Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight?

Originally posted by Chorlton
reply to post by undo

 

So yep I can accept they are working on an invisibility cloak and have one or two working prototypes for army use.
But you want people to make the leap from an invisibility jacket to an invisible Space Station?

Doesnt work for me, much though I would like it to be true.

Well, the idea is to A) determine if the scenario is scientifically possible, B) provide rationale for the scenario and C) offer it as an explanation for other anomalous variables. Can't proceed without a hypothesis. This is, apparently, the hypothesis and the first steps of empirical process.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by undo]

reply to post by undo


OK Cool

So you would agree then that an invisible space station orbitting the earth is not a viable suggestion at the moment?

Originally posted by Chorlton
reply to post by undo

 

OK Cool

So you would agree then that an invisible space station orbitting the earth is not a viable suggestion at the moment?

Of course, I don't agree that it isn't a viable suggestion. Hubby saw a huge stealth craft using anti-grav propulsion and some kind of space warping technology in the 80's, while stationed in Utah. This is nearly 30 years later.
Hypothesis: It's alot farther along now than it was then and it was already beyond most people's imagining even then.

Originally posted by zysin5
Hey Zorgon

What do you make of this??
Lunar image of what looks like a SSS

Aug. 28th the image was taken..

When I saw the image go across the moon it really made me think..
The guy asked himself, that looks like a space station...

What do you make of this Chorlton? My post here was at the very bottom of page 20, I didnt know if you had time to check it out

reply to post by zysin5



I checked it out but its inconclusive isnt it. If pushed I would say its a satellite or something similar but theres insufficient evidence to make any valid conclusion

To me, it looks too close to be a satellite.
Hubby said it kinda reminds him of the stealth thingy he saw in the 80s. that, if flipped 90 degrees it might be triangular. For a brief second, I thought i could see the smooth surface of the left extension, and it appeared somewhat transparent, such as you might expect from certain optical anomalies. Not sure what that means, however.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo

Of course, I don't agree that it isn't a viable suggestion. Hubby saw a huge stealth craft using anti-grav propulsion and some kind of space warping technology in the 80's, while stationed in Utah. This is nearly 30 years later.
Hypothesis: It's alot farther along now than it was then and it was already beyond most people's imagining even then.

So you post articles stating that these things are in development but then come out with unproveable statements.
How did he KNOW it was a stealth craft and if it was a stealth craft HOW could he see it (whoops!)
How did he KNOW it was using anti grav propulsion

Hypothesis: There are 2:
1/ He saw something and couldnt identify it so decided to put his explanation to it.
2/ He didnt see anything and its all made up.

[edit on 27/9/07 by Chorlton]

It was stealthy sound. It was sporting the gun metal grey-black of the other stealth craft that we all know about today, and the triangular shape, molding for the stealthing various signals, meaning it was radar stealthed. Et.al, it was stealthy. He was standing on the flight line of Hill AFB when this monstrosity comes flying slowly over his head, totally silent. no insignia. no engines. no after burners. and when it finally starts to accelerate, it hops from one point to the next: iow, it disappears and reappears further away, and it gains tremendous speeds faster than any other craft he has seen since then and he's been in 2 wars (gulf and iraqi freedom), had top secret clearance and knows what the fighter craft are capable of. He was career Air Force for 23 years.



[edit on 27-9-2007 by undo]

Weird isn't it? How different people see different things? I find that interesting.

That sure looked like a small, out-of-focus, private aircraft filmed head on. Top-mounted wings on each side of a fuselage, and the fixed landing gear sticking out from the bottom sides. I would assume that if the camera was focused out to infinity in order to film the moon, any objects in between would be very fuzzy?

reply to post by MrPenny


Thank you for the input I wasnt sure what it was. I just found it ironic that he said it looked like a space station. Thats why I posted it here..
I dont have the exp to say it was a plane. Or to speculate really to much on what it was. So I share it here with you guys, and this way I can get a very diverse opinion. As you are right, we can all look at this and see different things.

reply to post by undo


What confuses me about those that claim our military has hardware THAT advanced (instant propulsion, silent craft, holograms) is that they sure as hell don't seem to ever use it in a time of war. If half the stuff people claim the military had was true, war would be a lot easier. Think about it for a second before responding by inserting your foot in your mouth. I mean, we're driving diesel humvees in the dessert....why? We can make silent star wars land speeders that can jump from place to place almost instantly, lol. Just think about it....


