ENDEAVOUR - the 30-year Space Shuttle hoax

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: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:36 pm

Image

What little jutting angle is that bird standing on? Where is that angle on the rocket?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:39 pm

*


ADDITIONAL PROOF OF NASA IMAGERY FRAUD
(unless any rocket scientist can offer a credible explanation/counter-argument for this)


In order to properly understand what I am demonstrating here, you need to know the following :

- The two looped gifs below represent the same moment in time of the same alleged shuttle launch (Discovery STS133, February 24, 2011)
- The moment in time is when the so-called Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB's) separate from the Shuttle (at 2min05sec after lift-off)
- The first is from an alleged cockpit camera, i.e the view that the Shuttle Captain has from his front window
- The second is from a camera right below the cockpit - but pointed in the opposite direction (downwards)

In the first shot (looking up) we see a most dramatic, orange flame-out. Whatever it is meant to represent, it is undeniably of massive proportions and clearly appears to envelop the entire front end of the shuttle (rising from below the cockpit). It literally blinds the Captain's forward view for a second or so.
Now, in the second shot (looking down) NO orange flame-out is observed at all (only some white 'condensation')

DRAMATIC FLAME-OUT______________________NO FLAME-OUT AT ALL
ImageImage
STS133 between 2:02 and 2:09 after lift-off__________ _____________STS133 between 2:02 and 2:09 after lift-off
Note: the two gifs linked from gifsoup.com do not necessarily synchronize accurately. In the videos A & B, flame-out and SRB detachment occur in synch (at 2:05)


Video A: "STS-133 Discovery Launch Forward Window View" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIDqhBF61w (at 2:57 into the video)
Video B: "STS-133 Space Shuttle Launch" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxFwUG9PiYM (at 2:17 into the video)

I rest my case: the Shuttle launch imagery is a joke - and simply cannot represent reality.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Question to rocket scientists/aspiring debunkers: what would make orange flames run up towards the front of the cockpit in the first place?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:17 pm

simonshack wrote:I rest my case: the Shuttle launch imagery is a joke - and simply cannot represent reality.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Question to rocket scientists/aspiring debunkers: what would make orange flames run up towards the front of the cockpit in the first place?



Off the top of my head (only because I imagine many of these things to have some sort of logical explanation, even if the imagery is completely fake):

The upper parts of the two rocket boosters are attached ahead of the shuttle. When they are detached from the tank, some sort of explosive device (sorry I lack the technical terms) causes the rockets to be pushed away from the tank and the shuttle, as a security measure. Hence the flames we see there in front of the cockpit.

This effect is not visible from below, because it is only required at the upper end of the boosters, in order to "open" them up as they are released (again lack of technical terms).

If the same device to push the rockets away worked from below, they would not be pushed away in the asymmetrical opened way we see, that might be a requirment to make sure they fall away in a certain way.

-- again, I imagine this to supposedly be a security thing, to prevent the rockets from continuing their course close to the tank: they could end up swerving against it! I think it would be even more bizarre to see the rockets being simply detached, and yet never to swerve against the tank right after.

Obviously I am not a rocket scientist -- or any scientist for that matter -- so I am just speculating based on what the imagery suggests me.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:22 pm

nonhocapito wrote:The upper parts of the two rocket boosters are attached ahead of the shuttle. When they are detached from the tank, some sort of explosive device (sorry I lack the technical terms) causes the rockets to be pushed away from the tank and the shuttle, as a security measure. Hence the flames we see there in front of the cockpit.

This effect is not visible from below, because it is only required at the upper end of the boosters, in order to "open" them up as they are released (again lack of technical terms).


Yes, nonho

The explosive device you mention is called "NSD" (Nasa Standard Detonator). It has apparently been used ever since the Gemini program - back in the 60's... Here's a schematic of the NSD:
Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_standard_detonator

Now, the Solid Rocket Boosters are in fact/apparently attached with this 'one single bolt':

"The forward attachment point consists of a ball (SRB) and socket (External Tank (ET)) held together by one bolt.
The bolt contains one NSD pressure cartridge at each end."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shut ... Separation


Firstly, allow me to have strong doubts (even if I'm no rocket scientist either) that such a weeny device produces this sort of alarming, massive deflagration considering - among other things - that the NSD is located perilously close to the LOF (Liquid Oxygen Feedline - a small leak there and ...*KA-BOOM!*) :

Image


See, what you are basically saying is that the camera (which you located as shown below - I think we agree on that) doesn't catch as much as a flash of the above deflagration (with those huge flames) - in spite of its proximity to the NSD device. Good Heavens: I'm afraid I have a big problem with that!

Image



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

And - talking about "KA-BOOMS", let me just express a little thought regarding this pre-liftoff picture of the doomed "Challenger" :
Image
Caption: "Camera captures grey smoke emitting from the right-hand SRB on Space Shuttle Challenger before the start of STS-51-L."

Are we to believe NASA didn't monitor their cameras properly and let this Shuttle take off in spite of this alarming - and very visible - grey smoke??
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:02 pm

Sorry, for some reason watching the video I was making the shuttle to be positioned much lower compared to the top of the boosters. I see that you have the whole schematic much clearer in mind.

Image

I couldn't find an exact indication of the position of the forward NSD, but if it is located where you show it to be, obviously what we see in those videos becomes pretty impossible to explain.
Yet following wikipedia's links, I found this diagram from NASA:

Image

Could the NSD be located a little bit higher, where it says "separation motors"? It is a bit of a stretch, but if the NSD is higher, then maybe the effects of the NSD explosion could come down diagonally and affect the cockpit more than the LOF camera. Here's the description of these "separation motors":

There are four booster separation motors on each end of each SRB. The BSMs separate the SRBs from the external tank. The solid rocket motors in each cluster of four are ignited by firing redundant NSD pressure cartridges into redundant confined detonating fuse manifolds.


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/ref ... ation.html

I think what we are shown in the video are the effects of these motors pushing the SRBs away...?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:10 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Could the NSD be located a little bit higher, where it says "separation motors"? It is a bit of a stretch, but if the NSD is higher, then maybe the effects of the NSD explosion could come down diagonally and affect the cockpit more than the LOF camera...


Hmm - I don't think so, nonho:

Image


nonhocapito wrote:I think what we are shown in the video are the effects of these motors pushing the SRBs away...?

Oh - I guess that's the idea, yes.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:17 pm

( Once again I was till editing my post while you responded to it, Simon. My bad! )

So, the tip of the rocket is not connected to the tank, but apparently there are separation motors in it:

There are four booster separation motors on each end of each SRB. The BSMs separate the SRBs from the external tank. The solid rocket motors in each cluster of four are ignited by firing redundant NSD pressure cartridges into redundant confined detonating fuse manifolds. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/ref ... ation.html


The little I understand from the confusing explanations of these ridiculously brief Shuttle "reference manuals", we have a NSD where the forward bolt is, but also separation motors at upper and lower ends not connected to the tank.
Maybe those are the culprits for the conflagration that we see happening in the video.

Image

But of course, that this or that technical detail have a logical explanation is not crucial: obviously there is some science behind the fakery. A lot, even. This does not change the essential nature of this story, and the likeness that many if not all parts of it are faked.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:14 pm

nonhocapito wrote: But of course, that this or that technical detail have a logical explanation is not crucial: obviously there is some science behind the fakery. A lot, even.


Well - I am sure they put a lot of thought in their fakery - their job is (presumably) to make it all look real and likely. As you say, this or that technical detail may have a 'logical explanation'. The thing is, photography also has its logic and technical parameters. This is where we can challenge their job - which quite simply does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

For instance, do you remember this shot, nonho?

THE SNOW-WHITE EXTERNAL TANK:
Image
Well - it is technically (photographically speaking) inexplicable. That is, if we are to explain it within the realm of real photography.
Since this is not possible, it's only logical explanation is that it is a poorly handled digital composite.

Now, here is another frame of that frontal deflagration we were talking about above - I hope you will agree it's like a VERY powerful flashbulb :
Image

Seriously: wouldn't this flash have illuminated the shady underside of the Shuttle here?
Image

And shouldn't we have a white smoke trail here?
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:06 pm

simonshack wrote:Seriously: wouldn't this flash have illuminated the shady underside of the Shuttle here?


You are obviously right, Simon: the light effects we see here certainly do seem to be too "simplified" to belong to an impression of reality. Unless, in a rarefied atmosphere light and shadow could be sharper? with less light "diffusion"? I wouldn't know. But I certainly am more comfortable following you in the observation of the credibility of pictures rather than discussing technical and scientific devices of which there is too much I don't know...
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:44 pm

*

Sad - so sad :( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH_1fI0gXNo

Lou Dobbs wonders why and laments that the US is 'losing out' in the space race (in favor of China and India...) *Sob*

Hmmm...could it be because NASA builds marshmallow wings? :huh:

Image

And no - you're not going to tell me that this is a 'refraction effect' or 'video compression artifact' of any kind.
A computer graphics rendering glitch? Far more likely.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Unread postby agraposo on Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:23 pm

simonshack wrote:*

What absorbes this brutal torque ? (note: side-rocket does not tilt/move)
Image
ATLANTIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpBNr-oNT1g



I think militaryexcellence should be more careful when uploading videos:

At 1:45, this is the Endeavour, not Atlantis, what a mess!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpBNr-oNT1g&feature=player_detailpage#t=105s
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby Extremophile on Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:27 pm

simonshack wrote:*

Sad - so sad :( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH_1fI0gXNo

Lou Dobbs wonders why and laments that the US is 'losing out' in the space race (in favor of China and India...) *Sob*

Hmmm...could it be because NASA builds marshmallow wings? :huh:

Image

And no - you're not going to tell me that this is a 'refraction effect' or 'video compression artifact' of any kind.
A computer graphics rendering glitch? Far more likely.


I think it is possible, theoretically, from the viewpoint of the camera (that is: at ground level, far away, zoomed in, with lots of air between it and the shuttle) to have hot air (hotter than surrounding air at least) from the tarmack on the runway rise up where you get light refraction in combination with air turbulence so it can look wobbly.
I can't explain though why it would only occur at one end of a wing... there are variables that are unknown (to me) like the angle of the camera on the runway, the shuttle's angle on the runway at that height and wind/temperature/pressure conditions.
But besides this, I enjoy reading this thread :) lots of interesting aspects that come along that deserve some attention.
Extremophile
Member
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:12 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:50 pm

Extremophile wrote:I can't explain though why it would only occur at one end of a wing...


Precisely. And neither can I (heat refraction from hot tarmac - an effect I am well familiar with since my Formula 1 sports photographer days - would affect more than just the wingtip.)

The fact is (and I should have mentioned this before) there is more than one such landing shots ('from this same camera') featuring anomalous glitches with that left wingtip. Right now, I could find only this one ... (help! I'm drowning in image files from the 134 shuttle missions :lol: )
Image
ENDEAVOUR COMES HOME: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyHRnmR8tQM
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:26 pm

*
I submit this for everyone's appraisal. Comments welcome. <_<

Image

To anyone interested, here's my personal feelings about this: I feel that not only my intelligence is insulted by NASA - but also that of humanity as a whole. What it will take to stop this wretched in-your-face farce I do not know, but it surely cannot go on forever. I am comforted by - and thankful of - the fact of having this forum, with its high percentage of sharp, reasonable and functioning minds to share my thoughts and concerns with. Warm thanks to all ! :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby Heiwa on Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:51 pm

I assume stupid questions are welcome, Simon? I wonder how this funny Shuttle is maneouvered up in space with no air. I understand the Shuttle is accelerated to a high velocity v1 and then approaches the space station that has velocity v2. In order not to collide with the space station the Shuttle must slow down (or speed up) to same velocity v2. But how it is done? I only see three big jet (?) or rocket engines at the end of the Shuttle. They can of course provide plenty force to accelerate the Shuttle fwd (why I cannot gather) but wouldn’t it be better to have six engines – each one facing fwd/aft/up/down/right left for better control? In 3D space!
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests