Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
Sure it might be hard to see a hologram that is in space, but still
.


I would borrow one of Bigelow's inflatable modules and use his projector to shine a pic of the shuttle on its side... A lot cheaper than a hologram...


TO Soyient Green

They most probably are using secret transports to do the runs... After all those space billets need to be filled somehow... but since those are secret, they are a little harder to ferret out...


So we are following all the grocery deliveries instead.

And while we are talking groceries... does anyone else see a problem with the garbage disposal? I mean stuff your trash into a very expensive Progress Module and just drop it into the Pacific?

When you have an empty Shuttle that could take it back and you coudl reuse the Progress for modules or part?

Seems a waste to me... Imagine all the Little Mirs's you could make with those old Progesses... No logic here... I just don't see the Russians being that wasteful






[edit on 23-10-2007 by zorgon]




posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Translation: billions of wasted tax payers' dollars are about to launch into space for who knows what reason.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
So if I can see this and others else where on the earth can, then it seems the two craft are staying near each other.


So you saw this? Or just posted the data? I want pictures... Documented sightings



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I have seen the ISS, shuttle and Hubble. Based on the time I go outside and watch. The objects pass over. I am in the country where it is dark so if it is not cloudy I will see them. I'll verify the ISS and STS again tomorrow at the listed times.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Originally posted by roadgravel




I have seen the ISS, shuttle and Hubble. Based on the time I go outside and watch. The objects pass over. I am in the country where it is dark so if it is not cloudy I will see them. I'll verify the ISS and STS again tomorrow at the listed times.



About 4 hours (it is now 0331Z Oct 24) the Space Shuttle and ISS were about 3000 miles apart.

So if the Space Shuttle was near any other object it was definately not the ISS. I think that the Space Shuttle gains on the ISS about 150 miles each orbit. So it would be close to the ISS in about 20 orbits.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Maybe because I am unsure of the procedure but doesnt common sense tell you that if Nasa waits on this golden window that this would be the best time for the shuttle to meet the ISS as two vectors coming to an almost point at the proper orbital distance?

This of course would save time and money. If so why is the shuttle so far away from the ISS?



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
It's tomorrow that the ISS and Shuttle will be close when they pass over here. They were not together tonight.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I believe that these launches are scheduled for morning so that they have the whole day in which to dock and unload while it would be difficult to see the spacecraft from the U.S. during bright sunlight.


Excellent visual pass of ISS followed by STS about 15 minutes later at 6:25 CDT over central states October 23, 2007 as it slowwly catches up to ISS's orbit.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Originally posted by laserman-x





If so why is the shuttle so far away from the ISS?



Its dropping off cargo to the secret space stations. It needs an excuse for the delay getting to the ISS so NASA says it has to "catch up" with the ISS iin orbit. Its an old argument and has been used for many years to cover the time between launch and docking used to service secret satellites, secret space stations and other activities.

When it undocks on the 4th of November it will spend about 54 hours dropping off cargo, that it loads at the ISS that has previously been brought up by Progresses. It can also service secret satellites and perform other unannounced activities.

The excuse that NASA provides for the 54 hour delay is:

checklists
inspecting heat shield
sleep
free time (its not a sweat shop you know).


jra

posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by laserman-x
Maybe because I am unsure of the procedure but doesnt common sense tell you that if Nasa waits on this golden window that this would be the best time for the shuttle to meet the ISS as two vectors coming to an almost point at the proper orbital distance?

This of course would save time and money. If so why is the shuttle so far away from the ISS?


Yes, they have to wait till the orbital path that the ISS follows is over the Shuttles launch site, but that doesn't mean that the ISS itself is over the launch site, it could be on the other side of the planet at the time of launch. Also the Shuttle only travels a little bit faster than the ISS, so that really adds to the time it takes for them to dock.

It's always been like this, even when the Shuttle went to Mir.


liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...

Why does it take a day or two after launch for the Shuttle-Mir rendezvous to take place?

Once the Space Shuttle launches into the same orbital plane as Mir it still has the complicated task of getting to the same spot in space at the same time as Mir. What we do is launch into an orbit in the same plane as Mir but with a lower altitude above the Earth. This means that the Shuttle circles the Earth faster and thus catches up with Mir. This is done with a carefully planned series of maneuvers, slowly closing in on Mir's angular position around the Earth while slowly closing in on Mir's altitude as well. The slowness is important. It helps ensure the safety of the two vehicles as they approach each other, while it gives people and navigation systems time to evaluate progress and devise the exact next move, every step of the way.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I had a dream about 1 shuttle that was sabotaged & sadly it was destroyed. In my dream I was wearing spring/summer clothes. Now it's fall but here in nyc it is still warm. I wonder if this is the one...



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
That picture was not that big on my screen, you guys must be running at a very low resolution. Anyway I had to split shortly after that post, and just got home a bit ago, I could not edit the post, but I resized the source photo in photobucket. For some reason it does not seem to have resized in the thread, but since they have a two hour time limit on edits that is the best I can do.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
sorry, double post. My firefox has been sucking latley..

[edit on 24-10-2007 by _Mr.X_]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I had a dream about 1 shuttle that was sabotaged & sadly it was destroyed. In my dream I was wearing spring/summer clothes. Now it's fall but here in nyc it is still warm. I wonder if this is the one...



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Thanks for making us look at this John.

Today i asked my Astronomy Teacher, "why does it take 72 Hours(the last one did) for the shuttle to dock with the Iternational Space Staion?

A little back sotry on my professor. He worked for NASA back in the day, when we were sending Rovers, and the 1st few manned missions to the moon, he even donated his Car, that was stripped down and converted to a lunar Rover. After working for NASA, he went on to work for goverment misslie contractors, where he designed and built misslies for our Army. Before finnaly teaching at UCDavis.

So, after i asked him this question, his response was long winded, for about a min. Talking about "it has to go that fast... to.. uh... save fuel, and get better gas mileage... and uh... thats why it takes so long"

So i asked a follow up question and he flat out said ' I really don't know why it takes that long, im just making things up'

So thats that, from a Former NASA scientist, he has no idea why it would take so long.

I am starting to be a suppoter of the Secret Space Station

Last time it took 72 hours, this time only 42 hours, mabye they aren't servicing all the secret space staions this time.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


Just because someone worked for NASA does not make them a space shuttle expert, you're being too hard on your professor. There are lots of other NASA programs that have nothing to do with shuttle ops, and obviously that is what he worked in. I would have to guess that he worked in an astronomy program of some type.

As to why it takes so long, JRA gave the correct answer, and you can check in the other Secret Space station thread that I gave almost the exact same answer. In case you do not understand what that answer means I’ll try and clarify it some.

When you place an object in orbit the faster it moves the further out form the planet it’s orbit ends up being. So they insert the shuttle to be in an orbit that is lower and slightly faster then the ISS, while being on the exact same trajectory. Time allows the shuttle to slowly creep up on the station and slowly gain orbit altitude to the same level as the station. Its done this way intentionally as these objects do not maneuver like objects in movies do, and each step has to be done very slowly, and precisely because any collision between them could be deadly for both the ISS and the shuttle. So for instance if the shuttle slowed down too much, its altitude would drop below the space station and it would miss its target, if it went to fast it would overshoot to a higher orbit. They cannot just apply the breaks if they are coming in too fast, or turn around and try again if they miss. If they miss they can try and hit it on the next orbit that brings the two into close enough contact, which may be 200 orbits later. This is why they could not take the Columbia back up to the space station like folks thought they should, when they realized it was damaged.

This stuff from John and Zargon is not factual, its full of holes, and mostly based on speculation, you should enjoy the read, but take it for what it is and with a grain of salt. I mean a page ago they did not even realize that a spacecraft has to vent heat through heat dissipation radiators.


[edit on 10/24/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Its almost funny to find you in all these threads, discrediting what people see and hear... if you arent a disinfo agent, you should actually apply because you're working for free here...



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I would guess that they want to get supplies unloaded and whatever business has to be done and undocked before sunset over the U.S. where there might be more prying eyes than there would be from the rest of the world.

I suspect there might be more than one Secret Space Station and that it will be docked with tomorrow, during U.S. daylight hours.

Any confirmation or debunking of this theory would be greatly appreciated.



There´s a lot of people outside the US watching the skies and it takes only one strike of luck to blow the cover.

John, i don´t understand...why would they use old unpractical technology like the shuttle to do this when they can use (possibly) secret sophisticated antigravity crafts for a fraction of the cost, time and efforts? Makes no sense to me



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5I mean a page ago they did not even realize that a spacecraft has to vent heat through heat dissipation radiators.


Ah yes the heat thing...

Silly Lemming... there you go making assumptions again

Perhaps I had a more nefarious reason to ask about heat issues?


See I have a problem with this whole heat cold thing...


Thermal Problems

Space is supposed to be at absolute zero. Anything directly in the sunshine heats up incredibly. Skylab overheated when one of its solar panels failed to deploy properly, yet Apollo 13, in direct sunlight and in a lethal radiation zone, supposedly got cold!

On the launch pad the ship is air conditioned from ground services. In space the ship is air-conditioned (powered by fuel cells), if you turn off that air conditioner the ship gets cold! At least that is what NASA’s line of logic dictates.

Apollo 17’s LEM sat on the Moon in the direct sun for 75 hours straight. Without massive power and refrigeration units the only way to cool the LEM would have been with the explosive cooling of water. Many tons would have been necessary for that time period. The astronauts reported that the LEMs were “too cold to sleep in”. How cold would your closed car be after 75 hours of direct sunlight


Thomas Brown

There are a lot of 'stories' that NASA tells us that just don't make sense..

I got a drawer full of them




[edit on 24-10-2007 by zorgon]

[edit on 24-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Can I just suggest to some of you guys to read this thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks.

[edit on 24/10/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]





top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join