A couple of shuttle questions.

With Discovery going up in less than 16 hrs I thought we would talk about this for a while.

How does NASA simulate the reentry of the shuttle from 38 miles up at 17,500 mph?  People have watched the bright light of the shuttle as it reenters the atmosphere. 

What happened to the shuttle Columbia?  Again there are eyewitness accounts as it crossed the Californian coast all the way to Texas where it broke up.

How does NASA simulate the shuttle chasing the spacestation.  I have personally seen this when the ISS goes overhead you can see it as a bright dot in the sky and the shuttle close behind it as a second bright dot.

 

Nobody wants to touch this one? 

What is there to touch? Random forum members are suppose to speculate at possible methods used by NASA to fabricate launches and returns?

Conspiracy talk is a waste of time.

Random forum members are suppose to speculate at possible method used by NASA to fabricate launches and returns?

That was the point of the original post I think.

Thus,

Conspiracy talk is a waste of time.

So leave the thread.  Thanx for your input.

How does NASA simulate the reentry of the shuttle from 38 miles up at 17,500 mph?  People have watched the bright light of the shuttle as it reenters the atmosphere.

The shuttle is a high altitude glider which creates pretty lights in the sky as it free falls from the edge of space into the atmosphere of the earth.

What happened to the shuttle Columbia?  Again there are eyewitness accounts as it crossed the Californian coast all the way to Texas where it broke up.

The Shuttle Columbia was a prop failure.

How does NASA simulate the shuttle chasing the spacestation.  I have personally seen this when the ISS goes overhead you can see it as a bright dot in the sky and the shuttle close behind it as a second bright dot.

NASA uses rockets to maneuver the shuttle.

Quote

How does NASA simulate the reentry of the shuttle from 38 miles up at 17,500 mph?  People have watched the bright light of the shuttle as it reenters the atmosphere.

The shuttle is a high altitude glider which creates pretty lights in the sky as it free falls from the edge of space into the atmosphere of the earth.

Quote

What happened to the shuttle Columbia?  Again there are eyewitness accounts as it crossed the Californian coast all the way to Texas where it broke up.

The Shuttle Columbia was a prop failure.

Quote

How does NASA simulate the shuttle chasing the spacestation.  I have personally seen this when the ISS goes overhead you can see it as a bright dot in the sky and the shuttle close behind it as a second bright dot.

NASA uses rockets to maneuver the shuttle.

Thanx Tom

1.  How so they get the shuttle high enough and fast enough on the designated day of landing?

2.By prop failure are you saying the shuttle is actually a prop?

3. True but what causes the points of light to begin with if in fact the shuttle and the ISS are not really where NASA says they are?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2008, 11:39:25 AM

Quote

How does NASA simulate the reentry of the shuttle from 38 miles up at 17,500 mph?  People have watched the bright light of the shuttle as it reenters the atmosphere.

The shuttle is a high altitude glider which creates pretty lights in the sky as it free falls from the edge of space into the atmosphere of the earth.

Quote

What happened to the shuttle Columbia?  Again there are eyewitness accounts as it crossed the Californian coast all the way to Texas where it broke up.

The Shuttle Columbia was a prop failure.

Quote

How does NASA simulate the shuttle chasing the spacestation.  I have personally seen this when the ISS goes overhead you can see it as a bright dot in the sky and the shuttle close behind it as a second bright dot.

NASA uses rockets to maneuver the shuttle.

Thanx Tom

1.  How so they get the shuttle high enough and fast enough on the designated day of landing?

2.By prop failure are you saying the shuttle is actually a prop?

3. True but what causes the points of light to begin with if in fact the shuttle and the ISS are not really where NASA says they are?

I don't know about 1 or 3 but yes he is saying that space shuttles are props. Which is infuriating, because those people died, and he's saying that they were just actors in an elaborate "play."

Discovery is in orbit.  I'm going to see if I can check it out tonite as it goes over head.

Quote

How does NASA simulate the reentry of the shuttle from 38 miles up at 17,500 mph?  People have watched the bright light of the shuttle as it reenters the atmosphere.

The shuttle is a high altitude glider which creates pretty lights in the sky as it free falls from the edge of space into the atmosphere of the earth.

Quote

What happened to the shuttle Columbia?  Again there are eyewitness accounts as it crossed the Californian coast all the way to Texas where it broke up.

The Shuttle Columbia was a prop failure.

Quote

How does NASA simulate the shuttle chasing the spacestation.  I have personally seen this when the ISS goes overhead you can see it as a bright dot in the sky and the shuttle close behind it as a second bright dot.

NASA uses rockets to maneuver the shuttle.

You just made all of that up and you call it fact?

