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

page: 30
11
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
The point of that was what??
Other than being incorrect


That would be one... the other is relevant to those who follow my posts so don't worry about it



it seemed like he was telling the truth to me.


Yes it would of course...



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


I did... in the only thread he is currently active in, but right now he is busy attacking Hoagland et al




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


it seemed like he was telling the truth to me.

Yes it would of course...


Perhaps you can point out the errors in that video?




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

I did... in the only thread he is currently active in, but right now he is busy attacking Hoagland et al


Really, where? I do not recall you questioning him on that video before.

Maybe he chooses to ignore you because he doesn't want to waste his time?





[edit on 11/12/07 by COOL HAND]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Thanks, tezzajw,

Yes, the Shuttles are incredible. Incredibly complicated, constantly being upgraded and retrofitted, but still, I would think, considered 'Experimental'...since that is the nature of cutting, or 'bleeding' edge technology.

A failure rate of 1 in 60? Guessing you mean in terms of two fatal Shuttle missions out of about 120? That is not valid...it is too tragic to consider.

I was referring to the delays...

ON a modern airliner we have a Minimum Equipment List, the MEL, where you can refer when a component is faulty and still dispatch in order to keep to schedule. Is it safe? Yes, within the designed parameters. But sometimes we can find a problem at the gate, and it can be corrected with minimal delay, or no delay at times.

Yes, NASA has to have more stringent parameters regarding operable, or inoperable (but redundant) components, and this will affect Go/No Go decisions. Far more restrictive than an airliner, of course. I simply wondered, in my original post, why....IF we have Top Secret advanced technology to allow Secret launches to Secret Space Stations (SSSs) then why can't some of these valves and sensors and other 'widgets' that are required to operate a vehicle as complex as the Space Shuttle be utilised?

If they (the components) work on the Secret ships, then let's use them on the 'Public' ships. Else we risk the loss of another crew??? IF the risk to STS missions is not diminished with available technology, then it is a criminal act.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
A failure rate of 1 in 60? Guessing you mean in terms of two fatal Shuttle missions out of about 120? That is not valid...it is too tragic to consider.

Maybe it's just me, but I consider a failure rate of 1 in 60 to be fairly reasonable for the type of technology that the STS shuttle program is. Of course I hate seeing it happen. I was 14 years old and delivering the papers while reading the front page head-lines of the Challenger disaster the afternoon that it happened. As a testmanet to the mainstream media coverage, the only name I can recall on that shuttle was Christa McAuliffe, as she was the 'teacher' and not the astronaut. Tragic, yes - but ultimately they were heros in more ways than one. The triumph of subsequent missions had to experience the tragedy to progress.


If they (the components) work on the Secret ships, then let's use them on the 'Public' ships. Else we risk the loss of another crew??? IF the risk to STS missions is not diminished with available technology, then it is a criminal act.

That's exactly the point being discussed in this thread. If there is better stuff being hidden, then the public showpiece of space exploration, using the STS shuttles, is a sham.

I doubt that NASA want to risk another crew, they've already lost two of them. The paying public can handle a certain amount of disaster without asking questions. (Look at the Iraq war and the rising US bodycount, but it still goes on...) Besides, I think all of those STS shuttle crews have more knowledge of what really goes on, so to some extent, they would know the part they are playing in the big game.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Hello, tezza,

Afraid I do not know how to 'pick out' selective quotes in order to make my point. Perhaps all who read will be able to decide for themselves...

The point of this thread, started by the esteemed Capt John Lear, was to imply a secret mission of Discovery, during her misson a few months ago. I am just wondering, and can someone chime in here, if we already have a secret space fleet, servicing the secret space stations...then why would an STS flight need to be diverted? I mean, an STS launch is for a purpose...Atlantis (now delayed) is supposed to carry up the 'Columbus' module for the ISS.

Hoping someone can clarify for me, thanks!



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker




The point of this thread, started by the esteemed Capt John Lear, was to imply a secret mission of Discovery, during her misson a few months ago. I am just wondering, and can someone chime in here, if we already have a secret space fleet, servicing the secret space stations...then why would an STS flight need to be diverted? I mean, an STS launch is for a purpose...Atlantis (now delayed) is supposed to carry up the 'Columbus' module for the ISS.



Thanks for the post weedwhacker.


As to why the STS need to be diverted the answer is because they can get away with it and its another 20 tons into orbit. There is also probably another reason but I don't know what it is.

There are a lot of secrets in our space program and I don't presume to know 10% of them.

But I do know this: the space shuttle does a lot more than we could ever imagine.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Thanks, Capt Lear

I was watching one of my satellite TV channels (Dish) and they were showing the ISS. Mentioned the unmanned re-supply 'Progress' missions, based on the old Russian Soyuz platform. I was particularly taken aback when they casually mentioned the launch time (from Baikonur..[spelling?]) and the arrival time...seemed if I heard correctly it was about 12 hours. Tried to research it more on Google, but got frustrated.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I was particularly taken aback when they casually mentioned the launch time (from Baikonur..[spelling?]) and the arrival time...seemed if I heard correctly it was about 12 hours. Tried to research it more on Google, but got frustrated.


