Rama Set

Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2015, 11:48:14 PM »
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.

*

Offline Orbisect-64

  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • I'M REVOLTING! . . . make of it what you will
    • View Profile
Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2015, 12:33:02 AM »
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  orbitTHAT'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"









"Hopefully" one day they'll be able to "take humans into the solar system to explore."



« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 07:40:27 PM by Orbisect-64 »
PRONOIA: “The delusional belief that the world is set up to benefit people … The confident and assumed trust that despite years of lies and oppression, government is secretly conspiring in your favor.”

Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2015, 01:52:53 AM »
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
Quote
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
Quote
"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.

And here's an article that talks about the booming business of rad-hard tech.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2015, 11:12:45 AM »
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.


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.

Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2015, 04:15:23 PM »
Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them.


I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2015, 04:49:36 PM »
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.

Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2015, 05:43:57 PM »
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.  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.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 05:50:58 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2015, 12:04:00 PM »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2015, 12:25:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2015, 03:11:57 PM »
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." 
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2015, 01:56:48 PM »
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?

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2015, 06:57:31 PM »
Can you point it out to me?
Yes. The gradual change begins at 1:27 and continues until around 1:50.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2015, 08:33:44 PM »
That footage is not continuous. The video cuts out many times through the scene.

Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2015, 01:56:50 PM »
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.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2015, 05:49:54 PM »
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.


Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2015, 03:51:57 PM »
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.



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.



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.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2015, 03:54:05 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.