this post was submitted on
2,527 points (51% like it)
40,162 up votes 37,635 down votes

funny

subscribe2,486,203 readers

10,575 users here now

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

  • Rage comics - Go to /fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).


Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.


If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators


The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.


CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Leelluu 868 points869 points ago

Since I have lost 45 pounds, I feel like I should get to carry on 45 additional pounds of luggage.

[–]B1Gpimpin 380 points381 points ago

I on the other hand, am going to gain a shit ton of weight just to stick it to the man. Just enough to increase fuel cost, not enough to have to buy a 2nd seat.

[–]hiding_from_my_gf 1450 points1451 points ago

People laugh at this, but I flew from FL to ATL a few months ago and sat down first (three seats on my aisle). I had the aisle seat. I sit down and immediately lower my arm rest. An average size female sits down on the window seat. It was getting close to the doors closing and I was hopeful it would just be us two.

NOPE. Here comes a woman, easily 3 times my body weight (I'm about 165). Of course, there is her seat, right in between us. First, the large lady asks for my seat, "because she is disabled". Fat is not disabled IMHO. The lady glares at me and calls over the Delta flight attendant. She asked me why I wouldn't move over and I simply stated that I had already paid a premium for the seat and that there was no way I would have an entire seat to myself if I moved to the middle.

The flight was full. So to make her point, the large lady decides to try and squeeze into the middle seat. Before she tried to sit, she raised the armrest and I told her that the arm rest needed to stay down. She ignored me and sits anyways. She took up her seat and literally 70% of my limited space. The other woman in the window seat had a look of terror on her face as a large amount of flab was also hanging over her own side. Thank GOD the flight attendant told her that if she could not sit in the seat with both armrests down, that she would be unable to sit there.

This lady threw a fucking fit and refused to get up. She couldn't even attempt to lower the armrest. The pilot had to come back and tell her they would not take off if she did not exit the airplane. Finally she clobbered out of the seat and cussed everyone out all the way down the aisle as she exited the plane.

I looked at the flight attendant and told her I was sorry and she told me that I owed her no apology for expecting to have a seat that I paid for. During the drink service she offered me and the other woman in our row free alcohol.

I did not feel bad for that woman one bit.

edit: jesus. 15 minutes and 115 upvotes. I guess I'm not the only one.

edit: my girlfriend knows this story... very well. I'm fucked now.

edit: 2 hours later... she is on reddit right now. lets see how long it takes. I'm over her deleting some old comments now ಠ_ಠ

edit: ... and... thats that folks. she just gave me "the look".

[–]TheRaggedQueen 445 points446 points ago

Sorry you had to deal with a hambeast, but at least you got free booze out of it.

[–]nuvoletta_is 208 points209 points ago

shit man, hambeast. so good.

[–]BusinessCasualty 28 points29 points ago

Theraggedqueen is Matthew Inman's user name apparently.

[–]bmhatfield 15 points16 points ago

No, that's GiantBatFart.

[–]RogerElmore 3 points4 points ago

Rumham!!!

[–]abdomino 48 points49 points ago

Probably needed it to help forget the horror of the great white whale.

[–]Zerv 172 points173 points ago

Massive props for not doing what I have always wanted to do. If you take up more than one seat you should have to buy both. Putting other passengers in misery regardless of your condition should not be ok. Airplane seats are small, making them smaller by someone else next to you is not ok.

Last time this happened to me the middle person was a guy easily over 300 pounds and under 6'. Smelled terrible. This was for a 9 hour flight to europe. Farted and sweated the whole time and ordered no less than 3 meals (over the free ones) and tons of alcohol. He farted multiple times by raising his leg no less and it smelled like he shit his pants as it lasted a good 30 min, then he went up and got to the bathroom. I think the young 18~ ish year old girl on the isle must have been dying. He was wearing a short sleeve and I had to get up because he was sweating on my clothing. I stood for a large portion of the flight in which he flipped up the armrest and blobbed into my chair. I'm 6'~ 225~ (I'm not fat) and I keep to my own space on a plane even if it is uncomfortable.

I hate people.

[–]hiding_from_my_gf 112 points113 points ago

FAA regulation states, to my knowledge, that if a person cannot fit into one seat with both armrests down, that they are not able to fly. I could be wrong on whether this is still true for the entire FAA or just Delta and some other airlines, but I've flown next to a BIG GUY, not fat, just a large man, and gladly let him keep the arm rest up. He was polite and he wanted to get it down, I could just tell how uncomfortable he was.

It is about attitude in my opinion.

[–]Zerv 68 points69 points ago

I've done that as well. That's not the issue. It is people WAY to large for the seat. Having to deal with a little arm touching and an armrest is just how it is sometimes. Having someone overflowing into your area is not. Large people with broad shoulders can still usually fit without getting into your seat area (lets call armrests no mans land). When it is overflowing on you like jabba the hut when you cannot even really sit in your seat, that is not ok.