Crap, there I go. I need to slow down on the vodka before getting online. I could go ahead and delete this, but I think I'll leave it up as a reminder to myself not to drink and post....

[edit on 27-9-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

Think about it for a second before responding by inserting your foot in your mouth.

Well the big problem with your hypothesis is, that it doesn't explain his experience. It merely opts to ignore it because it doesn't seem logical in light of other activities. Perhaps the problem is, that it IS so special that not alot of them exist, and the few that do, are specialized and not used in actual war scenarios. The more advanced a craft is, the less likely they will risk it becoming filmed making flyovers of Iraq or whatever. At the time when he saw it, it was a war game event on the base, where all the windows in the buildings had been covered over by black plastic and only those on duty outside, would've seen it. But the potential of using it in an actual war, is not something he would be familar with. He said it looked very space age-ish, like it could easily transit between space and earth without a hitch. His last 15 years of service were spent at Patrick AFB in the Space Wing.

Damn, Undo, I just came in here to delete my post..hoping no one read it yet, lol. So I'm going to maybe edit it a bit to be a little less harsh, I'll effort to keep enough in there to make your reply make sense. Sorry.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Damn, Undo, I just came in here to delete my post..hoping no one read it yet, lol. So I'm going to maybe edit it a bit to be a little less harsh, I'll effort to keep enough in there to make your reply make sense. Sorry.

Hrm, drunk guy with technological knowledge of space craft.... Potential for data gathering alarm (or PFDGA) starts to sound.

Sooooooooo, ITF, what else do you know about the construction of space craft, hmmm? *freudian accent*

[edit on 27-9-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by housegroove23
What did he say man, you don't have to post it or get into detail just give us a ruff idea. You got me curious now.

Actually David has written papers on anti-gravity. You did know John's father Bill Lear worked with TT Brown on anti gravity work for the DoD in 1952 yes?

As to the "stealth" comments...

Black painted spaceships? what a silly idea there would surely be no such thing...



As to Chorlton's comment about me having "evidence" I cannot reveal..

Don' worry mate I made it all up... its all in my head... don't know what got into me...

I am free to talk about any of my published US Patents which are in the public domain. I am, however, under an edict from DoD under the NSA to 'report any inquiries relative to the stealth patent'. I had a phone call from a person who identified himself as an 'Undersectetary of Defense' and the person read a statement to me which I later found was excerpted from the National Security Act, as amended. I was 'ordered' to report any inquiries of any kind, by anyone, to DoD relative to that case (patent). I've only had to do that one time in 20 years when a group of Isreali's, based in Philly, contacted me relative to undertaking collaboration on some 'project' in Haifa. I reported this as instructed and the group 'disappeared' shortly thereafter.

Make of that what you will... but John and I both decided that..

"The Needs of the Family outweigh the Needs of the People to Know"

As to Mr Pennies comment about 'finding it in the public domain'...

Yes you CAN find 'sensitive' material 'hidden in plain sight' in the public domain...

This particular link provided earlier has caused quite a stir with the 'source' just quoted above...

www.techbriefs.com...

There is also this report that is very relevant to our topic here

Beginning with that one inquiry, the Joint Staff set out to discover just how easy it is to collect data not only on military personnel, but the military in general. They used personal computers at home, used no privileged information -- not even a DoD phone book -- and did not use any on-line services that perform investigative searches for a fee.

In less than five minutes on the Net Ashley, starting with only the general's name, was able to extract his complete address, unlisted phone number, and using a map search engine, build a map and driving directions to his house.

Using the same techniques and Internet search engines, they visited various military and military-related web sites to see how much and the types of data they could gather. What they discovered was too much about too much, and seemingly too little concern about the free flow of information versus what the public needs to know.

www.defenselink.mil...

Now that took me about 5 seconds and on the first page at google to find that defense.mil article... So do not doubt for a second that you can find stuff that you shouldn't in the 'public sector' Its what you DO with that collected info that gets you 'on the radar'


Of course all this 'means nothing' to some people here... but to be quite frank... I am not here to convince anyone, merely on a personal quest to seek answers and share what I (and my supporters) discover. And short of using McKinnon's tactics we will continue to present what we find... as time allows... this is not my full time job, though it takes up more time

And if my 'quest' was about main stream science I would be posting on Space.com or some similar forum, but my quest is conspiracy related so since ATS is the best conspiracy sight around... here I am

reply to post by MrPenny

Well, since you did say please...

But before I begin in earnest...

Apparently, the painfully obvious correlation between the figures I provided and referenced, not once, but twice, and the unsubstantiated assertions posed by yourself (so quick you are to lambast your opponents; those who would actually take the effort to illuminate your position,) were lost in your gleeful rush to censure and insult.

More on that in a moment.

(Good heavens, that's a lot of syllables! You'll have to pardon me, I do tend to go a bit mul·ti·syl·lab·ic when my "hackles" are up! Or when I'm "gushing.")

Originally posted by MrPenny
I wonder.... how much does clothing for 3 men, for several weeks, weigh?

In answer to your question, for eight weeks, about 16.5kgs.

Source | Progress 23P Cargo Manifest as of 11 August 2006

Sorry, I could only find general information concerning the Progress M-61 cargo ship, launched 02/08/2007. It's waaaay down at the bottom of the page, following the historical and technical achievements of this little Russion workhorse, as noted by the author of this page:

Source | Russion SpaceWeb

Originally posted by MrPenny in response to Zorgon
I'm willing to bet, that if tested, it can be shown that your fans follow up on your links and citations less than the detractors. I don't because, what's the point?

The point?

To be able to make well informed wagers, just ask your bookie the importance of that..

Tell you what, I'll gladly follow your links, (should you ever post one) even if you can't be bothered to follow our links.

Deal?

originally posted by me...
The only scenario that requires the shuttle to rely upon ISS supplies, apart from electrical power while docked, is the shuttle's long term inability to return to earth.

And that scenario would be duly (and dually) covered by both the risk management plan in place for the ISS, and the shuttle mission's risk management plan.

Originally posted by you...

Sure, I guess that's another way of saying what I said.

Also posted by you...
Don't forget, any good risk management plan would include increased supplies for any time frame the shuttle will be docked, considering the possibility it's stay may be extended due to unforeseen mechanical or weather related issues.

Good grief!

We actually agree on something! Nearly...

When it's simply docked, it only draws power. The shuttle crew brings their own shorts.

And food.

And water.

At the risk of being redundant, the ONLY time they depend on supplies from the ISS is blah blah, blahblahblah.....something that has never happened...or has it? (Consider that a challenge, or a "tasking," if you will. )

Originally posted by you...
The shuttle flies with 5 crew members.

Originally posted by me...
Sometimes the crew numbers seven on the shuttle.

It's debatable whether it ever actually "flies."

Originally posted by you...
Go back to my post where I referenced the word "pedantic". Do you really think those count as points in this discussion?

Then why did you bring it up? Since the supplies for the shuttle are exclusive to the shuttle?

But, since we're on the subject.

The shuttle is launched like a rocket, nearly straight up, and falls "like a rock with wings" for the trip home.

When does it "fly" exactly?

(Oh boy, more semantical nonsense!)

Source | Lockheed Martin | Advanced Life Support Research and Technology Development Metric – Fiscal Year 2002

2.4.1.1.4 Waste
Solid waste is stored and returned aboard the crew transfer vehicle or burned upon re entry in an expendable resupply vehicle. This includes trash, fecal material, brine from the urine and water processing, and used filters and cartridges. The toilet is also included under the waste subsystem.

2.4.1.1.5 Water
Urine is processed by vapor compression distillation. Eighty-eight percent water recovery is claimed. The brine is either returned to Earth or dumped. All grey water, including hygiene water, effluent from the vapor compression distillation, and condensate from dehumidification, is processed through a water processor. The water processor employs two multifiltration units, a volatile removal assembly, phase separators, and an ion exchange bed. A process control water quality monitor provides water quality assurance. Efficiency of recovery is high, but many expendables, mostly filter cartridges, are needed.

2.4.1.1.6 Human Accommodations
Clothing is delivered with the crew at the beginning of an expedition and returned to Earth with the crew at the end of each expedition.

So, 88% percent recovery for the water. Tasty!

And the shorts we already covered...

Ah yes, the question of the waste and "unused" supplies:

Originally posted by you
A Progress cargo ship arrives with roughly 2.5 tons of cargo for the ISS. It leaves with roughly 2 tons of waste and trash destined to be burned up in Earth's atmosphere.

Gee whiz.....I've accounted for 2 tons of every cargo load in just a few minutes browsing.

In truth, you didn't have to read that entire 34 page NASA/RSA document I referenced in my earlier post:

Source | Non-Recoverable Cargo (Trash/Waste) Management Plan | International Space Station Program

The answer to your question was posted right below the link:

Originally posted by me

3.2 TRASH AND WASTE GENERATION RATE
For the purpose of planning and analysis, the trash/waste generation rate of 2.6 cubic feet per day shall be used for a crew of three.

(That's three times now.)

Let's see, doing the math, that's 2.6 cubic feet a day, which translates to about a ton a month, dumped about every eight weeks, to reach a total amount of about, OMG, two tons of trash and waste!

My goodness! We agree on something else!

But I said it first...

Originally posted by MrPenny
A Progress cargo ship arrives with roughly 2.5 tons of cargo for the ISS. It leaves with roughly 2 tons of waste and trash destined to be burned up in Earth's atmosphere.

Gee whiz.....I've accounted for 2 tons of every cargo load in just a few minutes browsing.

Now do us a favor and account for the the other half a ton and the tonnage brought up on the shuttles.

Originally posted by MrPenny
Well, you write good sentences anyway.

Thanks! You write pretty okay yourself.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Your not coming off looking to good to anybody who actually reads this stuff and has at least half a brain.

Actually, I don't care how I look to someone who only reads this stuff with half their brain, but thanks anyway.

Hey john--I've been trying to use my u2u but it seems i do not have 200 u2u's yet . If you can u2u me maybe i'll be able to reply back .I have a few questions to ask you .

The question's are off topic so i will not post them here.

thanks

Originally posted by goosdawg
Let's see, doing the math, that's 2.6 cubic feet a day, which translates to about a ton a month,

Very quickly, before I leave for work......

I'm gonna' have to see your work on that math problem. Specifically, how you got 2.6 cubic ft., per day, of non-specific material, to roughly equal 2000 lbs in 30 days.

I shouldn't have to point out....2.6 cubic ft of gravel weighs a good deal more than 2.6 cubic ft of, oh,....goose down.

(Agreed, that's three times its been a useless reference)

Stay tuned....film at 11:00

[edit on 28-9-2007 by MrPenny]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by goosdawg
In answer to your question, for eight weeks, about 16.5kgs.

Just over 33 lbs. Not much. I would have been surprised if it had been a large amount. Although it occurs to me....surmising that 2.5 tons arrives, and 2 tons leaves....the individual items in the load-out become less important than discovering what is the make-up of the remaining half ton. I'll ponder that for a bit. Know what I mean? Actually consider what the problem is and think about it?

At the risk of being redundant, the ONLY time they depend on supplies from the ISS is blah blah, blahblahblah.....something that has never happened...or has it?

I don't think you get the point here. Would you stop locking your doors because you've never been burglarized? Plans are not made based on what "hasn't" happened. Especially in an environment as hostile as low earth orbit. Part of the entire, goofy, "shopping mall" extravaganza, was the simultaneous docking of more than one cargo ship. If you've spent any time planning or even thinking about risk management.....the concept of having more supplies on hand, for what may be double the headcount for an unknown time.....is not difficult to grasp.....this is not rocket science!!

When does it "fly" exactly?

Jebus man....I thought I was annoying from time to time.....

I suppose baseball needs to revisit the infield "fly" rule, heh?

So, 88% percent recovery for the water. Tasty!

Just to establish the context....I'm pretty sure that document indicates that 88% of the urine is recovered back to water. Not the entire used supply of water.

Well, in addition to knowing a lot of words and how to use them....you're learning how to format your posts in a wonderfully eye-catching way.....

Problem is, they are reminiscent of Britney Spears....cool to look at, but not much going on inside of them.

Thanks for your contribution.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by MrPenny]