ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

[reel.deal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011x1wr/Richard_Hammonds_Engineering_Connections_Series_3_The_Space_Shuttle/

...pro shuttle program from another 'Top Gear' presenter, props to the guy though...
he was once in a coma 4 days after crashing in a 'rocket-car' !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_o3g8MzrTE

[simonshack]

*
SPACE SHUTTLE HOAX THREAD MYSTERIOUSLY DELETED AT "CLUB CONSPIRACY" FORUMS:

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f48 ... 13443.html

posted by galexander - senior member:

What has happened to my thread claiming that the Space Shuttle and the ISS are a hoax?
Has it been deleted or moved? I can't see it under science.
The thread had thousands of hits, hundreds of posts and had been going for more than a year.

Where is it?

The 'answers/explanations' provided by super moderator "Blue Angel" are well worth a read...

[simonshack]

*

AIR BUBBLES IN OUTER SPACE?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQ3zpxzzqg


(38sec into linked video)


(3min27sec into linked video)

What clowns...

**************************************************************************************************************************
Now, please know that NASA makes no mystery of the fact that they have a giant pool to train their astronaughts for those 'delicate space tasks'.
But why do they try passing off images such as the ones above for the real space missions? Why? Why? Pathetic.

[reel.deal]

To fix a shuttle: Bring the sewing kit
Plans laid for repair of Atlantis’ thermal blanket; debris sensors set off

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19189731/

...i loved that BBC i-player doc, btw; with all the homemade DIY appliance of (rocket) science. Honest !
Still reckon its easily a cameraless(!) empty dummy that gets "blasted into space" though...

while the "real thing" hitches a ride & gets airborne just high enough to break the sound-barrier;
while propelled by it jets; before the serene chute-assisted landing... for NA$A TV

[reel.deal]

bad astronomy...

NASA FAKED A SHUTTLE IMAGE!!!!!



I didn’t have to think twice. I knew right then and there, NASA was hosting a faked image on their own servers. There was no way this was a simple snapshot of the Shuttle’s interior! All my years as an image analyst, coupled with my long battle-hardened abilities with conspiracies and fakery, told me I was on to something big here. Very big.

Tell me:

Why are there stars in the picture?

First, the cabin lights were on. That means the photo would use a SHORT exposure time and a SMALL aperture, otherwise the bright interior would be overexposed. But there’s no way you could see stars in a photo under those circumstances!

Second, those interior lights would reflect inside those windows, again drowning out any outside sources. Whenever you see astronauts taking pictures out the windows, they are always RIGHT UP next to the windows, not a few feet away. Why? Because otherwise the reflections block the view.

Third, and worst, the Earth hangs fat and bright right smack dab in the center of the viewports! The bright Earth could not possibly be exposed correctly and have the photo still show stars in the windows. The Earth is THOUSANDS of times brighter than the stars. Even the Moon would look dull and dim if the Earth were exposed correctly.

There’s only one explanation: Someone at NASA faked the photo!!! They added in stars later, for what nefarious purposes only the Top Brass at NASA must know. Was this mission faked in some way? Was the whole Shuttle project faked? Does NASA even exist?





20. José Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 8:15 am

Oh God,
This post will cause you headaches for the next ten years. I expect to hear something like “Why even prominent
skeptic/astronomer and former NASA employee Phil Plait has accused NASA of faking space missions.” I’d seriously
consider putting “I’m just kidding, morons!!!” in giant red blinking letters at the start of the post.



http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/29/nasa-faked-a-shuttle-image/

[simonshack]

*

CAPTAIN SULLENBERGER CHATS WITH NASA SPACE STATION



It is sometimes remarkable how our different, apparently unrelated research on this forum occasionally seems to converge and, somehow neatly tie together. I have had a little inkling for a while now that the "Miracle Hudson Water Landing" (starring a gliding, powerless airliner with twin-engine failure) had - some way or another - something to do with NASA and its miraculous, powerlessly gliding/landing Space Shuttle. In any case, Captain "Sully" (the Flight 1549-hero) appears to have quite a relationship with NASA.

