Posted on 10/05/2017 5:23:23 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Wrong. Again.
Problem with your theory is that the shadow of the Shuttle is on the big head NASA guy’s face... and there are no stars in the shots.
IOW, it’s a model. Shot on a set; here it is again:
NASA: HOW TO FAKE SPACE BADLY in 1983
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9i8tMzxIn0
And as someone who’s edited old time video formats, not sure what you are referring to that this is a dupe error with projectors? Are you saying they would have used a kinescope set up for tape to tape?
That would be ridiculous. Just make a dupe.
Well, NASA has said they’ve lost their technology to go to the moon, so I’m correct in saying “they lost their late sixties technology”...
You have absolutely no idea what that sentence actually means. None whatsoever.
Guess what, Sparkydoodles? We've also "lost" the technology to build the Iowa class battleships. Chew on that for a few years. Learn some actual science and engineering, while you're at it. Then maybe you'll begin to comprehend what is actually meant by "losing" technology.
As to the completely wrong part of your comment, the Atlas V is not early sixties technology. The RD180 engine was designed in the late 1990s and first flew in 2000. And yes, the rocket really did put a satellite in orbit around Earth, which really is roughly an oblate spheroid in shape.
The contours of the blanked out area do not match the silhouette of the shuttle. If anything, and this theory were correct, it would be a part of the structure int he back of the model holding it up. But if I were making a model with open area behind it for replicating outerspace at near earth orbit, I wouldn’t have dark structure in the shot. So it’s probalby not even that. But it’s definitely not shadow.
Like the Irish journalist asked the brain-dead lead scientist on the Rover mission: just give me some coordinates for that satellite (or any satellite) as we should all be able to watch the fifty thousand plus satellites pretty much 24/7 from our backyards.
As to your second comment, you have reversed the roles of the brain-dead.
As to you: Your course of study should include physics, with an emphasis on optics when you get sufficiently advanced to understand it, and mechanical engineering.
Trace the light source above the model of the shuttle and it lands right on the big head guy’s cheek.
Research these other NASA reflections. It’s fake jake. Here’s one to start it off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3I4pVSSw-8
All I’m asking for are some coordinates so everyday people can watch satellites.
No, the brain dead Mars Rover guy wins that award, the internet already voted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJXQcUEGIc
(The hilarity after the coordinate question is asked starts at about 11 mins.)
Let me answer your question with my own: why would anyone on FR believe the statists, leftists and Islam lovers at NASA on anything?
They are pushing climate change/global warming lies to set up a carbon credit economy. This is the opposite of small-government conservatism, and it certainly isn’t science.
All I’m asking is that you become educated enough to actually engage intelligently in this discussion.
So, you trust NASA?
I trust God.
I understand the ‘laws’ of physics and the principles of engineering.
I’d suggest that you should also understand the ‘laws’ of physics and the principles of engineering before you attempt to engage in this sort of discussion. That you show no understanding of what “lost” technology actually means really puts you out of ability to discuss this topic intelligently.
And I ask again, what do you think NASA has to do with the launch of Payload NROL-52?
So you believe in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, that He sent us His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth? Just want to be clear you are not using some pagan idea of “God”... and that you believe the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is the author of all actual science, as He is the Creator of it all. And not just a disinterested “Prime mover”, but the God of the Bible who is “intimately involved in the affairs of men.”
So are you saying this is a NSA rocket? And that NSA is not using NASA technology? Is that all you are trying to say?
All I am saying is 1. Lib Leftists Islamicists at NASA fake space and 2. Where are coordinates for this satellite or any satellite, so any interested American can see these satellites from the luxury of their backyard telescope or camera?
Another question for you regarding the physics of satellites:
Do satellites travel counter to the 1000 mph rotation of the earth or do they travel faster than the rotation of the earth in the same direction?
Laws of physics, and all. Would be an especially important question considering all the space junk up there.
Baloney.
If you look around the internet at all (no, I'm not doing your homework for you) you can find orbital parameters for any civilian satellite (and many military) that you might be interested in. If you know anything useful about optics, you can also determine whether or not (usually not) you can expect to resolve them as other than a dot with your little backyard telescope.
You need to do a LOT of learning.
That’s true, but they us the Russian RD-180 for 1st stage boost,so it’s not even US technology lifting it off the pad.
Once again, what’s NASA done with it’s mandate to develop space flight technology... Out sourced it.. Blue Origin will have a large boost engine available in a few years.. 550,000 lbs of thrust or so, or about 1/3 of a Saturn F1 engine, which NASA lost the plans to. Sorry I showed my ignorance, that of a former Pratt engineer in the experimental airfoils group, oh and BTW our airfoils weren’t wings but compressor and turbine blades and vanes used for everything up to the Improved shuttle engines.
Best place to watch, go to Jetty Park south side of port Canaveral, pay the 5.00 to park, go out on the pier, look NNW across the entrance to port.
"Surely Nasa and the Air Force could have come up with better launch vehicles in 47 yrs."
Well, yes they (or rather their contractors) have come up with better launch vehicles. Antares, Atlas V, Delta II & IV, Falcon 9, others are big improvements over their predecessors.
As for the F1 engine:
1) Shame on NASA for losing the drawings. Those would be really useful when we decide we need an 1.75 million pound thrust engine. Like, maybe, if we ever find our balls again and decide to go back to the Moon.
2) Until then, not sure what use an F1 class engine would be good for. USAF dropped development of it back when, for lack of a requirement.
As for your alleged experience ...
< shrug >
BFD. You're not the only real live engineer around here.
I had a discussion today on your Iowa battleship analogy about losing the tech to go to the moon.
Why don't you clarify exactly why the analogy is apt to NASA losing tech to go to the moon.
You mean we no longer have vacuum tube technology at NASA?
And do you mean we no longer have the facilities to build a battleship like the Iowa.. but the schematics and blueprints exist?
The way NASA presents their lost of tech to go to the moon, is as if it was data loss.
Data loss the same way they said they lost Apollo videos and film.
Data loss is what NASA is claiming...
And you still have not explained the 1000mph spin on the earth works with satellites... and why we can't see them more clearly.
But don't worry, not even NASA can explain why they had the recent eclipse showing the moon revolving around the earth in the wrong direction...
Bizarre NASA phooey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.