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.
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Maat »

:lol: @ Lazlo's '62 vintage "floaters"!

Interesting history on that "Telstar" track per the notes on this video too:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuA-fqKCiAE

Including,
...It has been claimed that the sounds intended to symbolize radio signals were produced by Meek running a pen around the rim of an ashtray, and that the "rocket blastoff" at the start of the record was actually a flushing toilet, with the recordings made to sound exotic by playing the tape in reverse at various speeds. ...
Good point, lux — how do they manage to "photograph planets and dimly lit dickheads at the same time" :rolleyes:
omaxsteve
Banned
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by omaxsteve »

lux wrote:Image

NASA claims they can't photograph planets and stars at the same time due to the difference in brightness levels yet, for some reason, they can photograph planets and dimly lit dickheads at the same time.
What is the temperature supposedly outside the space shuttle? I am not a scientist, and know little about physics but Iwould think that the windows would frost. Does NASA have some special glass that is not subject to frosting?

Regards,

Steve O.
Lazlo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Lazlo »

omaxsteve wrote:
lux wrote:Image

NASA claims they can't photograph planets and stars at the same time due to the difference in brightness levels yet, for some reason, they can photograph planets and dimly lit dickheads at the same time.
What is the temperature supposedly outside the space shuttle? I am not a scientist, and know little about physics but Iwould think that the windows would frost. Does NASA have some special glass that is not subject to frosting?

Regards,

Steve O.
Steven Cain of NASA Quest doesn't THINK So!

Could ya check on that Steve?

[ StevenCain/KSC - 86 - 10:51:01 ]
RE: [Katiemillennium] Do the windows in the space station fog up. You know, like how the sun is on one side and not on the other. Would it fog up.
Katie, I don't think so. They are heated from the inside to keep them from fogging up. It will also be very hot inside the Cupola because it will have direct sunlight going into it without the earth's atmosphere blocking some of the light.

From: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/chats/a ... -01sc.html
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7345
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Well, unless Steve thinks only the edges of the ISS windows fog up, methinks NASA has another sort of problem:

Image
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Maat »

simonshack wrote:*

Well, unless Steve thinks only the edges of the ISS windows fog up, methinks NASA has another sort of problem:

Image
Yep, looks like they just recycle their photosloppery by using the same Cupola background templates from 2010 (as we noted last year on page 25 & 26: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2370791#p2370791)
Lazlo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Lazlo »

simonshack wrote:*

Well, unless Steve thinks only the edges of the ISS windows fog up, methinks NASA has another sort of problem:

Image

Whats the Matter Simon?

Haven't you ever heard of putty?
Starbucked
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Starbucked »

simonshack wrote:*

I learned something interesting today as I was studying the ionosphere, Haarp and related matters...
"The ionosphere is traditionally very difficult to measure. Balloons cannot reach it because the air is too thin, but satellites cannot orbit there because the air is still too thick."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequ ... ch_Program
So I wondered, where does the ionosphere start and when does it end? I decided to look up the most authoritative source I could think of: the official HAARP website. Of course, HAARP's stated mission is "to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance".

So here's what the official HAARP website says:
"The layer of the earth's atmosphere called the ionosphere begins approximately 30 miles above the surface and extends upward to approximately 620 miles."

Oh, good. So the ionosphere extends from 30miles to 620 miles - and satellites cannot orbit there because the air is still too thick. But wait a minute: how then can the ISS orbit there? We all know that the ISS is supposed to orbit at an average altitude of 250miles, don't we?

Am I missing something here? :blink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere
The F layer or region, also known as the Appleton layer extends from about 200 km (120 mi) to more than 500 km (310 mi) above the surface of Earth. It is the densest point of the ionosphere, which implies signals penetrating this layer will escape into space. At higher altitudes the amount of oxygen ions decreases and lighter ions such as hydrogen and helium become dominant, this layer is the topside ionosphere.
I thought the ISS was travelling through a vacuum. But apparently it is in the densest part of this vacuum. :wacko:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit
Objects in LEO encounter atmospheric drag in the form of gases in the thermosphere (approximately 80–500 km up)
The ISS is not aerodynamically efficient in the least yet travels at an alleged speed of 28000 km/h without as much as a flutter from the solar array. This is all nonsense
Lazlo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Lazlo »

Are We Talking About the IONOSPHERE?

Are We Really Talking About the Ionosphere vis a vis the ISS?

This is not my field but a cursory reading says that it is hot as hell up there. Temperatures range from about 200K, or -73 ºC (-99.4 ºF) to 500K, or 227 ºC (440.6 ºF). Let's take a look at what that means, according to one site: the safe temperatures for Pyrex range from 0 degrees in the freezer to 450 degrees Fahrenheit in the oven although some consumers are reporting catastrophic failure leading to shattering. But, you gotta know, that they probably built the thing with some better proprietary material called AstroPlex® or some other BS; you know, like they did with Mylar (I see a lot of Mylar at the dollar store). There is a lot of talk about the benefits to industry and mankind which ensues from space research. We've got the Tang, we've got the micro-miniaturization giving us the Ipod and the laptop but what we really need is the insulation and the batteries! Imagine heating your home with a one log fire for a decade!
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

Simon,

I just wanted to give you a heads up that a handful of your images have disappeared from earlier in the thread. Here's one page for example.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=60
scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by scud »

“What is the temperature supposedly outside the space shuttle? I am not a scientist, and know little about physics but I would think that the windows would frost. Does NASA have some special glass that is not subject to frosting?”
omaxsteve, the external temperature is not ‘frosty’ but as Lazio points out, positively ‘toasty’ in fact toasty enough to render those windows of the cupola something akin to this...
Image

Take a look at this chart compiled by the use of NASA’s very own computer model ‘MSISE-90’. http://www.braeunig.us/space/atmos.htm Scroll down to roughly the said altitude of the ISS (400 Km) and we get the following results:-
During low solar activity 699 K (425.85 °C)
During mean solar activity 1,010 K (736.85 °C)
During high solar activity 1,619 K (1,345.85 °C) :o :o :o

Now, here’s a graphic also produced by the main protagonists of ‘space exploration’ that I’ve posted up several times previously but has gone by relatively un-remarked...
Image
Interesting no? Each and every source will tell you the same thing and will explain away the WTFuckery!! moment with this, almost verbatim caveat as to how light alloy structures, solar panels, asstronots in funny suits etc can withstand such extremes... “The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

So, let’s get this straight once and for-all. The wiki statement above and many others similar too it is an utter load of old bollox. These ‘sparse molecules’ that the ISS is supposedly floating through are scorchingly hot because they are exposed to the raw electromagnetic energy of the Sun. The ISS and its crew would not experience ‘cold’ as suggested, but, since they are molecules too, would be of the exact same ambient temperature of which only two Earthly elements could be expected to structurally survive (Ta and W) neither of which are ever mentioned by Walt Disney’s space ship construction teams.
Also, you should notice that the more energetic end of the spectrum (extreme UV and X-rays) remains unhindered at these altitudes. What measures do the crew take to protect themselves from a continuous 5 to 6 month exposure against these penetrative, ionising emissions? Not much it would seem..
Image
...not even a smear of nose bloc.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7345
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by simonshack »

scud wrote: Now, here’s a graphic also produced by the main protagonists of ‘space exploration’ that I’ve posted up several times previously but has gone by relatively un-remarked...
Image
Dear Scud,

This graphic you've posted has not gone unnoticed to me, for one. I am at this time particularly interested in the ionosphere, due to a little side-research I'm pursuing these days. In that graphic, I see that the ionosphere layer appears to start at about 90km (56miles) and ends at about 220km (137miles).

Now, I get rather confused about all this when I read on the official HAARP website that:
The layer of the earth's atmosphere called the ionosphere begins approximately 30 miles above the surface and extends upward to approximately 620 miles.
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/prpEis.html
So does the IONOSPHERE extend from an altitude of 56miles to 137 miles? Or from 30miles to 620miles? It seems like a pretty enormous discrepancy of 'scientific-data-consensus' to me!

Can we have an expert clarification about this ?
arc300
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by arc300 »

scud wrote: “The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

So, let’s get this straight once and for-all. The wiki statement above and many others similar too it is an utter load of old bollox. These ‘sparse molecules’ that the ISS is supposedly floating through are scorchingly hot because they are exposed to the raw electromagnetic energy of the Sun. The ISS and its crew would not experience ‘cold’ as suggested, but, since they are molecules too, would be of the exact same ambient temperature of which only two Earthly elements could be expected to structurally survive (Ta and W) neither of which are ever mentioned by Walt Disney’s space ship construction teams.
In simple terms, would it be true to say that, when NASA et al talks about too few molecules in space to transfer heat (convection), they are simply distracting us from the real problem, which is radiated heat, which has nothing to do with how many or how few air molecules are in your immediate environment? Is it THAT simple, or am I getting something wrong here?
scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by scud »

“So does the IONOSPHERE extend from an altitude of 56miles to 137 miles? Or from 30miles to 620miles? It seems like a pretty enormous discrepancy of 'scientific-data-consensus' to me!”


Hi Simon. Yeah, I believe that these discrepancies exist because individual sources seem to fail to take into account the phenomena of the 11 year solar cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
It’s another small miracle of this orb of ours, an atmosphere that expands and contracts in accordance with the varying activity of the Sun providing it’s inhabitants on the surface with a stable environment. So, during the active phase, it’s my understanding that the ionosphere (which includes the terms ‘thermosphere’ and ‘exosphere‘...as all these layers are ionised) increases in depth and reduces during periods of low activity. This doesn’t mean that Earth generates / discards air to compensate, rather a greater / lower proportion of the air is molecularly changed (ionised) in direct relation to the energy emitted from old sol.

I think beyondafringe has a damned good point though... 'no-one knows‘ precisely where these boundaries occur because it’s impossible to send craft into these realms to check the math!!
Obviously not an ‘expert’ clarification, but that’s how I understand it.
“In simple terms, would it be true to say that, when NASA et al talks about too few molecules in space to transfer heat (convection), they are simply distracting us from the real problem, which is radiated heat, which has nothing to do with how many or how few air molecules are in your immediate environment? Is it THAT simple, or am I getting something wrong here?”
Yes, it really is that simple arc. The trick being played here (necessary of course, since apparently we have some 13,000 man made objects orbiting above us) is the lame attempt to convince, that because the baking hot atmosphere at these altitudes is ‘thin’, ‘diluted’ or ‘near vacuum‘ that this somehow renders an object within it ‘cool‘ or even ‘freezing’...as if the energy here only exists within these few molecules of atmosphere and has nothing to do with an almost completely exposed Sun!!

Good weekend to all...for the first time in weeks I can actually feel that radiative power at the deep end of the atmosphere warming the side of my face. Time for a pint and a smoke in the pub garden :)
Starbucked
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Starbucked »

The latest Soyuz launch takes our Kosmonots from Kazakhstan to the ISS in 6 hours!
A new record! Why keep the sheep waiting?

The video producers produced a very unrealistic looking exhaust blast at launch (from 50 second mark).
It appears to be little more than a quickly dissipating dusting of baby powder or cigarette smoke than a real looking Space Shuttle launch exhaust, for example. That is: TOTALLY FAKE

I can understand why isolated Kazakhstan is a great location for these Soyuz launches. Is it possible that no real rocket launches at all?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9nd91VgJ0c
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7345
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by simonshack »

Starbucked wrote: Is it possible that no real rocket launches at all?

I would put it this way, Starbucked: <_<

Is there ANY chance that these rocket "launch videos" are possibly REAL - and UNscripted?


"SOYUZ LAUNCH" - Dec 19, 2012
"The rocket now moving at a velocity of 1100 miles an hour".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... H4Bo#t=91s

"SOYUZ LAUNCH" - March 28, 2013
"Velocity is now approaching 1100 miles per hour".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... R8#t=1072s

"SOYUZ LAUNCH" - May 29, 2013
"Velocity should now be about 11 hu...thou....1100 miles an hour".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9nd91Vg ... ded#t=117s
Post Reply