Discussion:
How Life on Mars Will Be Revealed by Curiosity
(too old to reply)
Wretch Fossil
2012-06-15 13:50:31 UTC
Permalink
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C14/C12 in
Martian methane and C13/C12 in carbon dioxide.

Curiosity is capable of detecting precise isotope ratios in Martian
gases with Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS, Ref. 1) in its analytical
laboratory “Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)”. Fossils and meteorites
found on Mars contain carbon compounds (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon
compounds, when irradiated with ultraviolet rays, produce Martian
methane (Ref. 3), which contain C12, C13 and C14. (Note: C12 and C13
are stable carbon isotopes, while C14 is non-stable, radioactive
carbon isotope.) Murchison meteorite has the same composition as
meteorites found on Mars and Murchison meteorite’s ratios of C13/C12
already reveal their microbial origin (Ref. 3).

The isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could
distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin (Ref. 4). That
is how Curiosity is revealing life on Mars.

Ref. 1:
http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2010/08/nearly-all-meteorites-displayed-on-ebay.html
Quote from point 3 in Ref. 2: “Billions of ET mammal fossils
means millions of mammals lived somewhere extraterrestrial. They could
not have lived on a small asteroid of a few kilometers in diameter.
The only possible origin of those mammals was Mars.”
Ref. 3: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 3: “Stable hydrogen
isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from
Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. The stable carbon isotope
composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial microbial
origin; ”
Ref. 4:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 4: “To rule out a biogenic origin for
the methane, a future probe or lander hosting a mass spectrometer will
be needed, as the isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in
methane could distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin.“

Read more at
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_15.html
bob haller
2012-06-15 22:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wretch Fossil
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C14/C12 in
Martian methane and C13/C12 in carbon dioxide.
Curiosity is capable of detecting precise isotope ratios in Martian
gases with Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS, Ref. 1) in its analytical
laboratory “Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)”. Fossils and meteorites
found on Mars contain carbon compounds (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon
compounds, when irradiated with ultraviolet rays, produce Martian
methane (Ref. 3), which contain C12, C13 and C14. (Note: C12 and C13
are stable carbon isotopes, while C14 is non-stable, radioactive
carbon isotope.) Murchison meteorite has the same composition as
meteorites found on Mars and Murchison meteorite’s ratios of C13/C12
already reveal their microbial origin (Ref. 3).
The isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could
distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin (Ref. 4). That
is how Curiosity is revealing life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
      Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2010/08/nearly-all-meteorites-display...
     Quote from point 3 in Ref. 2: “Billions of ET mammal fossils
means millions of mammals lived somewhere extraterrestrial. They could
not have lived on a small asteroid of a few kilometers in diameter.
The only possible origin of those mammals was Mars.”
Ref. 3:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
     Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 3: “Stable hydrogen
isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from
Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. The stable carbon isotope
composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial microbial
origin; ”
Ref. 4:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 4: “To rule out a biogenic origin for
the methane, a future probe or lander hosting a mass spectrometer will
be needed, as the isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in
methane could distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
this assumes the lander actually lands safely. given its rube goldberg
landing arrangement.....
jonathan
2012-06-16 00:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
this assumes the lander actually lands safely. given its rube goldberg
landing arrangement.....
It better make it, I have a feeling it'll be the last
good look at the surface of Mars in a very long time.
Everything else beyond it has been canceled.
Including the ExoMarsTraceGas Orbiter which was
designed to settle the methane debate.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/missions/future/futureMissions/


Has anyone spent any time with the Hirise images? They
fantastic, using the supplied viewer, you can almost
see footprints in the sand, you can see the trails of
3 foot rocks as the roll down hills, every sand dune
and so on. The resolution is amazing and new unseen
pictures come in every day. There's no way anyone
has looked at every inch of these photos as they
come in, just too much data and too good resolution.

To pan and zoom without long downloads just
go here and download the viewer

Viewer
http://www.uahirise.org/hiview/

Then go here

Hirise Home
http://www.uahirise.org/

And find a pic you like from the catalogue.
And at the bottom of the pic cut and past the link
under ...JP2 Download...Grayscale map-projected
into the browser window of the viewer.

You won't believe how much you can magnify the images.
For starters, here's the link to the famous 'face'.
http://www.uahirise.org/PSP_003234_2210


s
bob haller
2012-06-16 11:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathan
Has anyone spent any time with the Hirise images? They
fantastic, using the supplied viewer, you can almost
see footprints in the sand, you can see the trails of
3 foot rocks as the roll down hills, every sand dune
and so on. The resolution is amazing and new unseen
pictures come in every day. There's no way anyone
has looked at every inch of these photos as they
come in, just too much data and too good resolution.
send one of those leftover NRO hubble like telescopes to mmars orbit
and get detailed to dime sized photos of the entire planet...

most of the hardware exists, its time to use it economically.

use the photos to pick landing sites for future rovers!

tae a look at the old vikings to see how they are tolerating long term
storage on mars......
Fred J. McCall
2012-06-16 13:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by jonathan
Has anyone spent any time with the Hirise images? They
fantastic, using the supplied viewer, you can almost
see footprints in the sand, you can see the trails of
3 foot rocks as the roll down hills, every sand dune
and so on. The resolution is amazing and new unseen
pictures come in every day. There's no way anyone
has looked at every inch of these photos as they
come in, just too much data and too good resolution.
send one of those leftover NRO hubble like telescopes to mmars orbit
and get detailed to dime sized photos of the entire planet...
most of the hardware exists, its time to use it economically.
Except most of the hardware does NOT exist.

No way to get the telescope to Mars.

No way to control the thing if it could be gotten there.

No way to get any pictures it took back to Earth if there was some way
to get it there and give it commands.

As usual, Bobbert thinks engineering is magical.
Post by bob haller
use the photos to pick landing sites for future rovers!
Yeah, throw away expensive resources in order to plan toasters.
There's a reason there's no follow-on to current Mars probes, Bobbert.
Does the phrase "No Buck Rogers, no bucks" sound at all familiar to
you?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
bob haller
2012-06-16 19:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
send one of those leftover NRO hubble like telescopes to mmars orbit
and get detailed to dime sized photos of the entire planet...
most of the hardware exists, its time to use it economically.
Except most of the hardware does NOT exist.
No way to get the telescope to Mars.
No way to control the thing if it could be gotten there.
No way to get any pictures it took back to Earth if there was some way
to get it there and give it commands.
As usual, Bobbert thinks engineering is magical.
Post by bob haller
use the photos to pick landing sites for future rovers!
Yeah, throw away expensive resources in order to plan toasters.
There's a reason there's no follow-on to current Mars probes, Bobbert.
Does the phrase "No Buck Rogers, no bucks" sound at all familiar to
you?
--
the needed equiptement design can probably be picked apart from the
telescopes intended user the NRO. They built these birds to spy on the
earth.

So send one to mars and have it spy there....

Send it to mars on a Musk heavy lifter...

Command and control could be worked out, the links dont need to be
highly secure,,,,,, just dependable.

And these birds are like hubble, which had no engines just reaction
wheels. They should work in mars orbit too:)

Launch both telescopes that are currently in storage:) One goes in
earth orbit looking for asteroids

The other goes in mars orbit. looking down at the planet and perhaps
for asteroids too.

Or modify the one to mars with a ion engine. Send it to mars, then on
to other planets for close up photography:)

Fred is mentally stuck in we havent done this, so its impossible:(

Musk proves it is possible:)

No doubt Fred said a private company hauling freight and eventually
people to ISS at 1/10th nasas cost would be totally impossible
Fred J. McCall
2012-06-16 22:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
send one of those leftover NRO hubble like telescopes to mmars orbit
and get detailed to dime sized photos of the entire planet...
most of the hardware exists, its time to use it economically.
Except most of the hardware does NOT exist.
No way to get the telescope to Mars.
No way to control the thing if it could be gotten there.
No way to get any pictures it took back to Earth if there was some way
to get it there and give it commands.
As usual, Bobbert thinks engineering is magical.
Post by bob haller
use the photos to pick landing sites for future rovers!
Yeah, throw away expensive resources in order to plan toasters.
There's a reason there's no follow-on to current Mars probes, Bobbert.
Does the phrase "No Buck Rogers, no bucks" sound at all familiar to
you?
the needed equiptement design can probably be picked apart from the
telescopes intended user the NRO. They built these birds to spy on the
earth.
So send one to mars and have it spy there....
Bobbert, go back and read what's already been said to you.
Post by bob haller
Send it to mars on a Musk heavy lifter...
Can't get it there that way.
Post by bob haller
Command and control could be worked out, the links dont need to be
highly secure,,,,,, just dependable.
Don't exist and can't be 'worked out'.
Post by bob haller
And these birds are like hubble, which had no engines just reaction
wheels. They should work in mars orbit too:)
Wrong. 'These birds' carry reaction fuel.
Post by bob haller
Launch both telescopes that are currently in storage:) One goes in
earth orbit looking for asteroids
Why?
Post by bob haller
The other goes in mars orbit. looking down at the planet and perhaps
for asteroids too.
Can't get it there.
Post by bob haller
Or modify the one to mars with a ion engine. Send it to mars, then on
to other planets for close up photography:)
An ion engine that doesn't exist.
Post by bob haller
Fred is mentally stuck in we havent done this, so its impossible:(
No, Fred is 'stuck' in reality and understands what's necessary to do
the things that Bobbert thinks can be produced merely by wishing hard.
Post by bob haller
Musk proves it is possible:)
Wrong.
Post by bob haller
No doubt Fred said a private company hauling freight and eventually
people to ISS at 1/10th nasas cost would be totally impossible
Oh? I don't suppose you could FIND such a statement by me? No, of
course you couldn't, because I've never made any such statement as you
pretend to above.

And that's the problem with you, Bobbert. You think 'imagineering' is
all it takes and ignore little details like, well, REALITY.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
bob haller
2012-06-17 14:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
No doubt Fred said a private company hauling freight and eventually
people to ISS at 1/10th nasas cost would be totally impossible
Oh?  I don't suppose you could FIND such a statement by me?  No, of
course you couldn't, because I've never made any such statement as you
pretend to above.
your a coward who marks every post to delete itself soon after
posting.

and no communication problem is unsolvable, its just a matter of
money.

the unmanned exploration of mars can be done for a tiny fraction of
the manned cost
Fred J. McCall
2012-06-17 15:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by bob haller
No doubt Fred said a private company hauling freight and eventually
people to ISS at 1/10th nasas cost would be totally impossible
Oh?  I don't suppose you could FIND such a statement by me?  No, of
course you couldn't, because I've never made any such statement as you
pretend to above.
your a coward who marks every post to delete itself soon after
posting.
So the answer to my question is "no", then, and you were just engaging
in your usual lying about anyone who points out that you're a fool.
Post by bob haller
and no communication problem is unsolvable, its just a matter of
money.
No one said "unsolvable". I said "doesn't exist" and so it doesn't.
In other words, not existing kit, which was your original claim.
Post by bob haller
the unmanned exploration of mars can be done for a tiny fraction of
the manned cost
Bull. The only way that statement is true is if you redefine
"exploration" into meaninglessness. You "toasters to space" lot never
learn. When you attack manned space, your own funding gets cut more
because there's no point to it anymore. Why do you think there are no
large follow-on missions to Mars, Bobbert?
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
bob haller
2012-06-18 02:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
Post by bob haller
No doubt Fred said a private company hauling freight and eventually
people to ISS at 1/10th nasas cost would be totally impossible
Oh? I don't suppose you could FIND such a statement by me? No, of
course you couldn't, because I've never made any such statement as you
pretend to above.
your a coward who marks every post to delete itself soon after
posting.
So the answer to my question is "no", then, and you were just engaging
in your usual lying about anyone who points out that you're a fool.
Post by bob haller
and no communication problem is unsolvable, its just a matter of
money.
No one said "unsolvable".  I said "doesn't exist" and so it doesn't.
In other words, not existing kit, which was your original claim.
Post by bob haller
the unmanned exploration of mars can be done for a tiny fraction of
the manned cost
Bull.  The only way that statement is true is if you redefine
"exploration" into meaninglessness.  You "toasters to space" lot never
learn.  When you attack manned space, your own funding gets cut more
because there's no point to it anymore.  Why do you think there are no
large follow-on missions to Mars, Bobbert?
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
 your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
                             -- Mark Twain
fred you always say no to new ideas
Fred J. McCall
2012-06-18 03:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
Post by bob haller
No doubt Fred said a private company hauling freight and eventually
people to ISS at 1/10th nasas cost would be totally impossible
Oh? I don't suppose you could FIND such a statement by me? No, of
course you couldn't, because I've never made any such statement as you
pretend to above.
your a coward who marks every post to delete itself soon after
posting.
So the answer to my question is "no", then, and you were just engaging
in your usual lying about anyone who points out that you're a fool.
Post by bob haller
and no communication problem is unsolvable, its just a matter of
money.
No one said "unsolvable".  I said "doesn't exist" and so it doesn't.
In other words, not existing kit, which was your original claim.
Post by bob haller
the unmanned exploration of mars can be done for a tiny fraction of
the manned cost
Bull.  The only way that statement is true is if you redefine
"exploration" into meaninglessness.  You "toasters to space" lot never
learn.  When you attack manned space, your own funding gets cut more
because there's no point to it anymore.  Why do you think there are no
large follow-on missions to Mars, Bobbert?
fred you always say no to new ideas
No, Bobbert. I always say 'no' to STUPID ideas.

The problem is that almost every idea you put forward is remarkably
stupid....
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
bob haller
2012-06-18 20:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
Post by bob haller
No doubt Fred said a private company hauling freight and eventually
people to ISS at 1/10th nasas cost would be totally impossible
Oh? I don't suppose you could FIND such a statement by me? No, of
course you couldn't, because I've never made any such statement as you
pretend to above.
your a coward who marks every post to delete itself soon after
posting.
So the answer to my question is "no", then, and you were just engaging
in your usual lying about anyone who points out that you're a fool.
Post by bob haller
and no communication problem is unsolvable, its just a matter of
money.
No one said "unsolvable". I said "doesn't exist" and so it doesn't.
In other words, not existing kit, which was your original claim.
Post by bob haller
the unmanned exploration of mars can be done for a tiny fraction of
the manned cost
Bull. The only way that statement is true is if you redefine
"exploration" into meaninglessness. You "toasters to space" lot never
learn. When you attack manned space, your own funding gets cut more
because there's no point to it anymore. Why do you think there are no
large follow-on missions to Mars, Bobbert?
fred you always say no to new ideas
No, Bobbert.  I always say 'no' to STUPID ideas.
The problem is that almost every idea you put forward is remarkably
stupid....
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
 truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                               -- Thomas Jefferson
yeah sure even some like up scaling the air force mini shuttle, you
asked why and got replies its already being built.

you must be a republican, the party of NO....

its their creed unless you are superwealthy
Fred J. McCall
2012-06-19 03:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
Post by bob haller
No doubt Fred said a private company hauling freight and eventually
people to ISS at 1/10th nasas cost would be totally impossible
Oh? I don't suppose you could FIND such a statement by me? No, of
course you couldn't, because I've never made any such statement as you
pretend to above.
your a coward who marks every post to delete itself soon after
posting.
So the answer to my question is "no", then, and you were just engaging
in your usual lying about anyone who points out that you're a fool.
Post by bob haller
and no communication problem is unsolvable, its just a matter of
money.
No one said "unsolvable". I said "doesn't exist" and so it doesn't.
In other words, not existing kit, which was your original claim.
Post by bob haller
the unmanned exploration of mars can be done for a tiny fraction of
the manned cost
Bull. The only way that statement is true is if you redefine
"exploration" into meaninglessness. You "toasters to space" lot never
learn. When you attack manned space, your own funding gets cut more
because there's no point to it anymore. Why do you think there are no
large follow-on missions to Mars, Bobbert?
fred you always say no to new ideas
No, Bobbert.  I always say 'no' to STUPID ideas.
The problem is that almost every idea you put forward is remarkably
stupid....
yeah sure even some like up scaling the air force mini shuttle, you
asked why and got replies its already being built.
Except it's NOT "already being built" and what's been proposed is
STILL half the size you suggested.

I'm sorry you're stupid, Bobbert, but you are and it apparently cannot
be fixed.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Brian Thorn
2012-06-19 15:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
yeah sure even some like up scaling the air force mini shuttle, you
asked why and got replies its already being built.
X-37C is not being built, it is only a proposal Boeing is marketing to
NASA and the Air Force.

