The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
About half an hour ago. Seven astronauts inside were all killed. Check CNN/Sky News.
Page:
Oh shut up.....
Azul²°°³ wrote:
> Oh shut up.....
heh. Its very unlikely it is a hoax, but you never know. I have yet to see one convincing piece of evidence to disprove the moon landings. Answer me this, how do they make the weightless effect?
> Oh shut up.....
heh. Its very unlikely it is a hoax, but you never know. I have yet to see one convincing piece of evidence to disprove the moon landings. Answer me this, how do they make the weightless effect?
OakeyDokey wrote:
> Theres no interest in space any longer as theyve pretty much hit brick
> walls with propulsion technology capable of taking poeple america has
> also bee looking for ways to reduce its burden from the IST including
> scaling it down it wouldnt suprise me if they pul the shuttles in next
> few years. Either that or wheel out some 'new' technology theyve been
> developing - who knows eh
Well the Austrailian's are still trying out their Propulsion theories out, and their transporter technology as well, good on them.
Austrailia to England would take 4 hours long in a plane, that will be the day. But with that to become a public technology they would have to develop a very strong anti-turbulence device. The anti turbulence thingy will also help when building Spaceships that can enter orbit's of planets.
> Theres no interest in space any longer as theyve pretty much hit brick
> walls with propulsion technology capable of taking poeple america has
> also bee looking for ways to reduce its burden from the IST including
> scaling it down it wouldnt suprise me if they pul the shuttles in next
> few years. Either that or wheel out some 'new' technology theyve been
> developing - who knows eh
Well the Austrailian's are still trying out their Propulsion theories out, and their transporter technology as well, good on them.
Austrailia to England would take 4 hours long in a plane, that will be the day. But with that to become a public technology they would have to develop a very strong anti-turbulence device. The anti turbulence thingy will also help when building Spaceships that can enter orbit's of planets.
TŜhi wrote:
> Azul²°°³ wrote:
> Oh shut up.....
>
> heh. Its very unlikely it is a hoax, but you never know. I have yet to
> see one convincing piece of evidence to disprove the moon landings.
> Answer me this, how do they make the weightless effect?
Anti Gravity Chambers have been created on Earth. They are used for fuel tests etc, I'm not quite sure, but they're used in the manufacturing of Formula 1 vehicles.
And I was telling him to shut up about the radiation on the moon.
He's silly.
> Azul²°°³ wrote:
> Oh shut up.....
>
> heh. Its very unlikely it is a hoax, but you never know. I have yet to
> see one convincing piece of evidence to disprove the moon landings.
> Answer me this, how do they make the weightless effect?
Anti Gravity Chambers have been created on Earth. They are used for fuel tests etc, I'm not quite sure, but they're used in the manufacturing of Formula 1 vehicles.
And I was telling him to shut up about the radiation on the moon.
He's silly.
Lots of new propulsions are being tested and can be maintained in laboratory scales (tiny) but as yet nothing beats good old rocket propellant for cost and practicality.
Other technologies like fusion rockets can eventually be made but as yet theyve still not got fusion to generate more energy than it takes to get it going and its extremely dangerous due to the tritium and dueterium, thats just the starting materials theres also the containment of the neutrons it will produce and making them directional.
the scramjet engines can take you partially to the egde of the atmosphere but they take conventional jets to get you to a speed where sramjets become effiecent and they only work in an atmosphere
and theres the ion exhaust propulsion which is very slow and doesnt produce a lot of thrust but theoretically can produce high speeds if maintained long enough
well i dont think in my life time we will do more than visit mars but I may be wrong and I would like to be wrong
Other technologies like fusion rockets can eventually be made but as yet theyve still not got fusion to generate more energy than it takes to get it going and its extremely dangerous due to the tritium and dueterium, thats just the starting materials theres also the containment of the neutrons it will produce and making them directional.
the scramjet engines can take you partially to the egde of the atmosphere but they take conventional jets to get you to a speed where sramjets become effiecent and they only work in an atmosphere
and theres the ion exhaust propulsion which is very slow and doesnt produce a lot of thrust but theoretically can produce high speeds if maintained long enough
well i dont think in my life time we will do more than visit mars but I may be wrong and I would like to be wrong
This won't set the space program back, and it won't set the planned Mars mission back either. If anything it will only make NASA more determined to do it.
A tragic loss of seven brilliant people, the shuttle can be replaced in one way or another, they cannot.
~~Belldandy~~
A tragic loss of seven brilliant people, the shuttle can be replaced in one way or another, they cannot.
~~Belldandy~~
Hands up who cared when it was launched...anyone?
*looks back through topics*
...anyone?...anyone?
No media coverage, no reports on the progress.
Now everyone has a tear in their eye and is laying teddy bears at Kennedy.
The hypocrisy of people makes me want to vomit.
The astronaut's families have a right to be upset and to grieve, everyone else is a rubbernecking ghoul.
It's the same as the WTC. Showing respect for the dead by endlessly repeating the footage from several different angles over and over and over.
I give it a day before some news network ties it to Al Queda/Hussein and Bush declares war on the sky.
*looks back through topics*
...anyone?...anyone?
No media coverage, no reports on the progress.
Now everyone has a tear in their eye and is laying teddy bears at Kennedy.
The hypocrisy of people makes me want to vomit.
The astronaut's families have a right to be upset and to grieve, everyone else is a rubbernecking ghoul.
It's the same as the WTC. Showing respect for the dead by endlessly repeating the footage from several different angles over and over and over.
I give it a day before some news network ties it to Al Queda/Hussein and Bush declares war on the sky.
My Dad came out with a classic:
"It did them a favour in a way, 'cos no-one really cares about space launches anymore...until one blows up"
Yeah, but they lost 7 astro-people and a spaceshuttle. Nice one Dad.
If only he could use the internet to register his voice, rather than looking at a PC and trying to shove bricks in it's holes.
"It did them a favour in a way, 'cos no-one really cares about space launches anymore...until one blows up"
Yeah, but they lost 7 astro-people and a spaceshuttle. Nice one Dad.
If only he could use the internet to register his voice, rather than looking at a PC and trying to shove bricks in it's holes.
I picked up The Sun today and on the front was a picture of one of the astronauts' helmets. That was shocking.
Inside, there were more photos of the debris and stuff. Even one of the badges worn on their spacesuits.. Wouldn't that have burnt to pieces?
Inside, there were more photos of the debris and stuff. Even one of the badges worn on their spacesuits.. Wouldn't that have burnt to pieces?
The inside of the shuttle would have been surrounded by heat proof tiles, so the stuff onthe inside wouldn't have got quite as hot as the outside. It is possible that something inside the shuttle weren't burnt to a cinder, but still burnt enough to be fatal for the crew.
Page: