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.
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by Sisterlover »

II said; "Now: 4000 tons is equivalent to approx 4,000,000 kgs (even making allowances for US 'short ton'). That would require a compression density of over 3,000 kgs per cubic metre, which I read as being denser than solid concrete, but less dense than..."

While agree with the tone of this argument, the math is clearly wrong.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Sisterlover wrote:II said; "Now: 4000 tons is equivalent to approx 4,000,000 kgs (even making allowances for US 'short ton'). That would require a compression density of over 3,000 kgs per cubic metre, which I read as being denser than solid concrete, but less dense than..."

While agree with the tone of this argument, the math is clearly wrong.
I'm quite prepared to be math-wrong, but in what way? You follow my logic, that all I'm attempting to do is compare the cylindrical volumes of the Shuttle 'petite attache' rockets with that of the earlier Saturn 'classic' monsters. The contrast appears even greater, with modern-day private commercial ISS resupply rockets. Even allowing for the script of lower punched-up orbit, and what I'm feebly-calling 'energy density', I'm doubtful about the supposedly-transported mass.

I do fully accept the profit-warnings posted here on Clues, a while back (possibly by hoi or noho), that we non-scientists shouldn't really try be trying to pick-apart complex techological concepts, on the basis that we're out-gunned/numbered/resourced, and that we're better to stick to the nimble analysis of all forms of doubtful visual imagery. I always prefer to using basic reasoning, logic and a cool eye every time over calculus or reference tables, but there are times that it's just so tempting to have a deeper dig.

Arguably, we're on a high-ground, here, on Clues. We're already sitting in that lay-by of doubt and uncertainty, as the sheep go speeding by, staring gap-jawed at the street posters. We are tuned-out, to a frequency above or below the 'official' chord/channel/chant, and we're all doing something right by keeping this forum real (real? yes, whatever that over-used word means).

I had a minor eureka moment, there, regarding the whole STS/Shuttle show, and it's such a simple idea, I'm sure someone here's mentioned it before (or have they??). How could we manage to tell if the sheer scale of the launched/witnessed/televised reality is actually full-size? Might it be a reduced representation? I've seen scale model rocketry from close and far away, similarly scale model jet and propellor aircraft. What I'm conscious of is that small-scale models look completely-unrealistic in an obvious way: conversely, anything from under half-size and upwards appears to be extremely-convincing (in fact, probably on a math graphical-rule of believability that follows the same/similar square law as the size...)

Suppose the shuttle launches were, say, nothing but a 60% scale reduced umanned spectacle for the drive-in taxpayers? So they're seeing something big, dangerous and impressive, shrouded in smoke and steam (does this production style start to sound familiar?) . And that all the close-up support imagery (such as Simon's historical gallery sequence of implausible identical jet engine porn out-gassing...not forgetting that eternal bush.... <_< ) was a separate parallel visual construct, made using proto-CGI?

I wonder- might it all be just the work of another branch of PseudoStudiosInc??
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Half-size rocketry makes sense to me. A dear friend of mine claims to have witnessed a launch, but they said they had to be quite far away and see it through binoculars. It's quite possible that at that distance - and with their adrenaline levels high - the average person would simply not know to look for the difference in scale, let alone be able to spot it with effort. An inspired speculation, icarusinbound.

As for the math, there does seem to be something funny going on, despite our inability to process it.

Early rocket tests apparently revealed that it was very difficult to shoot something into space as large as an office building, not only for steering and stabilizing those awfully wobbly looking rockets, but for combating gravity with force and preventing explosions while doing so.

If you can't make it, fake it.

Heiwa wrote:As you need about 50 tons of fuel to put 1 ton of Shuttle into LEO
This sounds like a dubious calculation, Heiwa. Wouldn't that mean the more fuel you load, the more fuel you'd need exponentially? Surely what you mean to say is it takes 50 tons of fuel to put 1 ton of Shuttle into orbit and get the initial 51 tons off the ground?

Image

This crude diagram I made is lacking very simple information that NASA should be able to provide on the exact amount of thrust needed to begin acceleration.

That doesn't seem to be the case with smaller rockets that can fire off as simply as lighting a match. I know scaling up doesn't work with physics or biology, but at what point do we see a curve favor smallness because the amount of fuel needed to launch the selfsame fuel alone becomes too great? Do you think the idea of a smaller craft - meant to look like the shuttle - possibly made its way up?

---

This would be in a world where our planet loses gravitational influence the further you get from it. Perhaps it's not worth saying, but it was brought up in another thread that: if that's not the case (gravity remains constant or gets stronger the higher you go up) rocketry at certain scales would simply be impossible. If gravity doesn't diminish at the rate NASA claims, it would also cause problems with their calculations. So the rocket folks really have to be in control of studies to determine these things or else their entire house of cards could be proven fraud with simple math.

---

Given:

1. True tested acceleration of gravity from planet's surface as we leave planet's surface
2. True joules of their most efficient fuel
3. Claimed density of that fuel
4. Claimed density of the shuttle

We could estimate the scale of the shuttle to fuel ratio, and determine the size at which their fuel would have an impossible task before it. But given their magic formula, we'd have to take their word on some things. ;)

Heiwa wrote:... it would appear that the Shuttle has mass 78 tons and can carry 24 tons to LEO, i.e. total mass is 102 tons.
The external tank has mass 27 tons and volume 2025 m3 and contains 730 tons of fuel.
Each rocket on the side has mass 68 tons and 503 tons of fuel
The whole assembly has mass 2001 tons of which 1736 tons is fuel.
To put 102 tons of loaded Shuttle into LEO requires 1736 tons or only 17 tons of fuel per ton load put in LEO. I think it is too good to be true ...
So presuming we have 3 and 4 in this information (weight of fuel 1730+ tons and weight of assembly 2000+ tons, respectively, at start of launch) all we'd need to understand is 1 and 2: the powers of gravity and of this fuel to fight it.

As for number one, the official story is that gravity at 9.80665 meters/second^2 is just about the same at 400 kilometers. According to wikipedia (and you gotta love the way they use astronauts in every cranny):
It is a common misconception that astronauts in orbit are weightless because they have flown high enough to "escape" the Earth's gravity. In fact, at an altitude of 400 kilometres (250 miles), equivalent to a typical orbit of the Space Shuttle, gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface, and weightlessness actually occurs because orbiting objects are in free-fall.[6]
Since we don't really understand gravity that much, except by its apparent rules, it could be relatively simple to lie about what goes on at such enormous altitudes. Who has the money and manpower to test these things? Little Jimmy boy genius?

Yet, as gravity remains somewhat the same (officially) at 400 kilometers up, my crude chart would be even more generous about the fuel than I previously imagined. By the time we are in outer space, we should have burned all that fuel, and most of it at - or shortly after - lift off. All this just to lift the remaining crucial fuel (which one must have enough of much higher up) and assembly well before efficient acceleration begins to carry it away to the heavens (or beyond the range of the camera, anyway).

So assuming a constant burn rate to get this thing up there (and assuming NASA's opinion about gravity's behavior), only the diminishing weight of the craft itself - due to burning (and ejecting) most of its mass - relieves it of necessary force to climb higher. It becomes less and less effort to climb, as one ejects the mass into the stratosphere (thermosphere and beyond?), but gravity remains more or less surface-level in strength.

So presuming, totally unscientifically, that we go from 2000 tons to 200 tons in the span of the launch (a 90% drop in mass), they are saying that the majority of this loss of mass occurs early in the launch. So let's say at the 'turning point' of this struggle, when the fuel can be said to "defeat" gravity (again totally wild guess of 50~75% (1000~1500 ton) drop in mass) we're really only talking about taking a 500~1000 ton thing further and further through easier and easier space. And its "fall" is curved into "orbit" so that it neither begins descending to succumb to gravity (which is still clawing at the shuttle) nor rises off into an expanding orbit of doom. No major gravity fluctuations - even over the oceans? No major corrections ever needed? It sounds like space is peaceful, uniform, reliable and safe -- and isn't one of the most insane things ever attempted by our species!
Last edited by simonshack on Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Heiwa's info of tonnage
arc300
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by arc300 »

The Electric Universe theory posits that the sun, and all stars, is powered externally, and that this explains the fact that the corona, millions of km above the sun is 200 times hotter than the surface.

Apparently, in physics there is no pulling or sucking force, there is only a pushing force, therefore gravity must be a pushing force originating externally from the earth. And just for a bit of fun let's assume that the EU theory is correct, and that gravity is essentially an electric phenomenon, then might there not be a "gravitational corona" surrounding all charged bodies, including the Earth, in space? By which my feeble mind is imagining a veritable 'brick wall' of possibly turbulent 'gravity' at the point where the external, cosmological electricity collides with the Earths magnetosphere. An area of gravity much stronger than that at the surface of the earth. Or some-such?
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by lux »

arc300 wrote: Apparently, in physics there is no pulling or sucking force ...
How do they explain magnets and rubber bands?
arc300
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by arc300 »

lux wrote:
arc300 wrote: Apparently, in physics there is no pulling or sucking force ...
How do they explain magnets, rubber bands, drinking straws, siphons, and vacuum cleaners?
Apparently, drinking straws, siphons, vacuum cleaners work by creating an area of low air pressure which the surrounding higher pressure ambient air rushes in to fill. Horror Vaccui! The dirt from your carpet, for example, is therefore PUSHED up your cleaning hose from behind. In the same way, an aeroplane is not pulled through the air by its propellors, the props serve to create an area of low pressure at the front of the craft, which the air from behind rushes in to fill, pushing the plane ahead of it.

As far as magnets, I'll let this guy with amazing hair have a go at explaining it:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8evfUTmx0uh8

The guy in the video does use the word "pull", but, I'm pretty sure it was him from whom I learned the claim (which, yes, I did repeat in a parrot-like fashion!) that there is only a pushing force in physics, so I think he uses "pull" here as a linguistic convenience, and would explain the percieved difference between push and pull by the terms "clockwise" and "counter-clockwise". Maybe.

Rubberbands? Ya got me there.

Edited for ass-covering purposes
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by lux »

I had removed drinking straws, siphons, and vacuum cleaners from my question shortly after posting it when I realized they were pushing forces and before I saw your answer. I don't really follow the guy's explanation in the video about magnetism though.
arc300
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by arc300 »

lux wrote: I don't really follow the guy's explanation in the video about magnetism though.
Yeah, you caught a glimpse of his toupee and your powers of concentration were ensnared in those sticky nylon strands. Been there many times, my friend.

But anyway, I've had a few double IPAs and now I can re-state my pseudo-question in simpler terms:
Does the force of gravity originate from within the earth, or from without?
Because if it originates from without, then maybe we should NOT expect a lessening of its force as we travel away from the earth.

The preceding posts from Hoi, Icarus, Sister et al have made me realise for one thing that weightlessness is a result of being in freefall, not of being in an environment where there is little or no gravity. And knowing that we cannot trust anything the media tells us, especially when they are talking about "space stuff"; then we mere mortals have no idea whether gravity gets stronger, weaker, or stays the same the further we get from earth. Maybe the almost mythological Van Allen Belts, for example, are actually the earthly equivalent of the sun's corona, through which nothing can travel??
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by lux »

So that leaves rubber bands as the most mysterious force in the universe. :o
JohnnySmithy
Banned
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by JohnnySmithy »

If people want to know what is really going on with NASA please watch the little gem Capricorn One from 1977

Charles Brubaker is the astronaut leading NASA's first manned mission to Mars. Seconds before the launch, the entire team is pulled from the capsule and the rocket leaves earth unmanned much to Brubaker's anger. The head of the programme explains that the life support system was faulty and that NASA can't afford the publicity of a scratched mission. The plan is to fake the Mars landing and keep the astronauts at a remote base until the mission is over, but then investigative journalist Robert Caulfield starts to suspect something.

