That is definitely the same picture. Nice find. But this board is compromised so you'll likely be down voted to hell for pointing this out.

I downvoted you, because you showed a wanton disregard for facts, and stuck to your guns even after being proved incorrect.

You were proved incorrect though. No one from NASA, including Chris Hadfield, so much as intimated that that was the same hole as the current one aboard the ISS.

You're autistic and obsessive over your own delusional beliefs, even when proven wrong you continue to stand in your delusion

I show how you are incorrect with facts rather often but you ignore them. Not once, to the best of my knowledge, have you ever admitted you made a mistake or even given evidence for your beliefs.

He's also kind of a prick.

This isn't an actual conspiracy this is you carrying on your routine of not believing simply provable facts, almost purposeful in your ignorance some might say.

Shut your mouth fuck tits

The only posts you post here are nonsense only retarded 13 year olds believe could possibly be true.

PS this comment is a crisis actor and doesn't exist

Stop false flagging me

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SMM_panel_hole.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

"This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA."

16:20, 15 November 2006

Debris hole in a pannel of the SMM Satellite source:http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/photogallery.html '''Description:''' View of an orbital debris hole made in the panel of the Solar Max experiment.

View of an orbital debris hole made in the panel of the Solar Max experiment. 320 kb, 2835 x 2175 px https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photo-gallery.html

Idk, guess they used an old picture. I don't believe we walked on the moon.

Um, hate to rain on your parade, but no-one is saying it's a photo of the actual hole. That photo is of a hole in a satellite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometeoroid#/media/File:SMM_panel_hole.jpg

Well, Mike Wehner is wrong, because neither NASA nor Chris Hadfield said that photo was a photo the hole they're talking about.

NASA didn't use that photo as you're claiming. Probably because they had more important things to worry about than taking a photo.

No. NASA have never used that photo to represent a hole in the ISS.

I suspect that was a piece they brought back with them. The satellite in question was Solar Maximum, which was famous as it was the first orbiting unmanned satellite to be repaired in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Maximum_Mission

You are just destroying this loon. Good job

Answer the question:

When will you answer how GPS works on your flat Earth? You have to explain the Doppler shifts and the distance to the transmitters we see in your answer as well.

your flat Earth?

people here don't give a rats arse about your flat earth psyop.

people here don't give a rats arse about NASA's flat earth psyop.

What do you mean?

Probably because they had more important things to worry about than taking a photo.

Like hopping on social media. You'd think if they had time to log into twitter, they could have taken a picture of the actual hole an astronaut put his thumb over to stop the environment from leaking out. I wonder if social media would have liked to see that hole... nah throw a stock photo from Wikipedia up, they'd eat it right up.

Well Chris Hadfeild couldn't tweet an actual photo of it, as of course he wasn't up there at the time.

Are you calling him disingenuous? Because he tweeted a picture he hoped journalists and thousands of followers would believe is the hole he talked about in the text of his tweet. It's also funny that the guy wouldn't have immediately asked his astronaut friends who were up there for a picture of the plugged up hole when he found out about it, which he could then post on Twitter.

Go on, put more words in my mouth why don't you?

I didn't say you called him disingenuous I asked you if you were.

You know I wasn't...

More important things like duping a gullible and easily distracted public.

Yeah. That article was definitely suggesting that it was the actual hole.

I guess we'll never see a photo of the hole.

It was already posted in the original thread on /r/space a few days ago.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

and please tell me who took the photo of a hole in a satellite?

It's an electron microscope picture of a piece of the Solar Maximum probe that was most likely replaced during STS-41-C. It was actually a pretty interesting mission because the satellite had to be grappled with the magnetic arm.

suppose they didn't have any beer goggles.

So they took the time to take a photo of it *before* they covered it up with tape and stopped the leak *while* it was still leaking air out? There was no sense of urgency?

It had already been leaking through the night. It was a 2 mm wide hole and would have taken days to leak all the air out of the station.

2.000000000 mm is an awfully precise measurement.

was it 1.98mm 1.99mm or 2.01mm or 2.02mm.

will they ever tell us...

2.000000000 mm is an awfully precise measurement.

Someone doesn't remember their significant figures lessons from high school.

2 mm isn't 2.000000000 mm.

The photograph will be useful for when they're designing future spacecraft.

or christian rock album covers.

Because the writer didn't do their due dillgence, not through any fault of Chris Hadfield or NASA. Hadfield even explained on Twitter that it would have been a hole like that one.

very similar in implied style to the 'exit' hole at the Pentagon, that knockout in the wall the emergency people opened up.

Or the blogger just needed a hook for his article. I think a post about Hanlon's Razor is in order.

Where did the bad space-men touch you that youd believe that all of this is a malicious attempt to mislead the public into....what? Misspending a tiny fraction of the already massive defense budget? What's the end goal there?

Or, there could, you know, be a group of genuine human scientists accomplishing great things through acts of will and intelligence. And by the way, what are you using to determine the scale of the hole in that photo?(Which isn't the hole in the satellite regardless)

Right? Like what’s the game here? Most conspiracies at least suggest some sort of motive, this one is just like “FUCK SPACE, FUCK NASA!”

