Satellites : general discussion and musings

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Starbucked on June 20th, 2013, 9:59 am

Here is an example of instability in action at the launch of Intelsat 708 from a Chinese rocket not using a launch rail <_<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708

The fault was traced to a lack of output from the power module for the servo-loop in the follow-up frame of the inertial platform.
:blink: sounds good to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_3B


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek

Something about this video and audio strikes me as odd. And the alleged damage seems a bit extreme.

Might this be a Chinese rocket with satellite payload catastrophe psyop?
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby idschmyd on June 25th, 2013, 7:28 pm

http://www.astrium.eads.net/media/docum ... 197_en.pdf
Image !
I drew them, you get them! Call it a musing. Graphs compiled from Onlinery relating to Ariane ‘flight 197’, October 2010. The first two show acceleration from 0-9400 metres per second (much faster than the fastest combustible known to man), within 1500 seconds (25 minutes). The third graph tracks altitude over the time period. Note the burst of speed and altitude in the final throes of burn-time – from 350-650km, and 8800-9400m/s. Rockets don't work in a vacuum, but they’re bloody amazing on paper.

Image
Image
Image
idschmyd
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 10:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on June 26th, 2013, 10:17 pm

*


REAL OR FAKE? ("Proton lift off video")


Someone on YT ("Michail Dugov") has called me mentally ill for suggesting this could be fake imagery... :P
Image

Proton Launch of SES-6 on ILS Proton-M from Baikonur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwDASkWPJU

Image

Perhaps Michail is the Russian artist responsible for this colorful cartoon? :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Starbucked on June 27th, 2013, 7:35 am

If you really want to piss off Michail Dugov, tell him vodka originated in Poland.
And then tell him the bad news: no Russian has been in space.
But the good news is neither has anyone else :P
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on June 27th, 2013, 9:06 am

Starbucked wrote:If you really want to piss off Michail Dugov, tell him vodka originated in Poland.
And then tell him the bad news: no Russian has been in space.
But the good news is neither has anyone else :P


Hehe - if I told him about the vodka he'd probably get mad at me. I tend to avoid making people angry. Here's what I responded to his last comment which went like this: "This is not slow motion man....The mass of the rocket creates an illusion of slow speed. Watch every large rocket launch."

My reply:
It is no illusion, Michail: watch this ATLAS V launch video: watch?v=PYwQPBFl6TA
As you can measure and verify for yourself, It takes 8sec for this ATLAS rocket to travel the distance of its own height (58m), which means that its average speed right after take-off is 16.2mph (or 26.1km/h). A man can run faster than that.
See, I have watched a great many large rocket launches. None of them appear realistic. The world of rocketry is a gigantic scam - but you're free to buy into it if you wish.



Here it is: watch between 1:13 and 1:21. That's the eight seconds it takes for the ATLAS to travel its own height...

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYwQPBFl6TA

**********************

Oh, and Idschmyd : please refrain from posting pornshop material on this family-oriented forum ! :P
idschmyd wrote:Image!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby idschmyd on June 27th, 2013, 12:50 pm

Image
Soyuz TMA-06M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8I7xJ0MBpg

I think the launch is slightly less dire than the Proton Gas Burner Image
but it's a close call. I keep hearing it: Thunderbirds are GO! Da dada Daa!

Re infringement of penile code: apologies. Of all the online images of the Ariane model, no other seemed to be so exactly shaped.
idschmyd
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 10:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Starbucked on July 3rd, 2013, 6:52 am

"The unmanned Russian Proton-M rocket launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstanat 10:38 p.m. EDT (0238 GMT). The crash of the 17-story booster destroyed three onboard navigation satellites, which were worth almost $200 million."

http://www.space.com/21811-russian-rock ... ealed.html

An amateur video of the launch, crash, and resulting KABOOM!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo

From impact to sound of the crash reaching the camera is around 10 seconds, meaning they are around 3 kilometers from the crash sight.
With an explosion of that magnitude I would expect to see a shock wave radiate from the crash zone, but there is none.
What do they fill the Proton M with? Gunpowder?
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on July 3rd, 2013, 7:01 pm

Starbucked wrote:"The unmanned Russian Proton-M rocket launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstanat 10:38 p.m. EDT (0238 GMT). The crash of the 17-story booster destroyed three onboard navigation satellites, which were worth almost $200 million."

http://www.space.com/21811-russian-rock ... ealed.html

An amateur video of the launch, crash, and resulting KABOOM!