The problem for Boeing is that it is already offering a spacecraft
with a crew of seven to NASA (CST-100, which has many competitors
including the reusable DragonRider and the Dream Chaser), and NASA has
already once canceled an X-37-based vehicle (that's how the Air Force
got it) so NASA is going to be a very tough sell. And the Air Force
doesn't have the money for a manned space program, especially one
without an obvious mission, not by a long shot. They like X-37B
because they got it for a song. But they'll have to pay the whole cost
of X-37C, in a period of rapidly declining military budgets. It ain't
going to happen.
Post by bob haller
you must be a republican, the party of NO....
What is the purpose of X-37C? What can it do that DragonRider,
CST-100, Orion, or Dream Chaser cannot? How much will it cost compared
to the cheap DragonRider on Falcon 9 or Dream Chaser/CST-100/New
Shepard on the cheapest variants of the Atlas 5?
Post by bob haller
its their creed unless you are superwealthy
Sometimes "no" is the correct answer. Times are tough. Let's not waste
more money re-inventing a wheel (X-37C) when we have plenty of
alternatives much farther along in the development process, and
offering lower cost to boot (none of them need Falcon Heavy to launch
them, as X-37C most likely will.)

Brian
bob haller
2012-06-20 02:05:09 UTC
Permalink
the great martian ghoul is waiting to eat curosity when it arrives in
orbit.........
Jeff Findley
2012-06-20 18:40:34 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by bob haller
yeah sure even some like up scaling the air force mini shuttle, you
asked why and got replies its already being built.
X-37C is not being built, it is only a proposal Boeing is marketing to
NASA and the Air Force.
The problem for Boeing is that it is already offering a spacecraft
with a crew of seven to NASA (CST-100, which has many competitors
including the reusable DragonRider and the Dream Chaser), and NASA has
already once canceled an X-37-based vehicle (that's how the Air Force
got it) so NASA is going to be a very tough sell. And the Air Force
doesn't have the money for a manned space program, especially one
without an obvious mission, not by a long shot. They like X-37B
because they got it for a song. But they'll have to pay the whole cost
of X-37C, in a period of rapidly declining military budgets. It ain't
going to happen.
Post by bob haller
you must be a republican, the party of NO....
What is the purpose of X-37C? What can it do that DragonRider,
CST-100, Orion, or Dream Chaser cannot? How much will it cost compared
to the cheap DragonRider on Falcon 9 or Dream Chaser/CST-100/New
Shepard on the cheapest variants of the Atlas 5?
Post by bob haller
its their creed unless you are superwealthy
Sometimes "no" is the correct answer. Times are tough. Let's not waste
more money re-inventing a wheel (X-37C) when we have plenty of
alternatives much farther along in the development process, and
offering lower cost to boot (none of them need Falcon Heavy to launch
them, as X-37C most likely will.)
Agreed. It's also important to note that the USAF, or at least some
people in the USAF, have always had a desire to have their own manned
space program. Unfortunately for them, the programs have never been
funded to the point where they actually fly a man in their own
spacecraft (I'm ignoring DOD flights of the space shuttle from KSC).

I'm mostly thinking of programs like X-20, MOL, Blue Gemini, and etc.
MOL got close, but again, budget problems were part of the reason they
were all canceled. The other reason was lack of a credible mission for
a manned spacecraft since unmanned craft were proving how valuable they
could be (e.g. unmanned recon satellites).

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
bob haller
2012-06-21 19:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
@suddenlink.net says...
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by bob haller
yeah sure even some like up scaling the air force mini shuttle, you
asked why and got replies its already being built.
X-37C is not being built, it is only a proposal Boeing is marketing to
NASA and the Air Force.
The problem for Boeing is that it is already offering a spacecraft
with a crew of seven to NASA (CST-100, which has many competitors
including the reusable DragonRider and the Dream Chaser), and NASA has
already once canceled an X-37-based vehicle (that's how the Air Force
got it) so NASA is going to be a very tough sell. And the Air Force
doesn't have the money for a manned space program, especially one
without an obvious mission, not by a long shot. They like X-37B
because they got it for a song. But they'll have to pay the whole cost
of X-37C, in a period of rapidly declining military budgets. It ain't
going to happen.
Post by bob haller
you must be a republican, the party of NO....
What is the purpose of X-37C? What can it do that DragonRider,
CST-100, Orion, or Dream Chaser cannot? How much will it cost compared
to the cheap DragonRider on Falcon 9 or Dream Chaser/CST-100/New
Shepard on the cheapest variants of the Atlas 5?
Post by bob haller
its their creed unless you are superwealthy
Sometimes "no" is the correct answer. Times are tough. Let's not waste
more money re-inventing a wheel (X-37C) when we have plenty of
alternatives much farther along in the development process, and
offering lower cost to boot (none of them need Falcon Heavy to launch
them, as X-37C most likely will.)
Agreed.  It's also important to note that the USAF, or at least some
people in the USAF, have always had a desire to have their own manned
space program.  Unfortunately for them, the programs have never been
funded to the point where they actually fly a man in their own
spacecraft (I'm ignoring DOD flights of the space shuttle from KSC).
I'm mostly thinking of programs like X-20, MOL, Blue Gemini, and etc.
MOL got close, but again, budget problems were part of the reason they
were all canceled.  The other reason was lack of a credible mission for
a manned spacecraft since unmanned craft were proving how valuable they
could be (e.g. unmanned recon satellites).
Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
  up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
   - tinker
black operations mean there may and likely is a manned DOD operations
but its not public knowledge...
Brian Thorn
2012-06-21 22:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
black operations mean there may and likely is a manned DOD operations
but its not public knowledge...
Nah. Real life doesn't much resemble Hollywood depictions of military
space. Manned space is much too expensive and far too difficult to
conceal. There are lots of amateurs watching spy satellites, and they
would probably have noticed if something like X-37B (masquerading as a
spy satellite) vanished without a trace (because it landed at Area 51
or wherever.)

That said, if commercial manned space takes off as its proponents hope
it does, that could bring military manned space within the realm of
possibility.


Brian
Fred J. McCall
2012-06-22 04:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
black operations mean there may and likely is a manned DOD operations
but its not public knowledge...
Don't be an idiot! Space launches are big, obvious sorts of things
and stuff not coming back down means there is no such thing.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
G=EMC^2
2012-06-22 13:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
black operations mean there may and likely is a manned DOD operations
but its not public knowledge...
Don't be an idiot!  Space launches are big, obvious sorts of things
and stuff not coming back down means there is no such thing.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
 only stupid."
                            -- Heinrich Heine
Mars never had a molecule that was organic PERIOD TreBert
Orval Fairbairn
2012-06-22 17:02:34 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by G=EMC^2
Post by bob haller
black operations mean there may and likely is a manned DOD operations
but its not public knowledge...
Don't be an idiot!  Space launches are big, obvious sorts of things
and stuff not coming back down means there is no such thing.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
 only stupid."
                            -- Heinrich Heine
Mars never had a molecule that was organic PERIOD TreBert
"Organic" means "carbon-containing molecules," not "produced by life
forms." Carbon compounds exist in abundance in the universe.
Jeff Findley
2012-06-25 12:47:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <f00425cf-6b95-4aa2-89e8-af9c391cf030
@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
Post by bob haller
Post by Jeff Findley
Agreed.  It's also important to note that the USAF, or at least some
people in the USAF, have always had a desire to have their own manned
space program.  Unfortunately for them, the programs have never been
funded to the point where they actually fly a man in their own
spacecraft (I'm ignoring DOD flights of the space shuttle from KSC).
I'm mostly thinking of programs like X-20, MOL, Blue Gemini, and etc.
MOL got close, but again, budget problems were part of the reason they
were all canceled.  The other reason was lack of a credible mission for
a manned spacecraft since unmanned craft were proving how valuable they
could be (e.g. unmanned recon satellites).
black operations mean there may and likely is a manned DOD operations
but its not public knowledge...
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.

Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
Greg (Strider) Moore
2012-06-27 13:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.
Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.
I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch phase or the
re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible. This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego. And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.

Just not practical or at all likely.
Post by Jeff Findley
Jeff
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
bob haller
2012-06-27 16:35:09 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 27, 9:03 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch.  It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar).  It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.
Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.
I have wondered about this.  What's harder to hide?  The launch phase or the
re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible.  This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego.  And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.
Just not practical or at all likely.
Jeff
--
Greg D. Moore                  http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net
a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft, and
return to a air strip somewhere
Jeff Findley
2012-06-27 17:58:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <e526812d-cc61-486b-9839-ef614f7990a5
@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
Post by bob haller
On Jun 27, 9:03 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch.  It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar).  It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.
Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.
I have wondered about this.  What's harder to hide?  The launch phase or the
re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible.  This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego.  And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.
Just not practical or at all likely.
a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft, and
return to a air strip somewhere
That's not the point Bob. The point is that launch vehicles have really
*hot* exhaust which is easily detected by satellites watching for ICBM
launches. On reentry, the reentry vehicle similarly generates a lot of
heat (think glowing heat shield and big plasma sheath), also easily
visible in IR.

Launching your rocket from a plane (ala Pegasus) does nothing to hide
the IR from the rocket engine. Similarly, reentry in a seemingly remote
location is difficult considering how *long* a spacecraft's reentry
track can be.

Plus there are radar and optical techniques for spotting and tracking
satellites in orbit. The fact that the news media reports on spy
satellite launches and that amateurs routinely track them once in orbit
says a lot.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
Fred J. McCall
2012-06-29 05:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
On Jun 27, 9:03 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch.  It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar).  It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.
Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.
I have wondered about this.  What's harder to hide?  The launch phase or the
re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible.  This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego.  And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.
Just not practical or at all likely.
Jeff
a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft,
Not if it was going to actually go into space, unless it is a VERY
mini space plane.
Post by bob haller
and return to a air strip somewhere
It still has to boost up and reenter down. That stuff is pretty
obvious, what with the bright lights and such.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
bob haller
2012-06-30 13:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
On Jun 27, 9:03 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch.  It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar).  It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.
Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.
I have wondered about this.  What's harder to hide?  The launch phase or the
re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible.  This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego.  And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.
Just not practical or at all likely.
Jeff
a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft,
Not if it was going to actually go into space, unless it is a VERY
mini space plane.
Post by bob haller
and return to a air strip somewhere
It still has to boost up and reenter down.  That stuff is pretty
obvious, what with the bright lights and such.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn
sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....

air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..

military probably has a way to mask a incoming something. stealth
aircraft are common knowledge
Fred J. McCall
2012-06-30 15:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
On Jun 27, 9:03 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch.  It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar).  It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.
Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.
I have wondered about this.  What's harder to hide?  The launch phase or the
re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible.  This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego.  And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.
Just not practical or at all likely.
Jeff
a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft,
Not if it was going to actually go into space, unless it is a VERY
mini space plane.
Post by bob haller
and return to a air strip somewhere
It still has to boost up and reenter down.  That stuff is pretty
obvious, what with the bright lights and such.
sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....
Utter bullshit. However, even if it was true, you still have all the
bright lights going up and coming down.
Post by bob haller
air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..
And then it becomes a really fucking bright flame that triggers every
bird looking down with something like IONDS. You can't do 'secret
launches'.
Post by bob haller
military probably has a way to mask a incoming something.
Utter poppycock! Learn some physics, you ignorant twat.
Post by bob haller
stealth aircraft are common knowledge
Yeah, and stealth aircraft don't fly at Mach 15+ and leave a fucking
huge bright streak from their plasma sheath across hundreds or
thousands of miles of sky.

Again, learn some physics.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Brian Thorn
2012-07-01 16:16:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:39:50 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
On Jun 27, 9:03 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch.  It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar).  It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.
Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.
I have wondered about this.  What's harder to hide?  The launch phase or the
re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible.  This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego.  And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.
Just not practical or at all likely.
Jeff
a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft,
Not if it was going to actually go into space, unless it is a VERY
mini space plane.
Post by bob haller
and return to a air strip somewhere
It still has to boost up and reenter down.  That stuff is pretty
obvious, what with the bright lights and such.
sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....
Utter bullshit.
Well, not entirely. There are reports of some efforts to make
satellites hard to spot, both from "inside sources say..." and from
amateur observers. I think the satellite launched by STS-28 Columbia
was said to be such a design.

However, it is very rare.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..
And then it becomes a really fucking bright flame that triggers every
bird looking down with something like IONDS. You can't do 'secret
launches'.
Post by bob haller
military probably has a way to mask a incoming something.
Utter poppycock! Learn some physics, you ignorant twat.
Post by bob haller
stealth aircraft are common knowledge
Yeah, and stealth aircraft don't fly at Mach 15+ and leave a fucking
huge bright streak from their plasma sheath across hundreds or
thousands of miles of sky.
Again, learn some physics.
Well, I think Bob is way off base with his "secret manned space
program" nonsense, because it is just too expensive for whatever value
it could conceivably offer. But we need to be careful in dismissing it
outright. We still don't know what was causing all those Shuttle-like
sonic booms heard in Southern California in the 1990s, remember. At
the time, "Aurora" was all the rage, but it now seems pretty clear
Aurora was just a code name for B-2 funding. But if the "Aurora" SR-71
successor wasn't behind all those odd sightings and sonic booms, what
was?

And then there is Aviation Week's cover story about "Blackstar".

So Bob's daydreams of secret military astronauts is probably way off
in science fiction territory, but saying "you can't hide a launch"
is going a bit too far. You probably *could* hide both a launch and a
re-entry, at least from the public (and there's no guarantee Russia or
China would report it publicly, they may not want us to know that they
know). A Pegasus-like launch from Kwajalein could be conducted with
hardly anyone in the public knowing about it. Kodiak Island wouldn't
be much harder to conceal. A re-entry coming up over the south and
central Pacifc and crossing the California coast at high altitude to
land at Creech AFB would not be easily noticed by the public,
especially in the middle of the night (the visible plasma trail ends
hundreds of miles offshore.) It would probably make a noise, like a
sonic boom, but... oh wait, there WERE lots of unexplained sonic
booms... But a launch of something big enough to carry crews? No, that
would be too much to conceal for long.

Brian
Greg (Strider) Moore
2012-07-02 19:52:12 UTC
Permalink
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
Basically, "Could it be done?"

Possibly. With existing tech and like I said over the Pacific, and knowing
when the Russians are looking, etc.

BUT, the operational constraints are HUGE and large enough it may not make
it worth it.

They're large enough that I would safely bet that it's impossible to do
routinely.

Can it be done once in a great while, possibly. But highly doubtful. Done
more than once in a great while, not a chance.
Post by Brian Thorn
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:39:50 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
On Jun 27, 9:03 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
Post by Jeff Findley
It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.
Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.
I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch phase or the
re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible. This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego. And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.
Just not practical or at all likely.
Post by Jeff Findley
Jeff
a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft,
Not if it was going to actually go into space, unless it is a VERY
mini space plane.
and return to a air strip somewhere
It still has to boost up and reenter down. That stuff is pretty
obvious, what with the bright lights and such.
sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....
Utter bullshit.
Well, not entirely. There are reports of some efforts to make
satellites hard to spot, both from "inside sources say..." and from
amateur observers. I think the satellite launched by STS-28 Columbia
was said to be such a design.
However, it is very rare.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..
And then it becomes a really fucking bright flame that triggers every
bird looking down with something like IONDS. You can't do 'secret
launches'.
Post by bob haller
military probably has a way to mask a incoming something.
Utter poppycock! Learn some physics, you ignorant twat.
Post by bob haller
stealth aircraft are common knowledge
Yeah, and stealth aircraft don't fly at Mach 15+ and leave a fucking
huge bright streak from their plasma sheath across hundreds or
thousands of miles of sky.
Again, learn some physics.
Well, I think Bob is way off base with his "secret manned space
program" nonsense, because it is just too expensive for whatever value
it could conceivably offer. But we need to be careful in dismissing it
outright. We still don't know what was causing all those Shuttle-like
sonic booms heard in Southern California in the 1990s, remember. At
the time, "Aurora" was all the rage, but it now seems pretty clear
Aurora was just a code name for B-2 funding. But if the "Aurora" SR-71
successor wasn't behind all those odd sightings and sonic booms, what
was?
And then there is Aviation Week's cover story about "Blackstar".
So Bob's daydreams of secret military astronauts is probably way off
in science fiction territory, but saying "you can't hide a launch"
is going a bit too far. You probably *could* hide both a launch and a
re-entry, at least from the public (and there's no guarantee Russia or
China would report it publicly, they may not want us to know that they
know). A Pegasus-like launch from Kwajalein could be conducted with
hardly anyone in the public knowing about it. Kodiak Island wouldn't
be much harder to conceal. A re-entry coming up over the south and
central Pacifc and crossing the California coast at high altitude to
land at Creech AFB would not be easily noticed by the public,
especially in the middle of the night (the visible plasma trail ends
hundreds of miles offshore.) It would probably make a noise, like a
sonic boom, but... oh wait, there WERE lots of unexplained sonic
booms... But a launch of something big enough to carry crews? No, that
would be too much to conceal for long.
Brian
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Jeff Findley
2012-07-01 15:42:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <cacf834d-c709-4a26-b1ee-
Post by bob haller
sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....
B.S. Solar arrays reflect sunlight and are fairly easy to detect.
Post by bob haller
air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..
Except when the extremely hot and bright rocket engine fires. How else
do you propose a vehicle get to orbit after being dropped from an
aircraft?
Post by bob haller
military probably has a way to mask a incoming something. stealth
aircraft are common knowledge
Reentry creates more heat, plasma, and a huge trail of ionized gasses.
You can't hide that.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
Brian Thorn
2012-07-01 16:24:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:42:13 -0400, Jeff Findley
Post by Jeff Findley
In article <cacf834d-c709-4a26-b1ee-
Post by bob haller
sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....
B.S. Solar arrays reflect sunlight and are fairly easy to detect.
Just playing devil's (Bob's) advocate...

