NASA Hoax

Originally posted by Plumbo

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

the earth surrounds the glass sphere ?

huh ?

then how did the apollo craft and shuttles get "glass burn" exactly ?

I over-estimated your understanding in my theory. Going back to our discussion in BTS a couple monhs ago, I thought you already understood I believe that the earth is inverted and we live on the inside surface, so space and all celestial bodies are located INSIDE the cavernous earth. Was I wrong? Did you still think I thought the earth was a spinning spheriod with us living ON its' surface?

I made this point ptretty clear. The second paragraph of the inital post:

Can Someone Explain Why There is not Glass in the Atmosphere?
Before I get into the topic I'd like to give a brief background of my beliefs. This topic was discussed in a previous thread but nobody seemed to answer the question satisfactory enough to prove that there isn't glass up in the sky.

I came to the conclusion 2 years ago that the entire universe is merely contained within the walls of an inverted earth, which is not solid but only a shell in which we live on the inside surface.

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Did you see this?

oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


now I get it. I thought by atmosphere, you meant the one on the outside of the earth that can be seen from space....

thanks for clearing that up


how did we get that dang little probe to mars ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
how did we get that dang little probe to mars ?

I'm guessin' Photoshop.

Originally posted by Plumbo

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
how did we get that dang little probe to mars ?

I'm guessin' Photoshop.

lol good one, point for plumbo.



I must confess, one of my favorite books of all time is ER Burroughs
"at the earths core"

it was my grandfathers favorite to, and he even named my mom diane after the leading lady character


cheers

Firstly

I think the astronaut should have used a scaffold tower or work platform working at that height the other day fixing tiles and grout lines Health and Safety will not be happy

And secondly

if it were not for NASA inventing the super glue I would still not be at my computer system.
Someone get me some help.
I’m stuck

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Plumbo]

You have voted Plumbo for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

That is for a truly original (well almost) conspircy theory. It's truly insane, but at least it's not boring.

Too many threads on here are of the "The Illuminati ate my homework" variety, so it's good to see something really different. I especially liked the pictures of carpet burns. What they demonstrated I'm not sure, but they were certainly baffling.

I think some people need to put down their mouse and step away from the computer. Pick up your telephone and call your local college and register for a basic PHYSICS class! Preferably one with hands on lab experiments so that you can prove the results to yourself and be sure that they are not a government hoax. Once you successfully complete this class go back to your computer and re-read all of the posts on this thread.

So far people have said that they will get to the spacesuit cooling issue later. I think that I'll tackle that one now. I am going to try to keep this simple for those who are waiting for their local college to call them back about when their Physics class starts.

I read the post about how cooling the space suit was impossible because there is no air in space to transfer the heat to. Actually the vacuum of space is what makes the cooling of a space suit possible.

The only heat from the Sun that you would have to worry about would be radient heat. The white coloring of the suit and the reflective coating on the helmet visor would reflect about 75% percent of that. The insulation of the suit would take care of about 20% more. Near the end of some of the longer stays on the moon there was actually an increase in the internal temperature of the suit due to the moondust coating the suit and reducing the effectiveness of its reflectivity.

The main generator of heat is the astronaut's body itself. This is the heat source that the air conditioning is ment to handle. The way that air conditioning works is that it transfers heat away from the area that you want cooled. In the case of a space suit you want to remove the excess heat that is in the air trapped between the astronaut's body and the inside of the space suit. That's not very much air.

The amount of heat that an object can hold is proportional to its mass. A cubic foot of steel can hold much more heat than a cubic foot of wood. When you are talking about air another factor comes into play. It is pressure. A gas's mass is directly related to its pressure. Less pressure = less mass. One of the Hawaiian islands has a mountain that is tall enough that snow actually accumulates at the top. It is possible to ski in the morning and then surf that afternoon. The reason that this is possible is the difference in air pressure between Sea Level and the mountain's summit. This allows for a difference in temperature. Back to the space suit. Atmospheric pressure at Sea Level is usually around 14.7 pounds per square inch. The pressure in the spacesuits worn by the Apollo astronauts was about 1/3 of atmospheric or about 4.9 psi. This greatly reduced the amount of air that needed to be cooled.

