I'm just wondering, how many GLPers believe the SPACE SHUTTLE Program is another HOAX like the Apollo-11 HOAX Program?

"It obviously can also haul a human payload which can conduct weightless experiments on it etc."

I summit that all the weightless stupidities astronauts are filmed doing then fed to public are all conducted in the Shuttle (not ISS)

As the Shuttle falls back to earth after take-off towards Easter island at the rate of free-fall.

That's why the Shuttle has only vertical thrusters placed at the nose of the craft, its to keep the Shuttle leveled for an excellent performance. This is also why they used ceramic tiling under the Shuttle to drag as much air as possible slowing the craft and making the trip down as slow as possible affording lots of time for the film crew.

This is also why the cargo doors open the way they do, easy access to change the film setting of the shuttle to create the illusion that the ISS has many different compartments and there actually is one up there floating on this defying gravity. They don't carry satellites even if some believe that certain satellites need to be assemble inn space is BOGUS. They could rocket the pieces of satellites up there. It costs less and doesn't put in danger the lives of humans as every blast-off holds a possibility. A fresh crew can make that assembly before relieving the tired crew of orbiting round and round the earth for months at a time on the ISS doing nothing but foolish acrobats all day.

No you can't.

NASA put an external camera on the huge fuel tank, and when the tank is ejected so is the camera. You would think that NASA could find a $100 in billions of annual tax dollars to set a camera inside the cockpit near a window to film the Shuttle enter orbit after the last scene we've watched for over 20 years and film how the Shuttle enters into orbit, locate the ISS, and dock. All on one film strip.

NASA didn't put that camera to film this because they don't want you to know where the Shuttle goes after tank separation.

I have, and its got nothing to do with putting a camera "inside" the cockpit. There's a camera outside on the Tank.

Look Scully, to continue to call it the Space Shuttle, or the Space Station is simply ludicrous. To be hanging around in Low Earth Orbit. They should at least decide not to be disingenuous, like Skylab, and call it that.

Call them Sky Shuttles, Sky Station. And then for once acknowledge why it is you don't take pictures of the outer Universe while up there. I really want to know.

Because they wouldn't look any more fake than the productions NASA puts out like that ISS flyaround!!

It is also a bit of a head-scratcher that the vantage point of U2 spy planes is exactly the same as those credited with being ISS and the Space Shuttles!!

"It is also a bit of a head-scratcher that the vantage point of U2 spy planes is exactly the same as those credited with being ISS and the Space Shuttles!!"

What fraud. We were watching U-2 films all this time.

Where, exactly, are you claiming it goes? I've tracked it myself, it remains in orbit until the mission ends. I've already been over this with you, a camera looking out of the window is going to see black once its in orbit unless the earth, moon, or sun happen to enter the field of view, for which they have payload bay cameras already. Sorry to say, NASA doesn't care what your personal expectations are, nor should they.

No, in this case we have:

1 hoax + a non hoax = 1 Hoaxes (The Stanley Kubrick one)

The Shuttle falls back to earth after take-off towards Easter island at the rate of free-fall.

That's why the Shuttle has only vertical thrusters placed at the nose of the craft, its to keep the Shuttle leveled for an excellent performance. This is also why they used ceramic tiling under the Shuttle to drag as much air as possible slowing the craft and making the trip down as slow as possible affording lots of time for the film crew.

This is also why the cargo doors open the way they do, easy access to change the film setting of the shuttle to create the illusion that the ISS has many different compartments and there actually is one up there floating on this defying gravity. They don't carry satellites even if some believe that certain satellites need to be assemble inn space is BOGUS. They could rocket the pieces of satellites up there. It costs less and doesn't put in danger the lives of humans as every blast-off holds a possibility. A fresh crew can make that assembly before relieving the tired crew of orbiting round and round the earth for months at a time on the ISS doing nothing but foolish acrobats all day.

All the weightless stupidities astronauts do are filmed in the Shuttle (not ISS)

If you believe it's a hoax,you've spent way too much time on GLP.

Why don't they ever see stars? I would think they would be an absolutely beautiful panoply of them somewhere along their orbit. Would you explain why NASA never seems to capture them on film on any of it's missions.

^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!! Hahahahahaha...

Wrong.
[link to farm6.static.flickr.com]
I've seen the direction it launches, it does not go to Easter island.

Wrong again, the forward RCS has thrusters that are vertical in both directions and horizontal as well. They can pitch and translate the shuttle in any direction.
[link to www.nasa.gov]

Increased drag would shorten the time to landing, not increase it. You make no sense whatsoever.

Dude, ISS is real, get professional mental help.

If you actually believe the things you say then you really do need help.

Yup. Yup. Yup.

Stars are quite dim, particularly compared to daylit objects. It's all about dynamic range. If you're inside the shuttle and the lights are turned on, your eyes will not be "dark adapted" and you will not see much in the way of stars. If you're on a spacewalk on the daylit side of earth, the light reflecting from the earth and even your own spacecraft will tend to blind you to the stars. Once you're on the night side you're working with flood lamps to see what you're doing, so you still can't get dark adapted.

Now there are cases where astronauts have carefully used long exposures to record stars through a window while blocking out any bright light source, but it still required just that; long exposures. A standard video camera is not going to be able to do that and even a low lux camera designed for the task will need to be shielded from all possible bright light sources or it too will be blinded from seeing stars.

In the end you don't benefit much from being in space as far as widefield astrophotography goes. In fact, you have to contend with the fact that your spacecraft is generally holding a certain attitude as it orbits the earth, so you can't expose for as long as you could if you were on the ground and shooting from a telescope tracking the stars' motion. The small amount of extra light doesn't register as a linear increase to your eye, and the extra light also applies to the bright light of the sun and moon. The real benefit to being in space (at least as far as visible light astronomy is concerned) is that you don't have to worry about atmospheric seeing, but to reap that benefit you need a long focal length telescope like Hubble.

Awesome way to explain it, Astronaut. Well done.

I am talking about when they are on the night side of Earth. Not daylight side. I will presume that the same would apply as why we don't see them in the daytime. But for no reason can I think that they would not be visible to astronauts inside a shuttle any less than they are if I am driving in my car on a back country road.

Now you say that telescopes would be better suited. But they are on the ground. There are very few telescopes that are useful for taking near Earth pictures anymore. And certainly Hubble is geared toward deep space.

I want to see clear near Earth images taken by the Shuttle or the ISS. I want to see the night sky as they see the night sky. All though they never remark upon it that I know of, they always are looking down at the Earth.

Do you drive at night with all the interior lights on in your car? I hope not, I don't think that's safe. In fact, it's unsafe because you lose your dark adaptation and cannot see dimly lit objects that might be in the road until they're right on top of you. Yet that is the comparable anology to being in the shuttle. You wont see a panopoly of stars that way, you might see a couple of the very brightest if you try deliberately but that's it.

Yeah? Have him explain why the lunar lander blasts-off with the same speed through-out and not slowly builds up the speed like when Rockets blast-off from earth slowly building momentum but at a 1/6 ratio? -- "I think you had good thrust!" (00:24)



While you're at it, have him explain what the freezing point is of N2O4/Aerozine-50 the fuel used by the lunar lander.

Have him explain what's the boiling point of N2O4/Aerozine-50?

Then wrap him in a head-lock and ask him what the temperature on the moon is.

AC: That's why the Shuttle has only vertical thrusters placed at the nose of the craft, its to keep the Shuttle leveled for an excellent performance.

Astronut: Wrong again, the forward RCS has thrusters that are vertical in both directions and horizontal as well. They can pitch and translate the shuttle in any direction.
[link to www.nasa.gov]
----------

You just agreed with me, that's all.




AC: This is also why they used ceramic tiling under the Shuttle to drag as much air as possible slowing the craft and making the trip down as slow as possible affording lots of time for the film crew.

Astronut: Increased drag would shorten the time to landing, not increase it. You make no sense whatsoever.
----------

Man alive you just IT lost right here.

That's like saying a parachute dragging air would shorten the time to landing not increase it.

Your only advantage is that you're a paid shill so you really don't care wasting your time posting around the clock. You're still paying your mortgage. Its guys like me that are wasting their time. We do it for free. FREEDOM from the lies of the system you support.

Astronut is the best shill on GLP for NASA

Hey shill why aren't there any stars in the dark skies of your photo?

I usually see lots of stars in the skies when its dark, especial like in your photo with no clouds, and always brighter, bigger, and more of them bundled up together when I'm using a magnification device like binoculars or a telescope like your "supposed" photo is alluding to have done to capture this heavy-metallic-gravity-defying-float-on-thin-air, object.

Sighhhh.... All I can say is that I've worked with the shuttle program. I KNOW it's real. That was the point of this thread. Believe it. Don't believe. None of my concern.

No, you lied. I showed that the shuttle does not have only vertical thrusters placed at the nose of the craft.



A parachute is not typically traveling at hypersonic velocities. If you want to shorten the time to landing while flying the shuttle at those velocities you pitch up and increase drag, if you want to delay landing you pitch down and decrease drag. This is spaceflight 101 and you just failed.

So you're not only a liar, you're a defamatory liar. My advantage is that I know what the hell I'm talking about. Learn to land the shuttle in this program and you'll understand how drag actually works as it applies to the orbiter:
[link to orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk]

Last Edited by Astromut on 04/27/2011 12:16 AM

Because stars don't show up in the short exposures needed to capture daylit objects, like ISS. It's the exact same reason you don't see stars in photos taken of ISS from orbit as well. Thanks for bringing that up.

ASTRONUT - Would you be willing to field a question about the Apollo side of this thread? Been doubting what I thought I knew about the Moon Shot and would appreciate your insite. I hesitate to post already because of the aggression here. If you say "No." ....No hard feelings from me. I understand.

No problem, you're cool, it's just that I'm just starting to suspect that the above Canadian poster is just Punisher under a new IP address. Can't stand that troll.

You answers are rather dimwitted.

What the lights NEVER go out inside the shuttle? They just sleep in brightly lit cabin? Funny how it doesn't affect their view of the Earth, just their view of the universe.

You really should think up better stuff than to pretend the lights are just too bright 24/7 inside the shuttle.

They don't sleep on the flight deck. They may turn the lights out at some point and get a look at the stars, but for the vast majority of the time they're on the flight deck they need it well lit up there. The mid-deck has no windows.

Why would it affect their view of earth? Earth is brighter.

You really should learn where the astronauts sleep on the shuttle.

Last Edited by Astromut on 04/27/2011 12:30 AM

Just ridiculous your whole answer. If they want to consider theirself as a SPACE SHUTTLE then how about figuring out some way to look at SPACE instead of the EARTH.

They are only buzzing around less than 200 miles up on average, and go around the night side of Earth where the only light is from cities below and yet and still they can't see stars and planets? That it would appear just looks all black to them and starless is a stupid LIE and you KNOW IT. Yet that is how their photos always appear.

Wow, you changed arguments even faster than I thought you would. Thanks.

Like I said, if they look hard enough they can, but it's not as easy as people assume. It still requires dark adaptation, which is not easy to achieve on the flight deck the majority of the time. There's a reason why city lights can easily drown out starlight, hence the light pollution problem; city lights put a lot of light up into the sky.

No, it's not a stupid lie, it's the truth and I do know that. Their photos are almost always short exposures, short exposures won't show stars, it's that simple. There are exceptions, however, but just like I talked about earlier, since they're on a vehicle that is maintaining a constant attitude, stars will trail if the exposure is too long:
[link to forum.nasaspaceflight.com]