[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles

Title: RAW FOOTAGE: Balloon, aka NASA "Satellite" Floats Across Full Moon
Source: YT
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfdkWy0QtE&feature=youtu.be
Published: Feb 3, 2018
Author: Flat Earth Dude
Post Date: 2019-09-28 17:41:37 by Liberator
Keywords: NASA, Satellite, Balloon
Views: 25180
Comments: 184

(Video taken through a Nikon P900 camera)


Poster Comment:

Cool! Great shot of the Moon as well. (Sure doesn't seem like it's 239,000 miles away.)

So.... is balloon technology how NASA really photographs earth? It appears they are able to attach an equipment gondola to the Balloon...and let 'er rip into Low Earth Orbit.

One also wonders if "Astronauts" are actually embedded into a special Balloon gondola instead what's depicted in those dodgy "ISS" shots. Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space.

Moving juuuust a bit slower than 17,000 MPH. Source:

'HOW STUFF WORKS'

https://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite6.htm

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

#2. To: Liberator (#0)

'HOW STUFF WORKS'

That's not how any of this works.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-09-29   14:43:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative (#2)

That's not how any of this works.

Actually...IT IS.

With respect to, 'HOW STUFF WORKS', I mis-formatted the post, so it's my fault there's some confusion.

OF NOTE:

According to 'HOW STUFF WORKS' and the link I provided:

"Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph.(27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space.

We see neither traveling at 17,000 mph -- whether a gi-normous NASA balloon or the pix taken from NASA "Satellites" (which are actually "gondolas" tethered TO balloons at low earth orbit.)

Liberator  posted on  2019-09-30   16:09:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: TooConservative (#5) (Edited)

NASA's Giant Helium Balloons will neither be escaping much beyond the stratosphere, nor dragged to earth via "gravity"...

They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.

Liberator  posted on  2019-09-30   16:14:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Liberator (#6)

They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.

What would be the point of a randomly-drifting mission for either photography or passenger flight?

Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.

Hank Rearden  posted on  2019-09-30   16:28:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Liberator (#7)

Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.

Facts don't count when you debate Flattards. Math is irrelevant to Flattards and they don't recognize the concept of mathematical proofs or their finality as a problem's correct solution.

I have noticed some interesting theories recently on the rise of Flat Earthers on YouBoob. Naturally, we all recognize how YouBoob is monetizing all of this while trying to use it to smear all religions, many of whose fundamentalists do reject science. It's a subtle attack strategy used by the TED people and Silicon Valley.

But there is a real question of just how 'tarded the Flattards really are. And it is a serious question. These are the kids who flunked algebra and geometry and chemistry and physics. And they're the kids who argued with the teachers in every class you ever took, the contrarian adolescent types. It is a pronounced personality characteristic that they exhibit.

Some people might consider the questioning of their fundamental intelligence and competence to be hitting below the belt but you can't view many of their top-rated videos - their best stuff - without starting to question if Flattards should be a category in the DSM as a mental disability or condition.

[I thought Neil might like these videos; the first vlogger shows his test for dyscalculia based on an aircraft flight plan and says that no Flattard has managed to pass it with only a few even willing to try to. It reminded me of Neil's posts about aircraft flight plans on some old flat earth threads here at LF.]

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-09-30   18:35:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Tooconservative, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Grand Island, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Deckard (#10)

"Facts don't count when you debate Flattards...[[blah, blah]...Globetards...YouBoob...mental disability..."

This particular post of yours is hysterical. BRAVO!!

"Debate"?? Did you really mention, "Debate"??

Can you FAIL more miserably on that count, my frothing friend? At least I see others here posing serious, valid questions and challenges -- even though they may disagree with NASA/Flat Earth/911 challenges.

