International Space Station saga: musical oranges or didgeridoo that gorilla

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#1
This, for sure, is not my favorite topic. Partly because I formed my opinion on our "space programs" long time ago, and partly because any common sense is not really applicable here. Blind faith is what counts. Some things you do not really think about up to a certain point. Today I ran into an older (2016) article on costs associated with sending items to space. So I naturally just could not help it...

We all know (I hope) that the International Space Station is orbiting the Earth at a distance of 254 miles, and at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour. The very first manned mission on ISS took place on October 31, 2000.

iss-through-telescope.jpg

I ran into this Business Insider article called "What NASA pays to ship supplies to astronauts in space". Below is a quick bullet synopsis of the costs.
  • In 2008, NASA signed contracts with SpaceX and its rival aerospace company Orbital Sciences, to the tune of $1.6 billion for 12 launches and $1.9 billion for eight rocket launches, respectively.
  • While these new missions cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars less than a space shuttle launch, the price of sending cargo into space didn't go down."My cost per pound went up with these rockets," Margasahayam told Tech Insider. "On the shuttle, it would be much less."
  • It used to cost about $10,000 per pound to ship on a shuttle
  • Orbital Science's Cygnus spacecraft costs about $43,180 per pound to send things up
  • SpaceX - the cheapest of NASA's new carriers gives you about $27,000 per pound.
  • SpaceX told Tech Insider that its Dragon cargo spacecraft launched on a Falcon 9 rocket can carry up to 7,300 lbs. - and that you could bring just as much cargo back to Earth, too (something Cygnus can't do). So if a Dragon is full of supplies at launch and on landing, the cost dips to $9,100 per pound.
Honestly, I have no clue how bringing something back reduces the cost from $27,000 to $9,100. Both aircraft SpaceX, and Cygnus come back. SpaceX comes back loaded? What can SpaceX bring back to be fully loaded at landing? 7,300 lbs of what could come back to Earth?

As far as I know, astronauts do not have any factories making things on the ISS. The only thing actually produced on ISS is lots of human doo-doo, but according to this article, "The waste will be discharged at intervals from the space station and will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere and look like shooting stars". Remember that next time you see a shooting star, it could be a lemon flavored one.

Anyways, what we have is an average cost of approximately $25,000 per pound. Now let's see all the nonsense present on the International Space Station, and try to figure out the cost associated with its delivery. I spent about 10 minutes collecting the below images, which suggests that there are a few more out there.

Space Circus
iss_gorilla_suit.jpg bagpipes_ISS.jpeg ISS_instruments.jpg guitar-keyboard-on-ISS.jpg
kiirobo_toy_iss.jpg iss_halloween_clothing.jpg toy_iss.jpg toys_in_space_iss.jpg
japan-space-drone.jpg Didgeridoo_ISS.jpg saxophone_iss.jpg space_oranges_iss.png
Christmas-onboard-the-ISS.jpg xmas_tree_iss.jpg eater_eggs_iss.jpg fruit_iss_bag.jpg
teddy_bear_iss.jpg lego_iss_on_iss.jpg Buzz Lightyear_iss.jpg
ISS_Catherine_Coleman_plays_a_flute.jpg ISS-cady-coleman-flutes.jpg ISS-cady-coleman-flutes_1.jpg

Rough weight estimates of some of the pictured items

1. Gorilla Suit (video) - 4.3 lbs
2. Two guitars - 10 lbs
3. Int-Ball drone - 2.2 lbs
4. Electronic piano - 20 lbs
5. Two flutes - 2 lbs
6. Didgeridoo (video) - 6 lbs
7. Saxophone - 6 lbs
8. Kirobo robot - 2 lbs
9. Random toys and clothing - 2 lbs
10. Fruit: 9 grapefruit, 4 oranges, 3 lemons ~ 6.5 lbs


Per pound: $25,000
Total weight : 61 lbs
Total cost: $1,525,000
of taxpayer money.
This is just after a 10 minute research. Wonder what could be found in there with a more meticulous approach.

* * * * *
I have this feeling that our gullibility is being tested day in and day out. Whether we have a ridiculously unprofessional space industry, or delivery of this items costs nothing to the stage set of the International Space Station.

nasa_chroma_key_1.jpg nasa_chroma_key_2.jpg
The above images have been debunked, as usually.

Five key scientific findings from 17 years of the International Space Station
(the article is priceless)

  • The fragility of the human body - worthless on Earth
  • Interplanetary contamination - worthless on Earth
  • Growing crystals for medicine - cancer is still deadly. Ask Joe Biden.
  • Cosmic rays and dark matter - when was the last time you used the dark matter?
  • Efficient combustion - worthless on Earth
You think they have enough cameras?

nasa_nikon_iss_cameras.jpg nasa_nikon_iss_cameras_1.png nasa_nikon_iss_cameras_2.jpg

ISS cost to date $160 billion
 

The Kraken

Well-known member
Messages
84
Likes
290
#2
I find the most unfortunate part of the entire ISS saga is how we where unlucky enough that compact digital video capture technology wasn't around in 1998 when they started building it.The thousands of pounds of stuff they want to bring back is all the film they shot on super 8mm. The price offset is based on the profit they will make selling the footage to the history channel for its conspiracy debunking docos.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
439
#3
This, for sure, is not my favorite topic. Partly because I formed my opinion on our "space programs" long time ago, and partly because any common sense is not really applicable here. Blind faith is what counts. Some things you do not really think about up to a certain point. Today I ran into an older (2016) article on costs associated with sending items to space. So I naturally just could not help it...

We all know (I hope) that the International Space Station is orbiting the Earth at a distance of 254 miles, and at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour. The very first manned mission on ISS took place on October 31, 2000.


I ran into this Business Insider article called "What NASA pays to ship supplies to astronauts in space". Below is a quick bullet synopsis of the costs.
  • In 2008, NASA signed contracts with SpaceX and its rival aerospace company Orbital Sciences, to the tune of $1.6 billion for 12 launches and $1.9 billion for eight rocket launches, respectively.
  • While these new missions cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars less than a space shuttle launch, the price of sending cargo into space didn't go down."My cost per pound went up with these rockets," Margasahayam told Tech Insider. "On the shuttle, it would be much less."
  • It used to cost about $10,000 per pound to ship on a shuttle
  • Orbital Science's Cygnus spacecraft costs about $43,180 per pound to send things up
  • SpaceX - the cheapest of NASA's new carriers gives you about $27,000 per pound.
  • SpaceX told Tech Insider that its Dragon cargo spacecraft launched on a Falcon 9 rocket can carry up to 7,300 lbs. - and that you could bring just as much cargo back to Earth, too (something Cygnus can't do). So if a Dragon is full of supplies at launch and on landing, the cost dips to $9,100 per pound.
Honestly, I have no clue how bringing something back reduces the cost from $27,000 to $9,100. Both aircraft SpaceX, and Cygnus come back. SpaceX comes back loaded? What can SpaceX bring back to be fully loaded at landing? 7,300 lbs of what could come back to Earth?

As far as I know, astronauts do not have any factories making things on the ISS. The only thing actually produced on ISS is lots of human doo-doo, but according to this article, "The waste will be discharged at intervals from the space station and will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere and look like shooting stars". Remember that next time you see a shooting star, it could be a lemon flavored one.

Anyways, what we have is an average cost of approximately $25,000 per pound. Now let's see all the nonsense present on the International Space Station, and try to figure out the cost associated with its delivery. I spent about 2 minutes collecting the below images, which suggests that there are a few more out there.


Rough weight estimates of some of the pictured items

1. Gorilla Suit (video) - 4.3 lbs
2. Two guitars - 10 lbs
3. Int-Ball drone - 2.2 lbs
4. Electronic piano - 20 lbs
5. Two flutes - 2 lbs
6. Didgeridoo (video) - 6 lbs
7. Saxophone - 6 lbs
8. Kirobo robot - 2 lbs
9. Random toys and clothing - 2 lbs
10. Fruit: 9 grapefruit, 4 oranges, 3 lemons ~ 6.5 lbs


Per pound: $25,000
Total weight : 61 lbs
Total cost: $1,525,000
of taxpayer money.
This is just after a 10 minute research. Wonder what could be found in there with a more meticulous approach.

* * * * *
I have this feeling that our gullibility is being tested day in and day out. Whether we have a ridiculously unprofessional space industry, or delivery of this items costs nothing to the stage set of the International Space Station.



  • The fragility of the human body - worthless on Earth
  • Interplanetary contamination - worthless on Earth
  • Growing crystals for medicine - cancer is still deadly. Ask Joe Biden.
  • Cosmic rays and dark matter - when was the last time you used the dark matter?
  • Efficient combustion - worthless on Earth
You think they have enough cameras?

View attachment 3184 View attachment 3185 View attachment 3186

ISS cost to date $160 billion
i have to agree with you that this stuff is highly immature for astronauts, but sadly i think its real
just goes to show how stupid people are, you go to fucking space and you bring a gorilla costume
that chroma key picture was actually a experiment they did to measure the movement of objects in space, the board on his back is to help in the measuring
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#5
that chroma key picture was actually a experiment they did to measure the movement of objects in space, the board on his back is to help in the measuring
Of course they did an experiment. They even have a predated confirmation of such an experiment here. NASA's "high tech"manual way of practicing landing on a comet when they can not even go to the Moon any more :) There are a lot of childish experiments in front of that blue screen. Honestly, it would be very strange if they simply said that they got caught red-handed.

The reality is that we can not go to space and check it out for ourselves. Therefore we are only left with things we are presented here on Earth. Based on those things we form our opinions. From here we are stuck with two options pertaining to questionable NASA solutions:
  • correlate an observation with your understanding of this world, and make your own conclusion based on it
  • justify the mismatching of the observed with your own understanding of this world, by saying something like, "they are professionals and know better, I do not fully understand the topic, this is how it has to work out there, they have no reason to lie, etc"
I wonder what NASA's explanation for this ISS door is. Probably some sort of a special elastic door experiment.


@Dirigible, lol, I will at some point. There is a huge amount of questionable info to fit into a simple reply. I will just say that the purpose of NASA and alike is our distorted understanding of the planetary setup (IMO). If we do not know that something exists, we can not have any desire to go there :)
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
439
#6
Of course they did an experiment. They even have a predated confirmation of such an experiment here. NASA's "high tech"manual way of practicing landing on a comet when they can not even go to the Moon any more :) There are a lot of childish experiments in front of that blue screen. Honestly, it would be very strange if they simply said that they got caught red-handed.
that video you linked isnt a experiment but a way of teaching the viewers how they did the landing
that door is one of the only anomalies along with some videos that show bubbles in space that i cant really explain, maybe they fake some of the more childish stuff and do for real the more serious stuff?
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#7
that video you linked isnt a experiment but a way of teaching the viewers how they did the landing
that door is one of the only anomalies along with some videos that show bubbles in space that i cant really explain, maybe they fake some of the more childish stuff and do for real the more serious stuff?
From what we can see NASA has an explanation for everything. I agree that there could be multiple reasons for any one particular video to be produced; training, visual demonstration or whatever.

The problem, as it appears to me, is that the amount of stuff NASA has to explain is far beyond reasonable. "This is why we faked this, and this is why we faked that."

NASA cannot even go beyond the low orbit. They lost technology to go to the Moon. Yet they need billions of dollars for antimatter fueled faster then light spaceship. LOL.

Space time would warp around it, accelerating the ship to as fast as 10 times
the speed of light without the ship itself ever breaking the speed of light.

enterprise-NASA.jpeg warp_drive_starship-NASA.jpeg
This is where everybody is supposed to stop and call BS. Is this going to happen? Of course not.

