Interesting pic of Space Shuttle Atlantis on shuttle mover

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Bootprint

Just because it's huge doesn't make it that complex. Look at the company that designed and built it, Marion Power Shovel Company. They didn't create any new technology for it.

actually, if you read any of the history, they did quite a bit of advancement on current technology. It had lots of problems early on with the bearings being insufficient to carry the weight.

and I still don't see you showing us any similar engineering feats of the 1930s.

You're replying to the wrong guy, Einstein.

 

[JackOfHearts]

Originally posted by: TheDro
God our space shuttles look pretty ghetto now... NASA needs a bigger budget.

Just what I was thinking... That sucker needs detailed, or put out on the used ship lot.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: TheDro
God our space shuttles look pretty ghetto now... NASA needs a bigger budget.

civilization is being ruined by the Sci-Fi Channel...

Maybe we can get a body kit to make it look cool, like those ones that make a Fiero look like a Ferrari. :laugh:

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Bootprint

Just because it's huge doesn't make it that complex. Look at the company that designed and built it, Marion Power Shovel Company. They didn't create any new technology for it.

actually, if you read any of the history, they did quite a bit of advancement on current technology. It had lots of problems early on with the bearings being insufficient to carry the weight.

and I still don't see you showing us any similar engineering feats of the 1930s.

You're replying to the wrong guy, Einstein.

you can call me names all you want, but you still haven't shown any proof of your claims.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: JackOfHearts

Originally posted by: TheDro
God our space shuttles look pretty ghetto now... NASA needs a bigger budget.

Just what I was thinking... That sucker needs detailed, or put out on the used ship lot.

Someone call MTV and see if they will Pimp My Shuttle. :laugh:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Bootprint

Just because it's huge doesn't make it that complex. Look at the company that designed and built it, Marion Power Shovel Company. They didn't create any new technology for it.

actually, if you read any of the history, they did quite a bit of advancement on current technology. It had lots of problems early on with the bearings being insufficient to carry the weight.

and I still don't see you showing us any similar engineering feats of the 1930s.

You're replying to the wrong guy, Einstein.

you can call me names all you want, but you still haven't shown any proof of your claims.

You haven't seen treads made in the 1930's? You haven't seen diesel engines made in the 1930's? You haven't see large earthmoving equipment made in the 1930's?

What part of the crawler was only made possible due to recent advances in the 1960's?

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Bootprint

Just because it's huge doesn't make it that complex. Look at the company that designed and built it, Marion Power Shovel Company. They didn't create any new technology for it.

actually, if you read any of the history, they did quite a bit of advancement on current technology. It had lots of problems early on with the bearings being insufficient to carry the weight.

and I still don't see you showing us any similar engineering feats of the 1930s.

You're replying to the wrong guy, Einstein.

you can call me names all you want, but you still haven't shown any proof of your claims.

You haven't seen treads made in the 1930's? You haven't seen diesel engines made in the 1930's? You haven't see large earthmoving equipment made in the 1930's?

What part of the crawler was only made possible due to recent advances in the 1960's?

how many other machines have you seen that can carry and move nealry 7 millions pounds of payload over a long route and not let the payload stray more than 10 minutes from vertical even while climbing a 5% grade?

and you're still confusing an ENGINEERING marvel with a technological advance.

and NO, you won't find any other track system anywhere using shoes that weigh 2000 pounds EACH.

 

[Minerva]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: JackOfHearts

Originally posted by: TheDro
God our space shuttles look pretty ghetto now... NASA needs a bigger budget.

Just what I was thinking... That sucker needs detailed, or put out on the used ship lot.

Someone call MTV and see if they will Pimp My Shuttle. :laugh:

They'll wrap it like this and use the proceeds to pay for research into future re-usable vehicles.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

how many other machines have you seen that can carry and move nealry 7 millions pounds of payload over a long route and not let the payload stray more than 10 minutes from vertical?

How many other applications have you seen where a machine needed to do that? What other purpose is there for a giant crawling bed that's steady?

The reason one wasn't built sooner has nothing to do with the technology required to build a crawler, it has everything to do with the fact that without a need for a very application specific machine, one isn't going to be built.

How many other purposed can you think of for the giant machines that I showed pictures of? They're built with a very narrow purpose in mind. The crawler isn't going to excavate coal from a seam, a bucket wheel excavator isn't going to carry a Space Shuttle around. All of these things are built for a purpose.

How come GM doesn't build a car that comfortably seats a guy with two heads? Is it because technology isn't advanced enough, or is it because there's no need to build something like that right now?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats


and NO, you won't find any other track system anywhere using shoes that weigh 2000 pounds EACH.

The machine I showed you is much larger than the crawler and weighs 4x as much.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

how many other machines have you seen that can carry and move nealry 7 millions pounds of payload over a long route and not let the payload stray more than 10 minutes from vertical?

How many other applications have you seen where a machine needed to do that? What other purpose is there for a giant crawling bed that's steady?

The reason one wasn't built sooner has nothing to do with the technology required to build a crawler, it has everything to do with the fact that without a need for a very application specific machine, one isn't going to be built.

How many other purposed can you think of for the giant machines that I showed pictures of? They're built with a very narrow purpose in mind. The crawler isn't going to excavate coal from a seam, a bucket wheel excavator isn't going to carry a Space Shuttle around. All of these things are built for a purpose.

How come GM doesn't build a car that comfortably seats a guy with two heads? Is it because technology isn't advanced enough, or is it because there's no need to build something like that right now?

And how does that preclude them from being engineering marvels?

Since you're so fond of that rock between your ears, I'll use an example you can understand.

Engineering Marvel.
No technology to speak of. Pretty much a singular purpose for construction.

 

[ppdes]

I wonder how the big railway guns compare?
http://www.aopt91.dsl.pipex.com/railgun...nt/Railwayguns/German/Dora%20index.htm

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

how many other machines have you seen that can carry and move nealry 7 millions pounds of payload over a long route and not let the payload stray more than 10 minutes from vertical?

How many other applications have you seen where a machine needed to do that? What other purpose is there for a giant crawling bed that's steady?

The reason one wasn't built sooner has nothing to do with the technology required to build a crawler, it has everything to do with the fact that without a need for a very application specific machine, one isn't going to be built.

How many other purposed can you think of for the giant machines that I showed pictures of? They're built with a very narrow purpose in mind. The crawler isn't going to excavate coal from a seam, a bucket wheel excavator isn't going to carry a Space Shuttle around. All of these things are built for a purpose.

How come GM doesn't build a car that comfortably seats a guy with two heads? Is it because technology isn't advanced enough, or is it because there's no need to build something like that right now?

And how does that preclude them from being engineering marvels?

Since you're so fond of that rock between your ears, I'll use an example you can understand.

Engineering Marvel.
No technology to speak of. Pretty much a singular purpose for construction.

I won't disagree that it's fascinating to look at, but I think my definition of engineering marvel would be different.

 

[dmcowen674]

I love the FOD banner "It's everyone's business"

For those that don't frequent tarmacs FOD = Foreign Object Debris

In layman's terms, a screw in your driveway can make you have a bad day.

 

[ppdes]

Heh, was just reading about it. The thing is electric:
"The Crawler/Transporter is powered by 16 traction motors powered by four 1,000 kw generators, driven by two 2,750hp diesel engines."

I wonder why they don't just run a power line to it and toss the generators and engines.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: NickelTitanium
Why is it considered an engineering marvel? The technology was based on 1950-1970 knowledge. If the U.S. continue to sit and point, then we will be even more behind then we already are. We are no longer the leading edge in a lot of fields. Wake up America.

It is an engineering marvel because it WAS the 1960s. And they are still the largest self-powered tracked vehicle on earth according to wiki. It's payload is at least 6.7 million pounds (which was the weight of the Saturn V)

I really wish people would stop referring to Wikipedia as just wiki. Wikis existed before Wikipedia. Are the extra 5 letters really that difficult to type?

 

[Toonces]

does the "Go Atlantis!" sign make anyone else think of Ralph's "Go Banana!" from the Simpsons?

 

[Minerva]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: NickelTitanium
Why is it considered an engineering marvel? The technology was based on 1950-1970 knowledge. If the U.S. continue to sit and point, then we will be even more behind then we already are. We are no longer the leading edge in a lot of fields. Wake up America.

It is an engineering marvel because it WAS the 1960s. And they are still the largest self-powered tracked vehicle on earth according to wiki. It's payload is at least 6.7 million pounds (which was the weight of the Saturn V)

I really wish people would stop referring to Wikipedia as just wiki. Wikis existed before Wikipedia. Are the extra 5 letters really that difficult to type?

6 letters.

Wikipaedia.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Minerva

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: NickelTitanium
Why is it considered an engineering marvel? The technology was based on 1950-1970 knowledge. If the U.S. continue to sit and point, then we will be even more behind then we already are. We are no longer the leading edge in a lot of fields. Wake up America.

It is an engineering marvel because it WAS the 1960s. And they are still the largest self-powered tracked vehicle on earth according to wiki. It's payload is at least 6.7 million pounds (which was the weight of the Saturn V)

I really wish people would stop referring to Wikipedia as just wiki. Wikis existed before Wikipedia. Are the extra 5 letters really that difficult to type?

6 letters.

Wikipaedia.

Wikipedia, is wikipaedia some kind of arcane British spelling? I bet you spell tire as tyre too

 

[Minerva]

Originally posted by: everman


Wikipedia, is wikipaedia some kind of arcane British spelling? I bet you spell tire as tyre too

Oh HELL NO! I'm proud to be American and speak American!

AARP is full of retyred people? HAH! blech that's auful.

Should've used energisers in that sarcasm metre of yours my lad.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Minerva

Originally posted by: everman


Wikipedia, is wikipaedia some kind of arcane British spelling? I bet you spell tire as tyre too

Oh HELL NO! I'm proud to be American and speak American!

AARP is full of retyred people? HAH! blech that's auful.

Should've used energisers in that sarcasm metre of yours my lad.

Sorry, the detector is in the shop and the loaner they gave me is just terrible, I think it needs some new tyres.