Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

Originally posted by zorgon
I would hardly call Bad Astronomy a "Great" forum but ...

is THIS polite enough?

What are you talking about, the BAUT forums are great. They have more brains hanging out there than most other places can dream of. However, I can see how those who push fanciful hypothesis that don't pertain to logic, reason, verifiable facts and common sense might not want to hang out there. But as a reference, they have great information over there and handle themselves in a very polite and courteous manner. They just don't let BS fly without a shovel...thats all, lol.

=DrivinWest;1107036
LOL. I've actually docked the ISS and the Shuttle on a few occasions (STS-108, STS-111, STS-113). As we say in the industry, "orbital mechanics is a *****." It takes ~3 days for the Shuttle to get to the ISS. Period. It's no different for Russian Soyuz or Progress vehicles.

May I ask then why the ESA website posts that Expedition 9...
Undocking: Oct. 23, 2004
4:08 p.m. CDT
Landing: Oct. 23, 2004
7:36 p.m. CDT

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

My calculator is not a fancy one but it comes up with 3 hours and 28 minutes from undocking to landing...

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain this to me...

Maybe I'm confused, are we talking about lift-off to docking time or are we talking about undocking to touch-down time. Either way, I don't need to bother to try to answer this, as over there you have access to first hand information. I would think you would kill for the chance to have a mature back and forth with someone who has been there? For us to sit here and debate this guy's information s ridiculous....just go ask him. I know leaving the safety and warmth of ATS might expose you to harsh reality...but I'll give you a warm blanket and hold your hand through the whole process.

Maybe sign up over there under a different user name, and try to act normal?

[edit on 12-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

[edit on 12-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon... I posted a link about the Soyuz a couple pages back that explains just this... 2/3 days up, 3-4 hours down.

A Soyuz trip to the station takes two days from launch to docking, but the return to Earth takes less than 3.5 hours.

Quoted from the official NASA website.

www.nasa.gov... index.html



[edit on 12-11-2007 by PartChimp]

Originally posted by zorgon

=DrivinWest;1107036
LOL. I've actually docked the ISS and the Shuttle on a few occasions (STS-108, STS-111, STS-113). As we say in the industry, "orbital mechanics is a *****." It takes ~3 days for the Shuttle to get to the ISS. Period. It's no different for Russian Soyuz or Progress vehicles.

May I ask then why the ESA website posts that Expedition 9...
Undocking: Oct. 23, 2004
4:08 p.m. CDT
Landing: Oct. 23, 2004
7:36 p.m. CDT

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Help me and maybe some others here. What is the question you're trying to ask here? For the life of me, I'd swear the question has been answered a couple of times now. Is it about the length of time needed to land a shuttle?

To repeat....The Soyuz capsule has a huge expanse in which to land. Immense even. The shuttle doesn't have the luxury of simply dropping out of orbit. Granted, there are a number of possible landing strips for the shuttle, but each and every one is strongly affected by local weather and winds. The process isn't "air traffic control" at your local airport. And the Soyuz capsules don't have enormous cargo doors to close properly, or the complex systems ( struts and gear anyone? flaps? ) to check out. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.....and frankly, it's getting bizarre.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by MrPenny

And the Soyuz capsules don't have enormous cargo doors to close properly, or the complex systems ( struts and gear anyone? flaps? ) to check out. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.....and frankly, it's getting bizarre.

WOW! Thanks MrPenny. I never thought about those complex systems. No wonder it takes 55 hours to get back.

Enormous cargo doors...Close
Struts...........................Check
Flaps............................Check
Gear............................Check
Apples..........................Delivered
Oranges.......................Delivered

Thanks for the heads up MrPenny!

reply to post by johnlear


Always willing to help John. I'm glad I was able to make that clear finally.

Thank you for your contribution.

Originally posted by housegroove23
Access Denied, even though I STRONGLY disagree with you on just about everything, I just want you to know that you are OK in my book.

I have grown to like you and respect your opinion.

Your friend housegroove23, member of the John Lear fan club.

Thank you, that really means a lot to me for you to say that… just when I was starting to think this was all a big waste of time too.

Originally posted by housegroove23
P.S. - What ever happened to our other favorite skeptic Charlton or what ever his name was, I really kinda miss that guy. Did we scare him away?

I guess you could say that. Chorlton got frustrated and said he was leaving and Springer banned him.

