New NASA footage.. Hmmm....

[Jeff Wagg]

This video recently appeared on YouTube. Notice anything funny? Could it be that the entire shuttle program is a hoax?

Q8azRu2stO4

[LashL]

The video isn't working for me when I click on the "I agree" button... :(

EDIT: never mind ~ it's working now :)

[CptColumbo]

Are you refering to a reflection of what appears to be two men filming it, or to the missing footage? The missing footage is probably due to the LOS that most re-entries encounter.

[parky76]

Yes...I see it now. Those giant jellyfish at the end must be a hoax!!

Although I did not know that you can hear sounds in space. I thought sound required a thick atmosphere as a medium.

[Pardalis]

I remember seeing that. It's the most amazing piece of video I have ever seen in my life!

[wahrheit]

Notice anything funny?
A very very cool video, but I didn't notice anything funny...

Tell us!

[Calcas]

I don't get it.

[uruk]

That was freakin' awsome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

[ConspiRaider]

This video recently appeared on YouTube. Notice anything funny? Could it be that the entire shuttle program is a hoax?

Q8azRu2stO4
The only funny part - the truly hilarious part of the whole video was when the camera caught the Earth and its cloud formations. One of the cloud formations - I swear to God - looked exactly like my old girlfriend Violeta McWhifferkugel (in profile). I found that a bit ironic, and oddly funny. We definitely had a "stormy" relationship, you see...

I worked the Shuttle program for 2 years and am trying to see how this video gives it all away as a hoax? Excuse me? So the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) separate from the shuttle, fall back to earth, open 3 parachutes and land in the ocean, where they are recovered, refurbished and reused. We see one land, and then the other in the background.

And from this we determine...?

[JimTheBrit]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8345d899886c010.jpg

[R.Mackey]

Although I did not know that you can hear sounds in space. I thought sound required a thick atmosphere as a medium.

Not a thick medium, just some medium.

The Solid Rocket Boosters are jettisoned at an altitude of approximately 100 kilometers, which is close to the Karman Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line). This is the altitude at which the atmosphere grows sufficiently thin that orbital mechanics exactly balance aerodynamics -- to keep from losing altitude, you would need a horizontal speed sufficient to keep you in orbit anyway. So, there is still some air up there, just not much.

You can see this in the video. The exhaust plumes and condensation trails made by the SRBs do not instantly disperse, but still show vorticity. Compare this to a truly airless burn, such as this famous video from Apollo XVII:

WIKRkvCKri8
On the lunar surface, the gas jet disperses almost instantly into the vacuum. What effect we see is nothing but dust and small particles accelerated and then gradually settling back to the lunar surface.

Back to sound in space: As the atmosphere gets thinner, the air actually more and more closely approaches an Ideal Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas), which can still propagate pressure waves, i.e. sound waves. What happens, however, is the amplitude of that pressure wave grows less as a function of the mechanical phenomenon that generated it -- the sound still carries, but it grows fainter as the pressure drops.

You can still hear sound from the SRBs and Shuttle Main Engines simply because they are among the loudest things ever built (http://nasaexplores.nasa.gov/show2_articlea.php?id=01-065).

[LashL]

I don't get it.

Me, neither.

[CFLarsen]

Look at the curvature of Earth. It shifts from concave to convex and back, repeatedly.

Clearly, this is a hoax... ;)

[Rich M]

Thirded. It is, however, a completely cool piece of footage, so thanks for sharing anyway!

[babazaroni]

What is the explanation for the curvature shift?

[Totovader]

What is the explanation for the curvature shift?

A curved ("fisheye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens)") lens.

[babazaroni]

A curved ("fisheye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens)") lens.

I thought it might be a fisheye lens, but the ocean horizon shot at the end did not seem curved. I'll look at it again.

Could be the ocean horizon does not need to appear curved in a fisheye lens.

[CFLarsen]

A curved ("fisheye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens)") lens.

No, no! It's a hoax. A hoax, I tell you.

You gubmint stooge!