[–]h34dyr0kz 3 points4 points ago

as a 6'6" 220 pound man. i am not fat, but damned if i can fit in one of the seats comfortably.

[–]hiding_from_my_gf 6 points7 points ago

well if you are polite about it, you can chill next to me. just don't stink, and don't be an ass.

[–]HowsItBeenBen 68 points69 points ago

Being big is genetics. Being Fat is your own doing.

[–]queenpandora 14 points15 points ago

Not necessarily. There could be some weird mutation or a thyroid problem.

Although I feel like it's not a medical condition as often as it's claimed.

[–]1stunna 30 points31 points ago

those conditions are very rare, <2% of the obese population

[–]koy5 36 points37 points ago

Most fatties be fat cause they eat too much.

[–]xxfay6 5 points6 points ago

But the point was that it was uncomfortable, but not impossible. Also that as you said he was polite

[–]EsteemedGentleman 2 points3 points ago

I'd only allow someone like Hugo Reyes to share part of my seat.

[–]redditor9000 52 points53 points ago

If you didn't raise a stink, would the lady by the window still be alive today??

[–]taranasus 4 points5 points ago

Yes but she'd probably be anorexic by now.

[–]splendidorphan 38 points39 points ago

My little sister has a growth problem, so she is huge in bone structure and fat content. Her shoulders alone are half again as wide as the seat. Whenever we travel, I always take the middle seat so that she doesn't have to inconvenience a stranger. It's terribly uncomfortable, but I love her and I'd rather it be me squished against her than some random person.

[–]iDoiStuff 5 points6 points ago

lik dis if u cry evertim

[–]throwmeawayout 118 points119 points ago

Nor should you feel bad sir. Look, I don't feel the need to rip on fat people, but fuck any fat person who thinks their own problem should be my problem. They are the arbiters of their own destiny there - I should not and will not put up with their shit.

I have done the same as you did in the past, and I will continue to do so in the future.

[–]hiding_from_my_gf 82 points83 points ago

I think the worst thing she did was try and tell the flight attendant that if I COULDN'T fit in the chair, that was my problem, not hers. When she said that, the whole airplane in earshot was up in arms.

[–]throwmeawayout 57 points58 points ago

This isn't just a problem with overweight people. This is now an epidemic with all types of US citizens. People think their problem should be someone else's problem; it's one of those core issues like greed, over consumption, entitlement, financial elitism, and bigotry.

[–]Copie247 39 points40 points ago

Its not just a problem in the US, its all over the world, here in Aus, its exactly the same.

[–]hiding_from_my_gf 14 points15 points ago

I agree. It isn't just in the US. it is very apparent here, especially with people who expect you to give them what they want, and never consider the same for other people. ME ME ME. people are selfish. not just US citizens.

[–]RiPotato 12 points13 points ago

As a Canadian, sorry

[–]Setiri 20 points21 points ago

Let's just up it a notch and say quite simply, "...fuck any person who thinks their own problem should be my problem."

I've seen regular size people who have a whole slew of other problems that they expect to be my problem. No one should force that upon someone else. At least not intentionally and with pride... if you're overweight but very humble and apologetic, you and I might get along despite you taking up some of my seat. However if you're average sized but have an infant lap-child and expect me to help hold things for you and in general help with your child while having an entitled attitude about it during the whole flight... yeah. Fuck that person too. :)

[–]IceUck 3 points4 points ago

"I couldn't find/afford a sitter tonight, so I brought my screaming infant to the movie with me. If I have to put up with her, so can you all."

Same mentality. Fuck 'em.

[–]Mahhrat 15 points16 points ago

That is just standing your ground man, good for you.

I'm about 130 kg and plane seats are seriously cramped, but I don't expect more space than I pay for and would buy a second if I was that size.

[–]hardtobeuniqueuser 26 points27 points ago

if it fits i sits

[–]WestenM 52 points53 points ago

And you shouldn't. The acceptance and pandering to the morbidly obese is one of the reasons this country is so goddamned fat.

[–]jesustaint 18 points19 points ago

citation needed

[–]baronvonbari 10 points11 points ago

Nice story bro. Hope that liquor was tasty.

[–]scy1192 17 points18 points ago

Time to swallow as much lead as you can!

[–]Dominus-Temporis 18 points19 points ago

Forget lead, go for the uranium.

[–]jhmartin 13 points14 points ago

Excuse me sir, you've been selected for an extra pat down. Yeah we thought we saw something. No water bottles past security. Ok, you're good to go.

[–]Letherial 46 points47 points ago

Yeah! You ruin your body to screw those airlines!!

[–]thats_a_risky_click 42 points43 points ago

maybe he'll gain muscle mass.

[–]VirtualAnarchy 8 points9 points ago

This is achievable by sticking to a diet consisting strictly of doughnuts.

