It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Internatiomnal space station actually within an ordinairy airplane..

page: 17
14
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Consistent with is not conclusive. If I'm driving a car and the engine stalls it could be consistent with me turning the key off. Doesn't mean I did.


Ridiculous, since it is proven that the engines were in fact turned off, causing a loss of power, which naturally leads to the loss of recorders.



You do know the engines aren't the soul source of electricity on an airplane?




posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

And yet the recorders were still recording after. Amazing that. Yes they were shut off, but the recorders don't keep recording after losing power.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

You didn't post anywhere that the NTSB said conclusively that it was a result of the engines being shut down. You posted where they said consistent with. It's also consistent with other causes too.

Anything causing a loss of electrical power, including loss of a generator or generators will cause them to stop.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

And yet the recorders were still recording after. Amazing that. Yes they were shut off, but the recorders don't keep recording after losing power.


I am sure there is a logical explanation for that, which the professional experts considered before drawing their conclusion.

At this point it is getting laughable. Again, tell me why the actual investigators didn't even include this scenario you keep pushing.

Are they less knowledgable than you are? Are they covering something up? Are they dumb?



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




It's also consistent with other causes too.


But it is a fact that the engines were shut off, yet nothing that indicates that damage was sustained at that point, stopping the recorders. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that it was caused by anything but engine shut down.

To push another scenario, like you are doing is completely uncalled for and based on nothing at all. Give it up.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

And again, there is absolutely no mention or indication whatsoever that any damage occured at this point.

Stop making stuff up.


manufacturers can say that 2.5g's is the max limit. but they cant guarantee that no damages to the structure will occur. no sane pilot will fly at 2.5g limit, deliberately every few minutes for 13+ times in a single flight several times per year.

and if you propose that filming the ISS using this 2.5g maneuver.. the aircraft will need to perform several of these maneuver's per flight..

so even if they fully inspect the aircraft after each flight what you are proposing is reckless..

not to mention that to fulfill your requirements of 1 minute of zero g, the aircraft will be well OVER MACH 1. egypt air did not exceed mach 1..

and if the excessive speeds doesnt rip off some of the control surfaces the severe flutter that will occur will rip it off.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Because it's an accident report. That means they use information they know, and if they can't confirm it, they use phrases like "consistent with" and "last recorded".

Yes the engines stopped, the question is when, and why, which is what they couldn't confirm.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Because it's an accident report. That means they use information they know, and if they can't confirm it, they use phrases like "consistent with" and "last recorded".


Right. There sure is no mention of what you are claiming. Not a word about damage caused by overspeed and pulling out of that dive. Nothing.




Yes the engines stopped, the question is when, and why, which is what they couldn't confirm.


Wth?

So you are now arguing that it is not known why and when? I am beginning to think you are posting false info on purpose. There is just no way that you missed these facts.


The FDR data indicated that the engine start lever switches for both engines moved from the run to the cutoff position between 0150:21 and 0150:23. 19 Between 0150:24 and 0150:27, the throttle levers moved from their idle position to full throttle, the speedbrake handle moved to its fully deployed position, and the left elevator surface moved from a 3∫ nose-up to a 1∫ nose-up position, then back to a 3∫ nose-up position. 20 During this time, the CVR recorded the captain asking, ìWhat is this? What is this? Did you shut the engine(s)?î Also, at 0150:26.55, the captain stated, ìGet away in the engines,î 21 and, at 0150:28.85, the captain stated, shut the engines.î At 0150:29.66, the relief first officer stated, it is shut.î


How can you say it is not known when and why engines stopped?



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: choos




manufacturers can say that 2.5g's is the max limit. but they cant guarantee that no damages to the structure will occur. no sane pilot will fly at 2.5g limit, deliberately every few minutes for 13+ times in a single flight several times per year.


I never said they would do extended dives all the time.



not to mention that to fulfill your requirements of 1 minute of zero g, the aircraft will be well OVER MACH 1. egypt air did not exceed mach 1..


990 was flying at cruise speed before going into that dive, a plane doing parabolic flights would not even be near cruise speed at that point.



and if the excessive speeds doesnt rip off some of the control surfaces the severe flutter that will occur will rip it off.


But the NTSB specifically mentioned that the plane was completely intact up until the final moments. No damage whatsoever after that initial dive and pull out.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

If they knew precisely when the engines were turned off, they would be able to say so. All they have is a likely timeline.

Likewise 'why'.

Any chance this could be steered somewhere towards explaining it is possible for the ISS to be inside a plane?



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo




If they knew precisely when the engines were turned off, they would be able to say so. All they have is a likely timeline.


Wth is wrong with you guys.

I just posted the info that says they know exactly when and why the engines stopped.

This is getting ridiculous.


The FDR data indicated that the engine start lever switches for both engines moved from the run to the cutoff position between 0150:21 and 0150:23.





Any chance this could be steered somewhere towards explaining it is possible for the ISS to be inside a plane?


Any chance you can read up and see for yourself how we got here.
edit on 22-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

And yet, the recorders kept recording for almost 10 seconds after all electrical power was supposedly cut off, and recorded a power increase afterwards.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

No they didn't. They said the left engine and other parts separated before impact, which is why they were found 1200 feet from the impact area.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Because the FDR clearly records power level changes AFTER the engines were supposedly turned off. Electrical power continued at least 8 seconds AFTER the engines were supposedly turned off.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

How did we get here? By people refusing to accept the evidence that the ISS is in orbit around the Earth, that there are people in it and by nitpicking over irrelevant minutiae to the extent that wood is no longer visible for trees.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

No they didn't. They said the left engine and other parts separated before impact, which is why they were found 1200 feet from the impact area.


I said this,



But the NTSB specifically mentioned that the plane was completely intact up until the final moments. No damage whatsoever after that initial dive and pull out.


What is not consistent with that?

It broke apart shortly before impact so it was intact up until the final moments. Still no mention of any earlier sustained damage anywhere.





posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

So it broke up shortly before impact because it was completely fine and there was no damage anywhere?

Yeah, that makes sense. Things just fall off for no reason.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

How did we get here? By people refusing to accept the evidence that the ISS is in orbit around the Earth, that there are people in it and by nitpicking over irrelevant minutiae to the extent that wood is no longer visible for trees.


Well this is what is to be expected in such a thread. It is in Skunk Works. You don't have to be here. I didn't bring Egypt 990 into this either.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

I never said they would do extended dives all the time.


you dont need to say that.. but if you hold the opinion that the internal ISS footage was filmed inside the vomit comet then that is the same as needing to do extended dives all the time.. as they might even need to do more than one take per scene..




990 was flying at cruise speed before going into that dive, a plane doing parabolic flights would not even be near cruise speed at that point.


yes but, egypt 990 also wont be accelerating towards the ground at 9.8m/s^2 neither.. their engines were at idle during the initial descent, and it did not reach over mach 1.

this fantasy scenario of 1 minute zero g experience will end up with a velocity of over mach 1 probably near mach 1.4 depending on the initial speed coming out of the top of the parabolic flight path.



But the NTSB specifically mentioned that the plane was completely intact up until the final moments. No damage whatsoever after that initial dive and pull out.


completely intact does not necessarily mean completely unscathed..

where do they say it was completely undamaged after the initial dive and pullout??

going into overspeed and immediately into a large g pullout will most likely damage the aircraft, the aircraft may still be intact.
raising the wings permanantly up 2 or 3 inches (due to high g maneuvres) can be considered damaged but there are tolerances. exceed those tolerances and the plane will still be intact BUT the structural strength may have weakened significantly.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

990 was flying at cruise speed before going into that dive, a plane doing parabolic flights would not even be near cruise speed at that point.



i think im wrong about the aircraft doing mach 1.4 it should be well over it.

assuming the "regular zero g experience" lasts 25 seconds
so half of that will be reaching the peak.
when it reaches its peak its vertical component of velocity will be 0km/hr so i have a rough starting point.
half of 25 seconds is 12.5seconds but for ease of calculating ill use 13 seconds to reach the peak and the remaining 12 for the second half of the parabola until they reach a nose down attitude of 45 degrees.

the remaining flight path ill assume its 45 degrees nose down for 30 seconds. leaving a total zero g experience of about 55 seconds.
excuse my rough paint job.


so 30 seconds plus 12 seconds will give us the vertical component of the velocity only since they need to drop at 9.8m/s^2 constantly.

it works out to be about 1481.76 km/hr.. at 25000 feet its roughly M1.33, but thats only the vertical component not the net airspeed since the plane is maintaining 45 degrees nose down.



bit of trigonometry and the net airspeed will be closer to 2095 km/hr nearly mach 1.88 at 25000 feet.

sorry but that is just plain impossible. especially for an a300/a310 designed for subsonic flight, the control surfaces would have stalled at mach 1.




top topics



 
14
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join