Nasa television iss

[Ahldagor]

Abrams tank is one of the best tanks made. Even Walter Sobchek understood that man. Don't start shitting on GE man. They'll find you.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Abrams tank is one of the best tanks made. Even Walter Sobchek understood that man. Don't start shitting on GE man. They'll find you.

Had to remind me of that, eh? /me drops a deuce on GE.
With companies like GE, who needs nuclear fallout? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, it's more frail. Just look at the Abrams tank for example, a few starts and it practically needs to be rebuilt. Our tech is very problematic, very susceptible to the damaging whims of environmental conditions. That while the old tech still endures, such as voyager 1 having entered interstellar space and still operating.

We do things differently say compared to the Russians as an example, which their design tech is usually minimalist. So example their guns and their fighter jets continue to operate while ours break down and require maintenance. We have excellent performance statistics, but what good is that in space when it turns into space junk because there is no factory nearby to make replacement parts?

weak response but good effort imo. the moon landing merits have nothing to do with this.

was a cool tangent though

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

weak response but good effort imo. the moon landing merits have nothing to do with this.

was a cool tangent though

How so? Just in a short couple decades we can't even get ourselves into space any longer, we rely on Russia to help us up. And in a few decades your grandkids will be saying "bah! we never put men into orbit, it was all faked!". Some are already saying that.

The moon landing is simply old tech, but reliable compared to our tech today. It really doesn't take a lot to get into space, and flying gadgets are simply an anchor to such an accomplishment. We have become a disposable society in a sea of tech junk. We don't even care about quality and functionality any longer, but just get the latest communist made cellphone and throw it away after a year. We don't deserve to go to space any longer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Space aint a handout.
It's not a govt social program.

[Ahldagor]

It takes a lot to get into space. We haven't gone back to the moon becuase there's no need to unless we want to start launching from there.

[R Flair]

You believed a lie. There is no way in 60 years we don't know how to create a better rocket attached to a plane. We have the tech to circle the globe in 2 hrs (10x faster than back then) yet mysteriously can't even fly a manned craft beyond earths upper orbit? Lies.

The problem is we can't go past the van allen belt, and never could. Nor could we likely communicate that far. Yet of course we managed to transmit in real time from the moon 200k miles away in 1960s yet I can't even get 1 bar in my house to a tower 3 miles away in 2016. B u l l s h i t.

[Rhambuk]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is we can't go past the van allen belt, and never could. Nor could we likely communicate that far. Yet of course we managed to transmit in real time from the moon 200k miles away in 1960s yet I can't even get 1 bar in my house to a tower 3 miles away in 2016. B u l l s h i t.

Someone give this man a championship belt!

[bdastomper58]

are we still doing retarded post awards

[Daywolf]

whatevah :/

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

whatevah :/

I'm in my phone but I'd say you approach this with a bias. Didn't you have a security clearance at a contractor plant?? You're inherently bias as a pseudo G-man I think.