Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BADMENTON

FKN ALIENS BRO

Recommended Posts

ZOMG!!!! You just discovered the location of racewars!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the 3 runways are 1 kilometer , 2 kilometers and 4 kilometers , Im not a plane designer , but what plane needs 4 kilometrs to land or take off ???????

 

the space shuttle utilises about 13000 ft of runway distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one day I will work there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the 3 runways are 1 kilometer , 2 kilometers and 4 kilometers , Im not a plane designer , but what plane needs 4 kilometrs to land or take off ???????

I just explained why some aircraft need that much room to take off.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the 3 runways are 1 kilometer , 2 kilometers and 4 kilometers , Im not a plane designer , but what plane needs 4 kilometrs to land or take off ???????

 

the space shuttle utilises about 13000 ft of runway distance.

 

 

I dont think that experimental aircraft would use 4 kilometers of runway to take off , the whole advance in modern technoligy is to make it lighter , and take off and land in shorter spaces .

 

And as much as the space shuttle uses almost 4 k's of runway to stop , almost explains why space craft need a large area to land , because of our gravity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the 3 runways are 1 kilometer , 2 kilometers and 4 kilometers , Im not a plane designer , but what plane needs 4 kilometrs to land or take off ???????

 

the space shuttle utilises about 13000 ft of runway distance.

 

 

I dont think that experimental aircraft would use 4 kilometers of runway to take off , the whole advance in modern technoligy is to make it lighter , and take off and land in shorter spaces .

You know nothing about aircraft or the design process of an aircraft, do some research on the subject before you start making statements. You will look less dumb.

 

And as much as the space shuttle uses almost 4 k's of runway to stop , almost explains why space craft need a large area to land , because of our gravity

How many space craft, (human or alien, real or fictional) have you seen using a runway of any sort?

It is impossible to explain any facts to you because you clearly cannot even grasp the very basics of the concept.

 

And how do you know the gravity of this theoretical alien planet is lower than ours?

It is equally possible that the gravity on said planet could be higher!

 

Space craft don't even use wings to fly because there is no air to fly through in space ffs! Why would they need to use a runway??

 

Even the space shuttle doesn't need one to take off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the 3 runways are 1 kilometer , 2 kilometers and 4 kilometers , Im not a plane designer , but what plane needs 4 kilometrs to land or take off ???????

 

the space shuttle utilises about 13000 ft of runway distance.

 

 

I dont think that experimental aircraft would use 4 kilometers of runway to take off , the whole advance in modern technoligy is to make it lighter , and take off and land in shorter spaces .

 

And as much as the space shuttle uses almost 4 k's of runway to stop , almost explains why space craft need a large area to land , because of our gravity

 

 

would be a good idea to give enough runway left to land and stop an experimental aircraft on the same bit of runway it took off on in event of an engine failure. it hell of alot cheaper than to say crashland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed to be an expert , and if my replies make me look dumb then so be it .....Maybe you should take a little more effort in explaining things in stead of ripping into me over my replies , if this is the level of convesation I can come to expect over a suposed reality , then I will finish any thing to do with this subject

 

oh and I do understand the basic concept of flight and lift , and if it takes mathamatical genious to work out flight , then how the hell am I suposed to do it , last time I looked I was a truck driver that has an interest in cars , and an imagination in regaurds to this subject

 

And Lucky , I see where your comming from with what your saying , I was only pointing out the size of the runways I had seen on Google maps , and in my own imagination couldnt get a grip of the concept of several large runways and why its in place .

 

oh and as for your quote chappy "Space craft don't even use wings to fly because there is no air to fly through in space ffs! Why would they need to use a runway?? "

then why does the space shuttle have one concidering its a space vehicle , last time I looked rockets didnt have wings ? :P ( ps this last comment was a joke with sarcasm on my behalf so dont take offence to it )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would be a good idea to give enough runway left to land and stop an experimental aircraft on the same bit of runway it took off on in event of an engine failure. it hell of alot cheaper than to say crashland.

 

This seems pretty likely. Edwards Air Force Base, also used to test experimental aircraft, has a partially paved, partially salt lake 12km long runway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed to be an expert , and if my replies make me look dumb then so be it .....Maybe you should take a little more effort in explaining things in stead of ripping into me over my replies , if this is the level of convesation I can come to expect over a suposed reality , then I will finish any thing to do with this subject

 

oh and I do understand the basic concept of flight and lift , and if it takes mathamatical genious to work out flight , then how the hell am I suposed to do it , last time I looked I was a truck driver that has an interest in cars , and an imagination in regaurds to this subject

 

And Lucky , I see where your comming from with what your saying , I was only pointing out the size of the runways I had seen on Google maps , and in my own imagination couldnt get a grip of the concept of several large runways and why its in place .

 

oh and as for your quote chappy "Space craft don't even use wings to fly because there is no air to fly through in space ffs! Why would they need to use a runway?? "

then why does the space shuttle have one concidering its a space vehicle , last time I looked rockets didnt have wings ? :P ( ps this last comment was a joke with sarcasm on my behalf so dont take offence to it )

I'm sorry i got snappy, i had an early morning and was losing patience, i will try to explain it better.

 

The space shuttle does not use wings to take off, it uses them to allow it to land without the need for parachutes. The space Shuttle cannot take off from a runway.

Before the space shuttle, the only way to land was in a landing capsule. They would fall through the upper atmosphere then deploy parachutes to slow it down at the last few thousand feet. Even then it had to crash into the sea and wait to be picked up by waiting ships.

Many astronaughts got sea sick from bobbing around in the ocean waiting to be picked up, and i know of at least one landing capsule that was lost after it got hit by a wave of water while the door was open and it sank.

This is not a good way to work when you want a space craft that is able to be re-used within weeks of landing.

That and these capsules were too small to carry large cargo such as pieces of the International Space Station.

 

A supersonic aircraft's wings need to be very thin in order for it to achieve high speed, Thicker wings like you see on air liners are only effective at airliner speeds (around 600-800km/h).

These aircraft only need to do around 250km/h in order to lift off the ground.

For a supersonic aircraft to take off, it needs to reach speeds of around 600km/h to get off the ground (as an example, i am not using exact figures here).

For this reason, a supersonic aircraft like the B2 Stealth Bomber (which lived in Area 51 for a decade or two before it was made public) will generally need more room to take off.

So let's assume the B2 needs 2km of room ot take off, why 4km?

Remember we are using experimental aircraft, many top secret aircraft use Area 51 to make their very first flight. During takeoff anything could go wrong.

At takeoff speeds the aircraft will reach the end of the runway very quickly, if something was to go wrong at takeoff speed and the aircraft fails to lift off, on a short runway it could hit the end and crash. These are usually multi-billion dollar prototypes that could take years to replace, so a crash would be a very bad thing.

Having such a long runway gives ample time for the test pilot to get a handle on the situation and iether use the rest of the runway to stop, or if he is confident enough, get the plane in the air.

Even then, 3km might be all he needs, but we are dealing with unknown flight characteristics, so they need to make absolutely sure they have the room.

 

Most standard airports don't test experimental aircraft, so they only send aircraft there if they know the runway is long enough after performing extensive flight tests on each aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the US has appointed an Alien Spokesman to there cabnet , I wouldnt be suprised if there is some remote chance that there is alien life form already living here on earth or are visiting this planet already , more than the US is leading us to believe simply for the fact of mass panic around the world

 

 

I am a firm believer that the US is hideing more than they are letting on about Alien forms , have a look at area 51 in the us , there runway is massive its several times longer than london airport , and when you look at sizemic activity near area 51 , it doesnt take a scientist to work out that there is some thing fishy going on

 

My dad's uncle (my great uncle) worked for NASA as one of the head engineers for a few of the greatest planes/bombers like the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117 Stealth Fighter, B-2 Stealth Bomber.

 

Being so high up and needing to be there to see testing he has been to Groom Lake Air Force Base and he say's it feel's like a normal Air Base. Nothing to strange.

 

Reason for such high security is to protect the project's from spys and the like. It is a testing base after all.

 

He never said anything about going underground but everytime we have had a family reunion and we make it over to the State's I ask as many questions about the place as I can as it all interest's me lol.

 

They do some random testing to see what happens but other then that, I don't know. He say's he's been all over the base and hasn't seen anything weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Import s13 maybe the aliens are mind controlling him to not say anything.......... Or a secret government brain chip! Trust nobody...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....Maybe

 

If your keen, I might know someone who will give you an anal probe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The space shuttle does not use wings to take off, it uses them to allow it to land without the need for parachutes. The space Shuttle cannot take off from a runway.

Before the space shuttle, the only way to land was in a landing capsule. They would fall through the upper atmosphere then deploy parachutes to slow it down at the last few thousand feet. Even then it had to crash into the sea and wait to be picked up by waiting ships.

Many astronaughts got sea sick from bobbing around in the ocean waiting to be picked up, and i know of at least one landing capsule that was lost after it got hit by a wave of water while the door was open and it sank.

This is not a good way to work when you want a space craft that is able to be re-used within weeks of landing.

That and these capsules were too small to carry large cargo such as pieces of the International Space Station.

 

 

I'd rather a capsule that could sink than a shuttle fleet that has a tendency to explode.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arent they trying to develope spider silk to make giant lift such things because we dont have enough fuel (=$$) to support space travel by using rockets?

 

something about manipulating atoms or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ The concept is called a space elevator. They are hoping carbon nanotubes will be up to the task.

 

It's not so much that we don't have the fuel, it's that rockets are very complex and thus very expensive to build and operate, plus they are limited in the mass they can lift. This makes the cost per kg of payload into orbit quite expensive (~$25K/kg).

 

This makes it uneconomical to lift the huge amounts of cargo into orbit (using rockets), that we need if we are to support an off-world colony, construct manned deep-space craft or simply manufacture things in the unique environment of space (things which can not be made on earth due to the gravity).

 

If they can lower the cost to a few hundred per kg, then an entire industry sector will spring up in virtually no time. Think off-world mining, brand new medicines, brand new materials, brand new semi-conductors, and a million other things you can't even think of. Plus all the Earth based industry that will grow in order to supply the space based industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The space shuttle does not use wings to take off, it uses them to allow it to land without the need for parachutes. The space Shuttle cannot take off from a runway.

Before the space shuttle, the only way to land was in a landing capsule. They would fall through the upper atmosphere then deploy parachutes to slow it down at the last few thousand feet. Even then it had to crash into the sea and wait to be picked up by waiting ships.

Many astronaughts got sea sick from bobbing around in the ocean waiting to be picked up, and i know of at least one landing capsule that was lost after it got hit by a wave of water while the door was open and it sank.

This is not a good way to work when you want a space craft that is able to be re-used within weeks of landing.

That and these capsules were too small to carry large cargo such as pieces of the International Space Station.

 

 

I'd rather a capsule that could sink than a shuttle fleet that has a tendency to explode.....

The Challenger did not explode, the rocket that was launching it did. Take a look at the history of space ships, stacks of them have exploded on takeoff, the Shuttle is no exception.

The Columbia did not explode, it broke up on re-entry because of damage it sustained when a piece of the rocket that was launching it broke off and smashed a piece of heat shielding off.

 

The weak link here is not the shuttle, it is the rocket, which is used by all space craft.

 

If NASA had not used the shuttle, and instead continued to use capsules, they would have had to make 3 or 4 times as many launches. Couple that with the sheer number of lauches the shuttles had made over the years, there were going to be deaths with or without the shuttle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ The concept is called a space elevator. They are hoping carbon nanotubes will be up to the task.

 

It's not so much that we don't have the fuel, it's that rockets are very complex and thus very expensive to build and operate, plus they are limited in the mass they can lift. This makes the cost per kg of payload into orbit quite expensive (~$25K/kg).

 

This makes it uneconomical to lift the huge amounts of cargo into orbit (using rockets), that we need if we are to support an off-world colony, construct manned deep-space craft or simply manufacture things in the unique environment of space (things which can not be made on earth due to the gravity).

 

If they can lower the cost to a few hundred per kg, then an entire industry sector will spring up in virtually no time. Think off-world mining, brand new medicines, brand new materials, brand new semi-conductors, and a million other things you can't even think of. Plus all the Earth based industry that will grow in order to supply the space based industry.

 

The Space Elevator will be a long way away.

First we need a counter weight big enough to hold the elevator aloft, so we will need to capture a fairly large asteroid to do this.

 

Chances are, we will need to develop an alternative propulsion method to exit the atmosphere before we can think about making an elevator, so rockets will be ditched either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesnt have too much to do with what your currently discussing but all you tin foilers may get your wigs blown off by this website.

 

My friend and i spent about two days watching as many videos as we could on this website,

 

http://projectcamelotportal.com/index.html

 

Click on the camelot library, scroll down and search by topic space, ets and ufos.

 

We were mostly amazed by the compelling stories of the people that worked underground in the earth and were engaged by hostile aliens, or underground earth lifeforms. These people live on the run and have proof there colleagues who tried to get answers and compensation were slowly killed off one by one by the CIA. One guy we watched his videos then found out he was killed soon after attending a seminar.

 

I cant remember there names but theres alot to go thru. A good website for when your bored.

 

This is some guy talking about decommissioned aircraft projects in the US.

 

http://projectcamelotproductions.com/interviews/michael_schratt/michael_schratt.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Challenger did not explode, the rocket that was launching it did. Take a look at the history of space ships, stacks of them have exploded on takeoff, the Shuttle is no exception.

The Columbia did not explode, it broke up on re-entry because of damage it sustained when a piece of the rocket that was launching it broke off and smashed a piece of heat shielding off.

 

The weak link here is not the shuttle, it is the rocket, which is used by all space craft.

 

If NASA had not used the shuttle, and instead continued to use capsules, they would have had to make 3 or 4 times as many launches. Couple that with the sheer number of lauches the shuttles had made over the years, there were going to be deaths with or without the shuttle.

 

Wow so serious..... it was a bit of a stab at the US shuttle program, in keeping with the light scientific theme of the thread.

 

 

I'm well aware of the causes in both instances, especially with the space shuttle challenger as i'm an avid fan of Richard Feynman.

 

If you recall the report on the Challenger that was put together you will note that the accident was summed up as NASA's management not wanting to listen to its engineers. Likewise with Columbia, there were serious faults with managements handling of advice/requests given by engineers. It's not so much a numbers game if you take all necessary precautions and listen to the technical staff - though admittedly unfortunate things can and do happen.

 

Funny looking back on shuttle history i don't recall a Soyuz spacecraft being disintegrated by malfunctions in the rockets attached to it (though some Soyuz boosters have exploded they weren't boosting shuttles at the time). Also the Soyuz spacecraft aren't doing to bad with the re-entry module design, which i might add the US have used quite a bit since the Columbia disaster for their trips to the ISS.

 

The Buran had some promise, but that is just a dream now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw David Icke's name on the front page and lost any respect I might have had for the site. The guy thinks Obama (and every other world leader/influential person) is a reptile in disguise.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That is so fu*king funnny. I'm crying with laughter about that.

I want to see a video of him saying that.

 

Other than that, theres some cool vids on there,

 

 

As u were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but what plane needs 4 kilometrs to land or take off ???????

A morbidly obese plane full of Americas fattest fatty's

Maybe finally they'd getting rid of them into space!!!

 

Maybe not but who knows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we are not screwed until we see one of these...

 

post-86407-1241141455.jpg

 

THE f**king PURIFIER!!! WE NEED TO DESTROY THE 3 NEXUS TO POWER DOWN ITS SHIELDS BEFORE IT DESTROYS THE COLONIES!!! TO THE VIKING SHIPS!

 

hmm..

 

*walks away quietly*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×