[–]flukus 21 points22 points ago

My muscle is all flabby and mostly around my waist. Am I a doing something wrong?

[–]VirtualAnarchy 14 points15 points ago

Did you eat them anally?

[–]rook218 7 points8 points ago

Maybe they should have given you 45 pounds less than everyone else before you lost the weight.

[–]iloveslowpoke 5 points6 points ago

The FAA considers the average person to be 184lbs, I hope one day to hit that mark.

[–]LoveOfProfit 132 points133 points ago

As someone who's always been skinny, I've always thought it to be bullshit that I have to pay for a small additional piece of luggage when the fat woman behind me ways easily 100lb more than me and doesn't have to pay anything extra.

If you're gonna go by weight, man the fuck up and weigh those fat asses.

[–]LOOKITSADAM 133 points134 points ago

And fuck those guys that weigh 220 with a healthy body fat ratio, if they didn't want to pay more they shouldn't be flying while tall.

[–]throwmeawayout 78 points79 points ago

If the justification is that the bags add extra weight, then yes ticket prices should be based on total weight of passengers + bags. Sorry.

I'm 6'1" and I already have trouble flying just because of the limited foot room. If you're 6'6" and above, paying $5-10 more for your natural extra weight is the least of your worries.

I'm sorry if this seems unusually cruel, but fat people should be discouraged from flying.

Edit: I think a little clarification is in order - I really don't mean to be cruel. I think the current measure of requiring someone to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat is fair. Perhaps the second seat could come at a discounted price. But honestly, fat people can't expect to pay the same price as someone half their size/weight and force the rest of us to make up the difference with our comfort/dollars.

[–]Spujika 43 points44 points ago

I'm 6ft5" and my god is it a pain when flying, especially internationally.

I had a recent story where I was on a domestic flight, in a regular economy seat. All of a sudden the lady infront of me reclines her seat onto me, and ofcourse my legs are poking right into her seat; I have no room to move. So all through the flight I slightly nudge the seat and move my knees around. I can see this lady looking through the cracks in the seat to check up on me and I hear her talking to her boyfriend and calling me names and going on about how I'm kicking her.

Eventually she got up and told me to stop kicking her as she wanted a peaceful flight and if I didn't stop she'd get a hostess. So I adressed her of my size and how she reclined into my knees and I can't do much because I'm so tall. So she gets a hostess to come over and the hostess basically told her to put her seat back up and apologised to me for the lady's inconsiderance. I could feel the anger coming out of the lady the rest of the flight.

That was just one of my airline victories.

I also got a highfive from a guy on my row when leaving the plane.

[–]reckie87 7 points8 points ago

I feel your pain man. I've had a similar experience with a person reclining. Although in my case the man in front of me turned around to say something realized my size and apologize for crushing my legs. Not every person is an asshole thankfully.

[–]jhmartin 38 points39 points ago

I think the most reasonable thing to consider with baggage is that someone has to physically handle it. The heavier, the harder. And the bag handlers probably have unions or some shit that say that they can't lift something more than 50lbs without extra equipment etc.

Disabilities, or whatever someone wants to call them, characteristics is a better word in my opinion, should not be pandered to if you are the cause. The controllable over intake of calories is the simple and explicit cause of fat people. I can do nothing to help that I'm 6'5'' (go /r/tall !) and it pisses me off more and more to see airlines helping people with problems that they cause and not helping with problems that are not controllable.

[–]throwmeawayout 10 points11 points ago

Yeah I understand how much harder it is to handle a 75# bag than a 35# bag. That is why I understand the 50#+ checked bag fee, but not the fee for 2 or fewer bags under 50#.

I'm with you on the not pandering to problems people cause themselves. Those people don't need coddling - they need honesty with a dose of kindness.

[–]EmSixTeen 57 points58 points ago

I'm sorry if this seems unusually cruel, but fat people should be discouraged from flying.

I think you mean fat people should be discouraged from being fat.

[–]Kado_Isuka 24 points25 points ago

fat people should be discouraged from flying.

Yeah, maybe when pigs fly!

... wait.

[–]halfchubb 8 points9 points ago

Thats exactly why they do it. The FAA has set a standard weight for adults and children. Its 180 per adult. Also its 30 pounds for a standard bag, (50 pounds and under) and 60 pounds for any bag between 50-100. Anything after 100 usually is checked at cargo.

[–]Helen_A_Handbasket 10 points11 points ago

Preach it! I'd be all for paying by the pound for my ticket.

[–]bufu117 7 points8 points ago

As someone who has always been fat, currently 5'10'' and 260lbs, I'm very sorry for the inconvenience... Losing weight isn't as easy as it seems :(

[–]NonPermissive 1572 points1573 points ago

It can carry your extra luggage just fine, otherwise they wouldn't offer the service, derp. It's just more fuel used up.

[–]straighttoplaid 91 points92 points ago

This is what people don't seem to understand. I work on turbine engine design for a living at one of the big 3 aviation engine companies and it's getting crazy how much effort is getting put into saving fuel right now. All the easy ways to improve efficiency have already been done so now we've got to go above and beyond the state of the art to squeeze more power out of a drop of fuel.

By far, the easiest way to get fuel burn down is to eliminate extra weight. I'm not talking about reducing weight from the aircraft itself, that's actually quite hard (take a look how long Boeing's lightweight dreamliner was delayed). I'm talking about eliminating stuff like luggage. It's not necessary to keep the aircraft in the air so if you can get rid of some of it you save money.

People moan a huge amount about the cost of airline tickets but they seem to forget that they're paying a few hundred bucks (for a domestic ticket) to sit in a machine that costs anywhere from $25 million (small commuter) to $390 million (monster jumbo) and will get them thousands of miles in the matter of a few hours. We're living in a time where our mobility has never been better and the companies that provide that really aren't making that much money. Airlines usually barely scrape by when times are good, and when times are bad they lose money literally by the plane load.

[–]Guppy-Warrior 19 points20 points ago

Pilot here and id agree with everything you said. Tickets are actually cheaper now than they once were..before deregulation and Taking inflation into account..

Flying use to be a luxury for the well-to-do, but now nearly everyone can fly.. And that is awesome. If you expect bus prices, take an 8hr ride on greyhound.

[–]Anticept 6 points7 points ago

And people forget, before deregulation, it was over a thousand bucks a ticket... In the 70's!

Also, hail A&P! In school myself, but not interested in working on airlines, I like my little planes :3

[–]Brisco_County_III 670 points671 points ago

Yep, and fuel is fucking expensive. That sucker is not running at peak efficiency by weight, carrying a giant shuttle on top. I'd also guess it's pretty stripped-down inside to compensate for the extra weight/drag.

[–]RedSalesperson 281 points282 points ago

0th Class: First class isn't enough for you? Pay a premium and ride to your destination in a goddamn space shuttle.

That's a freebie. You're welcome, airlines.

[–]Charlielx 93 points94 points ago

I'm trying to figure out how to pronounce that, would it be zero-eth class or zeroth class?

[–]frogminator 312 points313 points ago

If you cannot pronounce it, you obviously cannot afford it.

[–]Exekias 144 points145 points ago

Alternatively if you can afford it you can pronounce it any way you damn well please.

[–]MaxPowerzs 84 points85 points ago

Excuse me, stewardess? I seem to have dropped my monocle into my caviar.

[–]Atilla_Da_Pun 7 points8 points ago

Excuse me, stewardess. There are fish eggs in my caviar.

[–]GroovenileDelinquent 4 points5 points ago

Excuse me, stewardess, we are currently a mile high.

[–]NanoGeek 5 points6 points ago

We'll bring you another right away. Is gold with a sapphire lens suitable?

[–]Crjbsgwuehryj 26 points27 points ago

0st, 0nd, 0rd, 0th

[–]IntriguinglyRandom 25 points26 points ago

My brainnnnn

[–]Tanniith 84 points85 points ago

I'm a fan of Class Null

edit consequently, that's an awesome team name for something or an awesome band name.

[–]VirtualAnarchy 28 points29 points ago

Negative Integer Class represent.

[–]phidelta355 5 points6 points ago

Who's in the root of negative one? That would be I.

[–]LagunaGTO 0 points1 point ago

Our capstone team's name for ISS was Dev/Null Technologies. /

nerd

[–]1337HxC 37 points38 points ago

In science, it's usually "zeroth" (pronounced zeer-oath) power... so I assume the same applies here.

[–]Sir_Ronald_McDonald 17 points18 points ago

I wish I knew this when I was learning exponents in 6th grade. I said "zeroth" power once and my teacher burst out laughing, she had never heard it before.

[–]1337HxC 1 point2 points ago

Well, it's not very common... there's usually no reason to ever write it out.

x0 = 1, where x = any integer*

*Forgive me if that notation is off, I'm not so great with general mathematical notation

EDIT: as per kuhawk5's suggestion, changed the notation a bit

[–]chetlin 3 points4 points ago

In fact, x can be any complex number except for 0. 00 is kind of weird..

[–]Zoloir 6 points7 points ago

My mind said zeroth, but i like the extra sillAhhbull in zero-eth.

[–]saularme 6 points7 points ago

zero-eth zeroth

0th

[–]Brisco_County_III 12 points13 points ago

Hah, awesome! I love when I guess right about stuff like this! Though I am honestly a little surprised there isn't more added structural support.

[–]bubbal 7 points8 points ago

Pretty sure that the pressure of flying at 50,000 feet is much more structurally intensive than a space shuttle riding on top. Although, it's a different force... I guess I wouldn't really be surprised either way.

[–]joedamadman 9 points10 points ago

Stripped down is nearly an understatement.

[–]QuickJZip 10 points11 points ago

And here's the kicker, the fuel used to fuel your extra weight, adds extra weight.

[–]ExK4 68 points69 points ago

And the shuttle has wings, so it's actually kind of contributing.

[–]Thotaz 187 points188 points ago

not sure if true, or just /r/shittyscience

[–]jettrscga 66 points67 points ago

/r/shittyaskscience! It's the best place to discuss science shittily!

[–]Bruom 40 points41 points ago

What do you mean "shittily"? We science very seriously there, all day, every day, except on Tuesdays.

[–]Chewbonga420 25 points26 points ago

what happens on Tuesdays?

[–]CheeseAttack 53 points54 points ago

Laundry day.

[–]alphanon 37 points38 points ago

Bowling. They're shitty scientists, great bowlers.

[–]betterWithSprinkles 11 points12 points ago

Tacos.

[–]demongela 9 points10 points ago

Halo night?

[–]ablebodiedmango 11 points12 points ago

Polio Day

[–]cslayer23 3 points4 points ago

ugh why does it have o be private -.-

[–]BuickTime 14 points15 points ago

(Correctly shaped) Wings = Lift. It's probably not an accident that its nose is pointed slightly up.

[–]jacobc436 2 points3 points ago

Why is /r/shittyscience a private subreddit for me?

[–]poompt 11 points12 points ago

It's actually a front for /r/nutrition.

[–]jkalderash 9 points10 points ago

[–]whisk3rs 3 points4 points ago

Same here. It's a shitspiracy!

[–]soulofgranola 36 points37 points ago

Why don't they just use the shuttle like a jetpack?

[–]Brisco_County_III 67 points68 points ago

So the answer is actually pretty interesting:

  1. That huge fuck-off tank in the middle of the whole shuttle launch assembly is just fuel. It doesn't supply the boosters on the sides, it actually supplies those engines on the back of the shuttle. Without the big tank, the shuttle doesn't have fuel. No fuel, no rocket.

  2. Rockets aren't that efficient, because half their cargo (for the liquid-fueled ones like the space shuttle) is carrying oxygen for combustion. This lets them get into space, where there isn't any oxygen around, but it's not actually a great way to get around if you have air around you. It's basically the equivalent of hauling around scuba gear in your day-to-day life.

  3. Helping carry itself around is pretty much the last thing the shuttle was designed to do. Hauling the shuttle around is really easy, compared to going to space; you design it for the hard thing, and work around that for the easy thing.

Edit: "the answer" is hyperbole, since there are a ton of reasons.

[–]AlphaLima 74 points75 points ago

4. It would destroy the fuselage and vertical stabilizer behind it.  

[–]Brisco_County_III 18 points19 points ago

Pshh, minor problem.

(But yeah, that would be very not good)

[–]EMartinez86 3 points4 points ago

Wasn't that in a Bond Movie?

[–]aghl 4 points5 points ago

  1. The shuttle does have internal fuel tanks. The main engines continue to fire after the external fuel tank has been jettisoned.

  2. Solid fuel rockets carry their oxygen with them also. And, I wouldn't say that this is the case just so they can burn in space. It is a fundamental requirement of a rocket motor, even one only used within earth's atmosphere. How else would you get oxygen into the combustion chamber fast enough?

  3. Sure, I agree it would be ridiculous to use the shuttle's engines to assist during flight. That would not make the transport problem any easier/cheaper.

[–]phire 3 points4 points ago

  1. The shuttle does have internal fuel tanks. The main engines continue to fire after the external fuel tank has been jettisoned.

Not true, the external fuel tank is jettisoned just over 10 seconds after main engine cut off. The main engines are not used again for the rest of the flight, the only reason they are attached to the orbiter is so they can be reused in a future flight.

There are 2 smaller engines on the back of the shuttle which are part of the Orbital Maneuvering System or OMS which use a completely different fuel/oxidizer to the main engines. They are used to perform the final orbital insertion burn change/correct orbits and finally the deorbiting burn. Not a lot of fuel is needed, and the entire system including the fuel tanks is contained within the two pods which you can see next to the shuttles tail.

Interestingly, the external tanks were designed with the idea you could leave them in orbit for future construction tasks (space stations or interplanetary ships), the amount of extra fuel needed to fully inject them into orbit is tiny.

[–]jacobc436 14 points15 points ago

And why don't they just fly the Boeing on the shuttle's solid thrusters? Duh, it'll go faster. Fucking supersonic.

[–]DJ_Tips 47 points48 points ago

Or just build a launch pad at a 45 degree angle in the general direction of the other coast. Blast off, dump the rockets in one of the flyover states, then glide the rest of the way! Science!

If anyone from NASA is reading and would like to contact me regarding further consulting work, send me a PM.

[–]blackkevinDUNK 7 points8 points ago

this entire thread smells of the sweet savory scent of /r/shittyaskscience

[–]jacobc436 5 points6 points ago

If you can prove that you can do that in Kerbal Space Program, be my guest. That demo is really frikken hard.

[–]chronoflect 3 points4 points ago

I look forward to the day when I will wake up to a booster rocket crashing through my bedroom.

[–]mthode 3 points4 points ago

You and me both.

[–]mik3 10 points11 points ago

Why do they even need the jet, can't the shuttle fly by itself? /r/shittyaskscience

[–]Fuck_ALL_Religion 4 points5 points ago

The orbiter doesn't carry it's own fuel for the main engines, hence, they do not work without the big orange fuel tank attached.

[–]soulofgranola 15 points16 points ago

So convert the 747 into a fuel tank. What could go wrong?

[–]fingawkward 3 points4 points ago

Something about liking the tail end of the plane intact.

[–]Oni_Tabris 3 points4 points ago

Is this true? I would have thought the wings would only contribute if they were within a certain range of angles. Also, most jets have the ability to adjust parts of their wings as well, for different situations, don't they?

[–]AlphaLima 3 points4 points ago

The wings do create lift, see this video of Enterprise in unpowered glide tests. Its Angle Of Attack was increased compared to the regular transport for efficiency but as you can see it

[–]arksien 7 points8 points ago

I commented on this down below, but they stripped out EVERYTHING inside the shuttle carrier aircrafts, and as such the SCA with shuttle in tow actually weighs less than a stock 747 with a full compliment of passengers.

...and that's being very polite in guessing the average passengers weight...

[–]desleaunoi 143 points144 points ago

Also remember that humans have to move your luggage between conveyor belts and the plane, etc. so part of what you're paying for is the extra work the baggage mover people have to put in to get your stuff to and from the plane.

[–]isayniner 87 points88 points ago

As a baggage handler, please for the love of god try to fit it in a carry-on. I don't want to handle overweight bags as much as you don't want to pay for them.

[–]tsuichii 12 points13 points ago

Homeland Security will help him do another AMA after his AMA.

[–]CaptainRedBeerd 14 points15 points ago

do you have to use the indefinite article "a" dildo instead of "your" dildo?

[–]Mohawesome 13 points14 points ago

dude do an AMA!

[–]isayniner 30 points31 points ago

After reading his replies, he is a lot more cynical than I am. I try to care for bags and go the extra mile to ensure bags get to their destination. I don't know of anyone who steals, I don't purposely mishandle bags because they are heavy, and I respect that this is other people's property that they are paying to be shipped to their destination.

[–]LightningMaiden 22 points23 points ago

Going to go ahead and assume that there is no luggage on this particular flight as well...

[–]NonPermissive 26 points27 points ago

Well the pilot probably packed a lunch.

[–]lancerevo37 8 points9 points ago

TSA took it man

[–]meatspun 20 points21 points ago

I wonder how much the weight of a shuttle compares to a flight of fatfucks with luggage.

[–]hayburg 27 points28 points ago

Space Shuttle Discovery weighed some 488,000 pounds, while a fully-loaded 747 can carry up to 800,000 pounds worth of people, luggage and equipment

http://dcist.com/2012/04/how_the_747_managed_to_carry_the_sh.php

[–]frogminator 13 points14 points ago

TIL the space shuttle weighs less than fat fucks and their luggage

[–]LightningMaiden 4 points5 points ago

[–]CommentAsHeadlines 101 points102 points ago

Man explains entire thread in less than 25 words

[–]ckb614 15 points16 points ago

They should take into account your body weight as well. Maybe we skinny dudes can get a discount

[–]hollywoodbob 4 points5 points ago

While they're at it why don't they add a few more rows specifically for short people too, let everyone enjoy the bloody knees tall people have to endure.

Or just standing room only class. Get some hand straps like on the subway and just let us hang on.

[–]NotANoveltyUser 2 points3 points ago

Not just fuel, but I think its about the labor of people that can lift a lot of weight.

[–]EatMorePaint 2 points3 points ago

Also you don't mount your luggage to the exterior of the plane, you pay for space in the cargo bay on the bottom, derrrr.

[–]residentskitz 94 points95 points ago

Serious question, once airborne, does the shuttle help the plane have lift or anything?

[–]arksien 84 points85 points ago

I believe it's negligible. The shuttle itself isn't the most aerodynamically flattering craft ever built, but part of the bad aerodynamics came from the three main engines, which is the purpose of the tailcone on the back when the shuttle is on the SCA. A 747 is such a bulky plane to begin with that if I recall correctly, pilots report surprisingly little difference in response vs. a traditional 747.

Interesting side-note, the shuttle carrier aircraft with shuttle in tow actually weighs LESS than a commercial airliner with passengers in it. They gutted the interior of the two specially modified 747s, removing all seats, lavatories, extra floors etc. Removing all that weight, and not filling it with a few hundred passengers actually puts the modified 747 + the orbiter a bit under the anticipated load of a stock passenger liner full of passengers.

Edit - For sake of comparison, here's the stats on the SCA empty - 318,000 lb (144,200 kg), vs. a stock 747-300 empty 392,800 lb (178,100 kg).

Edit 2 - Each shuttle weighed a different amount. Each time they built a new one, they improved on the designs here and there. Columbia and Challenger were the heavyweights, with Atlantis and Discovery weighing significantly less due to improved thermal blankets which reduced the overall weight. Endeavour was the baby of the fleet and had a weight reduced even from it's previous generation orbiters. I'll see if I can't dig up their exact weights, but I just thought I'd add that in there.

[–]ishmetot 12 points13 points ago

Besides the engines, the delta wings (that you see a lot on figher jets) are optimized for supersonic flight, not for generating lift at jetliner speeds.

[–]whitefoot 14 points15 points ago

I asked this question in /r/askscience a few months back. Here is the thread with some helpful answers: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/swtd1/when_the_space_shuttle_piggy_backs_the_747_like/

Basically, the shuttle provides only enough lift to reduce it's own weight to nearly neutral.

[–]ArecBardwin 11 points12 points ago

If it did they would add shuttles to all airplanes.

[–]pobody 145 points146 points ago

Uh huh. And when a 747 carries the orbiter, that's all it carries. You want to shell out for a 747 flight by yourself and all your luggage, then this would make sense.

[–]immarried 103 points104 points ago

The shuttle weighs about 82.5 tons empty.

A 747-400 can carry around 416 people. Lets say that all of them weigh 200 pounds. (416*200 = 83,200 or 41.6 tons)

Each of those people brings 100 pounds of luggage (not likely) (416*100 = 41,600 or 20.8 tons)

Combined luggage and passengers are about 62.4 tons. The remainder is about 20 tons or about 40,000 pounds. The OP is simply saying that his bag ways 52 pounds costs him an extra 0 dollars do to weight. Meanwhile the plane itself is capable of carrying far more weight than it is being asked to carry.

This does not take into consideration the added weight of freight that may be taken along that has nothing to do with the passengers aboard the aircraft or the fact that a cargo version of the 747 can carry about 124 tons 4400 or so.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle

747-400 Max take off weight is 875,000 lbs.

[–]fiveeightthirteen 100 points101 points ago

I like your post, but they charge more cause it burns more fuel when it's heavier.

[–]immarried 25 points26 points ago

I understand the fees as my neighbors are pilots for United and American Airlines. I have had this discussion with them at length as they were hammered and wanting to share. While overall weight does affect the fuel usage there are other factors like speed, wind speed, and altitude which can also be used to compensate for or account for increased fuel consumption. In the end though they said its about the money, and the financial statements for many of the airlines after their beginning to charge for luggage reflect that.

[–]esdawg 19 points20 points ago

here are other factors like speed, wind speed, and altitude which can also be used to compensate for or account for increased fuel consumption.

Those factors are often random (Wind speed) or most likely already calculated w/ the ticket (altitude). In both cases I imagine the cost of those factors are averaged out and calculated for tickets.

The one thing the passengers can control and airlines can regulate is luggage weight. So it does make sense to attach fees for going over the limit. 1 person going over the ~100 lb marker isn't a big deal but an additional 10, 20, or 30 lb from every passenger adds up I'd imagine.

[–]RadiumGirl 5 points6 points ago

Why shouldn't it be about money? They're a business. They can charge whatever they want.

[–]PDNYFL 12 points13 points ago

I think the shuttle might add a little drag. I'm not an aeronautical engineer so that could be just a hunch.

[–]Philip_Jay_Fry 9 points10 points ago

Also, the inside of the plane has been hollowed out. This means no seats for all these people, no overhead compartments, no individual ventilation systems, less bathrooms, less insulation. All of which allows for the plane to carry such a heavy singular cargo What's it like to fly a plane with shuttle on top?

[–]doesnotexist1000 6 points7 points ago

count the sofas for weight.

Also:

Also remember that humans have to move your luggage between conveyor belts and the plane, etc. so part of what you're paying for is the extra work the baggage mover people have to put in to get your stuff to and from the plane. -desleaunoi-

Yep, and fuel is fucking expensive. That sucker is not running at peak efficiency by weight, carrying a giant shuttle on top. I'd also guess it's pretty stripped-down inside to compensate for the extra weight/drag. -Brisco_County_III

It can carry your extra luggage just fine, otherwise they wouldn't offer the service, derp. It's just more fuel used up. -NonPermissive-

[–]ZeusHoldsMyJockstrap 8 points9 points ago

I agree. Airlines are entitled to assume a maximum weight per person/bag for the purposes of planning how much fuel to pump into the fuel tanks. Expecting the carrier to transport unlimited weight for your standard fare/bag check fee/etc. is unreasonable.

Before the downvote bandwagon arrives, this is not the same as agreeing with the concept of the bag check fee which I think is ridiculous.

[–]Jorgemeister 9 points10 points ago

yes. OP dont be a moron.

[–]Stevasaurus 9 points10 points ago

Is that Houston in the background, HEY THAT'S HOUSTON IN THE BACKGROUND.

[–]fishebulb 10 points11 points ago

This is an idiotic comparison.

[–]Jonny_Watts 23 points24 points ago

I can recognize the Houston skyline in the background.

I don't know why. I just do.

[–]imdrunkontea 16 points17 points ago

The 747 in question is a highly modified aircraft configured specifically for this mission. If you were to go inside, you'd see that it is essentially empty aside from some structural members.

Another cool modification is that the tail, which is typically a single vertical fin, was changed to two smaller fins mounted on the horizontal stabilizer. This was because the space shuttle blocks the air in the center of the aircraft, which would have rendered a normal vertical tail useless.

[–]chris549 26 points27 points ago

Yeah as a aeronautical engineering student I can say the first thing we learn in aero classes is "every pound counts". more luggage = more fuel = more money

[–]Ares__ 60 points61 points ago

As someone who took 5th grade science... no shit

[–]pU8O5E439Mruz47w 9 points10 points ago

Yeah, but if you read this comment section, you'll realize apparently many redditors have not taken 5th grade science.

[–]exxxidor 12 points13 points ago

Does the shuttle's windows roll down in case you need some extra oxygen in flight?

[–]pantscrazy 64 points65 points ago

Union baggage handlers dont like lifting your heavy luggage

[–]AATroop 36 points37 points ago

But that's their job...

[–]phish92129 33 points34 points ago

As someone who regularly checks overweight baggage I must say that they deserve to be paid a little extra for lifting my shit. Unfortunately I have a feeling that the overweight baggage fees go into the airlines pockets and not to the baggage handlers.

[–]AATroop 19 points20 points ago

They don't get shit. Let's put it that way.

[–]Callmewolverine 10 points11 points ago

You may have accidentally a word.

[–]AATroop 21 points22 points ago

Your mother.

[–]Callmewolverine 11 points12 points ago

That's two words bro, first one is free, second one, I'll PM you my PayPal.

[–]AATroop 8 points9 points ago

Please do.

[–]AbeFroman171 5 points6 points ago

The rule is meant to protect workers backs as they lift your luggage.

[–]23_47 5 points6 points ago

Space Shuttle weighs: 78,100 lbs

474-400 carries 420 passengers, 150lbs per: 63,000 lbs of passenger

[–]newbie0_0 4 points5 points ago

the reason the weight is limited is because the baggage handlers can pull their backs out while loading the planes.

[–]rdawg69 4 points5 points ago

Aero Engineer here... just saying that the space shuttle creates enough lift to carry itself just fine. Much more than your luggage does inside the storage compartment. We tested it at the wind tunnel. Not saying that the shuttle isn't horrible on fuel efficiency though, but too much luggage literally can make a plane not fly at all

[–]stutteringgeiser 16 points17 points ago

How the hell does this submission have so many upvotes? There is absolutely nothing funny or clever about it.

Am I missing something?

[–]Superbestable 6 points7 points ago

People are misers and love complaining about airline prices.

[–]JohnScribbles 37 points38 points ago

Little known fact: the shuttles actually use an external material that is almost molecularly identical to paper mâché. Without fuel and instrumentation included, the average space shuttle can be easily supported by a baby elephant.

[–]CarpetFibers 52 points53 points ago

[Citation Needed]

[–]SirKeyboardCommando 28 points29 points ago

[–]veriix 5 points6 points ago

Checks out.

[–]Reddozen 17 points18 points ago

I'm confused, the above comment says the empty shuttle weighs 82.5 tons. I'm going to guess a baby elephant can't carry 82.5 tons.

[–]Mr_Ected 41 points42 points ago

In space it can.

[–]jandalofdoom 64 points65 points ago

[–]Woman_AMA 10 points11 points ago

He wowed me! With SCIENCE!

[–]IAMA_BLACK_MAN_AMA 6 points7 points ago

We should do an AMA together

[–]xblitzkrieg 15 points16 points ago

[–]JohnScribbles 6 points7 points ago

I'm not sure I like what you're implying there

[–]ShallowBasketcase 5 points6 points ago

> implying there are implications

[–]Outrageous_Pickle 9 points10 points ago

I see EA has added their new DLC to this product

[–]M_Y_A_C_C_O_U_N_T 2 points3 points ago

That should read if a 747 which is EMPTY of seats, passengers, all interior furnishings ... keep that in mind.

[–]WhitePostIt 0 points1 point ago

Actually, the 747s that are commissioned to carry the shuttle are stripped down bare - very little to no inside furnishings, just the necessary crew, and loaded with more fuel.