 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / April 2004Longest mission without resupply?
What is the current longest manned mission without re-supply? Thinking about it, there should be two different answers; 1) Docking to an existing structure and 2) Entirely with supplies onboard at launch time D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > What is the current longest manned mission without re-supply? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 2) Entirely with supplies onboard at launch time 1) Skylab 4? > > What is the current longest manned mission without re-supply? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 1) Skylab 4? I don't know about that -- weren't there missions as long or longer than 84 days on Salyut 3 or Salyut 5? Or on Salyut 6 prior to its first resupply with a Progress? As for 2) I would suggest Soyuz 9, which lasted 19 days and didn't dock with anything. Unless there has been a shuttle flight that's lasted longer than 19 days -- and I don't think so... Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com > What is the current longest manned mission without re-supply? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > D. The longest shuttle flight was Columbia STS-80: 17-days 15-hrs 53-min 18-sec. The shortest shuttle flight that reached orbit: Columbia STS-2 2-days 6-hrs 13-min 12-sec. Columbia STS-107 was the fourth longest shuttle flight at: 15-days 22-hrs 20-min 22-sec. Challenger STS-51L was the shortest flight at 1-min 13-sec. While we are at it, total flight time for all five space shuttles in 113 flights: Atlantis 220.402 days Challenger 72.732 days Columbia 289.430 days Discovery 241.954 days Endevour 206.599 days Total 1,031.117 days Flight time (for successful flights) is measured from liftoff to wheel stop. - Rusty Barton >The longest shuttle flight was Columbia STS-80: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > DOH! My spreadsheet had STS-9 in the wrong column, giving it to Challenger. I've corrected it, below are the correct numbers. These stats come first from the Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Mission Index webpages: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/missions.html If the data is not there then it came from the Encyclopedia Astronautica: http://www.astronautix.com/flights/ Here are the Space Shuttle stats for STS-1 through STS-107: Shuttle Days In Number Miles # Flights Orbit of Orbits Traveled Atlantis 220.40 3,468 89,908,732 26 Challenger 62.41 995 25,803,940 10 Columbia 300.74 4,808 125,204,911 28 Discovery 241.95 3,808 98,710,673 30 Endeavour 206.60 3,259 85,072,077 19 Total 1032.10 16,338 424,700,332 113 If anyone wants a copy of the spreadsheet, let me know and I will post it on my web page for download. - Rusty Barton > If anyone wants a copy of the spreadsheet, let me know > and I will post it on my web page for download. > > - Rusty Barton Please do. Thanks in advance. Signature+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | Dave Downing, Somerset U.K. | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ >> If anyone wants a copy of the spreadsheet, let me know >> and I will post it on my web page for download. >> >> - Rusty Barton > >Please do. Thanks in advance. I've uploaded the Shuttle Spreadsheet to my Redstone missile website Links page: http://www.geocities.com/redstone_mrbm/links.htm Just right click on "Space Shuttle Spreadsheet" and save it. - Rusty Barton > I've uploaded the Shuttle Spreadsheet to my Redstone missile website > Links page: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Rusty Barton Got it. Thanks again Rusty. Very comprehensive, a lot of typing for you! Signature+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | Dave Downing, Somerset U.K. | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ So, it sounds like the Shuttle data supports my supposition that the longest stand-alone spaceflight (i.e., not docking with a station or any other spacecraft that could extend its mission life) was Soyuz 9, at 19 days. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com > So, it sounds like the Shuttle data supports my supposition that the > longest stand-alone spaceflight (i.e., not docking with a station or any > other spacecraft that could extend its mission life) was Soyuz 9, at 19 > days. Soyuz 9 lasted 17 days, 16 hours, and 58 minutes. Only about 1 hour and 5 minutes longer than STS-80 Columbia. -Mike > > So, it sounds like the Shuttle data supports my supposition that the > > longest stand-alone spaceflight (i.e., not docking with a station or any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Soyuz 9 lasted 17 days, 16 hours, and 58 minutes. Only about 1 hour and 5 > minutes longer than STS-80 Columbia. OK -- kewl. I *knew* I should have looked up the exact mission length before I posted that... but it still *is* longer. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com > > > So, it sounds like the Shuttle data supports my supposition that the > > > longest stand-alone spaceflight (i.e., not docking with a station or any [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > OK -- kewl. I *knew* I should have looked up the exact mission length > before I posted that... but it still *is* longer. Yeah, but not by any amount that indicates some kind of innate superiority by Soyuz over STS in that regard. I might also point out that the current day version of the Soyuz spacecraft is not equipped for missions of that length. As Jorge has pointed out on numerous occasions, the Soyuz spacecraft must make it to a space station and dock, or come back immediately before the supplies on-board run out. -Mike > > > > So, it sounds like the Shuttle data supports my supposition that the > > > > longest stand-alone spaceflight (i.e., not docking with a station or any [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > spacecraft must make it to a space station and dock, or come back > immediately before the supplies on-board run out. I wasn't trying to insinuate that Soyuz -- especially that early verion of Soyuz -- was innately superior to the STS. Far from it. It was and is more similar to the Gemini than the shuttle in terms of basic capabilities. I just found it interesting that an early Soyuz happened to be the craft that set the record for longest mission using only the spacecraft in which its crew was launched. I'm positive you *could* stretch an STS mission for somewhat longer, if you wanted to -- fly a shuttle with a crew of three or four in its long- duration mode, with a double Spacehab, and you could probably keep them up and flying for a good three weeks or more. But there is no intrinsic reason for flying a mission in a shuttle or another stand-along craft just for the "achievement" of its duration... the station missions are a LOT longer, we're no longer playing one-upsmanship "space firsts" kinds of games with the Russians, and, basically, no one cares about that kind of thing anymore. Now, while the Soyuz ferry variations have all been less long-lived than those first Soyuz craft, they *are* more long-lived now than they were for a while, there. The original redesign of the Soyuz to a ferry configuration assumed such short independent-flight lifetimes that they didn't carry solar panels. They were dependent on a fairly small set of batteries, so if you couldn't manage to dock with whichever Salyut you were aiming for, you had to turn right around and come back home immediately. The T, TM and TMA versions have somewhat longer independent lifetimes than that, partially because the solar panels were restored to those versions. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >I'm positive you *could* stretch an STS mission for somewhat longer, if >you wanted to -- fly a shuttle with a crew of three or four in its long- >duration mode, with a double Spacehab, and you could probably keep them >up and flying for a good three weeks or more. You *could*, but the only Extended Duration pallet and the only double Spacehab were lost with Columbia. >But there is no intrinsic >reason for flying a mission in a shuttle or another stand-along craft >just for the "achievement" of its duration... the station missions are a >LOT longer, we're no longer playing one-upsmanship "space firsts" kinds >of games with the Russians, and, basically, no one cares about that kind >of thing anymore. I asked the original question primarily to gauge exactly what our experience base is for long duration 'unrefueled' flight to compare it to the proposed Mars missions. There simply isn't a realistic comparison. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > >I'm positive you *could* stretch an STS mission for somewhat longer, if > >you wanted to -- fly a shuttle with a crew of three or four in its long- [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to the proposed Mars missions. There simply isn't a realistic > comparison. Nope -- none whatsoever. However, I think the Skylab, Mir and ISS experience, all put together, does give you a lot of valuable information as to how you can support a Mars mission from a logistical standpoint. Since you won't have regular resupply of a Mars spacecraft (unless you put a lot of stuff in Martian orbit and rendezvous with it once you get there), you're going to have to take everything you're going to need with you. And that means *everything*. Spare parts, food, water, air -- those are the obvious things. There are less obvious things, I'm sure, like toilet paper, that kind of thing... and of course, the things that will impact you most will be the things you didn't think of. That's where the long-duration experience we're getting now is coming in handy. We're learning about the things we hadn't thought of before. Those things are inconveniences when you have to wait a month or two to get them via a Progress; they'll be crucial when you either brought them or you're going to have to do without. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com > That's where the long-duration experience we're getting now is coming in > handy. We're learning about the things we hadn't thought of before. > Those things are inconveniences when you have to wait a month or two to > get them via a Progress; they'll be crucial when you either brought them > or you're going to have to do without. I can tell you now that someone will forget the can opener. > > That's where the long-duration experience we're getting now is coming in > > handy. We're learning about the things we hadn't thought of before. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I can tell you now that someone will forget the can opener. And then will drink all the brandy and claim that he was attacked by giant aggressive mutant star swans. I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that you see on cable news are not the only missions we did. I can only say that we now have ways and means to acomplish very long missions 'without re-supply'. Also, it is no secret that the current 'space shuttle' can go a lot further than simply orbit the earth. A buddy of mine travelled to orbit the moon in the shuttle. The journey lasted seven days plus.. > > So, it sounds like the Shuttle data supports my supposition that the > > longest stand-alone spaceflight (i.e., not docking with a station or any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > minutes longer than STS-80 Columbia. > -Mike > I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. Riiiiiiight . . . . . And you're posting through Blueyonder in Britain why, exactly? Moved 'cross the Pond in your retirement from "nasa", did you? > I can tell you that the mission that you > see on cable news are not the only missions we did. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > than simply orbit the earth. A buddy of mine travelled to orbit the moon in > the shuttle. ROTFLMAO. What have you been smoking/injecting/eating? Or is this dementia more a function of some organic brain disease? > The journey lasted seven days plus.. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >why, exactly? Moved 'cross the Pond in your retirement from "nasa", did >you? Orbit got a gap in it, does it? WELL THEN, IT'S NOT A BLOODY ORBIT- IS IT MATE? Now excuse me while I go go play the Grand Piano.... Yuri Gagarin > I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that you > see on cable news are not the only missions we did. We all know it's *so* easy to hide a shuttle luanch. Not! > I can only say that we now have ways and means to acomplish very long > missions 'without re-supply'. > > Also, it is no secret that the current 'space shuttle' can go a lot further > than simply orbit the earth. A buddy of mine travelled to orbit the moon in > the shuttle. Violation of physics. > The journey lasted seven days plus.. I think the aluminum foil lining your hat has a hole in it. Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. >I think the aluminum foil lining your hat has a hole in it. As does the head in the hat. Pat >We all know it's *so* easy to hide a shuttle luanch. Not! Sure, just use that special additive so that both the SRB's and mains burn fully in the ultra-violet region... no visible flames... SignatureA host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 > Sure, just use that special additive so that both the SRB's > and mains burn fully in the ultra-violet region... no visible > flames... Marge? I don't understand. Last night I heard this noise just like a shuttle launch, walked outside, but didn't see anything. Now look at this freaking sunburn all over my face and arms. WTF? > I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that you > see on cable news are not the only missions we did. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The journey lasted seven days plus.. Yeah, right. Take it somewhere where the people are uninformed -- the people here know better. A lot better. Trolling idiot. Oh, and by the way -- <plonk> Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that you >see on cable news are not the only missions we did. Riiiight. When do the computers normally deploy the air-data probes during shuttle descent, and what's the procedure if they don't? SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net > >I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that you > >see on cable news are not the only missions we did. > > Riiiight. When do the computers normally deploy the air-data probes > during shuttle descent, and what's the procedure if they don't? Urmmm... this information is classified, if my memory serves correctly. You must have been in the service to? > > >I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that > you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Urmmm... this information is classified No, it's not. > , if my memory serves correctly. It obviously doesn't. > You > must have been in the service to? "To"? Don't you mean, "too"? I'm glad to see your "service" doesn't require compliance with the conventions of ordinary English grammar (although you persist in posting through a UK ISP). You're not fooling anyone here. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > > >I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that > you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Urmmm... this information is classified, if my memory serves correctly. You > must have been in the service to? Your "memory" has let you down; it isn't. But if you wish to continue to hide behind that, tell me the nickname for the air data probes. It's definitely not classified. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > > > >I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that > > you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Mary Ok so maybe I was just scouting to check that the info in these groups were reasonably accurate. But I would guess that the engineering staff would have their own nicknames for things , as would the IT staff and pilots. In sci.space.shuttle, SpywareJack <Gottcha@lurk.net> wrote: > Ok so maybe I was just scouting to check that the info in these groups were > reasonably accurate. It is. Plus, now we all know you're a liar! Thanks! --Z "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..." * * Make your vote count. Get your vote counted. > > Your "memory" has let you down; it isn't. But if you wish to continue > > to hide behind that, tell me the nickname for the air data probes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reasonably accurate. But I would guess that the engineering staff would have > their own nicknames for things , as would the IT staff and pilots. The astronauts are the ones who named the air data probe, not the engineers. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >Ok so maybe I was just scouting to check that the info in these groups were >reasonably accurate. It's CT and the ejection seats all over again! =-O Off to The Phantom Zone, you miscreant! Pat From Pat Flannery: > >Ok so maybe I was just scouting to check that the info in these groups were > >reasonably accurate. > > It's CT and the ejection seats all over again! =-O > Off to The Phantom Zone, you miscreant! SJ knowingly misrepresented info. Henry responded by knowingly misrepresenting info. I have never knowingly misrepresented info here. If I've stated anything about ejection seats that is seen to be inaccurate, I'd like to know specifically what that might be. And for anyone who thinks that shuttle has to have astronauts on board to deploy the air data probes, you might want to look into the Autonomous Orbiter concept. In answer to Henry's less-bogus-than-it-may-seem question, I expect that the computers will nominally deploy the probes at Mach 5. And, to provide a complete answer, if the probes don't get deployed the procedure is to crash. ~ CT > From Pat Flannery: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > SJ knowingly misrepresented info. Henry responded by knowingly > misrepresenting info. Asking a trick question to expose an imposter is not misrepresenting info. Had Henry fabricated a trick answer, then maybe... but he did not. > I have never knowingly misrepresented info here. Heh. Stuf4 made a funny! > And for anyone who thinks that shuttle has to have astronauts on board > to deploy the air data probes, you might want to look into the > Autonomous Orbiter concept. The key word being "concept" - it is nothing more than PowerPoint slides right now. > In answer to Henry's > less-bogus-than-it-may-seem question, I expect that the computers will > nominally deploy the probes at Mach 5. If the project survives. It makes little sense if the fleet is to be retired in 2010, unless Code T can be tric^Wconvinced to sponsor it. > And, to provide a complete answer, if the probes don't get deployed > the procedure is to crash. No, the procedure is for the CDR to take pitch to CSS at Mach 2, and fly theta limits. Granted, if there is no one aboard to fly theta limits, a crash is likely. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > From Pat Flannery: > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Asking a trick question to expose an imposter is not misrepresenting info. > Had Henry fabricated a trick answer, then maybe... but he did not. A difference Stuffie seems incapable of grasping. > > I have never knowingly misrepresented info here. > > Heh. Stuf4 made a funny! No, Stuffie made a lie. Recall "MEDS Leads to Death of Columbia Crew" or somesuch, anyone? > > And for anyone who thinks that shuttle has to have astronauts on board > > to deploy the air data probes, you might want to look into the > > Autonomous Orbiter concept. > > The key word being "concept" - it is nothing more than PowerPoint slides > right now. Gee, where else have we seen Stuffie confused about concept v. reality? Hmm . . . it'll come to me in a minute, I'm sure. > > In answer to Henry's > > less-bogus-than-it-may-seem question, I expect that the computers will > > nominally deploy the probes at Mach 5. > > If the project survives. It makes little sense if the fleet is to be > retired in 2010, unless Code T can be tric^Wconvinced to sponsor it. Oh, that's it! He was convinced that diverting funding from MEDS to his favored WLE MMOD upgrade (consisting of a layer of Nextel fabric) would have made a hill of beans' difference on STS-107. > > And, to provide a complete answer, if the probes don't get deployed > > the procedure is to crash. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Granted, if there is no one aboard to fly theta limits, a crash is likely. Once again, Stuffie, the devil's in the details, isn't it? Merely SAYING something and handwaving doesn't make your statement any more authoritative (or correct). SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> The theme of this subthread is willful misrepresentation. Ironic to see accusations of lying come from a person who so recently has had his own story exposed: http://tinyurl.com/32let news:<d3af8584.0404162216.7b1db3ac@posting.google.com> When, instead, a person chooses to maintain a standard of honesty, that does not mean that they will always have a reputation for honesty, because those who habitually deviate from truth can erode that honest person's reputation with their own fictions. ~ CT > > > From Pat Flannery: > > >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > SAYING something and handwaving doesn't make your statement any more > authoritative (or correct). From Jorge Frank: > > SJ knowingly misrepresented info. Henry responded by knowingly > > misrepresenting info. > > Asking a trick question to expose an imposter is not misrepresenting info. > Had Henry fabricated a trick answer, then maybe... but he did not. (I'd say that very thing that makes the question a trick is the misrepresented info.) > > I have never knowingly misrepresented info here. > > Heh. Stuf4 made a funny! If you happen to disagree with facts presented, that does not automatically make them false, let alone falsely presented. > > And for anyone who thinks that shuttle has to have astronauts on board > > to deploy the air data probes, you might want to look into the > > Autonomous Orbiter concept. > > The key word being "concept" - it is nothing more than PowerPoint slides > right now. Let's not overlook the fact that autoland was designed into the shuttle from the beginning. I expect there were engineers who wanted STS-1 to have no crew members at all, or perhaps an all-monkey crew! > > In answer to Henry's > > less-bogus-than-it-may-seem question, I expect that the computers will > > nominally deploy the probes at Mach 5. > > If the project survives. It makes little sense if the fleet is to be > retired in 2010, unless Code T can be tric^Wconvinced to sponsor it. A key driver to retiring the fleet is to eliminate the risk that astronauts expose them to on every mission. Autonomous Orbiter is an alternative answer that could carry the shuttle program well beyond 2010. > > And, to provide a complete answer, if the probes don't get deployed > > the procedure is to crash. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Granted, if there is no one aboard to fly theta limits, a crash is likely. The computer-deployed probes scenario was referring to a situation with no one on board. (Sans-monkey as well.) ~ CT > From Jorge Frank: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let's not overlook the fact that autoland was designed into the > shuttle from the beginning. <sigh> OK, it is "little more" than PowerPoint slides, not "nothing more." Autoland is only one part of "Autonomous Orbiter". > I expect there were engineers who wanted > STS-1 to have no crew members at all, or perhaps an all-monkey crew! You are correct about the former; there were Rockwell studies in 1973-74 to that effect. I'm not aware of anyone seriously advocating a simian crew on STS-1. Their presence would add nothing to the mission (they were flown on Mercury to see if primates could survive and perform simple tasks in space, not to fly the spacecraft). >> > In answer to Henry's >> > less-bogus-than-it-may-seem question, I expect that the computers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A key driver to retiring the fleet is to eliminate the risk that > astronauts expose them to on every mission. The most important driver, however, is to avoid the expense of recertification required by the CAIB (granted that the CAIB made that recommendation in order to reduce risk). That requirement will not go away just because the fleet is flown unmanned. > Autonomous Orbiter is an > alternative answer that could carry the shuttle program well beyond > 2010. However, NASA is counting on the savings from shuttle retirement to help fund the new lunar/Mars initiative. Sooner or later, the two will collide head-on. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > I expect there were engineers who wanted > > STS-1 to have no crew members at all, or perhaps an all-monkey crew! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Mercury to see if primates could survive and perform simple tasks in space, > not to fly the spacecraft). And given the problems STS-1 had on re-entry, sounds like it was good planning to have a crew on board. >And given the problems STS-1 had on re-entry, sounds like it was good >planning to have a crew on board. What made it even a better idea is that the Shuttle could have been struck by a freak solar storm which would modify the DNA of the chimps, while simultaneously throwing the Shuttle into a wormhole- from which it would return 200 years from now, after WW III had thrown mankind into a state of mute radiation -poisoned mental retardation. But the genetically modified apes would give birth to sentient talking offspring who would then seize control over the Earth and use the remnants of a debased humanity as slaves and pets....until a lost cosmonaut from a failed Soviet Moon mission also falls out of a wormhole and begins the struggle to restore humanity to its place at the top of the global pecking order of species in a "Battle For The Planet Of The Bolsheviks". All-in-all, I'd say everyone here owes John Young and Robert Crippen a debt of eternal gratitude for their brave STS-1 mission, which probably not only saved our descendants from a loathsome servitude at the beck and call of filthy apes, but also prevented a far-future world from falling into a strange mute communism in which the God-given right of "Freedom of Speech" would be a hypothetical concept only. Pat >...But the genetically modified apes would give birth to sentient talking >offspring who would then seize control over the Earth and use the remnants >of a debased humanity as slaves and pets.... Are you sure this hasn't already happened? :) Dale > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Are you sure this hasn't already happened? :) Watch it, or I will hit you with a Tapir femur. :-) Moonwatcher > Watch it, or I will hit you with a Tapir femur. :-) "Probably spelled crzjgrdwldiwdc again, poor bastard. I keep on telling him there's only one G in crzjgrdwldiwdc." Response posted on new thread: "All-Monkey Shuttle Crew" news:<d3af8584.0404252039.28aa861d@posting.google.com> ~ CT >>SJ knowingly misrepresented info. Henry responded by knowingly >>misrepresenting info. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Had Henry fabricated a trick answer, then maybe... but he did not. > I still want Mary to send me the filthy slang name that the probes are known by...my imagination is running wild trying to imagine what it is...Penisprobes? Cockblowers? Hangdicks? Fudgepokers? Windpeckers? Airpricks?...the mind reels! :-) Pat > >>SJ knowingly misrepresented info. Henry responded by knowingly > >>misrepresenting info. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is...Penisprobes? Cockblowers? Hangdicks? Fudgepokers? Windpeckers? > Airpricks?...the mind reels! :-) Dog Peckers. > Pat >>I still want Mary to send me the filthy slang name that the probes are >>known by...my imagination is running wild trying to imagine what it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Dog Peckers. Should have thought of that one.... Pat > >>I still want Mary to send me the filthy slang name that the probes are > >>known by...my imagination is running wild trying to imagine what it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Should have thought of that one.... Well, I unfortunately can't take credit. A little birdie told me that one. > Pat > >>SJ knowingly misrepresented info. Henry responded by knowingly > >>misrepresenting info. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is...Penisprobes? Cockblowers? Hangdicks? Fudgepokers? Windpeckers? > Airpricks?...the mind reels! :-) Oh, all right. They're called the do##*^//! NO CARRIER SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >Oh, all right. They're called the do##*^//! NO CARRIER I _love_ it when you type dirty! More, more! Pat > >Oh, all right. They're called the do##*^//! NO CARRIER > > I _love_ it when you type dirty! > More, more! Pat must have the same cause as I. Smut. We're for it. > Pat >Pat must have the same cause as I. > >Smut. We're for it. Go smut, go! Pat >>Pat must have the same cause as I. >> >>Smut. We're for it. > > Go smut, go! Why have a hobby like Tennis or Philately? (When you can have a hobby re-reading Lady Chatterly) SignaturePete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster > >>Pat must have the same cause as I. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why have a hobby like Tennis or Philately? > (When you can have a hobby re-reading Lady Chatterly) Or Archie, for that matter. Nothing is so clean that it cannot be made dirty by a suitable mental filter. > >>Pat must have the same cause as I. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why have a hobby like Tennis or Philately? > (When you can have a hobby re-reading Lady Chatterly) Philately? "I can't, Jughead, I'm late for the last meeting of the Philatelists's Club." "Gee, Porgie -- I didn't know you masturbated!" - Firesign Theater, "Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers" Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >Why have a hobby like Tennis or Philately? I'd prefer philandery. >(When you can have a hobby re-reading Lady Chatterly) Screw that noise...it's "My Secret Life" or nothin'! "A flash of lightning showed even in the darkened room, the girl cowered and hid her face with her hands. I took her round the waist. "Shut your eyes, and lean your head against me." Mechanically she did, she was utterly unnerved. I felt down with my right hand the form of her thighs and haunches through her clothes. My p***k began to stand. Pulling it out, and taking her near hand I put it round my p***k just as the thunder roared. She kept her hand unconsciously on it for a time, then with a start took it away and jumped up. "Oh! it's wicked," said she, "when God Almighty is so angry...", and just as she got to the door a terrific flash made her turn round again. I caught her, and sitting down on a chair pulled her on to my knee; she hid at once her face on mv shoulder in terror. Coaxing and soothing, and exciting her, in her fear she listened, at times twitching and oh-ing. I was sorry I had touched her c**t the other day I said. "Oh! now don't." "Feel my p***k again, do dear." "Let me go, you've no business here." Another flash came, I put my hand up her clothes, the tip of my fingers just touched her q**m. She struggled and got away, and in doing so upset the chair which fell down and broke. "Oh! now what will my mrssus say!" said she. Then a screech, and she got to the other side of the table." By God, they don't write 'em like that any more. (*** -Asterisks inserted for modesty's sake. Slowly, rhythmically, and yet with a need that could not be denied, Pat carefully inserted the asterisks; first one...then another... and then yet another, as the speed of his left index finger's movements on the keyboard increased, and he began to strike the key lustily with increasing force and urgency....while at the same time his left index finger cunningly held down the shift key -now moist and slippery with potato chip grease- while simultaneously stroking it with a slow back and forth motion...) > > I still want Mary to send me the filthy slang name that the probes are > > known by...my imagination is running wild trying to imagine what it > > is...Penisprobes? Cockblowers? Hangdicks? Fudgepokers? Windpeckers? > > Airpricks?...the mind reels! :-) > > Oh, all right. They're called the do##*^//! NO CARRIER So Neil and Buzz won the "mail in the slang name for the air probes" contest? No wonder their breath smelt like envelope adhesive. > > > I still want Mary to send me the filthy slang name that the probes are > > > known by...my imagination is running wild trying to imagine what it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So Neil and Buzz won the "mail in the slang name for the air probes" > contest? No wonder their breath smelt like envelope adhesive. More likely actually an astronaut who FLEW on the shuttle. > > > I still want Mary to send me the filthy slang name that the probes are > > > known by...my imagination is running wild trying to imagine what it > > > is...Penisprobes? Cockblowers? Hangdicks? Fudgepokers? Windpeckers? > > > Airpricks?...the mind reels! :-) > > > > Oh, all right. They're called the do##*^//! NO CARRIER > So Neil and Buzz won the "mail in the slang name for the air probes" > contest? No wonder their breath smelt like envelope adhesive. Nope. They weren't even born then. They're only ten and the air data probes got named long ago. It's no accident that Lassie was one of the few male dog stars; with that coat, who could tell? No embarrassing silhouette shots to upset the prudish that way. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >Nope. They weren't even born then. They're only ten and the air data >probes got named long ago. > >It's no accident that Lassie was one of the few male dog stars; with >that coat, who could tell? No embarrassing silhouette shots to upset >the prudish that way. Yeah, but what about their Q-balls? Pat > >Nope. They weren't even born then. They're only ten and the air data > >probes got named long ago. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yeah, but what about their Q-balls? Also hidden under the hair. You know, however, that the black nosecap contains a highly-sophisticated neural network air data system. Let me see, I clicked on a web site that someone recommended the other day: http://marbella.to/humour/dec00/torero.jpg which fits in with the joke about the tourist and the special dish at the restaurant at the bull-fighting ring. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > network air data system. NADS? > > network air data system. > > NADS? NNNADS, Nasal Neural Network Air Data System. You know, like the X-15 ball nose, which wasn't the same as SEADS, Shuttle Experimental Air Data System. The NNNADS replaced the CADS, Collie Air Data System. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >NNNADS, Nasal Neural Network Air Data System. You know, like the X-15 >ball nose, which wasn't the same as SEADS, Shuttle Experimental Air >Data System. ...Which was part of the development program for the Geopositionary Omniphasic Nasal Neural Network Airborn Directional System, an early 60's Air Farce autopilot system that allowed the pilot to safely guide his plane to a target with pinpoint accuracy by allowing the plane to follow its instincts and "nose" its way to the target by scent. The problem was that the system was very fragile despite serious engineering work, and if the plane lost its GONNNADS, it usually augured very quickly. >The NNNADS replaced the CADS, Collie Air Data System. ...Which the ASCPA had a hand in, after seeing how the Soviet system failed miserably with Sputnik 2. [/Pat] OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > > > network air data system. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The NNNADS replaced the CADS, Collie Air Data System. Sounds better than SCMODS, anyway :) > > The NNNADS replaced the CADS, Collie Air Data System. It that the one where the human rolls down the window and the dog sticks his nose out? > Let me see, I clicked on a web site that someone recommended the other > day: > http://marbella.to/humour/dec00/torero.jpg > which fits in with the joke about the tourist and the special dish at > the restaurant at the bull-fighting ring. Yes, sometimes the bull wins. > Mary >Let me see, I clicked on a web site that someone recommended the other >day: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Mary Title of photograph should read: "Compadres of Carlos console champion over cruelly crushed cohones!" - Rusty > Ok so maybe I was just scouting to check that the info in these groups were > reasonably accurate. But I would guess that the engineering staff would have > their own nicknames for things , as would the IT staff and pilots. Okay, so maybe you should have lurked for awhile and read through the last several hundred messages prior to your trolling post. You would have seen that the regulars here know their sh.t. That said, you're now an admitted liar. Welcome to my killfile. <Plonk!> SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > Ok so maybe I was just scouting to check that the info in these groups were > reasonably accurate. But I would guess that the engineering staff would have > their own nicknames for things , as would the IT staff and pilots. So, answer the question. >Your "memory" has let you down; it isn't. But if you wish to continue >to hide behind that, tell me the nickname for the air data probes. >It's definitely not classified. The Shafer Secret Society members ready their decoder rings.... Pat >> Riiiight. When do the computers normally deploy the air-data probes >> during shuttle descent, and what's the procedure if they don't? > >Urmmm... this information is classified, if my memory serves correctly. Nope. Trick question. You flunked. The correct answer, completely unclassified, is "the air-data probes, like the landing gear, cannot be deployed by the computers at all -- they can only be deployed by the flight crew". SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net >Nope. Trick question. You flunked. > >The correct answer, completely unclassified, is "the air-data probes, like >the landing gear, cannot be deployed by the computers at all -- they can >only be deployed by the flight crew". Oh, nice gotcha! Pat > >Nope. Trick question. You flunked. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh, nice gotcha! Isn't it? Nice job, Henry. I was biting my tongue to not give it away. I notice he hasn't volunteered the name of the probes, though. I'm too lady-like to post it, so I'll have to e-mail it to someone who will be bolder than I. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > I notice he hasn't volunteered the name of the probes, though. I'm > too lady-like to post it ...! >>I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that you >>see on cable news are not the only missions we did. >Riiiight. When do the computers normally deploy the air-data probes >during shuttle descent, and what's the procedure if they don't? Scotty goes out in a suit and cranks them down until they get three greens, of course... SignatureA host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 >I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. I can tell you that the mission that you >see on cable news are not the only missions we did. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The journey lasted seven days plus.. It's amazing they can launch them with nobody noticing, don't you think? ;-) Pat > It's amazing they can launch them with nobody noticing, don't you think? > ;-) > > Pat Betcha we have launched at least 4 since last year. Boy is this going to piss off haller. Sam > Betcha we have launched at least 4 since last year. Boy is this going > to piss off haller. > > Sam Surely Bob *should of known* about this.... BTW, googling on the OP's name reveals an interesting and esoteric career path...career police officer, doctor or medicine, baker....who's he think he is, Story Musgrave? SignatureDave Kenworthy ----------------------------- Changes aren't permanent - but change is! > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Betcha we have launched at least 4 since last year. Boy is this going >to piss off haller. Nobody notices the launchings due to the fact they now use completly silent alien anti-gravity technology back-engineered from the Roswell crash; alien technology is also being used to fix the ET foam-shedding problem...the foam will now be attached to the ET with Velcro. Pat > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > crash; alien technology is also being used to fix the ET foam-shedding > problem...the foam will now be attached to the ET with Velcro. You *do* realize that the UFO conspiracy addicts believe that nearly every major technological innovation of the past 60 years has been lifted directly from what was found in the ship that supposedly crashed at Roswell? Velcro included. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >You *do* realize that the UFO conspiracy addicts believe that nearly >every major technological innovation of the past 60 years has been >lifted directly from what was found in the ship that supposedly crashed >at Roswell? Velcro included. You know too much...the black Cadillac with Alex Trebek and Jesse Ventura in it will be arriving shortly. Actually, Velcro was a _Vulcan_ invention. Pat > You know too much...the black Cadillac with Alex Trebek and Jesse > Ventura in it will be arriving shortly. Actually, Velcro was a _Vulcan_ > invention. Sometimes it's a white Cadillac SUV with James Gandolfini and that guy with the big lips from the E Street band. Or perhaps a light grey GMC van with "ORDINARY VAN" stencilled on the side in a slightly darker grey. > > You know too much...the black Cadillac with Alex Trebek and Jesse > > Ventura in it will be arriving shortly. Actually, Velcro was a _Vulcan_ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the big lips from the E Street band. Or perhaps a light grey GMC van with > "ORDINARY VAN" stencilled on the side in a slightly darker grey. Or they just put out a bounty for the reposession of a 1970s Chevy Nova with New Mexico plates. Just don't look in the trunk. SignaturePete Stickney Radiation! You hear the most pernicious _Lies_! > >>It's amazing they can launch them with nobody noticing, don't you think? > >>;-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > crash; alien technology is also being used to fix the ET foam-shedding > problem...the foam will now be attached to the ET with Velcro. Actually, this reminded me of something else. Up until a few years ago, my grandparents would winter at a place called "The Great Outdoors" which was due east of KSC by about 20 miles. I recall asking my grandmother if she had watchd the previous week's launch. Her answer was no. She'd seen so many it wasn't worth it. Reflecting up on things, I find it incredible that my grandmother had gone from an age when even cars weren't the most common items to the point where shuttle flights were common enough that she was too jaded to care. An amazing century the 20th century was. > Pat "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in news:Y6uhc.101208$e17.37220@twister.nyroc.rr.com: > Up until a few years ago, my grandparents would winter at a place > called "The Great Outdoors" which was due east of KSC by about 20 > miles. Due *east*? SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in > news:Y6uhc.101208$e17.37220@twister.nyroc.rr.com: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Due *east*? #include <bugsbunny/albuquerque.h> > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in > news:Y6uhc.101208$e17.37220@twister.nyroc.rr.com: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Due *east*? I was imagining a cruise ship. Yeah, I need to loosen up. SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in > news:Y6uhc.101208$e17.37220@twister.nyroc.rr.com: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Due *east*? Yeah, it was cheap. Ok, sorry. WEST! :-) (I meant to say KSC was due east....) > I have been a nasa shuttle pilot. What flights? Dates, please. >A buddy of mine travelled to orbit the moon in > the shuttle. Who? When? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.