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.
Post Reply
AirplaneJoe
Banned
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by AirplaneJoe » Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:28 pm

Ok let me get this straight. The youtube video reflects exactly what I saw that day. I do have a personal photo of the shuttle, I try to find it and post it somehow. I don't think you deny the fact that the space shuttle Endeavour was flown piggyback to New York that day, or do you? I do not know if this shuttle is a real shuttle or just a hollow model, all I am saying that this B747 with a space shuttle on top was overflying Manhattan and landed in JFK.

As for the landing gear. For a pilot this is a big deal and not a minor detail. Do deploy the landing gear 6 seconds before touchdown is lunacy. That is another reason why there is something wrong with the space shuttle story and makes me think that it might be a model or a CGI.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by lux » Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:10 pm

AirplaneJoe wrote:Ok let me get this straight. The youtube video reflects exactly what I saw that day. I do have a personal photo of the shuttle, I try to find it and post it somehow. I don't think you deny the fact that the space shuttle Endeavour was flown piggyback to New York that day, or do you? I do not know if this shuttle is a real shuttle or just a hollow model, all I am saying that this B747 with a space shuttle on top was overflying Manhattan and landed in JFK.
It's already been conceded by at least two forum members (hoi and myself) that NASA may well have had a real shuttle-shaped object attached to a 747 so why do you still argue this point?
As for the landing gear. For a pilot this is a big deal and not a minor detail. Do deploy the landing gear 6 seconds before touchdown is lunacy. That is another reason why there is something wrong with the space shuttle story and makes me think that it might be a model or a CGI.
As I said, this is an arguable point at best and for that reason is not worth making.

For example, here is a debunking argument: "The shuttle is about as aerodynamic as a brick and in order to extend a too-steep landing approach the pilot delayed deploying the landing gear until the last second in order to make it safely to the runway."

All it "proves" is the skill and bravery of the great and heroic NASA pilot. :puke:

Yes, it may be a model or it may be a fake shell or it may even be CGI but the landing gear bit isn't evidence of that.
I just know one pilot Claude Nicollier from Swizerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Nicollier
What other NASA people do you know?
Last edited by lux on Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6929
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:22 pm

*
Airplane Joe,

I suggest you go to page 5 of this long thread and read some of my early questions I had regarding NASA's 'Space Shuttle':

PAGE 5: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 1#p2354001


For instance, if you are a pilot yourself, would you feel safe speeding at 11.000mph* in an aircraft whose front end is attached to its tank - by one single bolt?

( * official speed of Shuttle ascent through the atmosphere claimed by NASA)

Image

Are you aware of the aerodynamical forces which this bolt would have to withstand, given the upward pitch of the entire Shuttle's belly - seeing the way that this massive 100.000kg aircraft was anchored upon its tank? See, I happen to have attended wind tunnel testing (in a Formula 1 racing car factory) - and can assure you that aerodynamic forces at high speeds are violently strong - even at 'leisurely speeds' of 200mph. No single titanium bolt - however strong - would possibly be used to attach / secure a racing car's rear aileron, because NO racing driver in his right mind would ever accept taking such a car for a test drive...

Furthermore, would you have any idea of how exactly this bolt is engineered - like, for instance, how many centimeters of this bolt penetrates the airframe? Also, how is it supposed to be 'screwed onto' the Shuttle's belly - and how does it get detached when needed? Does the Shuttle captain have a little "BOLT OFF" lever in the cockpit? :huh:

CAN ANY ENGINEERS / ROCKET SCIENTISTS PLEASE COME FORWARD AND ANSWER MY ABOVE QUESTIONS? PLEASE!

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by brianv » Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:57 pm

The youtube video reflects exactly what I saw that day. I do have a personal photo of the shuttle
Let's be more exact. You have a photograph of something which purports to be the shuttle!

How do you know "the shuttle" which you saw wasn't a mockup? How do you know it wasn't inflatable or made from balsa wood? Did you touch it? Did you fly into orbit on this thing you saw?

AirplaneJoe
Banned
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by AirplaneJoe » Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:51 pm

I think I read pretty much the whole thread and also the ISS. And yes this bolt, (and I am not a rocket scientist) can not possibly hold all that force during liftoff and cruise. I know in conventional airplanes they have at least 2 or three bolts to attach the wings. These pictures as I said before are very convincing that we are fooled again by NASA. But how can we proof it? The photos of the liftoff, the landings with the same fire truck, the photo-shopped pictures of the NASA emplyoees, the fake picture in space with the air bubbles. All does look like a giant hoax.
I guess the Endeavour will be a museum soon in New York harbour were millions of tourists will admire the heroic history of NASA.
But what now. The shuttle is finished, and if it was a hoax then the ISS is obviously also a hoax. So what happens to the ISS, the most successful project of NASA?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6929
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:42 pm

AirplaneJoe wrote:These pictures as I said before are very convincing that we are fooled again by NASA. But how can we proof it?
How can we prove it? :blink:

Hmmm - let me see... hey, how about using our brains? ^_^

Seriously now, what more proof do you need to understand that NASA's "Space Shuttle" was a hoax?
Can ONE bolt secure the front end of a 100.000kg aircraft speeding up through the atmosphere at 11.000mph?
Is your intelligence NOT insulted by such a thing? Do you need more proof ? If not, tell me why - I'm curious.

JLapage
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by JLapage » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:31 am

AirplaneJoe wrote:These pictures as I said before are very convincing that we are fooled again by NASA. But how can we proof it?
The burden of the proof is on the claimants (NASA, ESA,...). All we (doubters) have to do is point out the deficiencies in their purported pieces of evidence. The fakeness of their videos and photos have been amply demonstrated here at CF. How can you admit on one hand that yes they have faked the moon landings and yet accept the possibility that they are being one hundred percent truthful when it comes to the shuttle and ISS?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6929
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:36 pm

simonshack wrote:
CAN ANY ENGINEERS / ROCKET SCIENTISTS PLEASE COME FORWARD AND ANSWER MY ABOVE QUESTIONS? PLEASE!
...I got this answer from one Scott Stevenson (on this YT video's comment section): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE
Scott Stevenson wrote:
OK, I did a little research, and I've got some answers for you.

The first thing to remember is that the 11,000 mph speed you quoted is typically at about 100 km in altitude (can't give an exact number because each flight had a slightly different profile, but they were all at about 100 km). For calculation purposes, 100 km is considered the very top of the atmosphere. Any higher, and you're technically in space.

At that altitude, there is almost no air pressure--it would be measured in thousandths of a pound per square inch of pressure, compared to 15 psi at sea level. That means that when the shuttle reaches 11,000 mph (the figure you got from NASA), there is effectively no aerodynamic load on the bipod (which is the structure you see in the video).

It's interesting that you mentioned seeing an F1 car in a wind tunnel, partly because I've always been interested in racing, but partly because there are some significant differences. As I've shown, the aerodynamic forces on the bipod at 11,000 mph are vanishingly small. Also, the maximum G force that a shuttle experienced during launch was about 3g. An F1 car easily pulls more than 5g on deceleration, and can approach 6g in corners--so the g-loading on the F1 car is twice what the shuttle experienced, and the F1 car is also subjected to aerodynamic loads that the shuttle isn't.

Finally, to call it "one bolt" I think underplays exactly how big the thing is. I don't have the exact specs, but it looks to be at least 3-4" in diameter, and it's made out of unobtainium. The nose is perhaps the lightest part of the shuttle--the really heavy duty stuff is what anchors it down in the back.

Also, the bolt is explosive, and comes apart when signaled by the GPC on the shuttle (I believe it can also be triggered from the cockpit if it doesn't release when it's supposed to). The shuttle actually has to move away from the tank at separation-because the SSME's are angled slightly, the net effect of the thrust is to push the shuttle toward the tank.
So now we finally know why that bolt can never snap, folks : the wonder bolt is made of unobtainium - a fictional material ! :P

From Wackypedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
"In engineering, fiction, and thought experiments, unobtainium is any fictional, extremely rare, costly, or impossible material. Since the late 1950s, aerospace engineers have used the term "unobtainium" when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects, except that it does not exist."

I guess that settles the matter! :lol:

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by brianv » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:11 pm

simonshack wrote:
simonshack wrote:
CAN ANY ENGINEERS / ROCKET SCIENTISTS PLEASE COME FORWARD AND ANSWER MY ABOVE QUESTIONS? PLEASE!
...I got this answer from one Scott Stevenson (on this YT video's comment section): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE
Scott Stevenson wrote:
OK, I did a little research, and I've got some answers for you.

The first thing to remember is that the 11,000 mph speed you quoted is typically at about 100 km in altitude (can't give an exact number because each flight had a slightly different profile, but they were all at about 100 km). For calculation purposes, 100 km is considered the very top of the atmosphere. Any higher, and you're technically in space.

At that altitude, there is almost no air pressure--it would be measured in thousandths of a pound per square inch of pressure, compared to 15 psi at sea level. That means that when the shuttle reaches 11,000 mph (the figure you got from NASA), there is effectively no aerodynamic load on the bipod (which is the structure you see in the video).

It's interesting that you mentioned seeing an F1 car in a wind tunnel, partly because I've always been interested in racing, but partly because there are some significant differences. As I've shown, the aerodynamic forces on the bipod at 11,000 mph are vanishingly small. Also, the maximum G force that a shuttle experienced during launch was about 3g. An F1 car easily pulls more than 5g on deceleration, and can approach 6g in corners--so the g-loading on the F1 car is twice what the shuttle experienced, and the F1 car is also subjected to aerodynamic loads that the shuttle isn't.

Finally, to call it "one bolt" I think underplays exactly how big the thing is. I don't have the exact specs, but it looks to be at least 3-4" in diameter, and it's made out of unobtainium. The nose is perhaps the lightest part of the shuttle--the really heavy duty stuff is what anchors it down in the back.

Also, the bolt is explosive, and comes apart when signaled by the GPC on the shuttle (I believe it can also be triggered from the cockpit if it doesn't release when it's supposed to). The shuttle actually has to move away from the tank at separation-because the SSME's are angled slightly, the net effect of the thrust is to push the shuttle toward the tank.
So now we finally know why that bolt can never snap, folks : the wonder bolt is made of unobtainium - a fictional material ! :P

From Wackypedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
"In engineering, fiction, and thought experiments, unobtainium is any fictional, extremely rare, costly, or impossible material. Since the late 1950s, aerospace engineers have used the term "unobtainium" when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects, except that it does not exist."

I guess that settles the matter! :lol:
Wow, I'd never heard of unobtanium until last week, I saw it used regarding the supply of rare Germanium transistors for the Electronics industry, especially desirable for retro guitar stomp-boxes.

Did someone slip that spiel to your poster, and being the uselss idiot failed to spot the joke? Or was he responsible for inserting the term and was trying to get it by you?

Fedge
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:09 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by Fedge » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:46 am

Scott Stevenson wrote:Finally, to call it "one bolt" I think underplays exactly how big the thing is. I don't have the exact specs, but it looks to be at least 3-4" in diameter, and it's made out of unobtainium. The nose is perhaps the lightest part of the shuttle--the really heavy duty stuff is what anchors it down in the back.
It's either a hint or a prank. Smells bad in both cases lol. -_-

EDIT : Got a question relative to G force i didnt find an answer to after a quick search so here it is :
Does a fat dude and a skinny dude experience the same effects while under the same G force ? Or is it proportionate ?

Oh and hi everyone, haven't been here in a while ! ;)

AirplaneJoe
Banned
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by AirplaneJoe » Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:31 am

I was looking at lot of videos of the space shuttle landing. I try to figure out if this aircraft really can fly or if the videos are really fake. The options are:
1) The videos are fake, complete CGI
2) A model has been used
3) The shuttle can fly (just like a normal airplane)
4) The shuttle really exist as NASA told us

One thing that is suspicous however that the first shuttle mission was flown by apollo astronot Young, if he cooperated to fake the moon landing he would not have a problem faking a shuttle flight.

Some observations regarding the shuttle landings from a pilots point of view:

1) All landings that I have seen have been filmed by NASA ( NASA logo or commentary that it is a NASA camera). Is there any footage around from a news camera or even a amateur video. I could not find one despite the fact that a crowd of thousands is shown on the videos pointing cameras?
2) High altitude blurry pictures are shown at 80000ft while the shuttle flies at twice the speed of sound. How can you film with a telescope with a speed of 1700 mph?
3) In the high altitude shot the shuttle looks like a plastic toy.
4) Strange front view shot ( see video below) where the shuttle jerks unrealisticly left and right. From where did they film this frontal view, from the ground or an airplane.
5) Inflight shots no background, only blurry clouds
6) Final landing shots, zooming out instead of zooming in for the landing, shuttle looks very clear, too clear in comparison to background.
7) Landing looks very realistic I have to say, but why jet engine noise if the shuttle was gliding?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ189a3Wnk4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyHRnmR8tQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22-Ji8_kDwg

Inside view with the HUD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhP0SvDWyHg

The HUD (head up display) shows the pilot vital information like airspeed, altitude and navigation. On all the videos the shuttle arrives with about 300-320 knots at around 5000ft, the the speed tape on the left disappears and also the altitude tape on the right goes blank. 300 knots at landing, gear down at 300 feet? Simply amazing!

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2239
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by fbenario » Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:37 am

What a surprise.

Image

NASA Tries to Rewrite the Book on Science Fiction

Agency's Partnership With Novelists Will Produce 'NASA-Inspired Works of Fiction'

In William Forstchen's new science fiction novel, "Pillar to the Sky," there are no evil cyborgs, alien invasions or time travel calamities. The threat to humanity is far more pedestrian: tightfisted bureaucrats who have slashed NASA's budget.

The novel is the first in a new series of "NASA-Inspired Works of Fiction," which grew out of a collaboration between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and science fiction publisher Tor. The partnership pairs up novelists with NASA scientists and engineers, who help writers develop scientifically plausible story lines and spot-check manuscripts for technical errors.

