It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Hoax

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
You still have not answered my questions.
I am one of many that do not beleive that they ever went to the moon in the first place.
Assuming that they did, how come the earlier spacecraft went to the moon and came back, no tiles fell off, no overheating problems and it did not have special tiles on any given side.

Some 35 years later with a vastly advanced technology they can not duplicate this feat, I don't buy it.

Second, "NO ONE" can prove that the NASA program has provided us with the other new technologies stated above.

This technology could of been created at area 51 or other high security government facilities and passed of as being made from technology learned from the space program. It would serve to make people confident that the space program has a real purpose.
You can not prove the technology came from the space program, all you can do is state what "THEY" tell you. I for one do not accept anything they say to be factual, there are to many flaws and questions when you closely analyze the space program.

Here below is a link to William Coopers document that exposes the space program for the deception that it really is. He was killed for revealing this truth and the other deceptions he exposed.

www.hourofthetime.com...


[edit on 1-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]



jra

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
You still have not answered my questions.
I am one of many that do not beleive that they ever went to the moon in the first place.
Assuming that they did, how come the earlier spacecraft went to the moon and came back, no tiles fell off, no overheating problems and it did not have special tiles on any given side.


Well firstly, only the Shuttle uses the ceramic tiles. The Apollo capules used something else, not clear on what it was exactly, but it wasn't tiles and they could only use the capsule once. The Russians don't use tiles on there capsules either. I can't seem to find too much info on it either, but I think the Soyuz capsules can be reused. So your questions are pretty much invalid in regards to the Apollo capsules, since they didn't use tiles.


Some 35 years later with a vastly advanced technology they can not duplicate this feat, I don't buy it.


Yes they can do it again easily, but it costs money. Money NASA doesn't have, they also don't have anything to get to the moon with. The Shuttle can only do a low Earth orbit. If NASA had a large budget like it did in the 60's, they could be going back there now if they wanted to.


Second, "NO ONE" can prove that the NASA program has provided us with the other new technologies stated above.


What about the names of people that are credited for inventing some of this stuff that others have listed here? Is that not proof? Or do you just choose not to believe them for no real reason and just make wild speculation about it coming from Area 51.

I've read bits of the link you provided before. No offence, but I think it's hilarious. Especially when it says this:


Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.


I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
Why does nasa gets billions of $$$?

People like being lied to, they just don't realize it.

People want to trust the words of other people in higher authority.
There is a denial mechanism embedded in each one of us. We feel insecure. Not sure what the future holds, what catastrophic event may occur. However, there is an ultimate demise to the one trusting in other men/women. Jeremiah 17:5 curses the man who trusts in man.

There also is an evil force in this world. It is governed by the being the bible calls Lucifer. According to Isaiah 14, it is Lucifer's desire to be like his Creator, to take his place. However, His Creator kicked him out of his Presence. So, this Lucifer and his associates influence the minds of the men in power who have sold their souls for this power.

But God is right there, in the heart of the earth, literally speaking. He hides behind the veiled curtain of the celestial sphere. He's covered with dark waters and thick clouds. Lucifer's control on the minds of this world has people everywhere believing the lie that the universe is an infinite realm and ther is no physical, bodily presence of any sort of Creator. He uses the "sciences" to back this claim. And yet, God is right there, no less than 4,000 miles away.

The world will eventually know the truth about this.

One way or another.

Once this happens, nasa and all governing agencies that have supported this global lie will be shamefully defeated.

-sjc



plumbo !!!! I'm so glad you're here ! If I have the right plumbo, the one who posted about the earth being surrounded by glass, can you explain how the shuttle got to the space station without incident ?

thanks !



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
You still have not answered my questions.
I am one of many that do not beleive that they ever went to the moon in the first place.


(3) Why has America or any other Country attempted to go to the Moon since 1969, if it was so important then, why is it no longer important ?/quote]


we've been 6 times. What can we provide besides links and pictures ? Unless you want to pay to go on one of bransons ships in about 7 years, so we can all take a look around, what else can we do ?

Here are links and PICTURES to each of the 6 manned missions to the moon.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...


do YOU have pictures of the disney studio ????????



