.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 1 member
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
-
Latest posts...
-
72
Americans fed up with Trump
This topic and comments make me so happy that I left the US in 2022 for Thailand. Thank you all for confirming that I made the right decision! -
10
Man Killed, Wife Injured in Road Crash During Songkran Journey Home
richard_smith is a <deleted> <deleted>.... when it turns bad for him he calls a police buddy to sort it out. He has said this on the forum. -
15
-
53
-
53
-
162
Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them
Here is yet another shining example of modern enlightenment: a conspiracy stitched together by the algorithmic hive-mind of social media. It kicks off with some basement philosopher, armed with nothing but Wi-Fi and unwarranted confidence, mangling facts. The digital village quickly awakened - like moths to a particularly stupid flame - each one parroting the last, building a rickety cathedral of nonsense on the foundation of their shared ignorance. The recent Blue Origin New Shepard flight - many are suggesting this was a fabrication and also use the SpaceX Falcon 9 flight as a comparison. The Space X Capsule was scored on re-entry, Blue Origin was clean. Blue Origin’s suborbital capsule never comes close to the speeds required for atmospheric reentry heating - there’s simply not enough velocity. Topping out around Mach 3 (roughly 3,500 km/h), it doesn’t generate the friction or compression needed to produce the iconic fireball effect seen in true spaceflight. For contrast, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets exceed Mach 10 during ascent, and the Dragon capsule reaches orbital velocity - about 28,000 km/h. That staggering difference explains why Blue Origin’s launches lack the visceral drama of orbital missions. To the untrained eye, it might even seem theatrical - too clean, too slow, too suspiciously smooth. The landing of Blue Origin was too hard to be realistic: Tolerable, if a bit jarring. Passengers endure about 4 Gs on descent - not insignificant, but still a cakewalk compared to the brutal forces experienced in orbital reentry. The capsule is equipped with semi-reclined crash seats designed to absorb some of that final impact. The door Blue Origin was flimsy compared to other 'space craft' and opened inward: It opens inward by design, a deliberate safety feature. When there’s a pressure differential between the inside and outside of a cabin (as there is at altitude), an inward-opening door becomes physically impossible to open, preventing accidental depressurisation. Critically, the door can be opened in an emergency: a removable handle allows for external access post-landing. During one mission, a passenger reportedly opened the door too early, prompting ground crews to halt the impromptu escape - not for safety, but because the scene wasn’t yet Instagram-ready. The Blue Origin Capsules interior is basic and looks faked: The capsule’s interior may appear spartan - even cheap - compared to high-performance orbital vehicles, but that’s largely because it doesn’t need to endure the same brutal conditions. Three Gs on ascent, four on descent - mild, by spaceflight standards. There’s no need for the heavy shielding, intricate thermal protection systems, or complex avionics demanded by true orbital spacecraft. All of that said: the Blue Origin’s flights aren’t fake - but they are hollow. The whole affair is less about exploration and more about elevation - of egos, that is. It’s a meticulously choreographed joyride for the ultra-wealthy, controlled entirely from the ground, dressed up in the language of space travel but stripped of any real stakes. Its a carnival ride for billionaires, masquerading as progress. A trip to the Kármán Line (the boundary of space) not an orbital flight - all of the comparisons used to suggest the Blue Orbit flights are faked can easily be picked apart. The Blue Origin Capsules had Mannequins and no people: (zoom in on the hand). This one is doing the rounds on social - the photo is of a test flight where Mannequins were used. What’s circulating online is a misleading narrative spun from a test flight that used mannequins to simulate human passengers. This is standard practice for testing purposes, as mannequins equipped with sensors provide critical data about the forces passengers would experience during launch and landing. There’s no conspiracy here—just practical, controlled experimentation, essential for ensuring passenger safety before actual human flights. ------------------ All of the above illustrates how easily a conspiracy can be both fabricated and believed, built on a foundation of flawed narratives and falsehoods. What's even more alarming is how many will eagerly embrace such fabrications, driven not by genuine conviction, but by an unwillingness - or inability - to engage in the effort required to evaluate and verify the facts. Far too often, it’s the path of least resistance that wins: the lazy and the ignorant rushing to adopt narratives without a second thought.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now