The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2015, 03:00:40 AM
-
In 2009 NASA made a test launch of the Ares 1-X, which was the upper stage of the multi-stage Ares launch vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_R5IclogZw
Loot at the paint job of the rocket when it is low to the ground:
(http://i.imgur.com/BAChzFh.png)
Compared to what the rocket looks like when it is up in space around a round earth:
(http://i.imgur.com/tOw8eRU.png)
-
They can't even get their story straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZqSWWKmHQ
Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).
Didn't they already send six manned crews through this region on the way to the moon in the Apollo missions?
If NASA is still working on testing the Van Allen radiation belt in order to solve that problem before they can send the astronauts through this region of space, than it is really amazing what the 1960’s engineers have done to solve that problem, who apparently created long lost and forgotten technologies, leading to the first lunar landing in 69'.
-
You may have noticed that this video was prone to hyperbole? Dramatic music, bold language. I submit that they overstate the problems or make them seem more sweeping than they actually are in order to make the video more exciting for a largely uneducated public.
In regards to your weird comment about the paint job, did you consider common photographic phenomena like (over)exposure?
-
You may have noticed that this video was prone to hyperbole? Dramatic music, bold language. I submit that they overstate the problems or make them seem more sweeping than they actually are in order to make the video more exciting for a largely uneducated public.
In regards to your weird comment about the paint job, did you consider common photographic phenomena like (over)exposure?
So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.
I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.
-
So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.
Wow you got that from what I said? You continue to amaze Thomas.
I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.
Overexposure. From. The sun. Doesn't. Make. Sense. Ok!
-
So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.
Wow you got that from what I said? You continue to amaze Thomas.
I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.
Overexposure. From. The sun. Doesn't. Make. Sense. Ok!
The white rocket is in shade, not the sun. You're going to have to put a little more effort into this overexposure claim.
Claiming that NASA lies to the public for glory isn't going to do anything to help your position.
-
As far as the radiation belts are concerned, back in the day they were a lot more blasé about safety of crew because of less understanding of the dangers maybe (they were still making and wearing radioactive glo'watches at this time), probably more to do with winning the "space race" over-riding individual welfare.
-
As far as the radiation belts are concerned, back in the day they were a lot more blasé about safety of crew because of less understanding of the dangers maybe (they were still making and wearing radioactive glo'watches at this time), probably more to do with winning the "space race" over-riding individual welfare.
They were claiming to send sensors to radiation belts for years prior to Apollo 11, considered it well studied, and declared it safe for human travel. NASA even maintains a page on clavius.org (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html) where they continuously claim that traversing the radiation belts is so trivial and survivable. What happened?
-
In 2009 NASA made a test launch of the Ares 1-X, which was the upper stage of the multi-stage Ares launch vehicle.
Loot at the paint job of the rocket when it is low to the ground:
(http://i.imgur.com/BAChzFh.png)
Compared to what the rocket looks like when it is up in space around a round earth:
(http://i.imgur.com/tOw8eRU.png)
Are you referring to the reflection of the exhaust plume on the booster?
They can't even get their story straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZqSWWKmHQ
Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).
Didn't they already send six manned crews through this region on the way to the moon in the Apollo missions?
Yes they did, but they didn't use the Orion capsule. The Orion is a different design that must be debugged separately from the Apollo design.
-
So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.
Wow you got that from what I said? You continue to amaze Thomas.
I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.
Overexposure. From. The sun. Doesn't. Make. Sense. Ok!
The white rocket is in shade, not the sun. You're going to have to put a little more effort into this overexposure claim.
How can you tell it is in shade? Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.
Claiming that NASA lies to the public for glory isn't going to do anything to help your position.
Sorry are you not familiar with marketing?
-
They can't even get their story straight.
Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).
Cheery-picking quotes is not the same as reading carefully. What the video actually says:
"My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation and guidance for Orion...Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right; fly it in space.
[...]
As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."
The video is clearly describing a danger to the onboard electronics and not to the astronauts themselves.
Didn't they already send six manned crews through this region on the way to the moon in the Apollo missions?
If NASA is still working on testing the Van Allen radiation belt in order to solve that problem before they can send the astronauts through this region of space, than it is really amazing what the 1960’s engineers have done to solve that problem, who apparently created long lost and forgotten technologies, leading to the first lunar landing in 69'.
It would be suspicious if NASA didn't claim to rigorously and exhaustively test new components and designs before putting astronauts in them. I'm sure you're aware that there have been drastic changes in computer electronics and miniaturization since the 1960s.
-
I did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.
Do you mean the rivet heads that look black in shadow but white in the sun?
-
How can you tell it is in shade? Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.
Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/oi664n.png)
-
They can't even get their story straight.
Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).
Cheery-picking quotes is not the same as reading carefully. What the video actually says:
"My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation and guidance for Orion...Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right; fly it in space.
[...]
As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."
The video is clearly describing a danger to the onboard electronics and not to the astronauts themselves.
The video calls the Van Allen Radiation Belts a place of dangerous high radiation, a thing that we shouldn't be sending people though right now, when this is contradictory to the official story. The Apollo astronauts allegedly received a very minimal amount of radiation exposure when traveling through the radiation belt.
From the Van Allen Belt Wiki page:
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[29] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[30] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.
In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.
If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.
Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those? They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.
-
The Apollo missions passed through the belts very quickly and through an area of low concentration. Maybe they want to test for prolonged exposure?
-
If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.
When did NASA claim that the Van Allen belts are "safe for any man or machine"?
Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those? They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.
No, NASA did not "forget" about those other unmanned craft, it's just that those other unmanned craft are not Orion. The Orion capsule has different mission objectives than those other unmanned craft and therefore must be tested separately. If anything, Orion is probably being tested to a much higher safety standard than unmanned craft.
-
The Apollo missions passed through the belts very quickly and through an area of low concentration. Maybe they want to test for prolonged exposure?
Why would they put the astro-nots through more radiation than necessary?
If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.
When did NASA claim that the Van Allen belts are "safe for any man or machine"?
Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those? They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.
No, NASA did not "forget" about those other unmanned craft, it's just that those other unmanned craft are not Orion. The Orion capsule has different mission objectives than those other unmanned craft and therefore must be tested separately. If anything, Orion is probably being tested to a much higher safety standard than unmanned craft.
NASA has been hardening electronics from the Van Allen Radiation Belt and the general dangers of space for over 55 years. This segment hyping the dangers and the new technologies needed is hardly accurate, or consistent with the official story, considering that NASA has been claiming that the shielding to take computer chips and electronics into those areas has existed for a very long time.
-
Lets go back to the overexposure explanation. How is this rocket "overexposed" if much of it is in the shade:
How can you tell it is in shade? Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.
Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/oi664n.png)
-
Lets go back to the overexposure explanation. How is this rocket "overexposed" if much of it is in the shade:
How can you tell it is in shade? Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.
Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/oi664n.png)
Simple. It's the rocket exhaust plume reflecting off of the booster.
-
NASA has been hardening electronics from the Van Allen Radiation Belt and the general dangers of space for over 55 years.
Perhaps, but NASA has not sent any humans through the Van Allen belts for over 40 years. Unmanned space craft don't have life-support or any of a number of other systems that manned spacecraft need.
This segment hyping the dangers and the new technologies needed is hardly accurate, or consistent with the official story, considering that NASA has been claiming that the shielding to take computer chips and electronics into those areas has existed for a very long time.
Are you suggesting that NASA shouldn't bother testing the shielding for Orion?
-
The Apollo missions passed through the belts very quickly and through an area of low concentration. Maybe they want to test for prolonged exposure?
Why would they put the astro-nots through more radiation than necessary?
Who said they were planning to? There are things called safety factors; you generally want your craft to be able to withstand more than the bare minimum in case plans go awry.
-
Tom Bishop, you totally misunderstood the man when he said they need to solve the problems before they can send people through the Van Allen Belts.
What he means is that they USED TO have the technology to send people through the Van Allen Belts in the 60s and 70s, but NASA's 2015 technology isn't as technologically advanced as the tin cans of 40 years ago.
See, totally makes sense, you silly man. ;)
And don't forget where the astronaut says: "Right now we only can FLY in earth orbit, THAT'S THE FARTHEST WE CAN GO...
...This new system is going to allow us to go beyond, and hopefully take humans into the solar system to explore... THE MOON."
—NASA Astronaut Terry Virts
Notice he says they can only "FLY" in earth orbit. Yes that's what they're doing, flying, not orbiting.
"F L Y I N G"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHJUVDL68iw
"Hopefully" one day they'll be able to "take humans into the solar system to explore."
—
-
The video calls the Van Allen Radiation Belts a place of dangerous high radiation, a thing that we shouldn't be sending people though right now, when this is contradictory to the official story. The Apollo astronauts allegedly received a very minimal amount of radiation exposure when traveling through the radiation belt.
You're insisting that the video means somethings it doesn't say and doesn't mean what it says directly. Kelly Smith says, "Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right: fly it in space...Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion."
Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now.
NASA does not claim to have solved the problem of radiation effects on spacecraft. NASA itself, in papers it publishes, says literally exactly the opposite.
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/courses/aoe4065/NASADesignSPs/rp1390.pdf
Documented episodes of disrupted communications, major power losses, and satellite failures show that the natural space environment has caused adverse effects in orbiting spacecraft and ground operations. Major perturbations in the near-Earth space environment have adversely affected space and ground based systems for years. Substantial research into the consequences of the natural space environment on programs and numerous case histories, emphasize the importance of continuing the development of better design procedures and processes to ensure successful in-flight experiments and missions.
Also, it's new. But don't take my word for it; here's an example from the dude in charge of Orion's avionics:
http://www.informationweek.com/government/leadership/nasa-orion-space-capsule-has-surprising-brain/d/d-id/1297427
"The spacecraft is capable of doing the mission itself," he added, "although of course once you add a crew, it becomes even more capable."
The avionics system has gone through extensive testing on the ground, but the test flight will show how all the components work together when integrated into a complete system and subjected to all the extremes of radiation and vibration that only a real space flight can provide, he said.
"Our vehicle master computer is from Honeywell and it's based on the 787 avionics they did for Boeing. So one new thing for NASA is we're not designing the computer from the ground up just for space, which is how we did shuttle. That was very, very expensive. Using commercial technology really reduced the cost of our flight computer. Then all we have to do is live with some disadvantages. The big one we have is radiation tolerance. A commercial airliner doesn't care about radiation -- it doesn't see very much. But we go up through the Van Allen Belt, farther into deep space, encountering heavy doses of radiation potentially. So we've done things to upgrade the computer. We've replaced individual piece parts with radiation-hardened components. Then we look at redundancy on the vehicle and say, "what if we allow radiation to happen to certain components" and [the flight computer] goes down. Well, we need another computer just in case. That's still a lot cheaper than trying to design one that is never going to have a problem."
It's not at all surprising for engineers to test a new machine that humans are going to fly into space to make sure that it won't kill the humans in it. It's not at all surprising that new machines with never-before-flown parts would be tested to ensure that those parts won't fail before putting humans in it. That's just sound engineering. Machines don't automatically work simply because they're newer.
For good measure, here's another NASA paper on their continued research on radiation hardening. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070018806.pdf)
And here's an article that talks about the booming business of rad-hard tech. (http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-26/issue-5/technology-focus/averting-on-orbit-mission-failure.html)
-
Lets go back to the overexposure explanation. How is this rocket "overexposed" if much of it is in the shade:
How can you tell it is in shade? Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.
Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/oi664n.png)
Simple. It's the rocket exhaust plume reflecting off of the booster.
The "rocket exhaust" down below is illuminating the upper lips of the rims facing the camera. Please explain.
-
Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them.
https://youtu.be/uqTuo2yQBXM
-
Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them
Please explain what is happening then. The colors of the ship clearly are not being washed out by the sun, considering that it is in shadow.
-
Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them
Please explain what is happening then. The colors of the ship clearly are not being washed out by the sun, considering that it is in shadow.
Personally, my completely speculative guess is that something like this is happening. (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/an-inexpensive-way-to-drastically-change-the-look-of-your-image) The Earth is acting like the styrofoam. The Earth and the atmosphere are reflecting and scattering lots of light; so, when Orion is nearer to the ground, it's being illuminated from many incident angles all around it. Like the orange in my link, Orion gets dimmer as it moves away from a reflective light source: the Earth. Since rockets kind of tend to move around a lot, those incident angles are probably constantly changing, much like the woman in the lighting video.
I can't really know any of this for sure because I have so little information (not to mention virtually no expertise in photography). Neither of us can do anything better than guess at where the sun is, how high the craft is, the properties of the camera, the properties of the material being photographed, etc. That information is necessary to determining if the photograph is "correct" or not.
All of that said, I've already demonstrated my point: lighting changes how an object appears in a photograph, and the lighting in the OP images has certainly changed. Rockets move around a lot, and they alter their orientation to the sun constantly. By definition. They wouldn't work as orbital rockets if they didn't.
Why do you not take seriously the onus to demonstrate and explain your argument? The OP just posts two photos and says "Look at the paint job of the rocket when it is low to the ground...compared to what the rocket looks like when it is up in space around a round earth." That's it. I assume you're saying that it isn't possible for these two photos to look different in this way, but you never explain why that's the case. You don't explain anything. How similar should they appear? How do you know? How then was this scene made? CGI, models, both, neither? Can such a mistake be rationally explained? Please explain what is happening.
-
Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them
Please explain what is happening then. The colors of the ship clearly are not being washed out by the sun, considering that it is in shadow.
Personally, my completely speculative guess is that something like this is happening.
(http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/an-inexpensive-way-to-drastically-change-the-look-of-your-image)
The orange gets lighter and darker. But colors don't just disappear or pop out of nowhere. You're going to have to explain why the rocket would be completely white in the shade, hiding it's colors.
The whitest parts of the an object under varying light conditions are when the light is shining directly on it, and the white value in the photograph are very high. But this rocket ship is in the shade. You will have to explain how a body, in the shade, can be so blinded by the light around it that its colors are hidden by overexposure. The fact that it is in shade contradicts the idea that the object is receiving an intense amount of light from the environment. The white of the rocket ship is very dull, is obviously in shade, and does not scream overexposure from any environment sources at all.
The example of the orange does not get white washed when placed in the shade and, therefore, does not qualify as an example of this phenomena.
-
The orange gets lighter and darker. But colors don't just disappear or pop out of nowhere. You're going to have to explain why the rocket would be completely white in the shade, hiding it's colors.
The whitest parts of the an object under varying light conditions are when the light is shining directly on it, and the white value in the photograph are very high. But this rocket ship is in the shade. You will have to explain how a body, in the shade, can be so blinded by the light around it that its colors are hidden by overexposure. The fact that it is in shade contradicts the idea that the object is receiving an intense amount of light from the environment. The white of the rocket ship is very dull, is obviously in shade, and does not scream overexposure from any environment sources at all.
The example of the orange does not get white washed when placed in the shade and, therefore, does not qualify as an example of this phenomena.
Other than that some of the bolts look lighter or darker in the second image, I still don't see this color change you're describing. The Ares launch vehicle is mostly white, so it isn't surprising that it would appear to be white. It looks slightly darker in the second image, I guess? Please demonstrate on the image itself what you think has changed.
You talk a lot about what I have to explain, but you're oddly silent on the notion that you should have to explain anything more than "these two images look slightly different."
-
Instead of using a video that cuts away from the onboard camera, here's a contiguous video of the onboard camera. I don't see the color change. Can you point it out to me?
https://youtu.be/CWSx3slWWPw
-
Can you point it out to me?
Yes. The gradual change begins at 1:27 and continues until around 1:50.
-
That footage is not continuous. The video cuts out many times through the scene.
-
Can you point it out to me?
Yes. The gradual change begins at 1:27 and continues until around 1:50.
Can you be more specific about what the change is? This looks like something I would expect to see from an object that is changing it orientation to two different light sources. I see some shadows moving, and I see some bolt heads getting lighter or darker, but I don't see the color change Tom is referencing.
That footage is not continuous. The video cuts out many times through the scene.
Right, and I'm not saying that it counts of proof of NASA's legitimacy. I'm only saying that it doesn't look fake to me. I don't understand your stubborn refusal to even point out the specific change or explain your argument further. Just take a screencap and draw an arrow to the part that you believe changes color.
I'm not even trying to be a dick here. I don't see the color change beyond a gradual shift from lighter to darker as the craft moves away from the Earth and rotates with respect to both the Earth and the Sun.
-
Can you be more specific about what the change is? This looks like something I would expect to see from an object that is changing it orientation to two different light sources. I see some shadows moving, and I see some bolt heads getting lighter or darker, but I don't see the color change Tom is referencing.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/oi664n.png)
-
Can you be more specific about what the change is? This looks like something I would expect to see from an object that is changing it orientation to two different light sources. I see some shadows moving, and I see some bolt heads getting lighter or darker, but I don't see the color change Tom is referencing.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/oi664n.png)
Ah, I do see what you're talking about now. I was fixated on the hull, and I thought that that post from Tom was in reference to something else about demonstrating which part of the hull was in sunlight and when.
I took screencaps of the videos at the same time stamps as the OP. I used the color dropper tool on that left lip part next to the arrow to produce this swatch. I went out of my way to try and find the biggest difference that I could.
(http://i.imgur.com/Ai6V6am.png)
This just isn't a very compelling difference to me. I think this is just an example of metamerism, which is a word I just learned exists. http://www.wonderfulcolors.org/blog/metamerism-and-why-does-paint-color-shift/
The OP images are compressed copies of screencaps of a copy of a video taken by what is basically a GoPro camera strapped to a ballistic missile; and, none of us know the properties of that camera or camera sensor (super important), or the lighting conditions in which it took the images (super important), or anything at all about the paint and whatnot being photographed (super important). Since one can easily demonstrate the various and significant ways in which lighting can affect the color and appearance of an object, and since the object in question is purported to be constantly altering its orientation to two very bright light sources, then it's hard to see how Tom's underlying argument that the video does not appear as it should has much warrant to it without more work on his part.