Doubts: Space travel, artificial earth satellites, Hubble &c

by **Ranb** » 25 Oct 2011 03:58

FirstClassSkeptic wrote:Why bother with spy planes if you have spy satellites?

Spy planes can be sent anywhere around the globe whereas spy stallites can not just keep changing orbits to suit mission after mission. Spy planes can and have been shot down also.

Ranb

by **Ranb** » 25 Oct 2011 04:07

FirstClassSkeptic wrote:I have doubts that NASA can get heavy payloads into a vacuum. It appears to me, from watching Apollo rocket launches, that a rocket engine works just like a propeller on an airplane; by moving lots of air. When they get into a vacuum, they fizzle. So they might move a light payload. But no landing four ton crafts on the moon, and no rover on Mars.

The engine is still moving lots of gas in a vacuum. Newton's laws of motion still apply in a vacuum.

Ranb

by **ApolloGnomon** » 31 Oct 2011 18:30

FirstClassSkeptic wrote:I have doubts that NASA can get heavy payloads into a vacuum. It appears to me, from watching Apollo rocket launches, that a rocket engine works just like a propeller on an airplane; by moving lots of air. When they get into a vacuum, they fizzle. So they might move a light payload. But no landing four ton crafts on the moon, and no rover on Mars.

Your initial premise derives from fundamentally incorrect assumptions. The thrust from a rocket derives from the expanding gasses in the combustion chamber exiting at high velocity. The action/reaction of Newtonian physics does not require atmosphere, and in fact atmosphere impedes a rocket rather than assisting it in any way. The exhaust gasses have to push against the ambient air pressure and shove atmosphere out of the way.

One puzzlement: The nozzle. All the rockets NASA pictures as going into space, like the lunar module, the service module, have a nozzle on them. Since the nozzle is supposed to adjust to air pressure, it would have to be infinitely big for zero air pressure. It would make more sense to have no nozzle at all.

Nozzles do not "adjust to air pressure." Nozzles designed for sea level air pressure are different than those designed for higher altitudes, and are different from those designed for use in vacuum.

In atmosphere the exhaust gasses are "squeezed" by the surrounding air pressure, but in vacuum they flare out unimpeded. Nozzles are designed to maximize thrust in each condition by controlling velocity of the gasses.

https://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/educat ... ozzle.html

One suspect: In rocket calculations, they use the exhaust gas velocity. However, this parameter is not measured empirically. What they do is put a rocket engine on a test platform, fire it, and measure the thrust (in an atmosphere) and the flow rate of fuel and air (Mass flow rate) They then calculate an effective exhaust velocity which they then use in their calculations. It's doubtful to me that the exhaust achieves the velocity they claim. It also doesn't prove it will operate in a vacuum.

Do you have any reason for the bolded statement above?

Satellites: Definitely something up there. But, how high? Are they held there my Newtonian mechanics, as claimed, or by something else? Are they even out of the atmosphere?

You could answer your questions yourself with simple research. Can you provide evidence of some way of keeping satellites up other than Newtonian physics?

Far side of moon pictures; The first pictures by the Luna craft of Russia look to me like close up pictures of rusted, pitted steel. I doubt that any far side picture is genuine. Close up pictures claimed to be from a lunar orbitor of the near side of the moon could just be computer filtered/enhanced pictures. Pictures of earth's deserts could be used to fabricate or simulate the lunar surface of the far side, or fill in unknown details of the near side. (Which might explain some of the structures claimed to be spotted by some, who say there are moon bases on the far side of the moon. It might just be a building in Arizona.)

All pictures of the moon from all nations who have taken them are consistent with one another. Just because something "looks like" another thing doesn't mean it IS that other thing. For all the far side pictures to fake would require cooperation between the Soviet Union 50 years ago and Japan today. Not sure how that would be achieved without time travel.

Mars rover pictures: If you put them into a image editor and turn down the red drive, the pictures claimed to be from a Mars rover take on an earthly appearance, with blue or white sky.

Again, the terrain is consistent.

by **FirstClassSkeptic** » 31 Oct 2011 22:31

I haven't seen any pictures from NASA that couldn't be taken from a high altitude balloon, a land based telescope, or faked.

If NASA really could go to the moon, why did they fake it? Why did they fake the Ed White space walk?

Consistency between different nations just means they are run by the same oligarchy. How many nations have a space program, and take pictures of the moon?

by **ApolloGnomon** » 31 Oct 2011 23:51

I haven't seen any pictures from NASA that couldn't be taken from a high altitude balloon, a land based telescope, or faked.

The famous "earth rise" sequence from Apollo 8 would be pretty hard to take from a balloon

People have strung the sequence of shots together into a gif showing the passage of the Command/Service Module over lunar terrain. I don't have a link to one handy, but I can look around if you're interested.

Before dismissing the entire sequence out of hand, be aware that fellows much geekier than I have analyzed the earth in the image and determined that the land visible and lit portions are correct for the time listed in the Apollo 8 records, and another guy has compared the clouds to satellite images from the time that Apollo 8 was around the moon (as well as newspaper weather reports and barometric maps_ and found correspondence for the weather patterns.
https://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132&page=4

https://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/14day4_orbits456.htm

by **ApolloGnomon** » 01 Nov 2011 00:01

If NASA really could go to the moon, why did they fake it?

I would consider this circular logic. Can you prove they faked it? I've looked at all the "evidence" for a hoax and without exception every piece of it can be dismissed as bad science, lack of knowledge or flat-out lies.

But maybe I'm wrong. If you know of evidence proving the moon landings fake, I'd be glad to take a look at it.

Why did they fake the Ed White space walk?

I'm unfamiliar with this conjecture. Can you enlighten me please?

by **ApolloGnomon** » 01 Nov 2011 00:13

Consistency between different nations just means they are run by the same oligarchy. How many nations have a space program, and take pictures of the moon?

Your statement above requires the Cold War US and USSR to be in cahoots. From a quick glance around this forum I suppose that might in fact reflect the mainstream view of this forum. I disagree completely, but will let it go for now.

The other part is that the fake terrain used by the USSR in 1959 would need to be available for use by the US in the 1960's as well as by the modern Chinese, Indian and Japanese space programs. Unless you can point out any inconsistencies between the various generations of imagery.

Faking pictures of the moon would only work for a limited period of time. Eventually someone else is bound to get a camera up there, and if the terrain doesn't match up the whole thing is blown.

by **FirstClassSkeptic** » 02 Nov 2011 00:24

ApolloGnomon wrote:The famous "earth rise" sequence from Apollo 8 would be pretty hard to take from a balloon

It wouldn't be hard to make as a composite.

by **rerevisionist** » 02 Nov 2011 03:22

Apollognomon, here's a photo from NASA's 'Apollo 14 image library'. Image AS14-64-9189. It's here:--
https://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/images14.html#Mag64

Now, the earth and the moon are virtually identical distances from Venus. Venus from earth looks like a bright dot - few if any people can discern the pahases. This photo, supposedly from the moon, shows a hugely enlarged Venus - and yet the supposed moon equipment next to it is unenlarged, natural size photo as from normal (not long-focus) lens. It's clearly a fake photo.

My Youtube site [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjzKbJqanKI[/youtube] has a TV programme shown in Britain in 1999 which I rediscovered on a videotape. It's picked up quite a lot of comments, luckily for me including the NASA reference, as relocating NASA pictures after they relabel them and move them around is tricky.

by **ApolloGnomon** » 02 Nov 2011 03:40

I am pleased to learn that you know about the ALSJ image library. That will save us some time.

That's not Venus. That's the earth. Venus is a tiny dot next to the antenna. It barely registered at this photographic exposure, and yet, there it is, exactly where it SHOULD be in the sky on the date the image was taken.

Software such as Starry Night or Celestia let us see what the sky was like at the Fra Mauro landing site at the time Shepard took the photos, which was about 1207 GMT/UTC on 6 February 1971. A quick look shows that Venus was in the right relative location. At that time and on the airless Moon, Venus had an apparent magntiude of about -4.1. Only the Sun and Earth were brighter. The next brightest object visible at that time was Jupiter, with a magnitude of -2.0 but eight degrees west of the zenith and well out of the field-of-view. Even if it had been in view, it would have been 7 times fainter than Venus and, because of the short exposure times, might not have registered on the film.

https://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14Venus.html

Funny thing, too. This was only discovered a few years ago. In response to the photographically illiterate "no stars" claims someone predicted that if anything would show, Venus would. And there it is, as predicted.

The fact you would confuse the Earth in that image with Venus doesn't suggest a great depth of research on your part.

This is form my Youtube site [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjzKbJqanKI[/youtube] in fact a TV programme shown in Britain in 1999 which I rediscovered on a videotape. It's picked up quite a lot of comments, luckily as relocating NASA pictures after they relabel them and move them around is tricky.

The NASA images have not been relabeled or moved around in any manner. The ALSJ represents the latest scans of the images which were assigned catalog numbers as soon as the film was developed. (actually, they probably assigned number ranges to the rolls of film before the missions were even loaded on the spacecraft)

by **ApolloGnomon** » 02 Nov 2011 03:50

FirstClassSkeptic wrote:
ApolloGnomon wrote:The famous "earth rise" sequence from Apollo 8 would be pretty hard to take from a balloon

It wouldn't be hard to make as a composite.

I'm surprised you are grabbing the low hanging fruit. This obvious dismissive comment lacks any effort to make and doesn't contain any content.

To make this composite image the moon and earth both would need to be photographed with 2 1/4" or larger, with the Earth photographs taken at exactly the correct time, and then the film images would need to be physically returned to Earth.

Analysis of the clouds and terrain with comparisons to weather satellite images here:
https://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.c ... 132&page=4

by **rerevisionist** » 02 Nov 2011 11:45

It's there 'as predicted'. Yes. We're interested in informed people, and unfortunately you don't fall into that category.

Doubts: Space travel, artificial earth satellites, Hubble &c

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Re: Doubts about space travel, artificial earth satellites,

Who is online