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

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post BS. Its apparent that you are really stuck on this inclination thing.

Facts are a stubborn thing, you know.

I am not convinced that we haven't developed the technology to change inclination in orbit without using a lot of rocket power.

It's fairly impossible to develop technology that violates conservation of momentum, which in fact is a manifestation of a fundamental symmetry. Of course, you will say that all fundamental laws are suspect, but there hasn't been a shred of a hint of a whiff of evidence that conservation of momentum is ever broken.

Also, do you have a copy of your PhD? You can blank out the name and personal information.

Yes, it's from CU. I don't know what good does it to look at a diploma with blotted out name and date, though.

I just want to see this 'degree' that you talk so much about.

I rarely talk about it, if at all. And you know it, John, and you still make a disingenuous statement. It's typically people who are science-challenged who drag it out and put it in quotes (just like you did right now) to try and undermine my credibility. And that indeed is happening constantly. If you think I am a fake, that's fine by me, John. Keep your quotes.

Also what was your dissertation on?

Study of heavy-ion collisions. I don't see how this relates to the space shuttle and your bogus secret space mission.



[edit on 20-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goosdawg
I find it curious as to why you continue to insist that the transit of a craft from a lower altitude to one that is higher, and vice versa, must be defined in terms of a change in orbital inclination.

I, on my part, find it curious that you don't follow the crucial characteristics related to the alleged launches of the alleged secret space stations. Location of the launch pad dictates, to a large degree, the inclination of the orbit. You must know that.

I know that what you're continuing to insist to be "crucial characteristics" disallowing the possible existence of *secret* space stations orbiting at a higher altitude, in the same inclination as the ISS, are not as "crucial' as you may wish us to believe:

Technically speaking, you can launch from any point on earth into any orbit.

Source | CAP Advanced Technologies Satellite Tool Kit | Intro to Space Lesson Plans | Lesson 3 - Placing a Satellite in Orbit

It is, in fact, more a question of the most efficient use of fuel, and not a question of being "largely" impossible, as, again, you would have us believe.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The many locations of launches listed by Z and others were, in large part, corresponding to inclinations very different from whar the Shuttle has. You missed out on this.

Perhaps you feel this way, but I would humbly suggest that you do not presume to think I've missed out on anything that has been presented here nor that which I can research for myself.

Concerning the "many locations of launches listed by Z and others," perhaps you overlooked the obvious advantages of launching from a mobile platform based at sea?

Launch Site Location

* Launch to all inclinations from a single launch pad
* Our equatorial launch site provides the most direct route to orbit, offering maximum lift capacity for increased payload mass or extended spacecraft life
* Independent launch range scheduling and excellent environmental conditions

The Concept:

* Launch commercial satellites to orbit from a platform at sea.
* Modern, accessible, user-friendly payload processing.
* Automated launch operations.
* All-inclination launch capability.
* Affordable, reliable, new-generation launch vehicle, comprised of capable, flight-proven components.
* Facilities and amenities of a U.S. launch site.

Source | boeing.com | Why Sea Launch?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There can be always a difference in altitudes, of course, but I skipped that for simplicity's sake.

Thank you for conceding that point.

But personally, I think you had other motivating factors regarding why you "skipped" the question of orbital altitude in preference to the repetitious flogging of the strawman of orbital inclination.

But that's just my opinion, everyone's entitled to decide for themselves.

To recap, I've presented evidence now that the mechanics of orbital inclination do not preclude the possible existence of *secret* space station components and supplies being launched from anywhere on earth into an orbit in the same inclination and at a different altitude as the ISS.

Thank you for your input, I welcome your reply.

No matter what your opinion, let us stop for a moment and consider, Astronaut Daniel Tani, currently aboard the ISS, has just suffered a loss.

His Mother has been killed in a car accident.

My source is NBC Nightly News, today, 20 December 2007 at 1913 EST.

Best to all, and to all, stay safe......

Originally posted by goosdawg
I know that what you're continuing to insist to be "crucial characteristics" disallowing the possible existence of *secret* space stations orbiting at a higher altitude, in the same inclination as the ISS, are not as "crucial' as you may wish us to believe

Wait a second. The alleged launch points listed in the course of this discussion did not provide for the same orbital plane.

Now you take a statement without context and proceed to quote:

Technically speaking, you can launch from any point on earth into any orbit.

