Starbeast from Planet X
Benevolent Galaxy Being
Is the NASA program only a "smoke screen" to hide it's real intentions?
Conspiracy Truth & Purpose of NASA?
- Thread starter Starbeast from Planet X
- Start date
Webster
The Red Tarheel
Pragmatist
Scout
I can't play the video but I suspect NASA does exactly what it says on the tin.
Some of the conspiracy theories attributed to NASA over the years have been just crazy that somebody actually comes up with them.
Personally, if I was in charge of NASA I would have a heck of a good time by having their entire fleet of helicopters painted matte black and instruct the pilots to wear black suits. I'd also request that the shape of their atmosphere testing balloons have their shape changed to be a bit more pie dish shaped.
Come to think of it... maybe it is a good think for the sanity of my neighbors that I never win the lottery.
Starbeast from Planet X
Benevolent Galaxy Being
Kevin, I love that gif.
You know, sometimes I find these really out-there videos...and I don't know what to make out of them. So, I thought, why don't I see what people think.
I think I should have skipped this one. And go back to hunting for the really good videos.
You know, sometimes I find these really out-there videos...and I don't know what to make out of them. So, I thought, why don't I see what people think.
I think I should have skipped this one. And go back to hunting for the really good videos.
Imzadi
Imzadi
I can add to that video. He left out that the German scientists bought the patents for the rockets from Dr. Robert Goddard, an American scientist! So, the USA just took back what one of their own had created.I have met Dr. Edgar Mitchell, and even though I didn't get chance to ask him anything about the NASA programs, he didn't seem like a deceitful man. (I can usually tell.)
I think this video has a lot of "holes" in it. After all, we, the Americans, the BEST MOVIE-MAKERS in the world would not make films that people can see errors in.
I also had the pleasure of meeting and talking extensively to the Army information officer who put out the Army's news release about the Roswell crash. If there were NO ETs at all, I would have known it. I talked to him about an hour. He was told to release the crashed saucer info to the media.
Are you sure your neighbors weren't just playing the trumpet?
You're talking about NASA of days gone past; their budgets are nothing like they used to be which is why so many projects have been outright cancelled and why most of the ones still on the books have been scaled back. These days you can find them doing experiments with off-the-shelf commercial & consumer components and vendors. For example, they are starting to embrace the Android operating system and its devices with programs like PhoneSat (NASA - PhoneSat Flight Demonstrations).The only "concealed" truth about NASA is that it manages to spend twice or three times as necessary on most of its projects; too often wasted cash since one or more elements of the project are deeply flawed by conceptual, design, or manufacturing flaws.
Mirelly
Mouthy Cow
Ouch. You got me there ... but perhaps not quite. Thanks to cutbacks -- forced on NASA as much in part because of past wasteful spending as because of the current global economic age of austerity -- NASA is continuing to waste a vast amount of a small pot of money.
One example is the development of the Orion system. Why bother developing from scratch a vehicle which is going to end up looking almost exactly the same as the Apollo crew module? A sensible engineering approach would have been to start with Apollo capsule's tried and trusted air-frame and aerodynamics. Now I am no aerodynamic engineer, but I find if difficult to believe that scaling up a design is not relatively simple. (I've seen the Discovery TV shows showing the Orion shape being refined for hypersonic re-entry in minute model form!) I suggest that a couple of even mediocre aerospace engineering graduates equipped with top of the range CADCAM software and the plans and specs of the original Apollo designs could've had a prototype design available for a manufacturer like Lockheed to use to assemble a small number of working prototypes for testing and flight-testing well before the end of 2011.
Another example might include the legacy of the STS itself. Yet another perfectly proven air-frame. Yet another perfectly proven heat-shield system (if we overlook the Columbia incident caused by the unadressed issue of external fuel tank icing). Yet another perfectly proven SRB system (if we overlook the Challenger incident caused by a failure to acknowledge the issue of low temperatures and the O-rings). The shuttle's biggest flaw was in its main engines which proved far less re-usable in practise. Now imagine NASA taking a bold step and running a very simple and cheap project to resurrect the shuttle.
- Configure the launch system to use 4 SRBs instead of 2
- Halve the size of the external fuel tank and provide it with substantially more insulation.
- Make an initial assessment of the engineering problems to be overcome in redeveloping the STS main engines to increase reliability/re-usability to 95% and beyond.
