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.

 

Phoenix is an inside job

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob
Viking has never been to Mars and mankind has never been to the moon because NASA's boasters have not technology to go there and to land rockets on their flames going backwards.
And the Russians?

Do they have the technology or not?




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
And the Russians?
Do they have the technology or not?


news.bbc.co.uk...



The methods used to achieve the landing are also the subject of some speculation.

It is believed to have used an intricate coordination of retro-rockets to slow down the 3,000lb (1,360 kg) spacecraft from 6,000 mph (9,600 km/h) to six mph (9.65 km/h).


On 1966 Luna 9 would have been able to slow down its velocity from 9,600 kmph to 9.65 kmph using an intricate coordination of retro-rockets.

What a greatest buffoonery. Russians and Americans have fooled all the world with their fake space race.

Liars against liars.
Liars can't unmask other liars.




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
So..... Um... coordination of rockets is impossible somehow???? You mean that computers with speeds of thousands of calculations per second cant work? There are electric cars that do that here on earth by balancing drive motors in thousands of a second intervals. ABS breaks on your car work in a similar fashion. Surely with a specially built computer module, one could coordinate retro-rockets.

If you insist that this is impossible, then please explain. You can't simply fall bask on "Because I say so" without some evidence. Engineers around the globe would tend to disagree with you, so please explain. Your grasp of basic physics has been proven to be erroneous, but perhaps you are a genius at engineering and computer design.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Surely with a specially built computer module, one could coordinate retro-rockets.

On 1966 computers were ludicrous.



Your grasp of basic physics has been proven to be erroneous, but perhaps you are a genius at engineering and computer design.


Your grasp of basic physics has been proven to be erroneous.
My calculation is right.
Phoenix would crash against the hard Martian soil at the speed of 1,350
kmph.



About retro-rockets, go to:
space.xprize.org...

NG-LLC (I love these NASA's boasters' acronyms) or rather
Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is a real tomfoolery.

en.wikipedia.org...


Grumman were also the chief contractor on the Apollo Lunar Module that landed men on the moon. They received the contract on 7 November 1962, and ultimately built 13 lunar modules (LMs). As the Apollo program neared its end, Grumman was one of the chief competitors for the contract to design and build the Space Shuttle, but lost to Rockwell International.
Meanwhile, in 1969, the company changed its name to Grumman Aerospace Corporation, and in 1978 it sold the Grumman-American Division to Gulfstream Aerospace. Grumman built the Grumman Long Life Vehicle (LLV), a light transport mail truck designed for and used by the United States Postal Service. The LLV entered service in 1986”.


How is that the extraordinary GGG (Greatest Grumman Group) that built from 1962 to 1971 13 LMs (I love NASA's frauds' acronyms) or rather Lunar Modules and that landed on the Moon 6 LMs and 12 astronauts ask on 2008 to poor people (an ex developer of computer games, an ex fierworks specialist and so on) to invent a new Lunar Lander?

This is an incredible thing.

Why did GGG (Greatest Grumman Group) stop its researches about probes and Lunar Modules and began to produce these LLVs (yes, you have understood well: LLVs, neither LLRVs or LLTVs) ?

www.arago.si.edu...

From space to postal service?


Has GGG (Greatest Grumman Group) lost its extraordinary technology able to lift and land a rocket holding it in vertical position like a helicopter?

How could have they lost that incredible technology?

If they had been really so extraordinary in 1960-1970, today their retro-rockets technology would be astonishing after more than 40 years.

Yet for you, gullible people, these events are normal.






[edit on 23-9-2008 by Aninsidejob]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob

Originally posted by Terapin
Surely with a specially built computer module, one could coordinate retro-rockets.

On 1966 computers were ludicrous.

First manned landing was 1969. The apollo guidance computer really works too. See, people have actually rebuilt the thing from scratch based on the schematics and code. And not surprisingly, it works as advertised:
sourceforge.net...
Here's instructions on how to build the physical computer yourself if you want to try proving me wrong:
klabs.org...

Your grasp of basic physics has been proven to be erroneous.
My calculation is right.
Phoenix would crash against the hard Martian soil at the speed of 1,350
kmph.

