Rocketry probably doesn't work in space

Get people access where they want to be.

Daily Living Principle: Connecting people increases vitality and well being.
Post Reply
golly
Site Admin
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Hohokam / Piipaash / Apache / O'odham / Pueblo / Mexico / Arizona

Gender

Skin

Sexuality

Belief

Political

Rocketry probably doesn't work in space

Post by golly »

Rocketry probably doesn't work once we leave the atmosphere, which thins exponentially as we climb into several kilometers above the Earth's surface.

I say this because I have calculated the speed at which acceleration was reached for the NASA shuttles of the 1980's-2010's and it would have reached top acceleration and fuel expenditures at about 70 miles high according to publicized NASA figures. At that point, it would need to climb at faster and faster speeds for an additional 30 miles even while gravity should be holding the object back, no more fuel should be left, and all this after the shuttle would be detaching from heavy tanks that could send it flying another direction. At that point in the footage, we typically see glowing lights coming from the rear of the shuttle and it just rises higher and higher as if by magic, but no explainable force seems to be behind this motion, and it's not apparent where the additional fuel suddenly came from.

Ergo something does not add up.

In addition, the footage could be doctored from that stage onward due to the shuttle being so distant from people tracking it. Its "fall" (or disappearance, if you prefer) at that point, after the smoke trail gives out, may as well occur a thousand miles away since it is so difficult to see.

In any case, the explanations for the shuttle's behavior are deceptive and answers on NASA sites are dodgy. I think they may have improved their rocket technology by blasting greater amounts of fuel in shorter periods of time, but I think they would not risk sending any human beings up in the old shuttles or the new rockets because of the risk involved.

I do see signs of doctoring in the images allegedly "taken from space" and so I do think there is a team of people working to doctor and perfect every single image released by NASA. This is to control the public perception of the organization and keep their strange stories resting on a mountain of photo proofs rather than science proofs.

They cannot produce science proofs and so they produce scientific explanations of disconnected parts of the story. And if you ask them about the parts they haven't explained you will not get a straight answer. Hence the common sense acronym that NASA means "Never A Straight Answer". However, this isn't entirely true because they will give you a straight answer about things they are permitted to know about. For example you may ask them what propellant they use for satellites and they may reply hydrazine and give you a molecular breakdown of how that is produced and stored. However if you ask about a stage of adding the hydrazine or releasing it, for example, they may not know because they are trained to only explain the compartmentalized data they feed to the public to appear as if they have complete understanding of the operation. They even laugh about not knowing, but it starts to become even funnier than they treat it when nobody in their organization seems to know the answer. And in the end, hydrazine probably doesn't work then. It's just something they put together in a ceremony in their imaginations. It's like if I described to you the mechanism of drawing a picture and then I showed you a building full of paper and told you that I drew every single image by hand. You understand the mechanism and my professionalism so you may overlook the sheer impossibility of the scale of the achievement. It's just a building with one floor of blank paper and I've shown you a drawing in my hand and told you it's a skyscraper full of drawings.

Although we can see rockets being launched regularly from Vandenberg Air Force Base, I do not believe they are working on pure rocketry once in outer space to achieve their motion. I do think that we can use tremendous levels of energy to "toss" objects out of the atmosphere by piling air beneath the rocket with great force, but there are not good means of keeping rockets up there because they run out of air to push against.

Rockets generally must go out to sea in order to accomplish their missions. Therefore, it is difficult to tell how high they are going before they begin to drop in visible height. It is said this is because they are curving around the surface of the Earth but I do not trust that explanation for the observable behavior of the rockets. I do not trust NASA any longer at all.

I know some people who work for NASA and they exhibit normal lovable traits. They are individuals and humans and I don't assume they are trying to spread deception. However, I do think they are misleading the world about their accomplishments because the social reward is great. They see smiling faces, inspired children and they have a career to be proud of. They try not to think about any evil that their deception may be causing.

In the end it may be to cover up national security secrets like rockets with more advanced energy propulsion built in or just pure lies to make Americans feel good about their country. Empire has done a lot of bad stuff to the world through invasions and violence and maybe it needs to show that it's "worth it" with positive technological accomplishments that promise life on Mars or other fantastic ways of avoiding the subject of military culpability.

I do think spiritual beings or energetic craft may move in space above the atmosphere but I am not sure "where" those things are at that point (Inner Earth? Outer space? Perfect vacuum?) and I suspect they would not equip rockets to such things for show. Instead, I think the rockets are an impotent firework display while real means of travel away from Earth is a much more advanced ether based or electromagnetic based technology.

Post Reply