Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

reply to post by Access Denied


www.abovetopsecret.com...

There you have it, spelled out IN YOUR OWN WORDS Access Denied, by John. That is the END of this nonsensical stalking, bashing and trolling.

GOT IT?

Fair warning has been given...

Springer...

Originally posted by johnlear
1. All of my claims are only possibilities.
2. I could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what I believe might not be true.

That's good to hear John, thanks. That's the first time I've heard you say you might be wrong about all of this... I'm sure I won’t be the last one to tell you your posts come across *much* different. I will call off the men in white coats... for now.

[Attention Men in White Coats: Please stand down!]

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post.

You're welcome.

P.S. I concur with roadgravel et. al. that your use of the term “NAZA” is HIGHLY offensive and inexcusable!

Springer I trust John will be appropriately warned and his posts will be edited to remove his childish and offensive comments?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by Access Denied]

Originally posted by roadgravel
Is it just me or does anyone else find this new name for NASA offensive?

You're not alone. I also find it to be in very bad taste.

In all honesty, I think the fervor surrounding this particular forum has little to do with people "trolling" or attempts to "impede conversation of the fantastic", but it is caused by the forum leaders twist on known laws of physics and biology.

Personally, the vast majority of posts I have made here are in pursuit of/relaying factual information. Do some people cross the line? Sure they do. It just seems like some people here (not including john lear, he's never really whined about being picked on) are asking people who don't buy in to their theories to stay out of the discussion.. which is totally conflicting with the direction of a discussion board.. right?

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by roadgravel
Is it just me or does anyone else find this new name for NASA offensive?

You're not alone. I also find it to be in very bad taste.

Yes, also find the "NAZA" moniker invention by Mr.Lear to be in extremely poor taste. The real Mr.Lear does not come across as a humble, freindly and charming old man that Mr.Springer painted him to be.

Look for a small Chinese flag painted on Discoveries a** - because this trip is being financed by CHINA.

Originally posted by Springer
That is the END of this nonsensical stalking, bashing and trolling.

GOT IT?

Fair warning has been given...

Stalking? Bashing? Trolling?

I concur with roadgravel et. al. that John Lear's use of the term “NAZA” is HIGHLY offensive and inexcusable!

I trust John will be appropriately warned and his posts will be edited to remove his childish and offensive comment?

I don't see the problem with johnlear using the term NAZA and I don't find it offensive.

If, in his mind, he thinks that NASA is acting like an elitist group of fascists, then he's justified in using his play on words. If NASA are guilty of lies, then it would be an appropriate play on words too.

The problem with society, as reflected in this thread, is that it doesn't matter what you say, or how you say it, there's always going to be people who get upset and demand action. All that it does, is make lawyers rich, when normal people can't sort out differences, or learn when it is best to give up and walk away. If you don't want to read the word NAZA, then close your browser.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me. Provided it's all within the T&C of this website, of course.

Now, back to that Shuttle: Can anyone actually confirm how long it takes to perform the checks and inspections before they roll over to go to sleep and eventually return to Earth?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Now, back to that Shuttle: Can anyone actually confirm how long it takes to perform the checks and inspections before they roll over to go to sleep and eventually return to Earth?

I don't have the exact times, but I know some of them don't take too long. Its not that they spend the entire day doing them. They just like to do the checks the day before landing to give themselves a buffer incase any issues come up. Plus there are other things they need to do shortly before landing, (like fluid loading), so better to spread out all the work rather then try to cram it all in one day.

Originally posted by jra
Plus there are other things they need to do shortly before landing, (like fluid loading), so better to spread out all the work rather then try to cram it all in one day.

I'm just asking questions, so don't take this the wrong way...

Why would they prefer to 'spread out all the work' rather than not 'cram it all in'?

My uninformed assumption would be that spaceflight is costly. So, the longer they remain in orbit, the more expensive the mission. If there are no major safety issues involved with cramming all of the deorbit procedures into as little time as possible, then wouldn't it make more economical sense to return home sooner, rather than later, upon completion of the mission?

An itemised checklist would be handy, with time frames given for each activity required. Does NASA host that type of information for the public domain?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
An itemised checklist would be handy, with time frames given for each activity required. Does NASA host that type of information for the public domain?

Probably. The reason it takes so long to dock/undock land etc. is beyond the scope of this forum I'm afraid... it has to do with orbital mechanics and a host of other factors.

Check out this post on BAUT from someone who's actually docked the ISS and the Shuttle on a few occasions...

John Lear madness on Coast to Coast
www.bautforum.com...

I was randomly reading through the forums and stumbled upon this thread and couldn't resist but to chime in.

It is interesting to note that it appears only American members get upset when NASA is called NAZA or identified with the Nazis. Is this some sense of pride you have while ignoring the facts that stare you right in the face?

Everyone (and their grandmother) knows that NASA was made up from former Nazis without who there would be no US Space Program. Furthermore, it seems that those were some truly ardent nazis in the bunch, but it all got watered down in the Project Paperclip documentation.

They (NASA Nazis) have continued to practice their beliefs even after getting americanized and that had become interwoven into missions and projects (many other that NAZA [deliberately used in this context] does beside space exploration, mind control and other brainwashing stuff to name a few - read Cathy O'Brien for more details)

So using NAZA is probably quite justified in any occasion and on any level. I only feel sorry for those men and women, so called American Patriots, who have unbeknown to them joined ranks with possibly one of the greatest evils in our short recorded history, thinking they are serving their country. *sigh*

Funny thing came to mind right now, I believe it was from that movie "The Right Stuff" when Wernher von Braun says "Our Nazis are better than their (Russian) Nazis." *chukle*

Another funny thing is this last shuttle mission that everyone mentions having 2 days of leisure time at the beginning and the end, at tax payers expense.
Or was it something else they had to do first and last. Maybe some "bird" repair or such covert-op assignment, again at tax payers expense. God knows we need all that hardware up there, my life is so much richer with it.

Oh forgot to chime in for the resident skeptic Access Denied...

...so if this "orbital mechanics" is so delicate, what happened to sending bunch of men to the Moon in three (3) days back in the 60s in a dishwasher, yet it takes two (2) days to just find a suitable orbit nowadays?

Has everyone in NAZA all of a sudden retarded to a level of a Neanderthal after sending 15 people to the Moon, that they can't easily put an over glorified jet plane attached to a ballistic missile into orbit?

And no, I'm not defending John Lear or his views here, just trying to use some common sense and logic when thinking about the piece of the "Big Picture"

[edit on 11-11-2007 by amigo]

The shuttle has to enter orbit and hit a relatively precise glide path in order to arrive at a runway 15,000 ft. by 300 ft in size. That is in comparison to....oh, I don't know...the Atlantic ocean....or the Russian steppes. You should get the point here...it's like hitting the broad side of a barn as opposed to hitting a specific 1" knothole in the same barn. It is simply not the same process as dropping a capsule in the ocean or on a broad expansive plain.

As far as the arrival at the ISS? It takes a Soyuz roughly 2 days, sometimes 3, to arrive at and dock at the ISS. Actually boarding the ISS usually occurs several hours later. Long time frames are not unusual.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by amigo
Oh forgot to chime in for the resident skeptic Access Denied...

...so if this "orbital mechanics" is so delicate, what happened to sending bunch of men to the Moon in three (3) days back in the 60s in a dishwasher, yet it takes two (2) days to just find a suitable orbit nowadays?

Has everyone in NAZA all of a sudden retarded to a level of a Neanderthal after sending 15 people to the Moon, that they can't easily put an over glorified jet plane attached to a ballistic missile into orbit?

I've watched many docking of various craft on TV, both Soviet, Soviet/American and American. In case you haven't noticed, the relative speed of the docking craft of in fact quite minimal, and the precision of the maneuver needs to be very high. Have you tried parallel parking on a busy street in Boston or NYC? Now imagine it happens at a velocity of 6 miles per second. I know I'm making a not entirely adequate comparison but it's freaking amazing that you can get this kind of precision through ballistics. Shooting bullet with a bullet. No wonder you have to carefully watch the trajectory and not rush into the docking phase.

Lunar mission was a completely different business and no, they weren't shooting for a precision of half a foot. Last time I heard, they would often miss by like a few miles or so (quote needed).

So feel free to compare apples and oranges... That's that/

Access Denied, even though I STRONGLY disagree with you on just about everything, I just want you to know that you are OK in my book.

I have grown to like you and respect your opinion.

Your friend housegroove23, member of the John Lear fan club.

P.S. - What ever happened to our other favorite skeptic Charlton or what ever his name was, I really kinda miss that guy. Did we scare him away?

Anyone know how long it took the average Apollo mission lander and command module to dock together after leaving the moon?

Also, access denied had a great link to a forum where a member has in fact actually docked with the ISS on several missions. I highly doubt he would bother to come in here (too hostile and full of ignorance) but if you zip over to that link pehahps some of you could politely interact with him?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

As I said, I do not pretend to be an expert in this field but please be fair and admit that none of you are either. Just because you can put two numbers together, or google couple of formulas does not make you an orbital science engineer.

Even if you were I would still doubt your numbers and your science because it really is your word against mine - there's no set in stone proof for anything, it's always somebody said so or what the majority agreed upon, a consensus reality.

And let's not even dwell into current, or past couple of decades scientific principles (or lack there of), where wild theories have become accepted facts, with "common" folk blindly believing them because "Mr. Scientist" or doctor something rather nothing said so.
While at the same time the common folk has been totally desensitized to the real doctrines of science and scientific principle of inquisitive and critical thinking, in favour or blind obedience, not disturbing the water and pushing on the status quo.

I'll read between my own lines of my previous post:
Were past days Nazis smarter than today's Nazis, at NAZA, that they cannot put a bucket into orbit without delays, yet they used to go to the Moon without a glitch (aside maybe from Apollo 13 being a glitch, if that story was true to begin with, or was it just a publicity stunt to bring back attention and needed greenbacks to the Space Program)?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by amigo]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Also, access denied had a great link to a forum where a member has in fact actually docked with the ISS on several missions. I highly doubt he would bother to come in here (too hostile and full of ignorance) but if you zip over to that link pehahps some of you could politely interact with him?

I would hardly call Bad Astronomy a "Great" forum but ...

is THIS polite enough?

=DrivinWest;1107036
LOL. I've actually docked the ISS and the Shuttle on a few occasions (STS-108, STS-111, STS-113). As we say in the industry, "orbital mechanics is a *****." It takes ~3 days for the Shuttle to get to the ISS. Period. It's no different for Russian Soyuz or Progress vehicles.

May I ask then why the ESA website posts that Expedition 9...
Undocking: Oct. 23, 2004
4:08 p.m. CDT
Landing: Oct. 23, 2004
7:36 p.m. CDT

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

My calculator is not a fancy one but it comes up with 3 hours and 28 minutes from undocking to landing...

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain this to me...

[edit on 11-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by amigo
...couple of formulas does not make you an orbital science engineer.

Even if you were I would still doubt your numbers and your science because it really is your word against mine - there's no set in stone proof for anything

Oftentimes, a physics experiment is a pretty darn good proof of the validity of a particular theory. You see, if I tell you that my theory says that gravity will cause you to accelerate in the direction of the center of Earth, it's not my word against yours. You can prove me wrong by stepping off a tall building and slowly drifting sideways. I'll wager that you crater, though.

It's a crude example but I hope that it drives home the point that we can, in fact, have a pretty firm grasp of how the word around us really works. You can tell a person who calculates spacecraft orbits for living that you totally don't believe his/her math, but in the end it's he/she who can navigate a probe around Saturn and bring it back to crash into Mercury for the benefit of scientific observation. In the end, it is that kind of people who do wondrous things, like develop quantum mechanics that enables the construction of the computer that you are typing your messages at, and there is also the other kind, who diss the first kind because the other kind didn't do very well in math. The fact that I read the rather preposterous message of yours is in itself a proof that there is a lot of truth in quantum mechanics, but of course you can say the opposite because hey, it's your word against mine.

And let's not even dwell into current, or past couple of decades scientific principles (or lack there of), where wild theories have become accepted facts

Please explain to me the deplorable lack of scientific principles characterizing the past couple of decades (according to you, the dark times started in 1987). You could use detailed examples from two decades prior to that, 1967-1987, to illustrate your point. I can't wait to hear from you.

While at the same time the common folk has been totally desensitized to the real doctrines

I've been around a few Nobel Prize winners but I never heard from these distinguished folks that they possess un understanding of a "real doctrine" (as opposed to the myriad of false doctrines propagated by the forces of evil to "desensitize" the poor "common folk"). You apparently do, so pray tell.


of science and scientific principle of inquisitive and critical thinking, in favour or blind obedience, not disturbing the water and pushing on the status quo.

Were past days Nazis smarter than today's Nazis, at NAZA, that they cannot put a bucket into orbit without delays

I find this statement quite disingenious. You know quite well that shooting stuff up in the orbit in itself has become a routine procedure and they can do it in their sleep. Docking one complex machine with the other with a few inches precision while moving at exceedingly large speed does not equal placing stuff in orbit, and it almost seems that you willingly blind yourself to that fact. The Soviets almost lost the Mir station and their crew when they punctured one of the modules of that station in a failed docking, and they have done tons of that stuff prior to that.

yet they used to go to the Moon without a glitch (aside maybe from Apollo 13 being a glitch, if that story was true to begin with

I encourage you to read up on the history of the Apollo program and you'll see that it was hardly smooth. For starters, you forgot that fire on the launchpad that took the lives of three atronauts. Just please don't tell us that this was staged.