RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.  THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.<br>
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added.  This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons. www.richplanet.net community built on miniBB / RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added. This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons.
/

THE MOON & SOLAR SYSTEM

 Page:  ««  1  2  3  ...  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  »» 
skipman
Member
#1441 | Posted: 24 Sep 2015 23:32
Reply 
This weekend there is a total lunar eclipse which coincides with the moon being at its closed to the earth so it appears larger than normal. Unfortunately it is in the early hours of the morning but the weather should be clear for those who want to get up to view it.

http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/uk/birmingham
wensam
Member
#1442 | Posted: 25 Sep 2015 16:56
Reply 
Thanks skipman, that may explain the many emergency service sirens I hear, as well as the amount of people screaming at each other on the street!
Sunburn
Member
#1443 | Posted: 13 Nov 2015 14:42 | Edited by: Sunburn
Reply 
As we all know from the moment we are born that an airplane will have wings and one or more engines attached to them, we also know from education, experience, watching TV films and taking holidays abroad that Airplanes are also very noisy when they take off, fly and when they land.

This noise is due to the jet engines operating, drawing in air, compressing it and converting it to thrust with the waste product being mainly noise and exhaust, this noise is most dramatic on take off and more so upon landing when the aircraft is required to slow to a halt. This is in part is due to the engines being throttled back and a reversing of the thrust. Allowing the aircraft to slow down in a short distance.

I think it safe to say we have all head a plane take off and land, and we have heard the noise of the engines working to accomplish that fact. Correct?

We also know that gliders are not airplanes in the sense that they don't have an engine or the means of powered flight. When they take off or land the majority of noise created is from the air passing over the wings and with glider having contact with the ground.

This is a glider landing (note the absence of noise)

So, I have been wondering why does this glider sound as though its using jet engines when landing?

It is a glider right?

It shouldn't have any jet engines as it s a glider.... as the 'Glider' makes its landing you can clearly hear reversing of the thrust to slow the aircraft down.

My point is, its so obvious, but our programming doesn't allow us to see whats hidden in plain sight! We are told its a glider, NASA says its a glider, but it doesn't sound like one! This then makes me further question, why does it have Jet engines, why does it need them? Is it flying somewhere? or should I say, does it fly in from somewhere, is this the same shuttle that was witnessed going up into orbit only several days previous? or is this a double?

* note the reinforcement of the lie, by the commentator ' The shuttle which is really just a glider right now' @ 1min : 04sec

Regards
Geoff
Joe
Member
#1444 | Posted: 13 Nov 2015 19:43 | Edited by: Joe
Reply 
Sunburn:
It shouldn't have any jet engines as it s a glider.... as the 'Glider' makes its landing you can clearly hear reversing of the thrust to slow the aircraft down.

The orbiter/glider, which is one part of the space shuttle, has it's own jet engines that are used simultaneously in addition to the booster rockets (attached to the external fuel tank), when launched from Earth. The engines on the orbiter serve no further use after launching (is that so).

However, I've always wondered how such a clunky machine like an orbiter can actually glide back to Earth without some kind of engine power! Personally, I think the orbiter does have fuel in its reserve tank and lands like a conventional aircraft (with engine power) and not as a glider as NASA would have us all believe.
Kozmik
Member
#1445 | Posted: 24 Nov 2015 17:00
Reply 
Sunburn:
It shouldn't have any jet engines as it s a glider.... as the 'Glider' makes its landing you can clearly hear reversing of the thrust to slow the aircraft down.

Don't know if it applies in this case; but when the Space Shuttle lands, it is accompanied by a couple [at least] of T35's or similar. One of these might be off camera, and landing, and that is what we hear.
But I've just watched the vid, and I see NO T35s or any other jet aircraft in the vicinity.
So what jet engine are we hearing?
skipman
Member
#1446 | Posted: 8 Feb 2016 22:59
Reply 
nordsee220
Member
#1447 | Posted: 8 Feb 2016 23:27 | Edited by: nordsee220
Reply 
I watched some of the "Space weekend" on the Quest TV channel. (Years ago I would have watched all of it but now I can only take so much bullshit before getting bored.)

NASTY said that Apollo 17 orbited the earth twice, building up speed to slingshot out to the moon at 25000mph to escape earth gravity.

OK?

Well, my tinfoil hat got a bit warm when I started doing some simple arithmetic.

25000mph, fairy nuff but WHY would they then slow the thing down to the 3000 to 4000mph claimed for the entire journey to the moon?

Surely if they've achieved 25k they'd want to remain at that velocity and get to the moon in far less than the claimed 3 days?

They're in a vacuum so there's no friction and earth's gravity will diminish at the inverse square rate (double the distance, one quarter the gravity, five times the distance = one twenty fifth etc) so they'd need to burn fuel to power retro rockets in order to slow down.

At 25000 mph and orbiting at say 300 miles up, upon slingshotting away they'd go from 300 to 30000 miles in a little over 60 minutes and gravity would drop away faster than a politician can make out an expenses claim. ***BONUS*** Only one hour in the dreaded Van Allen Belts, too! (Gravity would be about one ten thousandth in an hour so hardly likely to drag the shit, sorry, ship, back so drastically.)

It don't make sense to me that they slow down so drastically apart from needing to slow down in the last say 20000 miles. why crawl along for 3 days, shitting in giant nappies (diapers) (for that's what we were told before they invented the vacuum toilet farce) when they could be there in under 12 hours?

And why does the return journey take the same length of time (3 days) when (a) lunar gravity is one sixth of earth's so nothing like the slingshot power is available and (b) the loony orbiter is travelling slowly enough to facilitate docking. Surely the earthward journey must take far longer?

As the young kid on different strokes used to say, "WHAT YA TALKIN BOUT, NASA?"
Kozmik
Member
#1448 | Posted: 9 Feb 2016 16:20
Reply 
You know norders, I am now firmly in the I'm not sure camp when it comes to the whole Moon thing. I know its taken for granted that we went, but the more I look at it the less certain I am that 1960s technology was up to the job, you know?
nordsee220
Member
#1449 | Posted: 10 Feb 2016 10:30 | Edited by: nordsee220
Reply 
Kozmik:
ou know norders, I am now firmly in the I'm not sure camp when it comes to the whole Moon thing. I know its taken for granted that we went, but the more I look at it the less certain I am that 1960s technology was up to the job, you know?

I was absolutely in the "we went to the moon" camp right from 1969 until about 2009. Since then I've seen lots of evidence that says we didn't.

One piece of reasoning began to make me rethink: "Were NASA really prepared to risk having astronauts seriously injured or even to die on live, worldwide TV?"

I know people say that everything was tested and rehearsed to the umteenth degree but what about the things that supposedly went wrong? The camera failure on 12 and the substituted "simulated" scenes broadcast instead with on screen captions telling us they were in fact simulations. Yet the pictures we saw were equally as fuzzy as the so called live scenes from 11.

Staunch Christian Neil Armstrong refusing to swear on Bart Sibrel's Bible that he had walked on the moon.

Alan Bean not knowing where the Van Allen belts are. (Do they just get any guy to fly these things?)

Apollo 13 and proof that the landing site was in darkness. That's PITCH BLACK darkness not just earthy dark night darkness.

So what camp am I in now? If we did go to the moon (that's IF) then it wasn't the named astronauts.

I believe that in years to come the US government will tell the world the whole thing was faked but for our own protection. It was faked to have the USA appear more powerful than ever and by doing so WW3 was averted therefore everyone concerned with the hoax is a hero.

Again, "FOR ALL MANKIND".
Kozmik
Member
#1450 | Posted: 10 Feb 2016 10:50
Reply 
Yes, I was struck by Armstrong refusing to swear on The Good Book, and his lame excuse for not doing so..... That's probably a fake Bible....pathetic, he probably needed an MK top up or something. And in a later speech where he talked about Layers of Truth.... What's all that about then? Dodgy as a Nine pound note!
nordsee220
Member
#1451 | Posted: 10 Feb 2016 11:37 | Edited by: nordsee220
Reply 
Apollo 12, the failed camera and the quality of "simulation" pictures broadcast, recorded on earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_II3gYd3LE

Nuff said?
Joe
Member
#1452 | Posted: 11 Feb 2016 17:36
Reply 
The Moon landing is about as fake as this ever to have happened:

skipman
Member
#1453 | Posted: 7 Mar 2016 22:58
Reply 
If you cannot get your facts right how can anyone take a headline like this seriously?

http://investmentwatchblog.com/supermoon-eclipse-asteroid-all-happening-on-same-day-n ext-week/

After an eclipse there is a new moon not a full moon.

The T.V. show CSI Miami and the film Apocalypto both had an eclipse followed by a full moon in the evening. the film I can forgive but the T.V. show is supposed to be about the science of forensics.
Joe
Member
#1454 | Posted: 8 Mar 2016 13:20 | Edited by: Joe
Reply 
skipman:
If you cannot get your facts right how can anyone take a headline like this seriously?

skipman:
After an eclipse there is a new moon not a full moon.

There are amateurs in every field that are put into a position of responsibility that are not capable/qualified of doing and this leads to danger in some jobs.
Sunburn
Member
#1455 | Posted: 8 Mar 2016 17:05
Reply 
More evidence that we never went to the moon.
URL

Taking Mars out of the equation, wouldn't one of the first things tested when we brought back soil samples from the moon would be the growing of crops? so 40 years later, we are now testing growing crops? Really.... and not only that, the amount of Material we would have brought back, NASA had to give the Dutch science team soil samples from Arizona! as a simulated test material!

What a load of shite!
 Page:  ««  1  2  3  ...  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link 

   
» Username  » Password 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please enter your login/password details upon posting a message, or sign up first
TO JOIN THIS FORUM: WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
We may be considering adding new members on a "block basis". We will collect new member requests and then introduce a new batch. The new memebrs will be identifiable by a prefix in their username as a "new member". Anyone considered to be trolling or causing trouble will be immedialtey removed. To be put on the list please email richard@richplanet.net AND GIVE YOUR US NAME, A USERNAME, PASSWORD. I would imagine a new batch of new members will be added in January 2012.
 

Forums are powered by miniBB®