Post a pic that makes you LOL

[RocketGeekInFL]

 

[Bat-mite]

View attachment 390989

Smokin', smokin'
We're cookin' tonight, just keep on tokin'
Smokin', Smokin'
I feel alright, mamma I'm not jokin', yeah

 

[Nytrunner]

Oh hey, Bat's brought it up again inadvertently

 

[Rockyt]

 

[ROhmen]

Cheerleaders in Asia.

And yeah, I know I'm going to Hell.

 

[ROhmen]

 

[ROhmen]

 

[georgegassaway]

Scroll slowly and wait for it.....

STS-124 landing.
(this woulda been taken by an automated camera)

 

[tfish]

Tony

 

[RocketGeekInFL]

View attachment 391193

Tony

I wonder how those pontoons fair on re-entry? Are they Carbon-Carbon?

 

[boatgeek]

I wonder how those pontoons fair on re-entry? Are they Carbon-Carbon?

They're atmospheric only. An SR-71 tow plane lifts them off the ground and brings them up to supersonic speeds. In a maneuver like air-to-air refueling, the Shuttle docks on to the pontoons during descent from orbit. It's a tricky maneuver, but worth it to expand the number of available landing surfaces.

 

[georgegassaway]

Not an LOL, but a an interesting realization of a flawed concept that sounded right to a lot of people (like "pendulum guidance" for rockets - fatally flawed).

 

[Jim Hinton]

Not an LOL, but a an interesting realization of a flawed concept that sounded right to a lot of people (like "pendulum guidance" for rockets - fatally flawed).

Highly interesting point George. That is giving me cause to re-examine some of my troubleshooting techniques.

Jim

 

[RocketGeekInFL]

They're atmospheric only. An SR-71 tow plane lifts them off the ground and brings them up to supersonic speeds. In a maneuver like air-to-air refueling, the Shuttle docks on to the pontoons during descent from orbit. It's a tricky maneuver, but worth it to expand the number of available landing surfaces.

I think that is very feasible. This certainly increases the number of places where the shuttle could land. Another thing of point, if their trajectory was off and they were going to come up short on the KSC, they could always have the pontoons on standby and then land in Lake O. I just wonder how challenging it would be to take the shuttle and then move it to KSC. Maybe that is were the OCISLY, barge originally came from?

 

[boatgeek]

I think that is very feasible. This certainly increases the number of places where the shuttle could land. Another thing of point, if their trajectory was off and they were going to come up short on the KSC, they could always have the pontoons on standby and then land in Lake O. I just wonder how challenging it would be to take the shuttle and then move it to KSC. Maybe that is were the OCISLY, barge originally came from?

Naw, if it was ever needed, they'd bring in the Spruce Goose to lift the Shuttle 747-style. A floating crane drops the orbiter on top, you fire up all 8 turboprops, and Bob's your uncle.

 

[RocketGeekInFL]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/f...ium=cpm&utm_campaign=arb_fb_pop_m_a_a28576498

There may be something to this water landing after all.

 

[RocketGeekInFL]

 

[Mushtang]

Until Disney solves this problem by just buying Sony!!

 

[RocketGeekInFL]

I don't doubt for one minute Bob Iger is already figuring out how to make that happen.

 

[Bat-mite]

Until Disney solves this problem by just buying Sony!!

Disney is in financial trouble, which is how we got here in the first place. Here's my take on both sides:

Sony has struggled to have a successful Spider-Man franchise since Spider-Man (Raimi) 3 bombed. Suddenly, by allowing Spider-Man to be in the MCU, they now have their biggest money-making franchise of all time. This leads them to believe that they can now take the Tom Holland Spider-Man apparatus and go it alone.

Meanwhile, Disney is thinking that Sony would not have been able to produce a profitable Spider-Man franchise without Disney's partnership, and that, as such, Disney can now call the shots and Sony will be at their mercy.

Neither side is right, exactly. I don't think Spider-Man will do as well outside the MCU, and thus Sony will suffer for not playing ball. But Disney and the MCU are going to suffer more, since they were pushing Spider-Man to be the "next Tony Stark," in that he is to form and lead the next group of Avengers.

Lose/lose.

 

[RocketGeekInFL]

While I get your premise, I don't think this is the core of the issue at all. Disney is far from in financial distress for one. They took a loss on some Fox properties, but they also have had their most profitable movie year yet, and we still have four months to go. They will also have two more major films before the end of the year in Frozen 2 and SW9. The issue here is Kevin Feige. Disney will not make him available to oversee Spiderman due to his commitment to Phase IV. If Feige were to work on Spiderman it would spread him too thin and ultimately hurt all the projects. Currently Phase IV has no place for Spiderman as it is mostly introducing new characters and continuing a few existing ones plus a backstory, which will certainly play into the future in some way yet to be disclosed. The next Avengers Ensemble will bring back Spiderman I would imagine. This isn't a complete closed door yet. Also, I would not count out Iger buying Sony studios before his tenure ends. A tenure which I would put the odds at %99.999 he will extend yet again as they still don't have a clear succession plan. Then there is Disney +, this is projected to bring in %50 of all revenues for Disney. They certainly have the IP to make it work, and once they pull all of their IP from Netflix there will certainly be those that jump ship, not to mention they plan to intertwine MCU into the projects on D+. Not like they did with SHEILD where MCU was an afterthought. These stories will be part of the grander MCU puzzle and though you may be able to watch one without the other, I would imagine there will be enough crossover that without watching both things will get missed.

 

[RocketGeekInFL]

Knowing the way companies account for profit and loss, they are writing down a lot of the Fox merger to offset all their profits in other areas. As for attendance at the parks, that is such a small part of their overall profits, that it was covered by the profits on Endgame alone. They will most likely have a net 0 tax bill this year as a result. It is all accounting voodoo that all companies do. There is nothing wrong with the way they do this either.

 

[Winston]

I told you I heard something.

The Earth, too!

John Cleese writes to a 14-year-old fan.

 

[Nytrunner]

 

[FlyBoy]

 

[FlyBoy]

 

[sandeja1]

 

[johnnyrockets]

So funny! All these had my wife and I laughing out loud!


JR

 

[OverTheTop]

Flying back from Singapore I dialed up "Guardians of the Galaxy" for inflight entertainment. A message flashed up (I wish I had got a pic of it) and said "Some viewers may find the content distressing: Aircraft issues"
Seriously! Lots of killing and violence and aircraft issues might unsettle someone .

 

[FlyBoy]