[Oliver]

Someone please ban this guy for drinking too much Mojitos. :D

But kidding aside: It looks nothing like faked - even if shortened.
The only strange things are the sound, why the camera is able
to film the second rocket booster while drifting uncontrolled thru
the air, then captures the parachutes above and then the other
rocket booster again... A truly magic camera.

Hard to explain.

So what's the answer to this mysterious footage, Mr. Wagg? :confused:

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8345d899886c010.jpg

Looks like Mickey Mouse.

[wahrheit]

Look at the curvature of Earth. It shifts from concave to convex and back, repeatedly.

Clearly, this is a hoax... ;)

The curvature didn't occur as strange to me, the footage looks perfectly normal for such recording equipment. You can see similiar curvature effects in many skydiving (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fpaktJWqf4) videos.

Jeff, tell us what you meant...

[gumboot]

I thought it might be a fisheye lens, but the ocean horizon shot at the end did not seem curved. I'll look at it again.

Could be the ocean horizon does not need to appear curved in a fisheye lens.


Yeah it's definately because of the fish-eye lens. I thought that was cool.

The ocean horizon at the end doesn't appear curved mainly because of its position. On the horizontal or vertical planes, the closer the line is to the centre of the frame, the less distortion occurs.

Think of it like looking at a globe with the lattitude and longitude lines drawn on it. The lines that run north-south and around the equator, when square on to your eyes, look pretty much straight. The further from the middle the lines are, the more curvature there is.

-Gumboot

[Larry Lovage]

Can any fellow brits help me? Between 5 and 10 years ago, one of the commmercial channels, ITV or Channel 4 used to show a programme that consisted of nothing but cool space footage, to trance music mixes. Can anybody remember what the show was called, or if it became available on DVD?

(I may have seen this booster footage on that, there was always a fair amount of stuff from takeoffs etc).

[Alareth]

The curvature didn't occur as strange to me, the footage looks perfectly normal for such recording equipment. You can see similiar curvature effects in many skydiving (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fpaktJWqf4) videos.

Jeff, tell us what you meant...

Oh ... My ... God ...

Skydiving is a hoax?

:jaw-dropp

[brodski]

Can any fellow brits help me? Between 5 and 10 years ago, one of the commmercial channels, ITV or Channel 4 used to show a programme that consisted of nothing but cool space footage, to trance music mixes. Can anybody remember what the show was called, or if it became available on DVD?

(I may have seen this booster footage on that, there was always a fair amount of stuff from takeoffs etc).

It rings a bell as part of the 4later series on C4. I can't be any more specific than that I'm afraid.

[Brainache]

This video recently appeared on YouTube. Notice anything funny? Could it be that the entire shuttle program is a hoax?



Yeah there is no way that camera operator could have held on to the SRB all the way down and the sound guy was using the wrong windsock.

Apart from that it all looks legit to me.

[wahrheit]

Oh ... My ... God ...

Skydiving is a hoax?

:jaw-dropp

Of course it is. Did you really think anybody would be nuts enough to jump out of a plane? :rolleyes:

[wahrheit]

Can any fellow brits help me? Between 5 and 10 years ago, one of the commmercial channels, ITV or Channel 4 used to show a programme that consisted of nothing but cool space footage, to trance music mixes. Can anybody remember what the show was called, or if it became available on DVD?

(I may have seen this booster footage on that, there was always a fair amount of stuff from takeoffs etc).

For many years now, a German public TV airs a programme called SPACENIGHT (http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/spacenight/). Several hours of space related (http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/spacenight/dossiers.shtml) footage, every night, and lots of it with music added.

They sell compilations of the music (http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/spacenight/musik.shtml) used, but I only found one DVD (http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/spacenight/programm.shtml#dvd). I guess they can't publish everything on DVD for copyright reasons.

[Timothy]

Skeptics *should* be much better than this. Specious conclusions and assumptions despite the evidence is what skeptics berate woos for.

Use your eyes. Use your brain.

I thought it might be a fisheye lens, but the ocean horizon shot at the end did not seem curved. I'll look at it again.

Could be the ocean horizon does not need to appear curved in a fisheye lens.

The ocean horizon at the end doesn't appear curved mainly because of its position. On the horizontal or vertical planes, the closer the line is to the centre of the frame, the less distortion occurs.