Source | CAP Advanced Technologies Satellite Tool Kit | Intro to Space Lesson Plans | Lesson 3 - Placing a Satellite in Orbit

But if you cared to read just one sentence further, you find that

As you remember from our Orbital Mechanics lesson, launching directly into a desired orbit is a function of many elements. Launch azimuth and launch site latitude are among those elements. The launch azimuth or the direction of the booster’s flight path, determines the inclination of a satellite.

How's that compatible to "any orbit", huh?

It is, in fact, more a question of the most efficient use of fuel, and not a question of being "largely" impossible, as, again, you would have us believe.

Well, I pointed out many, many times that if you expend humongous amounts of fuel and manage to keep the crew alive throughout all these g's, that can be done. It's the plausibility of a completely unknown hi-energy propulsion system which operates in complete stealth that I find less than satisfactory.


You might find this link helpful:
en.wikipedia.org...


Try to estimate the delta-V.

Concerning the "many locations of launches listed by Z and others," perhaps you overlooked the obvious advantages of launching from a mobile platform based at sea?

I didn't. These were not in the list of launch sites produced by Z. In addition, a mobile launch platform is a hard object to hide -- from radar and/or satellite etc.

But personally, I think you had other motivating factors regarding why you "skipped" the question of orbital altitude in preference to the repetitious flogging of the strawman of orbital inclination.

Well, you are wrong.

To recap, I've presented evidence now that the mechanics of orbital inclination do not preclude the possible existence of *secret* space station components and supplies being launched from anywhere on earth into an orbit in the same inclination and at a different altitude as the ISS.

Thank you for your input, I welcome your reply.

No you didn't. Examine the formula in the link I provided and oh yeah, please don't omit sentences from your own sources that don't fit with your theorising. (cf the inclination piece you chose to drop).

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goosdawg
I know that what you're continuing to insist to be "crucial characteristics" disallowing the possible existence of *secret* space stations orbiting at a higher altitude, in the same inclination as the ISS, are not as "crucial' as you may wish us to believe

Wait a second. The alleged launch points listed in the course of this discussion did not provide for the same orbital plane.

Wait a second for what?

More of your carefully worded fallacious statements?

To that I say, horse feathers!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now you take a statement without context and proceed to quote:

Technically speaking, you can launch from any point on earth into any orbit.

Source | CAP Advanced Technologies Satellite Tool Kit | Intro to Space Lesson Plans | Lesson 3 - Placing a Satellite in Orbit

But if you cared to read just one sentence further, you find that

As you remember from our Orbital Mechanics lesson, launching directly into a desired orbit is a function of many elements. Launch azimuth and launch site latitude are among those elements. The launch azimuth or the direction of the booster’s flight path, determines the inclination of a satellite.

How's that compatible to "any orbit", huh?

Actually, I read the entire page before posting the relevant passage.

But, kindly explain how that is not compatible to any orbit?

Allow me to repost the same quotes with the germane parts emphasized:

Technically speaking, you can launch from any point on earth into any orbit. As you remember from our Orbital Mechanics lesson, launching directly into a desired orbit is a function of many elements. Launch azimuth and launch site latitude are among those elements. The launch azimuth or the direction of the booster’s flight path, determines the inclination of a satellite.

Source | CAP Advanced Technologies Satellite Tool Kit | Intro to Space Lesson Plans | Lesson 3 - Placing a Satellite in Orbit

You continue to insist that the launch must place the "package" directly into the proper inclination, and that's simply not true if a change of plane is factored into the equation.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goosdawg
It is, in fact, more a question of the most efficient use of fuel, and not a question of being "largely" impossible, as, again, you would have us believe.

Well, I pointed out many, many times that if you expend humongous amounts of fuel and manage to keep the crew alive throughout all these g's, that can be done.

First, besides you, who ever said anything about crew being launched with any *secret* space station components or supplies?

The amount of "g's" the cargo would pull is irrelevant to our discussion here...more fallacious statements introduced to muddy the waters of debate.

Lets stick to the points here, okay?

Second, with a black budget of, what, billions? Trillions? They could certainly afford all the "humongous amounts of fuel" required to put anything they want, into any orbit they please.

So thanks for conceding that point, sort of.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's the plausibility of a completely unknown hi-energy propulsion system which operates in complete stealth that I find less than satisfactory.

Sorry you feel that way, but again lets stick to the subject at hand, shall we?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You might find this link helpful:
en.wikipedia.org...

I did, thanks!

(On a side note, not directed at you personally, I must say; it's refreshing to converse with someone who actually follows up on the links provided in their respective posts. As evidenced by the above, you actually demonstrated this courtesy, I owe you no less. Again, thanks.)

From your provided link (with my added emphasis):

In general, inclination changes require the most delta v to perform, and most mission planners try to avoid them whenever possible to conserve fuel. This can sometimes be achieved by launching a spacecraft directly into the desired inclination, or as close to it as possible so as to minimize the inclination change required.

Source | Link provided by buddhasystem | Orbital inclination change | Wikipedia

So it's expensive, but it can be done.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Try to estimate the delta-V.

It's irrelevant.

We've established that it can be done, and that's all that's necessary to support my assertions in this discussion.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goosdawg
Concerning the "many locations of launches listed by Z and others," perhaps you overlooked the obvious advantages of launching from a mobile platform based at sea?

I didn't. These were not in the list of launch sites produced by Z.

My bad, that was on the other thread:

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

Incidentally, that link takes you directly to page five, in which Zorgon introduces, among many other elements pertinent to this discussion, the Sea Launch facility.

If you haven't already, I would humbly suggest you start from the beginning and read the whole thing through, so we can all eventually be on the same page.

In fact, there'll probably be a third thread started up along these lines when they finally get the next STS mission launched, what is that, Atlantis?

At that point, it'll get even more confusing.

Try to keep up, won't you? :

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In addition, a mobile launch platform is a hard object to hide -- from radar and/or satellite etc.

And, again, irrelevant "factoid" tossed in to muddy the discussion.

Who says they have to "hide" these launches from anyone?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goosdawg
But personally, I think you had other motivating factors regarding why you "skipped" the question of orbital altitude in preference to the repetitious flogging of the strawman of orbital inclination.

Well, you are wrong.

Meh, wouldn't be the first time.

But that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goosdawg
To recap, I've presented evidence now that the mechanics of orbital inclination do not preclude the possible existence of *secret* space station components and supplies being launched from anywhere on earth into an orbit in the same inclination and at a different altitude as the ISS.

Thank you for your input, I welcome your reply.

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Examine the formula in the link I provided and oh yeah, please don't omit sentences from your own sources that don't fit with your theorising. (cf the inclination piece you chose to drop).

I did examine the formula, even though, in truth, it's largely irrelevant to establishing whether or not what I've asserted here can be accomplished.

It can!

So there!

And, likewise, please don't introduce elements into the discussion that are irrelevant and/or misleading.



BTW, bitchin' new avatar!



[edit on 21-12-2007 by goosdawg]

Originally posted by goosdawg

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait a second. The alleged launch points listed in the course of this discussion did not provide for the same orbital plane.

Wait a second for what?
More of your carefully worded fallacious statements?

I don't have time for carefully wording anything. I type real fast. And, there is less fallacy in my posts than you would like to believe. So if you remove smoke and mirrors, there were many launch points claimed by Z.

Let's cut to my next quote:

As you remember from our Orbital Mechanics lesson, launching directly into a desired orbit is a function of many elements. Launch azimuth and launch site latitude are among those elements. The launch azimuth or the direction of the booster’s flight path, determines the inclination of a satellite.

hat compatible to "any orbit", huh?

To which you replied:

But, kindly explain how that is not compatible to any orbit?

I have no choice but to post again two sentences from the quoted link:

As you remember from our Orbital Mechanics lesson, launching directly into a desired orbit is a function of many elements. Launch azimuth and launch site latitude are among those elements.

The orbit is a funcion of latitude. You cannot, therefore, launch to any orbit from any latitude.

You continue to insist that the launch must place the "package" directly into the proper inclination, and that's simply not true if a change of plane is factored into the equation.

Change of plane? I already posted on the amount of energy needed (more on that later), and this is supported in different words in this post"
forums.floridatoday.com...

It takes two SSRBs, three SSMEs, and a tank ful of fuel to put the Shuttle in orbit, and was the boosters and tank are discarded, it doesn't have much maneuvering ability. Not enough to change its orbital inclination

Then you proceed to

First, besides you, who ever said anything about crew being launched with any *secret* space station components or supplies?

I was talking about the Shuttles. The Shuttles, as you may have heard, are flying with a crew.

Second, with a black budget of, what, billions? Trillions? They could certainly afford all the "humongous amounts of fuel" required to put anything they want, into any orbit they please.

There is no storage space for that fuel onboard Shuttle
Saw the size of the discarded fuel tank ??

So thanks for conceding that point, sort of.