You heard incorrectly.

The Progress vehicle takes about two days to get to the ISS as well.

LINK



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


Thanks, COOLHAND

I was having difficulty finding good links. Knowledge is power, as the saying goes. Didn't have time yet to look at it all, later after dinner.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Afraid I do not know how to 'pick out' selective quotes in order to make my point.


Sure you do I showed you step by step... you just choose not to...


drag mouse over text to highlight
copy text
click on this
paste text

Simple yes?

:shk:



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


drag mouse over text to highlight
copy text
click on this

Thanks, Z. Just practicing...did it work?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
[As to why the STS need to be diverted the answer is because they can get away with it and its another 20 tons into orbit.


John, maneuvers of that sort which is required to change orbital plane assume the following is happening:

a) there is an enormously mighty powerplant onboard Shuttle that the many thousands of service personnel failed to notice. Gravity has nothing to do with it, so it's not even antigrav. You would need to expend energies comparable to ones used in the launch to accomplish that. Why would one want to do this just to "get away with it" is beyond credible (what else is new?)

b) it must happen without flattening the crew with excessive Gs which will be produced

c) there must be a decoy in orbit to cover for the missing Shuttle (which is routinely tracked by amateur astronomers on a constant basis). Is it not too much already?

d) the real shuttle must be cloaked or painted black (causing its overheating) to hide from the gazing crowd. Hahahah, sorry I had to pause for a laughter.

Sorry, but "getting away" argument doesn't go very far.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
As to why the STS need to be diverted the answer is because they can get away with it and its another 20 tons into orbit. There is also probably another reason but I don't know what it is.

There are a lot of secrets in our space program and I don't presume to know 10% of them.

But I do know this: the space shuttle does a lot more than we could ever imagine.



Well John you know as well as I do that secret mission and secret stuff carried on Shuttle Missions is not something easy to track....

However...
Its not impossible


Now so far I have only found one... but this one I can verify so... here is an early Christmas Present...

I want to introduce you all to MISTY 1



he Stealth Reconnaissance Imaging Spacecraft
MISTY / AFP-731
Article published 04-09-07


The Follow-on Advanced Crystal “Misty” spacecraft is believed to have an orbital placement mass at an estimated 29,000 lbs with the launch mass on the order of 36,700-37,300 lbs and a dry mass of 22,500 lbs. The Titan-4B capacity to polar orbit out of VAFB is 36,700-38,800 lbs. It is 13.25 feet in diameter or about the size of a city bus and is believed to be shorter at perhaps 34-36 feet than the ADVANCED Crystal’s 43 feet making the telescope barrel shorter providing for a wider field of view.


Misty” Spacecraft Launches
LV Vehicle Date Designation
STS-36 Misty-1 28, Feb. 1990 USA-53/AFP-731
Titan-4B Misty-2 22, May 1999 USA-144
Delta-4 Misty-3 2008-2010
heavy up-rated EELV
STS-36 Misty-1 28, Feb. 1990 USA-53/AFP-731

MISTY / AFP-731 Global Security

ROCKY SPYSAT INVESTIGATION
December 13, 2004 08:08 PM
Defense Tech


The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that "U.S. intelligence officials are likely to seek a criminal investigation into disclosures about a top-secret and increasingly expensive spy-satellite program that several lawmakers have sought unsuccessfully to kill."



MISTY's secret is not the fundamental science behind the behavior of light but rather the stealth technology--some of which may have been made public when the geniuses over at SDIO filed a patent shortly after the first MISTY launched in 1990 on STS-36.


So there we have TWO bus sized secret platforms in place with fuel to make orbital changes AND the first one was deployed by STS 36...

Now this is one... this is proof positive of TWO secret craft up there... and proof that the Shuttle does indeed carry secret missions...


Merry Christmas John

and Happy Holidays to All



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So there we have TWO bus sized secret platforms in place with fuel to make orbital changes AND the first one was deployed by STS 36...


A lof of craft are capable to make adjustments of the orbit. In no way is it equal to changing the inclination.


Now this is one... this is proof positive of TWO secret craft up there... and proof that the Shuttle does indeed carry secret missions...


Launching a satellite on an STS is light years away from continuously resupplying "secret stations" on incompatible orbits.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
A spy satellite’s rise ... and faked fall
Amateurs could see what Russia missed, historian says



Caption
"This drawing, included in a patent application, shows how an inflatable space shield could help a satellite evade detection. Observers believe the satellite known as Misty may have used such a shield."


By Robert Windrem
Senior investigative producer
NBC News

July 12, 2001 - For more than a decade, the United States has had at least one and possibly more stealth spy satellites capable of peering down at targets without fear of detection, according to a new book by an intelligence historian. The author, Jeffrey T. Richelson, says that while the Soviet space tracking network failed to detect the satellite, it did not evade a small cadre of civilian space trackers.

Code-named “Misty,” the CIA-designed satellite was first launched in 1990, before the Persian Gulf War, and may have been replenished since.

“The Wizards of Langley,” a history of the CIA’s top-secret Directorate of Science and Technology, notes that the United States may have tried to hide the successful first launch of Misty by making it seem that the satellite had exploded before reaching its final orbit. Richelson says the ruse fooled the American media — and, more importantly, the Soviet Union.


