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.

 

RC Hoagland - Von Braun’s 50-Year-Old Secret

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I only visit RCH's site now and again, found a new topic I haven't heard about before.

www.enterprisemission.com...

I do not yet have sufficient orbital mechanics PhD's to make my mind up on this ;-)

anyone who does have any comments on it?




posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Our version of science rarely benefits from the discoveries made, we get the crippled version. There is so much that needs to be disclosed.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Awesome. But why did we have to wait so long to see it? I just don;t get it sometimes...



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
why conceal it? well if only nasa and a select few foreign allied agencies new the secret, that leaves them sole controllers of who can go up, as well as giving them a fifty year head start on examining consequences and causes of the altered equations. Btw the equations used to verify the safety of CERN I suspect are the old ones



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
btw, it also occurs to me that part of the puzzle could be gleaned by examining the pre 62 launch data, the current positions of our older long range probes ((the ones launched while the finer points of these equations were being hammered out, as well as the behavior of asteroids when they get eclipsed



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I'm a "nobody" in terms of rocket science and physics, but I can't help but wonder if time is the missing factor here as to why the rockets kept getting more thrust than anticipated. Could it be that the faster you're going, the more "into the past" you go relative to objects in front of you? I could see how that might throw off calculations a bit.

I'm probably just rambling about stuff I don't understand, but I wonder if *anyone* really understands. Conventional physics is by no means fit for explaining the workings of the universe.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The problem with simply a tack onto 't' in the equations is that this would not explain the eclipse effect on the effect of rotation



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
This so called revelation is just another in a long line of misinformation. Do any of you really believe that the multitude of scientists involved with the project were not smart enough to realize why the rocket went higher ? What was wrong were the parameters used in the calculations. There was and is no need to re-invent physics. I have yet to see calculations that address all of the parameters that govern the flight of a rocket. All I have seen are childish high school level physics formulae that supposedly address the issue. It is far more complicated than certain individuals would lead you to believe. However, ignorance is just what the charlatans are hoping for. When all of the operational parameters are correctly accounted for, the rocket made a normal flight.
No need for new physics here. Newton is pretty safe at the speeds these rockets travel. Einstein is safe for sure. What is not safe, however, are the easily manipulated minds that attend the carnival side shows that represent themselves as truth.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The torsion wave physics of Nikolai Kozyrev perpetuated in recent years by individuals such as Bruce DePalma would explain the erroneous results attributed to the Explorer I orbit.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


actually, Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate, and didn't even Einstein say he could be wrong? lol

if you'd watch "Thunderbolts of the Gods", then you'd understand it much better!



Google Video Link



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join