Until you show me where they stashed the biblical amount of fuel onboard the space shuttle, I have not conceded anything, sorry.

Who says they have to "hide" these launches from anyone?

Oh I see, they don't hide the "super secret" launches at all. That's just brilliant! Just how many more straws you need to clutch?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Examine the formula in the link I provided and oh yeah, please don't omit sentences from your own sources that don't fit with your theorising. (cf the inclination piece you chose to drop).

I did examine the formula, even though, in truth, it's largely irrelevant to establishing whether or not what I've asserted here can be accomplished.

It has a direct relevance, because you will find out that the delta-V is of the scale of miles per second


[edit on 24-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

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]

reply to post by goosdawg

An excellent summary, goosdawg.

Now, let's watch for more of the smoke and mirrors reply...

Let's wait until January...STS 122, if that's the correct designation, the delayed Shuttle launch is hoped to go up around January 10, 2008.

Seems there were problems with the fuel tank quantity gauges.

Now, consider that a passenger airliner can dispatch, even if the fuel quantity system for a particular tank is 'written up' as 'INOP'. Of course, we use the MEL, or 'Minimum Equipment List' to ascertain just how many items can be INOP before Dispatch. But, that's a passenger jet....



Anyway...Discovery had a fuel quantity indication problem...and for a vehicle like that, it can be much more serious, since it is important for other systems to know, and for the onboard and downlink computers, to know this information.

This is a thread devoted to a conspiracy idea, that is, that there is an inordinate amount of time between launch of the Shuttle and subsequent docking at the ISS. I will not debate that, I leave it to others...

I simply wish to point out...the Shuttle is an extraordinarily complex system. To consider it an essential opportunity to replenish 'Secret Space Stations' is, in my view, unlikely.

My critical thinking mind would assume....IF secret space stations exist, then there would be a far more RELIABLE way to service them. They should not have to rely on a very public, very flawed, STS program.

Yes, the STS may be a cover...but if it is, it's a terrible way to cover. I mean, it's a public operation, designed to promote support...you would think they'd do a better job, if it was a cover operation.

Or, I could be completely full of it....

As always, it's only my opinion...I welcome all responses.

Originally posted by goosdawg
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.

I actually agree that this is not impossible, however assuming that's the case, Z's list of launch sites goes to the trash bin with the exception of a mythical Sea Launch facility which is would be like an elephant in the room -- simply impossible to hide. What so secret about it then... Beats me.

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.

A launch is a spectacular event visible from hundreds of miles away. Hiding the already large Sea Launch platform is hard enough, and with massive fireworks going off there, it's quite a bit harder.

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.

I really can't see how insisting on the secrecy of the alledged secret space program is compatible with simultaneous denial of importance of such secrecy.

4) The launching of these "components and supplies" by, again, systems other than the shuttle

Oh, that's bait and switch tactics, thank you. So finally the shuttle is not needed to supply the alleged space station? Why then to even start this thread? You see, that's a different affair entirely -- yes, there maybe large habitable satellites in orbit, somewhere, that we don't know much about, and they can be resupplied using classified vehicles launched from somewhere, sure, but why drag the shuttle into this?

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.

Oh I see, lunar mining is yet another pre-requisite for the thing to work... How about the tug is serviced and piloted by a friendly race of aliens? In return, they are using the US secret space station as a staging facility in their intergalactic war. By the way translunar injection burns are visible from Earth, and yet we are not seeing any...

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?

This is impossible because the shuttle is pretty much continuously watched and photographed, and any orbit irregularity would be noted.

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.

So I've succeded in driving this point home, great. Now the list of the alleged "launch" points has been shown to be invalid.

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.

You published a link to a site, where the importance of the launch point wrt inclination is discussed. I don't see how this is irrelevant to the discussion.

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.

I think you are pretty smart yourself, thank you. I still reserve the right to lay out my logic as I see fit.

Just to stir the pot for the new year... ( and this thread needs a kick in the b... )

We don't need no stinkin' Hu-Mans in Space....

Three hundred miles above Earth, historic events in space are occurring. For the first time in history, a spacecraft robotically is transferring propellant and a battery to a client satellite. This major milestone is being accomplished by Boeing's Orbital Express system. Funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Orbital Express is paving the way for future space operations.

Unlike the work performed on the International Space Station where astronauts service and maintain equipment in a zero gravity environment, the mechanic of Orbital Express is an unmanned spacecraft capable of docking to, inspecting, servicing, de-orbiting or relocating satellites. This unmanned operation in orbit will significantly extend the life, operation and cost of various types of spacecraft.

Orbital Express consists of the Boeing spacecraft ASTRO (Autonomous Space Transport Robotic Operations) and NextSat, a prototype satellite developed by Ball Aerospace. Integrated systems to perform orbital operations include electrical, command and data handling, flight control, and attitude and propulsion control. Components include rendezvous sensors, an autonomous fluid transfer unit and the robotic arm used to grapple the NextSat space craft and to transfer replacement batteries and electronics.

Now what if we 'service' one of theirs

Good Ole Darpa When they are not busy trying to hook your brain to a machine, they actually get something done

www.boeing.com...




DARPA Orbital Express Fact Sheet

Robot Progress Ships, now Robot Repair Ships...
Well at least Robots don't talk...


As to shuttle mission stuff... hang in there we got some goodies....



[edit on 27-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Seems there were problems with the fuel tank quantity gauges.

Speaking of that... I was just looking over all the missions and what struck me is the fact that just about every mission had serious problems... Its a wonder that any made it back

I am putting together a page on that It wasn't what I was hunting, but I came across so much of it that it sure ties into the other NASA issue hiding the safety of airplanes report

reply to post by johnlear


Sorry to break in so abruptly but in one of the interviews up on Youtube you mention Antarctica and possible antigravity ships taking off from a secret US military base there. Was that a joke or? If it wasn't meant as a joke, why would NASA want to make use of the public space shuttle for any secret mission?

Originally posted by tangent45
reply to post by johnlear

 

Sorry to break in so abruptly but in one of the interviews up on Youtube you mention Antarctica and possible antigravity ships taking off from a secret US military base there. Was that a joke or? If it wasn't meant as a joke, why would NASA want to make use of the public space shuttle for any secret mission?

That's just one example of "Lear Logic", which, in the first approximation, equates to no logic at all.

Originally posted by zorgonAs to shuttle mission stuff... hang in there we got some goodies....

When are we going to see any of this stuff?

You have been alluding to all of this other information you have for months now, and we haven't seen any of it yet.

How much longer are you going to waste my time with fluff?

Make the pain stop.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
How much longer are you going to waste my time with fluff?
Make the pain stop.

It's only a waste of your time if you choose to read it. Considering that you have chosen to read it, then you have the option to stop reading it, to make the pain stop.

Seriously, if it's such a waste of your time, then why are you here reading it? Something must draw you to spend your time here. I mean, it's not like you're being paid to monitor the website, so you made the choice to be here, right?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by DogHead
Hopefully he will make an account soon and comprehensively shut this crap down so Mr. Lear can move on to freebase something else his CIA handler wants him to.

No such hope. The scientist friend of your will be panned as a "mainstream", pre-judgement, conservative agent of the evil system (and at least one person on this forum professed his desire to actually kill govt employees because they all are so evil, and keep all those UFOs secret).

You already expressed how you doubt that reason, science and common sense will ever be embraced by learites... So why bother, really.

I think we should heed what's written in the Bible in Matthew 7:6, about pearls and all.

Thread was about Discovery, but here is a sample from the NASA Presskit regarding Atlantis (STS-122) now planned to launch 1447 EST February 7:

Day 1

Launch
Payload Bay Door Opening
Ku-Band Antenna Deployment
Robotic Arm Activation and Checkout
Umbilical Well and Handheld External Tank Video and Stills Downlink

Day 2

Atlantis Thermal Protection System Survey (with the OBSS)
EMU Checklist
Centerline Camera Installation
Orbiter Docking System Ring Extension
Orbital Maneuvering System Pod Survey
Rendezvous Tools Checkout

Day 3

Rendezvous with the ISS...(and it continues)...

My point is, this is just an outline of the first two days on orbit, as Atlantis catches up with ISS. Much more detailed mission profiles are provided, and we can surely be there to monitor every step, both with sightings from down here, and on cable or satellite TV stations devoted to mission coverage (a lot like C-Span -- slow and methodical!).

How about 'round-the-clock watching, working in shifts? Or, we'll just let the fine ATS members chime in with what they see and we can fit it all together?


[spelling]


[edit on 14-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How about 'round-the-clock watching, working in shifts? Or, we'll just let the fine ATS members chime in with what they see and we can fit it all together?

That sounds like a good, logical plan. Especially tracking it live with ones eyes as it flies overhead.