RTGs or even nuclear are not unprecedented, if the military had
sufficient reason.
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by bob haller
air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..
Except when the extremely hot and bright rocket engine fires. How else
do you propose a vehicle get to orbit after being dropped from an
aircraft?
A Pegasus staging area 500 miles offshore in the middle of the night?
Drug runners and drunk cruise passengers would be the only witnesses,
assuming they launched on a clear night.
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by bob haller
military probably has a way to mask a incoming something. stealth
aircraft are common knowledge
Reentry creates more heat, plasma, and a huge trail of ionized gasses.
You can't hide that.
That would end several hundred miles from the landing site. I know, I
watched several Shuttle nighttime re-entries. My family was all
outside in Florida at o-dark-early hoping to see the Atlantis make the
last Shuttle landing a year ago. Clear sky, still couldn't see a
damned thing. So a California landing, or even Guam or Diego Garcia
would not necessarily be noticed. They'd have to haul it back in some
weirdly modified C-5 or something. What's that you say, there IS a
weirdly modified C-5? Hmm....

Brian
Jeff Findley
2012-07-02 13:06:31 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...
Post by Brian Thorn
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:42:13 -0400, Jeff Findley
Post by Jeff Findley
In article <cacf834d-c709-4a26-b1ee-
Post by bob haller
sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....
B.S. Solar arrays reflect sunlight and are fairly easy to detect.
Just playing devil's (Bob's) advocate...
RTGs or even nuclear are not unprecedented, if the military had
sufficient reason.
Possibly, but you'd also have to hide the big radiators needed to get
rid if waste heat from the RTG's or nuclear reactor. The more power
such a sat would require would mean larger and larger radiators. The
bigger such a thing gets, the easier it would be to spot.

Also, it would also have to be "stealthy" against radar. The US isn't
the only country who tracks "space debris". When your tracked "space
debris" starts defying orbital mechanics, you've found something "very
interesting".

Don't forget you run into scaling problems. A satellite that's useful
isn't going to be tiny. An optical satellite big enough to produce
useful intelligence information isn't going to be tiny. Even passive
listening satellites are huge (big fracking antennas to collect faint
signals).

What *useful* purpose would a tiny, assumed stealthy, satellite serve?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by bob haller
air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..
Except when the extremely hot and bright rocket engine fires. How else
do you propose a vehicle get to orbit after being dropped from an
aircraft?
A Pegasus staging area 500 miles offshore in the middle of the night?
Drug runners and drunk cruise passengers would be the only witnesses,
assuming they launched on a clear night.
There are lots of ships on the ocean. It's going to be hard to hide a
big rocket trail. Add to that the satellites looking for ICBM launches.
Those satellites will pick up a satellite launch just as easily as they
will pick up an ICBM launch.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by bob haller
military probably has a way to mask a incoming something. stealth
aircraft are common knowledge
Reentry creates more heat, plasma, and a huge trail of ionized gasses.
You can't hide that.
That would end several hundred miles from the landing site. I know, I
watched several Shuttle nighttime re-entries. My family was all
outside in Florida at o-dark-early hoping to see the Atlantis make the
last Shuttle landing a year ago. Clear sky, still couldn't see a
damned thing. So a California landing, or even Guam or Diego Garcia
would not necessarily be noticed. They'd have to haul it back in some
weirdly modified C-5 or something. What's that you say, there IS a
weirdly modified C-5? Hmm....
See my comments above for launches.

Do you conspiracy theorists really think that Russia, China, and etc.
would keep quiet about a secret US space program? The US certainly
isn't quiet about Russia's "secret" satellites. They routinely publish
the orbital elements for what we presume to be Russian spy satellites.
Amateurs routinely track them as well, just for fun. It's really not
all that hard to do.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
Brian Thorn
2012-07-02 23:02:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:06:31 -0400, Jeff Findley
Post by Jeff Findley
Possibly, but you'd also have to hide the big radiators needed to get
rid if waste heat from the RTG's or nuclear reactor. The more power
such a sat would require would mean larger and larger radiators. The
bigger such a thing gets, the easier it would be to spot.
Last I checked, Galileo, Cassini, and New Horizons don't have honkin'
big radiators. If they're good enough to take photos of Pluto from
thousands of miles away, they should be sufficient to take photos of
Earth from 125 miles up.
Post by Jeff Findley
Also, it would also have to be "stealthy" against radar.
The public doesn't have radar.
Post by Jeff Findley
The US isn't the only country who tracks "space debris".
But our allies with the capability (not many) could quite easily be
asked to keep quiet about it. Our adversaries, as I say they may not
want us to know that they know.
Post by Jeff Findley
Don't forget you run into scaling problems. A satellite that's useful
isn't going to be tiny.
Not even remotely true.
Post by Jeff Findley
An optical satellite big enough to produce
useful intelligence information isn't going to be tiny. Even passive
listening satellites are huge (big fracking antennas to collect faint
signals).
What *useful* purpose would a tiny, assumed stealthy, satellite serve?
Orbview wasn't exactly huge. It went up on Pegasus XL. Ikonos wasn't
much bigger (Athena-launched.)
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Brian Thorn
A Pegasus staging area 500 miles offshore in the middle of the night?
Drug runners and drunk cruise passengers would be the only witnesses,
assuming they launched on a clear night.
There are lots of ships on the ocean.
Really big ocean, not really all that many ships, and most of them are
on predictable trade routes. Look how long it took ships to get to
where Air France 447 was last seen. Or how hard it is for the U.S. to
protect ships off the Somali coast. And a Pegasus staging area could
easily be selected for its distance from shipping lanes.
Post by Jeff Findley
It's going to be hard to hide a
big rocket trail.
Big rocket trails aren't a given. Look at last week's Delta IV-Heavy,
which created only a brief trail. Even Falcon 9 with RP-1 propellant
didn't generate a big trail in May. The only really smoky trails are
from solids.

And of course, they could simply launch on cloudy days/nights. Of the
last three launches I witnessed (LRO on an Atlas 5, STS-135, and the
Delta IV a week later, the only one I saw for more than about five
seconds was the Delta. The other two vanished into clouds instantly.
Post by Jeff Findley
Do you conspiracy theorists
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. And
considering that Blackstar and the peculiar C-5 were reported by the
prestigious Aviation Week, I'm not exactly way out in left field with
my counterpoints.

Just wondering... what is YOUR theory for the weird sonic booms
recorded by USGS seismographs in Southern California in the mid 1990s,
the booms that looked exactly like Shuttle re-entries on a similar
flight path, even though no Shuttle was in flight?
Post by Jeff Findley
really think that Russia, China, and etc.
would keep quiet about a secret US space program?
If it was in their best interest, certainly. Why do you automatically
assume they'd needlessly reveal the capability of their surveillance
networks? What exactly would they reveal, "the U.S. launched a secret
satellite?" Okay, prove it. They wouldn't do that because they'd have
to show everyone how good their data is.
Post by Jeff Findley
The US certainly
isn't quiet about Russia's "secret" satellites. They routinely publish
the orbital elements for what we presume to be Russian spy satellites.
But Russia and China do not do so for anyone else's satellites, so
that point is moot.
Post by Jeff Findley
Amateurs routinely track them as well, just for fun. It's really not
all that hard to do.
It was actually pretty hard tracking the X-37B on both flights. It was
gone for days at a time.

Brian
Fred J. McCall
2012-07-03 04:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:06:31 -0400, Jeff Findley
Post by Jeff Findley
Possibly, but you'd also have to hide the big radiators needed to get
rid if waste heat from the RTG's or nuclear reactor. The more power
such a sat would require would mean larger and larger radiators. The
bigger such a thing gets, the easier it would be to spot.
Last I checked, Galileo, Cassini, and New Horizons don't have honkin'
big radiators.
They're also so far out that the Sun is just another star. Oh, and
they DO have radiators.
Post by Brian Thorn
If they're good enough to take photos of Pluto from
thousands of miles away, they should be sufficient to take photos of
Earth from 125 miles up.
If you don't want to see anything in particular, sure they're 'good
enough'.

One more time, RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY LENS.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Also, it would also have to be "stealthy" against radar.
The public doesn't have radar.
But lots of other folks do. Who do you think the 'secret' is trying
to be kept from?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
The US isn't the only country who tracks "space debris".
But our allies with the capability (not many) could quite easily be
asked to keep quiet about it. Our adversaries, as I say they may not
want us to know that they know.
Silly idea. Again, just who do you think the 'secret' is being kept
from?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Don't forget you run into scaling problems. A satellite that's useful
isn't going to be tiny.
Not even remotely true.
Oh? Just what 'useful mission' do you think you can squeeze into a
one cubic foot satellite?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
An optical satellite big enough to produce
useful intelligence information isn't going to be tiny. Even passive
listening satellites are huge (big fracking antennas to collect faint
signals).
What *useful* purpose would a tiny, assumed stealthy, satellite serve?
Orbview wasn't exactly huge. It went up on Pegasus XL. Ikonos wasn't
much bigger (Athena-launched.)
You might want to actually look at the physical size of those birds.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Brian Thorn
A Pegasus staging area 500 miles offshore in the middle of the night?
Drug runners and drunk cruise passengers would be the only witnesses,
assuming they launched on a clear night.
There are lots of ships on the ocean.
Really big ocean, not really all that many ships, and most of them are
on predictable trade routes. Look how long it took ships to get to
where Air France 447 was last seen. Or how hard it is for the U.S. to
protect ships off the Somali coast. And a Pegasus staging area could
easily be selected for its distance from shipping lanes.
None of that is the same thing. Look at the ground view footprint for
something going up into space.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
It's going to be hard to hide a
big rocket trail.
Big rocket trails aren't a given. Look at last week's Delta IV-Heavy,
which created only a brief trail. Even Falcon 9 with RP-1 propellant
didn't generate a big trail in May. The only really smoky trails are
from solids.
A 'brief trail' that was how long and visible from how many thousand
square miles?
Post by Brian Thorn
And of course, they could simply launch on cloudy days/nights. Of the
last three launches I witnessed (LRO on an Atlas 5, STS-135, and the
Delta IV a week later, the only one I saw for more than about five
seconds was the Delta. The other two vanished into clouds instantly.
And folks standing somewhere else? How big and thick a cloud deck do
you need?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Do you conspiracy theorists
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. And
considering that Blackstar and the peculiar C-5 were reported by the
prestigious Aviation Week, I'm not exactly way out in left field with
my counterpoints.
ANY evidence for 'Blackstar'? AvLeak is just a magazine, after all.
Post by Brian Thorn
Just wondering... what is YOUR theory for the weird sonic booms
recorded by USGS seismographs in Southern California in the mid 1990s,
the booms that looked exactly like Shuttle re-entries on a similar
flight path, even though no Shuttle was in flight?
There were no such sonic booms. There WERE sonic booms that looked
like they came from a vehicle much smaller than a Shuttle doing Mach 5
at 90,000 feet.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
really think that Russia, China, and etc.
would keep quiet about a secret US space program?
If it was in their best interest, certainly. Why do you automatically
assume they'd needlessly reveal the capability of their surveillance
networks? What exactly would they reveal, "the U.S. launched a secret
satellite?" Okay, prove it. They wouldn't do that because they'd have
to show everyone how good their data is.
Who do you assume we'd be trying to keep a 'secret space program'
secret FROM?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
The US certainly
isn't quiet about Russia's "secret" satellites. They routinely publish
the orbital elements for what we presume to be Russian spy satellites.
But Russia and China do not do so for anyone else's satellites, so
that point is moot.
Again, just who do you think we'd be trying to keep a 'secret space
program' a secret FROM?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Amateurs routinely track them as well, just for fun. It's really not
all that hard to do.
It was actually pretty hard tracking the X-37B on both flights. It was
gone for days at a time.
Was it? The Russians couldn't find it?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
bob haller
2012-07-03 09:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:06:31 -0400, Jeff Findley
Post by Jeff Findley
Possibly, but you'd also have to hide the big radiators needed to get
rid if waste heat from the RTG's or nuclear reactor.  The more power
such a sat would require would mean larger and larger radiators.  The
bigger such a thing gets, the easier it would be to spot.
Last I checked, Galileo, Cassini, and New Horizons don't have honkin'
big radiators.
They're also so far out that the Sun is just another star.  Oh, and
they DO have radiators.
Post by Brian Thorn
If they're good enough to take photos of Pluto from
thousands of miles away, they should be sufficient to take photos of
Earth from 125 miles up.
If you don't want to see anything in particular, sure they're 'good
enough'.
One more time, RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY LENS.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Also, it would also have to be "stealthy" against radar.
The public doesn't have radar.
But lots of other folks do.  Who do you think the 'secret' is trying
to be kept from?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
The US isn't the only country who tracks "space debris".
But our allies with the capability (not many) could quite easily be
asked to keep quiet about it. Our adversaries, as I say they may not
want us to know that they know.
Silly idea.  Again, just who do you think the 'secret' is being kept
from?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Don't forget you run into scaling problems.  A satellite that's useful
isn't going to be tiny.
Not even remotely true.
Oh?  Just what 'useful mission' do you think you can squeeze into a
one cubic foot satellite?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
An optical satellite big enough to produce
useful intelligence information isn't going to be tiny.  Even passive
listening satellites are huge (big fracking antennas to collect faint
signals).
What *useful* purpose would a tiny, assumed stealthy, satellite serve?
Orbview wasn't exactly huge. It went up on Pegasus XL. Ikonos wasn't
much bigger (Athena-launched.)
You might want to actually look at the physical size of those birds.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Brian Thorn
A Pegasus staging area 500 miles offshore in the middle of the night?
Drug runners and drunk cruise passengers would be the only witnesses,
assuming they launched on a clear night.
There are lots of ships on the ocean.
Really big ocean, not really all that many ships, and most of them are
on predictable trade routes. Look how long it took ships to get to
where Air France 447 was last seen. Or how hard it is for the U.S. to
protect ships off the Somali coast. And a Pegasus staging area could
easily be selected for its distance from shipping lanes.
None of that is the same thing.  Look at the ground view footprint for
something going up into space.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
It's going to be hard to hide a
big rocket trail.
Big rocket trails aren't a given. Look at last week's Delta IV-Heavy,
which created only a brief trail. Even Falcon 9 with RP-1 propellant
didn't generate a big trail in May. The only really smoky trails are
from solids.
A 'brief trail' that was how long and visible from how many thousand
square miles?
Post by Brian Thorn
And of course, they could simply launch on cloudy days/nights. Of the
last three launches I witnessed (LRO on an Atlas 5, STS-135, and the
Delta IV a week later, the only one I saw for more than about five
seconds was the Delta. The other two vanished into clouds instantly.
And folks standing somewhere else?  How big and thick a cloud deck do
you need?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Do you conspiracy theorists
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. And
considering that Blackstar and the peculiar C-5 were reported by the
prestigious Aviation Week, I'm not exactly way out in left field with
my counterpoints.
ANY evidence for 'Blackstar'?  AvLeak is just a magazine, after all.
Post by Brian Thorn
Just wondering... what is YOUR theory for the weird sonic booms
recorded by USGS seismographs in Southern California in the mid 1990s,
the booms that looked exactly like Shuttle re-entries on a similar
flight path, even though no Shuttle was in flight?
There were no such sonic booms.  There WERE sonic booms that looked
like they came from a vehicle much smaller than a Shuttle doing Mach 5
at 90,000 feet.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
really think that Russia, China, and etc.
would keep quiet about a secret US space program?
If it was in their best interest, certainly. Why do you automatically
assume they'd needlessly reveal the capability of their surveillance
networks? What exactly would they reveal, "the U.S. launched a secret
satellite?" Okay, prove it. They wouldn't do that because they'd have
to show everyone how good their data is.
Who do you assume we'd be trying to keep a 'secret space program'
secret FROM?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
The US certainly
isn't quiet about Russia's "secret" satellites.  They routinely publish
the orbital elements for what we presume to be Russian spy satellites.
But Russia and China do not do so for anyone else's satellites, so
that point is moot.
Again, just who do you think we'd be trying to keep a 'secret space
program' a secret FROM?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Amateurs routinely track them as well, just for fun.  It's really not
all that hard to do.
It was actually pretty hard tracking the X-37B on both flights. It was
gone for days at a time.
Was it?  The Russians couldn't find it?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn
perhaps fred gets paid to produce loony messages, and make anyone who
disagrees with him appear stupid for a reason.

he might work for NRO as a disinformation poster. blur info here and
make poster who happen on fact to look dumb.......

so real secrets arent revealed........
Fred J. McCall
2012-07-03 12:17:31 UTC
Permalink
And so we see once again just what sort of loon Bobbert really is...
Post by bob haller
perhaps fred gets paid to produce loony messages, and make anyone who
disagrees with him appear stupid for a reason.
Perhaps people who disagree with me look stupid because they are? That
would certainly be a reason....
Post by bob haller
he might work for NRO as a disinformation poster. blur info here and
make poster who happen on fact to look dumb.......
Or perhaps it's that so many who disagree with me (like Bobbert)
happen to actually BE dumb?
Post by bob haller
so real secrets arent revealed........
Poor Bobbert thinks Usenet is actually important enough that the NRO
would assign disinformation agents to it? REALLY??

Poor Bobbert thinks the NRO somehow has its own laws of physics, that
they're concerned that someone might 'discover' and 'reveal'?
REALLY????

Paranoid loon, anyone?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Uncle Steve
2012-07-03 10:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
And so we see once again just what sort of loon Bobbert really is...
Post by bob haller
perhaps fred gets paid to produce loony messages, and make anyone who
disagrees with him appear stupid for a reason.
Perhaps people who disagree with me look stupid because they are? That
would certainly be a reason....
Post by bob haller
he might work for NRO as a disinformation poster. blur info here and
make poster who happen on fact to look dumb.......
Or perhaps it's that so many who disagree with me (like Bobbert)
happen to actually BE dumb?
Post by bob haller
so real secrets arent revealed........
Poor Bobbert thinks Usenet is actually important enough that the NRO
would assign disinformation agents to it? REALLY??
Poor Bobbert thinks the NRO somehow has its own laws of physics, that
they're concerned that someone might 'discover' and 'reveal'?
REALLY????
Paranoid loon, anyone?
You haven't seen a paranoid loon until you've seen uneducated nuckle-
draggers criticizing the use of (-1) as a designated null-pointer in
computer code. You see, (-1) is too much of a reminder of mortality
for some folk. In particular, believers who not only delude
themselves with thoughts of an afterlife, but who also habituated to
interpret natural phenomenon and their environment as being somehow a
single great whole signifying and revealing God's hand in terrestrial
affairs.

I realize that religion is primarily intended to allow the masses to
be dumbed down and controlled, but I submit to your consideration the
idea that these morons have gone too far with their mass idiocy.
Mysticism in particular is an acute menace.

As to the NRO, I note you don't ask for the chain of reasoning that
would support the contention above. You just act as though the idea
of government spying on its own citizens as meaningless, and then offer
up a bullshit straw-man on physics by way of explanation.

Fred, I'm fascinated by the psychiatric implications of what you say
and how you say it. Please continue to post so those of us who are
interested may continue to observe and learn.


Regards,

Uncle Steve
--
The moon has never been closer.
Fred J. McCall
2012-07-03 14:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Steve
You haven't seen a paranoid loon until you've seen uneducated nuckle-
draggers criticizing the use of (-1) as a designated null-pointer in
computer code. You see, (-1) is too much of a reminder of mortality
for some folk.
No, it's just that using (-1) is WRONG.
Post by Uncle Steve
As to the NRO, I note you don't ask for the chain of reasoning that
would support the contention above. You just act as though the idea
of government spying on its own citizens as meaningless, and then offer
up a bullshit straw-man on physics by way of explanation.
Not at all. I just act as if Usenet isn't important enough for
disinformation agents to bother with. That's because it isn't.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Brian Thorn
2012-07-03 15:49:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:48:41 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Last I checked, Galileo, Cassini, and New Horizons don't have honkin'
big radiators.
Galileo and Cassini both went past Venus before going out to deep
space.
Post by Fred J. McCall
They're also so far out that the Sun is just another star. Oh, and
they DO have radiators.
Not the big shiny easy-to-see radiators Jeff was alluding to.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
If they're good enough to take photos of Pluto from
thousands of miles away, they should be sufficient to take photos of
Earth from 125 miles up.
If you don't want to see anything in particular, sure they're 'good
enough'.
Pegasus is 4 feet in diameter. That could provide a mirror about 40
inches in diameter with room to spare for casing and payload fairing.
That's plenty large enough to do some serious observation. Not KH-11
class of course, but it isn't obvious all photorecon needs to be that
capable. FIA was heading toward smaller satellites, remember, before
it was so mismanaged it was killed off.
Post by Fred J. McCall
One more time, RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY LENS.
A 40-inch mirror is substantial.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
The public doesn't have radar.
But lots of other folks do.
Not as extensive as you suggest. Air France Flight 440 vanished
without a trace because it was beyond radar coverage in the middle of
the Atlantic.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you think the 'secret' is trying
to be kept from?
The same people they're keeping the nature of X-37B or the recent NROL
launches from? If the Russians and Chinese know all about what NRO is
launching, why does NRO still keep it secret? From whom?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Silly idea. Again, just who do you think the 'secret' is being kept
from?
Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/North Korea are good candidates.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh? Just what 'useful mission' do you think you can squeeze into a
one cubic foot satellite?
Pegasus is publicly known to have a 4 ft x 7 ft. payload
accommodation. Hardly "one cubic foot". And Pegasus is known to have
launched Earth observation satellites.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Orbview wasn't exactly huge. It went up on Pegasus XL. Ikonos wasn't
much bigger (Athena-launched.)
You might want to actually look at the physical size of those birds.
The results speak for themselves. Google Orbview and SeaWIFS under
Google Pictures and see for yourself. Tell me that NRO wouldn't find
that useful. And NRO's hypothetical birds could be in lower,
shorter-lived orbits getting closer views.
Post by Fred J. McCall
None of that is the same thing. Look at the ground view footprint for
something going up into space.
Something deployed from Ascension or the Azores, or Diego Garcia, or
Kwajalein, or Kodiak? Nothing but remote ocean downrange for thousands
of miles.
Post by Fred J. McCall
A 'brief trail' that was how long and visible from how many thousand
square miles?
200 miles away from Ascension? Who would see it? That's about where AF
Flight 440 disappeared without a trace. No one saw it, it took two
years to find it. Diego Garcia is even better, with nothing south of
it except Antarctica.
Post by Fred J. McCall
And folks standing somewhere else? How big and thick a cloud deck do
you need?
Well, the only photos I've seen of STS-135 beyond the first thirty
seconds (I was 20 miles away and only saw it from about T+15 to T+30)
were from some woman on an airliner, where you see a thin trail rising
in the distance above an infinite cloud deck. And I'm really not
arguing that such a secret launch would have been from Canaveral or
Vandenberg anyway, much too difficult to conceal. But a Pegasus or
something similar, air-launched at sea hundreds of miles from base?
Not so easily dismissed.
Post by Fred J. McCall
ANY evidence for 'Blackstar'? AvLeak is just a magazine, after all.
They're the pros, though. They talked about the Stealth Fighter years
before the Air Force acknowledged it. I'm just pointing out that the
idea does not seem to be universally ridiculed or dismissed as typical
conspiracy theory fodder, which Jeff was implying (in my opinion, I
could be wrong.)
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Just wondering... what is YOUR theory for the weird sonic booms
recorded by USGS seismographs in Southern California in the mid 1990s,
the booms that looked exactly like Shuttle re-entries on a similar
flight path, even though no Shuttle was in flight?
There were no such sonic booms. There WERE sonic booms that looked
like they came from a vehicle much smaller than a Shuttle doing Mach 5
at 90,000 feet.
I agree. The problem for your argument is that the DoD has no publicly
acknowledge system capable of Mach 5 at 90,000 feet, except a few
sounding rockets and the like, but no rocket launches were announced
at those times and you say they can't hide a rocket launch. If they
can indefinitely conceal a Mach 5, 90,000 ft. capable system, why are
you so dismissive of a clandestine orbital system?

And Mach 5 at 90,000 feet sounds very much like a returning Shuttle to
me. "Much smaller" is totally in keeping with what I'm suggesting is
possible.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you assume we'd be trying to keep a 'secret space program'
secret FROM?
That's not the point. I was just arguing that it is possible (albeit
unlikely). Not why it would be happening or why it would be concealed.
I am just playing devil's advocate here. Such blanket statements as
"it is impossible to hide a space launch" just seem ludicrous to me.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Amateurs routinely track them as well, just for fun. It's really not
all that hard to do.
It was actually pretty hard tracking the X-37B on both flights. It was
gone for days at a time.
Was it? The Russians couldn't find it?
I was referring to the amateurs Jeff described.

Brian
Fred J. McCall
2012-07-04 03:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:48:41 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Last I checked, Galileo, Cassini, and New Horizons don't have honkin'
big radiators.
Galileo and Cassini both went past Venus before going out to deep
space.
Post by Fred J. McCall
They're also so far out that the Sun is just another star. Oh, and
they DO have radiators.
Not the big shiny easy-to-see radiators Jeff was alluding to.
And they're nowhere near anything that would warm them up, which
something near the Earth would be.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
If they're good enough to take photos of Pluto from
thousands of miles away, they should be sufficient to take photos of
Earth from 125 miles up.
If you don't want to see anything in particular, sure they're 'good
enough'.
Pegasus is 4 feet in diameter. That could provide a mirror about 40
inches in diameter with room to spare for casing and payload fairing.
But isn't.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
One more time, RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY LENS.
A 40-inch mirror is substantial.
None of the vehicles called out have anything remotely approaching a
40 inch mirror.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
The public doesn't have radar.
But lots of other folks do.
Not as extensive as you suggest. Air France Flight 440 vanished
without a trace because it was beyond radar coverage in the middle of
the Atlantic.
A bit lower than a satellite.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you think the 'secret' is trying
to be kept from?
The same people they're keeping the nature of X-37B or the recent NROL
launches from? If the Russians and Chinese know all about what NRO is
launching, why does NRO still keep it secret? From whom?
The Russians and Chinese DON'T.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Silly idea. Again, just who do you think the 'secret' is being kept
from?
Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/North Korea are good candidates.
Silly.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh? Just what 'useful mission' do you think you can squeeze into a
one cubic foot satellite?
Pegasus is publicly known to have a 4 ft x 7 ft. payload
accommodation. Hardly "one cubic foot". And Pegasus is known to have
launched Earth observation satellites.
You said "small". You didn't say "the biggest thing Pegasus can
launch".
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Orbview wasn't exactly huge. It went up on Pegasus XL. Ikonos wasn't
much bigger (Athena-launched.)
You might want to actually look at the physical size of those birds.
The results speak for themselves. Google Orbview and SeaWIFS under
Google Pictures and see for yourself. Tell me that NRO wouldn't find
that useful. And NRO's hypothetical birds could be in lower,
shorter-lived orbits getting closer views.
There's a reason they do what they do. And what they do is NOT launch
little tiny birds very low.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
None of that is the same thing. Look at the ground view footprint for
something going up into space.
Something deployed from Ascension or the Azores, or Diego Garcia, or
Kwajalein, or Kodiak? Nothing but remote ocean downrange for thousands
of miles.
Go do the math and tell me what the ground footprint of visibility is.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
A 'brief trail' that was how long and visible from how many thousand
square miles?
200 miles away from Ascension? Who would see it? That's about where AF
Flight 440 disappeared without a trace. No one saw it, it took two
years to find it. Diego Garcia is even better, with nothing south of
it except Antarctica.
FLIGHT 440 WAS AN ****AIRPLANE****, YOU YAMMERHEAD!!!!!!!!
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
And folks standing somewhere else? How big and thick a cloud deck do
you need?
Well, the only photos I've seen of STS-135 beyond the first thirty
seconds (I was 20 miles away and only saw it from about T+15 to T+30)
were from some woman on an airliner, where you see a thin trail rising
in the distance above an infinite cloud deck. And I'm really not
arguing that such a secret launch would have been from Canaveral or
Vandenberg anyway, much too difficult to conceal. But a Pegasus or
something similar, air-launched at sea hundreds of miles from base?
Not so easily dismissed.
Sorry, but your anecdote isn't particularly convincing.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
ANY evidence for 'Blackstar'? AvLeak is just a magazine, after all.
They're the pros, though. They talked about the Stealth Fighter years
before the Air Force acknowledged it.
And were wrong about so many details.
Post by Brian Thorn
I'm just pointing out that the
idea does not seem to be universally ridiculed or dismissed as typical
conspiracy theory fodder, which Jeff was implying (in my opinion, I
could be wrong.)
It's loon food.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Just wondering... what is YOUR theory for the weird sonic booms
recorded by USGS seismographs in Southern California in the mid 1990s,
the booms that looked exactly like Shuttle re-entries on a similar
flight path, even though no Shuttle was in flight?
There were no such sonic booms. There WERE sonic booms that looked
like they came from a vehicle much smaller than a Shuttle doing Mach 5
at 90,000 feet.
I agree. The problem for your argument is that the DoD has no publicly
acknowledge system capable of Mach 5 at 90,000 feet, except a few
sounding rockets and the like, but no rocket launches were announced
at those times and you say they can't hide a rocket launch. If they
can indefinitely conceal a Mach 5, 90,000 ft. capable system, why are
you so dismissive of a clandestine orbital system?
If you know of a way to get a small vehicle doing Mach 5 up to orbit,
please let us all know.
Post by Brian Thorn
And Mach 5 at 90,000 feet sounds very much like a returning Shuttle to
me. "Much smaller" is totally in keeping with what I'm suggesting is
possible.
No, it was nothing at all like what a Shuttle produced.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you assume we'd be trying to keep a 'secret space program'
secret FROM?
That's not the point.
That *IS* the point, unless you assume we're insane.
Post by Brian Thorn
I was just arguing that it is possible (albeit
unlikely). Not why it would be happening or why it would be concealed.
I am just playing devil's advocate here. Such blanket statements as
"it is impossible to hide a space launch" just seem ludicrous to me.
Give what you're spewing, I'm afraid what you find ludicrous just
doesn't carry a lot of weight with sane folks. Squealing "Devil's
Advocate" to try to avoid having to make sense is merely specious.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Jeff Findley
Amateurs routinely track them as well, just for fun. It's really not
all that hard to do.
It was actually pretty hard tracking the X-37B on both flights. It was
gone for days at a time.
Was it? The Russians couldn't find it?
I was referring to the amateurs Jeff described.
Yes, precisely. So much for 'secret space program'. It was up, known
to be up, ...
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Brian Thorn
2012-07-04 17:17:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:49:24 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Not the big shiny easy-to-see radiators Jeff was alluding to.
And they're nowhere near anything that would warm them up, which
something near the Earth would be.
Except for their flights through the neighborhood of Venus, half the
distance between Earth and Sun, you mean?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Pegasus is 4 feet in diameter. That could provide a mirror about 40
inches in diameter with room to spare for casing and payload fairing.
But isn't.
Uh, what isn't? Are you saying Pegasus isn't 4 feet in diameter? It is
4.1 ft according to Orbital.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
One more time, RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY LENS.
A 40-inch mirror is substantial.
None of the vehicles called out have anything remotely approaching a
40 inch mirror.
So? I'm pointing out what is possible with existing vehicles. We are
talking about hypotheticals here. Hypothetically, Pegasus could launch
a satellite with a primary mirror 40 inches in diameter. That would
leave about ten inches of margin for the telescope frame itself and
the payload fairing, which is ample.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
The public doesn't have radar.
But lots of other folks do.
Not as extensive as you suggest. Air France Flight 440 vanished
without a trace because it was beyond radar coverage in the middle of
the Atlantic.
A bit lower than a satellite.
So are rockets during the boost phase. We were talking about
*launches* that wouldn't be noticed, remember.

The comment was "lot of other folks do" have radar. Please identify
the radar system over the south Atlantic or sourthern Indian Ocean, or
central/southern Pacific that would detect launches from the
Ascension, Diego Garcia, or Kwajalein areas.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you think the 'secret' is trying
to be kept from?
The same people they're keeping the nature of X-37B or the recent NROL
launches from? If the Russians and Chinese know all about what NRO is
launching, why does NRO still keep it secret? From whom?
The Russians and Chinese DON'T.
Then why do you assume they WOULD know all about a clandestine
satellite program? You can't have it both ways, Fred.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Silly idea. Again, just who do you think the 'secret' is being kept
from?
Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/North Korea are good candidates.
Silly.
I'll point out that Iran recently forced down one of our UAVs that was
"accidentally" over its territory.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh? Just what 'useful mission' do you think you can squeeze into a
one cubic foot satellite?
Pegasus is publicly known to have a 4 ft x 7 ft. payload
accommodation. Hardly "one cubic foot". And Pegasus is known to have
launched Earth observation satellites.
You said "small". You didn't say "the biggest thing Pegasus can
launch".
No, I never said small. Jeff said 'tiny' and you went off on some
weird tangent about 1 cubic foot of payload (a number you evidently
pulled out of some body oriface not to be named). I pointed out
OrbView as not being huge, and OrbView was launched on Pegasus. And I
did indeed say the biggest thing Pegasus could launch, when I said
Pegasus could handle a mirror 40" diameter. Do keep up, Fred. :-)

And while we're on the subject, there is no reason to believe Pegasus
is the biggest option for air-launched spacecraft. The Air Force
dropped Minutemen missiles out the back of a C-141 in the early 1980s
to demonstrate air-launched MX ICBMs. There is absolutely no reason to
believe an Athena-like launcher (derived from MX) could not also be
shoved out the back of a C-17 or C-5, and there is still the strangley
modified C-5 (with the extended "cheeks") that was seen in the 1990s.
Post by Fred J. McCall
There's a reason they do what they do. And what they do is NOT launch
little tiny birds very low.
I've acknowledged all along that I don't know the reasons for this
hypothetical clandestine space launch. I've only insisted that if they
did have a reason, it clearly is not impossible. DoD/NRO is notorious
for not giving reasons for what they do (i.e, X-37B.)

But in any case, you just can't say that, Fred. We know very little
about what DoD/NRO does in space, why, or how. We know they've
launched secret things on Atlas and Titan, and one or two Delta IIs.
What was actually under the payload fairing is not publicly known.
What we do know from publicly released information from the FIA
(Future Imaging Architecture) debacle is that they were interested in
spy satellites much smaller than the KH-11s (which needed expensive
and unreliable Titan rockets to launch) as early as the early 1990s.
We also know that NRO recently gave NASA two KH-11/Hubble class
telescopes. If they're giving away big telescopes, with what did NRO
replace them?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
None of that is the same thing. Look at the ground view footprint for
something going up into space.
Something deployed from Ascension or the Azores, or Diego Garcia, or
Kwajalein, or Kodiak? Nothing but remote ocean downrange for thousands
of miles.
Go do the math and tell me what the ground footprint of visibility is.
Of the boost phase... about 500 miles long and perhaps 200 miles each
side of the ground track, depending on altitude and day/night
differences. From personal experience, I can tell you that day
launches are almost invisible after first stage. Night launches are
visible longer, but you have to be deliberately looking. That was the
range from Shuttle liftoff to SSME cutoff and ET seperation off Cape
Hatteras or the Chesapeake region or somewhere close by on ISS
missions according to numerous "see the Shuttle night launch"
websites. Now you break out an atlas and show me what is along a line
500 miles long and 200 miles wide from Kwajalein, Diego Garcia, or
Ascenscion, what radars cover that area, and what populated areas
would provide shelter for eyewitnesses.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
A 'brief trail' that was how long and visible from how many thousand
square miles?
200 miles away from Ascension? Who would see it? That's about where AF
Flight 440 disappeared without a trace. No one saw it, it took two
years to find it. Diego Garcia is even better, with nothing south of
it except Antarctica.
FLIGHT 440 WAS AN ****AIRPLANE****, YOU YAMMERHEAD!!!!!!!!
Yes, I know Fred. I'm talking about air launch from something like
Orbital's L-1011 which is an ****AIRPLANE****. My point is, exactly
what radar installation would detect a Pegasus/L-1011 launch staged
from Ascension and heading due south? You seem unwilling or unable to
answer that question.

And I think Diego Garcia (a military base with no civilians
whatsoever) is an even better candidate. I was just using Ascension
because of the highly public acknowledgement that there is no radar
out there whatsoever, neither U.S., Brazilian, nor European. So whose
radar would detect a spacelaunch out there, Fred, the Angolans's
secret space tracking radar? Why do you get to invoke secret hardware,
but I don't?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Well, the only photos I've seen of STS-135 beyond the first thirty
seconds (I was 20 miles away and only saw it from about T+15 to T+30)
were from some woman on an airliner, where you see a thin trail rising
in the distance above an infinite cloud deck. And I'm really not
arguing that such a secret launch would have been from Canaveral or
Vandenberg anyway, much too difficult to conceal. But a Pegasus or
something similar, air-launched at sea hundreds of miles from base?
Not so easily dismissed.
Sorry, but your anecdote isn't particularly convincing.
Shocked. Shocked I am that evidence counter to your assertion is
dismissed out of hand. Shocked!

I grew up watcing space launches from the Cape Canaveral area, Fred.
How many space launches have you witnessed?

By the way, I have the photos to prove all three of the launches I
mentioned. Look up bthorn on Webshots.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
ANY evidence for 'Blackstar'? AvLeak is just a magazine, after all.
They're the pros, though. They talked about the Stealth Fighter years
before the Air Force acknowledged it.
And were wrong about so many details.
Irrelevant. I'm not arguing the details (which almost certainly are
wrong, I freely admit) only that there have been public reports of
secret programs later proven to be true.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
I'm just pointing out that the
idea does not seem to be universally ridiculed or dismissed as typical
conspiracy theory fodder, which Jeff was implying (in my opinion, I
could be wrong.)
It's loon food.
Very possibly. I've argued from the beginning that this is all
theorerically possible with hardware and systems known to exist today,
nothing more.

So far you have been completely unable to refute my arguments, making
up false data ("one cubic foot satellite"), putting words in my mouth
that were not there ("small satellite, not the biggest Pegasus could
launch") invoking radar systems that don't exist in your attempt to
prove a launch would be seen on radar everywhere on Earth, completely
ignoring that SeaWIFS and Orbview are Pegasus-launched Earth
observation satellites with quite good resolution, and handwaving away
what even you admit must be a secret aircraft/exoatmospheric craft
capable of Mach 5 and 90,000 ft. (which will be blockbuster news in
the aerospace community when/if the DoD ever acknowledges it.)
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
I agree. The problem for your argument is that the DoD has no publicly
acknowledge system capable of Mach 5 at 90,000 feet, except a few
sounding rockets and the like, but no rocket launches were announced
at those times and you say they can't hide a rocket launch. If they
can indefinitely conceal a Mach 5, 90,000 ft. capable system, why are
you so dismissive of a clandestine orbital system?
If you know of a way to get a small vehicle doing Mach 5 up to orbit,
please let us all know.
I'll note you once again failed to answer my question.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
And Mach 5 at 90,000 feet sounds very much like a returning Shuttle to
me. "Much smaller" is totally in keeping with what I'm suggesting is
possible.
No, it was nothing at all like what a Shuttle produced.
Perhaps, but USGS said it was "very reminiscent of Shuttle" or words
to that effect.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you assume we'd be trying to keep a 'secret space program'
secret FROM?
That's not the point.
That *IS* the point, unless you assume we're insane.
No, the point is that you and Jeff claim that a secret space launch is
IMPOSSIBLE. I'm not addressing the why's, only that it certainly is
POSSIBLE, and without invoking magic pixie dust either. It would be
more or less off-the-shelf capabilty.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Give what you're spewing, I'm afraid what you find ludicrous just
doesn't carry a lot of weight with sane folks.
I respect you too, Fred.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Squealing "Devil's Advocate"
Squealed? I said calmly and in forewarning from the first line of my
first reply that I am just playing Devil's (Bob's) Advocate.
Post by Fred J. McCall
to try to avoid having to make sense is merely specious.
For a specious argument, you sure are having a difficult time refuting
it. You could start by actually addressing my points, instead of
ignoring them, misstating them, or dismissing them with one-liners.

Brian
Fred J. McCall
2012-07-04 20:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:49:24 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Not the big shiny easy-to-see radiators Jeff was alluding to.
And they're nowhere near anything that would warm them up, which
something near the Earth would be.
Except for their flights through the neighborhood of Venus, half the
distance between Earth and Sun, you mean?
And what did they do there, other than try to keep cool?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Pegasus is 4 feet in diameter. That could provide a mirror about 40
inches in diameter with room to spare for casing and payload fairing.
But isn't.
Uh, what isn't? Are you saying Pegasus isn't 4 feet in diameter? It is
4.1 ft according to Orbital.
Isn't "providing a mirror about 40 inches in diameter". Is English
not your first language?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
One more time, RESOLUTION IS LIMITED BY THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY LENS.
A 40-inch mirror is substantial.
None of the vehicles called out have anything remotely approaching a
40 inch mirror.
So? I'm pointing out what is possible with existing vehicles. We are
talking about hypotheticals here. Hypothetically, Pegasus could launch
a satellite with a primary mirror 40 inches in diameter. That would
leave about ten inches of margin for the telescope frame itself and
the payload fairing, which is ample.
How you going to point it? How you going to power it? How you going
to find out what it saw?

Or do you think none of that stuff takes up any space?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
The public doesn't have radar.
But lots of other folks do.
Not as extensive as you suggest. Air France Flight 440 vanished
without a trace because it was beyond radar coverage in the middle of
the Atlantic.
A bit lower than a satellite.
So are rockets during the boost phase. We were talking about
*launches* that wouldn't be noticed, remember.
So your claim is that rockets during the boost phase are at airliner
heights?

Bullshit.
Post by Brian Thorn
The comment was "lot of other folks do" have radar. Please identify
the radar system over the south Atlantic or sourthern Indian Ocean, or
central/southern Pacific that would detect launches from the
Ascension, Diego Garcia, or Kwajalein areas.
Any old RORSAT. You think Russia has no radars looking near those
places? What fool's paradise do you live in?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you think the 'secret' is trying
to be kept from?
The same people they're keeping the nature of X-37B or the recent NROL
launches from? If the Russians and Chinese know all about what NRO is
launching, why does NRO still keep it secret? From whom?
The Russians and Chinese DON'T.
Then why do you assume they WOULD know all about a clandestine
satellite program? You can't have it both ways, Fred.
Well, actually I can, since you're arguing two different things.
There's a lot of distance between "know it launched" and "know all
about it".
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Silly idea. Again, just who do you think the 'secret' is being kept
from?
Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/North Korea are good candidates.
Silly.
I'll point out that Iran recently forced down one of our UAVs that was
"accidentally" over its territory.
I assume you think you have some point there, but it certainly isn't
obvious what it's supposed to be.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh? Just what 'useful mission' do you think you can squeeze into a
one cubic foot satellite?
Pegasus is publicly known to have a 4 ft x 7 ft. payload
accommodation. Hardly "one cubic foot". And Pegasus is known to have
launched Earth observation satellites.
You said "small". You didn't say "the biggest thing Pegasus can
launch".
No, I never said small. Jeff said 'tiny' and you went off on some
weird tangent about 1 cubic foot of payload (a number you evidently
pulled out of some body oriface not to be named). I pointed out
OrbView as not being huge, and OrbView was launched on Pegasus. And I
did indeed say the biggest thing Pegasus could launch, when I said
Pegasus could handle a mirror 40" diameter. Do keep up, Fred. :-)
What it can't do is power the electronics, point it, transmit what it
sees, or any number of other things (unless all that other stuff comes
up on ANOTHER Pegasus or three).
Post by Brian Thorn
And while we're on the subject, there is no reason to believe Pegasus
is the biggest option for air-launched spacecraft. The Air Force
dropped Minutemen missiles out the back of a C-141 in the early 1980s
to demonstrate air-launched MX ICBMs. There is absolutely no reason to
believe an Athena-like launcher (derived from MX) could not also be
shoved out the back of a C-17 or C-5, and there is still the strangley
modified C-5 (with the extended "cheeks") that was seen in the 1990s.
Or perhaps you could just FART them into orbit? Since you've elected
to show just how big your ass is, it seems entirely feasible.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
There's a reason they do what they do. And what they do is NOT launch
little tiny birds very low.
I've acknowledged all along that I don't know the reasons for this
hypothetical clandestine space launch. I've only insisted that if they
did have a reason, it clearly is not impossible. DoD/NRO is notorious
for not giving reasons for what they do (i.e, X-37B.)
Oh, so since you don't know it could be ANYTHING. Yeah, right. And
the proof of it being whatever loony thing you want to claim it is is
that 'nobody' knows. Except, of course, that lots of people do.
Post by Brian Thorn
But in any case, you just can't say that, Fred. We know very little
about what DoD/NRO does in space, why, or how.
Poppycock! Perhaps YOU know very little, but lots of other people
know quite a bit that is public knowledge.
Post by Brian Thorn
We know they've
launched secret things on Atlas and Titan, and one or two Delta IIs.
What was actually under the payload fairing is not publicly known.
Bull. You can mostly tell what that stuff is by the orbits it goes
to.
Post by Brian Thorn
What we do know from publicly released information from the FIA
(Future Imaging Architecture) debacle is that they were interested in
spy satellites much smaller than the KH-11s (which needed expensive
and unreliable Titan rockets to launch) as early as the early 1990s.
"Much smaller"? Just how much smaller? And are you sure they were
talking about the optical birds and not the radar ones? And how were
they to be made "smaller and lighter"? Not by making the camera
primary significantly smaller, I would bet, since that pretty well
wrecks your ability to see if you do that.
Post by Brian Thorn
We also know that NRO recently gave NASA two KH-11/Hubble class
telescopes. If they're giving away big telescopes, with what did NRO
replace them?
Other big telescopes. Ever heard of 'spares sets'? You know Lockheed
was put on contract to build more KH-11 at the end of the optical part
of FIA, right?

Here's what they've replaced FIA with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-224
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
None of that is the same thing. Look at the ground view footprint for
something going up into space.
Something deployed from Ascension or the Azores, or Diego Garcia, or
Kwajalein, or Kodiak? Nothing but remote ocean downrange for thousands
of miles.
Go do the math and tell me what the ground footprint of visibility is.
Of the boost phase... about 500 miles long and perhaps 200 miles each
side of the ground track, depending on altitude and day/night
differences. From personal experience, I can tell you that day
launches are almost invisible after first stage. Night launches are
visible longer, but you have to be deliberately looking. That was the
range from Shuttle liftoff to SSME cutoff and ET seperation off Cape
Hatteras or the Chesapeake region or somewhere close by on ISS
missions according to numerous "see the Shuttle night launch"
websites. Now you break out an atlas and show me what is along a line
500 miles long and 200 miles wide from Kwajalein, Diego Garcia, or
Ascenscion, what radars cover that area, and what populated areas
would provide shelter for eyewitnesses.
Do your math again. FIRST STAGE burnout of Pegasus is bit less than
38 miles up. That says it is visible from a circle on the Earth with
a radius of around 550 miles at burnout.

There are a lot of islands within 550 miles of any of the places you
mention. And that's just FIRST STAGE burnout. It's much higher at
second stage burnout.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
A 'brief trail' that was how long and visible from how many thousand
square miles?
200 miles away from Ascension? Who would see it? That's about where AF
Flight 440 disappeared without a trace. No one saw it, it took two
years to find it. Diego Garcia is even better, with nothing south of
it except Antarctica.
FLIGHT 440 WAS AN ****AIRPLANE****, YOU YAMMERHEAD!!!!!!!!
Yes, I know Fred. I'm talking about air launch from something like
Orbital's L-1011 which is an ****AIRPLANE****.
And the big bright thing coming out of it and going up to space is a
****ROCKET****, you yammerhead!!!!!!
Post by Brian Thorn
My point is, exactly
what radar installation would detect a Pegasus/L-1011 launch staged
from Ascension and heading due south? You seem unwilling or unable to
answer that question.
Asked and answered. Sorry, but I don't find debating games like the
preceding to be particularly convincing.
Post by Brian Thorn
And I think Diego Garcia (a military base with no civilians
whatsoever) is an even better candidate.
Count the people living on all the islands within 550 miles of that
place.
Post by Brian Thorn
I was just using Ascension
because of the highly public acknowledgement that there is no radar
out there whatsoever, neither U.S., Brazilian, nor European. So whose
radar would detect a spacelaunch out there, Fred, the Angolans's
secret space tracking radar? Why do you get to invoke secret hardware,
but I don't?
Nothing secret about RORSATs existing.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Well, the only photos I've seen of STS-135 beyond the first thirty
seconds (I was 20 miles away and only saw it from about T+15 to T+30)
were from some woman on an airliner, where you see a thin trail rising
in the distance above an infinite cloud deck. And I'm really not
arguing that such a secret launch would have been from Canaveral or
Vandenberg anyway, much too difficult to conceal. But a Pegasus or
something similar, air-launched at sea hundreds of miles from base?
Not so easily dismissed.
Sorry, but your anecdote isn't particularly convincing.
Shocked. Shocked I am that evidence counter to your assertion is
dismissed out of hand. Shocked!
I grew up watcing space launches from the Cape Canaveral area, Fred.
How many space launches have you witnessed?
By the way, I have the photos to prove all three of the launches I
mentioned. Look up bthorn on Webshots.
<yawn> The singular of data is NOT anecdote.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
ANY evidence for 'Blackstar'? AvLeak is just a magazine, after all.
They're the pros, though. They talked about the Stealth Fighter years
before the Air Force acknowledged it.
And were wrong about so many details.
Irrelevant. I'm not arguing the details (which almost certainly are
wrong, I freely admit) only that there have been public reports of
secret programs later proven to be true.
Oh, I see. The fact that it was all wrong doesn't matter in your
world. Good to know. It explains how you can make the claims that
you do.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
I'm just pointing out that the
idea does not seem to be universally ridiculed or dismissed as typical
conspiracy theory fodder, which Jeff was implying (in my opinion, I
could be wrong.)
It's loon food.
Very possibly. I've argued from the beginning that this is all
theorerically possible with hardware and systems known to exist today,
nothing more.
Yes, you've argued that. What you haven't done is provided any real
support for your 'argument'.
Post by Brian Thorn
So far you have been completely unable to refute my arguments,
Bullshit.
Post by Brian Thorn
making
up false data ("one cubic foot satellite"), putting words in my mouth
that were not there ("small satellite, not the biggest Pegasus could
launch") invoking radar systems that don't exist in your attempt to
prove a launch would be seen on radar everywhere on Earth,
Spate of outright lies.
Post by Brian Thorn
completely
ignoring that SeaWIFS and Orbview are Pegasus-launched Earth
observation satellites with quite good resolution,
For a very poor value of 'quite good'.
Post by Brian Thorn
and handwaving away
what even you admit must be a secret aircraft/exoatmospheric craft
capable of Mach 5 and 90,000 ft. (which will be blockbuster news in
the aerospace community when/if the DoD ever acknowledges it.)
Where'd I 'admit' any such thing? I merely pointed out that, contrary
to what you tried to claim, the 'mysterious sonic boom' was *NOT*
"identical to what a Space Shuttle would have created" at all.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
I agree. The problem for your argument is that the DoD has no publicly
acknowledge system capable of Mach 5 at 90,000 feet, except a few
sounding rockets and the like, but no rocket launches were announced
at those times and you say they can't hide a rocket launch. If they
can indefinitely conceal a Mach 5, 90,000 ft. capable system, why are
you so dismissive of a clandestine orbital system?
If you know of a way to get a small vehicle doing Mach 5 up to orbit,
please let us all know.
I'll note you once again failed to answer my question.
I'll note your 'question' is predicated on an assumption not currently
in evidence.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
And Mach 5 at 90,000 feet sounds very much like a returning Shuttle to
me. "Much smaller" is totally in keeping with what I'm suggesting is
possible.
No, it was nothing at all like what a Shuttle produced.
Perhaps, but USGS said it was "very reminiscent of Shuttle" or words
to that effect.
And again we see that the facts don't matter in your world.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you assume we'd be trying to keep a 'secret space program'
secret FROM?
That's not the point.
That *IS* the point, unless you assume we're insane.
No, the point is that you and Jeff claim that a secret space launch is
IMPOSSIBLE. I'm not addressing the why's, only that it certainly is
POSSIBLE, and without invoking magic pixie dust either. It would be
more or less off-the-shelf capabilty.
Except IT WOULDN'T BE SECRET BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT.

Doh!
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Give what you're spewing, I'm afraid what you find ludicrous just
doesn't carry a lot of weight with sane folks.
I respect you too, Fred.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Squealing "Devil's Advocate"
Squealed? I said calmly and in forewarning from the first line of my
first reply that I am just playing Devil's (Bob's) Advocate.
Post by Fred J. McCall
to try to avoid having to make sense is merely specious.
For a specious argument, you sure are having a difficult time refuting
it. You could start by actually addressing my points, instead of
ignoring them, misstating them, or dismissing them with one-liners.
So far you HAVE no points so there is nothing to 'refute'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
bob haller
2012-07-04 23:50:13 UTC
Permalink
with the large number of things in orbit, airliners flying around a
occasional well designed NRO manned launcher might easily fall into
the background noise.......
Fred J. McCall
2012-07-05 00:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
with the large number of things in orbit, airliners flying around a
occasional well designed NRO manned launcher might easily fall into
the background noise.......
Yes, because random airplanes FIRING BIG FRIGGING ROCKETS is just not
noticeable if one is as 'clever' as the Guthball or Bobbert.

I'm willing to concede that one could quite easily keep pretty much
anything 'secret' from that level of intellectual scrutiny.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Brian Thorn
2012-07-05 01:31:28 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:39:44 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Pegasus is 4 feet in diameter. That could provide a mirror about 40
inches in diameter with room to spare for casing and payload fairing.
But isn't.
Uh, what isn't? Are you saying Pegasus isn't 4 feet in diameter? It is
4.1 ft according to Orbital.
Isn't "providing a mirror about 40 inches in diameter". Is English
not your first language?
Yes. I'm not sure your's is. "Pegasus is" would be challenged with
"isn't". "Could provide... with room to spare" should be challenged
with "doesn't".
Post by Fred J. McCall
How you going to point it? How you going to power it? How you going
to find out what it saw?
Volume behind the telescope itself, like Hubble. Google the STEP
satellites launched by Pegasus, especially STEP-4 and TSX-5. They
folded lots of hardware into a small volume.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
The comment was "lot of other folks do" have radar. Please identify
the radar system over the south Atlantic or sourthern Indian Ocean, or
central/southern Pacific that would detect launches from the
Ascension, Diego Garcia, or Kwajalein areas.
Any old RORSAT. You think Russia has no radars looking near those
places? What fool's paradise do you live in?
I began this discussion explicitly pointing out that Russia would not
necessarily reveal their technology and what they know. I completely
agree that Russia would know whatever it is such a vehicle was up to.
Would they announce it? They'd have to provide proof that it wasn't
just a discarded stage from some other launch, or what-not.

And for the record, RORSATs are all-weather surveillance satellites,
not Air Traffic Control radar. And they are necessarily in low orbits
whose overflights can be easily timed to avoid.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you think the 'secret' is trying
to be kept from?
The same people they're keeping the nature of X-37B or the recent NROL
launches from? If the Russians and Chinese know all about what NRO is
launching, why does NRO still keep it secret? From whom?
The Russians and Chinese DON'T.
Then why do you assume they WOULD know all about a clandestine
satellite program? You can't have it both ways, Fred.
Well, actually I can, since you're arguing two different things.
There's a lot of distance between "know it launched" and "know all
about it".
I think we're arguing around in circles here. :-)
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
I'll point out that Iran recently forced down one of our UAVs that was
"accidentally" over its territory.
I assume you think you have some point there, but it certainly isn't
obvious what it's supposed to be.
Secret U.S. military systems overflying Iran. You can't grasp that
connection? Okay then.
Post by Fred J. McCall
What it can't do is power the electronics, point it, transmit what it
sees, or any number of other things
Of course it can. Orbview and SeaWIFS get along just fine.
Post by Fred J. McCall
(unless all that other stuff comes
up on ANOTHER Pegasus or three).
Well, now that you mention it, the first unmanned U.S. rendezvous was
DART... launched on Pegasus in 2005. It crashed into the target, but
was followed up by Orbital Express, which undocked and re-docked. Also
launched on Pegasus.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
And while we're on the subject, there is no reason to believe Pegasus
is the biggest option for air-launched spacecraft. The Air Force
dropped Minutemen missiles out the back of a C-141 in the early 1980s
to demonstrate air-launched MX ICBMs. There is absolutely no reason to
believe an Athena-like launcher (derived from MX) could not also be
shoved out the back of a C-17 or C-5, and there is still the strangley
modified C-5 (with the extended "cheeks") that was seen in the 1990s.
Or perhaps you could just FART them into orbit? Since you've elected
to show just how big your ass is, it seems entirely feasible.


Care to revise that dismissal?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, so since you don't know it could be ANYTHING.
Or nothing. I've admitted that all along. For the record, I do NOT
think any of this has actually happened. I'm just saying it isn't
impossible. You're flailing around for counter-arguments has not been
particularly successful.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Yeah, right. And
the proof of it being whatever loony thing you want to claim it is is
that 'nobody' knows. Except, of course, that lots of people do.
Name them.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
But in any case, you just can't say that, Fred. We know very little
about what DoD/NRO does in space, why, or how.
Poppycock! Perhaps YOU know very little, but lots of other people
know quite a bit that is public knowledge.
Such as? Who are these mysterious other people you keep speaking of
who have all the answers about NRO and are willing to talk? Frankly,
you're the one who's starting to sound all X-Files here, not me. Is
the Cigarette Smoking Man sharing info with you?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
We know they've
launched secret things on Atlas and Titan, and one or two Delta IIs.
What was actually under the payload fairing is not publicly known.
Bull. You can mostly tell what that stuff is by the orbits it goes
to.
The orbit it goes to is not in question. A sun sync orbit only tells
us that the payload is for Earth Observation, not actually what it is.
It could be one KH-11, or it could be three smaller nested birds. Note
that Shuttle launched an IUS with a DSP satellite on one mission and
an IUS with two DSCS satellites on another. Same booster, same orbit,
entirely different missions. And there was no way to tell which was
which.
Post by Fred J. McCall
"Much smaller"? Just how much smaller? And are you sure they were
talking about the optical birds and not the radar ones? And how were
they to be made "smaller and lighter"? Not by making the camera
primary significantly smaller, I would bet, since that pretty well
wrecks your ability to see if you do that.
It will be interesting to someday find out exactly what FIA was trying
to achieve. Whatever it was, it was either trying to do too much on
one spaceframe (like the NPOESS of the same era) or it tried too much
new technology at once, some of which may have not panned out and was
hopelessly behind schedule and overbudget (like X-33 also of the same
period.)

It could conceivably have been folding mirrors like Multi Mirror
Telescope. James Webb tried the same thing in the IR band and has been
a nightmare of technical problems, delays and budget overruns. An MMT
design could fit on a smaller rocket, like Atlas at least (Ariane 5 is
launching Webb, but is going all the way to L2.)
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
We also know that NRO recently gave NASA two KH-11/Hubble class
telescopes. If they're giving away big telescopes, with what did NRO
replace them?
Other big telescopes. Ever heard of 'spares sets'?
According to the rumors at the time (and that's all we really have to
go on, since NRO isn't talking) there was one leftover KH-11 when FIA
went belly-up, and it was refurbished and launched. Possibly as
USA-224.
Post by Fred J. McCall
You know Lockheed
was put on contract to build more KH-11 at the end of the optical part
of FIA, right?
Yes, but why didn't Lockheed use the available Hubble/KH-11-class
mirrors in their new-build KH-11s? It will probably be decades before
we know the answer.
Post by Fred J. McCall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-224
Actually, that's just Wikipedia's guess, albeit a good one. The Air
Force/NRO has not admitted it was a KH-11 (which is kinda my point
that we don't really know what's under that fairing). But again, why
didn't they use the existing mirrors for the new-builds? And we don't
know if USA-224 was the last of the old breed or the first of the new
KH-11s.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Do your math again. FIRST STAGE burnout of Pegasus is bit less than
38 miles up. That says it is visible from a circle on the Earth with
a radius of around 550 miles at burnout.
There are a lot of islands within 550 miles of any of the places you
mention.
No, Fred there are not. Break open an atlas and find Diego Garcia and
Ascension Island. A launch due south from, say 200 miles south of
Diego Garcia wouldn't come within 550 miles of anything until it
overflies the Kergullen Islands almost 3,000 miles south. The Isle St.
Paul and Isle Amsterdam are near the flightpath, but are usually
uninhabited (occasional visiting scientists only.) Ascension Island
has nothing whatsoever due south of it, within 500 miles of the
flightpath until Nightingale Island also 3,000 miles away.
Post by Fred J. McCall
And that's just FIRST STAGE burnout. It's much higher at
second stage burnout.
And much higher and harder to see by anyone on the ground. I watched
too many Atlas-Centaur launches that disappeared as soon as the Atlas
burned out and Centaur ignited.
Post by Fred J. McCall
And the big bright thing coming out of it and going up to space is a
****ROCKET****, you yammerhead!!!!!!
With no one within 500 miles to see it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Asked and answered. Sorry, but I don't find debating games like the
preceding to be particularly convincing.
Especially when you are badly losing the debate...
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
And I think Diego Garcia (a military base with no civilians
whatsoever) is an even better candidate.
Count the people living on all the islands within 550 miles of that
place.
Zero. You have actually looked up Diego Garcia, right? Besides, I have
repeatedly stated an L-1011 or other carrier aircraft staged from
Diego Garcia or Ascension, not launching the rocket from a pad there.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Nothing secret about RORSATs existing.
You do understand what a RORSAT is, right Fred? I don't think you do.
RORSATs are not Air Traffic Control radars in space, they are Earth
imaging satellites that can see in all weather and at night. All they
would have seen on Ascension is an L-1011 on the ramp.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, I see. The fact that it was all wrong doesn't matter in your
world. Good to know. It explains how you can make the claims that
you do.
It doesn't change the basic premise at all. A Pegasus from an L-1011.
An Athena-1 (or something similar) shoved out the back of a C-5. Or
Blackstar on a modified XB-70. The details are certainly disputible
and very likely wrong. But the concept is entirely valid.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Yes, you've argued that. What you haven't done is provided any real
support for your 'argument'.
Only in Fred-world. I'm not the one making up nonexistant islands as
proof launches would have been seen.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
making
up false data ("one cubic foot satellite"), putting words in my mouth
that were not there ("small satellite, not the biggest Pegasus could
launch") invoking radar systems that don't exist in your attempt to
prove a launch would be seen on radar everywhere on Earth,
Spate of outright lies.
Your own words. I'm not surprised at all you are now pretending you
didn't make those claims. But they're right there in your previous
replies.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Where'd I 'admit' any such thing?
"If you know of a way to get a small vehicle doing Mach 5 up to orbit,
please let us all know."

So you must therefore agree that such a Mach 5 vehicle exists. It is a
shame for your argument that the DoD has not admitted it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
I'll note your 'question' is predicated on an assumption not currently
in evidence.
Backpeddaling, Fred. I thought you were above disowning your own
words.
Post by Fred J. McCall
And again we see that the facts don't matter in your world.
Pot. Kettle. "Black".
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
No, the point is that you and Jeff claim that a secret space launch is
IMPOSSIBLE. I'm not addressing the why's, only that it certainly is
POSSIBLE, and without invoking magic pixie dust either. It would be
more or less off-the-shelf capabilty.
Except IT WOULDN'T BE SECRET BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT.
Who? I'm talking about real people, Fred, not make-believe people on
make-believe islands.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
For a specious argument, you sure are having a difficult time refuting
it. You could start by actually addressing my points, instead of
ignoring them, misstating them, or dismissing them with one-liners.
So far you HAVE no points so there is nothing to 'refute'.
Pretending they don't exist does not make them nonexistent, Fred.

Brian
bob haller
2012-07-05 02:17:20 UTC
Permalink
besides all this a random person on say a ship out in the middle of
the ocean probably lacks the knowledge to know what they saw, and more
likely probably dont care......

i mean even if they wondered about what it was, what good would the
info be.......

people see stuff all the time, and dont know they saw
Fred J. McCall
2012-07-05 06:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
besides all this a random person on say a ship out in the middle of
the ocean probably lacks the knowledge to know what they saw, and more
likely probably dont care......
i mean even if they wondered about what it was, what good would the
info be.......
people see stuff all the time, and dont know they saw
Yes, I'm sure you're an expert at this. So we just postulate that
everyone in a position to see is a Bobbert....
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Fred J. McCall
2012-07-05 06:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:39:44 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Pegasus is 4 feet in diameter. That could provide a mirror about 40
inches in diameter with room to spare for casing and payload fairing.
But isn't.
Uh, what isn't? Are you saying Pegasus isn't 4 feet in diameter? It is
4.1 ft according to Orbital.
Isn't "providing a mirror about 40 inches in diameter". Is English
not your first language?
Yes. I'm not sure your's is. "Pegasus is" would be challenged with
"isn't". "Could provide... with room to spare" should be challenged
with "doesn't".
And grammar wriggling like the preceding isn't worth challenging.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
How you going to point it? How you going to power it? How you going
to find out what it saw?
Volume behind the telescope itself, like Hubble. Google the STEP
satellites launched by Pegasus, especially STEP-4 and TSX-5. They
folded lots of hardware into a small volume.
Oh, by magic, then. I see.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
The comment was "lot of other folks do" have radar. Please identify
the radar system over the south Atlantic or sourthern Indian Ocean, or
central/southern Pacific that would detect launches from the
Ascension, Diego Garcia, or Kwajalein areas.
Any old RORSAT. You think Russia has no radars looking near those
places? What fool's paradise do you live in?
I began this discussion explicitly pointing out that Russia would not
necessarily reveal their technology and what they know. I completely
agree that Russia would know whatever it is such a vehicle was up to.
Would they announce it? They'd have to provide proof that it wasn't
just a discarded stage from some other launch, or what-not.
And for the record, RORSATs are all-weather surveillance satellites,
not Air Traffic Control radar. And they are necessarily in low orbits
whose overflights can be easily timed to avoid.
Oh, so you can do it in secret if anyone who sees it keeps the secret.
Yeah, that's quite clever of you.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Who do you think the 'secret' is trying
to be kept from?
The same people they're keeping the nature of X-37B or the recent NROL
launches from? If the Russians and Chinese know all about what NRO is
launching, why does NRO still keep it secret? From whom?
The Russians and Chinese DON'T.
Then why do you assume they WOULD know all about a clandestine
satellite program? You can't have it both ways, Fred.
Well, actually I can, since you're arguing two different things.
There's a lot of distance between "know it launched" and "know all
about it".
I think we're arguing around in circles here. :-)
Well, you're trying to. I'm merely pointing out the holes in your
'arguments'.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
I'll point out that Iran recently forced down one of our UAVs that was
"accidentally" over its territory.
I assume you think you have some point there, but it certainly isn't
obvious what it's supposed to be.
Secret U.S. military systems overflying Iran. You can't grasp that
connection? Okay then.
That 'connection' makes no sense.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
What it can't do is power the electronics, point it, transmit what it
sees, or any number of other things
Of course it can. Orbview and SeaWIFS get along just fine.
Which of them has a 40 inch primary mirror?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
(unless all that other stuff comes
up on ANOTHER Pegasus or three).
Well, now that you mention it, the first unmanned U.S. rendezvous was
DART... launched on Pegasus in 2005. It crashed into the target, but
was followed up by Orbital Express, which undocked and re-docked. Also
launched on Pegasus.
So now we'll postulate magical automatic assembly on orbit to go with
everything else.

