Trade.Information

Product Name: The Real Purpose for Space Stations and the Space Shuttle

Product Description

The reason for these space station stairsteps was because, first of all, the radiation belts had to be surmounted. And secondly, at least according to my friend Rob, the earth's gravity caused the crafts in space to slow down when trying to escape orbit, such that when the fuel runs out, the crafts settle into an orbit. It was calculated that in order to reach the moon refueling stations would be needed along the way, one craft could not carry enough fuel to make the trip in one flight. About 5 years back, I went to a public library in California and started researching the space program to see what I could find. I was surprised when I found a number of leading directors of NASA claim that the 'real' space program was the space shuttle, from X-15 through to the Shuttle. I was not surprised about what they said, but was surprised that they admitted it publicly. They claimed that because Russia started putting men in capsules and blasting them off of ballistic missiles the US was forced to do the same thing as well. And they admitted that this was actually only for political 'publicity'. As I have stated at the beginning, I do not have that research in front of me right now, I cannot quote who said these things or in which books I saw them, but these statements were made by several of the past directors of NASA, by senior leaders of the space programs, and some of the books were even printed by NASA itself. They actually stated that the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo projects were cold war publicity stunts performed only to keep up with the Russians. The only thing that these men did was stop just short of saying that the projects were actually faked. Rather, their (public or official) stand is that those project, including the trips to and landing on the moon, were real, but they were not the real US space program. They claim that the real space program is and has been since the 1950's, the Space Shuttle program. For political reasons the program was side-tracked into using capsules blasted off on top of missiles because that is what the Russians were doing and for political and cold war military reasons we had to make a show of it as well. Yes, the former leaders of NASA have made statements precisely to that effect. The only difference is they claim the shows were actually executed and were not faked. But, they do admit and have even proclaimed, that the real US Space Program has been the Space Shuttle. Now, that is real interesting information. In 1970-72, while Apollo was still going on, before the first Shuttle was ever launched, Rob had told me the same thing, that the Shuttle was the real space program. So, while all of these other missions, Explorer, Mercury, Gemini, were going on, what was happening, then, with our 'real' space program? Remember I was telling earlier how we first put a man in near space (50 miles altitude) around 1957 using the X-15. And the US space scientist at that time felt that putting capsules on top of ballistic missiles was 'primitive' and to put a man inside such a capsule was insane. So, what happened after the successes of the X-15? By sheer coincidence I have another source of information on that. During the early 1980's I was producing some multimedia slide shows and I would attend AMI (Association for Multi Images) conventions and seminars. These were well attended by many of the world's leading multimedia producers of the time, most of whom worked for large international corporations. At each convention they would have an awards show in which leading producers submit their show to be judged per many different categories to see who had produced the best shows for the year. It was the Oscars of the multimedia world. One show was submitted by a producer who had produced the show for the US Military. The producer claimed one reason why he produces those shows is that he has high security clearance. The show he played for us (using, about 16 slide projectors and 1 or 2 large screen video projectors) was produced for showing at a world market military convention in Europe. He said that just like we had conventions where the latest multimedia hardware would be showed, the military branches of the governments of the world also held conventions to show off their latest military hardware. These were high-stakes extremely crucial conventions, he told us, where billions of dollars of contracts for military hardware are bought and sold and often political alliances were traded at these shows. That year (sometime between 1981-84) he said was the first year anyone had used large scale multimedia at their booths, and the first country to do so was the US. He said that previously only hardware was shown, and sometimes a movie or a 2 projector show. But, the military commissioned him to make the first multimedia show. The US booth didn't feature hardware in the flesh that year, but sported a large tent with 3 screens, 16 slide projectors and the large screen video projectors. Now, he claimed that these shows are only attenuated by the very top military brass and their highest ranking aids and that much of what is shown at these shows is highly sensitive data. He said that the show he made was much longer and contained a lot of highly classified sensitive data that could not be shown to non-classified personnel, but, because it was such a great show, the producer edited it and had it screened by top military brass to be okayed for showing at the AMI convention. He claimed that the audience present (about 4-500 leading multimedia producers from around the world, and myself who was in attendance), were the only ones that would be able to see even the edited version. He said that he was only granted permission to show even the edited version only once, only for the awards ceremony, that was it. So, what was so 'sensitive' about this show. Well, the presentation was designed to show the top military brass of the world just how superior US military technology is. And what topic did they center on to do this? Space Technology. The show began by giving a history of the US space program, starting from the first jets to break the sound barrier of the late 1940's. That led into the work on the X-rocket planes, the most widely known, the X-15. It hailed the X-15 as being the first manned space craft, achieving 50+ mile altitude, and that the flight was made under full pilot control of the winged craft. It went on for some time about all of the achievements of the X-15 project. Then, it went on to discuss the X-16... X-20 and X-22 rocket plane crafts. These were crafts, up to that time, I had never heard about before. They all looked like fat, winged jets, and they were all single pilot crafts. The show stated that each craft achieved further and further break-throughs. Going into and out of orbit, developing heat shield materials for re-entry, testing how far and how fast one can go in near space, etc. It also explained how they developed control throttle rocket engines for some of these test craft. Then they discussed the X-24, the last of the X-Rockets. This was still a single manned winged rocket plane (or maybe it was a 2 man crew, I can't recall), but this was the last of the 'smaller' eXperimental Rocket planes. Yet, these tests were all said to have been going on all through the 1960's and 70's. The next step was the Space Shuttle. This was the intended culmination of the US space effort and all of the X-rocket planes. After all tests checked out with the X-Rockets, a version large enough to house a large (8+ man) crew and allow for a large cargo bay was built. This, according to the show made in the early to mid 1980's, was the APEX of the US space program and the apex of mankind's technological advancements. The show went on glorifying the Space Shuttle as the greatest achievement of mankind so far, taking man into space... etc. etc. Now, as I said, there were about 400 to 500 top multimedia producers sitting it the room that night watching this show, and I don't know about them, because I am sure none of them had the previous knowledge I had, but I what I had just seen totally, 100% and more, confirmed to me that the moon landing was faked. This show, made for the top military personnel of the leading industrialized nations of the world, had just showed the history of the space program and totally conspicuous by its absence was any reference what so ever to putting men in capsules and blasting them off on top of ballistic missiles. Totally missing was any reference at all to Mercury, Gemini and the big one, Apollo. There was no mention of any craft ever going to the moon, what to speak of men going to the moon. No mention of any voyager or deep space craft ever whizzing past a distant planet. All of this was extremely conspicuous by it's absence. All that the show presented was the X-rocket planes that finally, after 25+ years of research culminated in the Space Shuttle. This was depicted as being America's true space program. And it centered on and ended with the Space Shuttle as being the absolute pinnacle, the apex, of man's reach into space, and man's scientific conquest. Again, no mention of the moon or other deep space probes. Strange. And out of that room of 400-500 producers, I wonder if I was the only one who really caught that? Everything seems to have confirmed what Rob had told me. And later, this was again confirmed in my library research from the quotes of the leading men at NASA. Another realization this show gave me was that if the capsule programs and deep space probes and lunar landings were faked, it wasn't just the US faking it alone, or even just the US and Russia, but it appeared that all major industrialized nations, at least on the level of top military brass, were all in on it. This show was made for them, so all of them would have to know what was really going on. That sort of seems inconceivable, but, I am not presenting absolutes here, only theory and conjecture. It may be hard to believe or understand, but not impossible. It may be that after some time some an accord was made among the top nations and the real facts shared. In one way that would seem probable because many of those countries do have some sort of space program, and at some point their research would find inconsistencies in the data from faked space missions. But, still, what about all the Universities and all those NASA workers? I admit, it is hard to comprehend. But, my mission in writing this is to present that which I know or have a good idea of as a way of sparking further research. If We Had Gone To The Moon, Then What Was So Great About The Shuttle? If it is true (and I have no absolute way of knowing right now myself) that all other manned space flight had been faked, then that would mean that the Space Shuttle flights were truly man's first real space flights. The first space-walks were from the shuttle. Etc. Everything before was faked. And really, I recall in the early 80's, and even to today, the excitement that NASA and the press showed over the shuttle (the press simply following the 'leads' and excitement NASA was making over it) seemed a bit out of place. I mean, look, if we believe we had gone to the moon, than what was so great about the Shuttle? I mean, think about it ! ! ! For instance, lets assume that we did go to the moon, and that we have sent probes all over the solar system. Than what is so great about the Space Shuttle? In 1958 the USSR and America supposedly sent crafts into near space, and even out of earth orbit, up through the Van Allen Belts. In the early 60's we supposedly sent crafts all the way to the moon, crash landing on the moon. USSR had Lunar missions supposedly sending back photos of the dark side of the moon as well in the very early part of the 60's. Then we sent 2 man crews and docked craft together, performed space walks, etc. Then 3 men, then we sent unmanned robot missions to the moon, controlled all the way from JPL or Moscow which took off from earth, entered earth orbit, exited earth orbit, traveled all the way to the moon, entered lunar orbit, landed on the moon, scooped up samples, blasted off the moon, re-entered lunar orbit, exited lunar orbit traveled all the way back to earth, re-entered earth orbit and then landed back on earth, all operating in remote control with relatively primitive computers and navigation all in the mid 60's. Then we did it, right. We sent man to the moon and made the same trip. 2 men landing on the moon, 1 man in orbit, then coming all the way home. All that weight, a lunar lander which carried enough fuel for blast off from the moon, and enough fuel to get 3 men all the way back to earth. Some Trip! All that we did, supposedly, 6 times. Now, again, I ask, in comparison, what is so great about the Shuttle? Well, the Shuttle does have a capacity to carry 6 to 8 men (even 10 in an emergency). It has a large cargo bay. Okay, the Lunar landers were also heavy and there was a 3 man crew. So, how high can the Shuttle go? "250,000 miles?" No way. "Okay, 25,000 miles, 1/10 of the distance to the moon (1/20 the distance of a round trip)?" Sorry, try again. "All right, 10,000 miles?" Better think closer to home. "Okay, 5,000 miles?" A lot closer. "2,000 miles?" I said a lot closer. "1,000 miles, at least, right? I mean, hey in the late 60's we took 3 men 250,000 miles along with their lunar lander and rover and got them back to earth, another 250,000 miles, so at least the Space Shuttle can go 1/250th of that right?" Well, ah, no, not quite. "All right, all, right, 500 miles, it has got to go at least 500 miles up, right, I mean any 747 or jumbo jet has the ability to go 12 miles high?" Well, ah, no, the shuttle can't really go that high. "Then, what is it, how high, or low, does it go?" Try between 100 to 250 miles high. That is it folks. Most Shuttle flights go up less than 200 miles. Granted, we are speaking straight up height, and that is well above the atmosphere and well into near space orbit (which starts at about 50 miles up), but it is only 1/1000th of the distance to the moon (according to modern calculations). 1/2000th of a round trip to the moon. Most flights do not venture more than 200 miles from the surface of the earth. Chew on that for a while. I mean, think about that. In 1968 we were sending unmanned missions (supposedly) to the moon and back, in 69, to the moon and back with 3 men on board, 250,000 miles up and back. Okay, so the Shuttle can carry 6 to 8 men. But, it only goes up about 200 miles high, then back down. Seriously people. Think about it. Did we really go to the moon 28+ years ago? I mean, the Space Shuttle has been flying now for about 17 years, and is the same old shuttle. In 17 years it hasn't gone any higher than 250 miles up. Come on people. Think. Did we go 250,000 miles up and back 28+ years ago? Lets look at load capacities. The Space Shuttle has a lift off thrust of 6.6 million pounds. I admit, we are talking big time lift off power here. It can take into low earth orbit payloads of up to 40,000 pounds. Now, lets compare that with the Saturn 5 Booster rocket that lifted off the Apollo missions. The Saturn 5 Boosters have a lift off thrust of 7.5 million pounds. But, over all the Saturn 5 was lighter, giving it a higher load carrying capacity to lift off thrust ratio. The total weight of the lunar lander was 100,000 pounds. Saturn 5 could take that 100,000 lb load and lift it into high altitude orbit. The Shuttle can't even reach high altitude orbit at all. But, even more impressive, the Saturn 5 could carry 280,000 pound cargo into low earth orbit! We are talking mammoth. The Saturn Booster 5 was the largest most powerful rocket the US had ever built. It had the largest capacity of any rocket we've ever designed. It was by far the greatest rocket the US ever had... ... or is it???? Saturn 5 Booster (and the F-1 Engines): Fact or Fiction? Here is something to chew on, if the Lunar landings were faked, then did the Saturn Booster 5 rocket ever actually exist or was it too faked? My theory says it was also faked. And, there is one book by Bill Kaysing called "We Never Went To The Moon" (or something like that). He claims to have worked at Rocketdyne during the 50's and 60's. He claims they that they tried to make a rocket that size, but the rockets never worked properly, they exploded or were not controllable. Then he claims NASA took the project away and on their own had a 'working' Saturn 5 in 6 months. We had to 'show' something to make it look like we could really go to the moon, so NASA faked the Saturn 5 Booster rockets. They built a large shell and strapped modified rocket engines on them. The rocket engines were modified to only operate at a fraction of their power so as to keep them from exploding and to keep them controllable. These empty shells were blasted off which made for a good spectacle. It was all part of the 'show'. Lets assume they were faked. That would mean that they were never again used for any purpose. Right, they weren't. (I can't recall if they were said to be used for SkyLab, but, there were real Saturn 5 rockets that could get some payloads up (using less than full bore engines), but, whether they really had all the power NASA said they did? No, I say not.) NASA claims that the Shuttle was better, so we didn't need the Saturn 5 any more. That is what NASA wants the public to believe, but their own data doesn't support that argument. The Saturn 5, by their own data, was a far more powerful launch system. With 280,000 lb low altitude orbit payload capacity it has7 times the cargo carrying capacity of the Shuttle. Seven times greater! How can NASA say the Saturn 5 was no longer needed because they now had the Shuttle? The Saturn 5 could have put 7 Hubble telescopes into orbit in a single launch ! And the shuttle cannot make high altitude trips, but the Saturn could take 100,000 lb loads into high altitude orbit. How can NASA say Saturn 5 was no longer needed? Think about it. It doesn't add up. Yet, if the Saturn booster was not faked, then it wouldn't make sense if we didn't keep a few in inventory for other purposes. Well, you would think so, wouldn't you? Strange, we don't have a single one. Back when Challenger blew up I recall reading an article in the newspaper. When the Shuttle program was going strong it became the space vehicle of choice in America to get large cargo and communication satellites, etc, into orbit. But, when the Shuttle program was grounded, the US and commerce found itself with no vehicle capable of lifting off the cargo, as many satellites had been designed to be carried up by the Shuttle and were too large or heavy for most other rockets. The paper published a list of all rockets in the US arsenal that were available at the time for carrying loads into earth orbit. NASA noted that the most powerful rocket America had, excluding the Shuttle which was grounded, was the Atlas Centaur. The Atlas rocket was designed and developed in the 1950's as an ICBM, with improvements made in the 60's when it was (supposedly) used as the booster rocket for the Gemini project. To lift off Apollo NASA required a rocket with many times the lift capacity, that was the Saturn 5 Booster. Second to the Saturn 5 was the Atlas. So, the US had about 7 Atlas rockets in it's arsenal at the time of the Challenger accident and lead time was, if I recall, 6 months to a year for additional rockets. But, there were no Saturn Boosters. One sharp reporter asked why? NASA's reply, because once they built the Shuttle they no longer needed Saturn. They stopped ordering them and since then the manufactures eventually destroyed their tools and dies. They claimed it would now be too costly and take many years to build another. They claimed they would have the Shuttle up long before they could build another Saturn. Well, I am not convinced. It makes no sense to me. The military has always needed bigger and more powerful rockets. Commerce now needs such high capacity rockets. There was always a need for it. The Shuttle didn't have anywhere near the capacity of the Saturn 5. I just don't believe that we would not have kept a few around. After all, we did keep making the Atlas rockets. They were still considered work-horses and were needed for satellites, etc. Why wouldn't NASA or the military keep at least one of the Big Ones, the Real Big capacity Saturn 5 rockets in inventory? And, why would they stand around while the manufactures destroy their tools and dies? It isn't like NASA wasn't aware that is what happened. Interestingly, NASA still has plans to build a space station, but they now claim they would like to take more heavier pieces up into orbit then the Shuttle can manage. So, NASA called for plans to A), build a higher capacity Shuttle, or B) build a whole new rocket launch vehicle. Some scientists are very perplexed about this and have tried, in vain, to convince NASA to revive the Saturn 5 Booster. They heralded it's (supposed) statistics, pointing out it's proclaimed large carrying capacity. And they heralded it's perfect record of 0 failures (not too hard to do if it were a faked rocket), it had 17 launches, 0 failures. Perfect. They claimed it was not only the biggest and the best, but one of the most reliable. So, they cannot comprehend why NASA doesn't revive it. No, NASA says they would prefer to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and they have given themselves a long deadline, over 6 years, to develop either a larger capacity Shuttle or an all new larger rocket launch system for lifting cargo's up to 100,000 pounds. (That is even a longer time frame than engineers had during the 60's to develop Saturn 5 using know how and technology of the 60's!). NASA says they want 100,000 pound capacity lift into low earth orbit. Hey, the Saturn 5 could (supposedly, if it really ever existed) lift up to 280,000 pounds, over 2.5 times what NASA claims they need right now, into low earth orbit. Some scientists have claimed that we have learned a lot since the 60's. We have developed new materials that could cut the weight of the thrust chamber and make it stronger. We have smaller, faster more powerful computers that can enhance the guidance systems of the rocket, making it even more reliable. And now we have the know-how to make a controllable rocket engine (the F-1 Saturn engines simply were turned on full power, no way to throttle down). They say that with improved technology and know-how they can modify the F-1 Saturn engines dramatically increasing the usability of the rocket. They say that it makes absolutely no sense at all to redesign the wheel. NASA has all the designs locked up, all they need to do is pull the designs out of storage and apply the new technology to them and they could enhance the Saturn 5 to become even more reliable, to increase its already 280,000 pound lift capacity, and do so for far less costs, and in far shorter time frame, then redesigning an all new system. To those scientists, it makes no sense to do it any other way. Is NASA agreeing to their proposal. No. Why? I have not heard their reason why. If you ask me, I will tell you what I think. The Saturn 5 Booster never existed, it was faked along with the whole Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. Otherwise, you tell me why? At least think about this for a while.

Company Details

Maney people would have a real hard time believing or even entertaining the idea that we did not go to the moon. After all, it has been over 30 years since we, supposedly, sent our fist unmanned space missions to the moon. Having been so long, it... more