Yes, Starbucked... and here's the official 'video' of that failed July1 2013 launch - as aired on TV:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jQ_tPm0J2E

Not only is the official "video" far lower quality than the "amateur video", but it also includes what looks like a shot taken from almost the same angle as the "amateur" video (plus a few 'raindrops' on camera lens)... How silly can this get?
Image

More importantly, how can we still have modern, expensive rockets falling out of the sky, in 2013 - after a mere few seconds of flight ? Apparently, as many as five Proton rockets have failed since 2010. This, after over five decades and untold billions allegedly spent refining this technology? Are our rocket scientists / engineers the most hopelessly inept and incompetent people on this planet?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Maat on July 3rd, 2013, 7:22 pm

simonshack wrote:How silly can this get?
More importantly, how can we still have modern, expensive rockets falling out of the sky, in 2013 - after a mere few seconds of flight ? Apparently, as many as five Proton rockets have failed since 2010. This, after over five decades and untold billions allegedly spent refining this technology? Are our rocket scientists / engineers the most hopelessly inept and incompetent people on this planet?

:wacko: indeed. It always strikes me how badly overplayed the "amateur" videos are in trying to give a real world feel to their "official" toons — but failing badly. The ridiculous sound effects, fake emotion and, of course, the obligatory bird! :rolleyes:
Rocket-Russian.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby I, Gestalta on July 3rd, 2013, 8:19 pm

The only conclusion I've yet to draw from any such fake "disaster" (unmanned) is that they are attempting to establish a bit of realism, here, as well as manufacture a bit of tension and anticipation. Regarding the former, it's understandable that they wouldn't want their campaign to look too perfect, but they've gone way too far in the opposite direction. As for the latter, it allows for opportunities to engage the population not just on an intellectual level, but also an emotional one. (edit: Not to say that multitudes of people are not already emotionally invested in the lofty dreams of space exploration).
Last edited by I, Gestalta on July 3rd, 2013, 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I, Gestalta
Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 10:00 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby arc300 on July 3rd, 2013, 9:28 pm

Yet, not once did a rocket crash, on take-off or otherwise, during the whole Apollo mission half a century ago. The epithet 'Rocket Scientist' has lost a bit of its lustre since the good old days when manned rockets were as reliable as a Toyota.
arc300
Member
 
Posts: 167
Joined: April 27th, 2012, 11:13 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby rusty on July 3rd, 2013, 10:19 pm

Maat wrote: :wacko: indeed. It always strikes me how badly overplayed the "amateur" videos are in trying to give a real world feel to their "official" toons — but failing badly. The ridiculous sound effects, fake emotion and, of course, the obligatory bird! :rolleyes:


:blink: However, the most toonish of it all was the flight of the bumblebee - err I mean that penile contraption of course. Our dear Sceppy may rest in peace as far as this forum is concerned, but his golden rule that there's no such thing as a "hovering" rocket may still apply.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Flabbergasted on July 4th, 2013, 2:18 am

simonshack wrote:...here's the official 'video' of that failed July1 2013 launch - as aired on TV:



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jQ_tPm0J2E

Also, observe the smoke appearing at 0:43. It curls away in a manner suggesting a small object close to the viewer, not a 17-story booster 3 miles away.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on July 4th, 2013, 6:55 pm

simonshack wrote:My reply:
It is no illusion, Michail: watch this ATLAS V launch video: watch?v=PYwQPBFl6TA
As you can measure and verify for yourself, It takes 8sec for this ATLAS rocket to travel the distance of its own height (58m), which means that its average speed right after take-off is 16.2mph (or 26.1km/h). A man can run faster than that.
See, I have watched a great many large rocket launches. None of them appear realistic. The world of rocketry is a gigantic scam - but you're free to buy into it if you wish.



Our Russian friend Michail has responded:

Michail Dugov wrote:"I think ill buy into it and go watch some satellite television."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwDASkWPJU


Cheeky sod! :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Maat on July 5th, 2013, 1:17 am

rusty wrote:
Maat wrote: :wacko: indeed. It always strikes me how badly overplayed the "amateur" videos are in trying to give a real world feel to their "official" toons — but failing badly. The ridiculous sound effects, fake emotion and, of course, the obligatory bird! :rolleyes:

:blink: However, the most toonish of it all was the flight of the bumblebee - err I mean that penile contraption of course. Our dear Sceppy may rest in peace as far as this forum is concerned, but his golden rule that there's no such thing as a "hovering" rocket may still apply.

Yes, I found the "no hovering rocket" idea very thought provoking/perception shifting too. It got me thinking and then wondering if it might not be quite such a simple clue as it would appear; maybe even a bit misleading. What I mean is, because we can see that all the "launch footage" we're shown is recycled cgi animation, we naturally look for every possible real world comparison, physics etc. to prove it more conclusively.

My question is, what if it's more a matter of their attempt to reproduce a real rocket's takeoff speed in animation that's off (i.e. close but no prize)? Thus making it more cartoonish by the combination/accumulation of unreality errors. For instance, were they trying to mimic the old German footage of V2 rockets from 1942, but miscalculated because those followed a (successful) rocket's rise with the camera, making the actual speed/distance traveled hard to determine accurately without visual reference.

These videos, supposedly original German footage of V2 rockets, show a series of launches; one at 0:53 then about 10 from 1:31:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjFTN-YdK_M

V2 rocket failures — (see a hover before crash @ 0:52):

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdBh54MoZRE
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests