A conversation with a friend about NASA

The other day a very close friend and I were talking about re-entry for any manned mission entering the atmosphere. Anyone that reads my blog knows what my opinion is in regards to NASA. After having gone back and forth with my friend on the topic of the re-entry process of any object, manned or unmanned… I only have one question.

But, before I present my question, I want to point out that in the beginnings of NASA we are told that smashing into the atmosphere during re-entry can cause temperatures to rise above more than 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (about 2,800 degrees Celsius). Not only does the exterior of the re-entry module reach above 5,000 degrees, but there are only a few inches of wall space between the exterior and interior of the cabin. Apparently NASA has developed a self consuming ablative heat shield that can withstand some pretty extreme temperatures (meaning that the heat experienced by the exterior of the object would not affect the temperature inside the object as it falls away from the craft).

But, don’t take my word for it… let’s ask NASA.

The initial conversation that I had with my friend was how I didn’t understand the mechanics of the heat shield they created and how it works so well. For example, in the above video the outside part is made of stainless steel. Stainless steel has a melting point of about 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Then, the honeycomb interior ablative heat shield in the video that is between the cabin and the stainless steel is nothing more than polymer fiberglass. Sadly enough, the melting point of this material also doesn’t even come close to being able to withstand 5,000 degrees (it has a melting point of about 2,200 degrees).

One other option that we are presented in the following video is pure silica-tiles (which again, sadly doesn’t have a melting point that reached 5,000 degrees). Although these tiles can withstand about 3,000 degrees, they were not used in the first video, but rather much later. Even still, that presents a problem.

The answer that finally clicked for me after having talked with my friend is the ceramic coating that was used. Apparently, NASA used a spray adhesive that was designed to melt away made of ceramic (which is pretty awesome considering the fact that it has a melting point of almost 6,900 degrees). If you spray enough of this stuff on and also consider the fact that re-entry time wasn’t anything more than a few minutes at most, this answer makes a lot of sense. However, the self consuming ablative heat shield in the first video was actually behind the stainless steel (notated throughout the entire first video with no mention of a ceramic outer layer). Again, the ablated material that was designed to dissipate upon re-entry in the first video was not on the outside of the stainless steel.  But, that is beside the point. Just for argument’s sake, let’s assume that the ceramic coating was applied in the first video. It very well could have been despite not being mentioned. Although I am still looking, the farthest back that I have been able to find this ceramic ablation in use by NASA only goes back as far as the early 1990’s.

This 1960’s document shows that re-entry exceeded the melting point of silica by more than 1,000 degrees. While this 1960’s document shows that the primary ablator  used during that time was 99.8% silica.

After having had this conversation with my friend and totally setting aside the conflicts that arise with re-entry (which was a lot of fun, because it made me evaluate and think, which is something I enjoy to do)… all it did was cause me to ask a new question.

Let’s assume that the stance my friend holds is the correct one.

With that, here is the question…

What happened to re-entry exceeding temperatures of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (about 2,800 degrees Celsius and above)?

yep.png

I guess they realized that such a temperature was a little too outlandish, so they dropped it down a bit. Who knows… it’s probably just me being ignorant. Good ol’ Nye or Tyson can probably solve it for us.

7ce

I am not claiming to have answers. I am presenting questions.

He’s going the distance. He’s going for… NASA

As of this month, NASA’s Curiosity Rover has apparently been on the surface of Mars for five years covering a distance of almost 10 miles on the alien terrain. With this new update from NASA and the announcement of five long years of success and counting for the Mars Rover, I decided to chime in.

Now, there is the obvious question; who took this photo seeing as to how Curiosity is the larger of the robots supposedly roaming Mars? The shot is taken from above, which rules out any of the other robots as an answer, let alone the fact that their locations are vastly spread apart.

shot.png

But that isn’t today’s post. No, today I wanted to ask a different question. But before I ask my question, let’s watch this one minute video that breaks down the basics of how the rover is actually driven by sending signals from earth and back.

So basically, in a nutshell we are to believe that NASA is sending a signal through earth’s atmosphere, across the vacuum of space, through Mars’ atmosphere, and back.

Okay, here we go…

Mars is literally supposed to be 33.9 million miles away. The closest is has ever gotten is 3.5 million miles away. Please tell me how you expect me to believe that you are sending a signal that far while also calculating the exact location the signal needs to hit in order to reach its destination when taking into account that you are spinning 1,000 miles an hour. Let alone the fact that Mars is traveling a speed that is supposed to be 66,500 miles an hour while also spinning at about 960 miles per hour as well. Couple that together with the fact that it can take anywhere between 4 to 24 minutes for the signal from earth to reach its destination. Let’s just say that by the time the signal from earth gets there, the rover and the planet are no longer in the same location.

Then there is the issue with the axis rotation of both planets. What happens when the signal being sent and the location of the receiver are on opposing sides as shown here?

sent.png

Now, before you get your panties in a twist and start spitting silly things at me like “they have satellites for that dumb-dumb“, take a look at this. In this NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory video link we have NASA claiming that they can send a signal through the freaking sun from earth to Mars and back. Sure, the file may lose some of its data, but we can always “photoshop” that back in later… which is why they take a vacation that week. This still doesn’t change the fact that they are claiming they could send data through the sun if they wanted to. Give me a freaking break people. Someone, please show me that awesomeness in real life. I want to see someone send a signal from one side of the earth to the other without going around it. No, instead… let’s do what NASA does. Send the signal through the planet. If they can do it with the sun, should be no problem, right?

If they can send a signal through the sun while still only losing parts of the data, then wouldn’t they be able to send a signal through the earth as well? Because, heck… seems to me that when the earth and Mars are in awkward positions like the illustration above, that’s all they’re doing.

That signal will just go right on through… don’t worry about it.

SONY DSC

Anyway, this rant has run its course. I am not claiming to know anything. All I am getting at here is this. Based on the information that NASA presents to us about what they are actually capable of with the aid of modern technology, we should be able to do a lot more as a civilian civilization. For example, if we can send a signal 33.9 million miles away while passing said signal information through the freaking sun, then why in the universe do I live in a world where I sometimes lose cell phone reception? Seems to me like the human race should already have that one solved.

But hey, who am I kidding. I’m ignorant and just don’t understand science and math. If I understood me some learnin‘, this stuff would add up. Heck, better yet… why not just do some research on your own? A great place to start would be Devon Island’s Roving the Arctic.

Space is fake.

Either that, or NASA needs to start up its own cell phone provider company to help fund projects. Seems like their coverage would be out of this world.

verizon-can-you-hear-me-now-guy

The ISS and the Blue Screen of DEATH

So, today the Soyuz MS-05 Docked to the International Space Station, bringing along with it three new NASA crew members. Considering the fact that NASA changes crew members on the ISS all the time, this isn’t really all that spectacular. Unless of course, you stop and consider the actual severity of it all and how it tends to play out the same way every single time. If you want to, you can watch the entire video below. But, honestly I will just hit the highlights for you.

For starters, the ISS is roughly 250 miles above the surface of the earth in an area known as the thermosphere. In this area of the atmosphere, the temperatures can rise to nearly 3,500 degrees F. This is a rather peculiar predicament when we consider the high quantity of aluminum that exists on the outer portion of the ISS (the melting point of aluminum is only 1,200 degrees F).

Not only does the ISS exist in this hot region of space below the exosphere, but it is traveling at nearly 17,150 MPH. At this speed it only takes the ISS an hour and a half to do one full revolution around the earth. That is pretty freaking fast if you ask me. To put this into perspective, that is about 5 miles a second.

That right there has me asking one simple question about G force.

How in the world is someone able to withstand a constant pull of more than 9G while moving at that speed for that long? G force is based on the radius of motion accompanied by speed. And if the astronauts on the Soyuz are reaching a speed of 17,000 MPH with a radius of 6.371 million meters (radius of the earth) during acceleration, they are experiencing a constant pull of more than 9G the entire trip to the ISS. How in the world are they reaching that speed with only a 200 mile window between them and their destination? At 5 miles a second it would have passed up the ISS by 100 miles in less than 60 seconds. And, how are they not blacking out? Someone has to stay conscious if they intend to dock without crashing headlong into the ISS at more than 5 miles a second… right? And before you tell me that there is zero G, they are in the thermosphere… not the exosphere. The thermosphere is still an atmosphere rich area. So… please explain how they aren’t blacking out. And then, when they do dock at that obnoxious of a speed how is it that they are not bumping one another completely off course out of control? One little bump or unanticipated nudge would knock the ISS off of its current orbital path by more than 5 miles a second into a new direction. One little misstep nudge could have the ISS 10 miles away in less than two seconds. How is it logically possible for a docking to even occur when you consider these things as a reality?

