It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
NASA are a fraud, they work for the illuminati, and you should all know it by now.

This is a conspiracy site that has more skeptics (and disinformationists) gathering more frequently.

Do not be afraid to state your views and opinions. Do not let these people distort your thinking. Once you pick 'em you can home into 'em and disect their method/s. And from that P.O.V it's a whole new game.

Again, NASA are spoon feeding you BS. Why should they lie to you? Why would they lie to you? Why CAN they lie to you? I think I know why, but then again, I'm not here to change anyone's belief/s.

Have a great day


Z




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
space.xprize.org...



The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate commercial technological developments supporting the birth of a new generation of Lunar Landers capable of ferrying payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. Such a vehicle would have direct application to NASA’s space exploration goals as well as the personal spaceflight industry.


space.xprize.org...

"Teams competing in the two level NG-LLC include:"


Acuity Technologies


www.acuitytx.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armadillo Aerospace


media.armadilloaerospace.com...

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

True Armadillo flight:

www.youtube.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BonNova


www.wirefly.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Masten Space Systems


www.youtube.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micro-Space


www.entrespace.org...



The Micro-Space suborbital vehicle is assembled from the modular propulsion units which are used in our other designs. It uses a cockpit core much like a bobsled into which three pressure suited men can squeeze. Various configurations of propulsion strap-ons are possible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragon labs


www.paragonspace.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpeedUp


images.townnews.com...

www.youtube.com...




SpeedUp's Laramie Rose continues to move toward hover testing. The thrust-vectoring vanes have been installed, and the vehicle is mounted on a set of 3-axis load cells. We measured thrust vs. throttle position in the first test, and the effectiveness of the thrust-vectoring vanes on the second test. Sharp eyes will see one of the vanes moving near the end of the test, and some peroxide dripping from a fitting that is easily replaced.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unreasonable rocket


www.rasdoc.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations.


NASA's frauds will be pleased to see all these extraordinary brains.




[edit on 4-6-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Yes congratulations on a really bad post. Why don't you make an actual point? Or try and actually understand it, rather than assuming that since it looks like a brick it must fly like one too.

Come on, what is your level of knowledge that makes you an expert enough to declare them all stupid? There is no air on the moon, you don't need something aerodynamic.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
This thread rightly belongs in Skunk Works. The OP has presented NO valid evidence to support the Title.

Actually....now that I think about it....maybe "Skunk Works" is actually too much of a compliment? I mean, the division of Lockheed Skunkworks did some very, very great work in the field of aerospace!!!

I didn't check....is there an ATS category "Space Alternative Ideas" yet?

(I was about to write 'theories', but I wouldn't even qualify this thread as a valid theory. It is an idea, or a belief. Could be a 'premise'....guess that's the same as idea...?)



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
...
Come on, what is your level of knowledge that makes you an expert enough to declare them all stupid? There is no air on the moon, you don't need something aerodynamic.


Yes but you need a biggest technology that does not exist yet today.

You need non-existent sensors, non-existent softwares able to move rocket engines in a suitable way, non-existent rocket engines able to act smoothly, non-existent mechanical devices able to move fast.

Have you ever seen full scale LEM at Langley Crane flying?

Yet it has done 150 test flights.




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Yes but you need a biggest technology that does not exist yet today.

You need non-existent sensors, non-existent softwares able to move rocket engines in a suitable way, non-existent rocket engines able to act smoothly, non-existent mechanical devices able to move fast.


Two words:

PROVE IT!

Come on, prove that it's impossible to land vertically with rockets. The Harrier does it with jets, the JSF does it with jets, hell, even the Nazis wanted to make a rocket that would land on it's tail, yet you think we cant do it with modern day controllers. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean no one does.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

posted by branestorm

What is he going to say next? That vagina's do not exist because he has never seen or experienced one before?

for you B-B



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Big-Brain.....let's talk about technology for a few moments, shall we?

For decades, now, airplanes have had auto-pilots. In recent years, oh like the last forty or so, the tech has been getting better and better....but let's go back. The ILS was developed in the 1960s (maybe earlier, but coming into greater use as jet airliners were being developed)....a localizer and glideslope, flown by the pilot, based on the instrumentation.

(see, jets fly at higher speeds....and the inclusion of a precision GlideSlope reference meant approaches to lower altitudes in inclement weather)

The great Bill Lear....(yes, that one, who invented the 'LearJet') helped to innovate new auto-flight techonogies, for airplanes. He probably also consulted with Military and NASA....hey, make money where you can!!

Today, we can routinely land an airliner, completely using the autopilots....the humans monitor, of course, because their butts are on the line, and they can reject at any time.

An 'AutoLanding' in a jetliner is referred to as a Category III Procedure.

CATIIIa or CATIIIb....these are both AutoLand procedures, but vary depending on airplane equipment. The pilot may initiate a Go/Around at any time, and there are mandatory requirements that, if not met, require it. CATIII runways are specially lit (lights built into the concrete)....and there are RVR minima (RVR means Runway Visual Range).

CATII is simple....AutoPilot to a 'DecisionHeight' (DH)....the pilot either sees suffiecient visual cues to complete the landing, or he 'Goes Around' (the G/A)....a Missed Approach. Then, the MAP is flown, and either another Approach is conducted, or the airplane diverts to the Alternate.

CATII DH is usually 100 feet....if visual cues are good, the pilot may continue, but must disconnect the A/P no later than 50 feet. Then he lands visually. If, at any time before the thrust reversers are deployed, he may reject the landing (if visibility gets too low) and miss the approach, same as stated earlier.

CATI, a normal ILS approach, uses a DH of 200 feet....a barometric setting, not a radar altimeter setting. Same things apply, you may not proceed below the DH unless sufficient visual referneces exist.....etc.

Now....I wrote all of this to try to explain to not only the OP, but to the audience, that there is a whole heck of a lot of training, experience, and knowledge sets that go into just flying a commercial jet. Imagine the engineering that goes into designing something that you have no human on, you cannot intervene remotely due to the time-lag.....you have to program it to perform perfectly.....which is what a jet that Auto-Lands all by itself does!!!!

One more time for emphasis....a modern commercial jet can Auto-Land, stay centered on the Runway, and come to a stop....all automatically.

Human pilots are there, in case of a system failure, to keep your butts safe. The Phoenix had no one on board....if it crashed, no one was hurt....except egos. BUT! It worked quite well!!!!



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
Now....I wrote all of this to try to explain to not only the OP, but to the audience, that there is a whole heck of a lot of training, experience, and knowledge sets that go into just flying a commercial jet. Imagine the engineering that goes into designing something that you have no human on, you cannot intervene remotely due to the time-lag.....you have to program it to perform perfectly.....which is what a jet that Auto-Lands all by itself does!!!!



A rocket that must land going backwards has nothing to share with an airplane. They are two totally different things.

In order to make you understand the difference in simple way I can do this reasoning: also a paper plane flies but if you make a ball with your plane, it falls as a brick.

You said: "Imagine the engineering that goes into designing something that you have no human on, you cannot intervene remotely due to the time-lag.....you have to program it to perform perfectly.

You are right and it is for this reason that NASA's frauds can't build a rocket that is able to land going backwards. Not yet the Russians.

Why should have Grumman announced Lunar Lander Challenge if they had been able to land 6 Lunar Modules on the moon and 12 astronauts?

Try to answer something intelligent, please.






posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It's the stupidest thread ever ..... the op is triing to show us that "Santa" excist .... i'm deleting it from my favourites and hope that i won't see it anymore ...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by baburak
 


Try to refute my reasoning. All are able to say: "I don't like it".






posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


B-B......you have shown your ignorance of basic physics (YES, that is the correct spelling...not 'phisics' as you often spell it) so often, you are just now a joke.

Please try to fill your alleged 'big' brain with knowledge....then, you may come back and explain what you have learned, in order to 'educate' us, we horrible idiots you apparently think us to be.

B-B....we are a heck of a lot smarter than you....that's how it works. People with world experience, and knowledge, teach others....not the the way 'round!

Finally....did I broach any T&Cs??? Hope not....

I said that most of us, his "dear readers", are way too smart to fall for his nonsense. It is becoming a fun endeavor, actually, to refute the OP's nonsense!!!

Nonsense! Pure, and simple. Please feel free to comment, if you have the time.

WW



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Try to refute my reasoning. All are able to say: "I don't like it".


You are using reasoning????

Explain how it is impossible to land a rocket vertically. Come on, tell us. And why they are doing it is likely to prove it's doable without government subsidies and a Space Race.

And while landing using ILS might be different to landing a probe, calling them completely different doesn't prove your point.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   




DX-XA Flight 2
Credit - NASA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VTOVL test vehicle. Year: 1993. Family: VTOVL. Country: USA. Status: Out of production. Other Designations: Delta Clipper-Experimental. Department of Defence Designation: SX-1. Manufacturer's Designation: Delta Clipper Experimental. Alternate Designation: Clipper Graham.


www.astronautix.com...



The Flying Bedstead was a nickname given to two different experimental vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft, both receiving the nickname because each comprised a skeletal platform raised on four legs that resembled a bed.

These aircraft were the Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig (TMR), and the later LLRV (Lunar Landing Research Vehicle) developed as part of the Apollo program. Both aircraft relied on jet lift (engine thrust directed downwards) rather than aerofoil surfaces, such as wings or rotors, as a means of providing lift.


Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig 1953
The first Flying Bedstead was the British Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig which flew in 1953 at Hucknall aerodrome, Nottinghamshire, England, which was developed to research the use of direct-lift through the use of engine power alone, along with the associated methods of controlling the aircraft, with a view to use in further VTOL aircraft such as the later Hawker P.1127 and Short SC.1.

A pub close to the aerodrome in Hucknall is named The Flying Bedstead and its pub sign is a painting of the Thrust Measuring Rig.




Lunar Landing Research Vehicle 1960s
The second aircraft known as the Flying Bedstead was the LLRV (Lunar Landing Research Vehicle) developed by the United States in the 1960s as part of the Apollo program and intended for studying piloting techniques for use by the astronauts destined for the moon landings in the Apollo Lunar Module.



en.wikipedia.org...

Just goes to show doesn't it they really could build vtol aircraft even in 1953



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


sherpa....B-B will never be convincd.

Good try, though!!

B-B has a very small brain....oops, I'm in trouble!!



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Hey, Sherpa, look at this:

vidslib.com...


My dear readers, look at this:

www.nasa.gov...

Over and over only 3D animations.



This animation shows how NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander can measure wind speed and direction by imaging the Telltale with the Stereo Surface Imager (SSI).


What is this SSI? I think the more suitable translation is “Stupid Senseless Instrument”.

I love NASA's frauds acronyms. They can do everything with acronyms.

To measure wind speed is enough this:

www.modernoutpost.com...

NASA's frauds are too much amusing.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
B-B has a very small brain....oops, I'm in trouble!!


Hey, I'll take one for the team weedwhacker....

Big-Brain is a goof. Has no reasoning skills. Has no communication skills. In fact, he/her fits the definition of a troll to a tee.

And I really don't understand why the brighter people here continue this futility.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Hey Big-Brain look at this......



Why the heck would anyone fly in an airplane..things never go wrong.....right.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 



And I really don't understand why the brighter people here continue this futility.


Well I probably am not included in that group but I do have a good excuse.

I am a little bored and I am amusing myself



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


Airplanes make thousand of flights every day.

Delta Clipper made 2 flights.





[edit on 5-6-2008 by Big-Brain]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join