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 simonshack on Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:31 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
Tufa wrote:
The German feature film, released by filmmaker Fritz Lang in 1929, provided the blueprint for the heavily ritualized launch procedures that were adopted for the Apollo program. As can be seen in the screen caps below, all of the elements were there: the unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar; the grand opening of the massive hangar doors; the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocketship from the hangar to the launch pad;
(...)


*
ROLL-OUT OF LATEST SHUTTLE (STS134 - May 2011)

(coming up)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby reel.deal on Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:49 pm

Tufa wrote:This comes from David McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Image
Image
Image


I dont see anything ridiculous with the "wonderbolt", placed in historical NA$A context - its perfectly natural. :P
That a SINGLE BOLT/SCREW could secure a WHOLE FREEKIN SPACE-SHUTTLE TO THE BOOSTER-ROCKETS' COLLOSAL EXTERNAL TANK... :o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
Each booster has a liftoff thrust of approximately 2,800,000 pounds-force (12.5 MN) at sea level, increasing shortly after liftoff to about 3,100,000 lbf (13.8 MN).
...The SRBs are the largest solid-propellant motors ever flown and the first of such large rockets designed for reuse. Each is 149.16 ft (45.46 m) long and 12.17 ft (3.71 m) in diameter.
...Each SRB weighs approximately 1,300,000 lb (590,000 kg) at launch. The two SRBs constitute about 60% of the total lift-off mass. The propellant for each solid rocket motor weighs approximately 1,100,000 lb (500,000 kg). The inert weight of each SRB is approximately 200,000 lb (91,000 kg).
...The forward attachment point consists of a ball (SRB) and socket (External Tank (ET)) held together by one bolt
.
:huh: The bolt contains one NSD pressure cartridge at each end. The forward attachment point also carries the range safety system cross-strap wiring connecting each SRB RSS and the ET RSS with each other.

* * * * * * *

The "HARDWARE" "holding together" the Apollo Lunar landing craft didnt need ANY EXCESSIVE WEIGHT OR EXPENDITURE...
wasted on BOLTS AND SCREWS... ;)
The LUNAR-LANDING MODULE THAT DEPOSITED NEIL & BUZZ, + ALL THE REST THAT FOLLOWED THEM -
was "PRECISION-FINISHED" to the "HIGHEST-SPEC" utilising everyday household DIY-homecraft materials... :blink: :huh: :o
SELLOTAPE + BLU-TACK. :)

Image
Image
;)


NA$A got a screw loose...

Space Shuttle External Tank - 26.08.09 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEB8Z_Hq1Mk&feature=fvwrel
Image

STS-134 Endeavour: External Tank for Final Shuttle Flight -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zJrh_B1aNU&NR=1
Image


Now if only they'd built the
worldtradecenter with one those "SINGLE" "HURCULEAN" NA$A "WONDERBOLTS"...

:P
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby Tufa on Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:04 pm

reel.deal wrote:...The forward attachment point consists of a ball (SRB) and socket (External Tank (ET)) held together by one bolt. :huh: The bolt contains one NSD pressure cartridge at each end. The forward attachment point also carries the range safety system cross-strap wiring connecting each SRB RSS and the ET RSS with each other.


We need a better understanding of the other attachments, at the back. You can not evaluate just a single attachment. You need to figure out what it should do. The "bolt" is of no significance if it just merely operate a mechanism. I'll guess, that when you see the bolt retract you thought that this bolt was holding the tank to the shuttle? I don't see it that way. The forces can go through the seat of the mechanism, and there is no load on "The Bolt" at all.
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:19 pm

I sometimes wonder whether my style of presenting the facts (as I see them) to the best of my capacity, through methodical analysis and logical discourse (well - that's what I strive to do, in any case) is all that effective - and if it has any sort of appeal to longtime TV addicts. So here's just a short 'commercial break' for such readers lurking on this thread and wondering what on Earth this is all about.
:huh:
My question for you TV lovers is: would you not buy this product if you saw it routinely advertised on TV for all of 30 years?

This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-This is not a cartoon-

Image :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViSdQgAy ... re=related

Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-Buy-
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby Heiwa on Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:52 pm

It would appear that the shuttle, hanging on a single bolt connected to a tube frame extending from the fuel tank, weighs 109 tons. If the bolt is of normal steel, it need not have a diameter more than 10 centimeters to do the job (with a FoS about 3). Evidently a single joint connection shuttle/tank is optimal and safest and simplest. To disconnect the shuttle from the fuel tank in space you just remove the bolt.
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:20 pm

simonshack wrote:I sometimes wonder whether my style of presenting the facts (as I see them) to the best of my capacity, through methodical analysis and logical discourse (well - that's what I strive to do, in any case) is all that effective - and if it has any sort of appeal to longtime TV addicts.


Well Simon, here is my take:

From the context, from what we know about NASA, I can believe and imagine that the Shuttle program is as fake as the Apollo program, which means the orbital space station is also fake. It is very possible.

But because the shuttle and space station never leave the high atmosphere and stay well within the magnetic field of the earth, it is not inconceivable that they might be "true", based as they are on the technology of satellites and high-altitude airplanes -- although in that case certainly not meant for the "advancement of human race" but only for the advancement of the united states military programs, and thus surrounded by a thick web of lies anyway.

Conversely, with Apollo, the premise itself is preposterous, no matter how many scientific details we are offered to believe in it.

Regardless (and maybe I am being lazy and dismissive here), what I don't necessarily believe is that the clues that could make the fakery transparent to everyone are lying in the videos and pictures like it happened with Apollo (which doesn't mean we shouldn't look, but only that we shouldn't be overly confident either).

Despite everything, Apollo was a very good fakery job for its times. In fact it took many decades for someone to start opening our eyes on it. I think the shuttle program must be equally well-crafted: it seems unlikely that one single detail (like the bolt) can be so macroscopically wrong to be inexplicable in scientific terms. Questionable, yes: but not beyond doubt or discussion.
Sorry if these observations seem to be meant to hinder or depress the research, they absolutely are not. I am all for looking into the matter.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby reel.deal on Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:36 pm

Image
Image
^ ^ ^ "What absorbes this brutal torque ? (note: side-rocket does not tilt/move)"

PRETTY IMPRESSIVE BOLT THEN !
Not only does it EASILY STAY TRUE @ -423 degrees Fahrenheit, not becoming brittle + snapping, but it also ACTS AS THE SPACE-SHUTTLE SHOCK-ABSORBER, EASILY damping the "lift-off thrust of approximately 2,800,000 pounds-force (12.5 MN) at sea level, increasing shortly after liftoff to about 3,100,000 lbf", and DRAGGING UP THE INERT 109 TON SPACE-SHUTTLE ALONG WITH IT...
WONDER WHAT "METAL-COMPOUND" the NA$A '10cm' WONDERBOLT CONSISTS OF ?

KRYPTONITE ? :huh:
Last edited by reel.deal on Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:46 pm

*

Dear all,

May I ask everyone to post as little Moonhoax material here as possible - this thread is specifically about the 30 years of the Space Shuttle Program (1981-2011). We all know the moon landings were hoaxed - using FAKE IMAGERY. The specific question we are tackling here is whether or not NASA, at some stage, decided to change course and stop cheating the public with fake imagery; why they should have needed to do so in the 80's, given the global success of the Moonhoax deception, is the first thing we should keep in mind: I mean, everyone believed their "6 Apollo moon landings" staged between 1969 and 1972...Did they suddenly acquire the know-how to send manned spacecraft in space sometime in the mid-70's? So again, the question is whether NASA suddenly became 'the real deal' (for some reason) and started building real manned space vessels - and whether they have actually sent 134 of those (one-hundred-and-thirty-four) shuttles in orbit during the last thirty years - (without one single major design-upgrade of the super-tech vessel !).

Thank you.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:41 pm

simonshack wrote:*

Dear all,

May I ask everyone to post as little Moonhoax material here as possible - this thread is specifically about the 30 years of the Space Shuttle Program (1981-2011). We all know the moon landings were hoaxed - using FAKE IMAGERY. The specific question we are tackling here is whether or not NASA, at some stage, decided to change course and stop cheating the public with fake imagery; why they should have needed to do so in the 80's, given the global success of the Moonhoax deception, is the first thing we should keep in mind: I mean, everyone believed their "6 Apollo moon landings" staged between 1969 and 1972...Did they suddenly acquire the know-how to send manned spacecraft in space sometime in the mid-70's? So again, the question is whether NASA suddenly became 'the real deal' (for some reason) and started building real manned space vessels - and whether they have actually sent 134 of those (one-hundred-and-thirty-four) in orbit for the last thirty years.

Thank you.


Simon, sorry for posting the moonhoax imagery, and thanks for moving it to the pertinent thread. :)

As to the NASA shuttle program, as I said it is not inconceivable for the shuttle program to be true: you probably agree that not all projects at NASA are certainly fake. For example, orbiting satellites seem to be true (they can be see from the earth with naked eyes, and seem to give results now with satellite TV, GPS and all). So seem to be high altitude airplanes (they just make sense, since "normal" airplanes exist).

Certainly we could speculate on whether most of the imagery is faked/emphasized for ritualistic/mass psychology reasons. For example you gotta wonder what is the need to use rockets and an incredibly heavy tank to bring an airplane to the higher atmosphere? Why not having such airplane "normally" take off, serviced during the ascent by other tank-airplanes, without that much fuss?

My guess is that if the shuttle/space station program exists (and whatever is its real nature), it is a military program. Apollo was pure propaganda, but it is easy to imagine that the military-industrial complex at one point might have had a lot of interest to invest in a venture that had the potential to achieve more and more control over human communication, warfare, maybe weather control and whatnot.

Who knows what they actually do up there (if they are up there)?

As to the spinning astrounaughts celebrating the royal wedding, the preaching about the environment or the entertaining of the pope, that's just the facade, obviously...

to reel.deal: the tank in that gif moves together with the shuttle, so it is certainly not the bolt to absorb the torque.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby reel.deal on Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:46 pm

nonhocapito wrote:the tank in that gif moves together with the shuttle, so it is certainly not the bolt to absorb the torque.

Apparently. Ok, then what bolts absorb the combined weight of the SHUTTLE/MAIN EXTERNAL-TANK -
against the (X4-EACH) TWO BOLTED-DOWN STATIONARY SRBs (Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters) ?

WIKI RECKONS... :P The 8 (EIGHT) ANCHORING SRB BOLTS are " 28" (710 mm) long and 3.5" (89 mm) in diameter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
"When the two NSDs are ignited at each hold down, the hold-down bolt travels downward because of the release of tension in the bolt (pretensioned before launch), NSD gas pressure and gravity. The bolt is stopped by the stud deceleration stand, which contains sand. The SRB bolt is 28 in (710 mm) long and is 3.5 in (89 mm) in diameter. The frangible nut is captured in a blast container. In the event of a hold down failure the thrust from SRB ignition is enough to break the bolts, freeing the vehicle."

Image
Image
Image


So, at "blast-off", following the INITIAL SHUTTLE'S IGNITION, THE SHUTTLE THEN CUTS OUT,
and its then ALL up to the 2 smaller SRBs propelling the MAIN EXTERNAL-TANK AND SHUTTLE,
EACH attached to the MAIN EXTERNAL-TANK (ET), by... yup, a SINGLE BOLT.
:huh:
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:00 pm

reel.deal wrote:So, at "blast-off", following the INITIAL SHUTTLE'S IGNITION, THE SHUTTLE THEN CUTS OUT,
and its then ALL up to the 2 smaller SRBs propelling the MAIN EXTERNAL-TANK AND SHUTTLE,
EACH attached to the MAIN EXTERNAL-TANK (ET), by... yup, a SINGLE BOLT.


I think the part you quote refers to the bolts that hold the rocket boosters to the launch pad station. They hold on to the tank in a different way:

Each booster is attached to the external tank at the SRB's aft frame by two lateral sway braces and a diagonal attachment. The forward end of each SRB is attached to the external tank at the forward end of the SRB's forward skirt. On the launch pad, each booster also is attached to the mobile launcher platform at the aft skirt by four frangible nuts that are severed at lift-off.


Nowhere I read of a "single bolt".

Anyway, are we really discussing the power of bolts and screws to hold things together? Personally, none of this makes me comfortable since in no way I am capable to judge from a scientific/technical point of view whether these things could or could not work.
So there are too few parts holding these big things together. I find it absurd too, if anything because I know nothing about it -- but doesn't it stand to reason that the less parts you have to rely on, the less parts that can fail you will have?
If there were 20 bolts that had to be detached all at the same time, would you feel more comfortable? Or would you find it even more absurd?
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 03, 2011 7:20 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
Well Simon, here is my take:

From the context, from what we know about NASA, I can believe and imagine that the Shuttle program is as fake as the Apollo program, which means the orbital space station is also fake. It is very possible.

(...)

Regardless (and maybe I am being lazy and dismissive here), what I don't necessarily believe is that the clues that could make the fakery transparent to everyone are lying in the videos and pictures like it happened with Apollo (which doesn't mean we shouldn't look, but only that we shouldn't be overly confident either).
(...)


Dear nonho,

I keep appreciating your wise attitude and cautioning against making hasty assumptions as to fake imagery connected to the Space Shuttle Program. As you well know, however, the use of fake imagery (to produce "photo-realistic news footage") is no secret anymore - and this forum has, I believe, submitted significant evidence to establish this fact. Now, we have been saying (and worrying about) that "with the latest advances in digital imaging technology, it has become increasingly difficult to tell digital imagery from real imagery."

Yet, and thankfully for us all - flawless and perfect photo-realistic imagery is still not a reality of this world. Let me try and illustrate this fact with a few frames extracted from these two videos -which both show the ROLL-OUT of the latest Space Shuttle (STS134 - allegedly launched on May 16. 2011) :


ROLL-OUT OF STS 134

STS-134: Endeavour's Last Roll http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXv_AFw39Fs
STS-134's final roll-out to the launch pad http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=R6QP84GIlMg&gl=US

Here is, to begin with, the sort of imagery of "the STS 134 ROLL-OUT" we are talking about
Image
Now, please watch and compare the Space Shuttle Shadow seen in this video (for some reason, I am not able to grab a gif of it):
Watch between 1:03 and 1:06 ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=R6QP84GIlMg&gl=US

Here's what TV viewers are supposed to register in their minds: PEOPLE CAPTURING THE EVENT ON FILM:
Image

For what it's worth, my trained eyes immediately recognized this shot as a digital animation - but I know full well this is hard for the layman to see - and much less to convince of. So, in order to point out the fakery here, I'll just ask you to watch the viewfinder of this man's unstable camera: does it look like the images in his viewfinder move as much as his arm moves?
Image

Here, we have two guys looking out at the ROLL-OUT from what seems like the "FIRING ROOM".
Can you see (by the 'texture' of the image) that they are nothing but digital/play-station-like cartoons?
Image


SPACE SHUTTLE (STS134) PERSPECTIVES:
Now, it seems that the imaging software used to do these animations still fails to correlate the perspectives of the various elements within the composites (much like the 9/11 imagery). This is a well-known 3-D simulation flaw - well-known to architects/interior designers who dabble with Autocad softwares (or the like) to visualize digitally, for instance, a client's living room; "Damn! That chair looks taller than that other one! - yet they are twin chairs !?"

Here we have an example of flawed perspective correlation: the respective heights of the rings labeled A,B, and C are not respected between these two shots; they are both shot from below - and the different viewing angles can hardly account for the visible height/proportion discrepancies:

Image

Here we have another such problem: (keep in mind that we are looking at the exact same shuttle of May 2011, the "STS134").
Image

Over to you, nonho...*"buzz...crackle"*...happy!



*********************************************************************************************************************************************
A PERSPECTIVE ISSUE - IS IT? Ok, if you have doubts about the above perspective issues, take a fat marker with stripes/rings around it:
Image
Next, take two thinner felt pens such as these:
Image
With some cellophane tape, stick the three together to form a 'space shuttle' miniature look-alike.
Now, hold and observe these 3 assembled pens from any possible perspective.
See if the respective heights of the stripes/rings of the pens change in any significant manner. Let me know!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:51 pm

Well those rocket boosters perspectives make no sense, Simon, you are right.

Nowhere in the final countdown tasks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shut ... _countdown) I find a voice for "sliding down rocket boosters" <_<

About the shuttle shadow: I have seen it in the second video (the one you couldn't make the gif of), but can you please source the gif you made? I cannot find that sequence...

BTW I found a 720p high quality version of the 1st video (showing the man with the camera) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VQ32fjAQts
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 03, 2011 8:00 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Well those rocket boosters perspectives make no sense, Simon, you are right.

Nowhere in the final countdown tasks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shut ... _countdown) I find a voice for "sliding down rocket boosters" <_<


Cool! So did you also notice that they seem to have a 'problem' with visualizing that rod ?
In the 'yellow enlargement' (which I did to contrast the pixels), can you see photoshopping at play?

Image

And here (in this comparison where the rod also disappears) I asked you a while ago:

Image

Any idea? Is it the World Trade Center façade? :lol:


*********************************************************************************************************************************************
Here's the source video you asked me for (regarding gif below) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73MOV63HA7g
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:28 pm

I will get to the shuttle shadows...

In the meantime, I did answer to that question of yours, Simon, here: viewtopic.php?p=2353966#p2353966.

About the man with the camera, in search of better details I made a gif (!) from the higher quality video available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VQ32fjA ... re=related
(sorry the gif got really big, 5+ mb)

Image

I cannot make up my mind about what the viewfinder shows, but out of it I can see the face of the kid disappearing in a pixel blob as it turns towards us. That's not good... :blink:

see this video from the 0:29 mark
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests