... until he had to eject because he initiated the loop at too low of an altitude.

He flew a desk from that point thereafter.

.

Nah would the pilots of the space x firecracker be desk jockeys after getting toasted?

LOL hardly

It wasn't piloted. It was all remotely controlled by a computer. Funny story. When I was in the Navy, they used computers to control the landings of aircraft.
Then the airplane could match the pitch and yaw of the carrier more precisely.
You've probably never watched carrier landings but the planes would be rocking from side to side. They were matching the ships roll.

Dude it blew up, total failure. You wanna fly in that piece of shit?

You tell good stories.

Lay off the acid

And you're a nobody. What's your point? It's a prototype. They anticipate losing their work in this way. It's not unexpected. This helps them to understand what they need to improve upon. That's the cost of research and development.
You're just buying into the headlines while ignoring the real story. Is this within Space X's budget for R & D? If it is, not a problem.

LOL the starship is just a disguised Apollo style rocket designed to blow up on landing. Perhaps that ocean splashdown actually made sense.

Now you wanna tell us how you landed jets on carriers with your playstation or xbox

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So anyone want to argue about the dumbest landing technique in the history of aviation?

I want to argue it.

I claim that the Air Force F-16 pilot who pioneered the habit ... er, ummm, the "technique" of landing upon emerging from a full loop ... until he had to eject because he initiated the loop at too low of an altitude.

He flew a desk from that point thereafter.

.

Nah would the pilots of the space x firecracker be desk jockeys after getting toasted?

LOL hardly

It wasn't piloted. It was all remotely controlled by a computer. Funny story. When I was in the Navy, they used computers to control the landings of aircraft.
Then the airplane could match the pitch and yaw of the carrier more precisely.
You've probably never watched carrier landings but the planes would be rocking from side to side. They were matching the ships roll.

Dude it blew up, total failure. You wanna fly in that piece of shit?

You tell good stories.

Lay off the acid

And you're a nobody. What's your point? It's a prototype. They anticipate losing their work in this way. It's not unexpected. This helps them to understand what they need to improve upon. That's the cost of research and development.
You're just buying into the headlines while ignoring the real story. Is this within Space X's budget for R & D? If it is, not a problem.

LOL the starship is just a disguised Apollo style rocket designed to blow up on landing. Perhaps that ocean splashdown actually made sense.

Now you wanna tell us how you landed jets on carriers with your playstation or xbox

I don't play video games unless it's exercises in mathematics. My Sudoku goes from Geometry up to Calculus. I find that more enjoyable. With what you're interested in, it goes back to World War II and the Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Philippines.
It is considered to be the greatest naval battle ever fought. I read that book as well. And I visited the Philippines 3 times and served in the US Navy. I hope you notice these coincidences.
Of course with that battle, the US Navy defeated the Japanese Imperial Navy. That battle essentially ended the Japanese Navy's ability to fight for the rest of that war.
Are you interested in how the US Navy defeated a superior Japanese force? That is a yes or no question. And what allowed the US Navy to win that battle in WW II is what helped aircraft to land on carriers.
And a PlayStation or other electronic device would be too complicated. Something much simpler was used to defeat the Japanese that day. Care to know? You will look stupid when you know the answer. And you will want me to prove that because I served in the Navy.

p.s., while in the US Navy, an officer instructed me never to make a fool of someone because I knew I could. He didn't want me to make an officer look bad.
You're not an officer so I'm game if you are.

Swan wrote:


LOL so you used electronics to control the landing of carrier jets in WW2.

Jesus you are a totally confused buffoon

In another line, this is my father in law on Leyte in 1945


https://imgur.com/a/PJ80m0X

Next

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:


LOL so you used electronics to control the landing of carrier jets in WW2.

Jesus you are a totally confused buffoon

In another line, this is my father in law on Leyte in 1945


https://imgur.com/a/PJ80m0X

Next

Not to disparage him but Leyte Gulf is on the other side of the island. I post about the Battle of Leyte Gulf and you post a picture of "in Leyte" away from the gulf.
The Battle of Leyte Gulf was in October 1944. And we're back to you playing the fool.


p.s., Hedy Lamar helped to invent cell phone technology during the same time period. https://www.hedylamarr.com/
Please don't tell me that you don't know about her contributions during WW II which are still significant today. I like my smartphone and she allows for it to be more difficult to hack.
And Swan, she was famous as an actress in Hollywood. Just was one of the biggest names there was. Please tell me you know this.

James___ wrote:
The other item is a spinning top.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mekf0oycidk
This allowed for the gyroscope. When a ship rolls in the water, the aim of the turret and the firing of the shell can be accounted for if you know math. The ship isn't stationary so it's roll has to be accounted for.
And when firing from 10 miles away, how do you hit the period at the end of a sentence? Most likely the turret was aimed from a specific roll of the ship. If you consider carpentry, try using a plumb bob. Gravity controls its bottom center. And when a ship rolls, it needs to be exact or you can't hit your target.
Basically, they needed to know when in the roll of the ship to fire. After all, when a turret is moving and there's no computer, when to fire? This would be why the gyro mattered. It narrowed that window.

p.s., both of these combined would help an airplane to land on an aircraft carrier.
And this is where we would get into calculus. That would let us know how many calculations per second are needed for course correction.

Fortunately I just watched this video yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z87WPkRrShE

Swan wrote:



So you controlled a landing plane in WW2 with a gyroscope on the ship.

Seriously you need meds

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:



So you controlled a landing plane in WW2 with a gyroscope on the ship.

Seriously you need meds

You are a serious loser Swan. The US winning WW II was a joke from what you posted. And I guess you are right, it is a joke.

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:



So you controlled a landing plane in WW2 with a gyroscope on the ship.

Seriously you need meds

You are a serious loser Swan. The US winning WW II was a joke from what you posted. And I guess you are right, it is a joke.

WW2 is over, now American fighter jets are made in Japan.

Go figure

PS. My father and father in law were both there dude.

Your attitude is a joke. Suggests that you might be on drugs. After all, you are the person ridiculing technology that helped the US and its allies to win. And why technology helping the US and its allies to win is because you don't care for who won the war. It is pretty much that simple.
An FYI, my father's country was occupied by the 3rd Reich. Kind of why I don't make fun of the US helping to win that war. Yet for you, it is a joke. An FYI, I'm not an American even though I have an American mother and am from Ohio.
Why is this? Because you are an American.

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:



So you controlled a landing plane in WW2 with a gyroscope on the ship.

Seriously you need meds

You are a serious loser Swan. The US winning WW II was a joke from what you posted. And I guess you are right, it is a joke.

WW2 is over, now American fighter jets are made in Japan.

Go figure

PS. My father and father in law were both there dude.

Your attitude is a joke. Suggests that you might be on drugs. After all, you are the person ridiculing technology that helped the US and its allies to win. And why technology helping the US and its allies to win is because you don't care for who won the war. It is pretty much that simple.
An FYI, my father's country was occupied by the 3rd Reich. Kind of why I don't make fun of the US helping to win that war. Yet for you, it is a joke. An FYI, I'm not an American even though I have an American mother and am from Ohio.
Why is this? Because you are an American.

Look kid you still haven't explained how you landed jets on carriers remotely and matched the landing to the yaw of the ship.

Eagerly awaiting that

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:



So you controlled a landing plane in WW2 with a gyroscope on the ship.

Seriously you need meds

You are a serious loser Swan. The US winning WW II was a joke from what you posted. And I guess you are right, it is a joke.

WW2 is over, now American fighter jets are made in Japan.

Go figure

PS. My father and father in law were both there dude.

Your attitude is a joke. Suggests that you might be on drugs. After all, you are the person ridiculing technology that helped the US and its allies to win. And why technology helping the US and its allies to win is because you don't care for who won the war. It is pretty much that simple.
An FYI, my father's country was occupied by the 3rd Reich. Kind of why I don't make fun of the US helping to win that war. Yet for you, it is a joke. An FYI, I'm not an American even though I have an American mother and am from Ohio.
Why is this? Because you are an American.

Look kid you still haven't explained how you landed jets on carriers remotely and matched the landing to the yaw of the ship.

Eagerly awaiting that

Maybe you're too old to understand? I mean Thank You for settling the West Gramps. That was before 1880, right? Since then we've invented things like the telegraph and the wireless radio.
Have you ever heard of Marconi or Tesla? They invented wireless transmission of electrical signals. Were you in stasis or something? Stasis is where your body is freeze dried like coffee. Then just add hot water and you have coffee again.
Is that what happened to you?

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:



So you controlled a landing plane in WW2 with a gyroscope on the ship.

Seriously you need meds

You are a serious loser Swan. The US winning WW II was a joke from what you posted. And I guess you are right, it is a joke.

WW2 is over, now American fighter jets are made in Japan.

Go figure

PS. My father and father in law were both there dude.

Your attitude is a joke. Suggests that you might be on drugs. After all, you are the person ridiculing technology that helped the US and its allies to win. And why technology helping the US and its allies to win is because you don't care for who won the war. It is pretty much that simple.
An FYI, my father's country was occupied by the 3rd Reich. Kind of why I don't make fun of the US helping to win that war. Yet for you, it is a joke. An FYI, I'm not an American even though I have an American mother and am from Ohio.
Why is this? Because you are an American.

Look kid you still haven't explained how you landed jets on carriers remotely and matched the landing to the yaw of the ship.

Eagerly awaiting that

Maybe you're too old to understand? I mean Thank You for settling the West Gramps. That was before 1880, right? Since then we've invented things like the telegraph and the wireless radio.
Have you ever heard of Marconi or Tesla? They invented wireless transmission of electrical signals. Were you in stasis or something? Stasis is where your body is freeze dried like coffee. Then just add hot water and you have coffee again.
Is that what happened to you?

LOL you buy any good telegraph stocks today? The difference between you and I is that you are interested in the past and I am interested in the quantum entangled future. Just added more Google A shares in fact.

Now you explain the first tube transistor

Now you explain the first tube transistor

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:



So you controlled a landing plane in WW2 with a gyroscope on the ship.

Seriously you need meds

You are a serious loser Swan. The US winning WW II was a joke from what you posted. And I guess you are right, it is a joke.

WW2 is over, now American fighter jets are made in Japan.

Go figure

PS. My father and father in law were both there dude.

Your attitude is a joke. Suggests that you might be on drugs. After all, you are the person ridiculing technology that helped the US and its allies to win. And why technology helping the US and its allies to win is because you don't care for who won the war. It is pretty much that simple.
An FYI, my father's country was occupied by the 3rd Reich. Kind of why I don't make fun of the US helping to win that war. Yet for you, it is a joke. An FYI, I'm not an American even though I have an American mother and am from Ohio.
Why is this? Because you are an American.

Look kid you still haven't explained how you landed jets on carriers remotely and matched the landing to the yaw of the ship.

Eagerly awaiting that

Maybe you're too old to understand? I mean Thank You for settling the West Gramps. That was before 1880, right? Since then we've invented things like the telegraph and the wireless radio.
Have you ever heard of Marconi or Tesla? They invented wireless transmission of electrical signals. Were you in stasis or something? Stasis is where your body is freeze dried like coffee. Then just add hot water and you have coffee again.
Is that what happened to you?

LOL you buy any good telegraph stocks today? The difference between you and I is that you are interested in the past and I am interested in the quantum entangled future. Just added more Google A shares in fact.

Now you explain the first tube transistor

You can't be interested in Google. Both your father and father in law served in WW II. That makes you about 80 years old. And if you were 80, you'd know who Marconi and Tesla were.
You're not even smart enough to know that the car named Tesla was named after Tesla.
Sadly, when you ask
[url]Now you explain the first tube transistor[/url]
Why? You don't know what it was. I'll send a pm to Duncan61 giving him the answer.

Swan wrote:I'm 55, not 80.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:I'm 55, not 80.

I KNEW it! He's not old enough to have seen the ice age!

Swan wrote:

I'm 55, not 80. My father was born in 1917, he was 48 years old when I was born.

I never mentioned Tesla.

Is this a security clearance test?

I typically pass after embarrassing the Bureau

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:I'm 55, not 80.

I KNEW it! He's not old enough to have seen the ice age!

Never been to the moon either but I know that there is less gravity.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:I'm 55, not 80.

I KNEW it! He's not old enough to have seen the ice age!

Never been to the moon either but I know that there is less gravity.

Never been to Mexico but I know it's there.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:I'm 55, not 80.

I KNEW it! He's not old enough to have seen the ice age!

Never been to the moon either but I know that there is less gravity.

Never been to Mexico but I know it's there.

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:I'm 55, not 80.

I KNEW it! He's not old enough to have seen the ice age!

Never been to the moon either but I know that there is less gravity.

Never been to Mexico but I know it's there.

You old people are all alike. Sheesh!!
You guys need some Geritol?

Swan wrote:
Anytime you want to fall over, just try following

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
Anytime you want to fall over, just try following

Little erratic on your line, eh? Understandable why that would be tough to follow.

See a neurologist.

Swan wrote:Never been to Iran but I know it smells

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:I'm 55, not 80.

I KNEW it! He's not old enough to have seen the ice age!

Never been to the moon either but I know that there is less gravity.

Never been to Mexico but I know it's there.

You old people are all alike. Sheesh!!
You guys need some Geritol?

K2 with D3 beats Geritol every time and keeps me in the hundred mile biking range.

Anytime you want to fall over, just try following

James___ wrote:No one bikes K2 so you're obviously stating random thoughts.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:No one bikes K2 so you're obviously stating random thoughts.

.

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:I'm 55, not 80.

I KNEW it! He's not old enough to have seen the ice age!

Never been to the moon either but I know that there is less gravity.

Never been to Mexico but I know it's there.

You old people are all alike. Sheesh!!
You guys need some Geritol?

K2 with D3 beats Geritol every time and keeps me in the hundred mile biking range.

Anytime you want to fall over, just try following

No one bikes K2 so you're obviously stating random thoughts.
https://static.thousandwonders.net/K2.original.13649.jpg

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

I'm 55, not 80. My father was born in 1917, he was 48 years old when I was born.

I never mentioned Tesla.

Is this a security clearance test?

I typically pass after embarrassing the Bureau

I'm beginning to agree with GasGuzzler. That doesn't happen often. You asked about the first tube transistor and then you avoid your own question. You don't know what one is, do you?
I'll give you the answer, it was Edison's light bulb. See how easy that was? An LED is a light emitting diode. A light bulb is simply a light emitting tube transistor.
And this is where we're back to YAWN.

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

I'm 55, not 80. My father was born in 1917, he was 48 years old when I was born.

I never mentioned Tesla.

Is this a security clearance test?

I typically pass after embarrassing the Bureau

I'm beginning to agree with GasGuzzler. That doesn't happen often. You asked about the first tube transistor and then you avoid your own question. You don't know what one is, do you?
I'll give you the answer, it was Edison's light bulb. See how easy that was? An LED is a light emitting diode. A light bulb is simply a light emitting tube transistor.
And this is where we're back to YAWN.

LOL wrong again, see Edison's light bulb was just not used in the Atanasoff–Berry computer, which is considered the first known example of the modern gate system of computing. So go watch another youtoob video and claim your brilliance based upon that again.

Now back to the theoretical speed of quantum entangled communications. It is being speculated that quantum entanglement is anywhere from instant to 10,000 times light speed, which brings Einstein's relativity concept into question and has certain physicist debating the reality of the entire Universe.

Oh yea, I forgot you are still amazed by the first light bulb.

Sorry

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

Swan wrote:

I'm 55, not 80. My father was born in 1917, he was 48 years old when I was born.

I never mentioned Tesla.

Is this a security clearance test?

I typically pass after embarrassing the Bureau

I'm beginning to agree with GasGuzzler. That doesn't happen often. You asked about the first tube transistor and then you avoid your own question. You don't know what one is, do you?
I'll give you the answer, it was Edison's light bulb. See how easy that was? An LED is a light emitting diode. A light bulb is simply a light emitting tube transistor.
And this is where we're back to YAWN.

LOL wrong again, see Edison's light bulb was just not used in the Atanasoff–Berry computer, which is considered the first known example of the modern gate system of computing. So go watch another youtoob video and claim your brilliance based upon that again.

Now back to the theoretical speed of quantum entangled communications. It is being speculated that quantum entanglement is anywhere from instant to 10,000 times light speed, which brings Einstein's relativity concept into question and has certain physicist debating the reality of the entire Universe.

Oh yea, I forgot you are still amazed by the first light bulb.

Sorry

You didn't say what purpose it had to serve.