NASA uses the space program to disprove flat earth and/or hide god. That's typically the root of it.

What? Who the fuck thinks that? The conspiracy is that NASA gets billions in funding and actually just develops war machinery instead of exploring space while faking all the "events" over the years.

Where did you get the idea this has something to do with flat earth? From your own ass?

Most people who currently refute the moon landing, ISS, etc are flat earthers in my experience. Very few focus on NASA purely for their shady terrestrial R&D these days.

I've literally never heard someone put refuting a moon landing and believing flat earth in the same sentence.

Ok. You're wrong though. Just go to /r/theworldisflat

Yes because going somewhere probably full of trolls proves a point

I don't understand why you're so defensive over this. Every flat earther doubts NASA as a matter of course. 100% of flat earthers are NASA doubters, that's undeniable.

A majority of flat earthers are flat earthers for religious reasons. I only have anecdotal evidence of this but it seems to fit most people's experience and expectations. You're the first person I've encountered in a while who is concerned with the actual conspiracies surrounding NASA and not the superstitious nonsense. It happens to every good conspiracy; eventually it gets popular and the wing-nuts take over.

A majority of flat earthers are flat earthers for religious reasons.

This is not correct.

There is a huge overlap.

Fuck NASA.

genuine human scientists

stoned 5th grade teachers goofing to the camera.

NASA is a US organization. Chris Hadfield is a former Canadian astronaut. Why are you attributing a twitter post from a retired Canadian astronaut to NASA? Are you that uninformed?

So in your view, a 2014 Christian rock band used an obscure photo from NASA's website of a hole in a satellite, on their album cover

They admit doing so and actually feel pity for the flat earthers:
https://www.facebook.com/remedydrive/posts/10156611365838664
In their tweet which commander Chris Hadfield replied to, they explicitly admit they used a NASA photo for their album cover:
https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/1037116261614923783
I'm looking into interviewing their lead singer on my YouTube channel about this issue.

Here is my interview with Remedy Road's lead singer regarding this incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PULl-5jJ0IA

​

Or you could take a look at his twitter instead of one tweet where he says

"That's a typical orbital debris/micrometeorite hole, from the Solar Max satellite. We learn from every one, including how to then shield the Space Station better. (link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SMM_panel_hole.jpg) commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SMM_…"

https://mobile.twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/1036306223094738944

Do you really think the station is leaking air and they decided to stop trying to plug it for a photo op? Come on use some common sense.

Ah deflection, you see thatit makes no sense the picture is of the offending hole so you go the whole thing is fake.

Go to a large star party someday and ask someone to show it to you, it is really cool! You can literally see it with a telescope scope about once every 90 minutes. And to the naked eye it looks like any ordinary satellite.

The ISS is just a little larger than a football field, that is to say significantly larger than a car.

Why do keep mentioning 17,000 mph? In the vacuum of space the speed is irrelevant. If you're docking with something and you're both doing the same speed then from your point of view your almost stationary.

keep mentioning 17,000 mph?

orbit height is tied to speed. and vice versa.

Yes, but irrelevant when talking about construction in space. Its like the classic argument about how it was impossible for the lunar module to dock with the command module when it was travelling at 10,000 mph. If you're doing the same speed too then the actual speed doesn't matter, just the difference between the two.

The ISS is a satellite though? Maybe look up the definition of the word "satellite".

They, uh, didn’t build it in space...maybe that wasn’t shared with you.

It was sent up in pieces over the course of many years. Those pieces docking with one another are very well documented moments. Similarly you can easily find videos of those pieces being manufactured and tested on earth before getting sent up.

Don’t be embarrassed though, it’s great that you are asking questions. As a scientist, I encourage everyone to ask questions. Just be careful not to fall down a rabbit hole as often the answers are a lot less complicated that you’d expect.

The ISS is just a little larger than a football field,

how that flimsy thing cope with the torsion stresses of continuous rotation.

the thing has to rotate in synch with the earth and its own orbit. theres no magic string keeping it orientated to the earth.

Correction: You can see satellites with the naked eye, but only when they reflect sunlight towards you.

I've not seen the ISS yet, but I did see MIR many years ago. That thins was getting a move on!

He obviously meant to the naked eye through a telescope you crazy people. Where do you think shuttles go when they launch?

into little pieces.

You can literally see the ISS with a telescope or a very powerful camera.

I've seen "it" with a high powered telescope. I've seen "it" docking with a space shuttle, with a high powered telescope.
"It" is the same shape as the photos of the ISS.

You can, perhaps, argue that the ISS is something else, but there is an object in orbit, that you can see with the naked eye, that has the exact shape and dimensions of the photographs you see of the ISS.

Your entire argument is "that's silly, use your brain". It's impossible to argue against because you're not actually arguing anything of substance, you're just being contrarian without reason.

Yeah mate it's a giant conspiracy involving thousands of people who've all managed to avoid spilling the beans. Why they'd do this is anyone's guess but I'm sure you have an equally brain dead explanation for that.

Get some serious mental help mate, you're not well.

Oh boy. You might as well stop now. Ain't going to make it much further.

I could tell from this post, that OP is lacking “common sense”...

If the interior hole measured some 2mm how big is the exterior entry hole (plus the many layers pierced between?) and who's gonna go outside and make the repair?

My hunch is the Program is going to be shut down and it might well be done in an explosive fashion...we'll have a new batch of dead space jockys to mourn and traumatize the World!

They slept thru part of this right? LOL

If I understand correctly, NASA walked back Hadfields use of that picture pretty quick. LOL Was puttering around and listened to most of GlobeBusters yesterday - thought they did a bang up job discussing all the strangeness.

It's a mess. A massive Black Budget hole. I'm half convinced the roll out of Space Force is not what the average American or World Citizen thinks it's gonna be - here's hoping!

If I understand correctly, NASA walked back Hadfields use of that picture pretty quick

You don't understand it correctly, as Hadfield himself said the hole would be one "just like this", and not that it was a picture of the hole itself.

No, I understand. I said Hadfield used that picture and that NASA quickly jumped into the fray.

When Hadfield posted the picture on Twitter, he explained it would be a hole like that one. NASA had no need to get involved, as anyone who actually read the caption accompanying the picture wouldn't have misunderstood things to this level.

If it is anything like ballistics on earth you'd expect the entry to be smaller. In any case it is on a module of the Soyuz that isn't coming back to earth, so even with a temporary patch to maintain pressure it shouldn't pose any continued risk to astronauts and cosmonauts after the next trip home.

You recall the emergency procedures from flying in commercial airliners - the whole mask will drop down Drill? Well these goobers are supposed to be in deep space zinging around at 17,000+ mph amidst a gazillion pieces of space junk - LOL

A paint fleck, as I recall, did some serious damage and one should compare the two, yes?

Even on airliners the depressurization isn't instant (unless we are talking like losing half of the plane at once), just like if I poke a hole in a bucket of water the bucket doesn't empty instantly. Yes orbiting junk is a risk, but keep in mind how large of a space it exists in, but as we can see, the difference in relative velocities can cause serious damage even with small masses.

What point does the pressure buildup equalize between the ship and space, also one might assume that the incoming air is quite destructive, right?

what incoming air?

Ooops. Out-going air or pressure equalization...

No, I wouldn't assume that one atmosphere (14.7 psi) of internal air pressure is destructive. I'd recommend reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression#Myths

Equalization would be as close to 0 atm from 1 atm and would have taken 18 days.

I see, sorta. It just doesn't look good and given all the space junk they say is freely looming out there - yikes!

the Urban Space Man just died, we are good for a while.

McCain Palin 2008

Pretty tame but amusing. just the same, lol. I loathed the POS while he lived but I'll let the dead bury the dead.

I look forward to seeing the excuses

I mean, what's your excuse for not bothering to reverse google image search the picture of the hole and instead making false claims about it's origin? If you can't do a very basic amount of research on a single image before you start a thread, why should anyone take you seriously?

Don't take these downvotes personally...you're on the right track.

If downvotes indicated you were on to something, EA would be the most woke poster on reddit. Sometimes downvotes just mean people think you're wrong.

How's that gate looking? Keeping the hinges well oiled I trust.

You have no idea why someone may use different accounts or scrub their history. I would expect someone on this sub would appreciate the desire for anonymity. Your desperate search of people's post history just tells me you don't like what they're saying but have no good arguments to back it up. Rather then actually addressing what is being said you search for a justification for dismissing it entirely.

He's been proven wrong all throughout the thread, and walked by the hand through how his very basic presumptions were incorrect. Aren't you a mod here? Wouldn't you want there to be more quality submissions here instead of entirely unreasearched stuff like this, that could have been avoided had he read the tweet that accompanied the offending picture?

I contribute here quite a bit, thank you very much.

So you're privy to the goings-on on my other accounts, not to mention how much I've contributed here with this account, accounting for my occasional history scrubbing? I'd say that's a much bigger conspiracy than you misunderstanding the tweet of an astronaut.

a fake conspiracy that does the opposite of incriminating the United States government.

Conspiracies don't have to always incriminate the US government. In fact, that very real and irrefutably proven conspiracy I posted about, directly incriminates the Russian government.

You should probably spend more time attacking my arguments instead of attacking me and my post history, because you're really not helping prove your case in any way.

my other accounts,

your trolling alt accounts !?

do you come here often from TMOR !?

No.

And no.

Classic, roundly embarrassed on every front, and your only response is 'why do you even care'

Actually he is in the right. You need to go back to college

[removed]

ah so that explains the -40 karma!

So, tmor 'tards are coming here and downvoting. Isn't that a direct violation of reddit rules/bannable offence?

Are you a flat-earther, Axolotl?

Fuck you

Do they have the space debris that made the hole or did it puncture and bounce off?

Also, the problem of decompression for a bullet sized hole in space had math done by Professor Andrew Higgins of McGill University and gives the following answer:

The air will leak through the hole at sonic velocity (Mach one at constriction of the leak).

So, the mass flow rate is:

dm/dt = rho V A

where rho is density, V is velocity, and A is the area of the hole. The velocity equals the speed of sound (sonic orifice), but this is slightly lower than the speed of sound in the spacecraft cabin due to expansion of gas as it flows through the hole. Density is lower also. So, it is more practical to express the mass flow rate in terms of stagnation conditions, i.e., the conditions in the cabin, which I will denote po and To:

dm/dt = A po Sqrt[ (g/(R To)) (2/(g+1))^(g+1/(g-1))) ]

here "g" is gamma, the ratio of specific heats (g = 1.4 for air) and R is the gas constant (R = 287 J/kg-K for air). You can find this derived in any compressible fluid dynamics textbook (or any fluids book with a chapter on compressible flow).

For air, this simplifies to:

dm/dt = 0.04042 A * po/Sqrt[To] "Fliegner's formula"

If you stick to MKS units (use Pa for pressure and K for temperature), this will give you the mass flow rate of air leak in kg/s.

So far, we have assumed that the spacecraft remains at the same po, To. Of course, as the leak progresses, the pressure in the spacecraft begins to drop, and this affects the mass flow rate through the leak. Thus, dm/dt is no longer constant, and we have to integrate the above differential equation coupled to the decrease in po and To as the spacecraft leaks. You can find the details of this in Saad's Compressible Fluid Flow (2nd Ed., pp. 103-106). The answer is that, to leak from an initial pressure of pi to a final pressure of pf, the time required is:

t = 0.43 V [(pf/pi)^-0.143 - 1]/(A Sqrt[Ti])

Again using MKS units, where V is the volume of the spacecraft (Ti = initial temperature), this gives you the time "t" to leak down to pf in seconds.

This assumed that the blow-down was isentropic. In practice, any blow-down that will last tens of seconds to minutes, the process in the spacecraft is more likely to be isothermal: mass of spacecraft has huge thermal capacity compared to the (decreasing) mass of gas inside and will keep the gas warm as it expands. With the assumption of isothermal blow-down, the time required becomes:

t = -0.086 V Ln[pf/pi]/(A Sqrt[T])

where T is the (constant) spacecraft temperature.

So, if your spacecraft has a volume V = 10 m³ at 300 K with a 1 cm x 1 cm hole, the time it takes the pressure to drop from 1 atm to 0.5 atm is:

t = -0.086 * 10 * Ln[0.5]/(1e-4 Sqrt[300]) = 344.2 s

Or about six minutes.

NASA claims the leak occurred overnight and into the morning. How is that possible?

“Overnight and in the morning there was an abnormal situation—a pressure drop, an oxygen leak at the station,” Dmitry Rogozin of Russian space agency Roscosmos told reporters. “A micro fracture was found, most likely it is damage from the outside. The design engineers believe it is the result of a micrometeorite.”

The atmosphere would have dropped significantly for that long a period. Near complete decompression.

I hope you'll take a moment to look at the top-voted reply; which flawless disproves the comment you're fellating.

Shocking, that your favourite comment in the thread, is the one that supports your argument.

The difference in pressure from inside the station to outside is only 1 atm.

The hole was the equivalent of having a pin hole in a bottle of water, the water will leak out but not rapidly and it doesn't cause catastrophic decompression.

That picture is of a whole probably smaller a pin head. Your math was for a bullet hole?

NASA claims the leak occurred overnight and into the morning. How is that possible?

Um, because the ISS is not 10 m³ in Volume and the hole was not 1 cm^2, as you quoted:

So, if your spacecraft has a volume V = 10 m3 at 300 K with a 1 cm x 1 cm hole . . .

Put in the right figures:

t = -0.086 × 931 m³ × ln(0.5) / (4 × 10^-6 m² × √(300 K)) = 222 hours

Well enough time to go through the night.

Except the hole was in the 8.5 m³ pressurized volume of the Soyuz MS-09 permanent Russian unit.

The leak is coming from a two-millimetre hole in the orbital compartment of the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft in the Russian segment, a section that does not return to Earth.

A slight drop in pressure became apparent aboard the ISS last night, but it was a minor problem and the crew was left to sleep through the night, according to NASA.

This is far smaller than the entire pressurized volume of the ISS that you are using and the hole is 2mm x 2mm approximately. Still roughly 6 minutes to drop.

Do you have reason to believe the hatch to the Soyuz was closed? You can see here that it is not normally closed.

Even so, that'd be a 2 hour time to depressurize down to 0.5 atm, according to your equation. Still not 6 minutes, because of the hole size alone. The picture clearly shows a hole much smaller than 1 cm in diameter.

How do you know it would have dropped significantly?

Impressive math but what if the hole was way smaller? They don't mention the size right? If it's a millimeter of even way smaller maybe it could go on an entire night maybe

Gotta give it to you, that's some good bullshit you're peddling.

The source for what you posted: http://www.geoffreylandis.com/higgins.html

It was posted in 2003.

Not now.

Not as a reply to this hole.

Not for the ISS.

It's for a completely different scenario, and says as much in your post. It's a shame people who seem to literally be unable to compare numbers up voted you.

Well, that's from an older satellite. This is the actual photo of the hole in the ISS. Think what you want.

I don't really understand this post. I definitely think NASA is a very, very sketchy organization, but I don't understand the claim here. /u/joe_jaywalker are you arguing that the Christian rock album came out before the NASA photo? Unless my brain is playing tricks on me, the NASA photo came out before the Christian album.