Trailer;


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKbwdTCL8rA

Movie;


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n96oS-PFKCo

For some reason these scammers love to show how they do things...and this is one of them.
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 »

*

THE LAUNCH PAD DEMOLITION


Remember the old Cape Canaveral launch pad - which apparently served both the Apollo missions and the Space Shuttle missions, as pointed out in the very first page of this research thread? Well, it was apparently dismantled / demolished back in 2011. Here's a quite hilarious timelapse video documenting the dismantling of the historical launch sructure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pj8sjgYza4

Now, this "video" is not only hilarious - it is also a sadly fake computer animation - as the below gif demonstrates. Just watch the entire central structure abruptly 'skipping' to the right (all of a sudden) - in the middle of a timeframe featuring a man (moving quite smoothly and gradually) walking along - at bottom right (under my V sign).
Image

Amazing "timelapse video", ey ? :rolleyes:
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by Maat »

:lol: Ha! Good one, Simon! But that smoothly moving shadow on the right doesn't seem to be intended to represent a human figure at all, it looks like a triangular shaped peak/spike off the main "shadow". Still as fake as ever and makes no sense :rolleyes:
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 »

*

HOW DID THE SHUTTLES ACHIEVE ESCAPE VELOCITY?


The Space Shuttle, weighing 2million kg at launch, apparently used the most advanced liquid fuel (hydrogen/oxygen) propellants known to mankind - with an exhaust velocity of 4.4km/s.(15.840km/h)

NASA told us that a Space Shuttle would detach itself from its main tank at 110km altitude ("MECO" - Main Engine Cutoff) at which point its rockets were switched off - having reached a velocity of approx 8km/s.(28.800km/h)

"The most advanced liquid-fuelled chemical rockets today produce an exhaust velocity of, at best, 4.5 km/s. There is nowhere else to go: this is close to the theoretical limit of chemical energy extraction."
(source: see link to book below)

So the obvious question is: how did the Shuttle achieve a speed of 8 km/s with a max exhaust velocity of 4.4 km/s?

The only 'explanation' I've been able to find so far is from a book called "Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion: Principles, Practice and New Developments". However, it is clearly meant to be referring to a rocket "performing in the vacuum of space" - and cannot possibly apply to a 2million kg spacecraft still battling against gravity and aerodynamic drag :

Image
http://books.google.it/books?id=xBYYasV ... .6&f=false

To be sure, here it is once again...
Newton's 2nd Law:"Force is equal to mass times acceleration (for constant mass). An object will accelerate in the direction of any net force applied to it. The greater the force, the greater the acceleration. The greater the mass, the slower the acceleration."

So here's what NASA asked us to believe for three decades of alleged Shuttle launches:

The 2-million-kg Shuttle was first propelled up to 45km of altitude where it shed its two SRB rockets, after 2minutes of flight. Here is a wonderful shot of such a moment (photographer unknown...) :
Image
Speed at SRB separation: 1,35Km/s (source: NASA)
( image source NASA / http://www.real-world-physics-problems. ... ysics.html )

Thereafter, between 45km of altitude and 110km of altitude, the Shuttle's on-board engines took over, supplying the thrust needed to accelerate from 1,35km/s to the staggering velocity of 8km/s (in spite of a max exhaust speed of 4.4Km/s)and all the while battling against Earth's gravity + aerodynamic drag - with this little fuel tank still attached underneath it...
Image

Truly fascinating, isn't it? :P
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

Astute analysis as always Simon. I imagine if you posited this to a child in elementary school, that child would say it's impossible. :D
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 »

anonjedi2 wrote: I imagine if you posited this to a child in elementary school, that child would say it's impossible. :D
Dear anonjedi, last night I actually posited this for fun on a few selected Youtube channels which dealt with "How Rockets Work". My simple, standard question was: "Can a rocket ascending through our atmosphere (that is, still having to fight aerodynamic drag and gravity) reach a speed greater than its max exhaust velocity? If so, how?"

Two replies so far:
Scott Mawhiney 6 hours ago

I don't believe so, due to exactly what you listed. It has to do with Newton's Second Law (action and reaction). NASA has a great explanation, but Youtube won't let me post a website URL. My suggestion: go to Google and put your question in the search box, that's how I found the NASA page. Good luck!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDuUQF9WsRw
ClusterStar 14 hours ago

Impossible........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph-npS29n9Q
;)

I warmly welcome more forum members' views on this particular issue.
Post Reply