NASA_Warp_1.jpg NASA_Warp_2.jpg NASA_Warp_3.jpg NASA_Warp_4.jpg
NASA_Warp_5.jpg NASA_Warp_6.jpg NASA_Warp_7.jpg

But check out the below paragraphs.

Dr. Harold “Sonny” White, of NASA’s Johnson Space Center, was able to significantly reduce the amount of energy required by altering the shape of the ring around the ship from flat to more of a rounded donut. Instead of requiring a ball of antimatter the size of Jupiter to power the theoretical warp drive, only 500 kilograms are now required, or a ball about the size of the Voyager spacecraft. White says that if the intensity of the warp bubble is oscillated, the amount of energy is reduced even more.

Space time would warp around it, accelerating the ship to as fast as 10 times the speed of light without the ship itself ever breaking the speed of light. This would make trips to local stars a relatively quick jaunt: a trip to Alpha Centauri - some four light years away from Earth - would take just shy of five months.

This is certainly exciting news, but it’s important to remember that the true breakthrough - proof that Alcubierre’s designs actually work - do not exist. Dr. White and his team of researchers have set up a miniature version of the warp drive in their labs, attempting to create small warps in space and time. While certainly on a far smaller scale, White’s work may be the beginning of real-life warp drive.

Here’s the thing though: antimatter is horribly dangerous. Just a third of a gram of the stuff interacting with matter in the wrong way could release energy equivalent to the Hiroshima blast. That means White’s Alcubierre warp drive still requires the amount of energy equivalent to 1.5 million Hiroshimas - enough to wipe civilization off the Earth.

Sources:
NASA working on faster-than-light space travel, says warp drives are ‘plausible’

Impossible Physics: Meet NASA’s Design For Warp Drive Ship

Well, and of course we have some good old Moon shenanigans. Not sure how NASA explained this particular mishap one.

 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
439
#9
From what we can see NASA has an explanation for everything. I agree that there could be multiple reasons for any one particular video to be produced; training, visual demonstration or whatever.

The problem, as it appears to me, is that the amount of stuff NASA has to explain is far beyond reasonable. "This is why we faked this, and this is why we faked that."

NASA cannot even go beyond the low orbit. They lost technology to go to the Moon. Yet they need billions of dollars for antimatter fueled faster then light spaceship. LOL.

Space time would warp around it, accelerating the ship to as fast as 10 times
the speed of light without the ship itself ever breaking the speed of light.

This is where everybody is supposed to stop and call BS. Is this going to happen? Of course not.


But check out the below paragraphs.

Dr. Harold “Sonny” White, of NASA’s Johnson Space Center, was able to significantly reduce the amount of energy required by altering the shape of the ring around the ship from flat to more of a rounded donut. Instead of requiring a ball of antimatter the size of Jupiter to power the theoretical warp drive, only 500 kilograms are now required, or a ball about the size of the Voyager spacecraft. White says that if the intensity of the warp bubble is oscillated, the amount of energy is reduced even more.

Space time would warp around it, accelerating the ship to as fast as 10 times the speed of light without the ship itself ever breaking the speed of light. This would make trips to local stars a relatively quick jaunt: a trip to Alpha Centauri - some four light years away from Earth - would take just shy of five months.

This is certainly exciting news, but it’s important to remember that the true breakthrough - proof that Alcubierre’s designs actually work - do not exist. Dr. White and his team of researchers have set up a miniature version of the warp drive in their labs, attempting to create small warps in space and time. While certainly on a far smaller scale, White’s work may be the beginning of real-life warp drive.

Here’s the thing though: antimatter is horribly dangerous. Just a third of a gram of the stuff interacting with matter in the wrong way could release energy equivalent to the Hiroshima blast. That means White’s Alcubierre warp drive still requires the amount of energy equivalent to 1.5 million Hiroshimas - enough to wipe civilization off the Earth.

Sources:
NASA working on faster-than-light space travel, says warp drives are ‘plausible’

Impossible Physics: Meet NASA’s Design For Warp Drive Ship

Well, and of course we have some good old Moon shenanigans. Not sure how NASA explained this particular mishap one.

that drive is only a "what if?" we arent gonna get one of these for at least some 500 years
i think its pretty obvious why they erased the original apollo film: the UFOs
 

Dirigible

Well-known member
Messages
143
Likes
278
#10
I read a fascinating piece of SciFi over the weekend... About extra dimensional beings that invaded a highly develop and super technological earth... It took over 5 centuries for them to pound us back into near stone age and destroy the majority of our infrastructure and only about 20,000 people were left. The surviving humans ended up calling these beings demons.

Anyway, one person finds some of the "ancient technology" and rescues a sizeable group of humans and escapes to a deserted island, which they proceed to name Atlantis. This was the first book of a purported series... Looking forward to reading the rest as it shares a concept (somewhat) with this forum.

Somewhat off topic, but @humanoidlord 's UFO comment made it pop into my head.
 

The Kraken

Well-known member
Messages
84
Likes
290
#11
I read a fascinating piece of SciFi over the weekend... About extra dimensional beings that invaded a highly develop and super technological earth... It took over 5 centuries for them to pound us back into near stone age and destroy the majority of our infrastructure and only about 20,000 people were left. The surviving humans ended up calling these beings demons.

Anyway, one person finds some of the "ancient technology" and rescues a sizeable group of humans and escapes to a deserted island, which they proceed to name Atlantis. This was the first book of a purported series... Looking forward to reading the rest as it shares a concept (somewhat) with this forum.

Somewhat off topic, but @humanoidlord 's UFO comment made it pop into my head.
Hmm sounds good. What's it called?
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#13
that drive is only a "what if?" we arent gonna get one of these for at least some 500 years
i think its pretty obvious why they erased the original apollo film: the UFOs
NASA won't build that ship ever :) Roskosmos for that matter as well. Yet they can demand their budget. Same with Mars program. First things should be done first - low orbit is their limit, according to their own statements.

As far as UFO's go. I doubt there will be a single surprised person if they see UFO's in those recordings.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
439
#14
NASA won't build that ship ever :) Roskosmos for that matter as well.
i am skeptical too that we are gonna arrive at that point, but frankly anything is possible, this very forum has proved to me that we live in a bad scifi B-movie and dont even know it!
As far as UFO's go. I doubt there will be a single surprised person if they see UFO's in those recordings.
would be hard to explain a bunch of bright lights flying in every direction over the lunar landscape
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#15
Here is another fun thing. The ISS speed is 7,660 m/s, or 17,150 miles per hour. AR-15 rifle bullet speed is 3,250 feet per second, which is 2215.9 miles per hour. Basically ISS is supposed to be flying through space 7.7 times faster than an M4/Ar-15 bullet does. Here are the repercussions.

paint_chip_iss.jpg

“I am often asked if the International Space Station is hit by space debris,” British astronaut Tim Peake, who took the freaky photo of the damaged window, said in a statement. “Yes — this is the chip in one of our Cupola windows, glad it is quadruple glazed!”

A paint flake caused a 7mm "dent" in one of the ISS windows - A bit of debris chipped the International Space Station.

Here is the unimaginable luck ISS has
  • Estimated 170 million pieces of so-called 'space junk' orbiting Earth
  • Only 22,000 of these are tracked - and reach speeds above 27,000 km'/h
Earth's space junk crisis could lead to catastrophic collisions.

An object up to 1 cm in size could disable an instrument or a critical flight system on a satellite. Anything above 1 cm could penetrate the shields of the Station’s crew modules, and anything larger than 10 cm could shatter a satellite or spacecraft into pieces.

The reason that such small objects can do so much damage is speed. Space debris, usually the leftover remnants of defunct satellites) travels around the world at 17,500 miles per hour, and NASA estimates that there are 500,000 pieces of space debris orbiting the Earth that are larger than a marble, and millions of tiny bits like that paint chip that are impossible to track.

Tiny Debris Chipped A Window On The Space Station

And to put this into perspective any further, here is the damage a tiny have-ounce piece of plastic would do to the aluminum block.

damage_iss_station.jpg
Now, how do they dodge those 170,000,000 pieces flying around?
 

Dirigible

Well-known member
Messages
143
Likes
278
#16
They'll be a bunch of surprised people if they saw UFOs ... Go talk to your typical countrymen on the street....
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
439
#17
Here is another fun thing. The ISS speed is 7,660 m/s, or 17,150 miles per hour. AR-15 rifle bullet speed is 3,250 feet per second, which is 2215.9 miles per hour. Basically ISS is supposed to be flying through space 7.7 times faster than an M4/Ar-15 bullet does. Here are the repercussions.


“I am often asked if the International Space Station is hit by space debris,” British astronaut Tim Peake, who took the freaky photo of the damaged window, said in a statement. “Yes — this is the chip in one of our Cupola windows, glad it is quadruple glazed!”

A paint flake caused a 7mm "dent" in one of the ISS windows - A bit of debris chipped the International Space Station.

Here is the unimaginable luck ISS has
  • Estimated 170 million pieces of so-called 'space junk' orbiting Earth
  • Only 22,000 of these are tracked - and reach speeds above 27,000 km'/h
Earth's space junk crisis could lead to catastrophic collisions.

An object up to 1 cm in size could disable an instrument or a critical flight system on a satellite. Anything above 1 cm could penetrate the shields of the Station’s crew modules, and anything larger than 10 cm could shatter a satellite or spacecraft into pieces.

The reason that such small objects can do so much damage is speed. Space debris, usually the leftover remnants of defunct satellites) travels around the world at 17,500 miles per hour, and NASA estimates that there are 500,000 pieces of space debris orbiting the Earth that are larger than a marble, and millions of tiny bits like that paint chip that are impossible to track.

Tiny Debris Chipped A Window On The Space Station

And to put this into perspective any further, here is the damage a tiny have-ounce piece of plastic would do to the aluminum block.

Now, how do they dodge those 170,000,000 pieces flying around?
the rational explanation is that space is big, very big and the debris that causes havock can usually be tracked

They'll be a bunch of surprised people if they saw UFOs ... Go talk to your typical countrymen on the street....
(y):)
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#18
the rational explanation is that space is big, very big and the debris that causes havock can usually be tracked
I think you are right when we talk about the entire space. The orbit where the majority of the 170 mil is circulating is fairly limited, and 170 mil is a lot even for a guess. Yup, they have to change orbit on a rare occasion: The Space Station Had to Change Its Orbit to Avoid Space Junk. Whether we are ready to believe that they are able to track every bit of "space junk" is up for individual belief. They said they track 500k (they can’t even agree on how many they track, different sources name different numbers), that's a lot left to chance.

They'll be a bunch of surprised people if they saw UFOs ... Go talk to your typical countrymen on the street....
Not so sure. When talking to my friends at work, the general reply is similar to, “I beliebe in extraterrestrials, but this stuff is crazy”

And one more thing. They have a butt load of hand held cameras on ISS. The station gets resupplied on a regular basis. Wouldn’t you snap a quick photo of the docking from the inside? I definitely would. Somehow astronauts do not share my excitement.

Plenty of outside cgi-like camera footage though.

And my neighbor sent me this video. I’m not an expert but appears something has happened to zero gravity on the ISS.

 
Messages
13
Likes
41
#20
Hahaha. I don't have much to add here other than I found it quite funny to see this owl toy:

Owl Puppet.PNG

I have one of those at home. It's a hand puppet from Ikea, but in this picture they put a couple stickers on it. I think it's a children's toy, but my wife bought it as a dog toy. :ROFLMAO:

Sorry, you can return to your preferred field of research now.
 
Top