Think of it like looking at a globe with the lattitude and longitude lines drawn on it. The lines that run north-south and around the equator, when square on to your eyes, look pretty much straight. The further from the middle the lines are, the more curvature there is.

-Gumboot

No, no, no, no, no. The reason is ... it's a different camera. There are at least four cameras on each SRB. The undistorted view of the horizon as it comes into frame is a pretty clear indication ... as is the fact that the camera pointed at the side of the external tank could not possibly be at the vantage point to be between the three parachute lines.


The only strange things are the sound, why the camera is able
to film the second rocket booster while drifting uncontrolled thru
the air, then captures the parachutes above and then the other
rocket booster again... A truly magic camera.

Hard to explain.


No, no, no, no, no. The SRB does not "drift uncontolled through the air." The trajectory and rotation is quite predictable and controlled for the first few minutes until it reaches dense enough atmosphere.

It then captures the parachutes (amazingly right where the footage cuts!) because it's another camera -- designed to watch the parachutes.

And then, has no one watched the video? What parachutes into the water just in frame? The other SRB? No. Take a look at the shape. Then go to wikipedia and read the entry on the SRBs. It's the frustum (part of what most people would call the "nosecone") of the very same SRB. It's *not* the other SRB.

If you're going to be a skeptic, at least try to be a competent skeptic.

[c4ts]

That was no rocket burn, it was thermite!

[wahrheit]

That was no rocket burn, it was thermite!

In other words, Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Solid Rocket Boosters?

[c4ts]

In other words, Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Solid Rocket Boosters?

Those flames were 15000 degrees and only thermite can get that hot! Clearly, that was a controlled separation!

[Quad4_72]

Here is my guess. Jeff Wagg wanted to share this cool footage with us, but in order to post it in the conspiracy section, he had to make up some sort of hoax questions to relate it to a conspiracy. Good idea! Thats what is great about the conspiracy theories section. If you want to post something thats off topic, just make up a conspiracy about it!

For example, if I want to post a video of a man being molested by a donkey, all I have to do is say that the donkey is a secret government shill trying to get the man to release some sort of important information. No facts required either! Isn't it great how easy it is to make up a conspiracy theory?

Oh and to have a look at that government donkey, go here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBp6byWGrU

[wahrheit]

Those flames were 15000 degrees and only thermite can get that hot! Clearly, that was a controlled separation!
I totally agree, c4ts. This video is proof of an inside job. Let's start a new thread and a black-background-website on this issue.

@Jeff: We'll continue this silly derail until you tell us The TruthTM.

[babazaroni]

Skeptics *should* be much better than this. Specious conclusions and assumptions despite the evidence is what skeptics berate woos for.

Use your eyes. Use your brain.



OK, Timothy. I will. Thanks for the advice.


No, no, no, no, no. The reason is ... it's a different camera. There are at least four cameras on each SRB. The undistorted view of the horizon as it comes into frame is a pretty clear indication ... as is the fact that the camera pointed at the side of the external tank could not possibly be at the vantage point to be between the three parachute lines.
Nope, the same camera that films the parachutes films the ocean horizon.

In fact, the horizon enters curved, then straightens out as it approaches the center of the lens.

Gumboot was correct.

You did make a good point about the other parachute though.

[rwguinn]

Not a thick medium, just some medium.

.........

Back to sound in space: As the atmosphere gets thinner, the air actually more and more closely approaches an Ideal Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas), which can still propagate pressure waves, i.e. sound waves. What happens, however, is the amplitude of that pressure wave grows less as a function of the mechanical phenomenon that generated it -- the sound still carries, but it grows fainter as the pressure drops.

You can still hear sound from the SRBs and Shuttle Main Engines simply because they are among the loudest things ever built (http://nasaexplores.nasa.gov/show2_articlea.php?id=01-065).
Mechanically transmitted acoustic noise is a big factor in dynamic loads analuysis for STS payloads.
You see, they are actually attached to the Shuttle. The engines are part of the Shuttle,which would lead one to the conclusion that there is a direct mechanical link to anything on or in the shuttle.
Vibration in the engines (or anything else) gets transmitted through the structure, and comes out through other parts of the structure at pretty much the same frequency it started as.
Since the stupid video won't run all the way through, I can't watch it, but any sound does not go through space. Alloys of Aluminum, Titanium, Lithium, and steel do just fine as a medium for sound transmission.
ETA--I finally saw the whole thing. The same situation goes for the SRB's==the camera is attached to it. There is some air noise, and a fair amount of Mechanically Transmitted Raqndom vib, also.

And STS is only 150dBm (rms) in the payload bay at launch

[gumboot]

No, no, no, no, no. The reason is ... it's a different camera. There are at least four cameras on each SRB. The undistorted view of the horizon as it comes into frame is a pretty clear indication ... as is the fact that the camera pointed at the side of the external tank could not possibly be at the vantage point to be between the three parachute lines.


Yes, it is a different camera, but they are both wide-angle, so my explanation stands. There is less distortion on the second camera because it has a longer focal length than the first one. (However there actually is distortion on the horizon as it moves about the frame).

-Gumboot

[Jeff Wagg]

I'll fill you in tomorrow on what you're missing.

[JimBenArm]

I'll fill you in tomorrow on what you're missing.
I don't wanna wait!
I want candy now! Now!

[ConspiRaider]

I'll fill you in tomorrow on what you're missing.
Is it (shudder) that Violeta McWhifferkugel herself was one of the SRBs? True, she was a bottle rocket in the old sackerino, I remember that, but Violeta's afraid of heights. How could she do this?

[c4ts]

I'll bet this was why Lisa Nowack was really arrested. Then the media conspiracy helped out and concocted a phony kidnapping story. She leaked the truth!

[Gravy]

I'm disappointed in you all. The mistakes are obvious.

1) They forgot to paint the stars in.

2) It doesn't snow in space.

3) The Heavenly Host is nowhere to be seen.

4) Solid rocket boosters don't float, even in salt water.



Seriously, Jeff, that was mesmerizing footage. Better than pot! I wonder how long the whole descent was.

[c4ts]

I saw a rounded Earth, when it's clearly flat from the ground! And they forgot to put in the crystalline sphere separating us from the empyrean!

[Timothy]

Nope, the same camera that films the parachutes films the ocean horizon.

Of course it is. That's not the issue. A 90-deg FOV camera in the side of the SRB accounts for the first 2/3 of the clip and shows prominent distortion of the horizon. A (approx) 50-deg FOV camera in the fairing shows chute footage and splashdown. The distortion in the second is much less than the first.

In fact, the horizon enters curved, then straightens out as it approaches the center of the lens.

I should have said "much less distorted" than "undistorted"

You did make a good point about the other parachute though.

Another clue besides the shape; the object only has one apparent parachute.

[NickUK]

Out of interest, chaps, which mission / craft is this landing?

Also, is there a higher quality .avi or suchlike out there?

Amazing stuff :)

[gumboot]

Out of interest, chaps, which mission / craft is this landing?

Also, is there a higher quality .avi or suchlike out there?

Amazing stuff :)

It's STS-115 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-115), launched Sept 9, 2006. The shuttle is Atlantis.

-Gumboot

[Larry Lovage]

Is it possible Jeff is simply going on about the fact that it appears that the camera tracks perfectly with the other booster rocket it's filming, so that the other rocket maintains a horizontal aspect wrt the camera? Perhaps we need to talk about F=ma and its operation in near-vacuum (also the phenomenal work of the rocket engineers providing precisely the same forces in precisely the same place on each rocket).

[Brainache]

Is it the surface that the SRB detaches from at the start of the clip? Is there something odd about it? I thought the liquid fuel tank was smooth, but then I've never seen one up close.

[alfaniner]

There is more than one camera on the SRBs.


Additional STS-121 Solid Rocket Boosters Videos


Right forward SRB camera (Windows media) Go to this page
Right aft SRB camera (Windows media) Go to this page
Left aft SRB camera (13.7 Mb Quicktime movie)
Left forward SRB camera (13.6 Mb Quicktime movie)
Separation composite view (10 Mb Quicktime movie)

[rwguinn]

Jeff:
This bump is for you...