[edit on 1-8-2005 by syrinx high priest]

[edit on 1-8-2005 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
that old phrase about "hiding in plain sight" is so true with the apollo photos. the real proof is the small stuff... the lunar soil and in the cracks and crevices of the bouders... the soil is made up of bits and pieces of electronic and avionics circuitry, cables, wiring that has been acid washed, torched, electroplated and covered with bauxite powder. there are visible spade connectors, chips, resistors and crushed up circuit boards in the lunar soil. the other "anomalies" are just theater faux pas... the real proof is looking closer and seeing things your mind wouldn't normally think of even looking for... hiding in plain sight.
i have the visual proof... seems i'm not allowed to upload such hi-rez offerings so perhaps i could send them to someone? perhaps someone with a link to the news media? someone who would have the nerve to expose this? someone who could ask an astronaut how it felt to walk around on all that electronic technology on the moon?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
the proof is in the mirror the apollo 11 crew left on the moon....





Apollo 11 Science Experiment Still Running

07.20.04


A cutting-edge Apollo 11 science experiment left behind in the Sea of Tranquility is still running today.
The most famous thing Neil Armstrong left on the moon 35 years ago is a footprint, a boot-shaped depression in the gray moondust. Millions of people have seen pictures of it, and one day, years from now, lunar tourists will flock to the Sea of Tranquility to see it in person. Peering over the rails ... "hey, Mom, is that the first one?"

Will anyone notice, 100 feet away, something else Armstrong left behind?


Ringed by footprints, sitting in the moondust, lies a 2-foot wide panel studded with 100 mirrors pointing at Earth: the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array." Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin put it there on July 21, 1969, about an hour before the end of their final moonwalk. Thirty-five years later, it's the only Apollo science experiment still running.






www.nasa.gov...


jra

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gititdun1
the lunar soil and in the cracks and crevices of the bouders... the soil is made up of bits and pieces of electronic and avionics circuitry, cables, wiring that has been acid washed, torched, electroplated and covered with bauxite powder. there are visible spade connectors, chips, resistors and crushed up circuit boards in the lunar soil. the other "anomalies" are just theater faux pas... the real proof is looking closer and seeing things your mind wouldn't normally think of even looking for... hiding in plain sight.
i have the visual proof... seems i'm not allowed to upload such hi-rez offerings so perhaps i could send them to someone? perhaps someone with a link to the news media? someone who would have the nerve to expose this? someone who could ask an astronaut how it felt to walk around on all that electronic technology on the moon?


What's the purpose in doing all that? Why would they used crushed up electronics stuff? if the Moon were faked, why not just use some sand or some kind of powder? why crushed up electonic bits? That makes no sense to me what so ever. I'd really like to see your pics. I've seen hundreds of high res Apollo pics and I have yet to see any crushed up circuit boards. Are your pictures properly named? like this 'AS##-##-####'. If so just give me that and so no need to upload or send them.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
plumbo !!!! I'm so glad you're here ! If I have the right plumbo, the one who posted about the earth being surrounded by glass, can you explain how the shuttle got to the space station without incident ?
thanks !


The same way it got there previous times....by penetrating through glass.
What incident are you alluding should have happened, in my theory?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Excuses, excuses, excuses, that's all you have.
"IF" they went to the moon in 1969 all they had to do is make the external covering of the shuttle out of the same material that covered the original capsule.

Since 1969 the space progam has been a failure, people died, there were fuel leaks, why waste my money, these scientist have gone backward, they can't even get a spacecraft to go 200 miles above the earth without problems, it has become a joke, and it is on us.

This current flight was only done to keep the money coming in.

To answer the other question, if you paid me enough money, I would tell you that I invented the Light bulb, all I would need is a little help from you erasing Edisons name. The "ELITE" would gladly do this if it would help them in their deceptions which are many.

You can beleive that they went to the moon all you want, one day soon the truth will be revealed, I am not decieved and will "NEVER" beleive their lies. There is "NOTHING" that will convince me otherwise.



[edit on 1-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I have no excuses just facts. I know Bill Anders of Apollo 8 and I know for a fact that he went to the moon. What is so hard to believe about this? Heck for the 'facts' presented here then nobody has climbed Everest nor been to the South Pole. All I see in this thread is a few who just cannot grasp science and sit infront of their PC's ( or MAC if you are a moron ) and try and bash reality. Above all and not so top secret, who cares? Here is dads NASA bio, ask him. He retired a Colonel.

Bankus
Gerald Kent
USA




Personal data
Birthdate: 10,10,1943 (?)
Birthplace: Milan / Missouri
Marital status:
Children: John Clayton Bankus, Andrew Kyle Bankus, Kathleen Bankus.
Selection date: ??.??.1977
Job: PLT
Status: Ret NASA. 16.01.1978
Astronaut Selection Commitee.


Additional information
Major, USAF; at the time of his selection assigned at Pentagon, Washington, D.C.;finalist in NASA astronaut group 8 selection.

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Excuses, excuses, excuses, that's all you have.
"IF" they went to the moon in 1969 all they had to do is make the external covering of the shuttle out of the same material that covered the original capsule.

Since 1969 the space progam has been a failure, people died, there were fuel leaks, why waste my money, these scientist have gone backward, they can't even get a spacecraft to go 200 miles above the earth without problems, it has become a joke, and it is on us.

This current flight was only done to keep the money coming in.

To answer the other question, if you paid me enough money, I would tell you that I invented the Light bulb, all I would need is a little help from you erasing Edisons name. The "ELITE" would gladly do this if it would help them in their deceptions which are many.

You can beleive that they went to the moon all you want, one day soon the truth will be revealed, I am not decieved and will "NEVER" beleive their lies. There is "NOTHING" that will convince me otherwise.



[edit on 1-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]


jra

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Excuses, excuses, excuses, that's all you have.
"IF" they went to the moon in 1969 all they had to do is make the external covering of the shuttle out of the same material that covered the original capsule.


You don't seem to get it. The Apollo Capsules were not reusable mostly due to the ablative heat shield. The Shuttle is reusable because of it's tiles. And it's not the tiles that are the main problem, it's the foam. NASA used to use a differnt and much better foam, but thanks to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), they got NASA to switch to a foam that has less CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons) in it. But this new foam doesn't work as good as the old foam. It falls off more easily.


Since 1969 the space progam has been a failure, people died, there were fuel leaks, why waste my money, these scientist have gone backward, they can't even get a spacecraft to go 200 miles above the earth without problems, it has become a joke, and it is on us.


Since 1969 eh? What about the rest of the moon landings that went on all the way to 1973? And then the spacelab and Soyuz and Apollo joint missions that went on till 1975? That was all a failure too? Seemed like it all went fine to me.


To answer the other question, if you paid me enough money, I would tell you that I invented the Light bulb, all I would need is a little help from you erasing Edisons name. The "ELITE" would gladly do this if it would help them in their deceptions which are many.


1) Why would I pay you money to do that? 2) How would I be able to help you erase Edisons name in the first place? You'd need more then a 'little help' to claim you invented the lightbulb. And no amount of money would change history.



You can beleive that they went to the moon all you want


Awesome. I surely will.


one day soon the truth will be revealed


Really? Just how soon will that be?


I am not decieved and will "NEVER" beleive their lies. There is "NOTHING" that will convince me otherwise.


How's the weather over there in ignorance? I hope you enjoy living in it.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
You still have not answered my questions.
I am one of many that do not beleive that they ever went to the moon in the first place.
Assuming that they did, how come the earlier spacecraft went to the moon and came back, no tiles fell off, no overheating problems and it did not have special tiles on any given side.


Wrong. Plain and flat out wrong.

ALL space capsules included a massive solid heatshield. The capsules were designed to enter orbit, and shaped specifically so that the bottom always pointed forwards (airflow would primarily keep the capsule orientated properly, and onboard thrusters on the top of the capsules could be used to 'tweek' orientation as well); the capsules used the atmosphere to slow down to the point where parachutes could be deployed. The capsules in all 3 programs (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) were designed to be used ONCE, and not reuseable like the STS (shuttle) - that's why the STS uses heat shield tiles -- so any damaged/worn tiles can be replaced after each mission.

The Mercury capsule used an attachable heat shield:


The Gemini capsule used an attachable heat shield


The Apollo capsule used an integrated heat shield

click to enlarge image of Apollo 16

Apollo SkyLab capsule showing heatshield

click to enlarge images

Now, is there any confusion as to how the capsules were able to re-enter earth's atmosphere without any "heat tiles"? I should hope not.

-=-
In your original post you asked why satellites could enter space without any special tiles like the shuttle. The answer is simple and factual. Satellites are not designed to re-enter the atmosphere and survive. Satellites are designed to carry enough fuel to maintain their orbit (stationkeeping) and enough fuel left over to achieve their end cycle. First, they are designed to be as light as possible to save money launching them (thus no wasted weight/space on heat shielding) and to do their job for 5-12 years -- then, once they have depleted their fuel supplies, they are either intentionally redirected to enter earth's atmosphere where they burn up, or are redirected into graveyard orbit, deep space, or towards the sun. The reason they do this is because they have to reduce the amount of "space junk" orbiting earth. This space junk makes manned missions even more dangerous and can damage or destroy other satellites in orbit. The only exception to this rule is for satellites that are specifically designed to return to earth with samples. Even though some of those are also not completely successful such as the Genesis spacecraft.
-=-



Some 35 years later with a vastly advanced technology they can not duplicate this feat, I don't buy it.


Of course they can duplicate the feat! Never has anyone at NASA said that going to the moon is impossible -- they've already done it 6 times. There's no need to go there right now, there's currently little to gain from it. It's too costly and it's too dangerous -- the risks outweigh the benefits. It always was too costly and too dangerous, the only reason it was done was to beat the USSR in a race for prestige (and gain a huge boost in ICBM technology while doing so).



Second, "NO ONE" can prove that the NASA program has provided us with the other new technologies stated above.


You are correct, no "ONE" can, but MANY individuals can. There are countless thousands of private citizens who have worked on tens of thousands of projects directly funded by NASA, with the goal of providing said technologies to NASA.


This technology could of been created at area 51 or other high security government facilities and passed of as being made from technology learned from the space program. It would serve to make people confident that the space program has a real purpose.
You can not prove the technology came from the space program, all you can do is state what "THEY" tell you. I for one do not accept anything they say to be factual, there are to many flaws and questions when you closely analyze the space program.


What a ridiculous assertion. The technology could have been made in my garage for all that matters. If NASA funded me to make it, what's the difference? Who cares if "technology x" was created/invented in a lab at Dupont or GE or Boeing? If it was funded by NASA, and it was a technology that did not previously exist but existed afterwards because NASA required something to fill a need, or solve a problem, in their space program then it's a technology that came to be directly because of NASA.

Who is this "THEY" in your mind? Are all the tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, programmers, technologists, etc all part of this giant "THEY"?? That's who worked on everything; that's who created everything; that's who invented everything. Are ALL of them part of this giant conspiracy you have dreamed up? Are even the devout Christians and Jews and Muslims working on various projects for NASA and other NASA funded companies part of this giant conspiracy? I think you need to spend more time away from urban legends and more time reading about reality.

And then there are the benefits of the technologies. What could possibly be the driving force or reason behind some other entity releasing a technology under the hidden guise of NASA? Why would a secret government agency create something like a CAT scan or a programmable pacemaker and then want to release it to the public? Why would technology that is so beneficial to humanity be created by agencies you imagine are out to control and subvert you? And why would those dark evil agencies release these vastly beneficial technologies in the first place? It makes no sense.



Here below is a link to William Coopers document that exposes the space program for the deception that it really is. He was killed for revealing this truth and the other deceptions he exposed.

www.hourofthetime.com...
[edit on 1-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]


You link to a website that claims the secret society (or illuminati) has a goal of controlling the masses and wiping out billion of people. Why would they first create technologies to prolong the lives of people worldwide? Why would this massive controlling group spend resources on creating medical applications such as CTScans, CATscans, MRIs, Ultrasounds, cardiac monitors, .

What further destroys the validity of the website you've linked to is logic. The website claims that the illuminati is racist and views all non-white races to be nothing more than useless eaters. It then goes on to ramble about the Bush family and insinuates they are part of this "illuminati" -- but I have a huge problem with this website's claims. Or rather these problems: namely, Condoleezza Rice, Alphonso Jackson, Carlos Gutierrez, Al Gonzales, Norm Mineta, Michael Chertoff, and Elaine Chao. Why would this supposed all powerful illuminati allow there to be so many "useless eaters" with these positions of power?

Again, the website you're referencing is complete bunk. You really need to start reading more sources of information and not just a few of these crackpot sources.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
You have voted CatHerder for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


its hard to imagine the rebuttal to your post being anything other than "that's what they want you to believe" or "you've been brainwashed, I have a free and open mind"

great post, cheers



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
i knew this would open a can of worms... about time though. first to justify my credentials. i've been trained in camouflage, optics, photography and interpretative evaluations. part of my 30 year service to this country was to examine recon and sat photos and find all the little details. so i'm pretty sure of what i see and what i see is fakery... good, but still fakery. there are many other reasons to doubt that apollo ever went to the moon. be it known, i'm not saying that man did not go to the moon, or mars for that matter. there's much more to this than just fooling the earth about a good p.r. job by nasa.
you have made some good points. first off the answer as to why the soil was made that way... reflectivity, shadow patterns and texture/brittleness. the silica and metal based pieces provided contrast of light and shadow against strong studio lamps... they also cast shadow patterns that merged and formed an interesting visual texture throughout the landscape. this relaxes the eye and gives more focus on the subject matter. had there been nothing more than normal sand, dirt, and pebbles the interesting would have become flat, boring and much too like "earth"... that would prompt even more suspicion. the rocks had to be created because they had to be "older looking"... alien and not like anything found here. there's another reason anomalies were built into some of the visuals, but that's food for another thread.
you mention the famous footprint... as11-40-58776,
show.imagehosting.us...
in that picture is one of the most glaring examples of hoax proof in the entire apollo catalog! about 10-11 o'clock on the edge of the step down, a spade connector with connecting wire glints in the stagelight! of course nothing of perfect focus was ever shot... every picture is a bit out of focus and that's the reason... so as to melt the objects into the background, but sometimes, fate has other ideas.
the laser beam reflector... everytime apollo is challenged, you load this tired old horse into a wagon and cart him out. fire a laser beam at any "reflective surface"... what are the odds you're gonna be ducking photon spray? ever been to a disco? not to mention you're refracting it going through the atmosphere and coming back? yes, it's reported to be a weak signal on return, but nonetheless... have you stood outside at night and observed how "reflective" the lunar surface is? granted, our atmosphere amplifies the light intensity, but even from the iss, it's reflective... more reflective than the mirror coated bread box they supposedly left there. think maybe it wouldn't matter where you shot the laser, some of it might just come back? you might actually want to check the facts at apache point and ask them how many times they've missed? zero. it ain't because they're so accurate in hitting a mirror coated bread box, which by the way, would be covered by the "lunar dust", fried by a spe/cme or penetrated by micrometeors by now (according to nasa's own updated lunar analysis) gee! didn't that have all that radiation protection solved back then? anyway, it's because the entire moon is a target. and another thing... data is the easiest form of "proof" to fake... there are plenty of high earth orbit sats that could easily absorb and bounce anything you can conceive of. as for apollo 8... the same photographic and set techniques were used for clementine and orbital shots of the moon... expensive, but much cheaper than trying to do the impossible.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by gititdun1
i knew this would open a can of worms... about time though. first to justify my credentials. i've been trained in camouflage, optics, photography and interpretative evaluations. part of my 30 year service to this country was to examine recon and sat photos and find all the little details. so i'm pretty sure of what i see and what i see is fakery... good, but still fakery. there are many other reasons to doubt that apollo ever went to the moon. be it known, i'm not saying that man did not go to the moon, or mars for that matter. there's much more to this than just fooling the earth about a good p.r. job by nasa.
you have made some good points. first off the answer as to why the soil was made that way... reflectivity, shadow patterns and texture/brittleness. the silica and metal based pieces provided contrast of light and shadow against strong studio lamps... they also cast shadow patterns that merged and formed an interesting visual texture throughout the landscape. this relaxes the eye and gives more focus on the subject matter. had there been nothing more than normal sand, dirt, and pebbles the interesting would have become flat, boring and much too like "earth"... that would prompt even more suspicion. the rocks had to be created because they had to be "older looking"... alien and not like anything found here. there's another reason anomalies were built into some of the visuals, but that's food for another thread.
you mention the famous footprint... as11-40-58776,
show.imagehosting.us...
in that picture is one of the most glaring examples of hoax proof in the entire apollo catalog! about 10-11 o'clock on the edge of the step down, a spade connector with connecting wire glints in the stagelight! of course nothing of perfect focus was ever shot... every picture is a bit out of focus and that's the reason... so as to melt the objects into the background, but sometimes, fate has other ideas.
the laser beam reflector... everytime apollo is challenged, you load this tired old horse into a wagon and cart him out. fire a laser beam at any "reflective surface"... what are the odds you're gonna be ducking photon spray? ever been to a disco? not to mention you're refracting it going through the atmosphere and coming back? yes, it's reported to be a weak signal on return, but nonetheless... have you stood outside at night and observed how "reflective" the lunar surface is? granted, our atmosphere amplifies the light intensity, but even from the iss, it's reflective... more reflective than the mirror coated bread box they supposedly left there. think maybe it wouldn't matter where you shot the laser, some of it might just come back? you might actually want to check the facts at apache point and ask them how many times they've missed? zero. it ain't because they're so accurate in hitting a mirror coated bread box, which by the way, would be covered by the "lunar dust", fried by a spe/cme or penetrated by micrometeors by now (according to nasa's own updated lunar analysis) gee! didn't that have all that radiation protection solved back then? anyway, it's because the entire moon is a target. and another thing... data is the easiest form of "proof" to fake... there are plenty of high earth orbit sats that could easily absorb and bounce anything you can conceive of. as for apollo 8... the same photographic and set techniques were used for clementine and orbital shots of the moon... expensive, but much cheaper than trying to do the impossible.