MS NBC News

Here is another excerpt... better and better Stealth Device deployed....


One of the observers who spoke to Richelson, Ted Molczan of Toronto, told NBC News that the supposed explosion took place on March 7, 1990, six days after launch, and was first reported by the Soviet press.

“Russia reported it had detected debris,” Molczan recalled, “and NORAD identified six pieces.”

The plan for stealthiness may have involved some clever trickery by the CIA.

“The satellite was exceedingly bright, brighter than the KH-11, and kept in a low orbit, only 250 kilometers (150 miles) above the earth, so it was easily visible,” Molczan said. “Then there was nothing after the ‘explosion.’ They apparently needed the ‘explosion’ to be long enough so they could deploy the stealth masking device.”

U.S. officials may have also used disinformation to enhance the deception, often discussing the need to develop stealthy satellites, never letting on that such satellites not only had been developed but launched as well.


Its STILL THERE


The observers, however, spotted the satellite again in November 1990 after it made a series of maneuvers apparently intended to put it in better position to monitor the Persian Gulf, where U.S. and allied forces were preparing to drive Saddam Hussein’s troops out of Kuwait.

Image: The Wizards of Langley
Intelligence historian Jeffrey Richelson's latest book focuses on four decades of innovation and inside secrets at the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology.

Then, last year, a civilian space observer, examining data from NORAD’s unclassified databases, determined that the satellite was still operating at least as late as 1995 in a 451-by-461-mile orbit, higher than the KH-11 satellite.


And one last bit....


Less than two weeks after Misty’s launch, “to the anger of many in the National Reconnaissance Office, a patent application was filed, apparently by the Strategic Defense Initiative office, for a ‘Satellite Signature Suppression Shield,’” he reports in his book.


Yup I bet they were pissed...




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Launching a satellite on an STS is light years away from continuously resupplying "secret stations" on incompatible orbits.


That is not the point The point is that the Shuttle DOES INDEED have secret missions... so far this is the first proof I have been able to present...

So its one step closer whether you like it or not



AND it certainly provides me LOTS of material for the other 'theories' in our other threads... and I know many will find this quite fascinating...

So... go have another egg nog



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

The author, Jeffrey T. Richelson, says that while the Soviet space tracking network failed to detect the satellite, it did not evade a small cadre of civilian space trackers.


Dear Z, thanks for reinforcing the point I made a few times, which is that it's impossible for a Shuttle to drastically change the orbit without this been seen on Earth. Brilliant. You supply my arguments for me.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
That is not the point The point is that the Shuttle DOES INDEED have secret missions...


The mission (the flight) has not been a secret, as you may have imagined. So the point is indeed moot. You have not proven anything at all.

The payload was a classified satellite. Big deal. The shuttle did not change it's orbit by 20 degrees to launch it, they simply opened the bay doors and spun it out. And it was detected by "civilian observers". So much for this CT.


So its one step closer whether you like it or not


It's hardly a step anywhere, Z. As the French say, you are pedaling in yogurt.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Launching a satellite on an STS is light years away from continuously resupplying "secret stations" on incompatible orbits.

So says you.

I guess you must be in the loop and you really know how many satellites each STS mission deploys? I suppose you also know the type, design and purpose of each satellite - even the secret stuff that military makes sure is classified? Remember, NASA is a military controlled organisation. But, if you are on the inside, with appropriate classifaction, I'm sure you really do know what's up there and you can laugh at us idiots trying to figure it all out.

Unless you do really know, then your uninformed guess is as good as anyone else's. Of course you always have the option of believing what NASA tells you that they are supposed to be doing on each mission and follow the itinerary lock-step.

(Light years are a measure of distance, not time. We can't have a PhD. Physicist making basic errors with a choice of inappropriate units.)

[edit on 17-12-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Launching a satellite on an STS is light years away from continuously resupplying "secret stations" on incompatible orbits.

So says you.


And so I do, and it's the truth.


I guess you must be in the loop and you really know how many satellites each STS mission deploys?


Well your guess is way off, Tezza.


Unless you do really know, then your uninformed guess is as good as anyone else's.


Heck Tezza, this particular post of yours is exceptionally void of substance, I'm sorry to say. Please try to read what I posted. For all I know, the shuttle can be fitted with purely alien tech, which not only allows it to change the orbit inclination at will, but also cast holographic projections of self, in order to confuse observers. Are you willing to accept that? Now, there is no evidence of such phenomena happening in the firstplace, so this little theory I just wrote is an unwarranted fantasy. Guesses, on the other hands, are based on facts. So if my simple guess basd on facts goes against something that's not based on anything at all, I win.


Of course you always have the option of believing what NASA tells you that they are supposed to be doing on each mission and follow the itinerary lock-step.


I don't even have to believe NASA at all, to conclude that the "secret resupply mission" theory is utter cr@p. NASA got little to do with such conclusion.


(Light years are a measure of distance, not time)


Well, yes it is. Your point?


[edit on 17-12-2007 by buddhasystem]






top topics



 
11
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join