Actually my favorite skeptic is ArMaP… he really does his homework and he always manages to keep his cool. I get frustrated too easily by blind ignorance and I want to kill something.

[takes a deep breath]

Anyway…

Don’t know if this was posted already but courtesy of SpaceFlight Now here’s what the crew did on Tuesday the day after undocking from the ISS on Monday while waiting for the first of several landing opportunities to open up (depending on the weather) beginning the next day (Wednesday)…

spaceflightnow.com...

DAY/EST.........DD...HH...MM...EVENT

11/06/07
Tue 02:38 AM...13...16...00...Crew wakeup
Tue 05:23 AM...13...18...45...Flight control system checkout
Tue 05:38 AM...13...19...00...Cabin stow
Tue 06:33 AM...13...19...55...Maneuvering thruster test firing
Tue 08:18 AM...13...21...40...Wing leading edge sensors deactivated
Tue 09:43 AM...13...23...05...News media interviews
Tue 10:03 AM...13...23...25...Crew meal
Tue 11:03 AM...14...00...25...Deorbit review
Tue 11:33 AM...14...00...55...Entry video setup
Tue 12:00 PM...04...01...22...Space station status briefing on NASA TV
Tue 01:48 PM...14...03...10...Ergometer stow
Tue 02:18 PM...14...03...40...Recumbent seat setup
Tue 02:30 PM...14...03...52...Mission status briefing on NASA TV
Tue 02:48 PM...14...04...10...Launch/entry suit checkout
Tue 02:54 PM...14...04...16...Orbit adjustment rocket firing
Tue 03:03 PM...14...04...25...PILOT landing practice
Tue 04:03 PM...14...05...25...KU-band antenna stow
Tue 04:03 PM...14...05...25...Laptop network teardown
Tue 06:08 PM...14...07...30...Crew sleep begins
Tue 07:00 PM...14...08...22...Daily video highlights reel on NASA TV

11/07/07
Wed 02:38 AM...14...16...00...Crew wakeup
Wed 05:43 AM...14...19...05...GIRA stow; OCAC stow
Wed 06:58 AM...14...20...20...Group B computer powerup
Wed 07:18 AM...14...20...40...IMU alignment
Wed 08:03 AM...14...21...25...Deorbit timeline begins
Wed 11:59 AM...15...01...21...1st deorbit opportunity (rev. 238)
Wed 01:01 PM...15...02...23...1st KSC landing opportunity
Wed 01:35 PM...15...02...57...2nd deorbit opportunity (rev. 239)
Wed 02:36 PM...15...03...58...2nd KSC landing opportunity

BACKUP LANDING OPPORTUNITIES (preliminary estimates)

11/08/07
Thu 10:33 AM...15...23...55...Deorbit to KSC............Orbit 253
Thu 11:33 AM...16...00...55...Landing at KSC
Thu 11:58 AM...16...01...20...Deorbit to Edwards........254
Thu 01:00 PM...16...02...22...Landing at Edwards
Thu 12:01 PM...16...01...23...Deorbit to Northrup.......254
Thu 01:03 PM...16...02...25...Landing at Northrup
Thu 12:09 PM...16...01...31...Deorbit to KSC............254
Thu 01:08 PM...16...02...30...Landing at KSC
Thu 01:34 PM...16...02...56...Deorbit to Edwards........255
Thu 02:35 PM...16...03...57...Landing at Edwards
Thu 01:37 PM...16...02...59...Deorbit to Northrup.......255
Thu 02:37 PM...16...03...59...Landing at Northrup
Thu 03:09 PM...16...04...31...Deorbit to Edwards........256
Thu 04:08 PM...16...05...30...Landing at Edwards

11/09/07
Fri 10:39 AM...17...00...01...Deorbit to KSC............269
Fri 11:39 AM...17...01...01...Landing at KSC
Fri 12:04 PM...17...01...26...Deorbit to Edwards........270
Fri 01:06 PM...17...02...28...Landing at Edwards
Fri 12:08 PM...17...01...30...Deorbit to Northrup.......270
Fri 01:09 PM...17...02...31...Landing at Northrup
Fri 12:15 PM...17...01...37...Deorbit to KSC............270
Fri 01:13 PM...17...02...35...Landing at KSC
Fri 01:40 PM...17...03...02...Deorbit to Edwards........271
Fri 02:40 PM...17...04...02...Landing at Edwards
Fri 01:43 PM...17...03...05...Deorbit to Northrup.......271
Fri 02:42 PM...17...04...04...Landing at Northrup

