Is the Internatiomnal space station actually within an ordinairy airplane..

originally posted by: reddragon2015
I don't claim to be an expert, but I did study aerospace engineering for my BS. I can tell you that it is possible to orbit the earth as satellites and such. Very doable. Going to the moon and back in the 60 is impossible. The computers back then where giant rooms and it barely did any calculations. I think even if we tried today it would still be difficult.

so you as an "aerospace engineering student", think that orbital mechanics is too difficult for todays world to work out?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: reddragon2015
I don't claim to be an expert, but I did study aerospace engineering for my BS. I can tell you that it is possible to orbit the earth as satellites and such. Very doable. Going to the moon and back in the 60 is impossible. The computers back then where giant rooms and it barely did any calculations. I think even if we tried today it would still be difficult.

so you as an "aerospace engineering student", think that orbital mechanics is too difficult for todays world to work out?

Yeah I'm calling BS on the BS. He seems not to know math existed before computers. And they actually had to do it by hand with the help of something called a slide rule.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: reddragon2015
I don't claim to be an expert, but I did study aerospace engineering for my BS. I can tell you that it is possible to orbit the earth as satellites and such. Very doable. Going to the moon and back in the 60 is impossible. The computers back then where giant rooms and it barely did any calculations. I think even if we tried today it would still be difficult.

so you as an "aerospace engineering student", think that orbital mechanics is too difficult for todays world to work out?

Yeah I'm calling BS on the BS. He seems not to know math existed before computers. And they actually had to do it by hand with the help of something called a slide rule.

I'm calling bs too, but to be fair..Most young people in 2016 are unaware of slide rules.

Maybe it's under the water? Has that been mentioned?

originally posted by: reddragon2015
I don't claim to be an expert, but I did study aerospace engineering for my BS. I can tell you that it is possible to orbit the earth as satellites and such. Very doable. Going to the moon and back in the 60 is impossible. The computers back then where giant rooms and it barely did any calculations. I think even if we tried today it would still be difficult.

We have tried to go to the Moon today. Unmanned probes from several countries have been there. Granted, you may say that sending an unmanned probe is easier than a manned mission, and you would be right; "overall", unmanned probes are easier to send.

However, whether it's a small unmanned probe or a large manned spacecraft, the general math is the same -- but just with different values. If we could do the math today for sending the probes that the U.S., Russians, Chinese, Japan, and India have sent to the moon in the past couple of decades, then we would be able to use those same general equations to send people. The numbers would be different, but the math would be generally the same.

By the way, the navigation and guidance computer on Apollo didn't need to do a lot -- for the most part it just kept them flying of the trajectory they were supposed to be flying (basically automatically adjusting for minor discrepancies in attitude, pitch and yaw). As Phage pointed out, that trajectory was not calculated on board Apollo, but on the ground. The one thing the nav computer did that was more difficult was landing the LM. Besides keeping track of attitude (by reading the gyro) and correcting for discrepancies, it also needed to keep track of the altitude from the surface (by reading the radar).

But again, these were rudimentary navigation tasks. The major orbital translunar injection burn, orbital insertion, transearth injection burn, and reentry trajectory were done on the ground, by both computers AND hand-checked by people with sliderules, paper, and pencils (and, yes -- it could be done by hand. Not easy, but doable).

when already these youtu.be... nits ( ok,666 ) 2:45 fire of heel and they real run on the ceiling

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: zatara
Just the other day I watched and listened to a discussion between some people about the NASA lies. And some of these statements go very far and would the NASA lie be immense if any of it true.

This guy is convinced that the ISS and everything connected with it such as spaceshuttles and russian escape pods are a lie. I can not explain to you all the physics involved which make such technology impossible but when I see a movie like Gravity anything is possible.

Bit lengthy but watch this one..

You know, I have a confession to make. When I first hear somebody say that putting a man on the Moon and have him safely return to the Earth is impossible I didn't give it much thought and knew for certain that this person has his wiring crossed somewhere. But now that I have researched it to some extent myself I see myself sitting on this fence.