Here's a short audio clip of Captain Sully chatting with the ISS astronaughts :
http://www.nasa.gov/mp3/415448main_Sully_at_JSC01.mp3

"This has been a surreal year for us and this yet another amazing opportunity I never expected to have. So it’s wonderful to be able to talk to all three of you on the International Space Station and thank you for all the important work you are doing ..."
Link to relevant NASA webpage: http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/audiofil ... -2010.html

I was also - uh - 'surprised' to learn that Captain Sully is - among other things - " a NASA Aviation Research Consultant." http://www.chesleysullenbergeriii.com/

Then I learned (from Wickedpedia - no less) that "...Working with NASA scientists, he coauthored a paper on error-inducing contexts in aviation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger

Now, please don't ask me what "error-inducing contexts in aviation" might possibly mean - as I'm just as curious as anyone as to what sounds like a most fascinating subject. So far, I have unfortunately been unable to find this paper on the web. If you do - please let me know. Thanks. For now, I will let you all gently ponder over the Sullenberger/NASA connections...

[guivre]

This site apparently has the paper for download:

http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-5540

Paper Number: 1999-01-5540
DOI: 10.4271/1999-01-5540

Author(s):

Lynne Martin - NRC/NASA Ames Research Center
Jeannie Davison - SJSU/NASA Ames Research Center
Judith Orasanu - NASA Ames Research Center
Chesley Sullenberger - US Airways

View All Collapse
Abstract

Despite efforts to design systems and procedures to support “correct” and safe operations in aviation, accidents still occur and errors in human judgment are found to be contributing factors. In this paper we examine how the wider aviation system may play a role in decision processes.

Our strategy was to examine a collection of identified decision errors ( National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], 1994 ) through the lens of an aviation decision process model and to search for common patterns. The second and more difficult task was to determine what might account for those patterns. The decision process model suggests that decisions with undesirable outcomes can arise in two major ways: either through misassessment of the situation - a problem with situation awareness, or through judgment of the best course of action.

Providing aids that support crew decision making therefore depends on understanding the context - how specific error-inducing features of the situation could interact with cognitive strategies and limitations, and identifying the tools which could highlight, control or mitigate the effects of these features.

File Size: 120K

Product Status: In Stock

See papers presented at World Aviation Congress ® & Exposition, October 1999, San Francisco, CA, USA, Session: Decision-Making and Human Performances in the Future NAS

According to this page: http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/136/3/910.full#ref-6 it looks like this: http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/awards_pubs/publication_view.php?publication_id=1373 is the abstract for the paper, but Sullenberger is not named as a coauthor at NASA's site.

An article by Martin et al,6 coauthored by Captain Sullenberger, reviewed the factors associated with major airplane accidents. A common decisional error the authors identified is called “plan continuation error” (an example of a fixation error). Pilots involved in major accidents often failed to consider all available options and would persist in their original plan when unexpected threats arose. In CRM training, pilots are instructed to project the likelihood of the success of various options and consider the disadvantages of a particular plan before implementing it.6

I found this company interesting as well.

http://safetyreliability.com/

[simonshack]

Thanks a lot, Guivre ! What an extraordinary coincidence that the hero of "FLIGHT 1549" not only just happens to be an expert decision-maker in aviation emergencies - but he also works closely with NASA on such matters...
*********************************************************************************************************************

THE SHUTTLE PEOPLE - and their control rooms

It is now time to take a look at some NASA people behind the space shuttle program.
Please meet Mark Leinbach - the shuttle launch director for the last decade or so.
Here he is interviewed by one Ken Kremer:

"Inside the Firing Room with the Space Shuttle Launch Director" http://www.onorbit.com/node/2571

(Take a stunning, high-def 360° visit around Leinbach's office : http://nasatech.net/FR4Murals100909/ )

Here, Mike Leinbach sits with Mike Moses (Mission Manager) and Mike Suffredini (the ISS program manager) to announce that,
due to a leak in the main tank, the Discovery launch of March 11 2009 has been postponed:

http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Mike+Moses/Mike+Suffredini

In fact, it appears to be some sort of 'Shuttle tradition' to postpone the launches for one or the other reason. Whether it is due to 11 lightnings ramming the launch pad (as on July 11, 2009) or for the odd technical malfunction (apparently, 30 years of experience have not yet shaped their shuttle into a decently reliable machine), the launches are routinely postponed. Why? We can only wonder.

Now, here is the view Mark Leinbach has from his firing room ('ideally' located over 3 miles from the launch pad):


So, since Mike Leinbach has been the Space Shuttle's launch director for the last decade, surely he should be a familiar face to the public - and all those space-buffs who regularly watch the lift-off procedures? Well, no. Curiously, not even the firing rooms themselves (seen in the many available NASA launch videos) look anything like the one seen in Leinbach's pictures above .

This one looks nothing like Leinbach's control room: ________________ But maybe this is Leinbach's room seen on this screen?


Here are two views of the control room for the launch of STS127. Hmm...That FLIGHT DIRECTOR doesn't look like Leinbach, does he?(Btw, his colleague looks rather jagged/ruffled). But perhaps Leinbach sits in that other room and only supervises the proceedings?


Now, as I patiently viewed all the "launch videos from control room" of recent years, I kept bumping into imagery oddities and aberrations. For instance, these apparent 'crossfades' shouldn't really be there - since the videos are supposedly unedited. Well, the camera actually seems to have stopped for a second and resumed filming - only with a different zoom setting. However, why on Earth would this cause a split-second crossfade? And why would one frame (of the 'crossfade') look colored and the other black/white?


Here are two near-adjacent frames looped to show more clearly what I noticed - by pure chance.
I can see at least 5 heads moving forward in perfect unison. Can you?


Hmm. Could these people simply be animated? Are these control-room videos perhaps only digital animations? Maybe not, but there certainly are some issues with them - one would expect normal, flawless images from NASA, not?

You be the judge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7q34Rpgvqw (at 1min12sec)
(gif extracted from launch video of STS125 of May 11, 2009).

My apologies to the squeamish. This IS creepy. I will call it hereafter the "ZOMBIE GLITCH".

If you have seen this type of 'glitch' (I have not) in any other certifiably authentic video you know of, please post it on the forum. Keep in mind that only this man's face area is affected - not the entire frame. Thanks.

[brianv]

And what is that in the panel underneath Leinbachtard? - 119

Moses worked 29 space shuttle missions

Moses earned a Bachelor of Science in physics from our old friends at Purdue University in 1989, a Master of Science in space sciences from Florida Institute of Technology in 1991.

[Foggbank]

Great work on the shuttle hoax. Brings back a lot of memories.I wish I could help out more but my first hand experience with the shuttle is too old to be relevant.

[nonhocapito]

I have watched a few many of the videos from the ISS available here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogal ... n_id=61721
My partial impression is that the people inside the ISS do appear to be in absence of gravity somewhere. From the interaction between them and the general quality, they don't seem to be CGI and they certainly cannot be using the water pool trick inside the station while talking on the mic (that works for the outside shots wearing a spacesuit). Yet the setting of these videos interviews and messages is quite puzzling in itself: we see instruments, and bags of food flying around, but nobody seem to ever have the simple idea to stay in front of a window so that we can see the earth in the background passing by.
What a waste, no? I mean you are up there and all, give us a glimpse! (or are they on an high-altitude plane?)

*

As to the picture previously posted by reel.deal via the buffoons at Bad Astronomy...

Here is the original page on nasa.gov with the picture, dated march 2000: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 10522.html

Eleven new full-color, flat-panel display screens in the Shuttle cockpit replace 32 gauges and electromechanical displays and four cathode-ray tube displays.

supposedly the presence of both stars and the earth is achieved using HDR. Not available on the Moon. I guess that was the joke Bad Astronomy meant to play at the expenses of the "conspiracy theorists", in fact actively demonstrating that the absence of stars in all the Moon imagery of several missions is an unresolved issue.

