Hubble or Bubble?

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: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby nonhocapito on June 28th, 2011, 3:47 am

simonshack wrote:Ok. But NASA told us that the pliers lost by one of their astronaughts (the guy repairing the solar panels) were expected to eventually "fall down to Earth - but we will me monitoring them by radar" (yes, I'm quoting the NASA experts). Now, weren't those pliers also orbiting in space without air resistance? Does the ISS have any propulsive means to keep it where it is (between 278 and 460km (wikipedia) for year after year? No. Do the pliers have that? No. I trust you get my drift.

Hence, the questions I would have here concern specifically the issue of propulsion outside of the Earth's atmosphere. Let us accept for now that a satellite may be sent up to a certain altitude where it gets caught up in a centrifugal force which keeps it reliably circling the Earth at high speed (or rest in geosynchronous orbit - at 36.000km from Earth - the alleged, favored altitude for communication and weather satellites). How exactly, I wonder, are these precise altitudes achieved? How do they stop a given satellite (launched by a rocket into this space vacuum devoid of air resistance) at its ideal altitude?


Simon: The detail about the pliers is odd. I am already on board with the ISS being probably fake, but let's say that maybe the pliers were described as 'falling' in the sense that they 'fell out' of orbit. Maybe they got some sort of kick and bounced off the ISS going in the wrong direction enough to start descending to a lower orbit and eventually plummeting into the atmosphere. Does that make sense? I don't know.

How precise altitudes are achieved? I don't know. How the drilling of a miles-deep well is achieved? How a huge bridge or building is built? With a lot of calculations, I suppose.
I think a satellite has its own motor that can be fired once or twice as required (not continuously) to get to the precise high orbit it needs. If a satellite is carried by a shuttle (assuming something like the shuttle was real), or rather by some other unmanned vector, to a low orbit, the transfer of orbit seem to happen in the following conditions (this comes from the page I had linked to already, along with other brief illustrations on how orbits work):

Elliptical Orbits: most orbits are not perfectly circular. All orbits are ellipses (flattened circles) with a high point (apogee) and a low point (perigee).
At apogee, when the satellite is farthest from the earth, it is going the slowest - it's ready to fall back toward the earth.
As the satellite falls it gains speed, and "overshoots" the earth, swinging quickly through perigee, then gaining altitude back toward apogee.
The satellite doesn't stay in orbit at the apogee distance because it isn't going fast enough when it reaches that point. It doesn't stay in orbit at the perigee distance because it's picked up so much speed by that point that it starts climbing again.

Transfer Orbit:
If we speed the satellite up while it's in low circular earth orbit it will go into elliptical orbit, heading up to apogee.
If we do nothing else, it will stay in this elliptical orbit, going from apogee to perigee and back again.
BUT, if we fire a rocket motor when the satellite's at apogee, and speed it up to the required circular orbit speed, it will stay at that altitude in circular orbit. Firing a rocket motor at apogee is called "apogee kick", and the motor is called the "apogee kick motor".


http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html

I don't know if the above is correct or accurate. I know it stands for a scientific brief explanation of how satellites achieve their orbit. I am sure dozens of other sources on the web can be found.

Dcopymope: you say "what’s making these satellites move in this manner can’t be rocket motors as we know them, then they must be using some technology that we don’t know about".
Again with the "secret science". <_<
How the Moon does not fall onto the earth? Once again: space void. Once you don't have air resistance, there is nothing stopping those objects from going. As I said: satellites orbit planets, planets keep orbiting the sun and nothing stops them. Not only that, but apparently they can grow in size over the billion of years as they attract rocks from outer space, or diminish in size as they smash against each other. And yet all through this they keep on orbiting the damn sun. They have no alien secret propulsion system either.
It is probably fair to say that it is by observing planets and comets that humans figured out how artificial satellites could work.

Hoi, as to your question about Hubble slowing down, I don't know. Can you quote the exact source for this? I don't think any satellite can ever slow down, unless to descend to a lower orbit, considering that it is the speed that keeps it in orbit. I am trying to read somewhere about the exposure times for the Hubble, but so far no luck. Something about how the hubble locks onto a target can be read here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/hubble6.htm

Hubble's Fine Guidance Sensors help keep the telescope fixed on its target by sighting on guide stars. Two of the three sensors find guide stars around the target within their respective fields of view. Once found, they lock onto the guide stars and send information to the flight computer to keep the guide stars within their field of view. The sensors are more sensitive than the gyroscopes, but the combination of gyroscopes and the sensors can keep the HST fixed on a target for hours, despite the telescope's orbital motion.


