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.

 

NASA's Most Dangerous Mission Ever, set for tomorrow 5/11/09- being stranded in space possible

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
With some here not even believing the Hubble is real (or at least used for space exploration), it's understandable that a thread about a repair mission doesn't take a "normal" course of discussion. On that note, does anyone have any information as to which way NASA is leaning on doing a more thorough inspection of the foam damage?
www.latimes.com...
It's probably not serious, but the photos they have right now seem lower in quality to me than what they usually get during a pitch maneuver at the space station.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by ngchunter]




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I'm just guessing here, but from the LA Times article it seems that as long as the carbon-fibre portions are undamaged the tiles can still function properly even with a few dings. Plus, they know which areas are most critical and sensitive to heat.

I heard that they have a new HD camera system to film during launch, haven't seen those yet. AND I am also guessing they'll use the arm, maybe when done with Hubble, to inspect again prior to re-entry?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


This is kind of silly here..ngchunter


An a priori assumption, one without any proof. All one needs to do is look at the archives of raw hubble data. You can't fake the discovery of things that are later confirmed by advances in telescopes on the ground. There are other spy sats just as big as hubble out there, there'd be no reason to hide just another hubble sized sat as a fake space telescope and then have to make falsifiable hoax discoveries.


If we have data which can be confirmed by other telescopes on the ground...for what do we need the Hubble??

Indeed...I agree we do have other spy ie...intelligence satellites out there. Hubble is not the only one.

Also, I never said hubble was a fake satellite or fake space telescope.. I dont know from whence you arrived at that conclusion??

I most certainly do believe it is a space telescope..with a very wide depth of field, multiple cameras, multiple light spectrum capabilties. Day night..obiously capable of photographing in low light conditions.

I also believe this is a real maintenance mission...the real thing. I am certain that in the almost 20 years that Hubble has been up there...modifications and upgrades are and have been done. I am certain that somewhere here on earth is a full scale submersible mock up of the hubble on which trainees can practice. I just do not believe that the primary mission of the Hubble is deep space exploration.

Can Hubble take photos into deep space...most certainly. It is situated in the correct orbit height to do both. Particularly to look down here.

Now..as to this...


The only reason a second shuttle would be launched is to rescue a stranded crew. That's no different than ANY other shuttle mission.


Somehow I dont think the primary mission of the second satellite is to rescue the stranded first crew. However, to my limited knowledge ...most of the shuttle missions did not have a back up shuttle ready to rescue them. I may be wrong here...but I have not heard of this until now.
A single shuttle mission is hugely expensive...two even more so.
Years ago..someone gave me a print out of how much frequency spectrum is used up in radio traffic to get just one shuttle off the ground and back again. I was shocked!! I had over 25 pages of frequencys. And that was one shuttle and many years ago.

Does anyone else know of other shuttle missions where a second shuttle was standing by to rescue the crew of the first, should something go wrong??

It is obvious to me that this is not just any and or any other shuttle mission.

I believe that trained astronauts know the risks involved in what they are doing and know full well that it can be a one way trip. I believe they sign papers to this effect.


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by ngchunter
If we have data which can be confirmed by other telescopes on the ground...for what do we need the Hubble??

It's taken a decade of advances in adaptive optics to even begin to catch up to hubble's capability. We can confirm some of the discoveries; very recently, some amateurs figured out how to approach theoretical limits of their scopes resolution with lucky deep space imaging techniques and used it to confirm some things hubble saw first - confirming hubble is a space telescope, not a spy sat. Look familiar?
www.verschatse.cl...
We still can't match hubble's resolution, however, except with the very best one or two telescopes in the world (and even then, generally through interferometry, which is a whole different ball of wax), and even then only on certain targets and with certain special cameras. Hubble can cover both celestial hemispheres with all cameras at full resolution. Hubble is one of the best tools in visible light astronomy, not the only one.


Also, I never said hubble was a fake satellite or fake space telescope.. I dont know from whence you arrived at that conclusion??

I wasn't accusing you specifically of that, though you do seem to think that it's a fake space telescope (as i define it; a scope in space to look at space, not the same as a spy sat). Others on other threads are implying hubble isn't real in general though. Thoughts not too dissimilar from yours are pervasive, that's all I'm saying.


However, to my limited knowledge ...most of the shuttle missions did not have a back up shuttle ready to rescue them. I may be wrong here...but I have not heard of this until now.

STS-3XX rescue missions have been ready ever since the first post-columbia flight, and one shuttle is ALWAYS on call, designated to fly a contingency flight. The only difference this time is that there is no space station to buy time with, so the rescue mission must be at a greater readiness level, already on the pad.
en.wikipedia.org...
Because of changes to the rescue plan to accomidate the lack of a space station, it's an STS-4XX instead of -3XX mission, STS-400 to be exact.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Just watched the astronauts successfully complete EVA1!
Around 6 and a half hours mission time!
Everything seemed to go fairly smoothly!



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
originally posted byjfj123
Don't worry, it' doesn't exist.

It's just superstition and scare mongering.

Nibiru is a hoax.

It's all good


reply googolplex
I would say that your statement is inconclusive and unsubstantiated, would you care to elaborate futher on this matter.



[edit on 14-5-2009 by googolplex]

I'd be more then happy to however since this isn't a nibiru thread, I'd be very off topic. If you'd like me to go in to GREAT detail, start a nibiru thread and tell me where it is and I'll high tail it over there



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SvenTheBerserK
 


You're absolutely right !
We did get a bit derailed. That's why I've suggested that those interested in talking about the nibiru subject, start another thread.

Do you have any info relevant to this thread that will help us continue back on track.

Thanks for bringing this up by the way



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Here's a bit more info about the hubble mission and why it's so risky


The Hubble Space Telescope repair mission, STS-125 seemingly gets bad news after more bad news. The mission was already delayed due Hurricane Ike in 2008, and again when a data handling processor on the spacecraft failed. Now, the mission may be too risky for both spacecraft and astronauts following the collision of the Iridium satellite and a defunct Russian communications spacecraft last week. There may be too much debris floating around close to Hubble’s orbit, breaching the safety limits NASA has in place. Without a servicing mission by a space shuttle crew, currently targeted for launch in May, the telescope is not expected to last more than another year or two.

www.universetoday.com...


www.universetoday.com...



NASA has been preparing Endeavour for an unprecedented rescue mission to retrieve the seven-astronaut crew of Atlantis in the event that shuttle suffers critical damage and is unable to return to Earth. As designed, the mission would launch Endeavour and a skeleton crew of four astronauts on relatively short notice to rendezvous with Hubble, where Atlantis astronauts would perform a series of spacewalks to leave their stricken ship.

NASA has said the chances of needing the rescue mission is extremely remote, but Atlantis's mission to Hubble is considered more risky than other recent shuttle flights to the International Space Station.

The space agency opted to have a rescue shuttle on standby because - unlike space station-bound shuttle astronauts, which can return to the orbiting laboratory if their spacecraft is damaged - the crew of Atlantis will have no safe haven. The Hubble Space Telescope flies in a higher orbit and in a different inclination than the space station, so Atlantis would be unable to reach the safety of the orbiting lab if it suffered critical damage, NASA officials have said. There is also an increased risk of damage from space debris, they have added.

www.space.com...



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 
Ok 2u2 bud.
Not trying to derail thread, just what is big deal all of sudden?
Is because of things that have just been discovered on earth base oberservation.
I know they just spotted something way out there, that they are having hard time with using earth base oberservation.
So could be this is what is so important.
And there is anther thread dealing with shuttle, hubble mission.

And my point being no one knows, why yet.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by jfj123
 
Ok 2u2 bud.
Not trying to derail thread, just what is big deal all of sudden?
Is because of things that have just been discovered on earth base oberservation.
I know they just spotted something way out there, that they are having hard time with using earth base oberservation.
So could be this is what is so important.
And there is anther thread dealing with shuttle, hubble mission.

And my point being no one knows, why yet.


Sure feel free to u2u me anytime.
I think I posted some relevant info as to what the hubble mission is about and why the risk.

As to what the big deal is all of a sudden. Are you referring to the hubble mission ?

As an aside, the biggest hint that nothing is there is that there is no gravitational effect/wobble. But there are many other reasons aside from just that.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by jfj123]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
You ever wonder why they can't just point it at the moon and get some real good photos of it?

Go out on a clear night and look at the Moon through a good pair of binoculars, it's impressive. The light is intense, it blinds you when you look away.

I have a good telescope and when viewing the moon a filtered or shaded lens is a must. Even with the higher powered lenses, higher power lens equate to dimmer images i.e. less light, I need a filter because without it the light dries out my eye and causes pain. For the Hubble the reason has been the intense light will cause damage, regardless of the truth in this reason I would very much like to DL some high res Hubble Moon images.

It is my opinion that where we (humanity) stand economically, politically, socially and psychologically it would not be feasible to build a replacement telescope for the Hubble. The only options might be to repair what we have at a fraction of the replacement cost or let it burn, I'm in favor of repair.

Add: As I type this I am also doing a little research and I found some interesting information about Hubble's Moon images. Not only can it be done but it has already been done.
Hubble shoots the Moon.

The image of the Moon Rover at Apollo 17's landing site is not a Hubble image nor does the caption claim it to be, notice the astronaut next to it.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Move over Hubble Telescope, the European Space Agency has launched the largest telescope ever sent to space on a mission to study how the Big Bang created the universe. This comes right on the heels of another related and exciting scientific breakthrough: for the first time ever, scientists have successfully showed us how the earliest building blocks for life on the planet probably formed from scratch. Are we on the brink of a more complete understanding of our planet’s evolution?

ecoworldly.com...



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Move over Hubble Telescope, the European Space Agency has launched the largest telescope ever sent to space on a mission to study how the Big Bang created the universe. This comes right on the heels of another related and exciting scientific breakthrough: for the first time ever, scientists have successfully showed us how the earliest building blocks for life on the planet probably formed from scratch. Are we on the brink of a more complete understanding of our planet’s evolution?

ecoworldly.com...



Hmmmm.....

So science being the thorough religion it is...intends to build for themselves a full scale planet to demonstrate their proof and ability to know exactly how the earth was made...et al..etc etc etc. Otherwise they are stuck with only a theory...Correct???

Then like true scientists..they will go on to build another universe...in duplication..just like they did another earth. They need to spend huge amounts of moneys to show and demonstrate that they have it correct....Yes??

For it is of immense importance to science to know how to use this informations...by building themselves another earth and another universe??

I make these statements in contrast to learning to wisely manage what is already here.

As to the European telescope...LOL LOL LOL..OK..if you say so. Sooner or later the truth about these telescopes is going to come out. The Europeans will not be getting there into deep space with any kind of Linear propulsion system and neither will we...to know or demonstrate these theories correct.

Do any of you know what happens to astronauts who are shot up through the radiation protective ozone layer of the earth?? Do they get radiated? What are the radiation levels in different areas of outer space?? How about around different planets in the solar system?? Is deep space travel even possible using Linear propulsion systems in transiting these areas of radiation??

Does NASA even spend much time talking about this or do they just avoid the topic while feeding you their version of Star Trek, Star Wars..et al.

Something for some of you about which to think and or factor in.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Do any of you know what happens to astronauts who are shot up through the radiation protective ozone layer of the earth?? Do they get radiated? What are the radiation levels in different areas of outer space?? How about around different planets in the solar system?? Is deep space travel even possible using Linear propulsion systems in transiting these areas of radiation??

Does NASA even spend much time talking about this or do they just avoid the topic while feeding you their version of Star Trek, Star Wars..et al.

Something for some of you about which to think and or factor in.

Thanks,
Orangetom


I think this should answer some of those question.



NASA researchers are working hard to find their away around space radiation, a hazard future astronauts can't avoid if they hope to fly on long missions to Mars and eventually set foot on its surface. Much of their focus is on new and better shielding materials to slap on the outer surface of a spacecraft, since the traditional aluminum shells won't cut it during a multi-year mission. But some scientists are also looking at alternative approaches to safeguard astronauts, ranging from the use of electric fields that create a protective shell around a spacecraft to basic ship design, and even new spacesuits for the exploration of the Martian landscape.


Full page here: Shields Up! New Radiation Protection for Spacecraft and Astronauts By Tariq Malik



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
When does the shuttle return? I will be in Orlando all week on business and would love to get some good landing pics/vids.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SvenTheBerserK
 



LOL LOL LOL....Zooooooommmmm!!!! Right over the heads of many.

Sooooooooooooooooooooo.....are current astronauts not being bombarded by Radiation since they are obviously outside the protective ozone of the atmosphere???

Notice how NASA avoided that question and or position. How about astronauts who spend time in the ISS?? Are they getting radiated???
How about during extreme periods of high solar activity?? Solar flares etc.

We are constantly being bombarded by propaganda ..about freons...this or that being green or non green...protecting the ozone...yet here we go shooting astronauts up through the protective ozone to get radiated. Is anyone doing any studies as to how long one trades years of their lives for how many space walks...or trips in the space shuttle..or ISS??

How much radiation does one astronaut pick up in outer space..are they wearing dosimetry? What kind of radiation measuring/processing equipment is on the shuttle??

This makes deep space travel very romantic and fanciful..doesnt it??
Dont let a thing like reality interfere with Star Trek and Star War dreams and beliefs.

If you can be so easily deceived by this simple fact...can you be deceived about the purpose of the Hubble Telescope??

Until this radiation problem is solved..we are not going to be doing any deep space travel except by robots. ...or UAVs.

Television and Hollywood are wonderful for keeping us on the hook. Wonderful indeed.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Originally posted by jfj123
Move over Hubble Telescope, the European Space Agency has launched the largest telescope ever sent to space on a mission to study how the Big Bang created the universe. This comes right on the heels of another related and exciting scientific breakthrough: for the first time ever, scientists have successfully showed us how the earliest building blocks for life on the planet probably formed from scratch. Are we on the brink of a more complete understanding of our planet’s evolution?

ecoworldly.com...



Hmmmm.....

So science being the thorough religion it is...intends to build for themselves a full scale planet to demonstrate their proof and ability to know exactly how the earth was made...et al..etc etc etc. Otherwise they are stuck with only a theory...Correct???
Yes stuff with a theory.
Here's the definition of a theory

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.



Then like true scientists..they will go on to build another universe...in duplication..just like they did another earth. They need to spend huge amounts of moneys to show and demonstrate that they have it correct....Yes??

Do you honestly think this is how science should/must work??? And if it doesn't, that means we can't prove anything??? Keep in mind that if you're going to use this logic here, you must apply it to everything.


For it is of immense importance to science to know how to use this informations...by building themselves another earth and another universe??

Do I really need to answer this?? Seriously???


I make these statements in contrast to learning to wisely manage what is already here.

or to be a smart @ss.


As to the European telescope...LOL LOL LOL..OK..if you say so.

I didn't say so. The article I referred to said so. I don't know if you noticed but I didn't write the article nor did I build the euro telescope.


Sooner or later the truth about these telescopes is going to come out. The Europeans will not be getting there into deep space with any kind of Linear propulsion system and neither will we...to know or demonstrate these theories correct.

uhuh....


Do any of you know what happens to astronauts who are shot up through the radiation protective ozone layer of the earth??
Do they get radiated? What are the radiation levels in different areas of outer space?? How about around different planets in the solar system?? Is deep space travel even possible using Linear propulsion systems in transiting these areas of radiation??

This has all been addressed ad nauseum in the moon landing threads. If you want/need your questions answered, please go there as I won't be addressing them again here.


Does NASA even spend much time talking about this or do they just avoid the topic while feeding you their version of Star Trek, Star Wars..et al.

That topic is very important to NASA and they've spent quite a bit of money on the problems associated with radiation. Again, I won't be getting into details as this has already been addressed TO DEATH in other threads.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 





Do you honestly think this is how science should/must work??? And if it doesn't, that means we can't prove anything??? Keep in mind that if you're going to use this logic here, you must apply it to everything.


Your joking about this statement right?? Tell me your joking and being flip here.

Watch this last part of what you are quoting...


It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.


You might want to start over here.


Do I really need to answer this?? Seriously???


Yes..you do. Theory is just theory unless you can demonstrate that the theory holds..not just in a model..in a laboratory ..but in nature..out here ...for real..not just theory..numbers on a blackboard or computer screen/model.

No matter how much informations they gleen from this telescope or that source ...it means nothing unless they can get to these places and prove thier existance. It is all just theorys.
If one knows how the universe or a planet came into existance..they can build one..or it is just a theory...isnt it??

Theorys of relativity were just theories for years and years until someone did the work and commitment to demonstrate it and how it works..the potential for it. This history alone is a fascinating account of learned men working to make a theory into reality. Fascinating history to read...both in its failures and successes. It did not remain a theoretical model.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by jfj123
 


Do you honestly think this is how science should/must work??? And if it doesn't, that means we can't prove anything??? Keep in mind that if you're going to use this logic here, you must apply it to everything.



Your joking about this statement right?? Tell me your joking and being flip here.

You can't selectively apply your silly logic. It either works or it doesn't.


Watch this last part of what you are quoting...



It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.



You might want to start over here.



Do I really need to answer this?? Seriously???



Yes..you do. Theory is just theory unless you can demonstrate that the theory holds..not just in a model..in a laboratory ..but in nature..out here ...for real..not just theory..numbers on a blackboard or computer screen/model.

You're right, a theory is a theory. I've posted the definition of a theory. It's not my fault you can't understand it.


No matter how much informations they gleen from this telescope or that source ...it means nothing unless they can get to these places and prove thier existance. It is all just theorys.

So if they use a telescope to view mars, it doesn't exist until we land on it? That's one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard.


If one knows how the universe or a planet came into existance..they can build one..or it is just a theory...isnt it??

You're simply not making any logical sense.


Theorys of relativity were just theories for years and years until someone did the work and commitment to demonstrate it and how it works..

Apparently you missed the definition of a theory so I'll repost it for you

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.


Hopefully this extended explanation clarifies your misunderstanding of what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is and is not.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


tom, you have a blantant misconception about the ozone layer and its efficacy in stopping radiation.

Ozone helps protect from the UVA and UVB radiation....that's UltraViolet...basically it's light above the frequency that our eyes can perceive. You know, the nasty buggers that cause sunburn and cataracts?

We, on Earth, are protected from the Gamma and certain other higher-energy EM spectrum by our magnetoshere! A vessel in LEO is still within the magnetosphere, really simply crack open a book on astronomy and astrophysics sometime if you don't believe me.

What Sven was relaying to the ATS audience was the fact that Mars lacks an active heavy-metal core (which is what creates Earth's magnetic field, and the protective lines of magnetism that surround us). SO, any long-term Human colony would be subject to undiluted Solar radiation evvery Martian "Sol". One complete Sol is just over 24 hours, so the period of 'daylight' would naturally just be about 12 hours. Really, though...tunnelling underground would be sufficient protection on Mars.

Same with the Moon. Also, on both Mars and the Moon, a base located nearer one of the poles provides far less radiation exposure, more likely access to water, and in the case of the Moon, fewer temperature fluctuations.

Finally, as in Sven's post, the real trick is to find shielding for the spacecraft enroute to/from Mars, because of the length of the journey.

For Apollo, the seven to eight days was minimal exposure....exception being the event of a Solar Flare. They were lucky, because there were none during missions, but there were contingencies in place just in case. For instance, while onboard the CM they would just need to orient the SM and the CM heat shield toward the Sun to 'ride out' the flare.

Really, the Sun, as the nearest star, has the most potential for damage...but, even a Mars voyage could adapt by shielding just the side facing the Sun, since once underway physical orientation is immaterial to the trajectory.

BTW, in case you didn't know this, you are constantly being bombarded by radiation, even in your house with the blinds closed and a tinfoil hat on. Very high energy cosmic radiation, and neutrinos, are not stopped, not even by the magnetosphere. If you could see them you'd probably be blinded by the brilliance.....








[edit on 5/17/0909 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join