Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Looks like when you was running on your emotions...
Alex Yingling wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
It is 2009 and we are "piggy-backing" the shuttle back to Cape Canaveral. And yes, this is the pinacle of technology? Yhea...we went to the moon, landed and came back forty years ago, lol.
Retirement for this thing could not come soon enough, btw.
The shuttle has at least 3 different places it can land. NASA chooses the best based on weather, and probably many other factors. If it can't land in Kennedy for whatever reason, it'll land somewhere else. How else are they going to get it back to Kennedy? It's far cheaper and less strenuous on the the shuttle to put it on the back of a 747 than fuel it back up with liquid rocket fuel and fly it back to Kennedy.
I'm sure when we can teleport objects larger than an atom, they'll consider that.
sndsgood wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Looks like when you was running on your emotions, it completely slipped your mind that the greatest minds in world is still using crude technology in 2009.
Plain and simple, either we were leaps and bounds in technology in 1969, or NASA is stagnant with mid 20th century transportation advancements. Either or, you decide.
no emotions, just common sence. or maybe just laughing at your post a little to hard. seriously dude. things don't have to be super advanced if they work. just because its 30 years later doesnt mean what worked before can't work now. its likely the cheapest way to get it from point a to point b since in the last 30 years nasa's budget has gotten smaller and smaller they have to make every dime count. and theres no sence spending tons of money on something that works and is efficient.
Quiklilpenis wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Looks like when you was running on your emotions...By the way, you have yet again failed to offer your smarter suggestion.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quiklilpenis wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Looks like when you was running on your emotions...By the way, you have yet again failed to offer your smarter suggestion.
I'll have one when Hell freezes over.
Mr.Useless-G.T. wrote:Now cue in Tonto to follow me and respond everything I have to say and show how much of my bitch he is. Now I know how the Beatles felt when the 12 year old girls went nuts over them. ROFLOLBBQABSLMAOASRBBDSWATLOL!1!1!http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbQ63VKJ5IACD.jzbkF/SIG=12vujskl2/EXP=1249328464/**http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/George_Bush_Middle_Finger.jpg
Ta-ta homo.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.
Now cue in Tonto to follow me and respond everything I have to say and show how much of my bitch he is. Now I know how the Beatles felt when the 12 year old girls went nuts over them. ROFLOLBBQABSLMAOASRBBDSWATLOL!1!1!http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbQ63VKJ5IACD.jzbkF/SIG=12vujskl2/EXP=1249328464/**http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/George_Bush_Middle_Finger.jpg
Ta-ta homo.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Alex Yingling wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
It is 2009 and we are "piggy-backing" the shuttle back to Cape Canaveral. And yes, this is the pinacle of technology? Yhea...we went to the moon, landed and came back forty years ago, lol.
Retirement for this thing could not come soon enough, btw.
The shuttle has at least 3 different places it can land. NASA chooses the best based on weather, and probably many other factors. If it can't land in Kennedy for whatever reason, it'll land somewhere else. How else are they going to get it back to Kennedy? It's far cheaper and less strenuous on the the shuttle to put it on the back of a 747 than fuel it back up with liquid rocket fuel and fly it back to Kennedy.
I'm sure when we can teleport objects larger than an atom, they'll consider that.
Congratulations you also missed the point just like the other schmuck did(insert a face-palm picture). Oh and before you say how "cheap" it is to piggyback the shuttle, read how much it cost to do so.
sndsgood wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Looks like when you was running on your emotions, it completely slipped your mind that the greatest minds in world is still using crude technology in 2009.
Plain and simple, either we were leaps and bounds in technology in 1969, or NASA is stagnant with mid 20th century transportation advancements. Either or, you decide.
no emotions, just common sence. or maybe just laughing at your post a little to hard. seriously dude. things don't have to be super advanced if they work. just because its 30 years later doesnt mean what worked before can't work now. its likely the cheapest way to get it from point a to point b since in the last 30 years nasa's budget has gotten smaller and smaller they have to make every dime count. and theres no sence spending tons of money on something that works and is efficient.
Then your common sense is not to reliable to begin with. How can I take you serious on this, when you think/say the technology we use to go to space is only 30 years old? Do you have a clue how old rocket propulsion to go to space is? And you think sending $hit up there is at a efficient price? Please look up how much it cost to do so?
And a sad note is when the brightest/smartest/still with the biggest wallets has to take this number in order to come up with something thing different then the antiquated vehicles NASA uses.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-06-23-NASA-prizes_x.htm
I urge both of you to take a trip to NASA and make a sound judgement, instead of running fingers dictated by emotions.
Quiklilpenis wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Looks like when you was running on your emotions...By the way, you have yet again failed to offer your smarter suggestion.
I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.