Here’s the landing opportunity they actually went with on Wednesday…

EST...........EVENT

..............Rev. 238 Deorbit to KSC

07:59:12 AM...Begin deorbit timeline
08:14:12 AM...Radiator stow
08:24:12 AM...Mission specialists seat installation
08:30:12 AM...Computers set for deorbit prep
08:34:12 AM...Hydraulic system configuration
08:59:12 AM...Flash evaporator cooling system checkout
09:05:12 AM...Final payload deactivation
09:19:12 AM...Payload bay doors closed
09:29:12 AM...Mission control 'go' for OPS-3 entry software
09:39:12 AM...OPS-3 transition
10:04:12 AM...Entry switchlist verification
10:14:12 AM...Deorbit rocket firing update
10:19:12 AM...Crew entry review
10:34:12 AM...Commander/pilot don entry suits
10:51:12 AM...Navigation system alignment
10:59:12 AM...Commander/pilot strap in; MS suit don
11:16:12 AM...Shuttle steering check
11:19:12 AM...Hydraulic power unit prestart
11:26:12 AM...Toilet deactivation
11:34:12 AM...Vent doors closed for entry
11:39:12 AM...Mission control 'go' for deorbit burn
11:45:12 AM...Astronauts strap in
11:54:12 AM...Single hydraulic unit start

11:59:12 AM...Deorbit ignition (dV: 147 mph; dT: 1:58)
12:01:10 PM...Deorbit burn complete (alt: 223.3 sm)

12:30:05 PM...Entry interface (alt: 75.8 sm; vel: 16,979 mph)
12:35:24 PM...1st roll command to left
12:44:14 PM...1st left to right roll reversal
12:48:00 PM...C-band radar acquisition
12:55:16 PM...Velocity less than mach 2.5 (alt: 83,700 feet)
12:57:28 PM...Velocity less than mach 1 (alt: 51,200 feet)
12:58:47 PM...Shuttle banks to line up on runway
(alt: 32,200 feet; 192-degree right turn)
01:01:50 PM...Landing on runway 33

So we see in this case it took ~5 hours to prepare, deorbit and land the shuttle one the “countdown” was started ~5.5 hours after the astronauts woke up that day. The actual flight maneuvers only took ~1 hour.

Clearly John Lear and Zorgon didn’t do their homework first (hint: try using Google) before they came up with this ridiculous “secret space station” nonsense because they have no clue what all is involved. It’s really no surprise they believe there’s a massive conspiracy… they’re totally ignorant.

(and they count on you being ignorant too)

Later,

AD

[edit for clarification]

[edit on 12-11-2007 by Access Denied]

For those who care...

I have had to ban Access Denied again (this has to be the fourth time)... He was put on triple extra polite probation when he asked me (several times) to be allowed back on ATS.

He has failed miserably at not stalking Lear and Zorgon in every thread and rudely bashing them and their theories/speculations. he has failed at avoiding direct name calling (see the post above) and I question his ability ever learn social grace.

ATS is not for everyone.

He wrongly assumed Lear wouldn't freely admit everything he (Lear) postulates could be totally wrong, that he could be misinformed, etc... Lear reused AD's very own text and posted it right here www.abovetopsecret.com... I warned AD my patience with him had come to an end (again) so he is banned indefinitely (again).

It's really sad that some simply can't disagree without being disagreeable.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer


I've been reading here on ATS for a few weeks, especially the John Lear forum. I find it quite entertaining. I'm a skeptic for sure, but I enjoy a good story and Mr. Lear is certainly good for that.

I actually registered just so I could post a response to Springer's banning of Access Denied. I'm not sure about his (or her) history here, but it does seem a bit wrong to ban somebody right after they thoroughly debunk someone else's fantastical theory. When Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel for stalking him and calling him names, the CT's came out of the woodwork to claim it was because Bart had hit the truth and angered Dr. Aldrin.

It looks to me like banning Access Denied is an example of banning somebody who has presented evidence that completely invalidates the theory is a little wrong. It's also worth noting that the term "ignorant" isn't an insult. "Ignorant" is derived from the tendency to "Ignore" or be completely unaware of authentic information. I think this phrase says it best:

Ignorant is not knowing any better. Stupid is knowing better but doing it anyway.

