If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jalopnik)   If you're a Bond-movie villain or there's some other reason your bucket list includes "steal a space shuttle," great news - someone's published a HOWTO   (jalopnik.com) divider line 38
    More: Interesting, space shuttles, California Science Center, guides, road closure, Roscosmos, web crawler, supernatural powers, loading docks  
•       •       •

1779 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Oct 2012 at 7:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-06 08:00:29 AM
Wanted for questioning:

moviesblog.mtv.com
 
2012-10-06 08:02:40 AM
But will it help me blow up Italy or France?
 
2012-10-06 08:09:09 AM
mimg.ugo.com

It has to involve Holly Goodhead, right?
 
2012-10-06 08:31:04 AM
if

I DID IT!

/meaning Holly Goodhead.
 
2012-10-06 08:35:21 AM
fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-10-06 08:43:38 AM
I would just shove it down my pants, and try to be inconspicuous as I walked out.
 
2012-10-06 09:05:59 AM
How a space shuttle would really be stolen: someone hitches it up to their truck and drives off while the moving crew is at lunch.

/might as well wait till the fed is defunct and buy one at auction.
 
2012-10-06 10:04:24 AM
This would work until some stupid kid on a dirt bike gathering tarantulas wanders into the middle of it.
 
2012-10-06 10:47:51 AM

retarded:


This is the bond you choose....I am disappoint.

/second worst Bond
//at least this is not Timothy Dalton.
 
2012-10-06 10:52:40 AM

Aikidogamer: retarded:

This is the bond you choose....I am disappoint.

/second worst Bond
//at least this is not Timothy Dalton.


Yes, that is the Bond I choose. Daniel Craig Bond is Best Bond, IMHO.
 
2012-10-06 11:06:28 AM

retarded: Aikidogamer: retarded:

This is the bond you choose....I am disappoint.

/second worst Bond
//at least this is not Timothy Dalton.

Yes, that is the Bond I choose. Daniel Craig Bond is Best Bond, IMHO.


He is too much of a whiner. Connery followed very close by Brosnan.
 
2012-10-06 11:19:56 AM
Yeah here he is being a big whiny baby.

Oops, I meant straight running a dude down and killing him.
 
2012-10-06 11:44:23 AM
what the hell? They actually PAID someone to write this crap? This is what stupid personal blogs are for.
 
2012-10-06 11:55:06 AM
Bennifer to the rescue.
s11.postimage.org
 
2012-10-06 12:13:33 PM
TFA overlooks the massive supply train and technical pool needed to make and keep the thing operable. An operation so massive, it requires facilities in multiple States here. Also that the thing is pretty old, and it's unlikely it could ever be made operable again, after all that decomm work. Some changes are not reversible without replacing the original hardware, and that adds up fast. And most of the hardware comes exclusively custom from U.S. contractors. Good luck with reproducing that, CH.
 
2012-10-06 12:17:46 PM
It was a heckuva lot easier in Homer Hickman's "Back to the Moon". All it took was a few NASA insiders and some guns.
 
2012-10-06 01:52:48 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: TFA overlooks the massive supply train and technical pool needed to make and keep the thing operable. An operation so massive, it requires facilities in multiple States here. Also that the thing is pretty old, and it's unlikely it could ever be made operable again, after all that decomm work. Some changes are not reversible without replacing the original hardware, and that adds up fast. And most of the hardware comes exclusively custom from U.S. contractors. Good luck with reproducing that, CH.


A lot of that supply chain would be easy to consolidate. Most of the sprawl across the states was from congress members threatening to put an axe in NASA's funding if this sprocket's or that gizmo's production wasn't moved to the area they represented. After a few cycles of this, the operation grew so bloated because there was zero room to streamline, and they were under threat of losing all funding if they even tried to apply common sense towards logistically sound streamlining.
 
2012-10-06 01:58:35 PM

Aikidogamer: retarded:

This is the bond you choose....I am disappoint.

/second worst Bond
//at least this is not Timothy Dalton.


Bull. Dalton was the best Bond that was doomed by shiatty writing and a production ownership dispute.