Concerning this doubt about the ISS I still think these people have too much fantasy. But then again.. there is a group of criminals active in this world with the resources of a nation. A group of people able to kill an US president and get away with it, murder some 3000 innocent hard working americans of which many policemen and firemen and get away with it. When lies are this big and protected anything is possible.... and anything worth a second thought. But these murders is not what this thread is about...

What do guys make of it..? I suggest to watch the YT-vid or an other shorter version on the same subject before telling me I am wasting my time.

For comparison, here's a taste of what is possible in Hollywood...

Well, as someone who actually does photoreal VFX and 3d animation for a living and has been in the field since 1995, i can assure you that the special effects in films like Gravity, look great but in now way look 100% real.

It would be instantly noticeable to millions of people who do what i do that the videos were staged or faked.

Sorry.

Initiate me into the brotherhood of photoreal VFX and 3D animation. I and the billions of "outsiders" don't see these "hoaxes" in the film Gravity. What should I look for...or is it more a feeling? Maybe I can use that to expose video hoaxters and be sure NASA isn't pulling any stunts.

A wonderful reply btw, very useful. A star for you.. (phun intended)

Double post..

The ISS is in an aeroplane...LOL...

Sorry but the fact we can watch it in orbit with a half decent telescope really should give you a clue and as a CGI person said in the thread, Gravity took MONTHS of post production rendering to achieve even the FX you see there and asa person who has dabbled in 3DSMAX over the years I also know how horrendously hard it is to get something that would be classed as 'photorealistic', light matching alone is a pain, checking for poly tears and noticing where people have scrimped on the poly count to achieve a faster render as EASY to spot.

To do all this or attempt to do it in the old vomit plane are simply daft...

The ISS IS up there, there ARE people on it and its 100% real...This is probably one of the times where creating the hoax would work out more costly than actually doing the real thing..

a reply to: zatara

Funny, I like to see the station do overpass, so bright you cannot miss it.

But maybe, according to you, it is just some kind of sophisticated hologram.

originally posted by: zatara

Initiate me into the brotherhood of photoreal VFX and 3D animation. I and the billions of "outsiders" don't see these "hoaxes" in the film Gravity. What should I look for...or is it more a feeling? Maybe I can use that to expose video hoaxters and be sure NASA isn't pulling any stunts.

A wonderful reply btw, very useful. A star for you.. (phun intended)

As a 'hobby' cgi person I notice the places where light isn't matched with the person and the surrounding, there's also the times where with green screen that the real person looks to have a glow (again to do with light matching). To be honest there's many more but the point is that there are a million and one things needed to be done to get a photorealistic scene.

Real life is not easy to fake in CGI with extra VFX, its do-able (to a pretty good degree) but extremely costly....

Can it be done on a budget, yes but you are talking street scenes with green screen, things where the mind accepts it as real because its using things that we see every day so your average TV show like the The Flash can film street scenes in a studio or mask of much of the street so it can be green screened to show they are in New York when in fact they are in Canada or somewhere where the cost of using that street is much cheaper. Sadly when it comes to the gun fire or fire and smoke these programs tend to use quick effects that can be rendered in time with the episode schedule, those bits are rarely convincing because time and cost prohibit that work.

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: zatara
Just the other day I watched and listened to a discussion between some people about the NASA lies. And some of these statements go very far and would the NASA lie be immense if any of it true.

This guy is convinced that the ISS and everything connected with it such as spaceshuttles and russian escape pods are a lie. I can not explain to you all the physics involved which make such technology impossible but when I see a movie like Gravity anything is possible.

Bit lengthy but watch this one..

You know, I have a confession to make. When I first hear somebody say that putting a man on the Moon and have him safely return to the Earth is impossible I didn't give it much thought and knew for certain that this person has his wiring crossed somewhere. But now that I have researched it to some extent myself I see myself sitting on this fence.

Concerning this doubt about the ISS I still think these people have too much fantasy. But then again.. there is a group of criminals active in this world with the resources of a nation. A group of people able to kill an US president and get away with it, murder some 3000 innocent hard working americans of which many policemen and firemen and get away with it. When lies are this big and protected anything is possible.... and anything worth a second thought. But these murders is not what this thread is about...

What do guys make of it..? I suggest to watch the YT-vid or an other shorter version on the same subject before telling me I am wasting my time.

For comparison, here's a taste of what is possible in Hollywood...

Well, as someone who actually does photoreal VFX and 3d animation for a living and has been in the field since 1995, i can assure you that the special effects in films like Gravity, look great but in now way look 100% real.

It would be instantly noticeable to millions of people who do what i do that the videos were staged or faked.

Sorry.

Initiate me into the brotherhood of photoreal VFX and 3D animation. I and the billions of "outsiders" don't see these "hoaxes" in the film Gravity. What should I look for...or is it more a feeling? Maybe I can use that to expose video hoaxters and be sure NASA isn't pulling any stunts.

A wonderful reply btw, very useful. A star for you.. (phun intended)

I had one that was painfully obvious. Going away from earth would have slowed her orbital velocity. Everything works different in orbit. If you go up slows orbital velocity if you go down you speed up. If your traveling east to west again direction will slow you down or speed you up. In other words flying I. Orbit especially on EVAs us difficult at best. It's not like a swimming pool as you move you are constantly having to make adjustments. The scene where he just acelarates towards the craft is impossible you can't hit your mark without continued course corrections.

Then there was also a problem in the film with her movements inside. Like the water in the fire scene traveling upwards for some inexplicable reason. Or the fact they had her just able to free float to get that is almost impossible in orbit. People don't realize the ISS for example experiences gravity. In fact its only 10 percent less than on earth. What causes it to seem like 0 g is its in a constant fall towards earth. But there is still a very small amount if gravity for the ISS that has a pull on objects inside it that's why its called microgravity. And also things tend to slowly trail off opisit of the direction of travel. It really is hard to keep an object standing weightless in the ISS it will eventually contact a wall.

You can see this even when astronauts will place things out in the open they tend to meander off as they talk.

a reply to: dragonridr

I was thinking about how to explain this the other day and the best metaphor I could think of was a ski jumper.

Ski jumpers, once they leave the ramp maintain a relatively constant height about the ground, but they are still falling, it's just that they are falling at the same rate as the ground falls away beneath him. Gravity is still pulling on them, but as long as they maintain forward momentum and the ground continues to fall away beneath them they'll stay airborne.

Sooner or later gravity and wind resistance get the better of them (and usually the slope changes so the ground doesn't fall away beneath them anymore) and they land.

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: zatara
Just the other day I watched and listened to a discussion between some people about the NASA lies. And some of these statements go very far and would the NASA lie be immense if any of it true.

This guy is convinced that the ISS and everything connected with it such as spaceshuttles and russian escape pods are a lie. I can not explain to you all the physics involved which make such technology impossible but when I see a movie like Gravity anything is possible.

Bit lengthy but watch this one..

You know, I have a confession to make. When I first hear somebody say that putting a man on the Moon and have him safely return to the Earth is impossible I didn't give it much thought and knew for certain that this person has his wiring crossed somewhere. But now that I have researched it to some extent myself I see myself sitting on this fence.

Concerning this doubt about the ISS I still think these people have too much fantasy. But then again.. there is a group of criminals active in this world with the resources of a nation. A group of people able to kill an US president and get away with it, murder some 3000 innocent hard working americans of which many policemen and firemen and get away with it. When lies are this big and protected anything is possible.... and anything worth a second thought. But these murders is not what this thread is about...

What do guys make of it..? I suggest to watch the YT-vid or an other shorter version on the same subject before telling me I am wasting my time.

For comparison, here's a taste of what is possible in Hollywood...

Well, as someone who actually does photoreal VFX and 3d animation for a living and has been in the field since 1995, i can assure you that the special effects in films like Gravity, look great but in now way look 100% real.

It would be instantly noticeable to millions of people who do what i do that the videos were staged or faked.

Sorry.

Initiate me into the brotherhood of photoreal VFX and 3D animation. I and the billions of "outsiders" don't see these "hoaxes" in the film Gravity. What should I look for...or is it more a feeling? Maybe I can use that to expose video hoaxters and be sure NASA isn't pulling any stunts.

A wonderful reply btw, very useful. A star for you.. (phun intended)

No, it's not just a feeling. Things just move a bit oddly, edges don't look right, textures look too clean, there are many things that make cgi stand out.

Don't get me wrong, the FX in gravity looked great...just not 100% real.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: dragonridr

I was thinking about how to explain this the other day and the best metaphor I could think of was a ski jumper.

What about the "Newton's Cannon" metaphor (thought experiment)?



- Cannonball "A" has relatively little initial velocity coming out of the cannon, and gravity quickly pull sit back down after being shot.

- Cannonball "B" has slightly more initial velocity coming out of the cannon, and it goes so far that as gravity is pulling the ball back to Earth, that surface of the spherical Earth beneath it begins to curve away from under it before it hits the ground.

- Cannonball "C" has just the right amount of initial velocity that (similar to Cannonball "B") as it is being pulled back down by gravity, the Earth's surface is again curving away from under it. However, in the case of cannonball "C", it had enough initial velocity out of the cannon that it has been shot beyond the point the it would fall to the curving Earth -- i.e., it has gone far enough to "miss" the Earth as gravity pulls the cannonball back down.

Cannonball "C" is in orbit. That orbit works because gravity is acting on the cannonball, not because of a lack of gravity. An object in orbit is still falling back to Earth because of gravity, but since it is falling sideways as well as falling downwards, it misses the ground as it falls.

Gravity is what helps define an orbit.

Source:
Basic Concepts Of Orbital Spaceflight

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yeah but I can actually watch a ski jumper

Morons.. Morons everywhere. You people make fun of yourselves with these theories.. I'm gonna start posting this crap on reddit and imgur for upvotes.

@Is the Internatiomnal space station actually within an ordinairy airplane..






1 sees no plane...

a reply to: zatara

There is more than enough evidence to at least question some of the things NASA is claiming to do in space. Some are beyond very simple like:

1.)The women perm their hair to look as if in 0 Gravity...but yet why would they do this...because it's easier to fool someone barely watching

2.) most people don't know that NASA has it's own channel and the one's that do seldom watch. I have DirecTV and to my surprise the NASA channel isn't even in HD. Pretty ludicrous if you ask me for a billion $$ company to not to have an HD channel, but more surprising is how much they actually tell you about what they can't do in space. I have many things taped on my DVR just so I can dispute the people that blindly believe what they are doing is real without asking questions. They have admitted numerous times that they cannot get past the van allen radiation belts, that the public never gets to see real pictures from space which is very interesting...that means 1 of 2 things...either they are hiding what they are actually seeing in space i.e flat earth, secret space stations etc or that they aren't doing anything in space and have to digitally manipulate every photograph in a composite, artist renditions, or animations.

now many believers will say well they aren't far enough to do this or that which is fine...but they expect us to believe they can go to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and even Pluto but yet cannot take a full picture of the earth since 1972???

Numerous videos of bubbles in space, tricky edits, permed hair, green screen all of which I have from their own channel. I am on the fence as well, but I think where there is smoke there is fire.

I want real pictures of earth and space. Not CGI and animations, but that's just me.

a reply to: NONPOINT21

No NASA HD TV eh?


www.nasa.gov...

And you're basing the rest of your assumptions on how you think women should do their hair in space?

Really? This is the 21st century right?

Once again I'll remind the NASA bashers that they are a minor player in the ISS. Other countries are very much involved.

The OP video is denying that LEO is possible, so I guess the following are also impossible:

The Gemini missions
Apollo 7 & 9
Skylab
Salyut and Mir stations
The Apollo-Soyuz link-up

not to mention a stupid amount of weather and other satellites.

And again the 'no full picture of Earth' myth. Google it. There are plenty. You could even learn why you can't get a picture of the full Earth from LEO. Just because an image is digital it doesn't mean that it's faked. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it can't happen.