Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

reel.deal wrote: lets say the 'apparently' opposing shadows at the top are the ISS 'curvature',
LMFAO! I hadn't even said anything about that yet, you knew the right answer the whole time! This whole forum is a put-on.
reel.deal wrote: from "the sun directly above".
really ? is that a fact ?
Again, I didn't say anything about the shadows yet. I can see you were trying to set me up, but then you decided to trip your own trap and act like you trapped me with it even though I hadn't said anything yet. If you want it to be less obvious that you're being a poe, you need to be a litttttle more patient. No, the sun is not directly above. In fact it's perpendicular to the main solar panels visible at the very bottom of the very bottom image you posted. In other words, it's above and BEHIND the photographer.
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

reel.deal wrote:Image
Image
whats this? ...is this hot pixels aswell ?
do most NA$A shuttle photos feature 2 moons?
OMG 3 suns, I must have faked this image!
http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm47 ... G_2401.jpg
(or it's just a filter flare from having an additional piece of glass, the solar filter and a UV filter in this case, the window in your case, between the camera and the bright object being photographed).
Indeed, in the full frame version of that image, not only is the bright moon subject to a dimmer copy of itself offset to the left, but so too is ISS. A dimmer copy of ISS is off to the left because it's a filter flare and any bright object in the image will be "copied" like that:
Image
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 006690.jpg
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by lux »

astronut wrote: Your questions are irrelevant.
On the contrary, they are quite relevant to statements that you've made. For example --

-- You've stated certain things are or are not possible when taking photographs from the moon, the ISS and the shuttle.
-- You call yourself "astronaut"
-- You have some connection to NASA (at least you claim to have created some part of the content of NASA's web site and other astronomy publications
-- You claim personal familiarity with the nuts and bolts (literally) of the space shuttle.
-- You write as if you have direct experience with space travel and its technology

In short, you write as if you are part of the space program. For all we know you could be Buzz Aldrin with a pseudonym.

So, I think it's quite relevant for me to ask once again ...

How many photos have you taken of the stars from the surface of the moon?
How many photos have you taken of the Earth from the ISS or shuttle?

You have claimed knowledge of what is and what is not possible regarding these activities so I think it is more than relevent to question your credentials in these matters.
How many galaxies and nebulae have you photographed?
None and I've never claimed any.
How many years have you been doing astrophotography?
Zero and I've never claimed to have done so.
Now those would have been relevant questions...
Why is it only relevant for you to ask for credentials from us but not for us to ask the same of you? Do you believe that your opinions are beyond question?

And, why do you demand we answer questions when you refuse to do the same?
Yeah, some cities are laid out in grid fashion, particularly the roads. And so they were flying over land at the time which was far more interesting to photograph than water at night... So what?
Then you're saying that the bright lines in this photo ...

Image

... are roads? Then what are the bright dots? Intersections? Cities? Or, is it all supposed to be one big city?

BTW, that must be quite a long lens they're using to be able to image roads from space! What are the specs of the optics and imaging device used to create this?

And, how do you account for the curvature visible in the animation? If those are roads then it doesn't seem possible that the curvature shown would represent the curvature of the Earth since it seems rather impossible to see both the curvature of the Earth and roads at the same time. Or, is that what you're saying this animation represents?

Please explain what exactly is being represented here. You did post it so I think my questions about it are relevant, don't you?

(But, of course, Simon's questions takes precedence :) )
Makkonen
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:21 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by Makkonen »

Interestingly, this...
Image

...reminded me a bit of this:
Image
Coruscant, the planet-wide city in Star Wars. The animation teams must use some reference/inspiration, after all... ;)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack »

*
Dear Astronut,

So here is the video you claim to have authored of the ISS in broad daylight - during the final mission of the Space Shuttle. :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgoVGWazev8
(Note: the running time of the video exceeds 1min30sec)

Now here's a sped up gif of an ISS video credited to one Mike Tyrrell (according to the timer we are seeing a 1min30sec timeframe). Note that we see the ISS in a continuous spinning motion:
Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Wp-CuJksk

This is the 2008 BBC television show with Mike Tyrrell:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Wp-CuJksk

Now, the question I have is rather simple and straightforward: Why does the ISS spin in Mike Tyrrell's video - and not in yours? Does the ISS spin on itself only at night - or depending on the location of the viewer?

*********************************

I have also bumped into the stunning work of one Thierry Legault. Is it legit, in your opinion? :huh:

"TRANSIT OF ISS and ATLANTIS IN FRONT OF THE SUN"
https://web.archive.org/web/20120123092 ... _2010.html
(please watch the 2 videos at bottom of page!)
Image
Image
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

simonshack wrote:*
Dear Astronut,

So here is the video you claim to have authored of the ISS in broad daylight - during the final mission of the Space Shuttle. :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgoVGWazev8
(Note: the running time of the video exceeds 1min30sec)

Now here's a sped up gif of an ISS video credited to one Mike Tyrrell (according to the timer we are seeing a 1min30sec timeframe).
First of all, yes the Tyrrel gif is very much sped up. It only shows 1 minute 30 seconds of the pass but that is not the maximum length of an ISS pass. Not even close. That's just the best 1 minute 30 seconds of that pass. Tyrrel also artificially stabilized his video by registering the images on ISS. When you do those two things the "spinning motion" becomes more obvious. It also helps to be able to track ISS beyond the peak of the pass because that's when your viewing orientation will shift to the other side of the station; that's half the "spin." I can only do that for southern passes that do not cross due north azimuth during the pass. This pass did cross due north, thus my telescope automatically over-rode the tracking program to perform a 180 degree spin to protect its cords from getting tangled. That's the downside to doing tracking the way I do it. By the time the de-tangle maneuver was completely ISS had already set over my roofline.
simonshack wrote: Now, the question I have is rather simple and straightforward: Why does the ISS spin in Mike Tyrrell's video - and not in yours?
The "spin" is a shift in the viewing orientation of ISS. Essentially you see the station nose-first at first, then from directly below, then from the aft. This shift causes what you describe as a "spin." It actually DOES happen in my video, but I posted the raw video without speeding it up and without registering on ISS. It's apples and oranges in terms of appearance of the video itself.
simonshack wrote:
I have also bumped into the stunning work of one Thierry Legault. Is it legit, in your opinion?
Yes it's legit. Thierry is the world's foremost amateur satellite tracker. He's gone beyond what most of us do; he gutted a perfectly good high end german equatorial mount to convert it into a mount exclusively designed for tracking ISS. The results speak for themselves. He'll also travel around the world to catch solar transits of particular missions. He actually had a good article about ISS tracking in this month's Sky & Telescope. The existence of ISS trackers like myself and Thierry is completely contradictory to the claims of this thread.
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

lux wrote: -- You've stated certain things are or are not possible when taking photographs from the moon, the ISS and the shuttle.
That's because I understand the basic photographic principles behind taking photographs of the stars, moon, shuttle and ISS. You can't capture stars while properly exposing any of the latter. No I'm not an astronaut, it's "astronut" not "astronaut." I haven't been to the surface of the moon, ISS, or the shuttle, but I have photographed all of them from the ground and I know how the photography involved works because it applies just as much to me on the ground as it does to astronauts.
lux wrote: Zero and I've never claimed to have done so.
Then that's why you don't understand the photographic principles involved.
Now those would have been relevant questions...
Why is it only relevant for you to ask for credentials from us but not for us to ask the same of you?
[/quote]
The credentials you should be asking me for are the questions I already posed to you.
... are roads? Then what are the bright dots? Intersections? Cities?
Cities and towns.
BTW, that must be quite a long lens they're using to be able to image roads from space!
Not at all. They're not resolving the individual lights in any detail, they're just point-like sources on the ground, some of them meshed together into the bright spots where you can't see each individual light.
And, how do you account for the curvature visible in the animation?
That's an effect exaggerated by the wide angle lens involved.
You did post it so I think my questions about it are relevant, don't you?
You fail to understand why I posted it or the context in which I posted it.
HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by HonestlyNow »

Hi, astronut.
Image
Please, if you could, identify which large city metropolis the lights in the right corner represent, so that we can figure out if the rest of the image makes sense geographically. Thanks.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by lux »

astronut wrote:
The credentials you should be asking me for are the questions I already posed to you.
Right. :blink:
Cities and towns.
The bright dots are cities and towns? Even those laid out in an evenly spaced grid pattern? I see. :blink:

That's an effect exaggerated by the wide angle lens involved.
Oh, they're using a wide angle lens from the ISS and it can image cities and towns and show them laid out in an evenly spaced grid pattern of dots. That must be some lens. :lol:
You fail to understand why I posted it or the context in which I posted it.
Do enlighten us on why and in what context you posted it.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by reel.deal »

astronut, i feel bad for NA$A, not being able to EVER make a decent composite
of the EARTH in full, against its real actual stellar backdrop.
but hey, i'll donate a black card disc so that HiRISE or whatever can mask out
the EARTH and capture the shit; once & for all...
do it for me, and the kids!

i was gonna ask you where the shadow X-FIGHTER was, i'm glad theres 2 MOONS,
only 1 MOON would just look so... wrong!

suggestion: NA$A divert some of its TRILLION$ budget into buying a 'ultra hi-tech'
freeware 1Mb download 'hotpixel-gone' kit.
:lol:
Image
http://www.tawbaware.com/pixelzap.htm

"hot pixels"...
"a filter flare from having an additional piece of glass"...


bottom line...
Trillion dollar budget; state-of-the-art Nikons;
shit photos.

lame.

upon
lame.

NA$A got 1.3 million examples of
photographys 'limitations'
& 'deficiencies'

documenting reality?
hot pixels & filter flares...

fly me to the moon...

a half million miles round trip in 5 days flat, on 1 tank of gas,
when it takes the shuttle 78 hours to dock with the ISS...
;)
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by reel.deal »

reel.deal wrote:
reel.deal wrote:
Unleashed wrote: NASA has some new ISS footage they'd like to show you. And guess what? They has stars! (sometimes! :lol: )
See, they can learn.

http://www.katu.com/blogs/weather/130331828.html

I CAN HAS STARS !!! (NOW!) ?!?
Image

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogtKe7N05F0
ok, its "90 MINUTES" to orbit the earth; @ "17,000mph".

so...this "AURORA" vid must be sped up at least X 10... APPROX 9 MINUTE FULL EARTH ORBIT ?
1. how fast do the ISS SOLAR PANELS move ?
2. what speed is the 'camera-jolt' at the start of this clip ?
3. how fast are the stars spinning ?
4. how slow are the 'Northern lights' Aurora 'dancing' ?!?


Good to know in space any '2 seconds' 'real-time' 'jolt', X10 = sped up to '170,000mph' = 20 seconds real-time videocamera-jolt !
& also good to know that relative POV galaxies spin way faster than any lazy spacestation solar-panels !!!

:huh: ;) :P

from same relative fixed POV - galaxies spin way faster than any lazy spacestation solar-panels...

:blink:
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by whatsgoingon »

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on Fri May 24, 2013 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

HonestlyNow wrote:Hi, astronut.
Image
Please, if you could, identify which large city metropolis the lights in the right corner represent, so that we can figure out if the rest of the image makes sense geographically. Thanks.
No, I'm not here to do your research for you. If you want to make a claim that the image is somehow wrong it's up to you to do the research and prove it.
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

lux wrote: Oh, they're using a wide angle lens from the ISS and it can image cities and towns and show them laid out in an evenly spaced grid pattern of dots. That must be some lens.
You're not making any sense. There's nothing mutually exclusive about using a wide angle lens and seeing the grid pattern of the roads and cities. Even that pattern is equally distorted by the lens.
Do enlighten us on why and in what context you posted it.
[/quote]
Read the thread.
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

reel.deal wrote: a half million miles round trip in 5 days flat, on 1 tank of gas,
when it takes the shuttle 78 hours to dock with the ISS...
;)
Sorry that you don't understand orbital mechanics as well as I do. The relative velocity between ISS and the shuttle prior to docking is considerably less than the relative velocity between an Apollo spaceship and the moon. Both of the former are in low earth orbit. For one to go faster than the other it needs to orbit lower. There's only so much "lower" you can get before atmospheric drag becomes a serious problem.
Post Reply