Actually hippo I think it was speculation.  That was kind of the purpose of this thread.  I wanted to know what the FE'ers thought about our current space program.  The fact that I shot holes in his speculation and then never heard from him again means he re-thinking his speculation or he cant figure out a response.

Or he's not online.

Also, pretty much every FE poster will tell you that the views of Tom Bishop represent only his own (and we're not really sure about that even).

Or he's not online.

Also, pretty much every FE poster will tell you that the views of Tom Bishop represent only his own (and we're not really sure about that even).

That's nice to know, seriously, I've noticed that Tom's the weirdest one of the lot.

C'mon don't associate Tom with the rest of the FEer's, he's a seperate entity.

Tom does not represent the flat earth society, he's just an internet troll, but without him there would be less people on the board

Tom does not represent the flat earth society, he's just an internet troll, but without him there would be less people on the board

Ok fair enough, I should have seen that. My bad.

1.  How so they get the shuttle high enough and fast enough on the designated day of landing?

They took the shuttle to the edge of space one hundred miles in altitude and took it into into free fall into the atmosphere. As the atmosphere accelerated into the shuttle at 9.8 m/s² the tiles on the shuttle got red hot and begun reacting and incinerating with flames at high temperatures.
 

2.By prop failure are you saying the shuttle is actually a prop?

Yes. The shuttle is a prop designed to help create the illusion of space travel. Politicos and government officials with big checkbooks like to see results of their funding firsthand.

3. True but what causes the points of light to begin with if in fact the shuttle and the ISS are not really where NASA says they are?

I don't think it's actually possible to see the shuttle while it is in orbit. I think that's just a rumor. The ISS should be the only man-made object visible from the ground.

If the shuttle is truly capable of sustained space travel then it suggests that NASA has found a method for achieving this. One possibility is what I like to call the "skipping stone" method of space travel where the shuttle skips across the surface of the atmosphere of the earth like skipping stones over water. In order for this to work - as the shuttle hits the atmosphere it must be tilted up somewhat or at least the front edge must be beveled.  Otherwise, it can dig its way into the atmosphere, ending its skipping career. Then when the shuttle strikes the upper air, it pushes the air down.  By Newton's Third Law (For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction force) the air exerts an upward and slightly backward force on the shuttle. The upward force pushes the shuttle back up into space and the backward force slows the shuttle, hopefully slightly.

And if the shuttle is carefully designed with weights and gyroscopes, it can better keep and maintain its orientation.

My freind is an astronemer, he knows that the earth orbits the sun. Why? Because he actually studies this shit and he dosn\'t make up boghus equations.

DURR!!!

You just made all of that up and you call it fact?

The shuttle is designed as a high altitude glider in the Round Earth model too. Look it up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22shuttle+is+a+glider%22&btnG=Google+Search

If the shuttle is truly capable of sustained space travel then it suggests that NASA has found a method for achieving this. One possibility is what I like to call the "skipping stone" method of space travel where the shuttle skips across the surface of the atmosphere he earth like skipping stones over water.

This is interesting -- The Germans did pioneering research into this very phenomena. The problem, as you stated was sufficiently adequate guidance. The X-20 (which bears no small resemblance to the STS orbiter) was to use a similar method. Perhaps they solved this problem? Something to chew on.

Quote

You just made all of that up and you call it fact?

The shuttle is designed as a high altitude glider in your model too. Look it up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22shuttle+is+a+glider%22&btnG=Google+Search

I clicked on images and saw pictures of space shuttles.

What's your point? I thought you were trying to say we diddn't go into space, not that we did.

although, if your saying we did go into space, well thankyou, you've done something right.

Quote

1.  How so they get the shuttle high enough and fast enough on the designated day of landing?

They took the shuttle to the edge of space one hundred miles in altitude and took it into into free fall into the atmosphere. As the atmosphere accelerated into the shuttle at 9.8 m/s² the tiles on the shuttle got red hot and begun reacting and incinerating with flames at high temperatures.
 

Quote

2.By prop failure are you saying the shuttle is actually a prop?

Yes. The shuttle is a prop designed to help create the illusion of space travel. Politicos and government officials with big checkbooks like to see results of their funding firsthand.

Quote

3. True but what causes the points of light to begin with if in fact the shuttle and the ISS are not really where NASA says they are?

I don't think it's actually possible to see the shuttle while it is in orbit. I think that's just a rumor. The ISS should be the only man-made object visible from the ground.

If the shuttle is truly capable of sustained space travel then it suggests that NASA has found a method for achieving this. One possibility is what I like to call the "skipping stone" method of space travel where the shuttle skips across the surface of the atmosphere he earth like skipping stones over water. In order for this to work - as the shuttle hits the atmosphere it must be tilted up somewhat or at least the front edge must be beveled.  Otherwise, it can dig its way into the atmosphere, ending its skipping career. Then when the shuttle strikes the upper air, it pushes the air down.  By Newton's Third Law (For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction force) the air exerts an upward and slightly backward force on the shuttle. The upward force pushes the shuttle back up into space and the backward force slows the shuttle, hopefully slightly.

And if the shuttle is carefully designed with weights and gyroscopes, it can better keep and maintain its orientation.

Wow.  So we've gone from sustained spaceflight is not possible to...it might happen this way.

Anyway I will indulge this view for the sake of the initial debate.

1. I was looking for how NASA gets the shuttle 100 miles up on the designated landing day?  If its landing in the Atlantic somewhere on launch day.

2. Interesting.  So its a prop.  But in #3 it may actually achieve space flight by the skipping stone method.  Im not sure it can be both Tom.

3.Lets start with the first part of your statement.  I have no idea where you live Tom.  If it is in the city you need to take a field trip tonite.  Away from everything.  Out in the country somewhere where there is no city lights.  If you already live in the country then thats even better.  Go outside tonite for 1 hr, and do nothing but the watch the stars.  As long as no clouds are around I guarantee you will see at least 1 satellite.  You can actually put your location into various websites and they will tell you when you can see the shuttle and or ISS flying overhead.  If you do it in the next couple of days you will be able to see both as separate entities.  I have seen both the ISS and the shuttle racing to catch it.  I have seen numerous satellites.  With my own eyes.  If you really dont think that's possible then go out side tonite.  Im sure you will be surprised.

The second part of this is an interesting thought.  What does the shuttle revolve around while its skipping off the outer atmosphere, the north pole?  Kind of like the sun and moon?   

The second part of this is an interesting thought.  What does the shuttle revolve around while its skipping off the outer atmosphere, the north pole?  Kind of like the sun and moon?   

An antipodal craft could in theory go where ever it wanted given enough speed. All known antipodal projects ended canceled, to my knowledge. I'm not saying that's what they're using, but it would be possible. It's intriguing and worth studying a bit. I have some uncommon resources available to me.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 31, 2008, 07:31:29 PM

The second part of this is an interesting thought.  What does the shuttle revolve around while its skipping off the outer atmosphere, the north pole?  Kind of like the sun and moon?   

An antipodal craft could in theory go where ever it wanted given enough speed. All known antipodal projects ended canceled, to my knowledge. I'm not saying that's what they're using, but it would be possible. It's intriguing and worth studying a bit. I have some uncommon resources available to me.

The point is for NASA to achieve its deception it has to go in a circle around the earth.  Also what maintains its speed once its up there.  The SSMEs are useless after the external tank drops.  Everytime it hits the atmosphere it would slow.  And we are talking weeks here.  Not only that but what about when its hooked up to the ISS?  The ISS can't bounce off the atmosphere.  Is the shuttle not really hooking up with it?  What about when the shuttle leaves with one crew and comes back with a different crew.  This is impossible if the shuttle is up there the whole two weeks without ever hooking up with the ISS and bouncing off the atmosphere the whole time.

So under these assumptions what do we have what do we have?

  The shuttle bounces off the atmosphere while in spaceflight.  Never linking up with the ISS.  For this to happen NASA would have to launch with the landing crew.  Secretly switching them prior to takeoff with the supposed actual launch crew.

Or the shuttle cant bounce off the atmosphere,  It cant link up with the ISS so again it has to launch with the landing crew.  The shuttle blasts off, lands in the Atlantic somewhere, and then somehow gets 100 miles up and gets accerelated to MACH 9 so that the deception of re-entry is achieved on landing day.

I don't think it's really in space at all. I'm just saying that the thought of antipodal flight by the shuttle may be feasible, and would merit further study. What part confused you?

C'mon don't associate Tom with the rest of the FEer's, he's a seperate entity.

Actually I think Tom is entirely representative of FE'ers, that is people (particularly from a religious background) who will go to any length to contrive a fudge to explain the unexplainable.

He is not representative of the FE devil's advocates here who point out errors in the physics in RE'ers positions while ignoring entirely the errors, absurdities and utter implausibility of FET.

FE DA's ignore difficult questions whereas TB just makes up shit.

FE DA's ignore difficult questions whereas TB just makes up shit.

That's why we love Tom so much and will defend his honour to the very death.

TB just makes up shit.

Much like RE'ers.

Actually I think Tom is entirely representative of FE'ers, that is people (particularly from a religious background) who will go to any length to contrive a fudge to explain the unexplainable.

Although the FAQ contradicts this.