Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't have time for carefully wording anything. I type real fast.
In that case, may I respectfully suggest that you slow down, take a deep breath, and try to remain focused on what it is
you and I are actually
discussing.
Rather than accuse you of being deliberately obtuse, I would prefer to entertain the possibility that in the two days it took for you to compose your
latest exhibition of "smoke and mirrors" you've "forgotten" what was
currently under consideration?
Follow me now as I peck along...
Begging the indulgence of our fellow forum members, that is, those who
are keeping track of this discussion, I'll now review and expand upon
the ideas I have put forth on this and the previous page of this thread, for the benefit and illumination of our skeptical friend, buddhasystem:
1) It is a distinct possibility, in fact, highly probable (see item five) that the so-called *secret* space stations have been constructed
at a
higher altitude and
in the same orbital plane as the ISS.
2) The components and supplies that comprise the *secret* space stations have been, and continue to be, lifted into orbit by systems
other than the
shuttle fleet, from a variety of launch site locations, including the Sea Launch facility, as previously itemized on this and other threads by
Zorgon.
3) Many of these active launch sites are in remote locations, and play host to a variety of sponsors. There would be little need nor opportunity for
media oversight, nor undue secrecy to be involved, in the launching of "satellites" publicized for one purpose, but actually intended for
another.
To put it another way; the need for secrecy does not preclude the possibility that launches could be conducted in "the open" without the actual
intended purpose of the payload being disclosed.
The best kept secrets are those that are "hidden" in plain sight.
For example, when was the last time the military declared the true intent of a military launch?
If it's a military launch we expect it to be a secret, no?
Anyone who contends that these launches must be "super secret" is the one who, IMHO, is desperately grasping at the errant straws of a rapidly
disintegrating strawman argument.
How many times must one prove the fallacy of such a disingenuous stance?
4) The launching of these "components and supplies" by, again, systems
other than the shuttle, into the proper orbital inclination from
launch sites not geographically conducive to a
direct approach,
could be accomplished by a change of inclination
upon reaching an
initial orbital plane favorable to such a maneuver.
In other words; close enough to the target inclination to allow a course correction.
This approach would only be necessary, due to the added cost of such a mission, for high priority payloads, such as food, water, and perhaps fuel,
during that period of time when the shuttle fleet was grounded.
A majority of launches could be accomplished efficiently by using those facilities closest to the equator, again, such as Sea Launch.
5) Having both the ISS and the *secret* space stations at differing altitudes but in the same orbital inclination, as opposed to different
inclinations, allows for servicing and supply missions to be conducted,
without requiring a highly improbable change of inclination maneuver by the
shuttle fleet.
6) Transfer of supplies to a *secret* space station from a shuttle-supported supply mission could be accomplished, without altering the public aspect
of the shuttle's mission, by a support vehicle, or "tug" designed for such a purpose. This "tug" would be powered by the ample fuel derived as a
product of lunar mining, and based, when not in use, at the *secret* space station of origin.
7) Is it not also possible,
with the *secret* space station located in the same orbital inclination as the ISS, but at differing altitudes, the
shuttle could initially ascend from launch to the higher altitude of the targeted *secret* space station, transfer assets and then descend to the
altitude of the ISS to conduct the public aspect of it's mission? A single altitude adjustment, as described, is not outside the range of
possibilities imposed by the amount of fuel available to the shuttle to accomplish such a maneuver.
You have chosen to engage in either repeated attempts, deliberately or otherwise, to obfuscate the gist of this discussion between you and I, by
repetitively introducing known and admitted facts
that are irrelevant to the topic immediately at hand or blatently ignoring other facts that
are
directly relevant.
Such as:
Ignoring the fact that it's entirely possible for the shuttle to make limited altitude changes with the fuel available on board.
Ignoring the fact that there would be
no need to alter the shuttle's orbital inclination if the ISS and the *secret* space stations were
located at differing altitudes but
at the same orbital inclination.
And most egregious, repeatedly trumpeting the near impossibility of the shuttle, due to fuel constraints, to easily change orbital inclination without
unknown technology, which is painfully obvious, to even the most casual observer,
and does not require any further repetition, please,
and thank-you-very-much.
Any further attempt to introduce this irrelevant, acknowledged fact, into the immediate discussion at hand, should be construed as an insult to the
intelligence of both our readers and myself.
While I may have, at times, questioned your motives, I have never questioned, during the course of this engagement,
your intelligence.
I would appreciate the same courtesy be extended to myself and our readers at large.
If you must continue to engage in these deceptive practices, I'll be forced to conclude that you have no intention of fairly discussing the
possibilities I've presented and instead are simply ego-driven to refuse to admit to that which is possible, a hidden agenda, or both.
Thank you for your post(s).
Have yourself a Merry Yuletide and a Happy New Year, too.
[edit on 25-12-2007 by goosdawg]
: 
