Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by We Are Borg, Mar 13, 2013.
Here is one where Dayton says space shuttles, specifically the challenger, did not explode. Who knows what goes on in the imbecile's mind.
Technically, he is right. The Challenger itself didn't explode, the solid rocket booster burned a hole into the liquid fuel tank which then exploded. As a launch vehicle assembly, the entire vehicle was part of an explosion, but the actual shuttle didn't explode.
As for the Columbia, it's didn't explode either. The left wing suffered damage to the re-entry heat protection covering. During re-entry the plasma created by the heat of re-entry caused the internal structure of the wing to fail. This caused the shuttle to lose control, the aerodynamic forces then tore the shuttle apart causing it to disintegrate.
You just tried to defend Dayton stupid with semantics. If I were you I would be worrying about that stupid spreading.
Did you OD or are you going through withdrawals? Either way you're coming across as a fucking buffoon.
For the crayon crowd, the entire unit is the space shuttle. That entire unit exploded while doing it's thing. That is a simple explanation, and I am well aware of a complicated set of events that go down to a very specific cause, but in the entire encompassing picture the space shuttle challenger exploded.
The village idiot tried to be a smartass and derail a thread when the meaning of the statement was the fucking thing blew up and killed all the people inside. You get 20 Dayton points for joining him on his mission.
I think the correct distinction would be to say the shuttle did not cause the explosion.
Nonetheless it did explode when caught in the blast.
Actually the space shuttle orbiter Challenger was torn apart by aerodynamic forces after it was thrown into the air stream when the strut connecting it to the ET collapsed due to the plume from the SRB blazing across it.
Mislabeling what happened despite the appearances has a major effect. The idea that the Hindenburg "exploded" presumably because it was filled with hydrogen played a huge role in killing the dirigible industry despite the fact that the Hindenburg actually caught fire rather than exploding. And it is widely believed by visual analysis that the primary thing burning initially was not the hydrogen but the aluminum skin of the air ship.
Ok, how does that change the situation as it relates to the original comments made?
It makes him feel important.
I was just pointing out how perceptions of events can influence the beliefs in what actually happened. You see this here and in the other thread by @Tererun and @Captain Conspiracy who both maintained the "space shuttle Challenger exploded because it looked like an explosion" (or at least what they think explosions look like).
Imagine if investigators of the disaster had focused their investigation of what caused the "explosion" to the exclusion of other factors? It would be like focusing on the Vajont Dam in the disaster of 1963.
Ok, point taken.
Not seeing how the distinction changes anything with regards to the initial point that moon missions are dangerous.
What does space shuttle missions have to do at all with lunar missions?
I'm pretty sure a logical evolution of the shuttle program would have been longer range variants. Might be wrong.
In any case @Tererun was making a generalised comment about the equipment used for spaceflight, not shuttles in particular. Whether it was the shuttle which exploded or the delivery vehicle is indeed important from an investigators' perspective, I take your point there, but I''m not sure any of that invalidates her point or really adds anything to the discussion other than pedantry.
NASA never had any intention of using shuttle hardware for lunar missions or beyond. There were some independent proposals for using shuttle hardware for such missions later when it became clear the shuttle program was falling short of expectations but never a real NASA proposal.
Hence my use of the phrase "logical evolution" rather than "stated aims", reusable vehicles would inevitably have become the MO at some stage.
However, nice diversion, the point is still being subtly missed that @Tererun wasn't making a comment specifically about shuttles.
I can only go by what he posted. I don't get any consideration for what I "intended" or "meant". Why should he?
How about that, you tried to make Dayon look idiotic, but only managed to make yourself look dumber than you tried to make him look. That's quite an accomplishment.
I didn't post the second one
Yeah, @RickDeckard got @NotDayton-ed.
I did too, but it's not too far off from the actual response.
From Media Central, somehow.
If he were perma-banned from this place, he'd really have nothing.
...let's do it.
It's not them, it's you
I'll admit that I'm not that much of a people person. I've had friends before. Like the two guys that I met in college who became my best man and one of my groomsman at my wedding but after I got married we grew apart. And I had three friends at Augusta. Fellow teachers. But one of them left the profession to become a state police officer while another got a job at a nearby school so I didn't see him regularly. And the third was with the new head football coach at Augusta but after I left there we didn't see each other much.
For me at least, a "friend" must be someone that is a regular part of your life and of course if they're not around much you aren't really friends any more. Otherwise they are simply "acquaintances" I do have plenty of those
I know you want to zing Dayton, but words still have meaning, even if you don't like that the broken Dayton clock was right.
From his explaination right here in the thread, it's clear he knows the Challenger was destroyed.
Take the L, pick a better battle and lose the Chup routine. I haven't missed it these last eight months and it doesn't need reviving.
Should the title be edited to include @Tracker in it? Does @We Are Borg still have the editing tools available to do so, or would the mods need to do it?
That is old and over. It is a general pointless semantics argument where Dayton was trying to look smart, but was being a smartass. It belonged here more than in the other thread.
Separate names with a comma.