Look here SMM panel hole- 16:20, 15 November 2006 (Scroll down)

This NASA photo came out in 2006. The Christian album was released in 2014.

This post is blatantly false.

Do you think that the Christian band Remedy Drive used a stock photo from NASA for their 2014 CD and if so, why?

Yes, because it's an interesting photo. This pot should be deleted.

This is a conspiracy forum for critical thinkers, not people who purposefully ignore the context of pictures to push a narrative. That's not a conspiracy, that's propaganda.

/u/joe_jaywalker sees himself as some sort of gatekeeper here...

Can I ask what conspiracies you actually do believe farmersboy70?

Well, I first came here when I started to look into 9/11 myself. I was also interested in Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing. I'm open to other conspiracies, but not the ridiculous - the Earth is demonstrably not flat, space is real, and man has indeed walked on the Moon.

So have you come to believe that 9/11 and sandy hook are in fact conspiracies? Because the thing is, once someone wakes up to the real truth behind 9/11, it honestly makes more sense that the moon landing and the entire space programme is a hoax too. The way the US government operate starts to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Lies and deceipt on every level. A country that would murder its own citizens is not above worldwide deception, it should be expected from such an entity.

As for whether space is even real I honestly don't know anymore, I certainly can't say for certain myself. I would have to defer to an authority for answers and I certainly don't trust NASA. The moon landing being fake is not necessarily indicitive of a flat earth or space being fake. I would strongly recommend looking again at the fake moon landing argument, once you wake up to that there really is no reason to believe the ISS is perfectly legit. Why would they go clean after getting away with the biggest lie of all time?

There is no rational or logical link between 9/11 and the moon landings. The Space Race was a product of the Cold War, whereas 9/11 is the product of Zionist influence (everything that has happened post-9/11 appears to be to Israels benefit).

I have studied the moon landings in detail for many years, and I still nothing to indicate that it was anything other than that presented - using the latest technology of the time, and with astronauts who were exactly the right kind of men to risk their lives in such an undertaking, the US put men on the moon.

People seem to forget that NASA isn't the only space agency - there are some 70-odd worldwide. They are all not part of some weird conspiracy to hoodwink the entire world.

I wasn't so much saying there was a direct link between 9/11 and the moon landing, just that the moon landing is a relatively benign lie compared to that so faking it is completely within reach (and plausible considering the circumstances of the time.)

Your second paragraph sounds so ridiculous to me that it might be enough to make people second guess the moon landings on its own. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Well, I keep asking people to show me proof that the moon landings were faked, but no-one has been able to do that. They had the hardware, the know-how, the willing, the men...why is that so hard to accept?

First of all, your default position should be skepticism. The burden of proof is on those claiming to have landed on the moon, not the other way around. I think this is one of the fundamental problems for why people believe it. They're taught it when they are young and have no reason to question the authority teaching it. Its true until proven fake is completely the wrong way to approach it.

Put yourself in a 60's mindset before this hoax was started. Nobody has ever been to moon, then a government body with plenty of political/financial motives tells you they have figured it all out within 8 years (despite losing the space race to Russia the entire time) and have now been to the moon and back on the first try. They can't provide telemetry evidence for their claim and then say the original footage is missing. Also the special lander that remarkably worked the first time in totally untested ground was destroyed! Then when reasonable people doubt this highly dubious claim, we are treated like idiots and asked 'why is it so hard to accept'?

Would you believe me if I said I went to the deepest point in the ocean ever, but destroyed the magic sub I went in and lost the video, also the data for my trip is lost too! Also nobody else has been 50 years since and counting indefinitely. But I did go trust me! At the very least understand the perspective of people who just aren't buying this bullshit anymore.

First of all, your default position should be skepticism. The burden of proof is on those claiming to have landed on the moon, not the other way around. I think this is one of the fundamental problems for why people believe it. They're taught it when they are young and have no reason to question the authority teaching it. Its true until proven fake is completely the wrong way to approach it.

But they have 'proved' it's true, they went and did it, 6 times!

Put yourself in a 60's mindset before this hoax was started. Nobody has ever been to the moon, then a government body with plenty of political/financial motives tells you they have figured it all out within 8 years (despite losing the space race to Russia the entire time) and have now been to the moon and back on the first try

In those 8 years of huge spending and blossoming technology they progressed from launching unmanned satellites, then chimps, then humans in sub-orbital flights, then solo orbital flights, then 2 man missions where they practised EVAs and docking with other craft. Then they developed the world's most powerful rocket, and they flew to the Moon 3 times before they landed on it. Hardly the first try.

They can't provide telemetry evidence for their claim and then say the original footage is missing. Also the special lander that remarkably worked the first time in totally untested ground was destroyed! Then when reasonable people doubt this highly dubious claim, we are treated like idiots and asked 'why is it so hard to accept'?

The special lander was destroyed? Huh? The descent stage was left on the moon's surface,as it had performed it's task, and the ascent stage was discarded once it had done it's job. Why bring it back to Earth when it couldn't survive reentry?

Would you believe me if I said I went to the deepest point in the ocean ever, but destroyed the magic sub I went in and lost the video, also the data for my trip is lost too! Also nobody else has been 50 years since and counting indefinitely. But I did go trust me! At the very least understand the perspective of people who just aren't buying this bullshit anymore.

It's funny you should mention deep sea diving. Do you know when man first went to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the deepest point of the world's oceans? 1960. Do yo know when someone did it again? James Cameron, the film director, in 2012. 52 years...

All you even said to my point about starting with skepticism was 'they did it 6 times!'. I feel like you're missing my point there...

Do you not agree that we should start from a skeptical persepctive? Also what does all the missing evidence say to you exactly? Could you agree that NASA are least incompetent? The same organisation to lose the moon landing footage were the first people ever to get man out of low earth orbit?

The difference with the Mariana trench is there is actual evidence for the trip. So that one isn't exactly in question here. Also, the deepest point in the ocean is not nearly the same as 237'000 miles to the moon. Not at all a fair comparison.

Someone was incompetent but I would hardly call the whole organisation that.

There's nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism, but I think you're going way beyond that. A blanket denial that something that was technically feasible, and that there is plenty of evidence to support happened, is hardly scepticism.

There is actual evidence that men walked on the moon, but you keep choosing to ignore it. And I would argue that it was more dangerous to dive to 10,911 metres underwater than go to the Moon, as at that depth if anything had gone wrong, especially a structural failure, then they would be dead instantly. At least they stood half a chance with Apollo 13. In fact, I think that there is more proof that we went to the moon than we went to the bottom of the ocean in 1960 - film, photos, samples, photos of the stuff they left behind on the moon, etc etc.

I would strongly recommend looking again at the fake moon landing argument,

What do you think is the strongest idea supporting that notion?

I would say start by looking at the lack of evidence supporting the moon landing. From the mouths of NASA officials all hard evidence is gone: https://youtu.be/7q1l-jf3KqA So that's original video footage of Apollo 11, telemetry data and the moon landing technology. I would venture a guess that it was prrobably illegal to destroy those records.

Various anomolies with the footage. Here's the harnesses worn by astronauts seen on camera: https://youtu.be/Zz9Bzi_GyD0 NASA would have you believe that every glimpse of their fakery is some sort of scientific anomoly that occurs on the moon. Its ridiculous. Think for yourself and do not defer to NASA for answers. You can see it with your own eyes.

Excellent essay outlining the key arguments for it being fake: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

Moon photos used a filming technique called rear screen projection: http://whale.to/c/how_stanley_kubrick_faked.html

That should be enough to get you started.

Do you think that the Christian band Remedy Drive used a stock photo from NASA for their 2014 CD and if so, why?

It's not like there isn't a history of this happening. Joy Division's album Unknown Pleasures used a graph of radio waves from pulsarr CP 1919 as their cover.

Literally the album art is the exact same as the supposed hole.... good observation OP

yeah, this board has sadly become compromised like someone else pointed out. It seems like here lately any dissenting opinions against NASA are explained away or downvoted. Lots of disinfo.

None of the following reference NASA and still no flat earther can show me how they are wrong.

Orbital satellites prove the Earth is a sphere as do the following: placement of light houses, placement of radio transmission towers, trade routes, wind and weather systems, the rotation of the Earth as supported by laser gyro and apparent movement of stars in the sky, different stars in the northern and southern hemispheres, adjustments to ballistic targeting calculations to account for the curve of the Earth, large constructions projects like some bridges, and lots and lots more.

Flat earth can't explain how any of the above works.

They don't even have experiments to support their ideas that the Earth is flat.

The answer to all of those questions WRT flat earthers is 'God.' Literally the explanation they use to fill in all of the holes is magic. That's how illogical the whole thing is.

Please link to the NASA statement saying the image in question is an image of the hole in the ISS.

go ask Hadfield.

NASA suggests that this is a hole they just fixed. Same photo on a 2014 record album

Except the tweet doesn't say that.

You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are claiming every piece of evidence is damage control for a slip up that never actually happened, and anyone who disagrees with you is a shill who's never posted on the conspiracy subreddit before, and every downvote has personally come from NASA to silence you.

You obviously have your reasons for believing the ISS is fake, and it appears those reasons have lead you to reject all reasonable evidence regarding this situation in an attempt to justify them.

Just chill out and reflect on the possibility that you might be jumping to way too many conclusions based on one tweet.

Read the other post. This whole thing is bullshit. And OP is so wrong about everything I have a hard time believing he's not a troll having fun with you all.

I believe he is a follower of these people who appear to, at least some of them, believe this.

https://fecore.org/

Similar back in the Apollo days when NASA literally made the claim that they repaired the LEM with duck tape.

There's a difference between a lander designed to work in space for a few days, and a space station designed to operate for decades.

No-one in their right mind claimed that...

No one in their right mind would, like you say, it was at least two Apollo era astronauts that claimed Apollo LEM was no thicker than a few layers of Reynolds aluminum foil.

It doesn't surprise me you don't know that, because the people that believe this utter horse shit are not actually fully aware of the truly idiotic and stupid historical claims that have been made in the past.

Well, as I have explained to you before, it was built the same way as an aircraft, with a pressurised aluminium alloy cabin,covered in 20+ layers of various materials. But hey, that's OK, you keep on pulling 'facts' out your arse.

it was at least two Apollo era astronauts that claimed Apollo LEM was no thicker than a few layers of Reynolds aluminum foil.