1

With all of this type of stuff in mind I would like to take a moment to point out the NASA routine for docking onto the ISS. For starters, make sure that you get some super legit footage of the crew as they approach (clearly showing that they are traveling faster than you are in order to catch up to you while clearly not being at an altitude of 200 miles high).  Then… when they dock, make sure that you are not on the sun lit side of the earth according to protocol as usual (doing this helps make the illusion of a 17,150 MPH collision between two manned objects seem plausible). They are always on the dark side when the dock occurs leaving very little to be seen. Then, when the sun comes back around all of the work is magically done with everyone at ground control applauding the diligent efforts of everyone involved (every time).

unnamed

And of course… what NASA docking onto the ISS wouldn’t be complete without the dreaded blue screen of death. That’s right, people… that major moment when the cabins have pressurized and we are opening the hatch to bring the two crews together the camera goes blue (every single time). And whala!!! Just like you know NASA does every time, the camera comes back on just in time for that money shot of all the crew members standing in a row with their headsets on ready to talk to the public with smiling faces (because, you know… that wasn’t just a life and death situation just now). Apparently all Astronauts have nerves of iron. Their blood pressure isn’t through the ruff right now or anything…

Let’s totally forget the fact that the crew members in the Soyuz were wearing totally different outfits when they took off. Let’s totally forget that they just also spent more than two hours reach speeds of 17,000+ MPH with a radial velocity of more than 9G’s for the entire ride (the average person blacks out at 5G). But hey, no big deal… no sweat. No pale faces. No need to check vitals after going that fast in that short of a time while creating an intentional head on collision while on the verge of a blackout with a $150 billion dollar piece of equipment. We will check vitals after the interview.

Give me a break, people. There is no physical way for two opposing objects traveling at that speed to connect with such grace.

NASA is a liar. And that is all there is to it.

If you think I am making this stuff up, go find me footage of any astronauts passing through the airlock for either a spacewalk or during a docking/departure. You will not find it, because there is none. All you will ever find is the blue screen of death. And of course, today was no different.

Fake!!!

But don’t take my word for it… let’s watch this G force compilation.

I laughed a little too hard

Now, I know that I already posted about this actual speech by Trump and how ridiculous it was… but I had to go back and re-watch it. It was priceless to watch Buzz Aldrin react to Trump’s comments about space (for those of you that may not know, space is fake, and Buzz knows it).

So many sixes it’s making my head spin

Earth’s orbital plane is known as the ecliptic plane, and Earth’s tilt is known to astronomers as the obliquity of the ecliptic, being the angle between the ecliptic and the celestial equator on the celestial sphere. Earth currently has an axial tilt of about 23.4°.

tilt

An axial plane is based on the 90° pivot. With that in mind I find it rather strange to consider that the opposing tilt of the earth equates to a rather interesting number. What I mean by that is this; if we were to subtract 23.4° from 90°, we get exactly 66.6°.

Hhmmm…

What a wonderful coincidence.

But, it doesn’t stop there. According to Live Science, we are also carrying a velocity of roughly 66,600 MPH as we fly through space around the sun.

1200px-North_season

Hhmmm….

What another wonderful coincidence.

Or even better… what about the fact that the curvature of the earth for one mile squared equates to exactly 0.666 ft. If you don’t believe me you can do the math yourself using this program.

I bet, if you decided to not stop there and continued to look at the math behind how the secular world describes their godless creation, the coincidences wouldn’t stop here.

But then again, who are we kidding… right? I clearly am just ignorant.

If you want to believe you are flying through space at 66,600 miles per hour around the sun while on an opposing tilt of 66.6° with a radial drop of 0.666 ft per mile squared under your feet, you go right head.

I think I’ll put my feet on the bible instead of the wisdom of secular men, thank you very much.

1 Chr. 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Ps. 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Ps. 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

1858a9e

Now, don’t get me wrong… I do realize that there are plenty of verses that suggest the world does move. For example:

Ps. 99:1: “The Lord reigneth … let the earth be moved.”

Job 26:7: “He … hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Is. 24:19: “the earth is moved exceedingly.”

With that in mind I am neither arguing for or against the motion of the earth. All I am getting at here is the simple fact that we are so quick to settle on the side of the secular world when it comes to Biblical creation. If we are so quick to stand up against things like the theory of evolution, why then would describing the creation of earth and the celestial bodies above be any different? Rather than standing on the truth of God’s word, we have given the Biblical attributes of cosmology over to the wisdom of men, diminishing that portion of the Bible to allegory rather than truth.

Just think about it.

If Satan really is in charge right now, and his goal is to deceive men into believing that God does not exist, the quickest way to do something like that would be to distort their view on creation itself.

But… I digress.

I’m clearly just ignorant. All of those numbers above are clearly just a coincidence.

And somehow people still think we can’t fake space!!!

yep.png

2002-blue-marble-anomalies.png

Whatever… if you want to be asleep, at this point you are doing it by choice. The great deception is at hand.

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:9

Please note that it doesn’t say he will deceive some, or just the unbelievers. No… it says all.

Anyway, I’m ignorant.

Talk to you later.

My Visit the the McDonald Observatory

Well, today is my birthday. And to celebrate my birthday, Sarah and I went all the way out to the McDonald Observatory in West Texas. This place is in the middle of nowhere up on top of some pretty epic mountains. Today, while we were there we not only got to visit the actual telescopes (one of which I had the pleasure of personally controlling manually), but we also observed the sun.

ob1.jpg

It was a pretty cool experience and I have to admit, the scenery on the way there was breathtaking.

But, I will say… there is one thing that today’s trip got me thinking about. First off, the Polaris Star (also known as the North Star) is stationary in the night sky. I asked the tour guide how it was possible for the North Star to be stationary in the night sky while we traverse the void of space in four directions at once. He managed to not grasp what I was actually asking, and instead mentioned a 5th motion that he posed does change the North Star dramatically. Not only has this motion of Polaris never been observed in the last 6,000 years of recorded cosmology, but it apparently happens every 27,000 years. Again, something that can’t be observed. Makes sense to me.

ob2.jpg

How can we state a fact like that without the ability to actually observe it? Seems like science… lol.

But, anyway… that isn’t what this blog is about. This blog is about the sun… because, at the end of the day that was what the main part of the tour was about.

So… according to modern day astronomy the sun is a star. Not only that, but it is one of the smallest stars. According to this same modern day teaching of the cosmos the sun was formed prior to the earth and is currently 93 million miles away.

So then… why is it that everything we are taught about the cosmos today is absolutely backwards from what the bible says? According to the bible the earth was made first (not the sun). The Sun and moon were made separate from the stars (meaning the sun is not a star). The sun and moon are both called great lights (according to the Copernican Principle our sun is not great when compared to other stars). The bible also says that the sun, moon, and stars all exist inside of the firmament. And that this firmament is where the birds fly.

So then, which is true?

Are we to believe as Christians that the bible is the inerrant truth (except when it talks about science, which makes it no longer inerrant)? Or, are we going to believe the cabalistic indoctrinations of the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Cosmological Evolution?

Rather than being long winder, trying to make a lot of points (which I feel I could easily do) I want to just leave you with this thought.

Why is it that literally everything we are told about the cosmos is the exact opposite of what the bible says?

snake.jpg

Anyway, my birthday trip was fun. Space exploration is fake. The sun, moon, and stars are close and small. Satellites do not exist beyond the stratosphere (all we are ever shown is CGI and cartoons).

The earth is motionless. I know this to be true because that is what my senses tell me and that is what my bible tells me.

The earth was made first. The one way speed of light is assumed. With that said, everything you have been told about the cosmos is an assumption.

m1.jpg

Have a good day, and thanks for reading. For my birthday, my challenge to you is to go back and read what the bible says about the cosmos. What it has to say is very clear… very clear indeed.