PaulLev1
Chrono Cadet
What do you JFK, the Beatles, and the Challenger disaster have in common? Loose Ends, on sale now for $0.99, then $1.99, then $2.99 in the week ahead (list price $3.99)
Loose Ends on sale
- Thread starter PaulLev1
- Start date
On shuttle losses.I know that the first one was based in an over advisement from authority over solid booster supplier Morton Thiokol's say, that not enough care was being place to the o-ring, top of metal solid booster slammed to the ocean surface deformation.There had been an ABC presentation as a reenactment of the first shuttle loss very clearly explaining this.The second loss is given in the link supplied, however thermal tiles respond in some instances to the same demands that any exterior panel, say for a balcony placed outside on an apartment building would, under certain airflow circumstances.This is a partial extract from theory, but still a relationship to the primary air flow physics effect, to where an increase in airflows over a partial recess lowers barometric air pressure within that recess, however with the new equation, justly restates, }That varied aero-thermal regimes as a selection of varied different heat and air flows over batteries of shuttle tiles, as by per regimes micro torsional moments at critical phasing to adhesive holding, can overcome bonding and therefore liberate that particular or group of tiles, to come loose.
Furthermore, there is a aero-in-space captaincy command situation relegated from this equation which states., as per command to ground tracking and or advisory command structures concerning all launched spacecraft under NASA's advisement, stating. That in lieu of an authority decision from CAP COM or NASA ground to air authority, that the captain's command of that spacecraft and in that particular situation, does have the final authority bedded in situational consideration oversight ing the worthiness of that spacecraft's determination to worthiness in the direction of the course and safety based within that command structure of that particular spacecraft under which that captain and subordinates determine the flight acceptance ability of.In other words, in the second of the series of U.S. space shuttle losses, it was the captain's determination as to the safety of the reentry viability of that particular spacecraft and that situation.This is to where the captain at his discretion, as vested by the chain of command structure did cast the final go, or no go command to either reenter that spacecraft, or so choose, to stay in orbit and request emergency parts and or technical assistance from the ground.
There is a recording of a said beam or lighting strike to the exterior of said shuttle craft.But knowing with respects to computer generated simulations being what they are today, this could have been anything?
There are no loose ends here.There is a similar vehicle that is being utilized by a security organization, but I don't know if there is any transmission potentials whatsoever from the very large space shuttle styles of vehicles, to a much smaller craft that it seems has the same styles of outer airframe materials?Knowing something as an estimation of the orgs. that sponsor this much smaller spacecraft.So more than likely methods of thermal protective prophylaxis, have probably already been met?.Legally, outside on your accusation, I myself do not see a loose end to be tied.
When anyone claims they need to tie up loose ends, then does this not also means to be silence, or do away with someone?I don't get what your'e trying to say here, or is the a promo for a new book?
Furthermore, there is a aero-in-space captaincy command situation relegated from this equation which states., as per command to ground tracking and or advisory command structures concerning all launched spacecraft under NASA's advisement, stating. That in lieu of an authority decision from CAP COM or NASA ground to air authority, that the captain's command of that spacecraft and in that particular situation, does have the final authority bedded in situational consideration oversight ing the worthiness of that spacecraft's determination to worthiness in the direction of the course and safety based within that command structure of that particular spacecraft under which that captain and subordinates determine the flight acceptance ability of.In other words, in the second of the series of U.S. space shuttle losses, it was the captain's determination as to the safety of the reentry viability of that particular spacecraft and that situation.This is to where the captain at his discretion, as vested by the chain of command structure did cast the final go, or no go command to either reenter that spacecraft, or so choose, to stay in orbit and request emergency parts and or technical assistance from the ground.
There is a recording of a said beam or lighting strike to the exterior of said shuttle craft.But knowing with respects to computer generated simulations being what they are today, this could have been anything?
There are no loose ends here.There is a similar vehicle that is being utilized by a security organization, but I don't know if there is any transmission potentials whatsoever from the very large space shuttle styles of vehicles, to a much smaller craft that it seems has the same styles of outer airframe materials?Knowing something as an estimation of the orgs. that sponsor this much smaller spacecraft.So more than likely methods of thermal protective prophylaxis, have probably already been met?.Legally, outside on your accusation, I myself do not see a loose end to be tied.
When anyone claims they need to tie up loose ends, then does this not also means to be silence, or do away with someone?I don't get what your'e trying to say here, or is the a promo for a new book?