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

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Thanks Defcon 5, i was starting to wonder if i was the only one who hasn't drank the coolaid!




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Good points Defcon. I sense a little naive behavior on your part, but the satellites and ISS can be viewed easily with a common telescope even, but only trained astronomers can distinguish what is what. That is probably 5% of the global population at most. I own a scope, but I'm a hobbyist and if there are two stations up there, I doubt I'll ever find both within the same hour. The stations might be positioned in a way that they are on complete opposite sides of the planet at all times. If Lear thinks something is up, then keep it in mind, its very plausible.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
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]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
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.

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. 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.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Good post, it's not easy being a skeptic and your knowledge covers alot which is good for a skeptic. I know the engines are burning at liftoff, I meant to say that I always assumed that the smaller thrusters used the last of it's fuel supply with a little reserve left. I would like to speculate on the 3 main engines possibly going into a full burn during orbit. Is it possible?

I think so, why not? What if? Yes, but now that this has become a what if, let's prepare for some major evidence to be uncovered in the next 5 years. So keep this debate in mind because we will know alot soon.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Perhaps it's because it takes a long time to get into position to dock with the ISS? Even if they could go faster; they can't. The fuel provided to the main rocket engines is in the big rusty brown tank which is jettisonned after launch, and the remaining fuel inside the shuttle is reserved for the deorbit burn. Getting to and from the space station once in orbit is made entirely by the weak ACS thrusters.

These have far to little force to quickly accelerate and decellerate the shuttle.

If they went faster to get to the ISS then their momentum would fling them off into a higher orbit and perhaps very elliptical one too. Unless you want that, I'm sure that's the explanation for it.

Of course, they may of been abled to dock earlier if they had of launched at a diferant time, but that's very subject to weather and delays.


Thanks.

[edit on 27/8/2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Im not saying that John is right or wrong on this one, thou it isnt beyond the realms of possiblity is it not?

The US has always had a facination with the weaponisation and total control of space - knowing who or what, when where and how enter or leaves earths atmosphere.

As well as this, they could with the technology they now posses, find, track and take out with laser weapons systems almost any target on the planet. Why we fight wars the way we do now seems absurd.

I beleive they do not want the other nations to know what they have up there, hence the quote by Bush last year I think it was that the US reserves the right to deny access to space against anyone they perceive to be a threat.

So john, what have they got up there? a joint human alien 'deathstar' they are building for a fabricated attack upon us to garner a united international response against a new enemy?

This would work would it not? You'd get everyone fighting for the same side, hense bringing in a one world government and army so much easier, you'd get full disclosure all at once with their so called 'attack', you'd get the populace of the planet questioning its existence and place in the world, thus almost totally removing the influence of religion, and the majority of confused catholics would be easier to control. (am i getting carried away here?)

Wasnt there a thread on ATS recently about some documentary about huge starships or space stations orbiting our planet? I think they were ancient artifacts or something like that that have been there for ages.

John? any news?



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I do beleive that it is possible that there is a secret space station, however, I would just like to remind you guys that there are reasons for the two day delay on docking with the space station.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Wasnt there a thread on ATS recently about some documentary about huge starships or space stations orbiting our planet? I think they were ancient artifacts or something like that that have been there for ages.

John? any news?


You maybe talking about The Ringmakers of Saturn, a book written by Norman Bergrun.

I am not sure if has been discussed on ATS but some of the "ships" are planet size and looking at the illustration in the book look more organic than "man/alien" made, I think the author has thought this too since he wrote the book.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
You mean "Interstellar" by Jose Escamilla. I downloaded the documentary for a few bucks -- only 25 minutes long, but worth it in my oppinion. Really makes you think... not to mention sheds some possible light/credibility on some of the theories the pegasus group here have come up with.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I find it very interesting that John has basically abandoned the post that he started. He began this thread with some wild accusations, which he has shown nothing to prove. If you want to be taken seriously, then show some proof.

Could it be that he
a. is wrong
b. is unable to prove ANYTHING he says here


I am beginning to wonder what his real purpose is here?



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Im not saying that John is right or wrong on this one, thou it isnt beyond the realms of possiblity is it not?


Its more difficult to hide things in space then you might suspect. Anything in orbit is plainly visible to hundreds of thousands of sky watchers and astronomers around the world, telemetry and radio transmission are receivable to millions of HAM operators (even if encrypted, they know something is going on), the expense of space operations makes it very hard to hide in the budget, and launches are visible for hundreds of miles in diameter from the launch site. I very highly doubt that there is anything uber secret going on right above our heads.


Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
they could with the technology they now posses, find, track and take out with laser weapons systems almost any target on the planet. Why we fight wars the way we do now seems absurd.


Absurd or simply we don’t yet have that capability?
To begin with there are much more effective ways of hitting a target from space then a laser, things such as “Rods from God”. Secondly if we weaponized space it would not be a secret to other countries and would be a direct violation of several treaties. This is why we no longer even send up craft powered by nuclear fuel.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
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.




posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Its Tuesday afternoon and I'm still in Reno on my way home from the Bay Area UFO Expo. I am going to set out in the morning (Wednesday) with 10 one gallon bottles of water and two cans of stop leak to try and make it to Vegas. I can't afford to pay anybody to fix my radiator here and all of my tools are in Vegas.

Please save all of your insults and criticisms until I get back. If I get back. If I should happen to expire on the way for one reason or another I will do my best to send you a post from the Big Soul Machine On The Moon.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
John,

I'm currently in Carson City, NV, which could be on your way to Las Vegas if you wanted it to be. You want to arrange a meeting at say, D'Vine on Stewart Street? Great place to hear your latest info.

(waited awhile)

Guess not.

[edit on 8/28/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by centurion1211




John,

I'm currently in Carson City, NV, which could be on your way to Las Vegas if you wanted it to be. You want to arrange a meeting at say, D'Vine on Stewart Street? Great place to hear your latest info.

(waited awhile)

Guess not.




Many thanks for the invitation to expound at the States capitol but zig zaging through Yerington along the East Walker River is not my idea of getting back to Vegas as soon as possible.

Its going to be east on 80 to Fallon, direct Hawthorne, direct Tonopah direct.

Thanks anyway.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
John, you mean you still travel in those primitive land based vehicles? Lol.
Hope the convention was lots of fun, and hope the people there weren't nearly as critical of you as they are on here.

If you run out of water, go find a pond or a lake somewhere, and distill the water with some of that aluminum foil they gave us in the 40's.





top topics
 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join