Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.
Profile image
Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Four Factual Errors about the Space Program

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.



 

by [email protected]

Most of us Baby Boomers have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into believing that “Mom, apple pie, and launch the Mars Rover!” is the way to go. 

In the process, the planet is being trashed by more and more launches, as the industry WORLDWIDE increases, to launch even privatized space vehicles, based upon the tried and tested technology of the environmentally-disasterous Space Shuttle era. 

At this point, I question the need to go into outer space at all, to accomplish the very thing that we’re collectively seeking to do in the first place.

This veil of hypocrisy of the space program being for the ‘betterment of all Mankind’ must be lifted, to reveal what is REALLY going on with the trashing of the environment at large. 

First Factual Error was in the disregard for all of life and the environment, by launching 10 POUNDS OF PLUTONIUM and risking an accident in the process.  

So not only did NASA risk life and limb with launching 10 lbs. of Plutonium, what came out of the TAIL PIPE of the ATLAS ROCKET BOOSTER that lifted this spacecraft into outer space?  

 

The space program has proved itself in many ways, but exploring pristine space has a large environmental cost here on Earth. NASA estimates that complete cleanup of the remnants of space shots going all the way back to the Apollo Program will take decades and the cost will run close to one Billion dollars.

 

Learn more about the Mars rocket launch environmental disaster here: 

http://darinselby.1hwy.com/MonsterMarsRocket.html

 

Second Factual Error is what was finally chosen to be the way to land on Mars.  I am simply amazed at the overly-complex, Rube Goldberg way that NASA has decided to land their rover named, ‘Curiosity’ on Mars.  Watch this video, and at about the 2 minute mark, when the rockets get fired, everything gets WAY more complicated than it really needs to be.  

Does a Science lab on Mars to dig for rocks really warrant the $2.5 billion cost of taxpayer’s money?   And if it does, after all the environmental damage to our atmospheric envelope from solid rocket fuel pollution, and the risk of 10 lbs. of Plutonium dispersement from an accident,  now Curiosity is almost ready to land on Mars, Aug 5th.

So I watch this video, “Seven Minutes of Terror” and they’re all ‘biting their nails’ in it because of all the things that could go wrong with the TOTALLY LAME landing sequence (in my opinion, of course), that the NASA technicians came up with.

The Tao Te Ching explains it this way,

“Plan difficult tasks through the simplest tasks

Achieve large tasks through the smallest tasks

The difficult tasks of the world must be handled through the simple tasks

The large tasks of the world must be handled through the small tasks”

In other words, that which has become simple has matured. 

What has seemed to be completely forgotten on the drawing board for creating the entry module onto the Martian surface, was the simplicity of the ‘Deployable Tensairity Inflatable Wing’:  

  

This wing has already been built and tested by none other than NASA, and it completely eliminates the need for the use of the complicated EIGHT rockets (that will all have to work without one glitch) for landing the Mars rover.

 

The price tag would have also been a fraction of what was spent on this landing design, which has a HIGH probability of failure.  And that is according to the engineers who built it!

 

If a Deployable ‘Tensairity’ Inflatable Wing was used, the 200 mph parachute descent would have then been able to turn into a GLIDING descent, with the minimal use of small rockets to control pitch and yaw of the flying lander. 

These small rockets would also be utilized for short lift-offs, so that Curiosity could then take off and fly to another location.  Then it glides once again to a soft landing.  The Tensairity wings would deflate, roll back up and stow away, ready for the next short runway take-off.

 

Third Factual Error is that people are continuously fed the B.S. that we need to go into outer space, or to Mars, or back to the moon.  This propaganda was all started in the U.S. by a captured Nazi rocket scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who teamed up with Walt Disney back in the ’50′s.      

 

Through Disney media movies, they BRAINWASHED a good majority of the Baby Boomer generation into this totally INSANE way to treat the environment, & frivolously waste BILLIONS of dollars on unnecessary outer-space satellite projects.  