the link doesn't work, and I can't wait until Bransons company starts flying people up there so all this nonsense can be put to rest.



www.redzero.demon.co.uk...
The lunar dust is not anything like sand. The particles are smaller and much more irregular. Sand on Earth is the result of weathering and has been rounded and smoothed by wind, water and oxidation, but dust on the moon are minuscule shards of broken rock from asteroid collisions. Consequently their surface at a molecular level is a jagged mass that won't get smoothed off and don't have any weathering to smooth them off. This means that when compressed, say by a boot, the dust particles will grip with each other very readily, using and retain the shape. All without any water.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

As you probably know, the ss crew made the decision to repair the heat sheild.
What's interesting to me is the fact that a mere inch protrusion could cause the temperature to increase at the point of extrusion.

Why?

If, however, they were skidding across a glass rim and the friction was intensified at that point, then I could understand.

www.belowtopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo

As you probably know, the ss crew made the decision to repair the heat sheild.
What's interesting to me is the fact that a mere inch protrusion could cause the temperature to increase at the point of extrusion.

Why?

If, however, they were skidding across a glass rim and the friction was intensified at that point, then I could understand.

www.belowtopsecret.com...


yay ! my favorite topic of all time on these boards is back !!!!!!


plumbo, how fast would the SS be moving at the point it comes into contact with the glass ?

The incident I was referring to earlier would be the shuttle crashing
through the glass. It might , well, umm damage the vehicle somehow ?



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
yay ! my favorite topic of all time on these boards is back !!!!!!


I'm quite honored!


plumbo, how fast would the SS be moving at the point it comes into contact with the glass ?


however fast its moving.


The incident I was referring to earlier would be the shuttle crashing
through the glass. It might , well, umm damage the vehicle somehow ?


Well, to enter into inner space you have more vertical thrust, so it can crash through the glass like a bullet...I don't think bullets get damaged crashing through glass.

To exit inner space though, I'm guessing they don't have the vertical thrust, so they have to melt through it. That's why all modules need some sort of heat sheild...to generate enough heat friction to melt its way through.

But, let's bring this back to BTS where it belongs....right?



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
the link worked, thanks. Its hard to say without a side by side comparison. I looked for other fotprint images, and I can't find one as large as the one you have.


I stumbled on this while looking for footprint pics. How is am "earth rise" faked ?






new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join