Back to your concept of "debate": ""FLATARD! FLATARD! FLATARD!...YouBoob! YouBoob! YouBoob! Mental disability!!" does NOT constitute a "debate"; Or any reasoned discussion and challenge of simple claimed facts, math, or science. Neither do tantrums and hysterics over sources you hate and resent (YouTube) because they circumvent the "official" sources of "truth" and happen to expose previously pre-YouTube actual hidden truth. (Btw, baiting Neil/Ping into entering the fray? Lame.)

As the resident self-annointed arbiter of consensus and "acceptable subject matter" at LF, are you sure you even know the definition of "debate"? (I mean other than the same ol' puerile "Flatard" ad hominims I've seen from millennials and "adolescent types" -- yes, the same compliant pods you attempted to control, and indoctrinate as a teacher of the Rockefellerian agenda.)

Facts don't count when you debate Flattards. Math is irrelevant to Flattards...

Oh, the irony. Have you always been such a condescending, no-nothing little pr*ck?

Last evening, Prof. TooConservative, I lobbed 4 clear Test Questions for you to answer. They were "Factual," "Scientific," AND "Mathematical". As you routinely do, you engaged in your usual gaslighting attempt, not only failing to answer the questions, but changing the subject and entire premise...

But for now -- and for the sake of credibility and honesty, please answer just these a few still un-answered questions and explain NASA's own large credibility problem. Ignoring them won't make it go away. And besides -- I reeeeealy wanna believe!!

QUESTION #1:

FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!").

Simple logic and math: How then is NASA's claim to have traveled 778,000 miles (round trip) to the Moon AND back 5 times from 1969-1972 possible? (especially when 50 YEARS LATER they CAN NOT?)

Can you kindly work out that "Math" AND "Science" for us?

QUESTION #2 (includes assumptive premise):

Can we all agree on this?

Given one accepts the established "Historical/Scientific Fact" NASA claims to have accomplished -- that is the greatest of feat in the annals of Human History: Plotting a precise course to and landing men on the Moon 239,000 miles away AND returning. Safely. FIVE TIMES. 50 years ago.

But...HOW is this all possible when NASA now admits escaping the SAME "Low Earth Orbit" is now NASA's "biggest challenge"? They admit it's a problem that is still not figured out...

QUESTION #3: Please rationally or logically explain how it was possible (or believable) that NASA "LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw it out)?

IF NASA has indeed already traveled back & forth to the Moon FIVE times, without any discussion about what it now says are current grave problems/solutions about leaving "Low Earth Orbit", how are NASA and any of those 169-1972 missions believable or credible??

Yes, I'm stupid; (Maybe I have a "mental disability" as you suggest.) Because I don't understand the above unanswered questions. But as a really smart teacher and person, I'm sure YOU can explain how these "facts," "Math," and "Science" is possible. And how NASA went to the Moon 5 times. And now? Nope, we are told by NASA itself: WE. CAN. NOT.

THANKS.

Liberator  posted on  2019-10-01   13:01:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Liberator, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Grand Island, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Deckard (#20)

Oh, the irony. Have you always been such a condescending, no-nothing little pr*ck?

Well, yeah, pretty much.

QUESTION #1: FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!").

Simple logic and math: How then is NASA's claim to have traveled 778,000 miles (round trip) to the Moon AND back 5 times from 1969-1972 possible? (especially when 50 YEARS LATER they CAN NOT?)

Elon Musk could do it, now. He's got Falcon 9 to reach low- and high-earth orbit and Falcon Heavy to reach the moon and he's starting testing on SpaceX Starship to send large payloads to Mars (or very large payloads to Earth orbit or to the Moon, the kind you need for big space colonies or a moon colony).

But NASA itself? Hell no. They have no contracted production of Saturn and Jupiter launchers that they own which they did have during the Apollo launches. And they don't even have the crappy, explosive, crew-killing, vastly overpriced Shuttles. So they can't even actually get to the ISS using NASA-owned launchers. Instead, they're paying SpaceX for cargo resupply flights and NASA and its Western partners all have to pay through the nose to use the old Russian launchers which are developing a really bad safety record. Not only that, but they don't have the Shuttle to launch the KH spy satellites and other classified military launches; those are now controlled directly by the Pentagon and they launch on their old ICBM-based launchers which NASA never operated or launched at all. So the Pentagon and SpaceX and SLS and Boeing and others can all make orbit and some of them can or will reach the moon in the next few years and SpaceX (and likely Blue Origin) will go to Mars by 2025. But NASA? They have nothing but a fistful of options to buy rides at $60M a pop from the fucking Russians.

NASA does have contracts for SLS (Space Launch System) to produce some very large launchers through 2030 which cost upward of a billion dollars a launch. Good luck to NASA trying to sell that to Congress! But SLS is actually just a front for Boeing and Lockheed to sell their very overpriced single-launch crappy technology to Congress under cost-plus contracts, the kind they love for Pentagon contracts that are so lucrative.

Here's a 2-minute video on the various launch platforms that are current or upcoming. You should watch it so you can grasp a few basic facts about modern American rocketry. One way or the other, we are going to have launchers far bigger than the old Saturn/Jupiter rockets that we used for Apollo. If we choose well (SpaceX or Blue Origin), we'll slash launch costs to a small fraction of what we pay for launches currently.

SLS continues to miss its mileposts. And Trump and Company are taking launches away from SLS and they're giving those launches to SpaceX. Musk is gobbling it all up.

NASA can barely launch a weather balloon using its own owned-and-developed technology. So that statement by NASA was entirely correct and probably understates just how defunded NASA has become, largely because there are a lot of U.S. senators that think we need to go to private launch companies to commercialize space. Which is the correct way to do space, given how cheap SpaceX launches are compared to anything NASA can contract from SLS or the upcoming Blue Origin vehicles.

NASA really just runs our legacy spaceports and tracking system and providing some astronaut training serverice and not much more. Because Congress doesn't trust them to build anything any more. And with good cause.

It's very clear to me that you have almost no factual knowledge of these programs and the technology involved, let alone the political wrangling in Congress. You simply don't understand these things and so you huddle back, posting these fact-free CTs about how "it's all a lie!". Pretty sad really. You don't seem to have the knowledge even to evaluate these programs on even an elementary basis, the kind we might expect to see from a middle-school student.

QUESTION #3: Please rationally or logically explain how it was possible (or believable) that NASA "LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw it out)?

NASA did scrap its Jupiter/Saturn launchers entirely. And much of the data used for launches and for vehicle tests was in software for obsolete computers. Over the decades, if you follow the computer tech news as I have for many years, you would be aware of the efforts to salvage the poorly-stored mag tapes and punched cards that NASA did keep. Hobbyists actually had to build custom hardware or use very old surplus tape drives and card readers and then write software just to extract the original data and source code. And it is not complete because the originals were so poorly stored that some are simply unsalvageable. This is not dissimilar to Hollyweird losing a lot of old B-movies because the celluloid film aged badly or was stored poorly, leaving us without archival copies of a lot of old movies and cinema serials and old theater newsreels. Then you also have a number of fires that happened in the film archive warehouses of the now-defunct movie studios of the era. When your studio is failing and you're firing people, preserving your worthless old films is low priority. And if you've insured your film archive (which is commercially worthless), an insurance payout from an arson is a good way to monetize it instead of continuing to pay to keep an archive that no one wants. So...once they had the Shuttle, NASA made preserving the documents and software and toolchains a very low priority. At the time, NASA believed we wouldn't want to go back to the moon, that the future of space flight was Shuttles in Earth orbit and that the moon and the other planets would all be explored by robots which were much cheaper.

But you don't know any of this because you actually prefer these laughable Flattard conspiracy theories. You spend your days watching their Flattard videos with three fingers buried deep in your ass, finally convinced you've caught those bounders in their lies. You convince yourself that people don't want to be around you because the Freemasons and Jesuits have brainwashed them while NASA manufactures fake space programs and launches fake moons and planets to deceive them all and that you are some brave freedom fighter, fightin' for da Trut' against The Man. And that someday you will finally prevail over all those Smart People who passed those darned math and science classes back in high school. And it never works out for you, does it? I suppose it really eats you up when you really let yourself think about it. So you don't think about it and prefer to flood some meaningless chitchat forums like LF with your propaganda. At least it keeps you busy so you don't have to confront the real problem you have in bringing the hoi polloi to understand what you think is Da Trut' on any given day (but which is guaranteed to change regularly). It's all very mysterious to you, isn't it? I don't doubt that it is.

Have a nice day.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-01   14:06:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Tooconservative (#22) (Edited)

(TC SPAMMING NONSENSE)

[NASA lost/sh*t-canned the Moon Technology, because it's] "archive that no one wants...Low priority."

Have a nice day.

Hilarious. Are you fricking kidding me??

All that wasted time and space. And yet, you still managed NOT to answer my simple questions reasonably, logically.

AGAIN:

HOW did NASA land men on the Moon 50 years ago...BUT NOW ADMITS IT CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT? Ergo, CAN'T RETURN TO THE MOON?

If that "technology" was so obsolete and unwanted, wouldn't it have made sense to refine EXISTING MOON-TRAVEL KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY??

(unless...it never existed to begin with. Oooops.)

Liberator  posted on  2019-10-01   14:35:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Liberator (#26)

HOW did NASA land men on the Moon 50 years ago...BUT NOW ADMITS IT CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT? Ergo, CAN'T RETURN TO THE MOON?

I know you think you're being all critical here but this only reveals exactly how ignorant of the subject you really are.

NASA is, in fact, lying here. You don't even seem to notice the actual lie they are telling the public.

NASA can't even reach low-earth orbit since the end of the Shuttles. They simply don't own any hardware. And everything they're doing relies on Russian launches, on SpaceX, and on eventual SLS launches.

Yet you keep believing that somehow NASA actually can, today, reach low-Earth orbit? Using what launch platform, you dumbass? They don't have any. And the Pentagon's launchers belong to the Pentagon, SpaceX and Blue Origin and a few other small launch operators are not owned or controlled by NASA. And SLS is probably 2-3 years away from launching anything despite the fact that their entire launch platform is based on those stupid solid boosters that the Shuttle used. And that was supposed to be a way to save money? Yet most big SLS launches will cost over a billion each.

You could argue that NASA controls and funds SLS so NASA will finally pretty much own a launch platform if/when SLS flies. But Congress and the entire tech community increasingly want to defund SLS too as SpaceX keeps demonstrating that it can capably launch the scheduled SLS payloads to spec and at a small fraction of the cost that SLS (Boeing/Lockheed) were going to charge for those same launches.

You really should read the Ars Technica articles on space launches. They do weekly updates on all the different platforms, have live launch videos, etc. It's probably the best space news site around nowadays; they want to capture the space nerds long-term and they have pretty much succeeded.

ArsTechnica: Rocket Report: 9/27/19

Falcon Heavy rocket is now fully certified. Now that the Falcon Heavy rocket built by SpaceX has flown three flights, it is "fully certified" for Air Force missions. However, work remains to make the vehicle eligible to fly missions to all of the Department of Defense's reference orbits, Lt. Gen. John Thompson, commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, told SpaceNews.

More work to go ... "It's not certified for all of our most stressing national security space orbits," Gen. Thompson said. "We continue to work with SpaceX to mature their design, and I think that's going well." Launch vehicle systems are certified for specific mass and orbit combinations. Eventually, the Falcon Heavy is likely to be certified for all nine of the DOD reference orbits. (submitted by Ken the Bin and Unrulycow)

This is how SpaceX just keeps stealing payloads from cancelled SLS launches and expanding the launches it is qualified to perform, all without any real competitors. Everyone else just talks while Musk launches stuff and makes it look easy.

At some point, I think Musk might just buy NASA. And Congress might just let him. The space nerds would likely all approve.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-01   15:21:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 28.

        There are no replies to Comment # 28.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com