Roger Moore was the worst Bond, and I only say that because the last 3 he made he was old enough to be the Bond girl's father. If he'd quit while he was ahead he'd be my favorite.
 
2012-10-06 02:19:58 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to just create a distraction in NYC? Say, oh I don't know, simulated terrorism? And then steal the Intrepid with the Enterprise thrown in for good measure.
 
2012-10-06 03:21:26 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: TFA overlooks the massive supply train and technical pool needed to make and keep the thing operable. An operation so massive, it requires facilities in multiple States here. Also that the thing is pretty old, and it's unlikely it could ever be made operable again, after all that decomm work. Some changes are not reversible without replacing the original hardware, and that adds up fast. And most of the hardware comes exclusively custom from U.S. contractors. Good luck with reproducing that, CH.


You must be fun at parties.
 
2012-10-06 03:35:34 PM

Aikidogamer: retarded: Aikidogamer: retarded:

This is the bond you choose....I am disappoint.

/second worst Bond
//at least this is not Timothy Dalton.

Yes, that is the Bond I choose. Daniel Craig Bond is Best Bond, IMHO.

He is too much of a whiner. Connery followed very close by Brosnan.


Agreed, he's a bit of a whiner. But he is also one nasty MF. Very true to what I imagine a real spy with a 007 license might be like. He has faults. Connery and Brosnan were too "perfect" - definite Marty Stus.

Dalton was.... unimpressive.

My vote is for Craig.
 
2012-10-06 04:53:18 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Aikidogamer: retarded: Aikidogamer: retarded:

This is the bond you choose....I am disappoint.

/second worst Bond
//at least this is not Timothy Dalton.

Yes, that is the Bond I choose. Daniel Craig Bond is Best Bond, IMHO.

He is too much of a whiner. Connery followed very close by Brosnan.

Agreed, he's a bit of a whiner. But he is also one nasty MF. Very true to what I imagine a real spy with a 007 license might be like. He has faults. Connery and Brosnan were too "perfect" - definite Marty Stus.

Dalton was.... unimpressive.

My vote is for Craig.


I like that he has faults, as you said. He's fallible, gets his ass kicked. But he is hardcore and always the smartest guy in the room and usually a couple steps ahead. And pretty much what you'd figure a modern-day MI6 agent might be, probably with some special ops tours under his belt.

He's a more well-rounded character and thus comes across as more authentic. And still a badass.

Makes the older Bonds look like a bunch a dandy poofs, frankly.
 
2012-10-06 05:56:40 PM

Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: TFA overlooks the massive supply train and technical pool needed to make and keep the thing operable. An operation so massive, it requires facilities in multiple States here. Also that the thing is pretty old, and it's unlikely it could ever be made operable again, after all that decomm work. Some changes are not reversible without replacing the original hardware, and that adds up fast. And most of the hardware comes exclusively custom from U.S. contractors. Good luck with reproducing that, CH.

A lot of that supply chain would be easy to consolidate. Most of the sprawl across the states was from congress members threatening to put an axe in NASA's funding if this sprocket's or that gizmo's production wasn't moved to the area they represented. After a few cycles of this, the operation grew so bloated because there was zero room to streamline, and they were under threat of losing all funding if they even tried to apply common sense towards logistically sound streamlining.


Ah, good point. I'm still not sure about replicated some of that hardware, though. It's a fun thought experiment, but after we get done with the 'how' part of it, I get stuck on the 'why'. It's hard for me to imagine sufficient motive. Then again, some things are worth doing just for the sake of it.
 
2012-10-06 05:59:29 PM

VvonderJesus: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: TFA overlooks the massive supply train and technical pool needed to make and keep the thing operable. An operation so massive, it requires facilities in multiple States here. Also that the thing is pretty old, and it's unlikely it could ever be made operable again, after all that decomm work. Some changes are not reversible without replacing the original hardware, and that adds up fast. And most of the hardware comes exclusively custom from U.S. contractors. Good luck with reproducing that, CH.

You must be fun at parties.


More than you, I'm sure. This is the sort of comment I expect from youngsters who feel the need to prove how cool they are by putting down others for any reason they can think of (or in your case, dream up, since there is no valid reason here). That game got tiresome about three thousand years ago, but you're too young to appreciate that. So here you are, making it painfully clear to everyone else that you don't get grown-up humour or the entire point of what I posted. But it's still a free country, so have fun. Don't forget to call your mom if you're going to be home late.
 
2012-10-06 06:26:55 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: TFA overlooks the massive supply train and technical pool needed to make and keep the thing operable. An operation so massive, it requires facilities in multiple States here. Also that the thing is pretty old, and it's unlikely it could ever be made operable again, after all that decomm work. Some changes are not reversible without replacing the original hardware, and that adds up fast. And most of the hardware comes exclusively custom from U.S. contractors. Good luck with reproducing that, CH.

A lot of that supply chain would be easy to consolidate. Most of the sprawl across the states was from congress members threatening to put an axe in NASA's funding if this sprocket's or that gizmo's production wasn't moved to the area they represented. After a few cycles of this, the operation grew so bloated because there was zero room to streamline, and they were under threat of losing all funding if they even tried to apply common sense towards logistically sound streamlining.

Ah, good point. I'm still not sure about replicated some of that hardware, though. It's a fun thought experiment, but after we get done with the 'how' part of it, I get stuck on the 'why'. It's hard for me to imagine sufficient motive. Then again, some things are worth doing just for the sake of it.


Well, as far as the old hardware, IIRC, the main system for the SST was four 486's that ran in this odd configuration where if one didn't agree with the rest, it was shut off, on the hopes that the correct answer would be arrived at more often than a miscalculation. So if we upgraded to anything but the old Pentiums with the rounding bug, the system would be faster and better able to handle any upgraded sensor suites we gave it.
 
2012-10-06 07:46:39 PM
If using helicopters to move the shuttle was a practical solution, why wouldn't they be doing that to get it from LAX to the science center.
 
2012-10-06 07:53:06 PM

Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: TFA overlooks the massive supply train and technical pool needed to make and keep the thing operable. An operation so massive, it requires facilities in multiple States here. Also that the thing is pretty old, and it's unlikely it could ever be made operable again, after all that decomm work. Some changes are not reversible without replacing the original hardware, and that adds up fast. And most of the hardware comes exclusively custom from U.S. contractors. Good luck with reproducing that, CH.

A lot of that supply chain would be easy to consolidate. Most of the sprawl across the states was from congress members threatening to put an axe in NASA's funding if this sprocket's or that gizmo's production wasn't moved to the area they represented. After a few cycles of this, the operation grew so bloated because there was zero room to streamline, and they were under threat of losing all funding if they even tried to apply common sense towards logistically sound streamlining.

Ah, good point. I'm still not sure about replicated some of that hardware, though. It's a fun thought experiment, but after we get done with the 'how' part of it, I get stuck on the 'why'. It's hard for me to imagine sufficient motive. Then again, some things are worth doing just for the sake of it.

Well, as far as the old hardware, IIRC, the main system for the SST was four 486's that ran in this odd configuration where if one didn't agree with the rest, it was shut off, on the hopes that the correct answer would be arrived at more often than a miscalculation. So if we upgraded to anything but the old Pentiums with the rounding bug, the system would be faster and better able to handle any upgraded sensor suites we gave it.


This reminds me of the old joke, "How many Pentium engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?" (A: 1.99904274017, but that's close enough for non-technical people.) I think the orbiter fleet underwent a number of upgrades on all that, so those issues shouldn't matter at this point. But I can't help wondering, for all the cost and effort, if it wouldn't be more prudent to just buy a couple Burans and fix them up. Yes, you'd have to add practically everything, but I imagine you'd have to add a lot to any reclaimed Space Shuttle, and I figure the cost is probably comparable to the cost of the mad scheme in TFA. The Buran is more of a tabula rosa, and you add what you feel you really want and need, instead of having to negotiate all the stuff NASA packed into the Shuttle that you might not. And, you get the benefit of expert Russian space engineering, which is truly superb: built to perform and last, to hell with what any local representatives might want. Finally, you get good relations with Russia -- always a benefit for any modern European state -- and no friction with the U.S. (who will surely figure out who stole their Shuttle, and respond somehow -- if only by taxing the bejezus out of Victorinox imports).
 
2012-10-06 08:10:14 PM

SCUBA_Archer: If using helicopters to move the shuttle was a practical solution, why wouldn't they be doing that to get it from LAX to the science center.


I'm guessing it's not actually practical in comparison to other options for transporting it as NASA wants to, but is most practical for the needs of the scheme in TFA: moving it quickly from one location to another, without easy detection or trace and as few witnesses as possible, and no need to negotiate local roads. The Shuttle isn't just something you can flatbed and drag around, after all.
 
2012-10-07 02:05:58 AM
I live 2 blocks away from this (manchester and lincoln), so the whole crashing the plane might be at my apartment building; so, I'm not ok with this.
 
2012-10-07 09:21:12 AM

maq0r: I live 2 blocks away from this (manchester and lincoln), so the whole crashing the plane might be at my apartment building; so, I'm not ok with this.


Personally I would pack the smoke-generating material in the sewers and set it burning in there. Everyone would be getting the hell out of the area thinking a volcano was about to form.
 
2012-10-07 11:42:40 AM

Saberus Terras: maq0r: I live 2 blocks away from this (manchester and lincoln), so the whole crashing the plane might be at my apartment building; so, I'm not ok with this.

Personally I would pack the smoke-generating material in the sewers and set it burning in there. Everyone would be getting the hell out of the area thinking a volcano was about to form.


That does sound like it would be much more useful for the desired effect of obscurment, but I think it would defeat the other intended effect of a rational diversion. People understand plane crashes. They do not understand smoking sewers. The former should effectively distract enough people to allow the scheme to go forward. The latter might just create widespread panic, including by the authorities you're hoping to evade notice from, and scotch the whole operation. I say we stick to the plane crash.
 
2012-10-07 03:06:31 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Saberus Terras: maq0r: I live 2 blocks away from this (manchester and lincoln), so the whole crashing the plane might be at my apartment building; so, I'm not ok with this.

Personally I would pack the smoke-generating material in the sewers and set it burning in there. Everyone would be getting the hell out of the area thinking a volcano was about to form.

That does sound like it would be much more useful for the desired effect of obscurment, but I think it would defeat the other intended effect of a rational diversion. People understand plane crashes. They do not understand smoking sewers. The former should effectively distract enough people to allow the scheme to go forward. The latter might just create widespread panic, including by the authorities you're hoping to evade notice from, and scotch the whole operation. I say we stick to the plane crash.


Aw, damnit. And I guess it has to be a jetliner still, too... a smaller plane wouldn't hold enough material to garner fear or produce enough smoke to obscure the operation.... Unless we added the cost of a local building to pack with the combustables and fly a small plane into that... Makes me wonder if that would be cheaper.
 
2012-10-07 06:06:54 PM

Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Saberus Terras: maq0r: I live 2 blocks away from this (manchester and lincoln), so the whole crashing the plane might be at my apartment building; so, I'm not ok with this.

Personally I would pack the smoke-generating material in the sewers and set it burning in there. Everyone would be getting the hell out of the area thinking a volcano was about to form.

That does sound like it would be much more useful for the desired effect of obscurment, but I think it would defeat the other intended effect of a rational diversion. People understand plane crashes. They do not understand smoking sewers. The former should effectively distract enough people to allow the scheme to go forward. The latter might just create widespread panic, including by the authorities you're hoping to evade notice from, and scotch the whole operation. I say we stick to the plane crash.

Aw, damnit. And I guess it has to be a jetliner still, too... a smaller plane wouldn't hold enough material to garner fear or produce enough smoke to obscure the operation.... Unless we added the cost of a local building to pack with the combustables and fly a small plane into that... Makes me wonder if that would be cheaper.


Ah, I like this. Of course, it must still look like an accident, or else authorities might get all ONOEZ TERIZM and Shut. Down. Everything. Which again, could complicate matters. So, a perfectly plausible-looking plane, and a perfectly plausible-looking local warehouse or the like, filled with smoky flamey stuff.

Your idea gets around another complication, which my father brought up, that current FAA rules now require a verified manifest for all incoming passenger planes, just to enter U.S. airspace. A locally-originating small plane would not be subject to that complication, and crashes on takeoff would seem more likely than a plane crashing on final approach after a long and otherwise uneventful journey.
 
2012-10-07 07:47:43 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Ah, I like this. Of course, it must still look like an accident, or else authorities might get all ONOEZ TERIZM and Shut. Down. Everything. Which again, could complicate matters. So, a perfectly plausible-looking plane, and a perfectly plausible-looking local warehouse or the like, filled with smoky flamey stuff.

Your idea gets around another complication, which my father brought up, that current FAA rules now require a verified manifest for all incoming passenger planes, just to enter U.S. airspace. A locally-originating small plane would not be subject to that complication, and crashes on takeoff would seem more likely than a plane crashing on final approach after a long and otherwise uneventful journey.


You do realize that if anything similar happens in the future, both of us especially will be subject to investigation, and are both now likely on yet another watch list.
 
2012-10-07 10:08:11 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to hijack the 747 carrying the shuttle and substitute a modified Swissair 747 carrying the Buran? Fewer steps = less chance to fark up.
 
2012-10-08 01:09:58 AM

Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Ah, I like this. Of course, it must still look like an accident, or else authorities might get all ONOEZ TERIZM and Shut. Down. Everything. Which again, could complicate matters. So, a perfectly plausible-looking plane, and a perfectly plausible-looking local warehouse or the like, filled with smoky flamey stuff.

Your idea gets around another complication, which my father brought up, that current FAA rules now require a verified manifest for all incoming passenger planes, just to enter U.S. airspace. A locally-originating small plane would not be subject to that complication, and crashes on takeoff would seem more likely than a plane crashing on final approach after a long and otherwise uneventful journey.

You do realize that if anything similar happens in the future, both of us especially will be subject to investigation, and are both now likely on yet another watch list.


Yeah, but I've just resigned myself to that for a couple decades now, after all the many ways I've flouted authoriah for so long.

Anyway, I found another wrinkle. Turns out the original Buran was destroyed in a hangar collapse in 2002. (Thanks to crappy Soviet construction. You'd think the Cosmodrome would avoid that, but no.) OK-1K2 Burya (a.k.a. Ptichka) was closest to completion, but has some external oddments that make it look less like the OV Shuttles. That should be removed in preparation. And that's really the only option, because despite what TFA implies, there are no others, at least not worth speaking of. OK-2K1 Baikal was less than half done, and looks more like a locomotive than anything else. (One that's been in an accident, no less.) Shuttle 2.02 looks like someone's backyard mockup of just the nose section, and Shuttle 2.03 was dismantled by 1995. And that's it. There are no others. It's the Ptichka or nothing, and that one must be modified. And being the only complete-looking Buran in existence, may not be available at all. I suppose it could be stolen, but.. well, I'm just not sure how.
 
2012-10-08 01:17:01 AM
I suppose I should acknowledge that OK-GLI, the aerodynamic flight test analogue (analagous to the OV-101 Enterprise in design, form, and purpose) does still exist, does look right (can be modified without too much hassle), and is in good shape. And also in safe storage. In a museum in Germany. Not sure if that's any kind of option. I suppose a Euro-depressed Germany might entertain a bid for it, but I wouldn't bet on it. And for what they'd ask, it might be just as well to bid on the damn Space Shuttle.
 
2012-10-08 12:52:31 PM
Look, maybe we're overthinking this with the Buran. If we can get the Baikal as a base, finishing it out with plywood, sheet metal, and paint might be an option. (Hell, it might prove more space-worthy than the Buran for all we know.) Failing that, a plywood and lumber job skinned with metal and painted up wouldn't fool any one for long, but neither would the Buran/Baikal/Ptichka. It would fool them long enough though, and with all teh smoke in the vicinity, it might be plausable that they could think it was damaged. But that could backfire, too... crap.

Let's just fire up the DeLorean and hook up a spare flux capacitor to teh Challenger while it's in the VAB back on Jan, 19th, 1986. If my timeline is right, there should be a 6 hour window to get the flux discharge panels fit on the outer surface, and if the capacitor itself is recalibrated to around Mach 1.5 instead of 88mph...
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report