Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

 I once landed in a soy bean field, that could be worse than wrong airport, but my options were limited.

We had a club member have a prop strike on landing and didn't notice it.  The tower called him to inquire what happened, he didn't notice.  I had the prop for several years, about 4 inches were bent back (C172).  The engine was checked out OK fortunately.

New props are expensive.

We're taught to land on the mains and keep the nose wheel in the air until it drops normally as speed decreases.  You have to land not only flat, but on the nose gear to strike the prop on the pavement, which is dangerous because of "wheel barrowing" down the runway.  Suffice it to say it's really poor piloting.  You'd fail your practical if you got anywhere remotely close to that, your BFR as well.  I can't imagine anyone on a 1000 fpm decent in a Cessna 172 anywhere near the ground.

The plane didn't have a transmission but the engine had to be torn down and checked for crankshaft issues.

The standard landing pattern is downwind at 1,000' AGL, then crosswind and then turn to final at maybe 500' at about 65 knots air speed.  Line it up, stay lined up, use throttle to control height basically, maybe drop flaps and put the nose down at that point and then flare out over the threshhold.

Maybe he had the nose down with flaps and didn't flare properly, you feel like you are vertical with flaps down.

Yeah, it's an odd feeling at first, and if you see you are short, you don't go nose up, you add power, which is counter intuitive.  But it works, amazingly well.

I took my flight test in a C152, I really liked flying that plane.  That's the one that quit on me.

The world’s largest experimental nuclear fusion project, one which may find a way to secure our energy needs in the future, achieved a key milestone recently.

On 28 July, a celebratory occasion marked the start of assembling major components that make up the fusion device.


https://swarajyamag.com/science/iter-the-bumpy-road-to-building-worlds-largest-fusion-reactor-and-indias-role-in-mega-project

by then it's too late and the world has come to an end

Let's imagine an analysis that shows the following as facts.

1.  Climate change is real and going to be dire.
2.  The only way to prevent this is a crash program to product electricity globally using nuclear fission reactors.  (Wind and solar can help to the extent possible, but we can't get to the goal fast enough.)

If those were accepted as facts, and there was not alternative, would you support Item 2 as a viable approach?

This is a hypothetical, if you want to claim these are not facts, fine with me.

so, can we get there fast enough with nuclear fission?
Wondering how quickly enough reactors could be built and on-line in 10 years?
how many would be enough?  (1000)  

Lip service is all we will get. No plans. Just bullshit.