Model Forum / General / Rockets / November 2007

It's always a full moon for those lunatics.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Fake.

Hey, check out this REAL chupacabra picture:
http://www.oftm.com/chupamex.jpg

It MUST be real; it's on the internet and the general public doesn't buy it.

-c

   Very tediously, it was done my little old ladies in tennis shoes in
Korean sweat shops.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in news:470b2618$0$1462
$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

Added the dust in post-production! </conspiro-nut>

Got rad-hard DNA?

Got any unfiltered Kodak FOV look-see of Venus?

Got that R&D prototype fly-by-rocket lander?

In addition to those various links of our Apollo moon landing hoax or
ruse/sting of the century, once again here's something new that's as
equally extra weird, as to our pondering why all the unusual lack of
topic interest, or rather perhaps why the ongoing official usenet
banishment of anything JAXA SELENE/KAGUYA?

Perhaps JAXA's SELENE/KAGUYA via H-2A/H-IIA is also having to become
yet another hoax, especially since it's getting so much harder to hide
the truths about our moon.

Japan lunar probe reaches orbit
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ba6e27556d88b3
26/003f35e7781e5cdb#003f35e7781e5cdb
JAXA SELENE/KAGUYA via H-2A/H-IIA
http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f13/index_e.html
http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/index_e.htm
For some silly odd reason there's been nothing of any good (meaning
informative or otherwise deductive) usenet chat about this nifty JAXA
moon mission.  It's as though being all super hush-hush or taboo/
nondisclosure rated.  Wonder why?

"The KAGUYA mission targets are the global characterization of lunar
surface and detailed gravimetry."
Sounds perfectly nifty and worth every bit of whatever that mission of
remote obtained science can contribute about our physically dark,
somewhat salty and otherwise unavoidably naked/anticathode worthy
mascon of gamma and X-ray saturated environment, especially as for
eventually offering those detailed reviews per each of our NASA/Apollo
hard landings or impact sites.

Perhaps this time around those new and greatly improved CCD obtained
images will honestly utilize their full dynamic range, and thus
unavoidably provide a few good FOVs that'll have to include the rather
nifty vibrance and unusual natural raw colour spectrum of Venus above
the moon's physically dark horizon, possibly even eventually sharing a
few shots that'll include Earth and Venus within the very same Field
Of View that'll still include something of the moon's natural deep
colours and contrast of those rather unusual mineral deposits.

BTW, only taking 3 weeks instead of 3 days to get JAXA's SELENE into
its outer-most lunar orbit. (go figure)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-IIA
H2A2022 / 285,000 kg (2 stage + SRBs) / total payload mass was 3020 kg
http://www.jaxa.jp/pr/brochure/pdf/01/rocket01.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELENE
-
Main Orbiter
Mass: 2914 kg
Size: 2.1 x 2.1 x 4.8 m
Attitude control: Three-axis stabilized
Power: 3.5 kW (Max.)
Mission period: 1 year
Mission Orbit: Circular orbit,
Altitude 100 km
Inclination 90 degree

Their total payload mass was later reported as 3020 kg + 1400 kg
faring

107:1 ratio of rocket/payload (323.42/3.02 tonnes)
H2A2022 323.42 tonnes w/fairing and payload, requires those extra 2
SRBs + 2 Solid strap-on Boosters (SSBs)

With an inert mass of merely 42.62 tonnes, or 13.18% (as opposed to
our NASA/Apollo fiasco of having to start off hauling nearly a 30%
worth of inert mass, with merely a 60:1 rocket/payload ratio) is what
seems more than a tad bit odd, if not entirely hocus-pocus worthy.

As for the SELENE mission's orbital delivery process only taking an
energy efficient 3 weeks (instead of NASA/Apollo's swift 3 days with
fuel and payload to spare) in order to get JAXA's 3 tonne mission into
lunar orbit (actually it's taking yet another two weeks for getting
into the desired 100 km polar orbit), as such seems to be entirely
believable as based upon those regular laws of fly-by-rocket physics
that our NASA/Apollo wizards apparently never have to worry about,
just like their not haviong to worry about the gamma and X-ray
saturated surface environment that was also highly electrostatic and
salty.
http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f13/topics/pdf/1007_0330_loi3_e.pdf

Shouldn't we bother to ask if there's a little something about our
Third Reich semitic fortified NASA/Apollo hocus-pocus worth of
conditional fly-by-rocket physics, that which we do not yet honestly
know about? (apparently so)
- Brad Guth -

Millions? More like 100's of millions. Do you know what it costs for
union grips, gaffers, camera men, lighting, scene & costume desginers,
not to mention the Equity actors? It's obvious it was cheaper to go TO
the moon, than make a movie about it. Heck Apollo 13 cost $52mil, and
they didn't have to shoot scenes landing on the moon.  :)

Doug

I'd argue that there's more than a wee little confidence problem with
believing most anything NASA/Apollo.  However, once again and again,
we're being continually snookered and/or dumbfounded to death by those
having all the right stuff.

These kind folks in charge of promoting anything and everything NASA/
Apollo need to share and share alike, for example telling as to why
Jupiter and Io got depicted as so unusually pastel?  and where the
heck are those pesky stars?
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/192016main_100907_11.jpg
Unlike Venus, Jupiter isn't exactly getting well enough illuminated,
nor is it all that albedo/reflective, and that onboard camera of such
nifty CCD performance image processing being worth 16+db and having
nothing but the very best available optics isn't exactly wussy in the
dynamic range(DR) department.  As for imaging the likes of Pluto will
demand a great deal of such CCD dynamic range, and most certainly that
onboard camera and terrific optics are in fact well suited for that
task.

BTW, Venus as rather easily viewed from our physically dark and naked
moon was not ever a point source of any star like dim illumination,
and only those scientists willing to destroy their job security and/or
any future possibility of related employment would dare go on record
as sharing in this truth, although there have been many other
qualified reputations that have fully supported the NASA/Apollo hoax,
as for exactly what it really was another part of our mutually
perpetrated cold-war, exactly as orchestrated along by those pesky
Zion Yids that made the likes of their Hitler into such a royal pain
in the butt, and now doing the same puppeteering on behalf of
orchestrating our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

However, just like Messenger's absolutely piss poor image of Earth and
apparent inability to record our physically dark moon, the New Horizon
CCD image of Jupiter and Io had also been extremely DR limited, as to
offering not much better or even as good of DR than my free cell-phone
camera could provide (certainly far worse off than Kodak film).  Why
would they only utilize 1% or less of their CCD Dynamic Range?

Do you folks think JAXA's Senene CCD images are going to be as
intentionally DR limited?

Kodak KAI-1003 has a DR of 70 DB
Kodak KAI-2020 has a DR of 68 DB
Kodak KAI-4011 has a DR of 60 DB
Fairchield's Condor CCD486 or CCD3041 are only that much better yet,
along with most of such cameras processing out any given 16 bit or 16
DB worth of that CCD's extended DR, means that it should be next to
impossible as to exclude stars unless having intentionally done so via
the firmware or subsequent software instructions.  Of any given FOV or
composite image that offers the likes of Earth and our moon side by
side, under identical illumination and using the very same exposure
scan is less than child's play for this generation of impressive
instruments, and anything Kodak or Fairchield can muster is certianly
matched or surpassed by whatever Sony, Fuji or others are capable of
doing.
- Brad Guth -

Fearing only the lethal wrath of those Semitic MIBs (aka pretend
atheists), you and I can safely bet our bottom dollar that it's all
about the mainstream status quo protecting yet another Zionist
perpetrated SCAM (and then some), at the very least as best applied as
damage-control upon anything pertaining to our NASA/Apollo moon
landing hoax, whereas protecting their ultimate ruse is about as cold-
war sting worthy as it ever gets.

In addition to those various links of our Apollo moon landing hoax or
ruse/sting of the century, along with whatever strings and all sorts
of hocus-pocus smoke and mirrors, once again here's something new
that's as equally extra weird, as to our pondering why all the unusual
lack of topic interest, or rather perhaps why the ongoing official
usenet banishment of anything pertaining to the JAXA SELENE/KAGUYA
mission.

Perhaps JAXA's SELENE/KAGUYA via H-2A/H-IIA is also having to become
yet another hoax, especially since it's getting so much harder to hide
those truths about our moon, as well as about the amounts of fly-by-
rocket energy it takes per given payload tonne and of the extended
amount of required travel time that such new and vastly improved
missions actually require.

Japan lunar probe reaches orbit
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ba6e27556d88b3
26/003f35e7781e5cdb#003f35e7781e5cdb
JAXA SELENE/KAGUYA via H-2A/H-IIA
http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f13/index_e.html
http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/index_e.htm
For some silly odd reason there's been nothing of any good (meaning
informative or otherwise deductive) usenet chat about this nifty JAXA
moon mission.  It's as though being all super hush-hush or taboo/
nondisclosure rated.  Wonder why?

"The KAGUYA mission targets are the global characterization of lunar
surface and detailed gravimetry."
Sounds perfectly nifty and worth every bit of whatever that mission of
remote obtained science can contribute about our physically dark,
somewhat salty and otherwise unavoidably naked/anticathode worthy
mascon of gamma and X-ray saturated environment, especially as for
eventually offering those detailed reviews per each of our NASA/Apollo
hard landings or impact sites.

Perhaps this time around those new and greatly improved CCD obtained
images will honestly utilize their full dynamic range, and thus
unavoidably provide a few good FOVs that'll have to include the rather
nifty vibrance and unusual natural raw colour spectrum of Venus above
the moon's physically dark horizon, possibly even eventually sharing a
few shots that'll include Earth and Venus within the very same Field
Of View that'll still include something of the moon's natural deep
colours and contrast of those rather unusual mineral deposits.

BTW, only taking 3 weeks instead of 3 days to get JAXA's SELENE into
its outer-most lunar orbit. (go figure)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-IIA
H2A2022 / 285,000 kg (2 stage + SRBs) / total payload mass was 3020 kg
http://www.jaxa.jp/pr/brochure/pdf/01/rocket01.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELENE
-
Main Orbiter
Mass: 2914 kg
Size: 2.1 x 2.1 x 4.8 m
Attitude control: Three-axis stabilized
Power: 3.5 kW (Max.)
Mission period: 1 year
Mission Orbit: Circular orbit,
Altitude 100 km
Inclination 90 degree

Their total payload mass was later reported as 3020 kg + 1400 kg
faring

107:1 ratio of rocket/payload (323.42/3.02 tonnes)
H2A2022 323.42 tonnes w/fairing and payload, requires those extra 2
SRBs + 2 Solid strap-on Boosters (SSBs)

With an inert mass of merely 42.62 tonnes, or 13.18% (as opposed to
our NASA/Apollo fiasco of having to start off hauling nearly a 30%
worth of inert mass, with merely a 60:1 rocket/payload ratio) is what
seems more than a tad bit odd, if not entirely hocus-pocus worthy.

As for the SELENE mission's orbital delivery process only taking an
energy efficient 3 weeks (instead of NASA/Apollo's swift 3 days with
fuel and payload to spare) in order to get JAXA's 3 tonne mission into
lunar orbit (actually it's taking yet another two weeks for getting
into the desired 100 km polar orbit), as such seems to be entirely
believable as based upon those regular laws of fly-by-rocket physics
that our NASA/Apollo wizards apparently never have to worry about,
just like their not haviong to worry about the gamma and X-ray
saturated surface environment that was also highly electrostatic and
salty.
http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f13/topics/pdf/1007_0330_loi3_e.pdf

Shouldn't we bother to ask if there's a little something about our
Third Reich semitic fortified NASA/Apollo hocus-pocus worth of
conditional fly-by-rocket physics, that which we do not yet honestly
know about? (apparently so)
- Brad Guth -

An interesting argument.

Not that I needed any convincing, mind you. I saw it live on TV.

What on Earth makes you think those smart Russians weren't entirely in
on the very same grand ruse/sting of the century, for the very same
mutually perpetrated cold-war reasons of their own job security and
getting to play with all of those big and spendy toys?

You do realize that there were a few of those semitic Third Reich
wizards of fly-by-rocket expertise in Russia, don't you?
- Brad Guth -