So let's see where we are. IF anyone who can detect it keeps it a
secret and IF we can use magical packing technology and IF we can
pretend to have magical automatic assembly on orbit THEN we could have
a totally secret space program.

Yeah, ok....
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
And while we're on the subject, there is no reason to believe Pegasus
is the biggest option for air-launched spacecraft. The Air Force
dropped Minutemen missiles out the back of a C-141 in the early 1980s
to demonstrate air-launched MX ICBMs. There is absolutely no reason to
believe an Athena-like launcher (derived from MX) could not also be
shoved out the back of a C-17 or C-5, and there is still the strangley
modified C-5 (with the extended "cheeks") that was seen in the 1990s.
Or perhaps you could just FART them into orbit? Since you've elected
to show just how big your ass is, it seems entirely feasible.
http://youtu.be/96A0wb1Ov9k
Care to revise that dismissal?
Not especially, no.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, so since you don't know it could be ANYTHING.
Or nothing. I've admitted that all along. For the record, I do NOT
think any of this has actually happened. I'm just saying it isn't
impossible. You're flailing around for counter-arguments has not been
particularly successful.
Well, it's not been particularly successful against you, but then your
head is up and locked into vast conspiracies and magic technologies.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Yeah, right. And
the proof of it being whatever loony thing you want to claim it is is
that 'nobody' knows. Except, of course, that lots of people do.
Name them.
Anyone who can read. I guess that leaves you out.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
But in any case, you just can't say that, Fred. We know very little
about what DoD/NRO does in space, why, or how.
Poppycock! Perhaps YOU know very little, but lots of other people
know quite a bit that is public knowledge.
Such as? Who are these mysterious other people you keep speaking of
who have all the answers about NRO and are willing to talk? Frankly,
you're the one who's starting to sound all X-Files here, not me. Is
the Cigarette Smoking Man sharing info with you?
Anyone who can read. This apparently leaves you out.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
We know they've
launched secret things on Atlas and Titan, and one or two Delta IIs.
What was actually under the payload fairing is not publicly known.
Bull. You can mostly tell what that stuff is by the orbits it goes
to.
The orbit it goes to is not in question. A sun sync orbit only tells
us that the payload is for Earth Observation, not actually what it is.
It could be one KH-11, or it could be three smaller nested birds. Note
that Shuttle launched an IUS with a DSP satellite on one mission and
an IUS with two DSCS satellites on another. Same booster, same orbit,
entirely different missions. And there was no way to tell which was
which.
And yet you know. Isn't that peculiar?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
"Much smaller"? Just how much smaller? And are you sure they were
talking about the optical birds and not the radar ones? And how were
they to be made "smaller and lighter"? Not by making the camera
primary significantly smaller, I would bet, since that pretty well
wrecks your ability to see if you do that.
It will be interesting to someday find out exactly what FIA was trying
to achieve. Whatever it was, it was either trying to do too much on
one spaceframe (like the NPOESS of the same era) or it tried too much
new technology at once, some of which may have not panned out and was
hopelessly behind schedule and overbudget (like X-33 also of the same
period.)
It could conceivably have been folding mirrors like Multi Mirror
Telescope. James Webb tried the same thing in the IR band and has been
a nightmare of technical problems, delays and budget overruns. An MMT
design could fit on a smaller rocket, like Atlas at least (Ariane 5 is
launching Webb, but is going all the way to L2.)
It COULD have been magical alien technology, but I wouldn't consider
it likely.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
We also know that NRO recently gave NASA two KH-11/Hubble class
telescopes. If they're giving away big telescopes, with what did NRO
replace them?
Other big telescopes. Ever heard of 'spares sets'?
According to the rumors at the time (and that's all we really have to
go on, since NRO isn't talking) there was one leftover KH-11 when FIA
went belly-up, and it was refurbished and launched. Possibly as
USA-224.
Perhaps you should listen to something other than rumours? When FIA
went belly up Lockheed was contracted to produce two additional
KH-series birds. This is public knowledge.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
You know Lockheed
was put on contract to build more KH-11 at the end of the optical part
of FIA, right?
Yes, but why didn't Lockheed use the available Hubble/KH-11-class
mirrors in their new-build KH-11s? It will probably be decades before
we know the answer.
Do you not know what 'spares sets' means?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-224
Actually, that's just Wikipedia's guess, albeit a good one. The Air
Force/NRO has not admitted it was a KH-11 (which is kinda my point
that we don't really know what's under that fairing). But again, why
didn't they use the existing mirrors for the new-builds? And we don't
know if USA-224 was the last of the old breed or the first of the new
KH-11s.
You apparently elect to know very little, no matter how much is known.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Do your math again. FIRST STAGE burnout of Pegasus is bit less than
38 miles up. That says it is visible from a circle on the Earth with
a radius of around 550 miles at burnout.
There are a lot of islands within 550 miles of any of the places you
mention.
No, Fred there are not. Break open an atlas and find Diego Garcia and
Ascension Island. A launch due south from, say 200 miles south of
Diego Garcia wouldn't come within 550 miles of anything until it
overflies the Kergullen Islands almost 3,000 miles south. The Isle St.
Paul and Isle Amsterdam are near the flightpath, but are usually
uninhabited (occasional visiting scientists only.) Ascension Island
has nothing whatsoever due south of it, within 500 miles of the
flightpath until Nightingale Island also 3,000 miles away.
Follow your own advice. The population of Diego Garcia was relocated,
not disintegrated.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
And that's just FIRST STAGE burnout. It's much higher at
second stage burnout.
And much higher and harder to see by anyone on the ground. I watched
too many Atlas-Centaur launches that disappeared as soon as the Atlas
burned out and Centaur ignited.
Anecdote is not the singular of data.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
And the big bright thing coming out of it and going up to space is a
****ROCKET****, you yammerhead!!!!!!
With no one within 500 miles to see it.
Poppycock!
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Asked and answered. Sorry, but I don't find debating games like the
preceding to be particularly convincing.
Especially when you are badly losing the debate...
You mean when you persist in making things up and pretending how
things have gone...
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
And I think Diego Garcia (a military base with no civilians
whatsoever) is an even better candidate.
Count the people living on all the islands within 550 miles of that
place.
Zero.
Wrong.
Post by Brian Thorn
You have actually looked up Diego Garcia, right? Besides, I have
repeatedly stated an L-1011 or other carrier aircraft staged from
Diego Garcia or Ascension, not launching the rocket from a pad there.
You really should follow your own advice.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Nothing secret about RORSATs existing.
You do understand what a RORSAT is, right Fred? I don't think you do.
I really don't care what you decide to conveniently 'think'.
Post by Brian Thorn
RORSATs are not Air Traffic Control radars in space, they are Earth
imaging satellites that can see in all weather and at night. All they
would have seen on Ascension is an L-1011 on the ramp.
You really don't know what RORSATs are or are capable of, do you?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, I see. The fact that it was all wrong doesn't matter in your
world. Good to know. It explains how you can make the claims that
you do.
It doesn't change the basic premise at all. A Pegasus from an L-1011.
An Athena-1 (or something similar) shoved out the back of a C-5. Or
Blackstar on a modified XB-70. The details are certainly disputible
and very likely wrong. But the concept is entirely valid.
Or some other bit of magical alien technology and we just teleport the
thing up into orbit, right?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Yes, you've argued that. What you haven't done is provided any real
support for your 'argument'.
Only in Fred-world. I'm not the one making up nonexistant islands as
proof launches would have been seen.
<yawn>

And so Brian devolves to the usual Stupid Usenet Tricks level of
rhetoric. Where do you think the population of Diego Garcia was moved
to, Brian?
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
making
up false data ("one cubic foot satellite"), putting words in my mouth
that were not there ("small satellite, not the biggest Pegasus could
launch") invoking radar systems that don't exist in your attempt to
prove a launch would be seen on radar everywhere on Earth,
Spate of outright lies.
Your own words. I'm not surprised at all you are now pretending you
didn't make those claims. But they're right there in your previous
replies.
Conveniently out of context, rearranged, or merely made up.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Where'd I 'admit' any such thing?
"If you know of a way to get a small vehicle doing Mach 5 up to orbit,
please let us all know."
So you must therefore agree that such a Mach 5 vehicle exists. It is a
shame for your argument that the DoD has not admitted it.
Shame for you that I don't have to 'agree' just because you want me
to.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
I'll note your 'question' is predicated on an assumption not currently
in evidence.
Backpeddaling, Fred. I thought you were above disowning your own
words.
Post by Fred J. McCall
And again we see that the facts don't matter in your world.
Pot. Kettle. "Black".
And that brings us to the end of our little journey. I don't find
bumper sticker cliches convincing, either.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
No, the point is that you and Jeff claim that a secret space launch is
IMPOSSIBLE. I'm not addressing the why's, only that it certainly is
POSSIBLE, and without invoking magic pixie dust either. It would be
more or less off-the-shelf capabilty.
Except IT WOULDN'T BE SECRET BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT.
Who? I'm talking about real people, Fred, not make-believe people on
make-believe islands.
Pretending they don't exist does not make them nonexistent, Brian.
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Brian Thorn
For a specious argument, you sure are having a difficult time refuting
it. You could start by actually addressing my points, instead of
ignoring them, misstating them, or dismissing them with one-liners.
So far you HAVE no points so there is nothing to 'refute'.
Pretending they don't exist does not make them nonexistent, Fred.
Pretending they do exist doesn't make them require rebuttal, Brian.

If you ever HAVE a real point, be sure to get back to me. Otherwise,
stop wasting my time with your fact-free tactics.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Rick Jones
2012-06-27 21:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch
phase or the re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but
the operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to
launch from some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry
someplace way out over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg
from the NW to SE to stay out over uninhabited areas as much as
possible. This means landing at like Tierra del Fuego. And then of
course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein Atoll.
How easy is it to distinguish between the re-entry of a space vehicle
and the entry into the atmosphere of a meteor? Even out over the
Pacific there are still ships and planes yes?

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Jeff Findley
2012-06-28 13:52:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <jsfu0d$qmh$***@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, ***@hp.com
says...
Post by Rick Jones
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch
phase or the re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but
the operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to
launch from some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry
someplace way out over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg
from the NW to SE to stay out over uninhabited areas as much as
possible. This means landing at like Tierra del Fuego. And then of
course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein Atoll.
How easy is it to distinguish between the re-entry of a space vehicle
and the entry into the atmosphere of a meteor? Even out over the
Pacific there are still ships and planes yes?
Usually pretty easy. Most meteors are so small, they burn up quickly in
the atmosphere. Anything which doesn't is "interesting" either because
it's a meteor which is going to hit the surface of Earth, or it's
artificial. DOD is *very* interested in anything artificial reentering,
considering that anything artificial could be a potential threat (e.g.
nuke warhead). Even "civilians" who see such an event start calling the
local law enforcement, media, and etc. trying to find out what happened.

Like the US DOD, the Russians keep a very close eye out too, lest those
sneaky Americans try something funny... Same for Europe, China, and
etc. I'd guess even India is very interested in such a capability
considering neighboring Pakistan...

Any country with the ability to put up a satellite is interested in
using them for early warning of ICBM attacks. So yes, it's pretty damn
hard to launch and land something covertly.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
Doug Freyburger
2012-06-28 19:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Jones
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch
phase or the re-entry?
I'm guessing the re-entry.
Because the decelleration phase of the reentry lasts longer. Correct.
Probably. The acceleration at launch is limited by the power of the
rockets, which are made to accelerate unmanned spacecraft rapidly. The
decelleration on renetry is limited by friction with the air so it can
last a lot longer. I'm not sure the larger size at launch time is a big
enough difference to matter. There's a huge ion cloud trailing behind a
reentering object and that's visible on radar. At launch the rocket
gets as high as it can as fast as it can to avoid generating a large ion
cloud.
Post by Rick Jones
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but
the operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to
launch from some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry
someplace way out over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg
from the NW to SE to stay out over uninhabited areas as much as
possible. This means landing at like Tierra del Fuego. And then of
course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein Atoll.
Launch at noon so the flight from the rocket matters less. Ooops,
except it's the infrared from the heat of the rocket that's detected.
Launching in summer just doesn't matter on that scale.
Post by Rick Jones
How easy is it to distinguish between the re-entry of a space vehicle
and the entry into the atmosphere of a meteor? Even out over the
Pacific there are still ships and planes yes?
There's no reasonable way for a meteor to be going slower than escape
velocity. There's no reasonable way for almost any spacecraft to come
in near escape velocity. Once the velocity of the object is measured,
it's easy to tell. Before the velocity is measured, it's hard to tell.

It can happen that a meteor explodes with a bang near nuclear range
before anyone notices the track. Big reaction by everyone. Woe unto
the world if that happens over Moscow or Washington some day.
Wretch Fossil
2012-06-16 08:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wretch Fossil
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C14/C12 in
Martian methane and C13/C12 in carbon dioxide.
Curiosity is capable of detecting precise isotope ratios in Martian
gases with Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS, Ref. 1) in its analytical
laboratory “Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)”. Fossils and meteorites
found on Mars contain carbon compounds (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon
compounds, when irradiated with ultraviolet rays, produce Martian
methane (Ref. 3), which contain C12, C13 and C14. (Note: C12 and C13
are stable carbon isotopes, while C14 is non-stable, radioactive
carbon isotope.) Murchison meteorite has the same composition as
meteorites found on Mars and Murchison meteorite’s ratios of C13/C12
already reveal their microbial origin (Ref. 3).
The isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could
distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin (Ref. 4). That
is how Curiosity is revealing life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
      Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2010/08/nearly-all-meteorites-display...
     Quote from point 3 in Ref. 2: “Billions of ET mammal fossils
means millions of mammals lived somewhere extraterrestrial. They could
not have lived on a small asteroid of a few kilometers in diameter.
The only possible origin of those mammals was Mars.”
Ref. 3:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
     Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 3: “Stable hydrogen
isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from
Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. The stable carbon isotope
composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial microbial
origin; ”
Ref. 4:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 4: “To rule out a biogenic origin for
the methane, a future probe or lander hosting a mass spectrometer will
be needed, as the isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in
methane could distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
New edition:

NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.

Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon compounds exist in organic
matter and building blocks of life (Ref. 3). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). Present and recent (<40,000-years-
old) life on Mars could be revealed with detection of C12 and C14
(Ref. 5). That is how Curiosity is revealing present or past life on
Mars.

Ref. 1:
http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
        Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:
http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
        Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2012/05/all-over-mars-are-lifes-building-blocks.html
        Quote from Ref. 3: "Ten out of eleven Martian meteorites are
found to contain “life’s building blocks” (see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18196353 ) So, Mars must
be littered with life’s building blocks in igneous rocks. "
Ref. 4:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
          Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 4: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial origin; ”
Ref. 5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 5: “… the isotopic proportions of
carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could distinguish between a biogenic
and non-biogenic origin.“

Read more at
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_15.html
bob haller
2012-06-16 10:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wretch Fossil
Post by Wretch Fossil
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C14/C12 in
Martian methane and C13/C12 in carbon dioxide.
Curiosity is capable of detecting precise isotope ratios in Martian
gases with Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS, Ref. 1) in its analytical
laboratory “Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)”. Fossils and meteorites
found on Mars contain carbon compounds (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon
compounds, when irradiated with ultraviolet rays, produce Martian
methane (Ref. 3), which contain C12, C13 and C14. (Note: C12 and C13
are stable carbon isotopes, while C14 is non-stable, radioactive
carbon isotope.) Murchison meteorite has the same composition as
meteorites found on Mars and Murchison meteorite’s ratios of C13/C12
already reveal their microbial origin (Ref. 3).
The isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could
distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin (Ref. 4). That
is how Curiosity is revealing life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
      Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2010/08/nearly-all-meteorites-display...
     Quote from point 3 in Ref. 2: “Billions of ET mammal fossils
means millions of mammals lived somewhere extraterrestrial. They could
not have lived on a small asteroid of a few kilometers in diameter.
The only possible origin of those mammals was Mars.”
Ref. 3:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
     Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 3: “Stable hydrogen
isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from
Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. The stable carbon isotope
composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial microbial
origin; ”
Ref. 4:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 4: “To rule out a biogenic origin for
the methane, a future probe or lander hosting a mass spectrometer will
be needed, as the isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in
methane could distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.
Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon compounds exist in organic
matter and building blocks of life (Ref. 3). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). Present and recent (<40,000-years-
old) life on Mars could be revealed with detection of C12 and C14
(Ref. 5). That is how Curiosity is revealing present or past life on
Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
        Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
        Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2012/05/all-over-mars-are-lifes-build...
        Quote from Ref. 3: "Ten out of eleven Martian meteorites are
found to contain “life’s building blocks” (seehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18196353) So, Mars must
be littered with life’s building blocks in igneous rocks. "
Ref. 4:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
          Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 4: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial origin; ”
Ref. 5:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 5: “… the isotopic proportions of
carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could distinguish between a biogenic
and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
nasa really should of launched more spirit and opportunities. they had
a solid dependable design that was tested in mars....
Wretch Fossil
2012-06-16 13:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wretch Fossil
Post by Wretch Fossil
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C14/C12 in
Martian methane and C13/C12 in carbon dioxide.
Curiosity is capable of detecting precise isotope ratios in Martian
gases with Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS, Ref. 1) in its analytical
laboratory “Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)”. Fossils and meteorites
found on Mars contain carbon compounds (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon
compounds, when irradiated with ultraviolet rays, produce Martian
methane (Ref. 3), which contain C12, C13 and C14. (Note: C12 and C13
are stable carbon isotopes, while C14 is non-stable, radioactive
carbon isotope.) Murchison meteorite has the same composition as
meteorites found on Mars and Murchison meteorite’s ratios of C13/C12
already reveal their microbial origin (Ref. 3).
The isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could
distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin (Ref. 4). That
is how Curiosity is revealing life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
      Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2010/08/nearly-all-meteorites-display...
     Quote from point 3 in Ref. 2: “Billions of ET mammal fossils
means millions of mammals lived somewhere extraterrestrial. They could
not have lived on a small asteroid of a few kilometers in diameter.
The only possible origin of those mammals was Mars.”
Ref. 3:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
     Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 3: “Stable hydrogen
isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from
Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. The stable carbon isotope
composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial microbial
origin; ”
Ref. 4:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 4: “To rule out a biogenic origin for
the methane, a future probe or lander hosting a mass spectrometer will
be needed, as the isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in
methane could distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.
Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon compounds exist in organic
matter and building blocks of life (Ref. 3). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). Present and recent (<40,000-years-
old) life on Mars could be revealed with detection of C12 and C14
(Ref. 5). That is how Curiosity is revealing present or past life on
Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
        Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
        Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2012/05/all-over-mars-are-lifes-build...
        Quote from Ref. 3: "Ten out of eleven Martian meteorites are
found to contain “life’s building blocks” (seehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18196353) So, Mars must
be littered with life’s building blocks in igneous rocks. "
Ref. 4:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
          Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 4: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial origin; ”
Ref. 5:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 5: “… the isotopic proportions of
carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could distinguish between a biogenic
and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
New edition:

NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.

Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon compounds exist in organic
matter and building blocks of life (Ref. 3). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). Present and recent (&lt;40,000-years-
old) life on Mars could be revealed with detection of C12 and C14
(Ref. 5). That is how Curiosity is revealing present or past life on
Mars.

Ref. 1:
http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:
http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of carbon
compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:
https://news.google.com.tw/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&ncl=dhSZpBlGacTnMAMkttRQGJ5lXA0EM

http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2012/05/all-over-mars-are-lifes-building-blocks.html
Quote from Ref. 3: "Ten out of eleven Martian meteorites are found to
contain “life’s building blocks”
Ref. 4:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 4: “The stable carbon
isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial
microbial origin; ”
Ref. 5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 5: “… the isotopic proportions of
carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could distinguish between a biogenic
and non-biogenic origin.“

Read more at
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_15.html
Wretch Fossil
2012-06-18 14:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wretch Fossil
Post by Wretch Fossil
Post by Wretch Fossil
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C14/C12 in
Martian methane and C13/C12 in carbon dioxide.
Curiosity is capable of detecting precise isotope ratios in Martian
gases with Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS, Ref. 1) in its analytical
laboratory “Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)”. Fossils and meteorites
found on Mars contain carbon compounds (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon
compounds, when irradiated with ultraviolet rays, produce Martian
methane (Ref. 3), which contain C12, C13 and C14. (Note: C12 and C13
are stable carbon isotopes, while C14 is non-stable, radioactive
carbon isotope.) Murchison meteorite has the same composition as
meteorites found on Mars and Murchison meteorite’s ratios of C13/C12
already reveal their microbial origin (Ref. 3).
The isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could
distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin (Ref. 4). That
is how Curiosity is revealing life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
      Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2010/08/nearly-all-meteorites-display...
     Quote from point 3 in Ref. 2: “Billions of ET mammal fossils
means millions of mammals lived somewhere extraterrestrial. They could
not have lived on a small asteroid of a few kilometers in diameter.
The only possible origin of those mammals was Mars.”
Ref. 3:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
     Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 3: “Stable hydrogen
isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from
Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. The stable carbon isotope
composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial microbial
origin; ”
Ref. 4:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 4: “To rule out a biogenic origin for
the methane, a future probe or lander hosting a mass spectrometer will
be needed, as the isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in
methane could distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.
Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon compounds exist in organic
matter and building blocks of life (Ref. 3). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). Present and recent (<40,000-years-
old) life on Mars could be revealed with detection of C12 and C14
(Ref. 5). That is how Curiosity is revealing present or past life on
Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
        Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
        Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2012/05/all-over-mars-are-lifes-build...
        Quote from Ref. 3: "Ten out of eleven Martian meteorites are
found to contain “life’s building blocks” (seehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18196353) So, Mars must
be littered with life’s building blocks in igneous rocks. "
Ref. 4:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
          Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 4: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial origin; ”
Ref. 5:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 5: “… the isotopic proportions of
carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could distinguish between a biogenic
and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.
Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon compounds exist in organic
matter and building blocks of life (Ref. 3). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). Present and recent (&lt;40,000-years-
old) life on Mars could be revealed with detection of C12 and C14
(Ref. 5). That is how Curiosity is revealing present or past life on
Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of carbon
compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:https://news.google.com.tw/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&ncl=dh...
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2012/05/all-over-mars-are-lifes-build...
Quote from Ref. 3: "Ten out of eleven Martian meteorites are found to
contain “life’s building blocks”
Ref. 4:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 4: “The stable carbon
isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial
microbial origin; ”
Ref. 5:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 5: “… the isotopic proportions of
carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could distinguish between a biogenic
and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
New edition:

NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.

Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Most meteorites, including Murchison
meteorite, originated from Mars (Ref. 4). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). That is how Curiosity is revealing
past life on Mars.

Ref. 1:
http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
           Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:
http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
           Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/6999138/Mars-carbon-find-a-breakthrough
           Quote from Ref. 3: "Mars meteorites that landed on Earth
show strong evidence that very large molecules containing carbon,
which is a key ingredient for the building blocks of life, can
originate on the Red Planet, researchers say."; "Steele's team
examined samples from 11 Martian meteorites from a period spanning
about 4.2 billion years. They detected large carbon compounds in 10."
Ref. 4:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2011/08/fossils-are-all-over-mars.html
      Quote from Ref. 4: “Fossils are found in most meteorites (note
A), which came from asteroids (note B), which originated from Mars
(note C). So, fossils are all over Mars. “
Ref. 5:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
           Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 5: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial origin; ”

Read more at
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_15.html
Wretch Fossil
2012-06-19 15:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wretch Fossil
Post by Wretch Fossil
Post by Wretch Fossil
Post by Wretch Fossil
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C14/C12 in
Martian methane and C13/C12 in carbon dioxide.
Curiosity is capable of detecting precise isotope ratios in Martian
gases with Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS, Ref. 1) in its analytical
laboratory “Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)”. Fossils and meteorites
found on Mars contain carbon compounds (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon
compounds, when irradiated with ultraviolet rays, produce Martian
methane (Ref. 3), which contain C12, C13 and C14. (Note: C12 and C13
are stable carbon isotopes, while C14 is non-stable, radioactive
carbon isotope.) Murchison meteorite has the same composition as
meteorites found on Mars and Murchison meteorite’s ratios of C13/C12
already reveal their microbial origin (Ref. 3).
The isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could
distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin (Ref. 4). That
is how Curiosity is revealing life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
      Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2010/08/nearly-all-meteorites-display...
     Quote from point 3 in Ref. 2: “Billions of ET mammal fossils
means millions of mammals lived somewhere extraterrestrial. They could
not have lived on a small asteroid of a few kilometers in diameter.
The only possible origin of those mammals was Mars.”
Ref. 3:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
     Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 3: “Stable hydrogen
isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from
Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. The stable carbon isotope
composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial microbial
origin; ”
Ref. 4:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 4: “To rule out a biogenic origin for
the methane, a future probe or lander hosting a mass spectrometer will
be needed, as the isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in
methane could distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.
Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon compounds exist in organic
matter and building blocks of life (Ref. 3). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). Present and recent (<40,000-years-
old) life on Mars could be revealed with detection of C12 and C14
(Ref. 5). That is how Curiosity is revealing present or past life on
Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
        Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
        Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2012/05/all-over-mars-are-lifes-build...
        Quote from Ref. 3: "Ten out of eleven Martian meteorites are
found to contain “life’s building blocks” (seehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18196353) So, Mars must
be littered with life’s building blocks in igneous rocks. "
Ref. 4:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
          Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 4: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial origin; ”
Ref. 5:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 5: “… the isotopic proportions of
carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could distinguish between a biogenic
and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.
Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon compounds exist in organic
matter and building blocks of life (Ref. 3). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). Present and recent (&lt;40,000-years-
old) life on Mars could be revealed with detection of C12 and C14
(Ref. 5). That is how Curiosity is revealing present or past life on
Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of carbon
compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:https://news.google.com.tw/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&ncl=dh...
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2012/05/all-over-mars-are-lifes-build...
Quote from Ref. 3: "Ten out of eleven Martian meteorites are found to
contain “life’s building blocks”
Ref. 4:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 4: “The stable carbon
isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial
microbial origin; ”
Ref. 5:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 5: “… the isotopic proportions of
carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could distinguish between a biogenic
and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.
Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds exist all
over Mars surface (Ref. 2, 3). Most meteorites, including Murchison
meteorite, originated from Mars (Ref. 4). When irradiated with
ultraviolet rays, those carbon compounds produce Martian methane (CH4,
Ref. 4), whose isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-13 already
reveal microbial origin (Ref. 4). That is how Curiosity is revealing
past life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
           Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
           Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/6999138/Mars-carbon-find-a-breakthrough
           Quote from Ref. 3: "Mars meteorites that landed on Earth
show strong evidence that very large molecules containing carbon,
which is a key ingredient for the building blocks of life, can
originate on the Red Planet, researchers say."; "Steele's team
examined samples from 11 Martian meteorites from a period spanning
about 4.2 billion years. They detected large carbon compounds in 10."
Ref. 4:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2011/08/fossils-are-all-over-mars.html
      Quote from Ref. 4: “Fossils are found in most meteorites (note
A), which came from asteroids (note B), which originated from Mars
(note C). So, fossils are all over Mars. “
Ref. 5:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
           Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 5: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial ...
read more »
New edition:

NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.

Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds and fossil
cells exist all over Mars (Ref. 2, 3, 4). Most meteorites, including
Murchison meteorite, contain fossil cells and originated from Mars
(Ref. 4). Carbon compounds that exist in Martian fossil cells produce
Martian methane when they are irradiated with ultraviolet rays (Ref.
4). The Martian methane (CH4) contains C12 and C13 at ratios that
prove Martian C12 and C13 originated from microbes (Ref. 4). That is
how Curiosity is revealing past life on Mars.
Ref. 1:
http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
           Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:
http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
           Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/6999138/Mars-carbon-find-a-breakthrough
           Quote from Ref. 3: "Mars meteorites that landed on Earth
show strong evidence that very large molecules containing carbon,
which is a key ingredient for the building blocks of life, can
originate on the Red Planet, researchers say."; "Steele's team
examined samples from 11 Martian meteorites from a period spanning
about 4.2 billion years. They detected large carbon compounds in 10."
Ref. 4:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2011/08/fossils-are-all-over-mars.html
       Quote from Ref. 4: “Fossils are found in most meteorites (note
A), which came from asteroids (note B), which originated from Mars
(note C). So, fossils are all over Mars. “
Ref. 5:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
           Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 5: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial origin; ”

Read more at
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_15.html
Wretch Fossil
2012-06-26 14:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wretch Fossil
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C12/C13 in
Martian carbon compounds.
Curiosity is capable of precisely detecting carbon isotopes with its
“Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)” (Ref. 1). Carbon compounds andfossil
cells exist all over Mars (Ref. 2, 3, 4). Most meteorites, including
Murchison meteorite, containfossilcells and originated from Mars
(Ref. 4). Carbon compounds that exist in Martianfossilcells produce
Martian methane when they are irradiated with ultraviolet rays (Ref.
4). The Martian methane (CH4) contains C12 and C13 at ratios that
prove Martian C12 and C13 originated from microbes (Ref. 4). That is
how Curiosity is revealing past life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
           Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains
precise isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures
trace levels of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/699/marsSAM.shtml
           Quote from Ref. 2: “Question 1: What does the inventory of
carbon compounds near the surface of Mars tell us about its potential
habitability?
Goal 1: Survey carbon compound sources and evaluate their possible
mechanism of formation and destruction.”
Ref. 3:http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/6999138/Mars-carbon-find-a-breakthrough
           Quote from Ref. 3: "Mars meteorites that landed on Earth
show strong evidence that very large molecules containing carbon,
which is a key ingredient for the building blocks of life, can
originate on the Red Planet, researchers say."; "Steele's team
examined samples from 11 Martian meteorites from a period spanning
about 4.2 billion years. They detected large carbon compounds in 10."
Ref. 4:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2011/08/fossils-are-all-over-mars.html
       Quote from Ref. 4: “Fossils are found in most meteorites (note
A), which came from asteroids (note B), which originated from Mars
(note C). So, fossils are all over Mars. “
Ref. 5:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
           Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 5: “The stable
carbon isotope composition, in contrast, is similar to that of
terrestrial microbial origin; ”
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
Typing errors: Second paragraph's last two ( Ref. 4 ) should read
( Ref. 5 ).
G=EMC^2
2012-06-17 12:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wretch Fossil
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity, will land
on Mars on Aug. 6 and reveal Martian life by detecting C14/C12 in
Martian methane and C13/C12 in carbon dioxide.
Curiosity is capable of detecting precise isotope ratios in Martian
gases with Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS, Ref. 1) in its analytical
laboratory “Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)”. Fossils and meteorites
found on Mars contain carbon compounds (Ref. 2, 3). Those carbon
compounds, when irradiated with ultraviolet rays, produce Martian
methane (Ref. 3), which contain C12, C13 and C14. (Note: C12 and C13
are stable carbon isotopes, while C14 is non-stable, radioactive
carbon isotope.) Murchison meteorite has the same composition as
meteorites found on Mars and Murchison meteorite’s ratios of C13/C12
already reveal their microbial origin (Ref. 3).
The isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in methane could
distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin (Ref. 4). That
is how Curiosity is revealing life on Mars.
Ref. 1:http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/Instruments/SAM/
      Quote from second paragraph in Ref. 1: “The TLS obtains precise
isotope ratios for C and O in carbon dioxide and measures trace levels
of methane and its carbon isotope.”
Ref. 2:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2010/08/nearly-all-meteorites-display...
     Quote from point 3 in Ref. 2: “Billions of ET mammal fossils
means millions of mammals lived somewhere extraterrestrial. They could
not have lived on a small asteroid of a few kilometers in diameter.
The only possible origin of those mammals was Mars.”
Ref. 3:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11203.html
     Quote from last sentence in abstract in Ref. 3: “Stable hydrogen
isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from
Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. The stable carbon isotope
composition, in contrast, is similar to that of terrestrial microbial
origin; ”
Ref. 4:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature#In_astrobiology
Quote from last sentence in Ref. 4: “To rule out a biogenic origin for
the methane, a future probe or lander hosting a mass spectrometer will
be needed, as the isotopic proportions of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in
methane could distinguish between a biogenic and non-biogenic origin.“
Read more athttp://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/p/major-messages-from-wretch-fossil_1...
Mafia NASA lies. They give us fairy tales. They start with "Once upon
a time" Mars had running water. "Once upon a time" Mars was closer to
the Sun. "Once upon a time" It had heavy air pressure that protected
it from the harmfull rays of the Sun. Infarred photons that break
water into its two elements. Reality is the Mafia took over NASA and
bleed it dry. It was done by Nixon and Walter Annenberg. That is no
fairy tale. Its a tale that is covered up by the CIA,and can not be in
the press. Get the [icture yet? TreBert
Loading...