In all four of Simon's images, the central vertical core looks pretty scary to me. In fact, when I saw them, the first thing that went through my mind were totem poles.simonshack wrote:
I then thought of Easter Island.
In all four of Simon's images, the central vertical core looks pretty scary to me. In fact, when I saw them, the first thing that went through my mind were totem poles.simonshack wrote:
I too am pretty sure satellites are real. Not only we see results of their existence in our everyday life (GPS, Satellite TV, Weather, etc), but they can actually be seen from the ground at night, without telescopes of sorts.repentantandy wrote:"The same logic for shuttles and other spacecraft also goes for satellites. These are fake also. Big balloons with telecommunications equipment on them probably hover somehow, somewhere well below the point where meteorites burn up in the atmosphere."
Nope. Sorry.
I've had loads of experience with aiming/tuning/adjusting satellite dishes and can assure you that the phenomenon of "geostationary orbit" is very real and very reliable, even though it was supposedly predicted by the evil occultist/pedophile Arthur C. Clarke decades before its accomplishment. Wind-susceptible balloon technology, held aloft by specific-gravity differential in Earth's gaseous atmosphere, is no more a functional part of satellite communication than it was a part of the Roswell psyop.
Yet even if it was true that these covers protect from all sorts of meteorites, there is still the issue of the solar panels, that are not in any way protected against debris. Besides, it is doubtful that any sort of protective layer could withstand impacts without suffering scratches and burns. A bullet-proof window is cracked when hit by a bullet, same should happen with the ISS defenses. Instead to this day, 12+ years after ISS was put in orbit, the station still looks unscathed and clean as a whistle.In fact, the station was in little danger. "There are several hundred different shields protecting the crew and critical hardware," says Eric Christiansen, the station's Shielding Subsystem Manager at the Johnson Space Center. "The heavier shielding typically includes meteoroid/debris blankets. These are made of a ceramic fabric (NextelTM) backed by KevlarTM -- the same material found in bullet-proof vests."
The station's windows are sturdy, too. Each one consists of at least two panes -- "always with primary and redundant pressure panes," says Christiansen. "In some cases, the windows include transparent 'debris panes' specifically designed to protect them from meteoroid impacts." Others are shielded (when not in use) by metal shutters and debris blankets.
Although Leonid meteoroids travel much faster than bullets, the vast majority of them are microscopic and fragile. They make pretty lights when they hit Earth's atmosphere -- but that's all. They are not tough enough to penetrate the station's defenses.
It appears? What stars? I don't see any. There can't be any stars in any of these pictures. Show them once, you have to show them all the time. Like with the nonexistent Apollo blast carter on the Moon. Forget it once, you gotta forget it forever. It's not only too difficult to fake stars -- it's just too late in the game for them now.BNSF9647 wrote:it appears this time they at least included stars to make it look authentic.
Here, Scott is seen balancing on the robotic arm which raises him up towards the damage in the solar panel."It was high drama on live TV. Mission Specialist Scott Parazynski worked while balanced at the end of an extended robotic arm, silhouetted against the brilliant orange glow of a partially extended solar wing. Marring the wing were two visible tears in the panels." http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shutt ... rview.html
Starbucks, anyone?
How much does it cost?
The cost of the ISS, including development, assembly and running costs over a period of at least 10 years, will come to 100 billion Euros. High technology on the space frontier is not cheap.
However, the good news is that it comes cheaper than you might think. That 100 billion figure is shared over a period of almost 30 years between all the participants: the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan and 10 of the 17 European nations who are part of ESA. The European share, at around 8 billion Euros spread over the whole programme, amounts to just one Euro spent by every European every year: less than the price of a cup of coffee in most of our big cities.
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAQHA0VMOC_iss_0.html
Yeah right on with the no stars Nonhocapito, what appeared to be stars in the background to me when I posted, was nothing more than a few pixels on my screen acting up. Why I didn't even bother to question myself before I posted that first sentence (or checking my monitor!), I should know better as I haven't seen any stars in all of NASA's studio portraits either.nonhocapito wrote:It appears? What stars? I don't see any. There can't be any stars in any of these pictures. Show them once, you have to show them all the time. Like with the nonexistent Apollo blast carter on the Moon. Forget it once, you gotta forget it forever. It's not only too difficult to fake stars -- it's just too late in the game for them now.BNSF9647 wrote:it appears this time they at least included stars to make it look authentic.
Sorry Simon but I have been looking at the panels you say are inconsistent and I can only agree with the radical color changes as being the most suspicious. The solid/empty circles all behave consistently in each fake "photo" if some circles are becoming "unfilled" (punched through) over time. The stringy nonsense in the last photo being the "newest" alleged picture.[In] any case - I dearly hope that the image comparisons of the 'Ripped Panel Incident' have torn to pieces whatever 'photo-credibility' NASA may still have had in the eyes of hardened skeptics. There can be no doubt that the ripped panel is MEANT to be the same in the available photos released by NASA and ESA.
nonhocapito wrote:I too am pretty sure satellites are real. Not only we see results of their existence in our everyday life (GPS, Satellite TV, Weather, etc), but they can actually be seen from the ground at night, without telescopes of sorts.repentantandy wrote:"The same logic for shuttles and other spacecraft also goes for satellites. These are fake also. Big balloons with telecommunications equipment on them probably hover somehow, somewhere well below the point where meteorites burn up in the atmosphere."
Nope. Sorry.
I've had loads of experience with aiming/tuning/adjusting satellite dishes and can assure you that the phenomenon of "geostationary orbit" is very real and very reliable, even though it was supposedly predicted by the evil occultist/pedophile Arthur C. Clarke decades before its accomplishment. Wind-susceptible balloon technology, held aloft by specific-gravity differential in Earth's gaseous atmosphere, is no more a functional part of satellite communication than it was a part of the Roswell psyop.
We are often told that satellites not only risk to be hit by meteorites, but they also risk to be hit by other satellites, or their leftover parts. I guess the risk is considered acceptable, considering the size of a satellite against the odds of a meteorite or anything else smashing into it.
Another issue is with the ISS, obviously, since we are asked to believe it has people on board, who could instantly die in case of such accident. One more reason to question the whole thing, especially since these guys are left up there for months at a time.
Just for the record, it is not like NASA completely skips on the issue:
In fact, the station was in little danger. "There are several hundred different shields protecting the crew and critical hardware," says Eric Christiansen, the station's Shielding Subsystem Manager at the Johnson Space Center. "The heavier shielding typically includes meteoroid/debris blankets. These are made of a ceramic fabric (NextelTM) backed by KevlarTM -- the same material found in bullet-proof vests."
The station's windows are sturdy, too. Each one consists of at least two panes -- "always with primary and redundant pressure panes," says Christiansen. "In some cases, the windows include transparent 'debris panes' specifically designed to protect them from meteoroid impacts." Others are shielded (when not in use) by metal shutters and debris blankets.
Although Leonid meteoroids travel much faster than bullets, the vast majority of them are microscopic and fragile. They make pretty lights when they hit Earth's atmosphere -- but that's all. They are not tough enough to penetrate the station's defenses.
Even though Zionapedia says 'most' meteors are smaller than a grain of sand, I am pretty sure that the ones visible from Earth are bigger than this. Why? What we see from here are events happening 70-120 kms up in the sky. To see these LEO events,the fireballs must be at least tens of meters in diameter ( How far can you see a candle from ? 500 metres? A light house? 50 km? ) Maybe its possible a grain of material can create a fireball of huge proportions but I doubt it. There are by a factor of enormousness huge amounts of meteorites which impact with the Earth which are substantial in themselves but which are not visible from Earth.I have posted here the account of the 1966 Meteor Shower which was visible from all over N America from places which were not clouded over. I think it is possible to multiply the 40 visible meteors per sec by a factor of 10? maybe 100? to include non visible meteors from earth but which could still damage a space craft."A meteor shower is a celestial event in which a number of meteors are observed to radiate from one point in the night sky. These meteors are caused by streams of cosmic debris called meteoroids entering Earth's atmosphere at extremely high speeds on parallel trajectories. Most meteors are smaller than a grain of sand, so almost all of them disintegrate and never hit the Earth's surface. Intense or unusual meteor showers are known as meteor outbursts and meteor storms, which may produce greater than 1,000 meteors an hour."
Wow. So a set of pliers (according to NASA) are tracked by radar as they plummet down to Earth... But what about the ISS itself? Why does it not plummet down to Earth like this set of pliers? How does it keep aloft (speeding about at 27,700 km/h) without any sort of propulsion? Can anyone honestly answer this basic question? I'll be patiently waiting for the answer to this.Dr. Parazynski, by coincidence, was one of the best astronauts for the unusual spacewalk. Now on his fifth trip to orbit, he has spent more time in spacewalks than all but four others in the history of the program. And, at 6 feet 2 inches, he is among the tallest astronauts and well-suited to work on the array from a safe distance.
“It’s a bit of a reach here,” he said at one point.
Ms. Melroy responded, “That’s what those monkey arms are for,” and then added, “Not many people in the office could do what you’re doing right now.”
To which Dr. Parazynski replied, “I hope they don’t have to.”
The only apparent slip-up came at the end of the spacewalk, which lasted more than seven hours. An errant set of needle-nose pliers floated away and could be spotted drifting below the station. Mission managers said the tool is not likely to pose a threat to the shuttle or station before falling back to Earth, but said they would track it on radar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/scien ... uttle.html
It is not about answering honestly, Simon: rather answering in a qualified clear manner that satisfies you. I wonder if there is one.simonshack wrote:But what about the ISS itself? Why does it not plummet down to Earth like this set of pliers? How does it keep aloft (speeding about at 27,700 km/h) without any sort of propulsion? Can anyone honestly answer this basic question? I'll be patiently waiting for the answer to this.
(ps: thanks, Terence Drew, for making some sense out of this nonsense.)
I think silence is agreement here, Simon. Me I don't have any explanation except blatant fakery.simonshack wrote:What's going on here? I asked a simple - but very important question (it cannot get more sraightforward than this)
"First Ever Portrait of the International Space Station and docked Shuttle Endeavour from Soyuz capsule
This image of the International Space Station and the docked Space Shuttle Endeavour, flying at an altitude of 220 miles was taken by Expedition 27 crew member Paolo Nespoli from the Soyuz TMA-20 following its undocking on May 23, 2011 (USA time)."
http://www.universetoday.com/86369/nasa ... o-nespoli/