Source please.

Source please.

http://imgur.com/gallery/DPFGUog

And the claim that the walls of said LEM were no thicker than two sheets of aluminum foil

People think you are lying, but there are at least a couple Apollo "astronaughs" who made the claim the LEM was no thicker than a few layers of Reynolds aluminum foil

Fingering the dyke. SOP.

This is a perfect example of a conspiracy theorist selectively, and possibly unconsciously, using only information that supports his current belief system.

https://www.cnet.com/news/astronauts-find-hole-in-the-international-space-station-plug-it-with-thumb/

This CNET article clearly states that THE HOLE Chris Hadfield posted is NOT ‘THE’ HOLE. They make it abundantly clear it is not the same hole that was recently discovered.

• you can see the ISS through a telescope
• you can freely watch shuttles launch
• you can even meet former and current astronauts

This whole theory is a waste of time.. we’ve been to space. Sorry no one invited you.

Isn’t it more likely that edits were due to reports not understanding it was a different hole just as many of us would have done? Articles are revised all the time because guess what, humanity is not perfect.

It’s not like all the actual political propaganda is being written by flawless individuals who are all in on it. So many reporters are also stuck in a false narrative and may not even comprehend the social effects of what they write.

There is definitely something going on in terms of social engineering, but give the whole space conspiracy a rest. It’s wasted energy.

Oh...and the earth is a round, oblate ellipsoid.

• you can freely watch shuttles launch

Well note anymore. 😢

So just to clarify, you’re upset that this picture from a recovered satellite from 2006 was used as an album cover in 2014? I’m confused, because some basic reverse image searching (which can also show dates of images), proves the NASA photo predates the album.

Google only works to support their argument.

What in the absolute fuck? He just straight up posted an old photo and photoshopped the NASA watermark on it.

I can’t come up with a single reasonable explanation for this.

What was Chris Hadfield trying to accomplish here?

What other things has he claimed that we now have to question?

Side-by-side https://imgur.com/a/aZJbokC

https://youtu.be/EjZ7Cb5WDLM?t=73

the government isn't trying anymore. this is just a sad attempt to convince us their nasa is real. a women gets sucked out of a airplane and dies because of rapid decompression but it doesn't exist in space. i call bullshit.

its funny how the story keeps changing. from space debris, to meteorite, to assembly floor mishap, to crazy astronaut from previous mission drilling the hole. and also many different pictures floating around the fake web. but no one is talking about the physics of the incident and how they are still alive. i have been led to believe my whole life that something like this would be catastrophic. everyone seem to be cool with it i guess.

what also doesn't make senses is the fact if it is a drill hole, then that drill hole has been there this whole time and it never had a problem. i call big bull shit on that. i am just tired of all these lies.

Here's Cody doing an experiment on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APNPFbMvRFk

​

Dunning Kruger effect *cough*

​

​

I always wonder if posts like these are false-flag events to discredit conspiracy-theories.

Either way, this is some classic 'make your conclusion, find your evidence' thinking.

That picture is from a scanning electron microscope (SEM). They don't have one of those on the space station. And if they did, it would require the sample being imaged to be physically placed inside the vacuum chamber on said SEM.

From what I've read and understand is that if your space suit fails on a space walk and you basically close your eyes and hold your breath you will be ok for a very short amount of time.

Jesus christ you're a psycho.

Removed rule 10

I saw an article with this same picture used, and they never said that was the hole.

I can’t find the article right now, but they used the same picture but clearly noted it was a “hole like the one in the picture” that they plugged, not necessarily the exact hole.

I think this is more of a case of overzealous reporting and trying to be the first to break news than any nefarious cover-up or conspiracy.

Unfortunately we’re seeing lore and more these days of “journalists” publishing stories on the internet without all facts so that they can break the news for clicks, credit, at whatever other reason. But how many times do those things get edited, corrected or taken down? All because they didn’t have all the facts and wanted to run with something. I think some dimwit saw the tweet, took the photo and didn’t do much research.

My thoughts are, that if you think that the ISS is fake, what the hell flies over head on certain times? You can see it with the naked eye and if you use some good binoculars you can make out the entire structure. Next thing is, you'll be telling me that the earth is flat. You are a true Red Formanism.

You are a true Red Formanism.

?

a dumbass

Whether this is actually nefarious or just due to laziness and/or negligence, great find and excellent presentation of facts without any agenda.

You can literally go outside and see the ISS with your naked eyes. Put your city in at the linked site and it will tell you when the next flyover will be. If you want a more detailed view, use binoculars.

https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

Jesus Christ people like you make us look bad

There is no difference. Get off your high horse Soros

Us? You're a grown ass man who plays pokemon.. You make yourself look pathetic. Good god what universe are we living in. Manchild incels like yourself are the reason why the white race is falling off.. Grow up.

Cringe

Removed rule 10

Can you provide a link that proves NASA uses that photo?

Cody's Lab made a video of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APNPFbMvRFk

Science.

CodysLab did a video on this.

This was all over FE youtube and twitter. What amazed me was that not a single flat eather knew what the words at the bottom of the image meant. Not even FECORE and they say they have PhDs that help them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APNPFbMvRFk

Nasa cant hide the truth forever.

Lol

I'm glad so many people in this community disregard bottom of the barrel theories like this and the terrible psuedo-research involved. Great job everyone.

Hilarious, this made my day. have my upvote, it's well deserved.

You mean you're so glad that NASA shills show up to their jobs to downvote actual incriminating conspiracy material and post the same personal insults over and over again?

Because I know physics that makes me a s*?

The shills want disinfo. This theory is great, for them.

TIL Hans Brinker was the little boy who stuck his finger in a dike.

I stayed at the Hans Brinker Hostel in Amsterdam and it was just great in its dingy, shitty glory. But hot damn, that place had some great fries and 2 for 1 wine or beer.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2018/08/30/international-space-station-status-3

The actual NASA report. Mike whener the writer on the website you linked looks to still be in highschool. The hole is not a gaping hole in the living room either, It was less then a millimeter and in a seperate space craft causing a "minor pressure drop." NASA saying minor is minor.

Jesus Christ op, RESEARCH IS IMPORTANT

They didn’t use their thumbs (except maybe to troubleshoot the leak when looking for it) they used Kapton tape which is very stable polyimide film used a lot in all kinds of applications. Kapton is sorta the high tech version of duct tape.

OP was

BTFO

911 was an inside job

Maybe just delete your post, OP. It’s really garbage.

Why does it matter if I’ve posted here or not? If somebody doesn’t like the food at a restaurant do you criticize them for never being a chef there?

The album cover is a photograph taken by NASA after debris created a small hole in their Solar Max Satellite in 1984. The image was made public in 2006.

If it is anything like ballistics on earth you'd expect the entry to be smaller. In any case it is on a module of the Soyuz that isn't coming back to earth, so even with a temporary patch to maintain pressure it shouldn't pose any continued risk to astronauts and cosmonauts after the next trip home.

I suspect that was a piece they brought back with them. The satellite in question was Solar Maximum, which was famous as it was the first orbiting unmanned satellite to be repaired in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Maximum_Mission

Go on, put more words in my mouth why don't you?

The difference in pressure from inside the station to outside is only 1 atm.

The hole was the equivalent of having a pin hole in a bottle of water, the water will leak out but not rapidly and it doesn't cause catastrophic decompression.

That picture is of a whole probably smaller a pin head. Your math was for a bullet hole?

NASA claims the leak occurred overnight and into the morning. How is that possible?

Um, because the ISS is not 10 m³ in Volume and the hole was not 1 cm^2, as you quoted:

So, if your spacecraft has a volume V = 10 m3 at 300 K with a 1 cm x 1 cm hole . . .

Put in the right figures:

t = -0.086 × 931 m³ × ln(0.5) / (4 × 10^-6 m² × √(300 K)) = 222 hours

Well enough time to go through the night.

It had already been leaking through the night. It was a 2 mm wide hole and would have taken days to leak all the air out of the station.

The photograph will be useful for when they're designing future spacecraft.

How do you know it would have dropped significantly?

Impressive math but what if the hole was way smaller? They don't mention the size right? If it's a millimeter of even way smaller maybe it could go on an entire night maybe

Where did the bad space-men touch you that youd believe that all of this is a malicious attempt to mislead the public into....what? Misspending a tiny fraction of the already massive defense budget? What's the end goal there?

Or, there could, you know, be a group of genuine human scientists accomplishing great things through acts of will and intelligence. And by the way, what are you using to determine the scale of the hole in that photo?(Which isn't the hole in the satellite regardless)

Gotta give it to you, that's some good bullshit you're peddling.

The source for what you posted: http://www.geoffreylandis.com/higgins.html

It was posted in 2003.

Not now.

Not as a reply to this hole.

Not for the ISS.

It's for a completely different scenario, and says as much in your post. It's a shame people who seem to literally be unable to compare numbers up voted you.

/u/joe_jaywalker sees himself as some sort of gatekeeper here...

No one in their right mind would, like you say, it was at least two Apollo era astronauts that claimed Apollo LEM was no thicker than a few layers of Reynolds aluminum foil.

It doesn't surprise me you don't know that, because the people that believe this utter horse shit are not actually fully aware of the truly idiotic and stupid historical claims that have been made in the past.

Ooops. Out-going air or pressure equalization...

The answer to all of those questions WRT flat earthers is 'God.' Literally the explanation they use to fill in all of the holes is magic. That's how illogical the whole thing is.

2.000000000 mm is an awfully precise measurement.

was it 1.98mm 1.99mm or 2.01mm or 2.02mm.

will they ever tell us...

the Urban Space Man just died, we are good for a while.

McCain Palin 2008

NASA suggests that this is a hole they just fixed. Same photo on a 2014 record album

Except the tweet doesn't say that.

Well, I keep asking people to show me proof that the moon landings were faked, but no-one has been able to do that. They had the hardware, the know-how, the willing, the men...why is that so hard to accept?

I believe he is a follower of these people who appear to, at least some of them, believe this.

https://fecore.org/

A majority of flat earthers are flat earthers for religious reasons.

This is not correct.