Stay Off The Runway!

[fotobass]

Well, it must be ok with the moderators since they never say anything about the off topic stuff. But they haven't so we figure it is ok to occasionally talk about a 707 or in this case a space shuttle.

You haven't mentioned a single warbird in your post. I demand your immediate bananation.


*edited to save myself.* B-17G.

I think it's a great picture! Sure aint no "TRUCK ON THE RUNWAY - PULL UP AND GO AROUND!" option there. Now I suddenly have this craving for Tang...

Last edited by Dan Jones on Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[krlang]

HE HE HE!

Other spinoffs in this area include: Dustbuster, sports bras, hair styling appliances, self-adjusting sunglasses, and art preservation.

These items are beneficial for all of us!

[michaelharadon]

Now I suddenly have this craving for Tang...

Me too, for the kind they drank on Apollo-Moontang!

[Bill Greenwood]

My point was I thought the photo was funny. However if we are going to debate the cost/benefit to the average taxpayers; it is pretty silly to claim things like computers are here because of the space program. Ryan, I was under the impression the computer was invented by a Brit, then developed by IBM and furthered by Steve Jobs, etc. Could you please tell us which NASA scientist and when they invented computers, portable elctronics, GPS, emissions testing( love that one, funny when I have taken my car to be tested I have never seen any NASA guys there). As for fire proof materials, I was under the impression that things like asbsetos and firefighters protection predated NASA. Scott, there may be some medical side benefits to NASA, but do you really think they are more than we could have had if we directly funded medical research? Or offered medical ins coverage to the 16% of Americans who have nnon at all? You guys do make a good point about employment, and like many govt programs that is the real reason they exist, because some contractor and its employees can make a lot of money, as long as taxpayers are willing to fund it. Just like a defense contractors feeding on that big govt buffet. Take a look at a chart of Haliburton stock since 9-11.

[APG85]

IT WAS JUST A FUNNY PICTURE!!!

[Bluedharma]

You guys are too funny.


"this post should be ok, the picture has the word "Warbird" in it.
Diapers and Tang... you guys make me laugh my A## off.
Thank God for humor!

Live the Good Life.

[Elroy13]

Makes me crave some freeze dried ice cream/cardboard!!

[fotobass]

You guys are too funny.

Winner. Close the thread.


I mean...ummm...close the thread, warbird fans.

[EDowning]

Bill Greenwood wrote:

Guys, don't take every post as so serious. I thought it was a funny picture, even though I am not a fan of the space program as it seems to consume a huge amount of tax money with little real return to most people not in that industry. Not that Tang isn't great, I just prefer that God grown original stuff of which the finest fruit in the country comes from the Rio Grand Valley of Texas. And with the short range of most Spits I don't have much use for those special NASA diapers.

What, pray tell, are you a fan of?

[rwdfresno]

My point was I thought the photo was funny. However if we are going to debate the cost/benefit to the average taxpayers; it is pretty silly to claim things like computers are here because of the space program. Ryan, I was under the impression the computer was invented by a Brit, then developed by IBM and furthered by Steve Jobs, etc. Could you please tell us which NASA scientist and when they invented computers, portable elctronics, GPS, emissions testing( love that one, funny when I have taken my car to be tested I have never seen any NASA guys there). As for fire proof materials, I was under the impression that things like asbsetos and firefighters protection predated NASA. Scott, there may be some medical side benefits to NASA, but do you really think they are more than we could have had if we directly funded medical research? Or offered medical ins coverage to the 16% of Americans who have nnon at all? You guys do make a good point about employment, and like many govt programs that is the real reason they exist, because some contractor and its employees can make a lot of money, as long as taxpayers are willing to fund it. Just like a defense contractors feeding on that big govt buffet. Take a look at a chart of Haliburton stock since 9-11

Bill, I want to congratulate you. You finally have come across the one argument that I just don’t care enough about to argue lol. I will agree with you at least in spirit. A lot of money is wasted by the government and I’m sure a lot of money that goes into NASA is wasted in bureaucracy.

Safe Flying,
Ryan

[hang the expense]

Hello all, I dont mean to start anything but the cost of the space program is a drop in the bucket compared to what is pissed away by our govt in the way of welfare.We sure have benefited from the inventions derived from the space program and I cant think of any benefits from the govt hand outs to deadbeats. As far as the shuttle is concerned,I wonder what kind of super secret death bag stuff the shuttle has carried alot? The cargo bay sure looks big enough for a laser weapon of some sort.If the govt is showing and talking about the 747 laser I can only wonder what the size of the new laser system may be.

[EDowning]

um i fail too see how THAT object is even remotely a warbird? anyone else see how a space shuttle is a WAR bird?

This brings up a good point, if we want it to be a warbird,maybe we should use our Space shuttle to shoot down some other country's space shuttle, oh yeah, the other countries don't have one. I keep over looking these little points.

[Brett]

As the definition of "warbird" as used on this site is "aircraft that have survived military service" the orbiter does not fit this description.

It is either not in military service (belonging to a non-military branch of the government), or is still in military service because it is still used for military payloads.

In either case, there is a wonderful area of the forum for posts relating to non-warbird aircraft (or spacecraft), and that is the "off-topic" section.

If you want a more directed forum to discuss current military aircraft, civilian aircraft, spaceships, learning to fly, aerobatics, or US politics then ask Scott if he can create one for you to use.

I have to agree with Sabredriver in regard to this thread. I come here because it is a WARBIRD forum. If I want to read about non-warbird stuff then I will go to a non-warbird forum. It's not just this thread, there have been many that I personally believe do not belong on this forum. That is just my opinion. The moderators seem to believe otherwise, and as it is their sandbox they make the rules. However letting them know that some posters are unhappy about the way the forum is being used should be acceptable to all.

I suspect that many posters don't post off-topic threads in the off-topic forum because they don't think people will look at their post. If that is the case, then it is because people don't want to look at off-topic posts. Doesn't that tell you something?

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Cheers,

Brett

[sabredriver]

great reply brett, i must ask the space shuttle has NO mig kills, hasnt dropped bombs or carried a warload in essence.. so it aint a warbird .. even the CAF will never fly one.. - could be wrong

Does that mean if SS is a warbird does that mean the Boeing Delta rockets can be claimed as a warbird?