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.

 

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

page: 23
39
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


You'll note I mentioned 2.6 cubic feet per day translated over the course of eight weeks to about two tons.

The total amount of trash disposal in the cargo module of the Progress M1 must be less than 1,000 to 1,600 kg.

In addition the cargo volume can not exceed 6.6 cubical meters.

The waste water is contained in the cargo module...so that's got to be factored in as well.

These are all figures from the agencies that make the thing and have to plan for it's use.

These are the constraints for the "math" problem, whether it's a ton of lead or a ton of feathers.


Source | Russian SpaceWeb

But this still doesn't account for the extra half ton delivered by each of the what, 26 total Progress launches? Or any of the gear delivered by the shuttle launches...




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Now we're getting somewhere......

See how the process of discovery works......throw an idea out....chew on it...test it...? Don't accept everything at face value?

Now we've established that a thousand pounds of 'stuff' needs to be accounted for. Initially, I don't think that is a very good beginning for an orbital "shopping mall", but hey, I think large.

Some of that thousand pounds is possibly new equipment....equipment that's not replacing old equipment and which no equivalent waste or trash is leaving. Additions to what is already there. Right?

Food. How much of food's mass is transferred to the body? I don't know exactly myself...but I do know that 10 lbs of food don't translate to 10lbs of feces. Except for maybe my dog. The manifest you cited seems to indicate about 655 lbs of food and food stuffs. It doesn't offer any more detail than that. How much of that becomes waste and trash?

Same for water. How much of its mass is retained by the body? The water thing really interests me.

Also notice that manifest has a tremendous amount of equipment. How much of that stayed as new installations in the ISS?

Still pondering.

Edit to add: It occurs to me....what about top secret equipment that can't be listed on the publicly available manifests? Would that be included in the 2.5 tons?

Thanks for the contribution.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
Plans are not made based on what "hasn't" happened.


Except for "O" rings and foam strikes.



Originally posted by MrPenny
Part of the entire, goofy, "shopping mall" extravaganza, was the simultaneous docking of more than one cargo ship.


Actually, it's not that uncommon:


2003 June 8: Russia launched a cargo ship to resupply the crew of the International Space Station, ISS. The Progress M1-10, No. 259 cargo ship blasted off from Baikonur Cosmodrome's Site 1 on June 8 at 16:34 local time (1034 GMT).

The spacecraft was carrying several tons of supplies to the station, including water, which became the most precious commodity onboard the outpost, after the Shuttle fleet was grounded by the Columbia accident on February 1, 2003.

Unlike usual practice, Russia scheduled to leave the previous cargo ship, Progress M-47, docked to the station, as the fresh transport arrives. The new configuration would allow using the capabilities of two cargo vehicles in maintaining the station.

The launch of the Progress M1-10 was previously scheduled for March 28 and May 26, 2003.

Source | RussianSpaceWeb.com

And:


Progress 20 joins a previous cargo ship - Progress 19 - at the ISS. The older spacecraft was originally set to undock from the aft end of the space station's Russian-built Zvezda service module, but Russian flight controllers later decided to delay its departure. The delay, set for March 2006, will allow more time for the Expedition 12 crew to load Progress 19 with trash and draw on its propellant and oxygen stores, NASA officials have said.

Source | Space.com | ISS Crew Welcomes Holiday Cargo Ship



Originally posted by MrPenny
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!!


Actually, in this case, it is rocket science!


But seriously, I do understand the concept of risk management.

Just as I'm certain any "extra" items needed are already factored into the delivery schedule of the Progress/shuttle supply missions, and would be on hand prior to any triggering event.



Originally posted by me...
So, 88% percent recovery for the water. Tasty!



Originally posted by you...
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.


True, that point is unclear.

But 88% is probably pretty close to the actual overall targeted recovery rate since water, being such an incredibly expensive and precious resource, is reclaimed from everything, including their atmo.


The arrival of Progress 20 delivered about 5,680 pounds (2,576 kilograms) of more cargo to the space station. Included on the manifest were 183 pounds (83 kilograms)of oxygen and air, 463 pounds (210 kilograms)of water and 1,940 pounds (879 kilograms)) of propellant for the station's thrusters. Progress 20 also delivered, 3,100 pounds (1,406 kilograms) of dry cargo, including food, experiment hardware, spare parts and holiday gifts for the ISS crew.

Source | Space.com | ISS Crew Welcomes Holiday Cargo Ship

Let's see, 463 pounds of water at about eight pounds a gallon isn't even 60 gallons of water!

And keep in mind, the delivery cost for that water was anywhere from U.S.$4,620,000 to $5,250,000!!



The cost per kilogram for cargo on a Progress ranges from U.S.$22,000 to $25,000.

Source | Kosmonavtka | Progress Cargo Ship

So it's highly unlikely ANYTHING launched to the ISS, at these prices, is intended to go unused or wasted.


Originally posted by MrPenny
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.



THAT'S IT!

NOW you're definitely going on MY "respected foes" list!


LOL!

[edit on 28-9-2007 by goosdawg]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


Back the truck up!!!

You going to skim right past that? Almost a ton of propellant for the station? How often is that delivered? I'll bet none of that goes out in a trash load.....heh?

Go on....go back and look closely at those figures. Now is that extra half ton so mysterious?



[edit on 28-9-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

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


Don't forget to count the water for showers


Funny though according to the media...


Six Months Without a Shower or Bath? No Problem, Astronaut Tells Youngsters

"We have some special space shampoo that doesn't require water, and it does a pretty good job," Fincke said. "So at the end of the mission, even though it's six months without a bath, we're still pretty good, and we don't smell too bad." Fincke said keeping clean is important, but the crew doesn't really get that dirty to start with. He also said he keeps his hair very short to make it easy to shampoo."

www.eham.net...

See now this is the stuff that gets to me... they tell the public one thing, and yet if you read their tech reports you get a whole different story...

This is from a NASA tech report on the ISS' Life Support System and presents a table of differences between the Russian and American side..

Shower water usage
Russian sector
One 10 L (0.35 ft³, 22 lb) shower per person each week.
American Sector
5.5 L (0.19 ft³, 12 lb) shower every 2 days per person

www.nasa.gov...



Now then while Jack and I are piecing together 'tonnage' reports (no easy task its HARD to get cargo manifests... you would think they were secret or something.
) I want to address the issue of finding secret space stations...

Oh yeah that's kinda what we are here for


First I want someone to explain to me why no one is making a fuss over this report...

French Say 'Non' to U.S. Disclosure of Secret Satellites
By PETER B. de SELDING
Space News Staff Writer at Space.com
posted: 08 June 2007 09:58 am ET

You skeptics rant and scream "show me proof... there are no secret spacecraft" Yet over two months ago the French proved just that.

Oh I know people like Chorlton and Mr Penny have openly admitted that they see "no point" to following any of my links... Well I can see why they would not want to... if they did they would have to eat crow!

And hey, we ALL know how 'woo woo' a website that Space.com is so we can't trust what they report...



Well for those that actually do want to know what's going on...



BROYE-LES-PESMES, France - A French space-surveillance radar has detected 20-30 satellites in low Earth orbit that do not figure in the U.S. Defense Department's published catalogue, a discovery that French officials say they will use to pressure U.S. authorities to stop publishing the whereabouts of French reconnaissance and military communications satellites.

After 16 months of operations of their Graves radar system, which can locate satellites in orbits up to 1,000 kilometers in altitude and even higher in certain cases, the French Defense Ministry says it has gathered just about enough information to negotiate an agreement with the United States.

The U.S. Defense Department's Space Surveillance Network is the world's gold standard for cataloguing satellites and debris in both low Earth orbit and the higher geostationary orbit at 36,000 kilometers in altitude, where telecommunications satellites operate.

Data from the U.S. network of ground-based sensors is regularly published and used worldwide by those tracking satellite and space-debris trajectories. The published U.S. information excludes sensitive U.S. defense satellites, but regularly publishes data on the orbits of other nations' military hardware.


www.space.com...

20-30 unaccounted for satellites...[b/] and thats just from a quick scan...

And does it really come as a surprise to anyone that The published U.S. information excludes sensitive U.S. defense satellites,

Gee if they are SECRET why would they post them in a public list


But the phrase I particularly like here is this...



"We have discussed the Graves results with our American colleagues and highlighted the discrepancies between what we have found and what is published by the U.S. Space Surveillance Network," said one French defense official responsible for the Graves operation. "They told us, 'If we have not published it in our catalogue, then it does not exist.' So I guess we have been tracking objects that do not exist. I can tell you that some of these non-existent objects have solar arrays."

Looks like the French have found our secret space stations, complete with solar arrays. Maybe I should be chatting with them instead of hanging out here... I suppose the French are all 'woo woo' too huh?

Ce n'est pas vrai mon ami, mais je pense que je sais qui est 'woo woo'


Stay tuned... more on this one



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


So, you're going to make a mystery out of the fact that the DoD hasn't published the existence of some secret satellites? And won't confirm their existence? Damn them!!
How dare they follow protocol!!

zorgon, do you seriously think this is noteworthy? O.K., so what? Secret satellites. Satellites with solar arrays reaching 157' tip to tip, are not unusual..Linky

Stay tuned....next, zorgon reveals that its impossible for a civilian to simply walk into the Pentagon. Gadzooks!! Mischief is afoot......

[edit on 28-9-2007 by MrPenny]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
We have also been working on tracking the Military aspect... and along that line I have something that ties in directly to finding secret spaceships...

On Jan 11, 2007 the Chinese did something that should wake up every sane American...

They 'shot down' a satellite...


Aviation Week covered it..


Jan 17, 2007
By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology

U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.

The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology will report in its Jan. 22 issue.


Hmmm one more reference to NASA being buddy buddy with the CIA and DoD...

Okay so here is the beginning of our new "Space Wars" presentation... but not yet. What is important right now is the new data...

The following data was prepared by
Dr. T.S. Kelso of Celestrak.com
Last updated: 2007 September 26 06:08 UTC



FENGYUN 1C and the other pieces of debris now catalogued by NORAD are shown in green. From this animation, [visit Celestrak] it is easy to see the spread of the resulting debris cloud for the first couple of orbits. It should be noted that the spread of debris at the time of the event is due to the error associated with propagating the TLEs back from the time they were released to the time of the event.

celestrak.com...


Screen shot from AGI Viewer file of Chinese ASAT scenario (five minutes post-attack)



The figures below give a sense of the risk to other satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO), including the International Space Station (ISS). The first figure shows how the orbit of the ISS passes through the ring of debris at the southern part of its orbit. The second figure shows the larger population of LEO satellites—payloads, rocket bodies, and debris (size exaggerated for visibility)—which could also be affected.


celestrak.com...


View of ISS Orbit (green) and Debris Ring (red) from Chinese ASAT Test


View of LEO Satellites (green) and Debris Ring (red) from Chinese ASAT Test

ALL those green spots are spacecraft...


View of All Satellites including Debris Ring from Chinese ASAT Test Readily Visible

Now please explain to me how it would be possible for astronomers NOT to find 100's of spaceships? And how would you identify them?

It seems pretty simple to me, even without bringing 'cloaking technology' and 'stealth coatings' into the picture, that it would be very easy to 'hide something in plain site'

Why are there no pictures? No one is looking... every one of these green dots would pass in front of the sun would they not? We should have hundreds of clear shots of satellites

So get out your scopes and get us some results





[edit on 28-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
So, you're going to make a mystery out of the fact that the DoD hasn't published the existence of some secret satellites? And won't confirm their existence? Damn them!!
How dare they follow protocol!!


Hmmm I just stepped out of the room to check on the door tag... yup I am in the right room


Well since it is our view and the focus of this thread that there exist secret spaceships that are being visited by our astronauts and robotic supply ships... I would kinda think proving there are secret space ships WOULD be a big deal...

Its kinda the point of the whole thread sheesh... you can't show shuttles docking with them until you establish that they exist...

But thank you for confirming this for us and stating that it is not only obvious but a matter of protocol


Perhaps you could explain this to Chorlton. And perhaps you know this to be protocol and 'business as usual' but I am willing to bet there are many in here who are not blessed with such knowledge.



What I find funny in that French article is this statement..


