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

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
If you refer yourself to the bottom of Page #1 Mr. "Big-Brain", you still have yet to debunk my claims! I think this is because you and I both know I'm absolutely right and you're avoiding what would expose your whole repituare of lies!




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 1-Cent
 


1-cent.....oh dear, your spelling of 'repertoire' is going to seriously confuse whatever translation program B-B is using!!!

Kudos!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by daemonicsoul
Anyone have info on why the russians missions failed to land and how the design was different to pheonix??? BB is just desperate for the truth and needs to broaden his mind please help him do so in a positive way. Conspiracys exist for a reason, and that reason is you cant fool everyone all the time. We are fed truth constantly with one hand while the other hand stick lies up our butt.


Mars landing failures have come from a variety of causes. They can (like most failures of complex equipment) be broken down into three general categories.

Hardware failure. It's not trivial to design hardware for an interplanetary landing. Whatever you design has to be as light as possible, in order to get as much into the limited payload capacity of your launch vehicle as you can. At the same time, it has to be strong enough to withstand multiple G stress at liftoff, followed by several months of thermal stress, radiation exposure, and vacuum while it transits from Earth to Mars. Then, it has to survive another multi-G stress period (Martian reentry), then execute a fairly complex series of steps (jettisoning various shields, parachutes, and other excess hardware, timing the firing of retrorockets, and balancing approach speed vs diminishing fuel resources. Need I point out that all of this has to work right the first time? One bad valve or fuel pump, and the whole mission is a literal bust.

Software failure. Murphy has a field day here. NASA lost a very expensive lander thanks to this one...one sensor told the computer that the lander was on the ground, and the software didn't have any 'backup test' (say, "IF CONTACT-SENSOR=YES, THEN CHECK RADAR ALTIMETER TO CONFIRM ALTITUDE=0")...so the computer cut the descent engines, and the lander fell the last 80 feet or so and pancaked itself.

Bad Execution. Another classic...failure to convert between English and Metric units caused a crucial miscalculation in reentry trajectory. Scratch one probe. I'm sure there are a lot of less-publicized examples.

Point being that probes (Russian and American) have failed for a variety of reasons, from the tragic to the comic. Why was Phoenix successful? Maybe because increasingly sophisticated computer systems allow the spacecraft to respond to situations better than earlier ones? Maybe because practice makes perfect? Maybe NASA just got a lucky break. It could be any of the above, or it could be a combination of any or all.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by blimpseeker
I justr don't understand why we grill NASA on other stuff but everyone seems to be offended and downright angry and calling for the OP to be banned when the phoenix was questioned?
if asking strange questions is a reason to be banned than Zorgon, Mikesingh and all those other rock watchers need to be banned also!

something is afoot here...


Big-Brain has been banned (and keeps returning with a new screen name) on numerous occasions over at least the past year for continuous T&C violations, not because of the questions he asks.

I liked his questions regarding the Lunar Lander over on the Moon Hoax thread the first time he asked them, but after more than 6 months of him asking the same question and ignoring the multitude of evidence contradicting his claims (he doesn't rebutt evidence, he simply ignores it), it gets a little tiring.

Back on topic (I don't want my post to be an attack on B-B), using his logic then the Space Shuttle is a hoax, because they never tested the Orbital Manuevering System (OMS) by hanging the entire Shuttle by a crane and test firing the OMS engines. That test would be unnecessary since all of the shuttles systems have been tested, albeit some were tested separate from the whole shuttle.

Just because the Phoenix lander sytem AS A WHOLE isn't test flown on Earth does not mean the Phoenix wont work. Every component is tested: The Engines were tested, the ground-seeking radar was tested, the heat shield and backshell separation was tested, the parachute was tested, the software was tested, the physics used was checked and rechecked -- and all worked.

As many systems that could possibly be tested together WERE tested together, but you can't build the whole thing and test fly it on Earth because Earth's gravity is 3 times that of Mars -- the Phoenix AS A WHOLE could never fly on Earth, so why test it? Its landing system was designed to land on a planet with 1/3 Earth's gravity.

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
phoenix landing was a fake, just as everything nasa feeds the public, Excuse me but you might have forgotten this but I have NOT, Can you direct me to the NASA Raw video footage please ? im still looking for them for years


NASA = Scums of the earth = powered by a greedy little of usa



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by blimpseeker
Well....until someone coughs up a video of this phoenix thing doing a test run on good 'ol earth, i think i will be in Big Head's camp.
and you can't show that armadillo video, look at the size of those tanks!...how many tests and they still haven't won the lunar challenge????


Several tests. As for the size of the tanks, you do realize that the Lunar Challenge requires a LOT more engine burn time than the Phoenix Lander's descent profile? The lander's braking engines only need to fire for a few seconds...the Lunar Challenge vehicles have to do a vertical takeoff, a translation, and a powered descent, all in a gravity field that's 3x or so as strong as the one Phoenix was designed for...of course the tanks are larger. The point of showing that video was as a counter to the OP's repeated insistence that you can't land a rocket backward...obviously, you can, and under more demanding conditions of gravity, atmosphere, and thrust duration than Phoenix faced.



another thing that doesn't sit well with me with the Phoenix is the heat shield, the way that it just falls off, doesn't seem possible with the wind pressure pushing it up into the lander. it would have to be "shot" off as an ejection seat on a plane would be.


Not really. Check the landing sequence again...if you don't like or trust the animations that NASA, JPL, and UA had made to explain things, I believe Space.com had a time-line of events. The heat shield doesn't separate from the lander until after parachute deployment. Once the parachute is out and has a good canopy, all you have to do is release the locks holding it in place. Since the lander is being decelerated by aerodynamic drag from the parachute, as well as air resistance, it's going to fall more slowly than the heat shield...and the heat shield pulls away from the lander, no explosives required.



Big Head brings up another good point.
why not better quality pictures? why not video of the lander...uh...landing like the armadillo has from underneath?
I'm with Big Head...SHOW ME THE VIDEO!

[edit on 2-6-2008 by blimpseeker]


Perhaps because the Phoenix Lander kept all of its cameras in stowed, protected positions to avoid getting dirt or dust on a lens, or to avoid scratching a lens in the event that the deceleration engine burn kicked up dust. For the folks at the Lunar Challenge, that would be an inconvenience that could be fixed by replacing a scratched lens, cleaning a dirty one, or ignoring the problem completely since a little dust or a scratch wouldn't impact their mission. For Phoenix, the fix would be a little more complex.

If you want video of the landing, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter got images of the Phoenix Lander under its parachute during the non-powered portion of its descent.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Wow! Brother, you get the "Best Writer of the Day" award, from me!!!

I bow at your feet, as a master....I am but the student.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by daemonicsoul
Anyone have info on why the russians missions failed to land and how the design was different to pheonix??? BB is just desperate for the truth and needs to broaden his mind please help him do so in a positive way. Conspiracys exist for a reason, and that reason is you cant fool everyone all the time. We are fed truth constantly with one hand while the other hand stick lies up our butt.


Daemonicsoul --

You are right, of course about providing the truth for someone in a positive way. However, those of us that have dealt with B-B before have learned that when the truth is presented to him in the form of ovelwhelming evidence, he usually choses to ignore it. Maybe those of us who are familiar with B-B's tactics have given up on him.

i.e., when he first said "it's impossible to land a rocket going backwards" MANY, MANY months ago, he was quickly (and poilitely) presented with the video evidence showing the Apollo program's LLTV and LLRV "landing backwards". Although that evidence didn't matter to him, because he quickly dismissed the videos as hoaxes, even though these tests were viewed live by reporters and many other people. Even after presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he still argues in another thread (just about daily) that the "LEM could not land going backwards" -- and now he is applying that false idea to the Phoenix lander.


B-B --
Your whole argument is based on (once again) the falacy that a thrust-propulsion vehicle "can't land going backward". Please provide for me the physics that shows this is impossible. If you don't believe a thrust-powered vehicle can't be stable while landing on a planet, then you must also believe that a thrust-powered vehicle can't work in space -- because the physics are THE SAME. The laws of inertia don't change simply because you are near a body (although that bodies gravity needs to be taken into consideration -- but that doesn't really change the physics, it just adds another layer).

So you must not believe that ANY spacecraft that uses thrusted engines -- even while manuevering in space (which is all spacecraft that have ever flown) could possibly work. Correct me if I'm wrong, but havn't you said in another thread that you think ALL spacecraft are hoaxes because they should be inherently unstable.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Today the Council of Elders confirmed the rumours that the sinister blue planet third from our star is planning to send yet another one of its mechanical invaders.

K'breel, speaker for the Council, stressed that there was no cause for alarm:
Today the Council of Elders confirmed the rumours that the sinister blue planet third from our star is planning to send yet another one of its mechanical invaders.



When questioned whether the rumours that the blue planet was almost covered in poisonous, corrosive di-hydrogen oxide, as many independent scientists have asserted, had any validity, K'breel declined comment.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
What NASA doesn't want you to see..



au.youtube.com...

[edit on 2-6-2008 by mOOmOO]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


This post has two stars????

Please do not feed the troll.....please use your intellects to review what this person has posted!!

Check out another thread, title: An End to the Moon Conspiracy

You will see what kind of person the OP actually is....banned at least two dozen times, from ATS....now, starting their own thread....

It is despicable......



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
If you want video of the landing, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter got images of the Phoenix Lander under its parachute during the non-powered portion of its descent.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]

Now this picture would be an end to this debate as far as i am concerned.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


This post has two stars????



3 now


[edit on 2-6-2008 by mOOmOO]

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by 12m8keall2c]


Added another line, happy now?



[edit on 2-6-2008 by mOOmOO]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mOOmOO
 


Oh dear.....mOOmOO.....

please take a few minutes to truly investigate this person, who, based on your ONE LINE POST you just starred!!

Please do not feed the trolls....especially after midnight!!

Seriously....look into it....scroll up.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by blimpseeker
 


blimp? HOW in the heck could there be a picture of the Phoenix Lander???? Are you not getting it yet???

The camera was ON the Lander!!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Smokersroom
 


Smokersroom.......great!!

I actually laughed out loud, long and hard!!!!!

I keep retracting my insistence of adding 'sarcasm' to the T&Cs. I want the ability to be sarcastic left in!!!!!!!

edit for typing

[edit on 6/2/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by blimpseeker
 


blimp? HOW in the heck could there be a picture of the Phoenix Lander???? Are you not getting it yet???

The camera was ON the Lander!!!!


maybe we should ask Brother Stormhammer
Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

If you want video of the landing, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter got images of the Phoenix Lander under its parachute during the non-powered portion of its descent.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by blimpseeker

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
If you want video of the landing, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter got images of the Phoenix Lander under its parachute during the non-powered portion of its descent.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]

Now this picture would be an end to this debate as far as i am concerned.

Just playing "devil's advocate" here for a second (because it's fun):

[devil's advocate]How do you know that the image from the MRO (the one showing the parachuting Phoenix) is not also just a hoax??[/devil's advocate]

A video wouldn't matter to most conspiracy theorists. Even if we imagine for a moment that NASA did somehow manage to have a video camera at the landing site awaiting Phoenix's arrival, many on this board would say that the whole thing video was a hoax, just like the Moon landings.

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1-Cent
Really? The whole Phoenix mission isn't real?

I think theres another conspiracy afoot here!


I think it is in fact you who is not real!! I think you are all an elaborate hoax to test the common sense, maybe even mental competence, of ATS.

Who is behind this clever act of shenanigans you ask?! Hmm that is the question isn't it..

I challenge you to prove to us all, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are real!! Because I, kind sir, believe you to be a hoax.

Thank you and good day.


haha - i vote Big-brain is a hoax !

seriously, i wouldn't mind reading some of your ideas as to why you think this is a hoax. real ideas would be cool





new topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join