The plot of Mr. Forstchen's novel hinges on a multibillion-dollar effort to build a 23,000-mile-high space elevator—a quest threatened by budget cuts and stingy congressmen. Forthcoming novels in the series will explore asteroid mining, wormholes and astrobiology.

Fact-based science fiction may sound like a contradiction, or a poor marketing strategy, in a literary genre that typically celebrates flights of fantasy. But Tor and NASA say both stand to gain. Novelists get access to cutting-edge research and experts in obscure fields. A NASA official says that shaping science fiction offers "an innovative way to reach out to the public to raise awareness of what the agency is doing."
...
It isn't the first time NASA has ventured into pop culture. NASA has commissioned art work celebrating its accomplishments from luminaries like Norman Rockwell and Andy Warhol. The agency has consulted on Hollywood films, including "Armageddon," "The Avengers" and "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." Two years ago, NASA teamed up with hip-hop star will.i.am, who wrote a song about space exploration that was first broadcast on the Mars Curiosity rover and beamed back to earth.

Some [only 'some'?] see NASA's involvement in movies, music and books as an attempt to subtly shape public opinion about its programs.

"Getting a message across embedded in a narrative rather than as an overt ad or press release is a subtle way of trying to influence people's minds," says Charles Seife, author of "Decoding the Universe," who has written about NASA's efforts to rebrand itself. "It makes me worry about propaganda."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3DITP_AHED

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6929
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:17 pm

*

Well, ladies and gents, if you are not into space-paleontology - you may
never have heard of the Space Shuttle's little-known ancestor...
Image

Introducing NASA's (long extinct) space creature ...

the "DYNA-SOAR" (a Jurassic space joke)

ImageImage

As I reluctantly have had to admit on many occasions, no one can say that the NASA clowns have ever lacked a sense of humor. What may also be said (and more alarmingly so) is that their brand of jokes have been entirely lost on virtually ALL of this planet's inhabitants. Yet, to catch a joke is never too late (even if we may feel some embarrassment for our tardiness) - and it is now high time for any person with half a brain to 'get it': NASA has been - ever since its inception - been pulling our legs (and pushing their luck) shoving their grotesque space-fables up our butts. And we have all been paying for it. It's pretty funny, actually, to think that the classic objection devout NASA-believers will have to the increasingly obvious NASA scams is: "too many people would have to be in on it! People just can't keep secrets!" Well, if billions of people can be fooled - practically all of the time - by NASA's incredibly tall toon-tales, the full irony of the "too many people" argument should become perfectly clear. No wonder that Wernher Von Braun once said that Walt Disney was (along with JFK) one of the two men "he most admired".


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtFreN6iWnQ

Wake up, America - (and all space-taxed nations)! Stop letting yourselves be duped, ripped off and bamboozled by the silly space hoaxers !

Image

dblitz
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by dblitz » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:18 am

Dyna-soar looks a lot like SpaceShipOne:

Image

Built by Scaled Composites:

Image

Whose logo is very close to the Star Fleet insignia from Star Trek:

Image

Virgin Galactic use their craft.

SpaceShipOne won the x-prize for the first commercial manned spaceflight. It works in a similar way to Dyna-saur, carried aloft by it's mother ship White Knight, then dropped from a certain height, boosting towards space with an engine fueled by rubber, then gliding back to earth, using the drag created by it's hinged wings. This is supposed to be the genius of the design and the way it deals with re-entry speeds.

I just realized, scaled! Dinosaurs have scales. The existence of SpaceShipOne in light of this Dyna-soar tale is roughly the plot of dinosaur film 'Jurassic Park.' The ships designs are the DNA, resurrected by advanced engineering to create a space theme park run by a billionaire, Richard Branson.

By the way, Burt Rutan, founder and chief designer at Scaled Composites comes with his own conspiracy theory (it's like a freaking comic book!) I read an interview with him where he claimed to have been pursuing private research into JFK's assassination and discovered some leads in some documents in some library. When he returned they were gone.

Whoa :mellow:
Last edited by dblitz on Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6929
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:18 pm

Dblitz,

OMG - I just KNEW I'd seen that spaceship design before: It's the very latest, 21st century / state-of-the-art Branson contraption! The Jurassic dinosaur cartoon-ship lives on. So much for the need for multi-million-$ modern-day designers, engineers and R&D labs ! :lol:


ImageImage

"SPACESHIP TWO and ONE" (2010) *****************************************************************THE "DYNA-SOAR" (1960)


SPACESHIP TWO : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo
"A HISTORY OF THE DYNA-SOAR": http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/10/05/a- ... dyna-soar/

Post Reply