ENDEAVOUR - the 30-year Space Shuttle hoax

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.

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby pov603 on April 1st, 2014, 10:56 am

Burt Rutan is: 'Natur(e) Tru(e) B(e)' backwards...so Dinosaurs must've existed...
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 738
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on April 21st, 2014, 2:39 am

*

CHRIS HATFIELD - and the spiderwebs


If you cannot see that this Chris Hatfield clown is just a trained actor / comedian - there is no way I can help you...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo62S0ulqhA

Sadly, most people on this planet are willing to believe that Chris Hatfield is a real astronaut who really flew in the Space Shuttle - and in the ISS...

How long will this hoax endure? How long are taxpayers going to keep buying this (very expensive) crap ? :huh:

Please do listen to Chris Hatfield's rant about "spiderwebs" - at about 9.20 into above video. If it doesn't give you the creeps - YOU are a spider!

Image
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/575724/Giant-spider-Beast-eats-space-shuttle-Web-cam-films-attack.html

Image
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/spiders-space-station-nasa-7558.html


A 'photo' meant to depict Chris Hatfield's training in a NASA swimming pool:
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby Flabbergasted on October 19th, 2014, 5:39 pm

If anybody is interested, here is the space shuttle episode of BBC Richard Hammond´s Engineering Connections series:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s21d6qedcyhol ... e.avi?dl=0

Image

Fair use disclaimer: the above material is shared solely for the purposes of criticism, education and research.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby pov603 on October 20th, 2014, 6:18 am

...and he's not a hamster...
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 738
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby pov603 on October 20th, 2014, 6:29 am

simonshack wrote:*
A 'photo' meant to depict Chris Hatfield's training in a NASA swimming pool:
Image


What 'self-respecting Canadian' would wear a suit with 'Glory'Ole'...er...I mean 'Ole'Glory' on the arm patch rather than the 'Une Folle'...er...I mean 'L'unifolié'?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 738
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby AirplaneJoe on October 21st, 2014, 6:39 pm

There are so many things I do not understand about the space shuttle and there is very little information to be found on the internet. Researching I found a lot of interesting videos regarding the testing of the Soviet Shuttle Buran. There is an especially interesting video: Buran atmospheric test flight in 4 parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn8rrcQH0nw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ifMPiPpxKo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNvHV5DW9Tk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoSYIPiWhWo

The interesting part is that all the footage of March 1st 1986 looks very authentic, the test pilots look grim and serious before boarding the spacecraft, unlike the ever grinning US counterparts.

I start to think that the Soviets believed that the Space Shuttle of NASA really worked and started their own program of the Buran. The figured the only way to test fly the aerodynamics is to mount jet engines on it and fly it. Which proves what I really suspect. The Space Shuttle really is just another airplane with an extra heat shield. Also they planned to test fly it in orbit without astronauts, a smart idea and much safer. They probably found out however the could never launch it, maybe they had secret tests and faulty launches. They realized the could never launch a shuttle but did not want to look like losers compared to NASA. So they faked the launch and landing, called it a success and buried the program under the excuse of lack of funding in the declining USSR.

The only test flight NASA did on August 12th 1977 was a launch flight directly from a B747 without engines gliding on a salt lake. Piloted by the ex Apollo 13 hero astronaut Fred Hayes. Are we to believe that this Shuttle never has flown and is piloted on a deadstick landing?
It is mentioned that the spectators are miles away and can possibly see something with binocolars and that the sun is in their eyes "which will not help" to see anything. Of course actors and celebrities (Gov Jerry Brown) are right next to it to have a prime view.
I like the quote of the reporter Robert Wagner by time 5.35: " The early activity of astronauts have become as familiar to use as the rituals of actors preparing for the first curtain. Fred Haise and Gordon Fullerton did not disappoint the groundlings this morning..." I wonder what he meant by this remarks.

On part 2 they go on talking about how it is no big deal to land an airliner without power. "Its nothing new to land an airplane without any power on..." But we are talking about a 155000lbs airliner, roughly the weight of an Airbus 320! All the time there is funny advertising from Polaroid to bring you clearer pictures while the pictures during separation getting rather fuzzy. I don't know what to think about, at time 4.35 the Shuttle separates from the B747. It looks quite real, however the T38 looks behind but the suddendly is in front of the shuttle and the camera airplane, not sure what to make of this. The landing also looks quite realistic.

