After all his time on the air, does anyone have a good idea about what his real opinion of the jfk assassination, aliens, etc, is?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote from: EgoFartSnooryBoy on August 12, 2012, 04:30:27 AM
Taken from a thread on GLP
I am an Aerospace Engineer, and I am dubious of NASA as well. They wanted to hire me about 10 years ago (called me out of the blue), but I told them where to go, mainly because I don't buy the moon landings, and think they are dishonest. Most people don't realize it, but almost ALL SCIENTISTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN HIGH-PAID GOVT WELFARE RECIPIENTS. Did a scientist ever do anything for you personally? Would you actually pay one to do something for you? Probably not.
Things I question off the top of my head are:
1. Where is the evidence of this "space crane" technoglogy being tested on Earth? Or do they just make things in a NASA shop, knowing they do perfect work, 1st time, every time? Sorry, but I don't know of any engineers that are so genius that they could make a "space crane", and gamble several BILLION dollars on it, knowing it was 100% functional and fail-safe on a foreign planet without testing because they are such perfect and all-knowing engineers. I can't imagine this being done without long-term testing, bug-fixing, etc. I know how difficult it was just to engineer the "jet pack" for flying a man around for a few minutes, and it wasn't done without years and years of extensive testing and re-development.
2. Do you realize how much FUEL would be required to bring a falling object in a near vaccuum (Martian atmosphere) to a grinding halt, when it's velocity is 10's of 1000's of miles per hour? Do you realize how much FUEL it took to get the thing out of earth orbit and into space travel velocity? Well, it wouldn't take much less to wind back that energy to zero, parachute or not. Even if only 10% of the fuel to get the rocket going, that is still a significant amount of fuel, and from the artist's rendition of the crane I saw, I don't see 10% of the rocket fuel in that thing.
Think of parachutes used in land-speed setting records - they are very tiny, because if they try to slow something down quickly by exerting significant force, they would rip to shreds, regardless of what fancy materials they used. I haven't seen many photos or any videos, but a large parachute would mean very little resistance.
Forgetting the parachute for a moment (because of the lack of Martian atmosphere), think of the rockets required to lower a 3-ton supersized SUV down to earth from space (or to put one into space - almost the same amount of energy, forgetting air resistance). Don't think "airplane", because that is a completely different set of physics and elements. Only think "rocket", like your fireworks.
I don't buy into this at this time. I am not saying it is fake, because I don't have all the necessary data and information on the project, but any engineer that buys into this fully at this point, based on their actual knowledge, would be a complete moron. I also have questions concerning micro-meteorites, which literally flood space, and they would not burn up slamming into Mars, which attracts them and concentrates them from it's gravity. And no, I do not think we went to the moon with men, no way. The Russians sent a dog or something up there, and it came back fried, but I don't want to get into that here.
Nobody should take "insider's word" for it. Satellites and other objects we send into space are either a) in low earth orbit where they are sheltered and protected, or b) they perform for a short time (several days), or c) they have very heavy shields and carry no heavy fuel tanks. Outside of Earth, the environment is extremely hostile. People are overly impressed with silly electronic gadgets as their concept of technology, but real engineering is not so simple as developing the next Ipad, especially engineering things for beyond Earth orbit.