yo they're down on solid gr- i mean
yo they're safely splashed down
They've landed in a puddle. You'd think they'd be able to hit land!
at 20 miles an hour, it would be BAD if they were down on solid ground
yo they're down on solid gr- i mean
yo they're safely splashed down
They've landed in a puddle. You'd think they'd be able to hit land!
at 20 miles an hour, it would be BAD if they were down on solid ground
The astronauts are still in the capsule. People from the 25,000 ton recovery ship are aboard.
That's a 1.5 billion dollar ship. Cheaper than a B-2 bomber.
The space mission cost about 4 billion dollars.
----------
Astronauts on return are prone to gravity sickness.
Their inner ears get messed up.
But they're all athletes - prepared and conditioned for this.
And in great shape. The elite. But not elitists which is something else.
It's called "The Confidence Game" or "The Con Game" ---
all about what one "believes to be real" - fact/fiction matters not -- Emotional/Reaction is Everything -
heliocentric theory(s) thrives & survives via The Confidence Game.
**** Spoiler Alert***** Warning!! Do Not View if you desire to be entertained via "outer space adventures" !!!!
The Wright brothers were just as much "heliocentrists" as the Russians who built Sputnik 1, like every intelligent person for a very long time. This includes every commercial pilot on every plane you have every flown on, I can tell you with 100% confidence.
You are "special" because of your foolishness.
so if I don't believe what the majority believes -- you believe that is foolishness Elroch-------------------------------------------OK! 
It's not "what the majority believes" that matters. The majority probably believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in 1903. The Wright brothers disagreed because of their CALCULATIONS and EXPERIMENTS.
Regarding all these matters - pretty much anything to do with calculation or experimentation - you seem foolish and incompetent. There is no real shame in that - the shame is being arrogant enough to ignore all the competence of others, some of whom are very good indeed at these things, like the difference between a GM with a 3200 blitz rating versus someone who literally does not know the rules of chess.
When it comes to scientific discussions, you are literally as incompetent as that person who does not know the rules of chess .
Only your arrogance justifies me being this blunt about it.
If you think that is not correct, tell me one thing you can do that can objectively show that you have any relevant understanding, in the way that understanding can be demonstrated by scientists and engineers.
The problem is that you don't even understand what that means.
I give credit where credit is due Elroch -
I have always given you credit for being "textbook smarter" than myself -
you have many accolades in your field of study that I think is commendable !
There is no such thing as being "textbook smart" regarding these matters.
Sputnik 1 was a real launch into orbit around the Earth just like the first Wright brothers flight in 1903 was a real flight. And Artemis 2 was another such real launch - to about a thousand times as far - just like every commercial air flight on the globe is real.
Eg satellites are real hardware doing real things, with stuff written about these things. Artemis 2 was a real space mission that blasted off from Kennedy Space Station the week before last and returned in the last day. The descent of the crew module was visible from about 80 miles up when it hit the outer atmosphere at about 25,000 miles per hour, first visible due to the very hot plasma generated. After it had slowed down to around 30 times the speed of sound, the capsule itself became visible with cameras in high altitude aircraft.
Written mathematics and language describes knowledge about the real world that you lack. I'd like to pretend you have the capability to understand it, but this seems very unlikely - you combine lack of understanding with fanatical opposition to improving it.
I took a Logic course in undergrad Philosophy department -
it was the toughest course I ever took - numerous sign/symbols, illogical/logical formulas, Venn diagrams etc.
One wrong sign/symbol etc. and the entire "logical puzzle" falls apart !
It's not "what the majority believes" that matters. The majority probably believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in 1903. The Wright brothers disagreed because of their CALCULATIONS and EXPERIMENTS.
Regarding all these matters - pretty much anything to do with calculation or experimentation - you seem foolish and incompetent. There is no real shame in that - the shame is being arrogant enough to ignore all the competence of others, some of whom are very good indeed at these things, like the difference between a GM with a 3200 blitz rating versus someone who literally does not know the rules of chess.
When it comes to scientific discussions, you are literally as incompetent as that person who does not know the rules of chess .
Only your arrogance justifies me being this blunt about it.
If you think that is not correct, tell me one thing you can do that can objectively show that you have any relevant understanding, in the way that understanding can be demonstrated by scientists and engineers.
The problem is that you don't even understand what that means.
Gliders had been in use for over a century if I remember right. What the Wright Brothers did well was something like ailerons and in general their attempt was very well planned indeed. But powered flight had also been demonstrated before the Wright Brothers.
That's interesting Opt -
wonder what took them so long to figure out--- how to "hang-glide" !?
I took a Logic course in undergrad Philosophy department -
it was the toughest course I ever took - numerous sign/symbols, illogical/logical formulas, Venn diagrams etc.
One wrong sign/symbol etc. and the entire "logical puzzle" falls apart !
I find formal logic tedious, respecting all the signs and symbols. I never attempted to learn them and never studied logic as a part of my philosophy degree because I would have been bored out of my skull. I was taught it as a small child and by 9 I could outperform 99.999% of adults. This is just a matter of fact. It isn't arrogance, conceit or anything else. I'm making a point that I probably should have made 10 years ago.
No, the Wright brothers achieved the first powered, heavier than air flight (the usual words include the implicit "horizontal or rising"! Falling is easy to achieve
Before this gliders had merely used aerodynamics to improve the angle and rate of fall) and powered dirigibles were lighter than air.
So the key advance was practical planes that could generate enough lift to overcome gravity (a dirigible has no net gravity to overcome, and a glider does not overcome gravity - except perhaps much later when they were good enough to rise in thermals!)
That's interesting Opt -
wonder what took them so long to figure out--- how to "hang-glide" !?
They did try it you know, in the 1700s. It resulted in a few deaths. There was a Frenchman ... forget his name. Then he was no more.
No, the Wright brothers achieved the first powered, heavier than air flight without relying on gravity.
Before this gliders had merely used gravity (using aerodynamics to reduce the rate of fall and travel horizontally) and powered dirigibles were lighter than air.
So the key attribute was that they built practical planes that could generate enough lift to overcome gravity (a dirigible has no net gravity to overcome, and a glider does not overcome gravity - except much later when they were good enough to rise in thermals!)
I am pretty sure you're wrong but I'm not going to make an issue of it.
If you had a reason to be "pretty sure" you could provide a reference.
Hang gliding did precede powered flight. When you see what their hang gliders were like, you can see why it was a lot more dangerous than what remains a dangerous sport!
Opt - Have you figured out how to solve the Rubik's Cube/Pyramid "spatial-ability puzzles"?
yo they're down on solid gr- i mean
yo they're safely splashed down
They've landed in a puddle. You'd think they'd be able to hit land!