Again, I refer to computer simulations that show you to be wrong. You cannot simply multiply the total amount of deceleration a parachute gives you in earth's atmosphere by the ratio of martian atmospheric pressure to get the total amount of deceleration achieved on mars. Deceleration is a result of drag, which is a constant force in an atmosphere, not an absolute value to be divided. The rate of deceleration will change with atmospheric pressure, but the final velocity is dependent on the time length of deceleration and gravity. Computer simulations show that phoenix would adequately decelerate for rocket braking:
www.orbithangar.com...

[edit on 23-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Here's instructions on how to build the physical computer yourself if you want to try proving me wrong:
klabs.org...


Hey, the [SNIP] that has invented this rubbish has written:



This report describes my successful project to build a working reproduction of the 1964 prototype for the Block I Apollo Guidance Computer. The AGC is the flight computer for the Apollo moon landings, with one unit in the command module and one in the LEM.

I built it in my basement. It took me 4 years.


Don't say rubbish, [SNIP]. Have NASA's boasters helped you to write hundreds of pages full of crap?

Not even with today's computers NASA's boasters would be able to build a rocket that can fly and land vertical on its flames like a helicopter.

The true today's retro-rockets technology is this:
(true only as regards to the crash because the vertical attitude and the flames are fake)

www.youtube.com...




[edit on 23-9-2008 by Aninsidejob]

 


removed two instances of personal attacks

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

[edit on 23/9/08 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob
Don't say rubbish, [SNIP]. Have NASA's boasters helped you to write hundreds of pages full of crap?

The AGC design works as advertised, I have yet to see a shred of evidence to the contrary. Care to prove said evidence?


Not even with today's computers NASA's boasters would be able to build a rocket that can fly and land vertical on its flames like a helicopter.

You make this too easy. Not even with today's computers? Really? These landings, which have been independently witnessed and verified, indicate otherwise:
Note that in this one you can see the shadow of pixel from the overhead view. Where is the shadow of the crane that is being used to "fake it"?????
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
A different vehicle, just as functional. Bit of a rough landing the second time, but wait, isn't that what we should expect with a cheap prototype if what they were doing was real??? It sure wouldn't act like that if it were attached to a crane of some type, where the oscillations would decrease with each swing, not increase.
media.armadilloaerospace.com...

[edit on 23-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob
Since on Mars the atmosphere is 135 times less dense than the Earth's one, this video

youtube.com...

is a biggest fraud.
Phoenix would cause no friction, no flame, no braking.
Its parachute would not open.
Phoenix would crash against hard Martian soil at 20,000 kmph


Your post is pretty much worthless if you don't back up your claim with facts.

Also, your post is confusing. I had to read it a few times just to figure your view.
[edit on 14-9-2008 by Aninsidejob]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Aninsidejob
Don't say rubbish, [SNIP]. Have NASA's boasters helped you to write hundreds of pages full of crap?

The AGC design works as advertised, I have yet to see a shred of evidence to the contrary. Care to prove said evidence?


Not even with today's computers NASA's boasters would be able to build a rocket that can fly and land vertical on its flames like a helicopter.

You make this too easy. Not even with today's computers? Really? These landings, which have been independently witnessed and verified, indicate otherwise:
Note that in this one you can see the shadow of pixel from the overhead view. Where is the shadow of the crane that is being used to "fake it"?????
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
A different vehicle, just as functional. Bit of a rough landing the second time, but wait, isn't that what we should expect with a cheap prototype if what they were doing was real??? It sure wouldn't act like that if it were attached to a crane of some type, where the oscillations would decrease with each swing, not increase.
media.armadilloaerospace.com...

[edit on 23-9-2008 by ngchunter]


Dude, those videos are awesome. Nice find.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I agree with Aninsidejob.

This video is fake:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...

The strange rocket doesn't use reaction control thrusters. It uses only a gimbaled main engine.
Reaction control thrusters are indispensable to balance a rocket that has to fly and land in vertical attitude.

How can that developer of video games keep vertical that ludicrous rocket without lateral thrusters?
John Carmack can do it by means of CGA (computer generated animations).



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by aloipsus
I agree with Aninsidejob.

I'm not entirely convinced that you're not just another aninsidejob sock puppet. In fact, you just registered today. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt for now though.


This video is fake:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...

And the others? In fact, what evidence do you have that it was faked? Looks completely real to me and since people actually witnessed it live, it couldn't have been faked.


The strange rocket doesn't use reaction control thrusters. It uses only a gimbaled main engine.
Reaction control thrusters are indispensable to balance a rocket that has to fly and land in vertical attitude.
How can that developer of video games keep vertical that ludicrous rocket without lateral thrusters?

Nope, all you need is a gimbaled engine. Engine gimbaling is exactly what you need to control lateral motion. It's no different from using gimbaling to control lateral motion on launch, which is exactly how the space shuttle controls itself during launch.


John Carmack can do it by means of CGA (computer generated animations).

John Carmack is not a CG artist by any stretch of the imagination. More importantly, CG could not be used to fake a live event in front of spectators.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by aloipsus
 


Hello sock puppet. BugBrain, if you're going to create new accounts just to make posts that agree with yourself, please at least try to use a new style of writing. Your nonsense is very distinctive and easily spotted.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
As regards to Phoenix parachute, we can see it is small:



Moreover the parachute has a strange design:



www.nasa.gov...


The parachute used for the Phoenix mission is similar to ones used by NASA's Viking landers in 1976. It is a "disk-gap-band" type of parachute, referring to two fabric components -- a central disk and a cylindrical band -- separated by a gap.


What's the use of a “disk-gap-band" type of parachute on Mars where the atmosphere is 0.7% of the Earth's one?
With that “disk-gap-band” the parachute loses an important amount of its capacity to slow down its velocity.
I agree with Aninsidejob that Phoenix parachute could not open. Therefore that “live and fiction” video is a tremendous fraud. You never sent Phoenix to Mars, it is an inside job, a job inside NASA's science fiction administration.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by aloipsus
I agree with Aninsidejob that Phoenix parachute could not open.

It's clear to everyone here that you ARE Aninsidejob, so now who is lying? Test footage from the 60's shows that parachutes open just fine at martian atmospheric pressure levels. You, in either of your new aliases, have yet to present any evidence that they wouldn't work at those levels. Furthermore, you have yet to present any evidence that my evidence is fabricated:

Note the blackness of the sky, this disc-gap-band parachute was filmed at the edge of space, yet it still worked and decelerated the craft dramatically:
lisar.larc.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Perhaps you have been banned for spouting nonsense with no evidence to back your statements up. You simply rely on it cant happen because I say so," and offer nothing of any solid scientific data.

Perhaps.

There is a good deal of evidence that backs up the fact that the Phoenix did indeed land on Mars. This evidence included data from the European Space missions so it could not be a "job" that is inside NASA. Parachutes do indeed work at low pressures and this has been proven through scientific experimentation that is well documented.

You simply make the claim that it could not work but have yet to offer any credible evidence. Just because YOU make a statement does not make it fact. The fact that you have been banned more than once indicates that your credibility is lacking. This thread had little merit as the topic is false. I move the thread be closed as it is simply a wasted effort.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Perhaps you have been banned for spouting nonsense with no evidence to back your statements up.


No evidence?
What rubbish are you saying?

I have done also some calculations to prove my statement.

Read again this thread instead of saying nonsense.
If you ban me again, you are poor people that don't allow opposite ideas.




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter.
My first username “Aninsidejob” has been banned and then the second one “aloipsus” has been banned too. Why have they banned me? Are you or aren't you the land of the free?

From the T&Cs:
2a.) Identity Spoofing: You will not impersonate any person or entity

Thanks for spoofing me, you should be banned again.

2c.) Multiple Accounts: You will not create multiple user accounts and "talk to yourself".

Thanks for finally admitting the sock puppetry, that's a bannable offense too.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
You will not create multiple user accounts and "talk to yourself".


I didn't want to talk to myself.
I have been forced to log in with another username because "Aninsidejob" has been banned.



You have not technology to go to Mars, to the moon or elsewhere and this truth hurts you, offends your feelings.



[edit on 26-9-2008 by ngchunter.]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter.

I didn't want to talk to myself.
I have been forced to log in with another username because "Aninsidejob" has been banned.

no one forced you to play sock puppet with your aloipsus account and lie about being someone else nor did they force you to spoof my account.


You have not technology to go to Mars, to the moon or elsewhere and this truth hurts you, offends your feelings.

You consistently ignore all evidence of manned and unmanned space exploration and seem to be jealous of "our technology." I'm not offended, in fact I find it quite amusing to debunk all of your completely unsupported claims with sound evidence. What does offend me is when you immitate my screen name in direct violation of the terms and conditions of this board.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join