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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by aninsidejob.
You are government agents. Ngchunter, you are one of them, you say nonsense over and over, again and again.

I'm part of the conspiracy? Yippee! Where can I go to collect my check?


Could Armadillo Aerospace - founded by a developer of computer games, in which work some poor people without money and without technology

Computer programmers run sweat shops where slaves are forced to program without being paid and without using any computers? LOL!


- invent a rocket able to fly and land on its flames?
Not at all. It is impossible.

Videos and eyewitnesses prove that your understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed. "Landing on flames" is no more difficult than landing on a jet engine like a harrier or F-35. Thrust is generated by blowing hot gas out the engine nozzle, the flame beyond that isn't relevant to the thrust. Since the engine is rigidly attached to the rest of the craft, there's nothing inherently unstable about it and with thrust vectoring you can precisely control lateral velocity.


Have NASA's boasters lost their technology at the point that they have to ask a developer of computer games to re-invent it?

No one "had" to hold the contest, it was just a neat idea to see if it could be done cheaply and efficiently by private entrepreneurs. One thing government is never good for is in getting a job done cheaply and efficiently. That's why they hire contractors. That's why they seek out private innovation. Not because they couldn't do it themselves if they wanted to.


We are not idiot.

The irony is killing me.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by .aninsidejob
First of all my user name "aninsidejob." has been banned again.
Moderators of this forum are against the freedom of speech.

Wrong. They're against persistent rule breakers.


"You can precisely control lateral velocity" ???

That's how the space shuttle controls its lateral velocity during launch. Engine gimbaling. Care to prove the space shuttle a hoax?


When I have said that NASA's frauds have not technology to land a rocket vertical on its flames, you have posted fake Armadillo videos made by a developer of computer games.

You haven't done a darn thing to prove them fake and the fact that John Carmack is a game programmer is completely irrelevant. He specialized in the programming side of things, NOT in creating the actual art and 3d models of his games. Programming is a vital part of making an armadillo craft, 3D art is not. By the way, Carmack was born after the first moon landing, so he couldn't have been involved in an apollo conspiracy.


Show me videos of Lunar Module, Viking, Phoenix that land vertical on their flames.

None of these craft were designed to operate in earth's gravity. Nonetheless, here is video of a test craft used to train astronauts on how to land the lunar module, designed from the ground up to work in earth's gravity and atmosphere.

www.lunarlanding.info...


They don't exist because that greatest technology doesn't exist.

Pretending to substitute your own reasons in place of logical facts does not help your argument.


But you, government agent, say it is simple, it is easy to build a rocket, a probe that can land vertical on its flames.

Well since I know I'm not part of any conspiracy but you claim I am, I know I can distrust your claims, therefore I know that phoenix and the others really happened.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Terapine said:


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.
...
The physics is quite simple. Mars has an atmosphere that is about 0.7% of that on Earth. At entry speeds of 13,000 miles per hour, or Mach 17, you would have the same parachute drag as if you were going 130 Mph on Earth.


If on the Earth the air can slow down parachute velocity from 200 kmph to 10 kmph, also Bush can understand that on Mars the parachute can't stay open if velocity is lower than 1,135 kmph.

NASA's frauds have said that the parachute would have decreased Phoenix velocity to 10 kmph.

This is a biggest lie. You are in recession because of all the biggest lies your government told you from 1969, the year in which they faked the first moon landing.




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by disillusionist
Terapine said:


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.
...
The physics is quite simple. Mars has an atmosphere that is about 0.7% of that on Earth. At entry speeds of 13,000 miles per hour, or Mach 17, you would have the same parachute drag as if you were going 130 Mph on Earth.


If on the Earth the air can slow down parachute velocity from 200 kmph to 10 kmph, also Bush can understand that on Mars the parachute can't stay open if velocity is lower than 1,135 kmph.

What you consistently refuse to understand or acknowledge is that parachutes provide a drag force that slows the object until it reaches equilibrium with gravity. Worse yet, parachutes don't "fail to stay open" when they reach their terminal velocity. The terminal velocity they achieve is not found simply by dividing its terminal velocity on earth with mars' atmospheric pressure. Even in your elementary level oversimplified view of the world you should have accounted for Mars' lessened gravity to find the correct equilibrium velocity, but you are doggedly ignorant of this factor. Let's play it by your math but this time include gravity into the mix and see if the published terminal velocity is any more realistic. Say parachute X has a terminal velocity on earth of 10kmph as you said, mars' atmosphere is roughly 1% of earth's, so by your math we expect a terminal velocity of 1000kmph at 1% earth atmosphere and earth gravity. In martian gravity, which is 38% of earth's, we should expect a terminal velocity that is only 38% of 1000kmph, or 380kmph. NASA's published figure is 200kmph, which is close to what we just calculated using an extremely rough starting figure for the earth terminal velocity of our parachute. If you want a figure closer to NASA's figure (translation: more accurate, not a 1st grader approach), you must use the proper formula, which is:
Vt = sqrt( 2W/(Cd * p * A))
Again though, this is assuming you're on earth, not mars, so be sure to factor in martian gravity into the weight of the object.


NASA's frauds have said that the parachute would have decreased Phoenix velocity to 10 kmph.

That's wrong, they said they'd use the parachute until Phoenix reached a velocity of 200 kmph, not 10.



This is a biggest lie. You are in recession because of all the biggest lies your government told you from 1969, the year in which they faked the first moon landing.

We're in 2 straight quarters of negative growth because the government "faked the moon landing" (which they didn't fake)? LOL



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Say parachute X has a terminal velocity on earth of 10kmph as you said, mars' atmosphere is roughly 1% of earth's, so by your math we expect a terminal velocity of 1000kmph at 1% earth atmosphere and earth gravity. In martian gravity, which is 38% of earth's, we should expect a terminal velocity that is only 38% of 1000kmph, or 380kmph. NASA's published figure is 200kmph, which is close to what we just calculated using an extremely rough starting figure for the earth terminal velocity of our parachute...


No, Mars atmosphere is 0,7 %
Terminal velocity: 1,350 kmph
38% of 1,350 kmph = 513 kmph

513 kmph are not close to NASA's frauds 200 kmph

200 x 2.5 = 500

You are wrong and sgrungest.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aninsidejob2
 


WOW....how many times are you going to keep making new usernames after being banned before you get the picture?



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob2

No, Mars atmosphere is 0,7 %

"The pressure of Mars's atmosphere varies with the season, ranging from 6 to 10 millibars (1 millibar is approximately one one-thousandth of the air pressure at the surface of Earth)."
-Encarta

"The atmosphere pressure measured at the two Viking sites varied over a Martian year between 7 and 10 millibars (1 bar is Earth sea-level atmospheric pressure, or 14.7 psi; 10 millibar, or mbar, is 1 percent Earth sea-level atmospheric pressure), with a year-round average of about 8 mbar observed at the higher altitude Viking 1 landing site on Chryse Planitia."
-Zubrin, Robert & Richard Wagner. The Case for Mars. New York: Touchstone, 1996: 148.

Mars' atmosphere ranges from .6-1%. You took a worst case scenario, which is hardly fair, especially since you still refuse to use the correct formula.


513 kmph are not close to NASA's frauds 200 kmph

It's within the same order of magnitude, which is impressive considering it used the wrong formula, your math to be exact.


200 x 2.5 = 500

So I take it you also solved for Vt = sqrt( 2W/(Cd * p * A)), compensated for martian gravity, and found an answer? What was the answer then? You didn't even mention it so I'll take that to mean that you found it acceptably close to NASA's figure.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
So, Big Brain is banned again? He is a very smart, educated person. On this site there are thousands of topics that are insulting, bad, wrong...but the authors are never banned. Yet, insidejob, insidejob2 and BigBrain...banned.

Is he banned for good? You guys hate him so much? Is there any information about banned people...any reason, anything, or you just ban people as you like it? Am I asking too many questions for my own good? I know I am. I am not that brave, just have a big mouth. Get it? He has a Big Brain, I have a Big Mouth.


...nothing new on the Western Front. Same old same old. Everybody is doing what they have always been doing...I am just watching, just watching. No idea how to stop all that.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik
So, Big Brain is banned again? He is a very smart, educated person. On this site there are thousands of topics that are insulting, bad, wrong...but the authors are never banned. Yet, insidejob, insidejob2 and BigBrain...banned.

His ban has nothing to do with his level of intelligence, whatever your opinion of it.


Is he banned for good? You guys hate him so much? Is there any information about banned people...any reason, anything, or you just ban people as you like it?

He was banned for breaking the rules of this site persistently. He pretended to be someone else responding to himself, known as sock puppeting. He would make screennames to look like other people who debated him, including myself, called spoofing. Those are serious violations of the rules.

On a separate note, and more on-topic, I'm curious as to which part of bb's argument you think has merit?



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


ATS policy is this: We don't discuss bannings. That is between staff and the member involved.

We now return to our regularly scheduled topic.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join