I think a case could be made that Access Denied was actually being very polite in his assessment.

Here's the slight plan for STS-122 (Atlantis), scheduled to launch December 6th: Flight Plan.

It lists out the schedule for each crew member, so you can see exactly what they'll be doing for the whole mission.

Originally posted by StudioGuy
I think a case could be made that Access Denied was actually being very polite in his assessment.

I, very politely and humbly, would like to offer my very extremely humble and polite opinion, that I agree quite strongly with that above statement.

If this had been a debate, I'd say AD won against Lear hands-down.

In my humble, non-insulting, and non-confrontational opinion.
-Ry

reply to post by StudioGuy


While I don't have time to explain the mundane problem user management practices we employ, let me reiterate this thread is NOT the only issue.

AD was under the strictest of probation and was not even supposed to be engaging Lear because of SEVERAL bannings in the past.

I gave him a break and allowed him back on ATS because he asked nicely and PROMISEDhe would ignore Lear and NOT stalk Lear and Zorgon all over the site bashing their stuff.

Obviously he did NOT hold his end of the deal up.

END OF STORY.

Rdube02, you have better sense than this.

Springer...

Tiloke reborn

Some of us did see your post and I tended to agree with it.

Having said that I also did not know at the time about the AD vs JL posting considerations agreed to by AD. Guess that was ADs call and I can therefore understand Springer's actions now.

Please note I am not choosing a side here, just stating my new awareness of the situation. May be other were in the boat with me on this one.

I actually moderate a couple of forums myself, so I can understand dealing with troublemakers. If AD did agree to ignore and not respond to JL's posts, then I guess he's breaking his word. The difficult thing here is to figure out the truth. Afterall, who is presenting the evidence?

Springer's statement: AD begged to be reinstated after prior bannings and agreed to a probationary period. He broke his promise and has been banned by due course.

Potential Theory: Springer is a fan of JL and can't stand to see him debunked so thoroughly and is making up rules to justify his own actions.

Potential Theory 2: JL's reputation draws lots of hits to this site and those hits translate to advertising dollars. JL gets proven wrong time and time again and threatens to bail out of the ATS forums. Springer doesn't want to see one of the best attractions here at ATS leave, so agrees to ban one of the most effective debunkers.

Potential Theory 3: I have an invisible helmet on my head that projects what I'd LIKE to see into my line of sight rather than what's really there. There are lots of pretty colors and prettier girls out there which proves to me that this is true.

Feel free to take any of those. I don't necessarily endorse any or all of them, but it IS entertaining to discuss, isn't it?

And to stay on topic, NASA overkills everything, so why would it be surprising that they would spend 55 hours leaving the ISS and landing when it PROBABLY could be done in a much shorter time? I'll have to look it up, but doesn't the orbiter have 6 computers onboard for tasks that 1 or 2 systems could handle, just for redundancy?

By the way, I also think NASA is a huge, beurocratic waste. If Burt Rutan were in charge we'd be on Mars by 2010! (perhaps that's an exaggeration)

[edit on 12-11-2007 by StudioGuy for typo's]

[edit on 12-11-2007 by StudioGuy]

Originally posted by StudioGuy
...
And to stay on topic, NASA overkills everything, so why would it be surprising that they would spend 55 hours leaving the ISS and landing when it PROBABLY could be done in a much shorter time?
...

Let's not forget the called for beheadings if something goes wrong that planning could have avoided. We're at strike two now with shuttle alone...

reply to post by StudioGuy


You're new here so I can't expect you to know the history, but have a look round (for the evidence of AD's deal breaking) and get an inkling as to how "large" a venture The Above Network, LLC is and you'll see I don't have time for being someone's "fan".

WRT Lear being a "big draw" here, I do wish people would read entire threads before posting... He isn't a big draw, $40.00 a month doesn't cover the bandwidth this forum requires mate. Not to mention, he's been banned, by me in the past for violating the TAC.

And for the rest of the "Anti Lear clique", when you try to impugn our integrity AND violate the TAC (we don't allow swearing or "goodbye drama posts") all in one post, your post will be deleted and your account rendered useless. I am tired of the worthless bollocks and attention seeking, ATS is not for that.

Springer...


[edit on 11-12-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by StudioGuy
It looks to me like banning Access Denied is an example of banning somebody who has presented evidence that completely invalidates the theory is a little wrong.

At the end of Access Denied's last post in this thread (which was a great post for Shuttle time references), he called johnlear and Zorgon ignorant. He also implied that housegroove23 was also ignorant for believing them.

Despite his informative post, he broke the T&Cs of this website after repeated warnings by Springer. I suspect that he was banned for the name-calling and not the contrary evidence to johnlear's opinions.

I've been warned with a red flag once for calling someone a 'liar' when they DID lie about me. I have also been warned with a red flag once when I accused a member of being part of Leader Greer's Cult. You have to learn how to modify your attitude to stay within the civil boundaries and operate within the T&Cs that are well-defined. It was wrong of me to accuse people of being liars and Cultists, for which I ate humble pie.

You can't throw insults around here about members or their character. Attack their arguments, sure - but you can't attack them personally, or their right to type their opinions. Leave the moderating to the moderators. If you don't like what you read, then close the browser or use the ALERT button at the bottom of each post to inform the moderating team that a serious breach of T&Cs and etiquette has occured.

nataylor, thanks for the detailed link!

Well I am really sad to see that Access Denied got band.

But I respect Springers decision to band him and I understand why he did. Springer is really good at sticking to his guns about something and when he warns you about something you have got take it to the tee. Don't want to mess with the Springer.

I don't take what Access Denied said as an insult. I think that he was just trying to express his point of view and did not realize that he stepped over the line that time, or maybe he did, I don't know.

But I do think that Access Denied did dig up some good info and present some good data in support of his argument. That is hell of a lot more than what some of the other skeptics do here IMO. I think that we should take the data that Access Denied presented to us into consideration.

[edit on 11/12/07 by housegroove23]

I know this is off topic, but it seems the thread has evolved slightly...

I find the whole John Lear situation facinating. I think one of the biggest problems is he gives a face to theories that are challenging. Are they anymore challenging than other theories on this website? Not really, but most of the other theories don't have a visible champion on ATS such as Lear. This, I believe, draws sceptics like a moth to flame.

I've had my run-ins with John, especially around Dulce. He cherry picks his responses, and uses the get out of jail free "these are simply my opinions and may not reflect reality" statement, while I don't believe he truly means it. I find many of his responses to questions he doesn't like rude, though to be fair there has been a fair share of rudeness directed at him as well. I'm sure a couple of my posts were rude, and for that I publically apologise now to John, and anyone else who thought I was out of line.

So what's my point? Having got to the foaming in the mouth, "I can't believe anyone believes this crap" stage, I took a deep breath and thought about what I was trying to achieve. Yes, the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance", but the simple fact is, those who want to believe what John says will, regardless of any facts and figures that I or anyone else can throw at them. Sceptics are in the minority here. Consider if we went to bizarro ATS world, an ATS which presented mainstream theories, and the conspiracy theorist was the minority. John Lear presents his theory that 9/11 was orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden, carried out by some hijackers, and that was all there was to it. Access Denied continually presents credible evidence that holographs were used to mask missiles fired by alien aircraft. The result would be the same as it is on real ATS. People aren't going to stop believing what they do, because they don't want to. I've read a lot of threads on 9/11, listened to the alternative theories, and absolutely nothing has convinced me that the explanation is anything other than the mainstream one. But that said, I personally don't WANT to believe that it could be anything else.

So, in wrapping up, if Springer has provided fair warning (much of which goes on behind the scenes, the way it should), and if nothing is to actually be gained by chasing John and his merry men around ATS, then why waste the time and energy doing it? That was my epiphany. I don't need to prove anything on here, and I'd much rather have access to ATS and discuss the things that actually do matter to me, than get banned due to frustration over a topic that I find laughable. Will I still point out problems and inaccuracies when I find them? You bet, as this is the "duty" of every member. But you can take or leave my input, the same way we can John's.

John is obviously a draw card for ATS. He's an old guy who tells a good story. Where is the harm in that? Does it deny ignorance? Maybe not fully, but then again there are plenty of examples on Earth outside of ATS where ignorance should be denied that are more important than this.

Originally posted by Willard856Yes, the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance", but the simple fact is, those who want to believe what John says will, regardless of any facts and figures that I or anyone else can throw at them.

But see that whole "Deny Ignorance" thing... Skeptic use that phrase as if only they are "Denying Ignorance" in other words they assume they are correct and therefor anyone who disagrees must naturally be 'ignorant'

If on the other hand it were to turn out that NASA was lying about even ONE thing... then would the skeptic who is sticking to the 'party line' not be 'ignorant' while the person presenting the facts that NASA was indeed deleting records and hiding the truth (The Airplane Report Incident ) is now "Denying Ignorance"?

Sadly many use that phrase in the sense that deny everything that differs from your opinion, or any one who happens to disagree with you...

AD made one comment... that has been echoed by many other skeptics... that quite honestly I did find 'annoying' It was the labeling of anyone who would dare believe anything John says as a 'follower' or a 'cult member'

So because someone shares another's viewpoint... that makes you a 'cult member'? And this was not mentioned once, but repeatedly to the point that 'supporters' are identifying themselves as belong to the 'cult'

Now I have had mail from 'someone' that tells me skeptics here have been 'talking' ... so should I now automatically assume that they are forming a 'gang' to wear us down?

What surprised me most was that the comment was made that the skeptics are here because deep down they truly want to believe...

Well if this is indeed true... and I have no reason to doubt this... perhaps a change of tactics is in order?

When it comes right down to it ... there are only three sides here...

Those who Believe...
Those Who do NOT believe

And the thousands of others who are not sure and come here to learn and understand

A believer will never convince a skeptic, nor visa versa... this has been true for thousands of years and millions have died trying

But there are many who come away from these threads and have learned something and go on to research on their own...

My ,ail box is stuffed with replies of thanks for opening their eyes... yet they are not suddenly 'cult' members... merely those that are looking deeper before making up their OWN minds

Perhaps this is what the skeptics fear... that we will convert these 'innocents' LOL. I don't know

AD singled out ArMap as a great skeptic... I would agree and add JRA... they remain polite and work as hard as we do looking up data to support their side of the issue... and sometimes... even help the cause

One other point made was that John and his 'followers' should state emphatically that everything we believe or talk about MAY be wrong...

Well that is utterly ridiculous and unreasonable... and if I were to do that I would expect the same from any one of the skeptics to say the same...

I have threads about the Mars missions... the two Rovers are on Mars, they take photos...

This is a fact... how I interpret the images... I can say I MAY be wrong... so to make a blanket statement like everything I say may be wrong? Well sure heck why not... for all I know the Universe may be a matrix and EVERYTHING we THINK we KNOW is totaly wrong and the Gods or ET are laughing their heads of at the little ants trying to understand...

So which skeptic out there will be the first to say that he/she just MAY be wrong on their belief?

Sceptics are in the minority here.

Well CT'ers are a minority at Bad Astronomy... I wonder how they get along all just supporting each other...

Without either side there is no debate, no conversation and frankly little purpose in posting... But skeptics a minority? Hmmm maybe but they are certainly heard

But that said, I personally don't WANT to believe that it could be anything else.

Does this not directly conflict with your above stated desire to "Deny Ignorance'? And if your mind set is such that you don't WANT to believe, then I truly have difficulty understand why you would enter into a topic. Nothing against you... I just truly do not understand why...

if nothing is to actually be gained by chasing John and his merry men around ATS,

See? It just never stops does it? I bet you didn't even think about posting that... it 'just came out'
:shk:

Your explanation below does not address the need to 'chase' us around the board... perhaps deep down your subconscious knows we are on to something and you are drawn to us...

Now THAT would be a true 'cult member'

then why waste the time and energy doing it? That was my epiphany. I don't need to prove anything on here, and I'd much rather have access to ATS and discuss the things that actually do matter to me, than get banned due to frustration over a topic that I find laughable. Will I still point out problems and inaccuracies when I find them? You bet, as this is the "duty" of every member. But you can take or leave my input, the same way we can John's.

Originally posted by PartChimp
Zorgon... I posted a link about the Soyuz a couple pages back that explains just this... 2/3 days up, 3-4 hours down.

Yes you did... but you are not the guy doing the docking... that it was 'suggested " I ask... which I did... and I see nothing wrong or offensive or 'abnormal in the post I made... It is a reasonable question..

When I get an answer I will see if the gentlemen can be just that and give me a serious reply...