 

And one thing about every single satellite in orbit is that they ALL must eventually return in a decaying orbit, to burn up in the atmosphere, releasing TONS of TOXIC & RADIOACTIVE CHEMICALS in re-entry into our fragile atmospheric envelope.  

 

Instead this billions of dollars wasted on gathering some MOON and MARS ROCKS, couldn’t it be better channeled, by using this voluminous scientific knowledge ofinformation overload that has already been acquired, on the betterment of mankind here on Earth?  Learn more about this here:

http://darinselby.1hwy.com/NASASatelliteReEntryDanger.html

 

Fourth Factual Error  That we need satellites at 250 – 350 miles altitude, as well as 

at a 22,500 miles geosynchronous orbit.   MILITARY advantages are the main reason. Because, almost everything that we’re doing with orbital space satellites can be done with Stratospheric Airships, and at a mere 25 miles altitude!  

As far as orbital satellites go, this ridiculous and environmentally unsound BLASTING OFF from the earth is no longer necessary.  We can now FLOAT to the edge of space instead, and accomplish just about everything that we were doing at 10 times the altitude.  Learn more about

this here:       

http://darinselby.1hwy.com/floattospace.html 



Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!


Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST


Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.

Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)

Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser!  Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!

Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.

Smart Meter Cover -  Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).

Report abuse

    Comments

    Your Comments
    Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

    Total 4 comments
    • jlehane3

      Darin if you want the bigger truth and want to see people and animals on Mars pics,Google Images “Jerry Lehane Mars” or “Mars Wolfman”. I designed the mars rovers 1987,but only named Curiosity.Nasa knew about people and life on Mars since 1976.Dig deeper. [email protected]

    • youngneill

      ya say what now ? lol

    • HereAmI

      First point; the author speaks about cheaper and less complex ways to get this object onto the surface of Mars. Herein lies the clue. The companies building this equipment see the project as simply a way to enhance their bottom line, so they are always going to go for the expensive approach. It is a giant feeding frenzy at taxpayers’ expense.
      My second point is that the US is a corporation. The sine qua non of such a venture has nothing to do with science or knowledge acquisition or national pride, or any of the other fantasies fed to a brain dead population. It is about profit. So, how to maximize profit? If I were on the project team, I would say “It would be significantly cheaper to fabricate the mission. Let’s have a virtual Mars programme”. So I would bet a dime to a grand that the whole space programme, barring ther lift-offs of course, has been manufactured here on earth, or in low-earth orbit. Groom Lake would be a very good place to recreate a plausible Martian Environment. It has recently been massively extended, and lethal force is threatened against anyone foolhardy enough to try and penetrate its environs. We could, depending on public demand, also feed in a few Alien Cities, or strange gorilla-like creatures sitting on rocks.
      Sorry America. You’ve been had, big time.

    • Anonymous

      How about the inspiration that comes from pursuing the bold? Do you discount the inherent curiosity of the human condition and the collateral innovation that is driven by exploring the unknown? Do you yourself not wonder if Earth is the only planet that harbors life? How about instilling wonder in the hearts and minds of children, inspiring them to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics; thereby, supporting America’s competitive position in technological advancement? How about how cool it would be to have human feet walk upon another planet…to become an interplanetary species?

      The US taxpayer funds NASA at half a penny per tax dollar…half a penny.

      And with all due respect, although space debris is a very real problem, I believe that you’re overstating the impact of rocket launches and nuclear-powered spacecraft on the environment. And although very high risk, I am privy to the risk assessment analysis. Landing a 2000-lb car-sized vehicle on another planet isn’t easy. Retro rockets to the surface would stir up too much regolith, potentially burying the rover. It’s too big for air bags and they lack the accuracy. The glider approach has additional inherent risks…the wings would need to be huge…autonomous guidance and control, particularly for landing is more complicated than the sky crane too.

      You are entitled to your opinion though and I respect that.

    MOST RECENT
    Load more ...

    SignUp

    Login

    Newsletter

    Email this story
    Email this story

    If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

    If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.