Miscellaneous NASA comedies

[Critical Mass]

Anybody else find this movie less than convincing?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6vVXs7sDsc

I love the 'flappy thing' at 0:50+

[simonshack]

Anybody else find this movie less than convincing?

Priceless stuff, CM! I'm convinced it's hilarious, that's for sure!

But hey, beware of doubting NASA while stargazing, my friend : see, right now they might just be looking straight into your eye to check if you're convinced or not!


FANTASTIC NASA CLAIM at 19:13 in below "NASA educational documentary":
"So fantastic is its accuracy, that from a distance of 50 miles, OAO can observe one of your eyes, lock onto it - and hold that lock for an hour".

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx3vqPRYik


As the story goes, the "OAO" series of satellites were the precursors to the Hubble Telescope...
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/OAO.html

[Critical Mass]

"So fantastic is its accuracy, that from a distance of 50 miles, OAO can observe one of your eyes, lock onto it - and hold that lock for an hour"

Maybe we're just becoming too skeptical & jaded Simon. Heck I see this...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77-6WBzBx3s

... and think MH370.

[Sophia Perennis]

Apparently NASA doesn't know what Abiogenesis is.

Credit: Fakeclouds Insky

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kjwy54ZwgI


@2:55

Audience: "what is the probability of finding Abiogenesis on the comet, as it were?"
NASA Rep: "Abiogenesis? Could you explain that term please?"

For someone supposedly interested in finding organic material in "outer-space", you would think they would know what mechanism would create that "organic material" in the first place.

On a side note, neither of those NASA reps seemed to take the questions very seriously, consistent laughter was observed by both of them throughout the video. I think the only comical element of their Q&A were the sheeple asking their asinine questions, as if NASA actually does science in space.

[pov603]

Sophia Perennis, I think the link you've posted is incorrect.

[Sophia Perennis]

Sophia Perennis, I think the link you've posted is incorrect.

It is! It should be corrected now, thank you!

[lux]

NASA's Orion rocket launch this morning:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7VQWRuex_s

Newsman @ 1:45:
“.. the telemetry here is unbelievable, the images are unbelievable … we have never seen these types of images.”

Huh? We've seen this sort of fake CGI crap hundreds of times!

Anyway, here is the long version:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEuOpxOrA_0

Supposed to be live but see repeat of earlier sequence at 8:40 and again at 9:15 and then they quickly switch to cartoon mode.

[hoi.polloi]

Newsman @ 1:45:
“.. the telemetry here is unbelievable, the images are unbelievable … we have never seen these types of images.”

Ha! Totally absurd. Yet, it's exactly this kind of seemingly-random "blurt" from their script which belies the psychological nature of these "rockets to the outer space" pranks. In the NASA religion, absorbing their newest propaganda equals enlightenment.

[lux]

In the NASA religion, absorbing their newest propaganda equals enlightenment.

Yes -- very perceptive!

[JLapage]

I didn't watch the whole clip. Between 1:50 and 2:00 who/what is filming the supposed rocket? A few other parts of the video contain the cartoon-like thing supposedly being filmed flying. Again who or what is filming? The angle?

[lux]

And, here we have the splashdown of the Orion space craft which we saw launch in the video above:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtTpQh9fnnU

I think we have another case of "witnesses" who didn't witness what this video implies they witnessed. Note that the ship's crew is never visible in the same frame as the descending capsule. Instead of panning from the crew to the parachutes they use a jump cut so we don't know if the crewmen were really there or not. The shots of the descending "space capsule" are overlaid with the sounds of the crew chattering but it's just sounds that could be recorded anywhere and added later.

And then we have these two guys with binoculars. Ever try using binoculars while wearing sunglasses? It doesn't work too well. But, in any case, none of the crew seem all that interested in whatever they're looking at. And the guy who turns and speaks to the taller binocular man seems to be saying, "Bullshit!"

[icarusinbound]

Note the highly-accurate positioning at sea of the vessel prior to the depicted return of the capsule. This is at odds with the classic Apollo splashdown uncertainties - many square miles of search areas, helicopter search pre deployments.

Do we know the vessel name or type? A very stable platform, surprisingly calm seas. Not any proper high-magnification ship's binoculars available to the crew?

Note that two predominant white parachute canopies seem visible, and the striped colour scheme becomes more evident at around the same time as the third 'chute suddenly appears. A strange change in detail and resolution of the remote scene after the apparent landing- suddenly the view is improved, sharper, more cinematic. That languid lingering long drop of the last chute onto the sea surface seems unrealistic, even on first play.

EDIT
Is it just my eyes, or does that capsule seem wrongly shaped? Can I see more of a pointed, almost angular object rather than a flattened teardrop?

[simonshack]

Note that two predominant white parachute canopies seem visible, and the striped colour scheme becomes more evident at around the same time as the third 'chute suddenly appears.
EDIT
Is it just my eyes, or does that capsule seem wrongly shaped? Can I see more of a pointed, almost angular object rather than a flattened teardrop?

Dear Icarusinbound... are these the only problems you have with those parachutes - and that capsule? Really?


Here's what we can see at 0:33 in that 'video':_____And here's what we can see at 0:35 in that 'video':


[st]Oh well... I suppose some smartass photo-expert-rocket-scientist will retort that the dramatically inconsistent proportions "are due to the different camera angles / perspectives of the two shots"...[/st]

**************
EDIT TO CORRECT:
My bad - I should have spent more time on this before assuming the above parachutes are meant to be the same. They are not : the smaller ones go by the name of 'drogues' - while the red-&white-striped ones are meant to be the "main chutes" which apparently get deployed at about 10.000 feet of altitude, about 4 minutes before splashdown (as seen at 1:33 in this other video):


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BHFST2XVdY

However, this means that Lux was correct in assuming that the audio track (in the "Anchorage video") was added later, since there is no discernible audio cut at 0:34 (as the video cuts from Orion-with-drogue-chutes to Orion-with-main-chutes-deployed). Also, one has to wonder how this totally cloudless shot (of Orion at above 10.000ft of altitude) was possibly captured from the Anchorage vantage point:

[lux]

Do we know the vessel name or type?

The USS Anchorage.

Oh well... I suppose some smartass photo-expert-rocket-scientist will retort that the dramatically inconsistent proportions "are due to the different camera angles / perspectives of the two shots"...

Per NASA they use three sets of parachutes -- drogue, pilot and main landing chutes, explained here. The smaller white ones are the drogue chutes which are released ...



... as the pilot chutes are deployed which then drag out the main chutes.

[simonshack]

Thanks Lux - as it is, I promptly made a correction in my post above regarding this - just as you were writing your notes about the staged parachutes.