Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight?, page 3

reply to post by StreetCorner Philosopher

---

I have seen some fantastic photos taken of the ISS by hobbyists with telescopic lenses, it certainly does not take a professional astronomer to see what’s up there.

July 24, 2002: Amateur astronomer Ulrich Beinert peered through the eyepiece of his 8-inch telescope and saw a colorful spaceship. It was moving slowly across the sky and seemed nearly as wide as the planet Jupiter. "The body of the ship glowed bright white, and its solar panels were an eerie copper color," he recalled. "Amazing!"

You can see it, too--even if you don't own a telescope like Beinert's. Between late July and mid-August the space station will make a series of bright passes over the United States and Canada. It's easy to spot in the evening sky after dinner. All you need are your eyes, a clear sky and a flyby schedule for your hometown.

If you are unclear as to what you’re seeing then you simple check the location of the ISS on the publicly available tracking software. If you see a space station up there, and the tracking software says that the ISS is not in your arch of the earth, then bingo, you got a second one. It would still be impossible to hide a whole space station up there, as there are just too many professional and amateur astronomers scanning the sky at night.

Besides this the shuttle just does not have the time or ability to dock with two stations in different orbits, it goes against the physics of how docking works. This is the reason that docking launches have such a high scrub rate, they have to be very precise in their launch window in order to catch the station in the few minutes they have the ability to reach it.

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
If Lear thinks something is up, then keep it in mind, its very plausible.

Thanks I needed a good laugh tonight, funniest thing I have read on the site all month.



[edit on 8/24/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
I also wrote about the MIR space station a few posts ago. What if MIR is still being inhabited by NASA astronauts? What if NASA TV decides not to let us know about it? It's very possible.

Mir is definitely not still up there. We have the photographic proof that it re-entered the atmosphere:
MIR Re-Entry

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
It's very possible. The shuttle's 3 engines don't burn all of it's gas from a couple of burns. That shuttle must have enough gas to really travel, from outpost to outpost it it has to.

Wow, I guess you really don’t understand how the shuttle works. The main engines only burn when they are connected to the external tank, which is jettisoned slightly after MECO (Main Engine Cut Out), those engines do not fire again until after the shuttle lands, is recovered, they are inspected for damage, and the shuttle is re-preped for its next launch. Rocket engines are very complex, even though they appear to be simple, and any damage to the engine bell from the lift off can cause an explosion and fire which would destroy the shuttle. The only time that a main engine such as this has been fired more then once was on the Apollo 13 LEM rocket, and in that instance they had little choice as it was their only hope to survive.

The only rockets that fire after the initial lift off are the OMS rockets and RCS. OMS rockets are used for minor orbital changes and maneuvering, and the RCS for attitude adjustment. Neither of these rockets carries enough fuel for major orbital changes, such as those required to go from the orbit of one station to another. This is why they could not send the Columbia to the ISS when they realized it had tile damage, it was a simple matter of not enough inertia, orbit, speed, or fuel. As I said above, you must insert in a very specific launch window to have enough fuel to even catch the one station, let alone be hopping between several.

Shuttle Aeronautics

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Well, I agree with alot of what Lear says, so just keep in mind that he has access to lots of knowledge and is doing his best to let the masses know about some of it.

Or he has simply discovered that he can reach minor celebrity status by using his previous job title to fan the flames of hope in those who want all this UFO/Conspiracy stuff to be true. Being a logical skeptic tends to make more folks dislike you as you show flaws in their beliefs, while lending credence to what they wish to believe can make you quite popular. The wilder and more spectacular your claims, the more of a following of both believers and skeptics you generate (Skeptics of course to rip apart your claims, to get a good laugh, or both ). I truly believe he learned this lesson from his friend Bob Lazar.

Based on this, I would take anything coming from someone making these kind of wild claims, with a grain of salt. Doubly so in the light of the scientific, photographic, and telemetry proof to the contrary that is available when dealing with the topic of manned space flight.

