[FARCE]There Is Not Any Phoenix On Mars[FARCE]

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 





Because USA have not technology to land a probe that has to land going backwards. Pure and simple.


Um....hate to break it to you but sure they have the tech. How about aircraft like the harrier to start with. Not to mention Mars' gravity is slightly less than ours. Oh and I almost forgot the lunar lander....sure, not much gravity there but still the same concept.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


enough said!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Well Big-Brain prove to me that I haven't


This is thread is utterly pointless. If you feel the need to reply this nonsense, please do so in an orderly fashion and leave through the most direct means possible.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
This epitomizes how silly this thread is. The Lunar Module Simulator at Langley was so the Astronauts could practice landing, not to test if the LEM would work:

NASA Langley Research Center's Contributions to the Apollo Program
The Lunar Excursion Module Simulator here at Langley's Lunar Landing Research Facility enabled astronauts to practice landing on the lunar surface. This training gave Neil Armstrong, Alan Shepard and other Apollo astronauts the opportunity to study and safely overcome problems that could have occurred during the final 150-foot descent to the surface of the moon.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Um....hate to break it to you but sure they have the tech. How about aircraft like the harrier to start with. Not to mention Mars' gravity is slightly less than ours. Oh and I almost forgot the lunar lander....sure, not much gravity there but still the same concept.


Harrier is a plane that flies in our atmosphere and has wings that balance it.
It has nothing to share with Phoenix. Also goats know this simple concept.

www.harrier.org.uk...

Click on "Flying Controls"



To cater for jet-borne flight, where the aerodynamic forces on the conventional surfaces are reduced or eliminated, a system of air jet reaction control valves are utilised. These are placed in the extreme nose, tail and at the wingtips to provide pitch, roll and yaw control. The system uses air bled from the high-pressure compressor of the engine and the valves are opened using pilot commands from his normal controls. Indeed, the valves at the wingtips and in the tail are directly linked to the aileron, tailplane and rudder so that when each of these surfaces moves its corresponding valve also opens. This occurs during both wing and jet-borne flight, but as the engine bleed is only operative when the main engine nozzles are vectored below 20 degrees no jet reaction force is produced unless the aircraft is partially jet-borne. The interlinking of the aerodynamic and reaction controls, allied to the progressive increase in the amount of air bled from the engine with increasing nozzle vectoring above 20 degrees, ensures that the aircraft is fully controllable at all airspeeds and during transition.


But too many incidents have discouraged use of these planes.

Hey, but we are talking about Phoenix.

Show us a video of Phoenix tested on the earth.

Or do you think that Phoenix has been sent to Mars without testing its capabilities?

If NASA's frauds never show a video of their probes that must land going backwards, it means that they have not technology to do it.

Also goats understand this simple concept.




[edit on 2-6-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



www.youtube.com...




[edit on 2-6-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
This epitomizes how silly this thread is. The Lunar Module Simulator at Langley was so the Astronauts could practice landing, not to test if the LEM would work:

NASA Langley Research Center's Contributions to the Apollo Program
The Lunar Excursion Module Simulator here at Langley's Lunar Landing Research Facility enabled astronauts to practice landing on the lunar surface. This training gave Neil Armstrong, Alan Shepard and other Apollo astronauts the opportunity to study and safely overcome problems that could have occurred during the final 150-foot descent to the surface of the moon.


My dear readers, deny ignorance and nonsense.

www.geocities.com...

NASA's swindlers say LLRTVs made 591 flights.

How is that we can see only 2 or 3 shortest videos?

If it had been true that ludicrous science fiction steam-engine rocket truss with that funny toilet-shaped cabin was able to fly, it would have been really amazing, astonishing, stunning.

All the people in the world would have been enchanted as in the time of steam locomotive:

youtube.com...

But, wait a moment, look at this video:

youtube.com...

It's the same video but ... our steam-rocket has remained without water.
No water, no vapour.

How is it possible?

591 flights and no television, no amateur filmed that amazing, astonishing, surprising flying steam locomotives.

Why NASA's swindlers should have had to keep secret that extraordinary, uncommon, unusual, exceptional, singular, remarkable toilet-shaped cabin truss rocket (T-SCTR)?

You can make fun of gullible people but YOU WILL NEVER ABLE TO MAKE FUN OF ME AND MY INTELLIGENT READERS

591 flights of LLRTVs at Beverly Hills
150 flights of full scale LEM at Langley crane

and we can see nothing. We are not stupid at all.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Harrier is a plane that flies in our atmosphere and has wings that balance it.
It has nothing to share with Phoenix. Also goats know this simple concept.

The Harrier is an aircraft that has to be able to maneuver in a manner similar to a helicopter, that is completely different then the breaking rockets on a Lander. Additionally, it has to be able to maneuver in a manner that is easy for a human pilot to control.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
My dear readers, deny ignorance and nonsense.
NASA's swindlers say LLRTVs made 591 flights.
How is that we can see only 2 or 3 shortest videos?

The LLRV is not the same device that was used at Langely, I hope you at least realise that much, right?
The LLRV was built to train the astronauts to control the LEM, not to prove that the LEM was capable of making a landing. This should be easy to understand considering that the LLRV did not use the same engines that the LEM did, but rather a Jet Engine. If the device was created to test the LEM’s landing ability, then it should have used Rockets, not a Jet Engine.

BTW, the SR-71 probably made 10’s of thousands of flights, and they are all not on video, or have not been released to the public. So by your logic that means that the SR-71 is also fictional?
Keep on going, your sinking your own theory faster then a reentering spacecraft…


[edit on 6/2/2008 by defcon5]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   
What about the fact that the Mars atmosphere is 1 6th that of Earths.
How do Parachutes slow it from 12000 Miles per Hr??



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


yeah but I think it does show that the Tech to do it is real



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
This thread has to be the biggest waste of bandwidth that I have see on this site in a long time.

How about this one?

Our macrocortical friend doesn't believe spacecraft can 'land backwards' for some reason. It's one of his primary reasons for believing the moon landings never happened.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Big Brain, you are a troll and you really piss me off

No other word for it, its absolutely tragic that you have so much time on your hands to waste like this.

For anyone that can be bothered, look for the moon landing hoax thread. This idiot spent about twenty pages argueing with weedwacker and others about the so called Apollo hoax. No matter what was demonstrated or proved, he simply refuses to listen to ANY other point of view and just keeps spewing nonsense about NASA. Dont get me wrong, a reasoned rational arguement is superb, but this guy is incapable of it.

Weedwacker even offered him a FREE flying lesson to prove a particular point about flight conditions, Big brain
obviously never took him up on it.

If the mods arent careful, this will develop into another 100 page thread with BB just spitting out the same nonsense no matter how many times the obvious is pointed out to him.

Sorry to vent, but this guy ruins any thread i find him on. I hate to use the "ignore" option as i love to watch and participate in reasoned discussion but this guy is incapable of it.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

Obviously, the difference between a thick atmosphere, earth-like gravity, and flight aerodynamics Vs. Thin Atmosphere, Less Gravity, and simple inertia breaking, has eluded someone’s “Big Brain”…


sty

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


the conditions on Mars are not the same with the Earth. Gravity is much stronger here, plus the atmosphere etc. So NASA will sort of have to "guess" how it should work on Mars instead testing on Earth.This spacecraft would fall like a brik here on Earth!



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
To all concerned.....

I just alerted, to the ModSquad, the last seven (or was it eight?) posts by B-B.

I made no comments, just used the ALERT button.....but I believe it is time.

Someone, in a U2U, pointed out what a 'waste of bandwith' this has become. I happen to agree. If I am to be punished for that opinion, then so be it.

However, I hope that ATS staff will, when they get a chance, come along, and see this for what it is....I don't have a definition, maybe someone will have one.

Cheers to all....

edit to add....shoot, this is a new thread, and "B-B" decided to show up here??? He/shw has already trashed the 'End to the Moon Conspiracy' thread!!! Time to end it, once and for all.




[edit on 6/2/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   
The calculations to land an orbiter are actually pretty simple. Like, how much thrust does it take to take to stop the inertia of the craft, and overcome the gravity of the planet? With unmanned Landers its not as big of a deal as it was in the Apollo Missions as there are no people onboard. They make every attempt at a safe, computer controlled landing, but if something goes wrong they just send another Lander. With the Lunar Landers, they allowed the Pilots to control the descent, as any screw-ups would have been fatal. Because they allowed the Humans to control the landing, they needed to make training simulators to allow them to practice landing the craft, while keeping the proper FPS and attitude. There is no conspiracy here, simple logic should explain this away.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join