Welcome to the International Fake Station ISS

[Hughe]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YdKE3wOIdk4

How they bring down astronauts safely from the space to the ground?
Reentry problem does not explain how much reverse force that the reentry capsule has to exert within few minutes of entry to thick atmosphere.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/6344/...solutions.html

Perhaps the most serious single problem encountered during reentry is the heat that develops as the spacecraft returns to the earth's atmosphere. Friction between vehicle and air produces temperatures that exceed 3,000°F (1,700°C). Most metals and alloys would melt or fail at these temperatures. To deal with this problem, spacecraft designers have developed a class of materials known as ablators that absorb and then radiate large amounts of heat in brief periods of time. Ablators have been made out of a variety of materials, including phenolic resins, epoxy compounds, and silicone rubbers.

Read more: Manned Spacecraft - Reentry Problems And Solutions - Earth, York, —the, and Moon - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/6344/...#ixzz48rFJKtT9

http://www.universetoday.com/85322/low-earth-orbit/

Low Earth Orbit is a region that includes Earth at Sea Level and up to 2000 kilometers above sea level. This region is close enough for a panoramic view of the Earth but just far enough that most space craft can stay in orbit without being pulled down to the surface by Earth’s gravitational field. However satellites at this altitude have to move at extraordinary speeds to partially escape the pull of Earth’s gravity. A satellite in low Earth orbit travels at a mean velocity of 26,000 to 27,000 km per hour or 17,000 miles per hour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern..._Space_Station

It travels at an average speed of 27,724 kilometres per hour (17,227 mph), and completes 15.54 orbits per day (93 minutes per orbit)

Suppose the reentry capsule with rocket engine departs from the ISS in 27,000 km/h at 400 km height. It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s and requires to slow down the capsule below 16.7 m/s (60 km/h) within 54 seconds for the safety of crews inside capsule.
Between 400 km to 40 km of height, air density is near vacuum ( 0.03996 at 40 km height). And the gravity of Earth constantly pulls it 9.8 m/s^2.

Average deceleration of the capsule = (7,500.00 - 16.7) / 54 = 138 m/s^2
Total deceleration force the capsule requires is 138 m/s^2 + 9.8 m/s^2 = 147.8 m/s^2
Let's convert it to unit g force (9.8 m/s^2). 147.8 / 9.8 = 15.08 G.
High acceleration over 9g is lethal. I doubt human body can't handle over 10g.

To me rocket propulsion is such absurd, primitive technology that space travel is not feasible. Rocket only provides one way trip, waste huge amount of resources too. Unless NASA or whatever secret space program uses non-conventional propulsion system, space exploration as we know is simply a day dream.

Since I convinced myself that 1969's Apollo Moon landing was a fake event, space exploration becomes elaborated scam that gullible public takes as is. Who cares anyway. USA, former Russia back then, multinational space organization nowadays. China sent a probe to the Moon? Which country will go back to the Moon? It's plain silly stuff.

Mainstream astronomers haven't solved N-body problem. Orbital motion of planets in solar system. The stupid thing is all they believe in gravitational constant G is fixed value. And they have developed powerful computer simulation hopelessly. But the real problem is the G value changes on Earth depending on height or location of measurement. Astronomers try to ignore it because G has to be constant in their dogmatic framework. I guess their pride hurts as soon as they admit serious flaws in fundamental laws in physics.

Rocket propulsion is rubbish.
Speed of light is too slow as communication.
Don't know how to predict or calculate trajectory of planets with acceptable precision for space travel.

Flat Earth believers are gaining momentum too.

[Daozen]

Yes, ISS looks fake. I think I made a thread on it too, but not as well researched. For me, the hair perms, green screens and dialogue gaffes are the biggest giveaway.

[Chip]

It doesn't look fake looking at it through my telescope, the numerous times that I was able when the conditions were right?
Flat earthers are gaining ground simply because they fail to do their own objective observations and would rather rely upon the minutiae of vomitus YouTube videos. They fail not only in their attempt at understanding the basics of the Universe but worse in that they fail to see the disinformation psyop that this whole campaign has created.
Flat Earthers have done more damage by not truly seeing "The Big Picture". They hurt everyone involved

[Inversion]

There's definitely been a pattern of lying since the creation of NASA in 1958. The fact that they are the biggest editors of Wikipedia would validate that.

http://mikebara.blogspot.com/2007/08...nt-censor.html

According to an article on Govenment Executive.com, NASA is far and away the biggest Wikipedia editing source when it comes to US government agencies. A website called Wikiscanner keeps track of just who is editing what pages, and NASA is the clear winner with over 6,800 Wikipedia pages edited.

One has to wonder; why is NASA so intent on filtering the Wikipedia content that the general public has access to?

Until the Wikiscanner search for individual pages is enabled, we won't know exactly which pages they are editing, but with 6,800 edits, they must have a whole team devoted to holding the NASA party line over at Wikipedia.

[KiwiElf]

The ISS is there alright. Astronomy software like Redshift will tell you in advance when it's flying over a particular country and like Chipsam said, you can then go out & see it with a telescope on a clear night (along with all the other satellites).

The Matrix we live in is not so black & white.

(I do agree however, that rocketry is a joke and we're not going anywhere fast with it. But it too is quite real. Whatever advanced anti-grav technology that may exist behind the scenes, rocketry is still - publicly anyway - what we're stuck with

On a slight side note, It could be possible to fake some of the interior shots of the ISS (Capricorn 1 - style) and with a lot of CGI required to do so, but why bother? (And I'm sure some of the Moon landing footage was also faked (that doesn't make it ALL fake!, nor does it make NASA complete liars about everything they say... )

There was a brief mini-series on recently which was axed after only a short run - featuring a gigantic spacehip and it's hundreds of several-generation inhabitants, totally unaware that they weren't in space, but in a gigantic hangar on Earth - the title escapes me

[Builder]

Sorry but you got your physics all wrong. Before complaining about the oh so simple rocketry, try to understand some rocket science first.

Learn the rules like a professional so you can break them like an artist...

I have met astronauts who have been on both the Mir and the ISS and I have no reason to doubt that they were there (although they may not talk about everything they have seen).

[Gerald Paris]

Posted by Chipsam (here)
It doesn't look fake looking at it through my telescope, the numerous times that I was able when the conditions were right?
Flat earthers are gaining ground simply because they fail to do their own objective observations and would rather rely upon the minutiae of vomitus YouTube videos. They fail not only in their attempt at understanding the basics of the Universe but worse in that they fail to see the disinformation psyop that this whole campaign has created.
Flat Earthers have done more damage by not truly seeing "The Big Picture". They hurt everyone involved

is it possible to discuss NASAs chicanery without claiming a stance on flat earth?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Hughe (here)

It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s and requires to slow down the capsule below 16.7 m/s (60 km/h) within 54 seconds for the safety of crews inside capsule.

Where did those numbers come from? Why 54 seconds? (And 60 km/h is about the speed you drive your car when going to the supermarket.)

Yes, the ISS is visible to ordinary folks like you and me, with telescopes, who know where to look. If a large, heavy object can reach a stable orbit up there (in LEO, or Low Earth Orbit), then so can people, who don't weigh very much.

[Chip]

Posted by Gerald Paris (here)

Posted by Chipsam (here)
It doesn't look fake looking at it through my telescope, the numerous times that I was able when the conditions were right?
Flat earthers are gaining ground simply because they fail to do their own objective observations and would rather rely upon the minutiae of vomitus YouTube videos. They fail not only in their attempt at understanding the basics of the Universe but worse in that they fail to see the disinformation psyop that this whole campaign has created.
Flat Earthers have done more damage by not truly seeing "The Big Picture". They hurt everyone involved

is it possible to discuss NASAs chicanery without claiming a stance on flat earth?