Assuming the Apollo flights were a hoax and this flight is only 5 years after the last Apollo 17 flight with a Apollo 13 astronot this test flight of the "Enterprise" seems a little bit odd.
And again the first orbital flight in the space shuttle was flown by Apollo 16 astronot John Young.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i40XddxwQMs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dijD4J3vX5Y
AirplaneJoe
Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: November 18th, 2013, 3:28 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby lux on October 25th, 2014, 1:29 am

I was curious about the space shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) retrieval procedure and I found this video that explains the process.

Some aspects of it are causing me some head scratching however ...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F78cUtQy47M

The captain of the retrieval vessel tells us:
“Generally with a space shuttle launch we'll depart the port 24 hours in advance. It takes us roughly 12 to 15 hours to get offshore to our SRB impact area. And, what we do is surveillance work to keep other vessels out of our area. Basically, so that when the launch goes, we have a window that the boosters can come in safely without any traffic being around.”

I wonder what that means exactly: “... what we do is surveillance work to keep other vessels out of our area.” I suppose it means that they sail around looking for other vessels in the area and then tell them to leave.

Once the SRBs are spotted, the captain says:
“Generally [the boosters] are as close as 4 miles from us and as far as 15 to 20 miles away.”

So, they have an impact area that is as large as 20 miles in diameter and they first sail around that area “doing surveillance work” looking for other vessels and tell them to leave the area? And, this is after it took them 12 to 15 hours just to get to the area so they only have 9 to 12 hours left before the shuttle launches and they start their SRB retrieval because they left port 24 hours before launch. I guess they don't get much sleep on these jobs.

Then, after a description of how the SRBs are prepped for retrieval once found, he says:
“... at that point we hook up our tow cable to it and tow it about a quarter of a mile to 2 tenths of a mile -- nautical mile -- behind us.” And, the video narrator tells us “... the ships return to shore ...”

So, it takes them 12 to 15 hours to get out to the SRB impact area and then they spot the SRBs which are typically 4 to 20 miles away from them and then they tow them a quarter mile back to shore.

Huh? They tow it a quarter of a mile back to shore? :blink:

What happened to the 12-15 hours it took them to get out there and the 4 to 20 miles from that point to retrieve the SRBs?

And, by the way, is it really cost effective to pay for this obviously high tech ship with a captain and crew of 24 to retrieve what is essentially an aluminum cylinder and then pay to have it refurbished vs just making another one?

Anyway, moving on ...

This is what the SRB looks like as it splashes down:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYf_ZdmtGnA

Note that, according to the wiki, the SRB weighs 200,000 pounds without fuel and is dropped from an altitude of 28 miles.

That is some powerful parachute chord that can nearly stop an object weighing 100 tons after falling from such an altitude. It must be made out the same material as the shuttle's magic bolt!

In comparison, our space diving friend Felix Baumgartner jumped from only 17 miles and he broke the sound barrier on the way down, we're told.

Note also that when we first see the SRB in this footage it is falling in a sideways attitude for a few seconds before turning to a more vertical attitude as one would expect a falling object of that shape to do.This surprises me as I would expect an object falling from such a great height to orient itself to the vertical shortly after being dropped and to continue downward in that attitude. Could it be that the SRB was simply dropped from, say, a cargo plane, just prior to the beginning of this footage?

Could that also be the real reason the retrieval ship "does surveillance work to keep other vessels out of our area"? :D
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby Flabbergasted on October 25th, 2014, 12:48 pm

lux wrote:This is what the SRB looks like as it splashes down:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYf_ZdmtGnA

I don´t think a cargo plane was necessary to make this video. It comes through as a poor "special effects" piece. I also can´t see how such a parachute could significantly control a 100-ton object in free fall ... but then I am just an uninitiated commoner.

0:26-28 The nose cone of the booster seems to disappear gradually
0:27 Where was this filmed from? That´s pretty amazing panning!
0:27 No sudden braking effect is perceived when the parachute opens, and panning continues flawless.
0:32 Smoke is leaving the booster much too slow for the speed at which it is falling. It´s the not-so-rare "cigar smoke effect" mentioned elsewhere (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1070&start=555#p2386965)
0:49-50 Clumsy cut skipping an important part of the procedure
1:13 Is the foam on the sea from a vessel right in the middle of the "impact zone" or is it from the "ring" which was dropped at 0:57?
1:24 Ridiculous clanking sound intended to simulate underwater recording?
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby lux on October 25th, 2014, 1:03 pm

I don't think it's CGI, if that's what you mean. I think it's just edited footage of the thing being dropped from a plane. And, the object is much lighter than its claimed 200,000 pounds.

Here is another SRB splashdown, also falling much too slowly it seems:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoQd5-f5IIA


... and rotating at the start like the one above.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby Flabbergasted on October 25th, 2014, 1:37 pm

lux wrote:I don't think it's CGI, if that's what you mean.

No, I was thinking of a pre-CGI type of "special effect", maybe using a small-scale model (hence the phony appearance of the smoke). But, as you say, they may have dropped an actual but much lighter object.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby Flabbergasted on October 25th, 2014, 1:41 pm

I know this has been pointed out before, but it just keeps baffling me.

If you want something to fly at 4,000 km/h, you make it very slender and very smooth, like this "Sayyad-2 Air Defence Missile":

Image

But if you want something to fly 7 times faster than a missile, you shape it like a fat airship and cover it with drainpipe-like un-aerodynamic fittings.

Image

Where was the guy who invented the wonderbolt the day they designed those awkward external rods and pipes?
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Postby Starbucked on October 28th, 2014, 11:15 am

STS-134 Crew Practice Landing the Shuttle

Training Astronots to land the space shuttle must have been a tall order for NASA, so they practiced in a

"Grumman American Aviation-built Gulfstream II jet modified to simulate a shuttle's cockpit, motion and handling qualities." :lol:

Because flying a powered modified Gulfstream is similar to flying a gliding brick.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skyEY0wstGk
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Postby Starbucked on October 28th, 2014, 11:36 am

These videos show the October 26/1977 test landing of an unpowered Space Shuttle experiencing "Pilot Induced Oscillations"


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDkfFkNHqpE


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcQzlXsw1ko

In the last few minutes of the flight, as the prototype space shuttle orbiter Enterprise crossed the threshold of the main runway at Edwards Air Force Base, it seemed to float at an altitude of just four feet above the airstrip as if reluctant to touch down.


http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shutt ... oblem.html

It does appear that the Shuttle has anti-gravity properties as it is to be expected that a *glider* of this mass and shape would land at a high rate of descent and impact the runway quite heavily! What we are shown here appears IMPOSSIBLE for a gliding brick. This has to be CGI or a *powered* craft of some sort. In all likelihood the Shuttles we'd see land on TV are all powered aircraft of some sort.

As well, notice the shuttle maintains a 'nose up attitude' or angle for hundreds of meters at it skims the surface of the runway. This would impossible for a gliding brick. If the shuttle could glide, gravity would be pulling that nose down. Hey NASA, if your Fly By Wire technology is so incredible why not put it in all commercial planes so if all engines fail a pilot could still put it down smoothly?

NASA wants us to believe the SS could land like this because of "Fly By Wire" technology which is just fucking nonsense. :lol:
Last edited by Starbucked on October 29th, 2014, 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby lux on October 28th, 2014, 2:08 pm

Watch the onlookers standing beside the runway ...

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcQzlXsw1ko

Not a single one of them moves an inch as the shuttle passes.

The bottom half of the image appears to be a still photo combined with the motion top half.

Image

And, if you look closely you can see the landing gear “shave” across the top of that structure leaving a flat bottom to the tire as it passes.

Image

When we get to the end of the clip we see a single person walking across the bottom of the frame ….
Image

Apparently added to give the illusion of motion to what would have otherwise been too obviously a still photo. The person seems to pay no notice to the noisy landing of the famous Space Shuttle a short distance away from him as he strolls along.

I would surmise, then, that the the "Space Shuttle" in this clip is probably an RC scale model filmed in slow motion.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby Starbucked on October 29th, 2014, 7:27 am

That's a good point Lux about the crowd being a still photo and the ridiculousness of "walking away man". Perhaps he had a bus to catch? Late for a meeting with his probation officer? Couldn't wait 5 more seconds for 'touch down nominal'? :P

In the first landing video a link is provided to what I assume is the original source for the video on the NASA site.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/ ... 84-02.html
Guess NASA thought it better remove this turd from the punchbowl.

In both these videos of the landing, sound is curiously absent. I think the shuttle we see landing may be jet or rocket powered so no sound in the video would hide this possibility.

It is inconceivable that NASA would allow hundreds of people to swarm next to a runway to watch a test on a military base. In the 'actual' landings of the Space Shuttles at Edwards AFB a buffer zone of many miles was imposed so any close up viewing was impossible. I believe this was to hide the fact that the shuttle had an engine powering the landing.
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests