Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

page: 390
181
<< 387  388  389    391 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Because they don't have 100 ROVs designed for ultra deep operations, that's why. There are very few ROVs that can operate that deeply. They're expensive, and not many people have the money to buy/build them. Contrary to what you think, the US doesn't have 1000 ROVs sitting on ships that can dive down to 25000 feet and search for this plane. The deepest most ROVs can reach is 10000 feet. There are very very few that can operate down to the depths they're searching.




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Maybe the U.S. should redirect some of the cash they waste elsewhere on the military, and invest in some better deep sea equipment. All they have to do is buy a few less fighters or a few ships and the shortfall in deep sea stuff will go away. They should have been looking underwater right after they were so sure it crashed where they think it did. This is like a 3 ring circus.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Why? How many times do you think they've had to use ultra deep equipment? It's not cost effective to buy something that's just going to sit around doing nothing for years at a time.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Why? How many times do you think they've had to use ultra deep equipment? It's not cost effective to buy something that's just going to sit around doing nothing for years at a time.

Oh, and is it cost effective to build the endless numbers of junk fighters like the F-35 that will most likely never be used in a war? Or the countless other aircraft that are built just for the sake of building them, and then sent to the bone yards. That's more cost effective? How many of those junk Blufin21 can I get for the price of one junk F-35?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Yes it is, because again you have no clue what you're talking about. I'd rather have a bunch of aircraft that never get used in a war instead of a couple hundred ROVs that I KNOW will never be used.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Most of this deep equipment is by corporate business for specialized worked. It sounds weird but they always seem to know where there work is to be done.

I suppose airlines could build dozens of deep ocean search vehicles but I think the PR departments might have trouble with the press releases.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Yes it is, because again you have no clue what you're talking about. I'd rather have a bunch of aircraft that never get used in a war instead of a couple hundred ROVs that I KNOW will never be used.

I never said a couple hundred Bluefin21 junkers, maybe ten would be OK. How do you know they will never be used? Are they really worthless scrap like I think they are? You're biased with wanting all those aircraft because it's job security for you. I understand. What if a submarine needed help and was stuck on the bottom and needed rescue? Would it be worth having deep sea search and rescue top notch equipment then?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   


What if a submarine needed help and was stuck on the bottom and needed rescue


Down there it would be crushed and scrap.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

roadgravel



What if a submarine needed help and was stuck on the bottom and needed rescue


Down there it would be crushed and scrap.

Really? I have no idea how deep the modern submarines can go. What is the ballpark figure for the missile subs and the attack subs? It's probably classified info. I liked the movie Das Boot. Not classified, 250 meters? That isn't too deep at all!



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


A lot less than the depth that they're searching for MH370 at. If a sub bottomed out in the deeper parts of the ocean, there wouldn't be anything left to recover but a pile of metal.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
This is in wiki


Modern nuclear attack submarines like the American Seawolf class are estimated to have a test depth of 490 m (1,600 ft), which would imply (see above) a collapse depth of 730 m (2,400 ft).



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


The true depth is a bit deeper than that, but nowhere even close to what we're talking about here.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I may sound dumb here but,

That means the plane if it is here will be crushed? Would the PSI be enough to destroy the black box or are they real tuff?

How small would the plane be crushed at the deepest places in the area?

Thanks



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Glz00
 


Since it was broken into pieces already, those pieces would remain intact. If it had fallen in one piece, with the fuselage intact, then it would have been crushed into a pretty small mess.

The recorders are damn near indestructible. There have been a few destroyed in crashes, but they're designed to be watertight to a depth of 20,000 feet, which is deeper than where they are now. They also are required to survive at that depth for 30 days.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
It's been 40 days or so now.

This topic is getting old.

After hundreds of replies (from myself) on this thread, I think it's time to stop questioning and just wait for the answer. The Aus Gov is assisting as well as many others.

Anyone else getting bored by this? We need a new disaster!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Time for ROV Kaiko to explore and retrieve those black boxes, it will be capable to explore and retrieve those black boxes.
If MH370 did indeed crashed at that spot.

edit on 17-4-2014 by earthling42 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-4-2014 by earthling42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Back in time, 28 November 1987.

South African airways flight 295 crashed into the indian ocean because of a fire in the cargo hold.
After 30 days it was still unknown where the wreckage was located, but 6 months later it was found and a year after flight 295 crashed the CVR was retrieved from a dept of 16.100 feet.

So if it was possible in 1988, it certainly should be possible in 2014


Air crash investigation, Fanning the flames.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by earthling42
 


Of course it's possible. It's just still very very difficult.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by auroraaus
 


I have to defend the rothchilds since CiAgypsy in no longer on Ats. No she wasn't on the plane neither to the best of my knowledge.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
an oil slick is found,, then it is stated that the bluefin is down a couple of quarts of oil,,,and they are not able too put these two facts together??
Nobody is that stupid, on those ships,,,were being played for suckers.

oh and the flight instructor with Savage gets fired from his job,, for wearing plaid shirts,,,,ya were being played for idiots as well.





new topics

top topics



 
181
<< 387  388  389    391 >>

log in

join