Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

January 28, 1986


Jangler

Recommended Posts

Today, in 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded just seconds after lift-off. All seven crew members were killed.

spaceshuttlechallengercrew.jpg

“ We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of Earth' to 'touch the face of God.' ”

“ Sometimes, when we reach for the stars, we fall short. But we must pick ourselves up again and press on despite the pain. ”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on my sub in the middle of nowhere. The radioman on duty got the wire in and told me first because he knew I was such a space fan (we were at Port Canaveral the summer before). I thought he was just trying to start a stupid patrol rumor till the Captain came on the 1MC as I was lying in bed and told us. Sitting in a giant piece of technology surrounded by a hostile environment while surrounded by all kinds of nuclear stuff also built by the lowest bidder makes you think.

At least those guys died doing a dangerous thing that they accepted the risk of doing. The poor guys of Apollo 1 died on the pad doing a dumb test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they actually asphyxiated - their suits protected them from a lot of the heat but the fire sucked up the O2 very quickly. Pressurized, pure O2 environment and a small spark against something that would never burn in normal atmosphere. No one had thought of this, as in space the pressure is quite low but for the test they had to have internal pressure to ensure nothing was entering the craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they actually asphyxiated - their suits protected them from a lot of the heat but the fire sucked up the O2 very quickly. Pressurized, pure O2 environment and a small spark against something that would never burn in normal atmosphere. No one had thought of this, as in space the pressure is quite low but for the test they had to have internal pressure to ensure nothing was entering the craft.

I think asphyxiated is > "you and your ilk"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on my sub in the middle of nowhere. The radioman on duty got the wire in and told me first because he knew I was such a space fan (we were at Port Canaveral the summer before). I thought he was just trying to start a stupid patrol rumor till the Captain came on the 1MC as I was lying in bed and told us. Sitting in a giant piece of technology surrounded by a hostile environment while surrounded by all kinds of nuclear stuff also built by the lowest bidder makes you think.

At least those guys died doing a dangerous thing that they accepted the risk of doing. The poor guys of Apollo 1 died on the pad doing a dumb test.

Damn, I just realized something. You are old. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At home from school that day. VIVIDLY remember the news flash about this.Stunned.

The artist for the Charlotte Observer did one of the best newspapers cartoons I have ever seen about this. Had the Eagle looking into space with tears.

Doug Marlette I think. He also did Kudzu. Very talented guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they actually asphyxiated - their suits protected them from a lot of the heat but the fire sucked up the O2 very quickly. Pressurized, pure O2 environment and a small spark against something that would never burn in normal atmosphere. No one had thought of this, as in space the pressure is quite low but for the test they had to have internal pressure to ensure nothing was entering the craft.

didn't know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • His footwork has been discussed at length, just like Cam's was--no argument from me there. What I'm asking for is a statistical indicator that supports the idea that Bryce's footwork is creating meaningful issues. With Cam, we could clearly correlate occasional high passes to footwork problems. With Bryce, there are occasional misfires as well, but we aren't seeing it surface with the frequency of severity you'd expect if it were such a persistent issue. That's why when concerns about his footwork and height are paired together, there should be some measurable statistical impact. That's what I keep coming back to. That same inconsistency shows up in the deep ball critique. Saying "he misses guys outright" suggests he either isn't seeing them or can't hit them downfield... yet, as we've already seen, he was top-10 in catchable passes over 20+ yards. If accuracy were truly the issue, it should reflect in the data. It's also worth pointing out that deep-ball concerns largely became the next talking point after he made it through the season without the durability disaster some were predicting (despite being sacked for what was then the second-most times ever for a rookie QB). As for those sideline throws you mentioned: what specific throws are you referring to? If you can identify them, I'd be happy to pull up the PFF premium grades or grab All-22 clips from NFL Pro to look at those sequences and assess how real that concern is. For my part, I'd actually like to see improvement in the intermediate game. That was a strength his rookie year, but he seemed to trade it for a stronger deep game this past season. Could that shift relate to height and footwork? Maybe! But again... we'd need data or film trends to verify that rather than assume it. On the "top-10" classification front: I know that it's a moving target for most people. That's why I've been asking for specifics. Without a shared definition, it's hard to engage meaningfully. So with you moving away from raw yardage, does that mean your preferred KPIs are now height, weight, red zone efficiency, and point differential? If so, that's totally fine (just being clear about it helps). That said... red zone success and point differential depend heavily on OL play, WR execution, coaching decisions, defense (for point differential), etc. They're influenced by the QB but not exclusively determined by him... which, like passing yards, makes them more difficult to isolate for analysis of Bryce's performance.
    • I think "amazing" is basically relating to his prior performances, which is a very low bar. Even at his peak(so far), he hasn't consistently been an elite performer either by the simple eye test nor statistically. Regardless, we have seen the flashes of WHY we drafted him #1 overall and he is visibility significantly more confident. Hopefully he has spent an inordinate amount of time this offseason getting that footwork better and more consistent. That's going to be a massive factor in his continuing improvement.
×
×
  • Create New...