I read elsewhere (on wickedpedia I think) that despite the fast orbiting and the earth getting in the way, there are certain limited portions of the sky (towards north and south, probably, as the hubble circles around the equator) that are always available to the telescope, I guess those can work for the long exposure times that are needed.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby nonhocapito on June 28th, 2011, 4:05 am

Incidentally, on the howstuffworks page about Hubble I also read this hilarious bit:

Lastly, the HST passes through a section of the Van Allen radiation belts, where charged particles from the solar winds are trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. These encounters cause high background radiation, which interferes with the instruments' detectors. It's impossible for the telescope to make observations during these periods.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/hubble7.htm

Wow. How the hell was possible for the Apollo crew to keep their systems going, as they traveled through the radiation belts with some forty years old technology, if the Hubble telescope cannot function as it travels through it now? :lol:
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby AlexJones on June 28th, 2011, 4:27 pm

I found this info useful in explaining how satellites stay in orbit:

Conservation of energy. Once placed in an orbit and after the rockets have shut off, there's theoretically only one force affecting the satellite - gravity.

If an object started out stationary in space and if the object could fall through the Earth without slowing down, the Earth's gravity would accelerate the object so that it would fall faster and faster towards the Earth. Once the object reached the center of the Earth, it would be going very fast. Because of it's momentum, it would keep on going unless some force acted on it. The only force acting on it is still gravity, so the object would slow down at the same rate that it sped up. It would reach the same distance away on the opposite side of the Earth before it finally stopped again. The force of gravity would still be the only force acting on the object, so it would fall back towards the Earth, through the Earth, to it's starting point, and so on. There can't be any net work done by gravity from a stationary source.

The difference between a satellite orbit and the motion I described is that the satellite has a sideways motion to it instead of sitting there stationary. If the sideways motion (tangential motion) is fast enough, the satellite misses the Earth on the way down as it speeds up all the way down. It curves around the Earth and slows down all the way up, reaching it's original point with the exact same tangential motion it started with. Whatever gets done on the way down gets undone on the way up - there can't be any net change because the gravity is coming from a stationary point.

The exact same principles apply if you hold a ball in the air and let go of it. Because the Earth is spinning, the ball has a tangential motion and it's released into an orbit around the CENTER of the Earth. Unfortunately, the tangential motion isn't fast enough to miss the Earth. In fact, that particular orbit intersects the Earth in less than half a second.

A side note in response to some of the other posts. Not all satellites re-enter the atmosphere. The atmosphere thins gradually and there's still at least some atmospheric gases up to at least 1000 km (around 600 miles) above the Earth's surface. As thin as it may be, it's still enough to slow satellites down, which is why the low orbiting satellites DO eventually re-enter the atmosphere. Satellites more than a 1000 km high (GPS satellites, geosynchronous communications satellites) never re-enter the atmosphere.


So the Hubble Telescope is moving at a speed to keep it in place in its fall and climb around the globe. Next is to work out how it takes them long exposures whilst spinning and falling and climbing around the world. :rolleyes:
AlexJones
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: May 14th, 2011, 9:22 pm

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby hoi.polloi on June 28th, 2011, 6:16 pm

AlexJones, nonhocapito has some good explanations:

Hoi, as to your question about Hubble slowing down, I don't know. Can you quote the exact source for this? I don't think any satellite can ever slow down, unless to descend to a lower orbit, considering that it is the speed that keeps it in orbit. I am trying to read somewhere about the exposure times for the Hubble, but so far no luck. Something about how the hubble locks onto a target can be read here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/hubble6.htm

Hubble's Fine Guidance Sensors help keep the telescope fixed on its target by sighting on guide stars. Two of the three sensors find guide stars around the target within their respective fields of view. Once found, they lock onto the guide stars and send information to the flight computer to keep the guide stars within their field of view. The sensors are more sensitive than the gyroscopes, but the combination of gyroscopes and the sensors can keep the HST fixed on a target for hours, despite the telescope's orbital motion.


I read elsewhere (on wickedpedia I think) that despite the fast orbiting and the earth getting in the way, there are certain limited portions of the sky (towards north and south, probably, as the hubble circles around the equator) that are always available to the telescope, I guess those can work for the long exposure times that are needed.


Just imagine that a telescope is always orbiting around the equator. That means if it looks "North" or "South" there won't ever be the planet Earth in the way, except for the small bits of atmosphere that exist way out there. So it only has to peer through a thin bit of magnetic field, particles and various other factors to be concerned about so many miles out. And at its apogee, it will be able to see even less of that noise and more of the universe. It could spend significantly more than days taking a picture, it could take a timespan of years if it so wanted -- since the full orbit of the telescope around the sun (as it followed wobbling about Earth) would make very little difference for its perspective compared to the vast size of the universe. Then you have to take into account the orbit of the sun around the galactic center but this still might not be that significant compared to the distance of other galaxies from our cluster.

The "finger" is amusing but it is also plausible. That's what makes it so funny and confusing. There just might be a nebula shaped like a giant penis or Mickey Mouse. Who knows? Humans always apply imaginary shapes to clouds too, don't they?

I find this description problematic (my bolds):
the combination of gyroscopes and the sensors can keep the HST fixed on a target for hours, despite the telescope's orbital motion.


Is it hours? Or days? Nonhocapito, what do you think?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby simonshack on June 28th, 2011, 9:17 pm

*
HUBBLE GETS SERVICED BY SPACE SHUTTLE FIX TEAM

Image ( 4X SPEED )

I won't say much about this. Well, maybe just one thing: Everyone is free to believe in this tripe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-riWn_WLDWE (listen to inane, incomprehensible dialogue/soundtrack)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby simonshack on June 28th, 2011, 11:11 pm

*

I VOTE FOR : "MONEY BUBBLE"

Well, folks - been looking a bit into the "Hubble telescope".

One thing IS for sure: Hubble was, is - and has always been - a voracious money-eater. In fact, I clearly remember that all I ever heard and read as a teenager about the Hubble was unending stories about its outrageous, escalating costs (and I really wondered what all the fuss was about):


Quest for funding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

In 1970 NASA established two committees, one to plan the engineering side of the space telescope project, and the other to determine the scientific goals of the mission. Once these had been established, the next hurdle for NASA was to obtain funding for the instrument, which would be far more costly than any Earth-based telescope.
(...)
Congress eventually approved funding of US$36,000,000 for 1978, and the design of the LST began in earnest, aiming for a launch date of 1983
(...)
Doubts continued to be expressed about Perkin-Elmer's competence on a project of this importance, as their budget and timescale for producing the rest of the OTA continued to inflate. In response to a schedule described as "unsettled and changing daily", NASA postponed the launch date of the telescope until April 1985. Perkin-Elmer's schedules continued to slip at a rate of about one month per quarter, and at times delays reached one day for each day of work. NASA was forced to postpone the launch date until first March and then September 1986. By this time the total project budget had risen to US$1.175 billion.
(...)
Lockheed still experienced some budget and schedule slippage, and by the summer of 1985, construction of the spacecraft was 30% over budget and three months behind schedule.
(...)
By early 1986, the planned launch date of October that year looked feasible, but the Challenger accident brought the U.S. space program to a halt, grounding the space shuttle fleet and forcing the launch of Hubble to be postponed for several years. The telescope had to be kept in a clean room, powered up and purged with nitrogen, until a launch could be rescheduled. This costly situation (about $6 million per month) pushed the overall costs of the project even higher.
(...)
From its original total cost estimate of about US$400 million, the telescope had by now cost over $2.5 billion to construct. Hubble's cumulative costs up to this day are estimated to be several times higher still, with US expenditure estimated at between $4.5 and $6 billion, and Europe's financial contribution at €593 million (1999 estimate).


Wow. $6 billion (a 1999 estimate). Wonder what the 2011 estimate would be. That's a pretty expensive optical toy, if you ask me! :huh: And, of course, these are only officially-released figures. Let us only imagine the real toll the Hubble has taken on the taxpayers.

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

But let's cut this shit short. These two pictures are all I need to know. Yes - I've made my mind up: it's a Hubble Hoax (and scam):


"HUBBLE BEING PLACED IN ORBIT in 1990 by Space Shuttle -STS31"
Is that supposed to be the sun shining in a black sky? Or is it a really, really bright star? Wait, maybe it's a spotlight held by one of the Space Shuttle's robotic arms? Hm, no. No arm is to be seen under the light. (Note: the entire front undersection of the 'Hubble' is clad in golden tinfoil)
Image

***

"LAST CLOSE-UP PICTURE OF HUBBLE" in 2009 from Space Shuttle -STS125
Note: Has the golden tinfoil-cladding now turned white? Has it been replaced over time? Yeah, I know. The 'Hubble' has been reportedly intercepted and serviced 5 times over the years by the Space Shuttle. In the vastness of space... I really wonder how they do all this. Please let me wonder.
Image

Sorry guys! (I'm talking with NASA now...): These cheesy, 'plastic' looking photographs are dreadfully artificial. Whoever fabricated these images has to be immediately sacked. I'm sure Buzz Aldrin can be called back from retirement and make a better job of this. Come to think of it, perhaps his 12-year-old nephew would be a better choice. Keep it in the family though, you never know who you can trust nowadays and - God forbid - run away with the money!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby nonhocapito on June 29th, 2011, 6:34 am

simonshack wrote:*
HUBBLE GETS SERVICED BY SPACE SHUTTLE FIX TEAM

Image ( 4X SPEED )

I won't say much about this. Well, maybe just one thing: Everyone is free to believe in this tripe.


Sigh. Look at the guy using his feet to swim into space void. All that training in the pool really got to him. <_<
Interesting that you sped it up, Simon. So they are still using the old Apollo film speed trick to fake lack of gravity...?

(The "UFO" that can be seen, that of course means nothing since it could just as well be a satellite, really seem to be one of those elements added to create buzz and distract us from the flawed footage...)
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby simonshack on June 29th, 2011, 11:55 am

*

<_< A must read...

"WE CANNOT FAKE REALITY (Hubble Bubble)"
http://www.marques.co.za/duke/hubble.html
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby SmokingGunII on June 29th, 2011, 4:02 pm

Simon, might I say how much I am enjoying this series on the Space Shuttle and Hubble hoaxes?

Once again, the ridiculous imagery doesn't stand up to the basic tenets of physics. The bottom of the two pictures that you post has some glaring (pun intended) discrepancies.

I think we can all agree that there is only one light source in our solar system? So, why does the satellite dish (top centre), cast a shadow and no other protrusion from the body of the telescope not? Second, shouldn't the lower section of tinfoil be reflecting darkness rather than something that appears to be beautifully white?

PS. the creator of the top image realised that a reflective material would reflect the gold "wings" of the Hubble from the viewpoint shown. So top marks there. The foil is not gold, but meant to be a reflection. :)

I would also suggest that the bright light in the background is, indeed, some kind of helpful spotlight to enable the ISS operators to see what they are doing and any supporting arm behind the light source would not be lit. Quite what lights the rest of the craft shall have to remain one of life's little mysteries. ;) Perhaps someone left the toilet light on? :lol:
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby hoi.polloi on June 29th, 2011, 7:52 pm

simonshack wrote:*

<_< A must read...

"WE CANNOT FAKE REALITY (Hubble Bubble)"
http://www.marques.co.za/duke/hubble.html


Wow that site is pretty fishy, but I liked this quote:

Five spacewalks were needed to fix Hubble It seemed incredible but Hubble's main mirror was the wrong shape and it could not focus properly. To be fair, Hubble was good, but only as good as ground-based telescopes, and they cost a fraction of Hubble's $2 billion price tag. It transpired that the central region of the mirror was flatter than it should be - by just one-fiftieth of the width of a human hair. This is equivalent to only four wavelengths of visible light, but it was enough. One insider said that the Hubble mirror was " very accurate, very accurately the wrong shape ".


So the Hubble began "only as good as ground based telescopes"? Interesting. Might have the original pictures attributed to Hubble actually been taken by ground based telescopes?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re:

Postby Terence.drew on July 1st, 2011, 11:08 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
If anyone is paying my posts any attention, I'm still waiting for an answer to the fact that on a starry night just by looking up to the sky we all can see points of light moving about the sky. Those aren't airplanes and I doubt them being UFOs or angels. I tend to believe those are satellites. Gee I wonder how do they not fall down?


I am paying attention to your posts. What exactly are you seeing?

If what you are seeing are satellites then what is illuminating them? Do satellites have enormous lights on them?

(The sun is on the other (day) side of the Earth)
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:55 pm

Re: Re:

Postby nonhocapito on July 1st, 2011, 11:38 pm

Terence.drew wrote:If what you are seeing are satellites then what is illuminating them? Do satellites have enormous lights on them?
(The sun is on the other (day) side of the Earth)


I imagine that out of the thousands of satellites that supposedly are up there, the ones we see are the ones that are in the right position to reflect the light of the sun. The sun might be on the other side of the earth at a given time of the night, but for the most part it is just away from our horizon. Besides the sun is far far away from our planet and it can't take much to get out of the shadow cone projected by the earth at any given time, being the earth a sort of sphere. Have you ever noticed that you can still see the sun when you're up on a mountain, when a valley below is already after sunset? Imagine this happening for an object very very high.

Anyway: I know you must see those moving lights at night like we all do.
Lacking a motive to believe any differently, I say those are satellites. You imply they are not. Then what are they? Where do they come from? Where do they go?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hubble or Bubble?

Postby simonshack on July 2nd, 2011, 12:14 am

^
We're not alone... <_<

Just bumped into this mighty interesting forum:

Fake Satellites? Fake Astronauts? Fake Moon Images?
http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=220
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Re:

Postby Terence.drew on July 2nd, 2011, 12:36 am

nonhocapito wrote:
Terence.drew wrote:If what you are seeing are satellites then what is illuminating them? Do satellites have enormous lights on them?
(The sun is on the other (day) side of the Earth)


I imagine that out of the thousands of satellites that supposedly are up there, the ones we see are the ones that are in the right position to reflect the light of the sun. The sun might be on the other side of the earth at a given time of the night, but for the most part it is just away from our horizon. Besides the sun is far far away from our planet and it can't take much to get out of the shadow cone projected by the earth at any given time. Have you ever noticed that you can still see the sun when you're up on a mountain, when a valley below is already after sunset? Imagine this happening for an object very very high.

Anyway: I know you must see those moving lights at night like we all do.
Lacking a motive to believe any differently, I say those are satellites. You imply they are not. Then what are they? Where do they come from? Where do they go?




I have seen one or two of these lights crossing the night sky. No more than that.
There are supposed to be 6,500 satellites in orbit. These Satellites are in different orbits and at different heights ( imaginary IMO) but by your logic ( which is - satellites reflect the sun light near the horizon - but the higher up they are the quicker this should happen) we should see at least several hundred if not several thousand of these points of light in the sky traversing the sky? Why does one or two appear and the rest remain hidden? I mean how many of these points of light have you seen in one night?

How can you account for one of these points of light occurring in the middle of the night when the sun is directly opposite the viewer?( the radius of the earth is approx 4000 miles, circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles ). All other points in sky have their own illumination .... stars are suns....Meteorites are huge fire balls...The moon is illuminated by the sun because it is so far away from the earth compared with satellites (250 -500 times farther) but still the moon is not illuminated by the earth when it falls in the earths shadow (lunar eclipse).
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:55 pm

Re: Re:

Postby nonhocapito on July 2nd, 2011, 2:15 am

Terence.drew wrote:I have seen one or two of these lights crossing the night sky. No more than that.
There are supposed to be 6,500 satellites in orbit. These Satellites are in different orbits and at different heights ( imaginary IMO) but by your logic ( which is - satellites reflect the sun light near the horizon - but the higher up they are the quicker this should happen) we should see at least several hundred if not several thousand of these points of light in the sky traversing the sky? Why does one or two appear and the rest remain hidden? I mean how many of these points of light have you seen in one night?

How can you account for one of these points of light occurring in the middle of the night when the sun is directly opposite the viewer?( the radius of the earth is approx 4000 miles, circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles ). All other points in sky have their own illumination .... stars are suns....Meteorites are huge fire balls...The moon is illuminated by the sun because it is so far away from the earth compared with satellites (250 -500 times farther) but still the moon is not illuminated by the earth when it falls in the earths shadow (lunar eclipse).


What can I say. Artificial satellites obviously reflect light coming from above their own horizon, which is smaller than ours (since they are farther from the earth.) They are designed to work on solar power, so their nights are certainly shorter than ours. Satellites do not necessarily orbit around the equator (otherwise I would never see one: and at the equator, they would have longer nights). So it is impossible from the ground to tell if at any given moment the sun is hidden or not from them just by looking at them. I live around the 45°, and I see those lights going in any given direction, north -south, east-west. True, you don't ever see more than two or three in an hour. So maybe the numbers are faked. Maybe not. There is still something that goes by there and the most economical explanation for it is still: satellites.

Image

Don't let numbers impress you. Suppose that in the portion of sky that I see, there are 5 orbits traced in different directions. On any of these 5 orbits there are 20 satellites going around the earth. How far would the satellites be from each other? How long i'd have to wait to see a second satellite follow the first one on the same orbit? The earth is big. Orbits are much bigger. Man is small. 6,500 is not such a big number. Saying I should see tens of satellites at any given moment is like saying that asteroids should continuously hit satellites. I cannot prove it, but I suspect math would disagree.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests