NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f77fa26671e.jpg[/atsimg]
"No Russian Shuttle eh? What I want to know is... WHO took this photo?" - Jack Arneson (thanks Zorgon and Jack!)

That's not a real photo. No more than these ones are. here and here

It's an image of the Buran superimposed over a photo of the Earth from orbit. It's artwork. There is no evidence that the Russian's have a fleet of Buran style Shuttles. A 222 X 140 thumbnail image is not evidence.

Originally posted by jra
There is no evidence that the Russian's have a fleet of Buran style Shuttles. A 222 X 140 thumbnail image is not evidence.

Correction...Soviet Union...unless you were not around during the time of Buran, it was the former Soviet Union.

USSR's Buran

Correctioin...they DID have a small fleet, very small. They had a few test bed craft plus the Buran. 1 of which had 3 jet engines attached to test ground and take off abilities known as Buran Analog, and another which was similar to Enterprise, became a park attraction and sits at Gorkiy park.

Buran

Unfortunately due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the funding for their shuttle program haulted. And unfortunately...and this is highly quesitonable as to the cause...the space worthy Buran, which only flew once, was destroyed when its hanger building collapsed on it.

It would be interesting to find out what really caused that building to collapse. They say it was lack of maitenance....hmm...fairly new hanger building to house that shuttle and its heavy lift launch vehicle...and it collapses so soon onto their prized spacecraft because of lack of maitenance???

A mystery in of itself.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns

It would be interesting to find out what really caused that building to collapse. They say it was lack of maitenance....hmm...fairly new hanger building to house that shuttle and its heavy lift launch vehicle...and it collapses so soon onto their prized spacecraft because of lack of maitenance???

A mystery in of itself.

The only mystery I see is how you can have any credibility as a factual reporter of spaceflight information with such a string of misses, including this one.

The hangar that collapsed, Bldg 120, was built originally to process Soviet manned lunar boosters and hardware in the mid-1960s, then was empty and non-maintained for about a decade in the severe Kazakh climate. If for you that is a 'fairly new hangar', what would you consider an 'old' hangar at Baykonur, founded in 1956?

All of this is readily verifiable on any English language or Russian language website about spaceflight.

Six men died in the roof collapse -- they were applying a new waterproofing layer to the roof when it gave way. I think it's tacky to use the coffins of innocent men as soapboxes for silly spoutings of non-historical fantasies. "Rather new hangar" -- you've got to be joking.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg

The only mystery I see is how you can have any credibility as a factual reporter of spaceflight information with such a string of misses, including this one.

The hangar that collapsed, Bldg 120, was built originally to process Soviet manned lunar boosters and hardware in the mid-1960s, then was empty and non-maintained for about a decade in the severe Kazakh climate. If for you that is a 'fairly new hangar', what would you consider an 'old' hangar at Baykonur, founded in 1956?

All of this is readily verifiable on any English language or Russian language website about spaceflight.

Six men died in the roof collapse -- they were applying a new waterproofing layer to the roof when it gave way. I think it's tacky to use the coffins of innocent men as soapboxes for silly spoutings of non-historical fantasies. "Rather new hangar" -- you've got to be joking.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Oh sit on it Jim. Funny for a space historian you only pop out of your dark corner to ridicule the messenger when something is mentioned that you should have chimed in on 2 pages back.

The fact is, that building was refitted for that shuttle, and stood for so long, then suddenly to collapse.

Are you comming out of your corner to defend something that would suggest otherwise to it being just a simple building collapse becasue of a new layer of waterproof material being applied? Maybe something else did occur to cause that collapse? Funny that once again you seem to only spout out when someone calls something out.

And quit sounding like you even give a damned about those people over there. Just a couple days ago, you were talking them and their space program down as if they were unfit to even have a space program.

Again, like a company man defending their bosses. Each and every day, you are just exposing more of the obvious of why you are even here.

Does your gullable MSM lovers even know you spend so much time at a carzies conspiracy fourm? Do you tell people while your on NBC news that 70 percent of your time each day is spent arguing with ET believers?

Maybe I should send NBC an email with copies of these posts. Im sure some reporter there would be interested in knowing whats up.


Off to send some emails.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Looks quite alot like lens flare from the sun. I watched that same thing going on all day from my work computer (Yes I watch the live NASA feeds on one of my screens at work, lol).

-ChriS

Originally posted by RFBurns
Correction...Soviet Union...unless you were not around during the time of Buran, it was the former Soviet Union.

I'm well aware of that fact. I don't know if you've been following the conversation between JimOberg and Exuberant1. But Exuberant1 was implying that Russia currently has a fleet of Shuttles. Thus why I used the word "Russian's".

Correctioin...they DID have a small fleet, very small.

I'm well aware of the history of the Buran and the test models. I wouldn't consider the test models as apart of the fleet. Just like I don't consider the Enterprise as being apart of the US Shuttle fleet. Had the program continued, they would have had a fleet of five Shuttles just like the US.

Unfortunately due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the funding for their shuttle program haulted. And unfortunately...and this is highly quesitonable as to the cause...the space worthy Buran, which only flew once, was destroyed when its hanger building collapsed on it.

From: www.buran-energia.com...

The hangar 112 which shelters Buran 1.01 (the only model to have flown) and Energia is opened to visitors, but due to lack of maintenance it collapsed in May 2002 (restoration of the roof began in september 2006), destroying Buran-Energia and killing 7 workmen. Baikonur is in an arid land, it rains only few days a year (this one of the reasons the Soviet authorities chose this place for the cosmodrome). But there is a continental climat, very hot in the summer (up to 40°C) and very cold in the winter. That’s why this building was thermally isolated but not protected against the rain. The material used to isolate was a kind of foam which soak up water. This year it rained a lot, the roof was soaked up of water and when workers came to fix it it collapsed because of its weight.

Not much of a mystery really.

Originally posted by jra
...But Exuberant1 was implying that Russia currently has a fleet of Shuttles. Thus why I used the word "Russian's".

I agree.

We shouldn't call them Soviets anymore for the sake of consistency.

*Fleet: A fleet is a collection of ships or vehicles, with many specific connotations
(wikipedia)

Russia does have a Fleet of Burans. Not all are flight-ready, but the Russian's do make attempts to protect and preserve them (excluding the roof collapse).

Jack Arneson: "Five space capable orbiters were planned, two were completed (one of which was destroyed in a hangar collapse in 2002 at Baikonur), three were left unfinished when the program ran out of funding. Ontop of this there were 8 test Burans built, including the jet engine enabled aero flight tester OK-GLI."

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by jra
There is no evidence that the Russians have a fleet of Buran style Shuttles. A 222 X 140 thumbnail image is not evidence.

Correction...Soviet Union...unless you were not around during the time of Buran, it was the former Soviet Union.

Correctioin...they DID have a small fleet, very small. They had a few test bed craft plus the Buran. 1 of which had 3 jet engines attached to test ground and take off abilities known as Buran Analog, and another which was similar to Enterprise, became a park attraction and sits at Gorkiy park.

RF's "corrections" need corrections. The question posed was whether, today, the country called 'Russia' has a fleet of Burans, not whether twenty years ago the USSR ever had such a fleet. And the aero flight vehicle (which had four jet engines, not three -- this is the second time RF has confused "numbers", last time being how many days it took a shuttle to dock to the space station) wasn't built to test 'takeoff' abilities, it was built to test 'landing' abilities under conditions which the Buran would encounter on its way back from orbit (Buran took off for space attached to an 'Energiya' super-rocket -- jet engines don't 'test' that phase).

As do some of my own -- the hangar was bldg 112, not 120 as I misremembered (any of us of a certain age, RF and me and others, need to be offered an opportunity to 'remember better' -- I'll try to afford RF the same right to correct himself with a 'no fault' pass). The six men who were killed did not include the seventh workman, the foreman, who disappeared -- and was widely considered as having run off after the accident. Now he appears to be counted among the dead.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by RFBurns
The fact is, that building was refitted for that shuttle, and stood for so long, then suddenly to collapse.

In one message it is a 'fairly new hangar' so it's strong, and then it 'stood for so long', so it's strong. Which is it? Anything you want to imagine, it seems.

As for the 'fact' that the building was 'refitted for that shuttle', there's no evidence of that, no evidence of any special refurbishment or reenforcement -- and I've walked in that hall where the Buran was parked, photographed the water stains down the internal walls where the rain kept leaking in over the decades, saw (and photographed) the already-old brickwork. The 'fact' of 'refitting' is just one more baseless assertion RF has pulled out of somewhere, that nobody else on the planet seems capable of verifying.