At that point we can tell our American friends, 'We have seen some things that you might wish to keep out of the public domain. We will agree to do this if you agree to stop publishing the location of our sensitive satellites."


We won't tell where your secret spacecraft are if you stop telling where ours are... LOL sounds like kids in a school yard... but these guys have bigger toys...


I wonder how many the Russians 'forget to report'



[edit on 28-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
I would kinda think proving there are secret space ships WOULD be a big deal...


I don't think these instances really qualify as space "ships" zorgon? Unless my plastic canoe deserves the "frigate" tag.

I also don't think this qualifies as "proving" anything. Some people, I'm sure, are truly ignorant of the existence of secret satellites. I sincerely doubt that generally informed persons are though. Some are I'm sure....but if you were to ask around? The common response would probably be...."well, duh".

And, I will point out....your response was again, a case of altering the meaning of a post to fit what you would like to see. Its really very flagrant zorgon.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
I don't think these instances really qualify as space "ships" zorgon? Unless my plastic canoe deserves the "frigate" tag.

Normally I use the term 'spacecraft' A satellite is a spacecraft... if you are going to play silly word games because I once used the word spaceship instead of spacecraft... I can see you have no other valid rebuttal so need to resort to 'distractions'

Call them what you want, fact is there are many secret spacecraft out there, and we have only started our search




I also don't think this qualifies as "proving" anything. Some people, I'm sure, are truly ignorant of the existence of secret satellites. I sincerely doubt that generally informed persons are though. Some are I'm sure....but if you were to ask around? The common response would probably be...."well, duh".


LOL well that is an interesting observation... I guess it means the skeptics in here must then be ignorant of the existence of secret spacecraft because they argue so hard against them...





And, I will point out....your response was again, a case of altering the meaning of a post to fit what you would like to see.


I fail to see how I altered your meaning... you made it perfectly clear that you accept that there are secret spacecraft that the government denies exist... surely you are not claiming that's not what you meant?

I merely thanked you for acknowledging that fact...

And if they have their reason NOT to tell anyone about their defense satellites, would it not follow they would be equally reluctant to show you the platforms with the beam weapons?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Isnt it totally presumptuous to assume that satellites are lauched only by the US?
The UK has launched satellites as has Arianne as have the Russians.

Thats not to mention all the known and unknown space junk.

Also if the French had seen anything of the scale of a Secret Space station, dont you think they would have blown the whistle?.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Call them what you want, fact is there are many secret spacecraft out there, and we have only started our search



No, the fact is there are unidentified objects out there, thats all. Bits of junk dont qualify as 'spacecraft'. I would suggest that you are once again grabbing at straws to back up your wild theories. Calling unidentified objects 'Spacecraft; is like calling Whales, ships.



LOL well that is an interesting observation... I guess it means the skeptics in here must then be ignorant of the existence of secret spacecraft because they argue so hard against them...


Since there is absolutely no evidence or proof of their existence, why shouldnt people be 'ignorant' of them?



And if they have their reason NOT to tell anyone about their defense satellites, would it not follow they would be equally reluctant to show you the platforms with the beam weapons?


'Beam Weapons' ?? Youve been watching too many films mate. But go on....Ill bite......wheres the evidence of these beam weapons.....humour me



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Hey, nice link!


Your link concerns a telecommunications satellite that operates at a higher geostationary orbit of 36,000 kilometers in altitude.

Not, I repeat, NOT, the low earth orbit of the "non existent," solar array sportin' spacecraft tracked by the French.

But thanks for the link, it was interesting, nevertheless.


(Oops, I did it again!)



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Nor does any of this relate to the very low earth orbit 3d mapping satellite operated by the consortium that I saw several years ago. There is a number of sightings of this or 'these' devices as ufo's on the web. Looks like one of those black rail road tanker cars but with flattened ends and of course it is not on a carriage.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Originally posted by Chorlton





Isnt it totally presumptuous to assume that satellites are lauched only by the US?

The UK has launched satellites.



Chorlton, with all due respect...what in the world would the UK need a satellite for with the possible exception of more telephone lines to India.

Where did they launch this alleged satellite from?

Do you have any proof?

Thanks for this startling bit of information.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Isnt it totally presumptuous to assume that satellites are launched only by the US?


Ummm where did I say "only US"?



Thats not to mention all the known and unknown space junk.


Unknown perhaps... untracked no way. NORAD tracks EVERY PIECE of space debris bigger than 10 centimeters


The Air Force Space Command NORAD radar system tracks about 7,000 objects larger than 10 centimeters, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The Arecibo radio telescope conducted a limited survey, and from the number of radar returns from objects larger than one centimeter identified over 150,000 objects in orbit. NORAD tracks a total of 100,000 individual objects from the size of a glove or larger. The Arecibo data suggest there are about one million objects larger than 2 millimeters. When you include things like paint chips and other sub-millimeter objects that are untrackable, the numbers may be as large as one hundred billion.

The Space Shuttle collided with a paint fleck from a previous mission or rocket launch and this chipped the front window leaving a crater several millimeters across. A 1-centimeter object moving with a relative speed of 17,000 kilometers/hour would deliver as much energy as a small hand grenade. The International Space Station has a front bumper that will try to protect its most vulnerable parts from the numerous objects of millimeter-size, but larger objects will be a rare, but ever-present problem capable of producing breaches in the pressurized parts of the station.


www.astronomycafe.net...



Also if the French had seen anything of the scale of a Secret Space station, don't you think they would have blown the whistle?.


Absolutely NOT Even the ones they did find they are not going to snitch on... just use it as a bargaining chip...

BTW Chorlton, I LOVE your baby picture... your a cute one


TO JOHN and others


We just pulled a 1075 page document that has a log of all activity on the ISS... Jack is going through it right now... but here is the first 'tidbit'



This is a "daily report" document. It's going to take some time but so far I've noticed during the last two Progress approaches, a "problem" occurred causing the ISS to lose some electrical systems cutting off communications to ground control and cameras on the ISS for TWO days each time. - Jack Arneson]

Now isn't THAT convenient?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo Looks like one of those black rail road tanker cars but with flattened ends and of course it is not on a carriage.


HELLO Have you got more on this one? It sounds like something I have a picture of... would be nice to see if they match up


Originally posted by Chorlton
'Beam Weapons' ?? Youve been watching too many films mate. But go on....Ill bite......wheres the evidence of these beam weapons.....humour me


LOL I will do more than humor you... you can count on it...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Chorlton
'Beam Weapons' ?? Youve been watching too many films mate. But go on....Ill bite......wheres the evidence of these beam weapons.....humour me


Always some bleed through


Well, anyway, for everyone else here, particle beams have many more uses than just weapons. They are used in fast breeder reactors to reclaim radioisotopes, propulsion, dummy signatures, power distribution, and fusion power just to mention a few. The tech is old, dating all the way back to Tesla.

The probability is high they will be used extensively in space if not already so. They are an ideal way to store power for indefinite periods at subluminal velocity. They can be used to control antimatter too. A weapon is just a small application, a multiplication of the resource.

Remember your old world globes, the ones with the steamship lines? Just imagine that on a galactic scale with particle beams. Pretty fantastic, huh?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
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"


And I concur. To borrow an example from a popular SF movie, the Navigator said to the Emperor:

"I see two Great Houses -- House Atreides, House Harkonnen -- feuding..."

Obviously being a social commentary of the politics of the era, but nevertheless within the contexts of the holographic nature of the universe and history's natural tendency to repeat itself, lends considerable support to this notion.

In other words, the oligarchical structures still exist, they just changed their dress with the times...

Another very good point that has been overlooked



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
[

Chorlton, with all due respect...what in the world would the UK need a satellite for with the possible exception of more telephone lines to India.
Where did they launch this alleged satellite from?
Do you have any proof?
Thanks for this startling bit of information.


Of course John Do you think I would post stuff without 100% proff as so many others do on this very forum
Here is 100% proof, I am however alrmed at your lack of knowledge of these considering all the 'secret' stuff you continually intimate you know about but never show. Im also amazed at your lack of knowledge about UK rocketry, which in the 60's was way superior to the US, its just that we done make such a whoohaa and song and dance about it.

www.spaceuk.org...

So there is your 100% proof. There's probably others but....you know....I just cant tell you about them at present..




top topics



 
39
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join