Worst PET Ever - The 88's visit the Kennedy Space Center

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:20 pm

Did you get a pic of the rocket bouncing off the Firmament?

I'm asking for someone-----> else.

The Big Pickle · Post by **The Big Pickle** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:24 pm

You got the title right...WORST PET Ever!!!!!

T.R.O.T.S.

This

Shite!!!!!

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:27 pm

Saw the Jan 17 Vandenberg launch of a Falcon 9 from Surf beach. Not sure how far away the pad was, but not much more than a few miles so the sound is a few seconds after the launch. Daytime launch so not as spectacular (but just as real :grin: ) though I have seen a few night launches. There are a few more set for this year if one is a night launch I will try and get a few (better) pics.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:28 pm

Rack the PET and the story. Enjoy the Keys. Lots of good seafood along the highway there. Just pull up places on trip advisor as you are driving and pick one of the top listings.

The fort at the dry tortugas is awesome as well.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:56 pm

Has started not is starting. You think a purse swinger would know these things.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:38 pm

I'm guessing pit stops in Sloppy Joe's and Hogsbreath bars will be in order. A photo at the "southernmost" point. Take in the early evening show at Mallory Square, after watching the sunset. Wonder if the dude and his trained house cats will be there. If you really want to "play tourist" ride on the sightseeing train.

Innocent Bystander · Post by **Innocent Bystander** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:42 pm

Every time someone bitches about a delay or aborted launch, they should play audio of the decision to launch the Challenger for PR.

Being allowed to see the launches with the full cooperation of the government is a privilege not many societies would have ever allowed.

Cool PET.

On to Mars.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:19 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Did you get a pic of the rocket bouncing off the Firmament?

He got no pic of that, and to date, we still have NO video of a rocket ever going from land into space.
Never.

What we have is like -----> Glligans's Island.

"Yeah, we're here. Here we are on this Island. For real. You didn't see us getting here... but yeah, we're here. Trust us."

Have a nice day.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:57 am

thye're going to build something bigger than Saturn V? Florida may capsize when they light that candle.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:00 am

In Re Delta IV
They have shot a few of those bad boys from Vandenberg. I have only seen one. A night launch a few years back from about 10 miles out. I missed both Delta 4 heavies, but there is another one in 2018 I am going to try and make.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:50 am

88 wrote:Dins-

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is ironic that a thumper is asking for proof of anything. Where are the photos of JHC or anything to do with his sitcom?

Well see, they didn't have camera (or rocket) tech back then.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -----> wrote.

What do you imagine?
None of the NASA smart guys have ever thought that it would be really cool and epic to film one of their rockets going all the way to space?

Never thought about putting a cam on an astronaut as he went from inside the ISS, OUT to the vacuum of space?

Never thought about doing a 360 with the camera from outside (or inside) the ISS?

They never did a 360 with the camera here, either...

Have a nice day.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:22 am

If they did or had you would just claim the video was a fake.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:35 am

That did not answer the question.

Surely you're not saying that NASA hasn't shown those things because wingnuts like me wouldn't believe it, anyway.

As posted at .net (and on the *PRIVATE BOARD*)...

1. We have no picture of the ISS pre-assembled on earth. At least not that I've ever seen.

2. Moving at 17,000 mph, astronauts on cords, in space suits, with their lives in danger, assembled all of this. Did it so that it is air-tight and safe. Nobody died. No major malfunctions. Simply put, the greatest engineering feat of our time

... with very very little video of it actually being done. lol

3. When asked about just one small aspect of the PHENOMENAL construction of this structure, and how it could even be possible, Don Petite answers, "It's called, real good engineering."

Of course. They're NASA. They can do pretty much anything. Just believe them.

And now we have this...

And they don't really need a machine shop up there -- because they're NASA.
Really good engineering.

Have a nice day.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:19 am

The ISS is such a completely ridiculous fantasy that it boggles my mind that any non-juvenile would believe it is real.

1. The assembly has been very briefly commented on above. The story is laffable.

2. Whatever they would have as a "machine shop" up there is woefully inadequate. They have no ability at all to handle regular maintenance, let alone more complicated matters. Does nobody have the ability to really think about this?

3. Aircraft maintenance checks...done ON THE GROUND. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_ ... nce_checks

A check - done every 400 to 600 flight hours - is usually on the ground in a hangar for a minimum of 10 hours

B check - done every 6 to 8 months - It needs about 160-180 man-hours, depending on the aircraft, and is usually completed within 1–3 days at an airport hangar.

C check - done about once every two years - The time needed to complete such a check is at least 1–2 weeks and the effort involved can require up to 6,000 man-hours.

D check - done once every six years - This check occurs approximately every six years. It is a check that more or less takes the entire airplane apart for inspection and overhaul. Even the paint may need to be completely removed for further inspection on the fuselage metal skin. Such a check can generally take up to 50,000 man-hours and 2 months to complete.

:|

The ISS has not been on the ground for over 16 years. lol
Traveling continually at 17,000 MPH.

No need to bring it down for maintenance... ever.
No problem.
No machine shop.

They're NASA!

rotf...

Beautiful!

Have a nice day.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:55 pm

Are you still thinking about non stop flights between cities south of the equator? What about non stop flights between cities south of the equator to cities north of the equator? These flight continue on a daily basis, yet they would be impossible in your world view.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:57 pm

I would have loved to have seen all that NASA had to offer when I visited KSC back in 2013. But most of it was closed. Thanks Ted Cruz!

The Big Pickle · Post by **The Big Pickle** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:22 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:I would have loved to have seen all that NASA had to offer when I visited KSC back in 2013. But most of it was closed. Thanks Ted Cruz!

fukkkk off and die, loser!

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:39 pm

Would love to see a launch some day. Even if it's fake.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Drive on up. The Atlas 5 launch just got scrubbed till Feb 9.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:16 pm

Every time Pop tries to show how smart he is, he sounds an order of magnitude dumber... not just "slightly dumber," mind you... his ability to ~~troll~~ run laps around any previous stupidity is nothing short of remarkable.

Yeah, dude -- they need a machine shop to reproduce... the myriad moving parts?

"Moving 17,000 MPH"... thought that one through, did you? I'll give you a hint -- it wouldn't matter if it was moving 170,000MPH... light coming on yet?

Yes folks -- this moron believes the ISS is bouncing around in turbulence like an airliner... because he's a complete failure at physics, math, and anything else that requires an IQ over 70.

Or maybe he just looks up to his intellectual superior -- Tila Tequila.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:19 pm

88 wrote:

HA! You idiot!!!

The "earth" in the background looks----->round.

Obvious fake!

But they did an admirable job replicating near-zero gravity in a studio (CGI assisted, I'm sure).

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:21 am

LS wrote:Are you still thinking about non stop flights between cities south of the equator? What about non stop flights between cities south of the equator to cities north of the equator? These flight continue on a daily basis, yet they would be impossible in your world view.

Seater, I have never claimed that I know the true shape of the earth -- or layout of the continents.
It's just my assumption that we live on a flat, stationary earth which is covered by a firmament -- containing the sun, moon, and stars.

I don't claim to know that the true map of the earth looks like.

I have looked into the flights and don't have a conclusion.
If I ever do, I will post it.

Have a nice day.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:23 am

88 wrote:

I watched and don't know what this is supposed to prove.

Have a nice day.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:55 am

Duncedale wrote:math

Dunce, I would re-post the extreme math lesson embarrassment you endured the last time we spoke, but I know that 90% (or more) of the board would have eyes glazing over.

For me, it is one of THE funniest posts I have ever put up on the boards.

I would hope that someone(s) else laffed, but... I don't bank on it.

So it is.

Duncedale wrote:"Moving 17,000 MPH"... thought that one through, did you? I'll give you a hint -- it wouldn't matter if it was moving 170,000MPH... light coming on yet?

The ISS experiences drag because it is continually being pulled down toward earth.
So they say.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17630218/ns/t ... Ic-VCN94y4

The international space station has been literally falling out of the sky, according to NASA tracking data
obtained by MSNBC.com. Under the inexorable decay of air drag, its orbital path around Earth has slipped
down to 207 miles (332 kilometers), the lowest average altitude in the nine-year life of the project.

A small rocket engine on a docked cargo ship is being fired this week to boost the orbit by a small amount.
But since the orbit is continually dropping at about 300 feet (90 meters) per day, the boost will be eaten up
by the effects of air drag within several weeks...

Duncedale wrote:Yeah, dude -- they need a machine shop to reproduce... the myriad moving parts?

They absolutely need a machine shop -- and a DAMN great one.
The slightest flaw would quite easily be fatal.

The fact that you (or anyone) thinks this thing (with no real machine shop) is flying around for over 16 years without ever coming down to be attended to on the ground is for me, surreal.
And people are living in it.
lol

And these are just some interior pics.

Pull up some pics of what goes on on the outside of the ISS.

Do it.

No machine shop.
Never comes down to the ground to be maintained.
Was assembled completely up in space by men on cords, in space suits, at 17,000 mph.

It's all razzle dazzle bullshit, Dins.

You should be smarter than this.

Children believe in this fairy tale.

Have a nice day.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:04 pm

Dan Vogel wrote: Dunce, I would re-post the extreme math lesson embarrassment you endured the last time we spoke, but I know that 90% (or more) of the board would have eyes glazing over.

Dude who thinks squaring a number over and over describes the arc of a circle sayswhat?

Maybe we should leave the grading of the math papers to someone besides----->you.

Lots of hoses in those pics... I don't really see many moving parts... since there aren't many.

I'm about to go drive a car that's been on t he road over 16 years... I hope it isn't fatal. Weird -- those window seals still keep the water out, but only because there's a bitchin' machine shop in the back seat.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:30 pm

Are you living in your car for 16 years -- without ever leaving it?
Is there a vacuum of space outside it?

Are you 9 years old?

Dunce wrote:Dude who thinks squaring a number over and over describes the arc of a circle sayswhat?

Maybe we should leave the grading of the math papers to someone besides----->you.

Well, you asked for it.

poptart wrote:Over a distance of 70.14 miles (112.88 kilo), earth curvature is 39,370 inches (1 Kilo).

- Dr. D. Stern (NASA)

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Shorizon.htm

Let's see...

8 (inch per mile, approx) x 70.14 x 70.14 = 39,357 inches

Wow, the earth curves at a rate of 8 inches (approx) per mile squared.

Who knew??

LOL at Dunce x infinity x infinity

Stay down.

Have a nice day.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:36 am

Did Vogel just out himself? Or is he part of the flat earf society too?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:39 am

Update your spreadsheet 'holic.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:09 am

Have a nice day.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:38 pm

Dan Vogel wrote: 8 (inch per mile, approx) x 70.14 x 70.14 = 39,357 inches

Interesting.

8 inches is about .67 feet.

.67 * 1 mile = .67, or 8"

So at 2 miles, it's .67 * .67 = ~.45

3 miles - .67 * .67 * .67 = .3

Sounds like a pretty motherfucking stupid formula.

How about we use a different unit of measure. We'll call it a poptart, and it's equal to 8 inches.

At 1 mile, the curve = 1 poptart

2 miles is 1 * 1 = 1 poptart

3 miles is 1 * 1 * 1 = 1 poptart

See, the earth really is flat... or a dish... or a bunch of other shapes, depending on what unit of measurement one plugs into your moronic "formula."

But I understand where you went wrong -- it's your unwavering faith in NASA.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:00 am

Dan Vogel wrote:8 (inch per mile, approx) x 70.14 x 70.14 = 39,357 inches

Dunce wrote:Interesting.

8 inches is about .67 feet.

.67 * 1 mile = .67, or 8"

So at 2 miles, it's .67 * .67 = ~.45

3 miles - .67 * .67 * .67 = .3

Sounds like a pretty motherfucking stupid formula.

Yeah, it's pretty stupid when you can't follow the most basic instruction.
lol

Congratulations.

You are THE biggest 'tard on this board.

Have a nice day.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:48 am

So, this "formula" only works if you use certain units of measure, and only if you combine base-12 and base-10 systems? A formula where one must strictly adhere to certain units of measure, lest one not "follow instructions"?

Are you sure you're not a math teacher? I mean, a formula that can't have both sides of the equation manipulated by the same factors on both sides of the equation is totally legit.

Your allegiance to NASA is duly noted, though.

Math, physics... I can hardy wait for your hot takes on chemistry.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am

Dunce wrote:Interesting.

8 inches is about .67 feet.

.67 * 1 mile = .67, or 8"

So at 2 miles, it's .67 * .67 = ~.45

3 miles - .67 * .67 * .67 = .3

Sounds like a pretty motherfucking stupid formula.

LOL

Dunce, it's MILES squared, not 8" (.67 of a foot) squared.

Dan Vogel wrote:8 (inch per mile, approx) x 70.14 x 70.14 = 39,357 inches

8" per mile squared.
I only repeated this a couple of dozen times on this board.

.67 (of a ft) x 3 miles x 3 miles = 6.03 ft.

Eyes at ground level, expected earth curvature over a 3 mile span is 6 ft

Shutting up now is your best option.
Trust me.

Have a nice day.

atmdad · Post by **atmdad** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:10 am

WTF, we can't devolve this into a 40 page thread

Poptart, what is the;

Mean earth curvature if you were standing on the top of Mt. Everest looking NE into China, say 100 miles in the distance?

Mean earth curvature if you were out in death valley looking west towards Mt. Whitney, heck say 40 miles or s?

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:11 am

If you were on the top of Mt. Everest (29,000 ft) and were looking out 100 miles, you would have 0 ft of curvature.
The distance to the horizon at that height is 208 miles.

If your eyes were at ground level and were looking out at Mt. Whitney 40 miles away, 1,066 ft of the mountain would be hidden due to earth curvature.

http://www.smokescreendesign.com/curvat ... earth.html

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

This is according to the globe earth dimensions we are told are correct.

But as I've posted about repeatedly, the required curvature is -----> NOT THERE.

It is NEVER there.

Oh well.
I must be trolling.

Have a nice day.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:29 am

Now that I have the attention of some of you, and you've maybe clicked those links...

I will revisit this.

A lake is 10 miles across.
From one end of the brown to the other, let's say.

According to globe earth "thought," water bunches up at the tangent point rather than running down to the sides, toward points A and B.

There is a 66 ft high hump in the middle of the lake, they say.

:|

I am aware of no experiment which shows this, and I say, "NO" to their fantasy.

"Undisturbed" water seeks it's level and remains -----> FLAT.

Have a nice day.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:02 pm

Please put your thinking cap on, people.

Have a nice day.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:31 pm

Nice strawman you created with your "Lake" drawing. Where is the lake depth? Where is the relief on either side?

Fail.

Dan Vogel · Post by **Dan Vogel** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:40 pm

The drawing is just to give people a rough visualization of what I am talking about.
It's obviously not close to scale.

The hump on a 10 miles lake is nowhere near that pronounced.
Nonetheless, globe earthers claim that water will pile up at the tangent point rather than sink down to the sides, as we all water behaves.
They (you?) are irrational.

Why does the depth of the lake matter?

Water will sink to the deeper portions of the lake and at the top, the lake will be flat.
At least I say it will.

You say it will have a 66 ft hump in the middle.

I say that is -----> CRAZY.

Have a nice day.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:06 am

Well, it's nice to see pops is outed as the Vogel troll. That said, he's still the same clueless know nothing he's been since...THE BEGINNING.

In the Beginning, God created stupid. And he called it poptart. It wasn't good.

Now why don't you post another black cahck like you are so fond of at .net. Freak.