And quit sounding like you even give a damned about those people over there. Just a couple days ago, you were talking them and their space program down as if they were unfit to even have a space program.

I must have written that while in a trance, I can't remember saying it. Please provide a citation so I can remind myself. Where did I say these things? In your dreams?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Russia does have a Fleet of Burans. Not all are flight-ready, but the Russian's do make attempts to protect and preserve them (excluding the roof collapse).

Still a little wiggly. How about being more accurate, and saying, "None of them is remotely 'flight-ready'..." and add that Russia has no booster rocket capable of carrying such a payload into orbit, and none on the drawing boards.

Originally posted by zorgon
So errmmm what's THIS one?

Cool video. As we have learned, the first step is to compare the scene to context. Tell me the date and TIME of the video so somebody can check the daily flight plan on the NASA site.

Also, the image has three 'radii' superimposed. These don't appear on the payload bay cameras. What does that tell us about the specific camera being used?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
The fact is, that building was refitted for that shuttle, and stood for so long, then suddenly to collapse.

In one message it is a 'fairly new hangar' so it's strong, and then it 'stood for so long', so it's strong. Which is it? Anything you want to imagine, it seems.

Ok Jim, lets nit pick it to death here just to appease your on-going deflating ego.

The building was in fact constructed in the late 50's. The building underwent numerous changes over the decades to accomodate the various vehicles that were stored within it. The building was further upgraded to house their shuttle and launch vehicle.

The FACT is..that building stood for decades. No structural problems whatsoever over a span of 40 years.

Then suddenly, because of an application of water resistant roofing materials, the entire thing collapses, at a time when it just so happens that their only spaceworthy shuttle was parked inside.

Tell me something oh wise Jim....do you think that NASA would leave one of our shuttles mounted to the tank and SRB's inside the assembly bulding if they had to re-roof the place????

No..they wouldnt.

And are you expecting us to believe that the Russians are not smart enough to also take the same steps to protect their prized spacecraft during some maitenance routine of applying water resistant roofing materials in the place where they keep the thing??

Get real man!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg
As for the 'fact' that the building was 'refitted for that shuttle', there's no evidence of that, no evidence of any special refurbishment or reenforcement -- and I've walked in that hall where the Buran was parked, photographed the water stains down the internal walls where the rain kept leaking in over the decades, saw (and photographed) the already-old brickwork. The 'fact' of 'refitting' is just one more baseless assertion RF has pulled out of somewhere, that nobody else on the planet seems capable of verifying.

If fact Jim, there is very LITTLE evidence of what the former Soviet Union did during their space program, some of which are only NOW being brought to light. You might want to believe that your self proclaimed space historian expertiese would know it all...but in fact, you DONT know it all, espcially when it comes to the former Soviet Union's practices and procedures on their space program infrastructure.

What you DO know is what they have published publicly...and dispite the fact that the former Soviet Union fell, you can bet your butt that they still have quite a bit of information they will keep secret..just like your almighty NASA does, and just like our almighty DOD does.

But hey if you can provide all that hidden data for us with your influence, then dont sit there and nit pick at nat s***, DO IT!! Get it out here into the open for the world to see..all via ATS. Get er done!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

And quit sounding like you even give a damned about those people over there. Just a couple days ago, you were talking them and their space program down as if they were unfit to even have a space program.

I must have written that while in a trance, I can't remember saying it. Please provide a citation so I can remind myself. Where did I say these things? In your dreams?

No need for a quote, you implied they were not as "good" as us or our space program. If you cannot read between your own lines of text, then Im sorry but that is more of a personal ability problem that no one but yourself can help.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Russia does have a Fleet of Burans. Not all are flight-ready, but the Russian's do make attempts to protect and preserve them (excluding the roof collapse).

... and add that Russia has no booster rocket capable of carrying such a payload into orbit, and none on the drawing boards.

You are so friggin wrong here Jim.

Buran on top of launch vehicle Energia

Remember Jim, its the same liquid fuled launch vehicle they used to launch Buran for its first un-manned test flight. A launch vehicle that is not only safer than our own SRB setup, but has the ability to launch payloads well over 200 tons into orbit, and much further in altitude. This is why their shuttle Buran, did not need any main engines on the craft. It did not need them when the launch vehicle could do all the work to take it to intended orbital altitude.

Now if you are a real space historian here, at least get your history right before making such outlandish claims that they dont have this or that.

The Energia vehicle and its engineering are quite real, and easily ready to be put into service when they so desire. Just because there is no physical hardware at the moment, does not mean they do not have the capability and ability to build it again from the very blueprints stored in their files.


Sheesh..I expected a lot better than this!!



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by JimOberg

RF's "corrections" need corrections. The question posed was whether, today, the country called 'Russia' has a fleet of Burans, not whether twenty years ago the USSR ever had such a fleet. And the aero flight vehicle (which had two jet engines, not three -- this is the second time RF has confused "two" with "three", last time being how many days it took a shuttle to dock to the space station) wasn't built to test 'takeoff' abilities, it was built to test 'landing' abilities under conditions which the Buran would encounter on its way back from orbit (Buran took off for space attached to an 'Energiya' super-rocket -- jet engines don't 'test' that phase).

Guss I need to correct our space historian once again.

The Russians DO have a fleet of Burans, the question was in fact answered correclty by Exuberant1. Now was the question specific in asking "Do the Russians have a fleet of spaceworthy shuttles?".

No..it did NOT ask for that specific.

Again, the question was answered correctly. And since the Buran program began in 1976, that WAS IN FACT during the era of the Soviet Union.

Again, my correction is correct.

Since Buran 1 flew during the era of the Soviet Union, again my correction is correct.

If we are to discuss the Buran program's origins and history, it is IN FACT during the time of the Soviet Union.

Anything done after the fall of the Soviet Union, is then decalred otherwise..or in this case.."The Russian Deomcratic Republic".

Man..all these corrections of those who think they are correcting...guess I should have been the one to be the historian. And I dont even like history that much!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg
As do some of my own -- the hangar was bldg 112, not 120 as I misremembered (any of us of a certain age, RF and me and others, need to be offered an opportunity to 'remember better' -- I'll try to afford RF the same right to correct himself with a 'no fault' pass). The six men who were killed did not include the seventh workman, the foreman, who disappeared -- and was widely considered as having run off after the accident. Now he appears to be counted among the dead.

Typo's are a common place Jim..anyone can make them. Read my previous post on the building issue...again I dont accept the "official" report on what happend, I never have, and never will. Just so you know, I was suspicious about that incident the day it occured, and not just recently here in this thread like you want to believe.

I dont buy the lack of maitenance excuse, even from their own reports. And if you put some common sense to it, it actually doesnt make ANY sense whatsoever as to the reported cause.

Thats like saying we will put our shuttles in harm's way just to re-roof the hangers they sit in...which would NEVER happen. I dont believe that they would have allowed that to happen either. There is another explanation, one that is not so mudane and simplistic.

I do not doubt that it very well could have been sabotage, either by someone inside their own space program, or even within our own sneaky devious black op group.

Dont bother going through the pains of trying to convince me otherwise Jim...aint gonna happen. so might as well save yourself the trouble before you even begin to fail.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

And quit sounding like you even give a damned about those people over there. Just a couple days ago, you were talking them and their space program down as if they were unfit to even have a space program.

I must have written that while in a trance, I can't remember saying it. Please provide a citation so I can remind myself. Where did I say these things? In your dreams?

No need for a quote, you implied they were not as "good" as us or our space program. If you cannot read between your own lines of text, then Im sorry but that is more of a personal ability problem that no one but yourself can help.

"No need for a quote", but still uses quotation marks for what you intuit I meant to say (but didn't). That says it all.

Originally posted by JimOberg

"No need for a quote", but still uses quotation marks for what you intuit I meant to say (but didn't). That says it all.

No need for a quote means exactly that Jim, anyone including yourself, can go back in pages and see what you wrote, and pick up on your implied meaning to what was written.

Why should I have to point you to it? Its your post, not mine. If you cannot remember what you wrote, I suggest you write in notepad or something and cut and paste into the reply box before posting so that way you can save each post for reveiw. Its a hassle, a handicap, but it will work.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
You know what would be really helpful with this Jim? The full, unedited, uncensored footage of this mission..thats what would be helpful. Perhaps in that video, there might be some of the missing data we need, like a zoomed out section of the shot so we can see how the shuttle is oriented, a zoomed out shot to see if in fact a waste dump spray took place, like a zoomed out shot that will tell us if this object came from a left over propellant particle lingering around the thruster nozzle..you know, some vital clues to all this mess.

Yep..sure would be nice to have that original full length footage.

Well, for starters, I think we all realize that if the delivered video does NOT contain scenes of the ufonauts waving to the camera, you'll be sure to scream it's STILL censored. Because your definitions of requirements as stated here before is, the data must show the object is what you already think it to be, or else, the data is counterfeit.

If you want a longer video of the scene, you can either:

1. Scrinch your eyes tight together and WISH hard that it drop into your lap (what you apparently are now doing)...

or

2. Go and ask NASA for a copy (which you apparently have never done before, and won't do now, because you prejudge that any copy you get from NASA will be faked...

or

3. Go ask Martyn Stubbs, or Jeff Challender's family, or the other devotees of 'NASA TV' recording, to check their own raw files of real time downlinks, and find you the longer versions (which apparently is just too ha-a-a-a-a-ard to imagine having to work at).

So I guess you're just stuck. You will never believe any evidence offered you that doesn't fit your existing views. Has that ever happened to you? Changed your mind on a UFO story based on new evidence?

Originally posted by RFBurns
If fact Jim, there is very LITTLE evidence of what the former Soviet Union did during their space program, some of which are only NOW being brought to light. You might want to believe that your self proclaimed space historian expertiese would know it all...but in fact, you DONT know it all, espcially when it comes to the former Soviet Union's practices and procedures on their space program infrastructure.
What you DO know is what they have published publicly...and dispite the fact that the former Soviet Union fell, you can bet your butt that they still have quite a bit of information they will keep secret..just like your almighty NASA does, and just like our almighty DOD does.
But hey if you can provide all that hidden data for us with your influence, then dont sit there and nit pick at nat s***, DO IT!! Get it out here into the open for the world to see..all via ATS. Get er done!!!

Investigating the Soviet space program has a lot in common with investigating UFO reports, especially those associated with space flight. No serious researcher restricts himself to what he reads. The technological context -- what is mechanically possible, what requires additional capabilities and what are the detectable consequences of having those capabilities -- provides a framework to assess what is missing, what is misinterpreted, what is needed to validate or falsify a hypothesis. People who do it for a long time -- and receive professional awards, and positive reviews of books they produce on the subject -- get to be known as the experts -- unlike those who spout under screen names with evidence-free allegations and 'imaginary friends' deep 'inside' real space programs.

The kinds of sources you use to assess a mystery involves visiting locations, examining artifacts (particularly those sold via Sothebys by impoverished space program veterans in the 1990s -- these included the original work diaries of a few top Soviet-era space designers) and contemporary private records (logbooks, for example, in Russian of course), perform follow-up interviews to compare conflicting accounts (memory drift, deliberate deception, self-aggrandizement, etc. usually becomes pretty clear), obtain independent accounts from distant observers, do math analysis and computer modeling of the alleged hardware, and other steps.

It's why, for example, that somebody writing that Energiya could carry 200 tons into orbit, can be seen as a poser, not even as well-informed as a dedicated amateur. Energiya-launched payloads required their own rocket engines to complete the climb even into the lowest possible stable orbit, and the first payload -- the 'Polyus' Star Wars prototype battle station -- weighed only 90 tons, then Buran weighed about 110 tons.

These numbers -- and there could be typos, so corrections are solicited -- aren't just 'read in official reports', they are validated half a dozen ways from Sunday, and they are consistent. "200 tons" is not.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]

[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by JimOberg


Point to the Energia vehicle is that it is capable of having added boosters put onto it to increase its lift capacity. The mere fact that this thing is adaptable to mission specifics when needed is the only key data element needed to conclude this vehicle's capability. It doesnt matter what is written, what matters is its abilities and adaptability which has been done in the past. That lift vehicle did not just launch Buran, it has done other duties besides that.

Now compared to our own SRB unit, which btw, is useless in its configuration for anything else other than being attached to a tank filled with fuel for the shuttle's main engines, cannot do very much byond the current purpose, to provide boost lift for the extremely heavy fuel tank plus the shuttle and its load.

The Energia is re-usable, the US shuttle's huge fuel tank is not. The Energia's liquid fuled rockets are reusable, our SRB's are "semi" reusable, requireing basically a complete re-build, where as the liquid rockets on the Energia can be re-used up to 10 times before needing rebuild.

The entire Energia is incredibly adaptable, being a complete vehicle in of itself, where as the US shuttle lift system is NOT a vehicle in of itself.

The Energia II is blueprinted to be capable of re-entry and controlled flight on its own, our SRB mess...not even close. The Buran shuttle can land on its own, our shuttle, requires a crew. Only very recently did our shuttle get an automatic landing system installed into them, 10 or so years after Buran already had that as "standard equipment".

And if you are not aware of it..which if you are in fact a space historian, the Russian Buran shuttle program was considered for revival to take up the slack after NASA's massive failures of both the Challenger and Columbia disasters. Both incidents were preventable, and should not have occured. It was due to these incidents that the Russians began to consider bringing back their Buran shuttle program because of the risky nature of our own shuttle designs.

Even one of our own astronauts cringes every time a shuttle launches.

The Amercian shuttle does not have liquid propellant in its solid rockets boosters (SRB's) as a result of budget cuts in the 1970's. As any American Astronaut will tell you, SRB's are dangerous, little more then controlled explosions.

The famous U.S astronaut Story Musgrave, does not welcome being in close proxmity to an SRB, he once commented "The very concept of SRB's that large.... (his voice trailed off) ...A launch is incredibly frightening, probably the most dangerous part of the mission... ...On subsequent ones (launches) I have become more and more scared". The simple facts are that a fault in a SRB means instant destruction of the shuttle. It was a faulty SRB O-ring seal on the shuttle Challenger that led to its unfortunate destruction.

Buran-Energia does not share this problem. As an added safety feature, Buran was fitted with ejection seats for her crew. Remarkably, these high-tech seats can withstand Mach 4+ blow outs. Thermal protection was also considerably better on the Buran, allowing for safer reentries to Earth’s atmosphere.

Jet engines for the Buran shuttle were also to be installed, so as to give a little added safety to the shuttle on landing, as most people know shuttle tend to glide into landing like bricks, a few engines up back certainly will be appreciated if you’re landing in adverse weather conditions.

ARTICLE

Basicallly Jim, the former Soviet Union space engineers examined the faults still inherent in our own shuttle system and designed a vastly superior craft and lauch vehicle, to a point where it definately can, and should be considered for revival as a replacement to our own aging and very dangerous shuttle systems.

Buran can save NASA

But safety isnt that much of a concern in the NASA realm...as the history has shown. However, the Russians, no matter what people might think, obviously consider safety first, and implement that into every aspect of their shuttle system. I too would be considering it as a viable replacement for our shuttle systems. It is far more capable, safer, and highly adaptable.

But I suppose the ego thing comes into play here. Sometimes however, someone else does in fact build a better mouse trap.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-3-2009 by RFBurns]

RF, get a grip. None of the things you state the Energiya CAN do, has it ever really done. They are the claims of salesmen who want your (well, your country's) money. And you believe them?

But we're well off topic from the shuttle video... except to demonstrate again the level of reliable space expertise being offered here from different people.

added note -- couldn't resist:

"Jet engines for the Buran shuttle were also to be installed, so as to give a little added safety to the shuttle on landing, as most people know shuttle tend to glide into landing like bricks, a few engines up back certainly will be appreciated if you’re landing in adverse weather conditions."

Right, carry 30,000 pounds of engines into orbit, just remove your payload and carry a few boxes of sandwiches for the space station crew. The Russians THOUGHT about having jet engines and finally decided that it was a BAD idea, after flight testing on a modified Ilyushin showed the engines often failed to ignite during the final approach. They're only useful below Mach 1 anyway -- with about 60 seconds of air time left, little chance to make any difference in bad weather or any other contingency. So they removed them a few months before launch -- just as NASA had done in its design years earlier.

This just shows again how little you really know about space technology versus how much you are positive you do know.

What was that quotation from Will Rogers? "It ain't what you don't know what'll make you look like a fool -- it's what you DO know, what ain't so."

Meet RF, the poster child of Will Rogers' joke.



[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]