Now cue in Tonto to follow me and respond everything I have to say and show how much of my bitch he is. Now I know how the Beatles felt when the 12 year old girls went nuts over them. ROFLOLBBQABSLMAOASRBBDSWATLOL!1!1!http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbQ63VKJ5IACD.jzbkF/SIG=12vujskl2/EXP=1249328464/**http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/George_Bush_Middle_Finger.jpg
Ta-ta homo.
tabs wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
wtf does health care reform have to do with the moon landing? are you just trying to change the subject, or is deflection the best sort of argument you can muster now?
and even if the republicans dont have a "better" answer for the health care situation doesnt make the democrats' bad idea good.
slowcav (DesertTuners) wrote:
also if you take the video of them driving on the moon you can see the dust going straight up and down, unachievable on earth because earth actually has a noticable atmosphere. i think live action film is harder to fake. even todays cgi isn't all too great.
sndsgood wrote:
okay mr. science guy, first off i wasn't claiming technology for rocket propultion was 30 years old. i was giving the 30 years as that was a good round number from when we went to the moon.
Quote:
dude for me to go on emotions i'd actually have to care what you say, and get offended by what you say. all you offer is your opinion, and when someone differs with your opinion you try to tear them down. that to me is the sign of sad person really. you assume your the only one to have ever gone to nasa? are you serious? dude, at least when me and weeble disagree he can argue in a grown up manner. your just like a 10 year old that sits there and goes nuh uh , your a turd head when someone disagrees. it really is sad dude.
Quote:
its weird how we are having a discussion on how the shuttle is transported and you somehow think im discussing the year rocket propulsion was first invented. are you bi-polar. is there some medial issue with you that we should know about? i mean you go from the moon landing, to how the shuttle is transported, to rocket propultion, to universal healthcare, to bashing republicans. maybe bi-polar isnt it, maybe its just really bad ADHD or something. if you tell us. we can at least know what were dealing with here. no one is going to look down on you if you do really have a medical condition.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Great, now the wife comes out with the broom stick in Tonto's defense.No one is coming to my defense, dumbass. It's yet another person pointing out your infantile foolishness. But nice attempt at deflecting again.
Mr.Clueless-G.T. wrote:Love it how these fools takes message boards so serious. Har-har-har.What no one takes seriously is the ridiculous babble that you post. It's just a source of amusement, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you will be.
Quote:And it was still full of grammatical abortions.
Edited 413 time(s). Last edited Today 6:49 AM
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Great, now the wife comes out with the broom stick in Tonto's defense. Love it how these fools takes message boards so serious. Har-har-har.
Quiklilcav wrote:. That just falls in line with your line of thinking: someone else should pay for it.
Quiklilpenis wrote: No one is coming to my defense, dumbass. It's yet another person pointing out your infantile foolishness. But nice attempt at deflecting again.
Quote:
What no one takes seriously is the ridiculous babble that you post. It's just a source of amusement, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you will be.
Quote:
And it was still full of grammatical abortions.
Quote:
Not to mention the fact that you're too cheap to anti-up the $20/year to help support the JBO community, so you don't have the luxury of editing your retarded posts. That just falls in line with your line of thinking: someone else should pay for it.
tabs wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Great, now the wife comes out with the broom stick in Tonto's defense. Love it how these fools takes message boards so serious. Har-har-har.
i wish there were something i could say to impart upon you the gravitas of your inanely childish posts, but there really isnt. seriously.....just @!#$ grow up already
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
And it was still full of grammatical abortions.
Good lord you're f-ing slow. Ever thought for an instance that's how JBO states the editing? Look at a edited respond on the lower left corner fool.
On the point on grammatical error, is that the new low for you? Is that what you have to result in order to stay on your high horse? Heh, maybe sniffing my ass is not what you do best, looks to still be hypocrisy. You have large ovaries to criticize me on grammar and not look at the crap you type.
Quote:
Not to mention the fact that you're too cheap to anti-up the $20/year to help support the JBO community, so you don't have the luxury of editing your retarded posts. That just falls in line with your line of thinking: someone else should pay for it.
Since it bothers you that much that I am not premium, quit your bitching and pay it. Because it sure as hell doesn't bother me.
Cue in Tonto's hypocritical &/or another ass sniffing statement in 3....2....1....
Weebel wrote:I skimmed past most the fighting... (might re read later)
And I really dont care if we landed on the moon or not.....
The answers I really want to know is....
When are the Aliens that put us here going to come back?
God I would love for some sexy green space bitches to take me way in their flying saucer away from this hell whole called the human race.........
and make me their sex toy....... LOL
(Like the green chick in the new star trek movie..... god I would so pound that)
Quiklilcav wrote:The funny thing is that the geostationary orbits are all at the equator, and they are further out than the majority of the geosynchronous satellites.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.
Wade Jarvis wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.
But why would we trust the government to do anything when they still have not fixed social security?