[simonshack]

*

"AMATEUR" VIDEOS OF SHUTTLE LAUNCHES (1)


Having watched many alleged "amateur videos" of the Space Shuttle launches, I have bumped into a long series of aberrations - too numerous to mention in one go. Let me just start with this one issue.

Below, we have 5 different "amateur cameras" capturing the launch of "ATLANTIS - STS132" - allegedly launched on May 14, 2010. All 5 feature a most unusual (if not abnormal and in any case exceptional) 'lens flare'/or 'diffraction'. All five of them - and if you look up these videos, you'll see that they're all manifestly meant to be the work of 5 different cameramen from 5 different vantage points. Yes, the odds of this occurence are absolutely astronomical - and if you'll allow me a personal emphasis - patently absurd. Besides, what sort of 'diffraction' would that be? If anyone has ever encountered such a vertical 'lens flare' (I have not) anywhere and at any time of their photographic life experience, please let me know. Thanks!

STS 132 LAUNCH, MAY 14,2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ69uXYGfso




In fact :

"Lens flares effects are very common on post-production of images/footage where artificial CGI elements are composited in order to add a sense of realism, and also sometimes is being used to add a sense of drama and sophistication to the image."
http://www.emagix.net/cs-7490/9-lens-flares

So, hereby I submit two options to explain this occurence. Please choose the one that sounds more plausible to you:

OPTION1 - All 5 amateur cameramen went home and photoshopped their launch footage to add more realism to it.

OPTION2 - All 5 shots are part of a chain assembly of forged footage manufactured by NASA (or on its behalf) to lend credence to their shuttle launches - much like the multiple, 'chain-assembled' shots of the WTC collapses manufactured for 9/11.

You are fully welcome to submit any other option of your own. I might, of course, be missing something!
However, to submit the notion that these 5 'flares' are just coincidental happenstances is simply not a serious proposition.


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

PROBABLE RENDERING GLITCH OF SKYLINE AREA ( on separate layer with Space Shuttle launch animation)
Note: this glitch occurs only ONCE in the 3m23-long video (8 seconds before lift-off): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyl3mIUZdHI


HA HA HA HA HA ! That poor chap forgot to switch on his camera !


The chap must be stoopid: here he is, almost 3min later, with camera still off!


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

In this other 'amateur' video - we have some unusual wind patterns... I guess a small tornado was swirling in the Florida skies that day ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlitG7z8jvs

[simonshack]

I guess that was the joke Bad Astronomy meant to play at the expenses of the "conspiracy theorists", in fact actively demonstrating that the absence of stars in all the Moon imagery of several missions is an unresolved issue.

Yes, nonho - I second your good guess

Now, staying on the subject of "unresolved issues"....

AND THEN THERE WERE 8 !...



In order to avoid this particular issue being misunderstood/dodged or led astray by dozens of discourses, I will ask just one simple question for everyone to ponder over and, if possible, provide a plausible explanation to:

SIMPLE QUESTION: I have put a small blue arrow ---> on 7 of the 8 shots above. Now, if you are willing to accept that the 8 shots above (showing near-identical flame patterns of 8 shuttle ignitions spanning over a nine-year period) could be a matter of coincidence or/and physical plausibility, are you also willing to accept that the 7 tiny white smoke puffs pointed out by the 7 blue arrows is a plausible occurence? If you do, please elaborate your stance on this matter eloquently. Thanks!

[brianv]

The clowns making these images have no concept of reality!

[brianv]

I was about to write a post questioning, in light of recent DISCOVERIES, whether monsiers Duck et Foucours were possibly employees of NASA, when a thought sprang to mind.....

[Washington, D.C. : National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1990]
1 v.
Series

NASA contractor report ; NASA CR-186684
Notes

Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche.
Reproduction Microfiche. [Washington, D.C. : National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1990] 2 microfiches.
Subjects Space vehicles - Design and construction. | Core drilling - Moon. | Lunar soil.
Other authors/contributors Angell, David | United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Available From NASA
Govt. Doc. Number NAS 1.26:186684

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4049342

Curious, if you follow the David Angell link, you get David P Angel & David Angell