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Good post, it's not easy being a skeptic and your knowledge covers alot which is good for a skeptic.

Thanks…
Always glad when I can help folks.

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
would like to speculate on the 3 main engines possibly going into a full burn during orbit. Is it possible?

Once they cut the center tank loose, there is no fuel supply to run those engines. The main engines consume 500,000 gallons of fuel during their 8.5 minutes of ignition time and completely drain the center tank: Shuttle Engines

So basically no, there is no way for them to re-ignite those engines in orbit.

Even if they could, the problem is that objects in orbit must maintain an exact speed to remain at that orbit altitude. So an objects speed controls the altitude of its orbit. The act of being in orbit is maintaining a speed sufficient to overcome gravity at that altitude. So you can see that speed and orbit altitude are interconnected.

Picture an old style record player. Now imagine that you have two needles on that record player, one at the inner most ring and one at the outer edge. The needle at the outer edge has to be moving at a much higher rate of speed to complete the same rotation around the disk as the inner needle. Same thing holds true in orbit. The faster that the needle/spacecraft moves, the farther from the center/earth it goes.

Now with that in mind, you have the ISS traveling at roughly 17,000 mph at an altitude of roughly 200 miles above the earth. So the shuttle launches as soon as the station passes its location on the earth, so it ends up just slightly behind it coming up from below. The shuttle must go exactly 17,000 mph to end up at the same exact orbit, and it must be timed very precisely to end up meeting up with the station at the right altitude, speed, and time. If they mess up any of those factors by too great an amount the shuttle will end up missing the station and never dock with it.

So now lets say you have another station at the same speed and altitude, but its just over the arc of the planet, so the two are never in the sky at the same time. Lets call it Station B (SB). If the shuttle is at the ISS, and it wants to go to SB, it must catch up with it. Even if the shuttle had the ability to fire its main engines again to generate the speed required to catch up to SB, in increasing its speed it would also move into a higher orbit, thus missing SB. Now if the shuttle left the ISS and decided to slow down and allow SB to come to the shuttle, the shuttle would be at to low of an orbit to dock from the altitude decrease caused by the action of slowing down.

The spacecraft that we currently use are just not capable of these type of orbit changes anyway, they can make minor adjustments, by not to the level of flying to one station, then leaving there and intercepting another. They do not carry that level of fuel, and they do not reignite the main engines.

reply to post by COOL HAND

---

Hi COOL HAND,

He has been at the Bay Area UFO Conference all this weekend with a lot of other people, he is probably recovering from all them free drinks and partying, and he is probably still wearing his tin hat,,nothing gets through when your wearing one of those.

reply to post by johnlear

---

John, you're the expert on all this, of course. However, you think that all this is covered up simply so governments and economies can be devoted to war on earth?

I ask you (and others) to think what kind of economic benefit could be generated with the knowledge and ability to explore (and mine) the other planets in this solar system and beyond? It would seem to be that the economics of exploring the solar system would dwarf by orders of magnitude spending by the military industrial complex here on earth.

And the ability to travel in space and live on other planets would capture the imagination of people on earth for just about ever.

So, while I'm intrigued with the possibility that what you say is true, I feel that there must be a better and deeper answer than what you've offered for why all this would be hidden from the rest of us.

New Crop Circle Hackpen Hill Cube
  Posted 16 days ago with 92 member flags

Get ready to find yourself in a whirlwind of other worldly activity
  Posted 17 days ago with 50 member flags

Crop Circles Explained - Hidden Messages From Aliens & ET\'s ?
  Posted 13 days ago with 24 member flags

Man Made Ancient Pyramids Found on Antarctica???
  Posted 9 days ago with 23 member flags

The Flat Earth theory, With Interviews from believers
  Posted 1 days ago with 22 member flags

James Cameron the revealer & programmer?
  Posted 10 days ago with 9 member flags

Secrets Revealed 2
  Posted 16 days ago with 8 member flags

Mars: The Old Earth?
  Posted 10 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: