NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

negative reviews from a NASA employee...

Not employee. Contractor, you know, hired minion. Employees get insurance and vacations. (and haircuts and monthly reviews..hahaha)

Minions get hungry. Dark side has cookies.

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Coulda had a book deal

What? And profiteer off NASA and other organizations logos and make people pay to see them? What nonsense

Besides I got my own ideas for a book or three

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Minions get hungry. Dark side has cookies.

LOL The Kingdom of Caid pays its minions in cookies... chocolate chip being the highest value

[edit on 7-11-2007 by zorgon]

SpaceMax, thanks for the link to the Japanese footage. Some people here are disappointed, but I'm thrilled with it. How often do you get to see the moon up close?

Great stuff!

Nomenclature is everything fellas.
Did you look for The LaGrange points? Or Libration points?
Specifically L1?
You are arguing a figure from a magazine reporter quoting Von Braun, correct?

Accelerometer data from Apollo, hmm.. fairly arcane.. I'm just sure I saw a file drawer labeled "Apollo accelerometer data" just last week.

Dunno, I'll look. Top of my head says the measurement is approximate. But not my speciality.

Apollo 8 mission report
The acceleration bias data in in there, and probably in the other reports as well.
Page 118 figure 6.9-13. But can you assume flights passed through L1, defined as a region? Hence the approximation at around 220,000 mi or 84% the distance to the moon.

terms
to make the puzzler hurt.

Originally posted by SpaceMax

Originally posted by ebe51
Tell Bigelow to hire me, I'll be there 8 to 5 as and give him my antigravity theory, as long as he's footing the bill.

How do you feel about being behind razorwire? Mr. B seems to have a penchant for security.

Tried hovering over his building? That should get his attention.
Hmm...it IS Vegas....
Maybe paint yourself bright pink or something so you'll stand out.

ha ha

you know, one day when I get the time I'll post my antigravity theory....
I sent it to stan deyo once he replied....

Close, very very close

Originally posted by Landis
SpaceMax, thanks for the link to the Japanese footage. Some people here are disappointed, but I'm thrilled with it. How often do you get to see the moon up close?

Great stuff!

I agree, albeit enviously. We shouldn't have had to wait this long. Some guys at a little company called Lunacorp spent many years trying to accomplish a similar mission.

Those who find such things disappointing, have a lot to learn about disappointment.
They may some day realize they're living in a golden age of exploration, first times only happen once. We've seen more things for the first time in this generation than most of our predecessors could imagine.

Despite that I can still get a membership card in the Flat Earth Society right here in the 21st century.

Imagine what we'll see tomorrow.





[edit on 7-11-2007 by SpaceMax]

Originally posted by SpaceMax

Did you follow up? Don't wait to hear from them, make them tell you no.
It only stings the first couple dozen times.

Best advice i have ever seen on how to get a job.

Working for NASA would frustrate me too much. Knowing i was doing meaningless and redundant work just to keep the secrets "secret" would be too demoralizing.

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Dunno, I'll look. Top of my head says the measurement is approximate. But not my speciality.

It would not be approximate as there would only be one value for that one trip at that exact point in time when spacecraft crossed that point... And I doubt very much you will find it in some drawer...

But hey never know I have been wrong on occasion

How do you feel about being behind razorwire? Mr. B seems to have a penchant for security.

Well I kinda like his Hotels in Space They look cool too..




So Spacemax... can you explain why we cannot see stars in space? That one has always puzzled me...

probably just feed counter intel to us and we'd never be the wiser

Originally posted by SpaceMax
You guys are aware of Bob Bigelows interest in ET, right?
Financed NIDS?
Bought Skinwalker Ranch?

Yeah He's our kinda Space mogul

Originally posted by sherpa
It seems to me that the FOIA is a contradiction of terms and I base my thoughts on the application by Stan Friedman for some UFO related material.

What he got back was a sheaf of papers with 90 per cent of the content blacked out and as always under the guise of "in the interests of national security".

Oh yes Right on the money However sometimes whats left is still pretty interesting... like this 79 page FBI real X File 1947 dealling with "flying discs" signed by John Edgar Hoover... This is #2 #1 is hard to read as it is on microfilm but I have 11 of these
FBI _ X FILE #2

I filed an FOIA over 6 months ago for four volumes of a document... so far I have been bounced around about 12 military offices and only have vol 1 and vol 4 Its vol 2 that I really am waiting for the "tech specs"

Your right FOIA is a joke but its all we have right now

[edit on 7-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by SpaceMax

Nomenclature is everything fellas.
Did you look for The LaGrange points? Or Libration points?
Specifically L1?
You are arguing a figure from a magazine reporter quoting Von Braun, correct?

Thanks for the information SpaceMax. I prefer to use the quotes of those who were in the Apollo spacecraft, of which I have 2 and then I will quote others including von Braun.

It was Saturday December 9 (1972), and we were in the Moon’s firm hold, only about 38,000 miles out and drawing closer by the moment. Eugene Cernan “The Last Man On the Moon” Copyright 1999 Eugene Cernan and Don Davis.

For the last fourteen hours we have been in the lunar sphere of influence, and our velocity has gradually picked up from a low of 3000 feet per second to its present 7600 feet per second. Four hours later we will attempt LOI, which should achieve a sixty-mile orbit. Michael Collins “Carry The Fire” Copyright 1974 by Michael Collins.

(3000 fps=2045+ mph x 18 hours = 37,000 miles)

Soon after that a new stage in manned spaceflight was reached. Like a ball thrown upwards, the spacecraft had been gradually slowing down, until its velocity was 2724 mph and its position was 202,825 miles from Earth, and 38,900 miles from the Moon. For the first time, men had reached a point where the pull of Earth’s gravity was less than that of another body. Now the pull of lunar gravity was greater and the craft’s speed began to increase again as it fell towards the moon. Reginald Turnhill “The Moonlandings” Copyright Reginald Turnhill 2003.

"At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant." - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)

The Bullialdus/Newton inverse/square law states that any physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, specifically, the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in additional to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

So knowing only the size of the 2 bodies, Earth and the Moon, and the neutral point we can determine the relative gravitational pull. No need to speculate about density.

Therefore we can state that using the following parameters:

Re = radius of the Earth = 3,960 miles
Rm = radius of the Moon = 1,080 miles
X = distance from the Earth’s center to the neutral
Point = 200,000 miles
Y = Distance from the Moon’s center to the neutral point = 43,495 miles
Ge = Earth’s surface gravity
Gm = Moons surface gravity

Since the forces of attraction of the Earth and the Moon are equal at the neutral point, the inverse-square law yields:

Ge (Re2/X2) = Gm(Rm2/Y2)

Gm/Ge = Re2Y2/Rm2X2

= (3,960)2 (43,495)2
(1,080)2 (200,000)2

= .64

Therefore, Gm = .64 Ge

So the gravity on the moon is approximately .64 that of earths gravity or almost two thirds. Now we understand why the Apollo astronauts were making those pitiful little hops on the moon. It should also be obvious why they tired so quickly.

Hey, you want to argue 38,000 miles? It still comes out 55% of earth’s gravity.

If the moon’s gravity was in fact, one-sixth that of earth or approximately 16.66% we could work the problem in reverse and come out with a neutral point from the moon of about 24,000 miles.

If the Moon’s gravity is only one sixth Earth’s why did Apollo orbit at 60 to 70 miles? Why did the Lunar Orbiter series only once get as low as 25 miles?

That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.

Thanks for your input SpaceMax. :

Just found this whilst following a gravity lead...

"In 1962, Dr. Gordon McDonald, a leading scientist at NASA, published a
report in the July issue of 'Astronautics.' In it he stated that, according
to an analysis of the Moon's motion, it appears that the Moon is hollow: 'If
the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the
interior of the Moon be less dense than the outer parts. Indeed, it would
seem that the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogenous sphere.'
''Astronautics' magazine--July, 1962 issue.)

...a leading scientist at NASA Imagine that!

But this is what I was looking for...

"At a distance of 43,495 miles from the Moon, Apollo 11 passed the
so-called 'neutral' point, beyond which the lunar gravitational field
dominated that of Earth." ('History of Rocketry & Space'--1969.)

Now when I was younger and watching the space program develop, one of the things they made a great big deal about was the feats of super human strengths that the astronauts should be able to perform... The big frame at Langley was rigged so that a man was suspended sideways and the tension was such that it would reproduce 1/6th G...

Using this apparatus, the astronaut was able to jump high and do somersaults effortlessly.... It was all over the TV stations but now it is almost impossible to find footage. If anyone knows of such please point me to it...

Here is the only still I have so far..

(MGTE)--Page 61
"In one-sixth gravity everything would weigh one-sixth, or 16.7%, of its
Earth weight. A 180lb. man would weigh a mere 30lbs. Writers were
speculating on the athletic abilities of men on the Moon long before the
space program and Apollo. They based their calculations on one-sixth
gravity. The public was anticipating some of these spectacular athletic
feats when astronauts explored the Moon, but none were ever performed." - from the book "Moongate" by William L. Brian II

(MGTE)--Page 63
"...even with the astronaut gear, (spacesuit, etc.)...(Apollo astronaut
John Young)...should have been able to jump over six feet off the ground if
the Moon had one-sixth of the Earth's gravity. In actuality, his efforts
lifted him at most 18" off the ground. ...observations (of the NASA video
tapes, and television broadcasts) indicated that Young made several attempts
to jump as high as he could but with no success in achieve in a height of more
than 18 inches."

While watching videos of the Apollo team on the moon they have trouble doing more than short hops, have never lifted any large rocks, in fact in one clip they even joke about it (I will find that one and post it) shallow hills leave them short of breath and over heating...


Found a couple more....

Walter Chronkite gives it a shot...




Looks like more than 18 inches...




[edit on 8-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by johnlear

For the last fourteen hours we have been in the lunar sphere of influence, and our velocity has gradually picked up from a low of 3000 feet per second to its present 7600 feet per second. Four hours later we will attempt LOI, which should achieve a sixty-mile orbit. Michael Collins “Carry The Fire” Copyright 1974 by Michael Collins.

(3000 fps=2045+ mph x 18 hours = 37,000 miles)

As it says that their velocity had picked up from 3000fps to 7600fps can we use that formula, seeing that the velocity was not constant?

Shouldn't we use the acceleration instead of a constant velocity?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by johnlear
(3000 fps=2045+ mph x 18 hours = 37,000 miles)

As it says that their velocity had picked up from 3000fps to 7600fps can we use that formula, seeing that the velocity was not constant?
Shouldn't we use the acceleration instead of a constant velocity?

The craft was accelerating towards the moon, probably near enough to being constant acceleration. The effect of 'g' changes slightly, the further you are from the larger mass. There are some very well-known High School Formulas for Kinematics that derive from constant acceleration.

You can figure the lower bound distance of 3000fps = 36818 mi.
You can figure an upper bound distance of 7600fps = 93272 mi.

The true distance would lie between the two, as the velocity changed from 3000fps to 7600fps.

Of course, I'm assuming a linear flight path. I don't know if that is the case or not, I'm only providing lower and upper bounds using the data in this thread.

(Why can't the USA adopt metric units? I had to get out the inbuilt unit converters on the calculator. Metres per second, please!)

[edit on 8-11-2007 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by ArMaP
As it says that their velocity had picked up from 3000fps to 7600fps can we use that formula, seeing that the velocity was not constant?

Shouldn't we use the acceleration instead of a constant velocity?

Quite right ArMaP

The simple approach is only valid for an object stationary between the earth and the moon so there's a considerable bias being applied here.

As for the disclosure - I'm turning purple from holding my breath waiting for it. Really really hoping something concrete will come out of this soon.

reply to post by johnlear


One thing I find strange about that quote from von Braun is that he said specifically "43,495 miles from the Moon" but he also said "some 200,000 miles distant".

Why being specific about one measurement and vague about the other?

Originally posted by ArMaP

As it says that their velocity had picked up from 3000fps to 7600fps can we use that formula, seeing that the velocity was not constant?

Shouldn't we use the acceleration instead of a constant velocity?

HECK YES! I was just trying to give the "1/6th gravity..ers" the benefit of the doubt.

By all means, give us an figure averaging the acceleration!

And thanks for the post!