The Life Support System used by the Apollo astronauts was contained in a backpack that in Earth gravity weighed around 180 lbs. On the Moon the same backpack weighs about 30 lbs. With out having very specific information I can't calculate the exact amount of water needed to cool the space suit, but I am fairly sure that it wasn't more than a few gallons.

science.howstuffworks.com...

What a joke, there is no way to have the space suits air conditioned.
I have always wondered how that transmit a tv signal from the moon, radio signals are not endless and there is nothing on the moon that can send a tv signal 200,000 miles, another HOAX.

People can beleive what they want, I have found more information to verify the hoax than I have found to support the claim that they went to the moon.

For the umteenth time, how is NASA going backward, if they went to the moon in 1969 they should be able to do it far easier today, many of you are so gullible and not only believe their deceptions, but offer excuses on their behalf.

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
What a joke, there is no way to have the space suits air conditioned.

You are 100% wrong in BOTH your uneducated assumptions.

You clearly do not understand the difference between convection, conduction, vaporization and radiation.

You have completely confused convection with radiation. Convection and radiation are two different methods for moving thermal energy. Convection requires a material that can flow, like a liquid or a gas. Radiation is transport of energy by light (including invisible forms, such as infrared light).

Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Radiation:

Cat....yet again, I'm wishing I could have more WATS votes. This sucks, because if I could, I'd give you all three, and more, if I hadn't already spent 'em. Compulsive spender, and all that.

I'm still unclear as to why Prophet has skipped over the obvious evidence provided, and still thinks it's all a hoax - I'm utterly, genuinely baffled as to this. Maybe Prophet can answer that for me?

I'm also seriously, genuinely and without any agenda or hidden intent, questioning the logic behind this implied allegation: "If you believe all the science, all the evidence, then you're obviously a sheep who is just believing what the government is telling you". There's no proof, no evidence, no nothing to back this up.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
... if I hadn't already spent 'em. Compulsive spender, and all that.

Typical woman!

(I don't post to get points; if points on here mattered to me I wouldn't respond to silly threads like this and "give" points to folks who choose not to educate themselves prior to typing out nonsense.) On the otherhand, I can't keep myself from responding to posts where people have everything wrong (either by choice or by simple ignorance), and nothing grounded in fact. That just leads to some other person reading it and running with the original mistaken post(s) as 'fact' and the cycle of 'misinformed-persons-confusing-other-persons' continues. Hopefully most people read the facts/links/etc. contained in other posts on here and come to the most/best educated conclusion(s) for themselves.

You have voted CatHerder for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

You may not care about the points, but you obviously care about knowledge dissemination and denying ignorance, and do it very well. So you get my vote.


JUST ONCE I'd like to see someone with a harebrained idea come back and say, "Gee, thanks. I hadn't considered that possibility. I guess I was totally wrong."

(maybe it'll be me)

well and what is the great use of the shuttle???

i think that was the bigest error in the nasa technologic concepts, but other commentaries are apreciated

the same special missions -sattelite rescue, etc, that happens in very rare occations- can not be done by special "apolo" or "soyuz" ensambled in the space station??

between nuclear research -specially nuclear fusion- and space exploration, which is the best investment???

i dont know how many resources have given to both investigations (nuclear-space)



[edit on 7-8-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2
well and what is the great use of the shuttle???

i think that was the bigest error in the nasa technologic concepts, but other commentaries are apreciated

the same special missions -sattelite rescue, etc, that happens in very rare occations- can not be done by special "apolo" or "soyuz" ensambled in the space station??

No it really can't. The Apollo and Soyuz crafts lack the mass required to capture and repair sattelites. There is nothing to push against or hold onto in space - a smaller craft would be far too dependant on carrying large amounts of fuel to be able to capture and control a sattelite or alter the orbit of a sattelite. The sheer mass of the Shuttle helps to counter the enertia of the smaller objects it works on/with.

I don't think the shuttle was the biggest error, I think it was a really fantastic accomplishment considering it was designed in the mid 70's, suffered multiple budget cuts by congress, and was finally launched (scaled back) in the early 80s. I think 114 successful missions is a testiment to the hard work and ability to adapt by the men and women at NASA. If the US government hadn't been such skinflints with NASA budgets I'm positive the shuttle would have seen it's last mission in the late 80's and a new series of space craft would be flying today. The only reason the shuttle still exists is because the American tax payer doesn't demand something better.

What's needed is a new program consisting of 2 new space craft and a new rocket series. One of the craft should be designed to operate based from the space station or a seperate space dock fuel & maintenance station (and not designed to be a re-useable earth entry vehicle), this craft could take care of earth orbital repair/servicing/orbit adjusting; the second craft should be a reuseable earth entry vehicle which is smaller and not designed to carry large payloads like the current STS. The new rocket program should consist of a new multistage big dumb rocket - coupling different stages could taylor the rocket for each launch requirement to handle either craft launches or heavier supply/module launches. The Saturn program showed that this approach was viable, it also showed that it was possible to man-rate a big dumb rocket. (Although I really suspect that the Saturn program was far more seat-of-the-pants than many at NASA cared to admit).

CAT
Radio waves ARE endless. Everything we've transmitted on earth (TV shows, radio broadcasts, etc.) has been "leaking" into space from the day each technology was invented. The first radio broadcast was in 1906, so we've been sending radio signals, at the speed of light, into space for 99 years! If you were in a space ship, parked 50 light-years away from earth, and you pointed your radio telescope towards our Sun, you would be able to listen to radio broadcasts from Earth that were transmitted 50 years ago, and TV shows from 50 years ago! (Any "aliens" within 90 light-years of Earth know we're here, we've been loudly broadcasting radio signals the whole time!)

You are incorrect, I worked as a satellite technician for over 20 years and know for a fact that signals are not endless.
In the early 80's, you needed a 12 ft. satellite antenna just to recieve domestic satellite signals, such as HBO, CINAMAX, ect.
If you tried to recieve these same signals on a 6 ft. antenna, you would be wasting your time.
If these signals were endless as you suggest, antenna size would not matter.

We are only talking about an alledged 22,300 miles where they say the satellites orbit, I think it is closer to the 300 mile number.
22,300 miles would be considered outerspace and the signal would not change from that point and beyond.
Next point is what is used on the moon to send signals ? I never have seen any pictures of an UP-Link on the Moon. I have seen pictures of an approx. 8 ft. antenna on one of the vehicles alledgedly left there, but an antenna that size is hardly capable of sending a signal 200,000 miles.

To answer the other question, considering all of the info that has been presented, you still cannot get around this fact.

How could they go to the moon in 1969 and not be able to go 200 miles above the earth today without tiles and other things falling off ? Unless you consider NASA to be run by a bunch of bumbling IDIOTS, their excuses hold no water, they are decievers. Again this is 35 years later

If it were true that they went to the moon, we should no longer waste our money on a current space program that is seriously flawed, which is proven by their Ineptness to be able to build a safe spacecraft. Maybe they need to use a different kind of Super-Glue to hold the tiles on. What a joke, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

I will not accept the assumption that they went to the moon 35 years ago and cannot do it today with a far superior technology. It simply does not add up, 35 years, come on, don't beleive the hype.

They have sent satellites up into orbit and not have experienced the same kind of problems that they do with the shuttles, believe if you will, I am not buying.


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

Sorry, radio wave signals are endless.

You are confusing signal strength with bandwidth.

Apollo 11 television signal

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
To answer the other question, considering all of the info that has been presented, you still cannot get around this fact.

How could they go to the moon in 1969 and not be able to go 200 miles above the earth today without tiles and other things falling off ? Unless you consider NASA to be run by a bunch of bumbling IDIOTS, their excuses hold no water, they are decievers. Again this is 35 years later

If it were true that they went to the moon, we should no longer waste our money on a current space program that is seriously flawed, which is proven by their Ineptness to be able to build a safe spacecraft. Maybe they need to use a different kind of Super-Glue to hold the tiles on. What a joke, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

I will not accept the assumption that they went to the moon 35 years ago and cannot do it today with a far superior technology. It simply does not add up, 35 years, come on, don't beleive the hype.

Obviously it is you that can't understand the fact that NASA doesn't get the same amount of money that they used to. It has to do with the economics of today.

You don't seem to understand that the shuttle was designed to be for low orbit only! It's not due to lack of knowledge or ability, it was just made to be that way. The original plan after the Apollo missions was to have a Space station in orbit (originally Space Station Freedom ) that would be serviced by a reusable shuttle. Together the shuttle and station would provided services for a permanently manned Lunar colony and eventual manned missions to Mars. But by the 70's and 80's NASA's budget droped a lot and they had to cut their goals for a Moon base and missions to mars. They just kept their goals for the space station which eventually became the ISS and the shuttle.

So you see. The shuttle wasn't design to go to the moon, it was just ment to service the space station in orbit and bring supplies to it and what not. It's not NASA's fault that they can't go to the Moon and Mars, it's not their fault they don't have a big completed space station yet. It's not NASA's fault they have a small budget and can't get newer better shuttles (which were to be used for 10 years each). The blame falls squarely on the US Gov't for not funding them properly. The original plan for the shuttle was a lot better then how it turned out. But due to budget cuts, it's not as good as it could have been.

Also the tiles are not falling off the space shuttle. It's the foam from the main fuel tank that is falling off. Get your facts right for once, it's all over the news. Perhaps you should actually read what's going on insted of making up more #. And NASA used to use a better foam, but thanks to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) they switched to a foam with less CFC's and now the newer foam doesn't work as well. So again, not completely NASA's fault. Although they should just tell the EPA to get lost I think.

They have sent satellites up into orbit and not have experienced the same kind of problems that they do with the shuttles, believe if you will, I am not buying.

Why in the hell would satellites have the same kinds of problems as the shuttles? Satellites don't have tiles, they arn't mounted on the side of a fuel tank when launched, they don't need to re-enter the atmosphere. Either they get carried up by the shuttle in it's bay or they are launched by unmanned rockets. But why are you even compairing satellites to the shuttles? I don't get it. Are you really just that confused and misinformed about all this stuff?

[edit on 8-8-2005 by jra]

300 miles is much more accurate than 22K.

Originally posted by T_Jesus

(4) NASA's budgets are 5% of what the military defense budget is. 5%. How much technology do we get out of that? No a whole lot that makes my life better. Do you have any idea how much useful technology has come out of the space program that has impacted your day to day life? A whole lot. I really hate when people ask such a foolish question as this one, it irritates me. Why are we throwing billions and billions of dollars at other causes that are not progressing us? NASA = progress for mankind. Support it, it's the only thing making us peons' lives better.

Let me make it clear, the space shuttles we use now should've been gone a very long time ago. Unfortunately, we had a string of very bad presidents, in my opinion, who didn't give a damn about the space program. We finally have a president with a vision, and has given NASA a kick in the ass.

4) I agree. All the stuff that was invented by NASA and by people who conducted experiments to go into space came up with some stuff whose real-world uses are pretty much unlimited. Like those tempur-pedic mattresses.

The space shuttles are being replaced. I believe that MacDonnall-Douglas is taking a wing at the new shuttle (looks hot, too), and some other company, Boeing maybe. But I am fairly sure that the replacedment is to be chosen in 2007, at which point the prototype will enter active service.

www.belowtopsecret.com...