I am pretty certain John will say that site is NAZA controlled so he doesn't have to seriously face the fact that his stupid theory has been smashed by logic, reason and common sense.

See, when John is near a corner during an argument, he simply makes up a new conspiracy to discredit any evidence that shoots his ideas down so he can continue with his foolishness and bask in all his woo woo glory under the light of ignorance shined upon him by people with half a brain.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

See, when John is near a corner during an argument, he simply makes up a new conspiracy to discredit any evidence that shoots his ideas down so he can continue with his foolishness and bask in all his woo woo glory under the light of ignorance shined upon him by people with half a brain.

And what else would you expect a conspiracy nutjob to do? I am the Master. How does Conspiracy Master Nutjob sound? I think it has that certain 'ring' to it.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I am pretty certain John will say that site is NAZA controlled so he doesn't have to seriously face the fact that his stupid theory has been smashed by logic, reason and common sense.

Well you see, even that doesn't work! The coordinates provided on the site only point to the expected position of the shuttle in the sky, to facilitate observations a little bit. Then one grabs the scope and does the rest. The orbital plane of the shuttle is consistent with that of the ISS (which is observable) and not consistent with the orbital planes of multitude of "secret space stations" that John made up just for fun.

The situation is not very different form Mr.Leat giving you a call and saying that according to his unnamed source, there is a UFO currently landed at a playground in your school district. You go check it out and when the UFO is not there, Mr.Lear announces that this is due to "NAZA" truth serum and super secret technologies at work.

Lear's pronoucements, for large part, are not "unprovable". They are proved to be incompatible with what one can observe, often with naked eye.

I just downloaded my STS-122 Atlantis presskit and guess what? Yep, its going to take 3 days for Atlantis to catch up with the International Space Station.

Now it only takes 9 minutes to get into orbit. Don't you think in over 100 mission that once, JUST ONCE it could have docked within one day?

I mean I am no conspiracy theorist but wait a minute here? How are we ever going to get back to the moon if it still takes 3 days to catch up with the space station?

You would think that NAZA could look uprange until the ISS was 9 minutes from passing overhead and then launch the Shuttle so that it would arrive at the same time as ISS was passing over.

I know that the inclinations have to match but not once in over a hundred missions?

OK. Just call me a conpiracy theorist nutjob.

Originally posted by johnlear
I just downloaded my STS-122 Atlantis presskit and guess what? Yep, its going to take 3 days for Atlantis to catch up with the International Space Station.

I've already offered a somewhat simplified albeit explanation of why this is so, please bother to read.

Now it only takes 9 minutes to get into orbit. Don't you think in over 100 mission that once, JUST ONCE it could have docked within one day?

I don't. Both speed and altitude of the Shuttle and the ISS need to match within like an inch, and that's just an improbable thing to happen without maneuvering.

I mean I am no conspiracy theorist but wait a minute here?

::

If you are not indeed, I recommend you submit your resignation to the ATS, as a declared "Conspiracy Master". After all, you are making a bad name for people more serious about conspiracies than you are, so it would be better for the common cause.

How are we ever going to get back to the moon if it still takes 3 days to catch up with the space station?

Because flying to the Moon is not the same as docking, John.

Originally posted by johnlear
You would think that NAZA could look uprange until the ISS was 9 minutes from passing overhead and then launch the Shuttle so that it would arrive at the same time as ISS was passing over.

So, what you are saying is that you are opposed to giving the astronauts time to do the following:

Open the cargo bay doors
Unstow the antenna
Stow unneeded pressure suits
acclimate themselves to space
Perform a heat shield inspection

Wow, I would have thought you would want them to do all of those things.

Guess we just have to go back to the old Gemini/Agena days. Look how well the first few of those missions went.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I am pretty certain John will say that site is NAZA controlled so he doesn't have to seriously face the fact that his stupid theory has been smashed by logic, reason and common sense.

See, when John is near a corner during an argument, he simply makes up a new conspiracy to discredit any evidence that shoots his ideas down so he can continue with his foolishness and bask in all his woo woo glory under the light of ignorance shined upon him by people with half a brain.

Hi IgnoreTheFacts,
hmm.... people with half a brain.

Your signature says "My desire to believe does not override my ability to see reality" So whats reality? Maybe you mean your reality.
It's all about perception dude.
Maybe the Holidays is a good time for you to stop debunking for a while and start meditating about the difference between reality and perception.
When you figured that out, please start working on your attitude.
Cheers

I've said it before....

Launch to orbit (LTO) in the correct 'plane' to coincide with the orbital plane of the ISS. But, don't plan it so as to HIT the ISS (that would be bad..)

Once in a 'following orbit', one could not (without Star Trek Technology) accelerate too much, to 'catch up' with the target (in this case, the ISS) without boosting into a 'higher' orbit. Guess, actually, that would be a way to 'catch up', assuming you had enough fuel, and didn't use up what was needed for the de-orbit burn....

I am surprised no one has mentioned anything about the delays for Atlantis.

Maybe they needed more time to load up stores for the SSS's?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Maybe they needed more time to load up stores for the SSS's?

Good point Or maybe the craft that was scheduled to rendezvous with them was delayed...

Dec. 9 -7:30 a.m. EST
Today's launch of space shuttle Atlantis has been officially scrubbed.

Of the four engine cutoff sensors, ECO sensor number three gave false readings. NASA's current Launch Commit Criteria require that all four sensors function properly. The sensor system is one of several that protect the shuttle's main engines by triggering their shut down if fuel runs unexpectedly low.

Atlantis' scheduled launch on Thursday was delayed after two of the four engine cutoff, or ECO, sensors in the shuttle's external fuel tank gave false readings. A third sensor failed after the tank was drained of fuel.

Maybe the SSS wasn't ready to receive them?

Too bad they can't just call for one of the secret space shuttles to go up in it's place.

Originally posted by zorgon
Here is Jim Orberg's piece on ISS food... seems someone forgot to tell him about the oranges etc...

The point of that was what??

Other than being incorrect about every Progress ship making it for the Russians to their old stations, it seemed like he was telling the truth to me.

Why don't you just ask him yourself about it?

Hmmmm...

The Shuttles, the ones still left, are a problem-plagued piece of complicated technology that nevertheless are trumpeted as NASA's shining achievement.

NOW, could someone please answer this question? If we assume that NASA has a 'secret' space program, known only by the Powers That Be (the PTB) and is using the STS program as cover, why embarass themselves with the VERY public, and very tragic, now, catastrophic failures, not to mention the continuing delays and launch scrubbings??

SO, now, this time, it is an MECO sensor on Atlantis...either they (NASA) have manufactured this launch scrub/delay for some nefarious clandestine purpose, or, they are using mainstream technology to the best of their ability.

What is puzzling is, why not use better tech if it's avalible and avoid these delays and publicity embarassments, not to mention jeopardizing continued funding from Congress?

Please discuss...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW, could someone please answer this question? If we assume that NASA has a 'secret' space program, known only by the Powers That Be (the PTB) and is using the STS program as cover, why embarass themselves with the VERY public, and very tragic, now, catastrophic failures, not to mention the continuing delays and launch scrubbings??

Dear TJ/WW,

you see, you are asking too much from the other half of the forum members. I mean, anythings that's based on logic and common sense is like a foreign antibody to them. They'll blame it, on, I quote, "truth serum" and/or "NAZI NAZA NAZIsts". Crock...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW, could someone please answer this question? If we assume that NASA has a 'secret' space program, known only by the Powers That Be (the PTB) and is using the STS program as cover, why embarass themselves with the VERY public, and very tragic, now, catastrophic failures, not to mention the continuing delays and launch scrubbings??

Whoa, hang on a second, weedwhacker. From a publicity point of view, the STS program has been a massive success, especially here in Australia.

Look at the failure rate of around 1 in 60. That's much better than NASA's other endeavours. Any program that involves spaceflight will be bound to have human casualties at some point. You can't blame NASA for launch delays due to SAFETY reasons, can you? I think most people would be reassured that the shuttle will be delayed until it is 'safe' to launch.

The STS porgram has always captured mainstream media attention in Australia, including all of the good things to spawn from it, such as the ISS.

I think, from a publicity point of view (even if it is purely a cover-story), the STS program has been a massive success that NASA has no reason to feel embarrassed about!

The only reason that NASA should be embarrassed, is if they are indeed using STS as a cover story to conceal a secret space program.

(I always wondered why launches look really big, bright, pretty and explosive. My young boys see one on TV and tell me that it's 'fireworks'. Anything that pretty has to be good, right? Especially when it is viewed by the average person in the street who only has a passing interest to the bright lights and loud noise. Every launch is a massive success...)

[edit on 11-12-2007 by tezzajw]