[Jeff Wagg]

OK.. here it is..

This video shows that the laws of physics work. Just like in the Moon Hoax videos. Therefore, if they both show that.. they're BOTH wrong... or they're both right.


(Actually, I was hoping some CT afficianado would come up with an elaborate theory. Oh well. Cool video anyway. :) )

[rwguinn]

OK.. here it is..

This video shows that the laws of physics work. Just like in the Moon Hoax videos. Therefore, if they both show that.. they're BOTH wrong... or they're both right.


(Actually, I was hoping some CT afficianado would come up with an elaborate theory. Oh well. Cool video anyway. :) )
I always hated them there trick questions in fizicks classes.
Did we respond correctly, teach?

[JimBenArm]

Hey! Where's my candy? I was promised candy!

[ConspiRaider]

Hey! Where's my candy? I was promised candy!
Tell me about it!

So the conspiracy about this whole post was:

The post ITSELF?!??!!ONE!!!eleventy!!!won!11sam!!kinison!!

[R.Mackey]

OK.. here it is..

This video shows that the laws of physics work. Just like in the Moon Hoax videos. Therefore, if they both show that.. they're BOTH wrong... or they're both right.

(Actually, I was hoping some CT afficianado would come up with an elaborate theory. Oh well. Cool video anyway. :) )

Nah, that just proves the Moon Hoax was a good hoax. We built the set on a platform in a giant mine shaft, sucked all the air out, and then shot all the footage in partial free-fall to simulate lower gravity...

... is that elaborate enough for you?

P.S.: This post is a hoax.

P.P.S.: My best argument (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2155209#post2155209) against the Moon Hoax is that all the hardware to do it verifiably existed. If so, why would you hoax it? If you were going to hoax it, why go to all the trouble? After that point, the hoax becomes harder than actually doing it in the first place.

[Dog Town]

Nah, that just proves the Moon Hoax was a good hoax. We built the set on a platform in a giant mine shaft, sucked all the air out, and then shot all the footage in partial free-fall to simulate lower gravity...

I knew it!100011!!1
Never mind, I did not say that! I was not even here...

[NobbyNobbs]

And then, has no one watched the video? What parachutes into the water just in frame? The other SRB? No. Take a look at the shape. Then go to wikipedia and read the entry on the SRBs. It's the frustum (part of what most people would call the "nosecone") of the very same SRB. It's *not* the other SRB.
.


Thank you for revealing this. It was bothering me that they could arrange for both SRBs to land within a few hundred yards of each other. This makes much more sense.

[gumboot]

Thank you for revealing this. It was bothering me that they could arrange for both SRBs to land within a few hundred yards of each other. This makes much more sense.


That would have been an especially neat trick considering we saw the other one going spiralling away while they were in the upper atmosphere. Not to mention the skill required to have the other one land in the direction the camera was pointing.

-Gumboot

[ConspiRaider]

P.P.S.: My best argument (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2155209#post2155209) against the Moon Hoax is that all the hardware to do it verifiably existed. If so, why would you hoax it? If you were going to hoax it, why go to all the trouble? After that point, the hoax becomes harder than actually doing it in the first place.
Mine is this (besides being associated with the U.S. Space Program, and having family and friends' parents work for NASA, and everything else including what you said):

You don't hoax something like this SEVEN TIMES!!1111!!one!!

You do it once, release the film, close the set, pay off the crew and everybody goes home happy and with years of residuals.

[Dog Town]

Mine is this (besides being associated with the U.S. Space Program, and having family and friends' parents work for NASA, and everything else including what you said).

Step pop worked on the Apollo missions, I mentioned this to him over x-mas. He asked, how much eggnog had I imbibed? Nuff said, from pops.

[Timothy]

Thank you for revealing this. It was bothering me that they could arrange for both SRBs to land within a few hundred yards of each other. This makes much more sense.

Another point related to the seperated frustum ... if you look carefully between the three deployed chutes you can see the frustum and its single parachute quickly receding from the SRB just as the parachute portion of the clip begins. And you can see it in the distance between the chutes for virtually all of the clip.