I was staying on topic, as he ended his dialogue with a claim that the "flat earthers are gaining momentum" which also coincided with his interpretation of ISS science and rocketry.
I'm not one to argue against NASA's dishonesty. Been at this far too long to know they definitely keep secrets and aren't exactly honest. But, mankind has the know how to build Newtonian engineered rockets to get man a short distance up and a helluva ride back down.

[shaberon]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Hughe (here)

It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s and requires to slow down the capsule below 16.7 m/s (60 km/h) within 54 seconds for the safety of crews inside capsule.

Where did those numbers come from? Why 54 seconds? (And 60 km/h is about the speed you drive your car when going to the supermarket.)

It falls towards the earth constantly; that's what an orbit is, a fall with a perpendicular component to offset it; basically how a circle is drawn.

So if you say falls 7500 m/s, that corresponds to its initial velocity of 27,000 km/h; the capsule apparently has not detached from the station. I've never studied their orbital mechanics, but I'm going to guess they offset the trajectory by just a few degrees and take multiple orbits to descend; putting it this way makes it sound like it totally quits orbiting and makes a right angle turn at maximum speed. That would be dangerous.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Hughe (here)
It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s

When a return capsule leaves the ISS, it is initially traveling at the same speed as the ISS.

If the return capsule is crashing toward earth with a vertical velocity of 7,500 m/s at that point, then so is the ISS.

The ISS is about 400 km above the earth's surface.

If the ISS is 400 km up, and is crashing toward the earth's surface with a vertical velocity of 7,500 m/s, it will make a Big Splat (or Splash) about 400 km / ( 7500 m/s ) == 53 seconds later.

That 7,500 m/s number looks totally bogus to me. The vertical velocity of the ISS, and hence of any return capsule when it starts its return trip, is about 0 m/s, not 7,500 m/s.

Also ... I wasn't operating a space surveillance radar when the ISS was up, but I was operating one, for the US Air Force, when an earlier such orbiting space station was up. That space station looked very real on my radar scope.

Also ... as a math and physics student, with advanced training in satellite orbits for my US Air Force job, I have a pretty good grasp of these matters. As I said, that 7,500 m/s number looks totally bogus to me.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by shaberon (here)
but I'm going to guess they offset the trajectory by just a few degrees and take multiple orbits to descend; putting it this way makes it sound like it totally quits orbiting and makes a right angle turn at maximum speed. That would be dangerous.

They typically don't take multiple orbits to de-orbit, but they do take a substantial part of one orbit. Each ISS orbit takes about 92 minutes.

[Inversion]

The ISS travels at 4.76 miles per second and converted to meters it's 7,660. At 5 miles per second it's 8,046 m/s.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/a...tation-travel-

[shaberon]

It is going 7500 m/s in a continuously changing direction. It is falling towards the center of the earth at the same speed it moves in a perpendicular direction to that. If it ever quit falling, it would fly away from the planet.

Taking "most" of an orbit to come down, roughly an hour for the 400km, averages to a little over 100 m/s for its descent speed. Gravity accelerates it; eventually, atmospheric drag slows it. Unless otherwise affected, it's still going quite fast in the horizontal direction.

In the 54 seconds referred to, it descends about five and a half km. Not going to combust, or crush a human with excessive g force yet; as would happen, if somehow, the 7500 m/s was purely in the downwards direction.

[Hughe]

@shaberon

I've never studied their orbital mechanics, but I'm going to guess they offset the trajectory by just a few degrees and take multiple orbits to descend; putting it this way makes it sound like it totally quits orbiting and makes a right angle turn at maximum speed. That would be dangerous.

Same here. I know how fundamental physics work. One thing for certain the laws of physics dictates reality. The ISS is peaceful scientific application not top military secret mission. If they actually have been doing it, then disclose real data so that anybody can verify transporting humans back and forth. Radar tracking data of previous reentry capsule is sufficient. I doubt they ever disclose it.

Real science deals with hard data and few laws of physics not fancy pictures and great stories. This kind of stuff insults my small brain.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Inversion (here)
The ISS travels at 4.76 miles per second and converted to meters it's 7,660. At 5 miles per second it's 8,046 m/s.

That's parallel to the ground below it, not perpendicular.

[6pounder]

just to point a simple things here about the claim that the ISS is fake...
if it was a fake recording then how would one explain one simple thing that cant be recorded on such a long live interview: the free fall of the airplain to creat the no gravity effect?
if the interview lastes for about 5 minuts, how long the airplain will be in a freefall?
i was intrigued by alot of flat earth so called claim back in the day when i was believing every thing out there that was under a conspiracy tag. untill one day i decided to ask an amature astronomer on youtube (dazzathecamaraman) about some of the claims (ISS was part of them). he replayed me with a youtube video that sealed the case for me once and for all.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_YzeGRFDIms

i hope this video will convince all those who are still not that flat earth is a psyop of some one out there to put a bad name to truth seekers.

[ThePythonicCow]

Miles Mathis has just published his take on all this "everything is fake" mime, in the pdf The Case for Reality.

Here's a small snippet from it:

============

The reason they are pushing this “reality as an illusion” now as part of the continuation of Project Chaos is to prevent you from seeing all the hoaxed events. They know you have become aware of a major distortion, and they want you to think it is even bigger than it is. They know you are asking yourself and those around you if maybe the government is lying to you all the time about everything. So to confuse you, they are suggesting to you that maybe it is your senses lying to you about everything all the time. It isn't just the stories you are being told in the media that don't make sense, it is life that doesn't make sense. It isn't just Sandy Hook or the latest murder that is a hoax, it is life itself that is the hoax. It isn't just CIA-created stories that are illusory, it is existence itself that is illusory. If they can get you doubting that the snake or the rock exists, you aren't really going to care whether Sandy Hook happened. You will be so lost and confused you won't have the fortitude to question specific events. You will say to yourself, “Jeepers, if my husband and children are just figments of my imagination, I have more than enough to do in living with that everyday. That is more than enough to create a permanent never-ending neurosis, a hole in my head that cannot be repaired. Given the enormity of that, the latest government lie looks pretty trivial.”

============

He's one of my favorite commentators, though his unique perspective on things may seem odd to most readers ... he's sort of an acquired taste.

[Daozen]

ISS may well be visible through a telescope but that does not mean that some -or all- of the interior shots are not faked, as KiwiElf says. We only have NASA's word to go on, and they do not have a good track record. Flat Earth is a separate subject, IMO.

I know nothing about the re-entry mathematics, I'm looking at the badly shot interior scenes and evidence of videographic fakery.

On a slight side note, It could be possible to fake some of the interior shots of the ISS (Capricorn 1 - style) and with a lot of CGI required to do so, but why bother? (And I'm sure some of the Moon landing footage was also faked (that doesn't make it ALL fake!, nor does it make NASA complete liars about everything they say... )

Why bother? I don't know, you'd have to ask NAZA. Maybe we are living in some sort of quarantine, and they want to give us the illusion that they can go into space. It sure is an easy way to siphon off tax dollars from the economy.

Exhibit A:

Look at this lady's hair. In a real zero-gravity spacecraft, astronauts' hair goes all over the place. In this clip, it is stuck upside down like a perm. Why isn't it floating all over the place, if pens, bottles and her dog tags float freely too? Does someone want to cobble together a pseudo-scientific argument about static electricity? Please, go ahead.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zhzjx8TsuQk

*

Exhibit B:

There is a huge smoking gun in the following video. You may be able to spot it without any help, in the first 20 seconds. It might help to watch that segment a few times. At 24 seconds, they reveal the evidence. I didn't spot it without a clue, but once you see it, it's quite a big hole in the official story.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AkkLO4oEQS4

[shaberon]

Just quickly glancing at standard data for Soyuz re-entry...it takes three hours to reach the atmosphere, and when it does, it's entry angle is about 1.5 degrees. Any less and it may bounce back out, any more and the g force could harm the astronauts. It uses retro-rockets almost immediately after decoupling; because this reduces its horizontal speed, it starts to descend.