Satellites : general discussion and musings

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Dcopymope on August 28th, 2011, 1:06 am

I think that the only real thing that would stop an object in space from moving as fast it wishes is the objects weight and mass. Sure, signals can be bounced off of the ionosphere, which is what HAARPS signals do, but once it bounces off the ionosphere you can use satellites to direct the signal exactly where you want it to go, so it all goes together.

Geometric modulation: A more effective method of steerable ELF/VLF wave generation with continuous HF heating of the lower ionosphere
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby Jonathan on August 28th, 2011, 6:15 am

Unleashed wrote:
Yes, people actually watched television without the use of a satellite. Just with antenna like is shown and supposedly receives weather data from a satellite. Did you see the link a couple pages ago?

I'm one of them - even built such antennas myself.
Yes I did see the link - depicted is a antenna tuned to receive 137 MHz.
Thats a wavelength of about 2 m.
That is VHF - used for terrestrial TV-signals too - and restricted pretty much to little more than line of sight.
I have never heard or experienced the effect of this frequency being bounced off of the ionosphere like it is indeed possible within the short-wave range (20 m to 100+ m).

In the animation-film WALL-E there is a scene of the take-off through all the dead satellites and stuff which I found very funny.
No helpful real pictures.

There is a piece of paper on my door with something M. Twain said:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble.
It's what you know for sure, that just ain't so.

Cheers!
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: July 26th, 2011, 9:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Unleashed on August 28th, 2011, 2:40 pm

For the record: I know the Moon Landings are faked.
But, I am not one who hedges that by saying the ones they showed on TV were faked to hide what they were really doing on the Moon. For example, that there are really remains of lost cities there.
Roll eyes.

I also think all the Shuttle Missions were faked. Where I live you can view the launches sometimes.
I once saw one. I had been looking up at the sky (mistakenly). I had been scanning back and forth for several minutes. When I got a kink in my neck I lowered it to rub it out. While looking more straight out in front of me I watched it go by at just above treetop level from my vantage point!
Had I continued looking up as I was, I would have completely missed it. :D

The ISS I am satisfied is faked, as well, according to the photographic record.
I might add that for a program with a name like International Space Station, their attention has always been decidedly Earth-bound.

As far as I can tell the Mars Rovers are fake, fake, fake. I could see them wandering around the Atacama Desert maybe. But, we are to believe they have gone not just the 6 months they were built for, puttering along 6 years and more. One at least. And if by chance a photo slips in showing blue skies and clouds, then their are true believers ready to pounce and say that they are hiding the fact that Mars actually has an Earth-like atmosphere.
I wonder that these people never wonder how a planet that has a 300 mile wide dust storm ongoing (so we are also told), would never stir up enough to settle over the solar panels that after years are immaculately dust-free.

So when the topic of satellites were brought into question, it wasn't that much of a stretch to imagine they could be faked as well. They may not be. They might be NASA's one success story.
It would seem to me though that such a thing would be touted by them enough to gladly show many examples of the different types of satellites used. A regular photo album of them available online.
With 17,000 supposedly in space, they almost never seem to manage to take photos of their masterpieces in technology. And there are not listings where you can find how all these 17,000 actually got up there. If collated and compared using Ariane, the Space Shuttle missions, Vandenberg, and Russia and China's contribution, you might get a 1,000 or so possible satellite missions.

Does it matter in my day to day? No. I haven't watched TV in years. Even early cable TV was not reliant upon an array of satellites. And cable TV has been around since the 1950's. Almost as early as TV itself. It was formed by using large community antennas that look in many cases like satellite dishes now. Satellite receivers that look like old-fashioned areial antennas. Parabolic dishes that recieve signals bounced from the ionosphere. It really is quite confusing.

Just some musings for the day. Now I am off to view more fake radar pics of the dreaded Hurricane Irene.
Predictive Programming. It's everywhere.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iswZoCyAWg
Unleashed
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: March 25th, 2011, 4:27 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby nonhocapito on August 31st, 2011, 12:01 pm

Orbitron - Satellite Tracking System
http://www.stoff.pl/

Image

I suppose this should predict the little lights that can be seen with naked eye moving in the night sky.
Or not, I haven't tested it.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby fred on August 31st, 2011, 3:29 pm

Here's some more musing and speculation:

I think a big part of NASA's job is to put a happy public face on a lot of military technology. What the public sees from NASA is mostly party imagery of frat boys playing beer pong in Low Earth Orbit and pretty cartoon illustrations and nifty color pictures--"Look at me, Ma, I'm weightless!" They're kind of the cheerleader squad for math and science education, and their carefully cultivated public image is mainly one of putting on stunts just to say that they did something, e.g. Man on the Moon, Mars Rover, Astronauts, etc.

Behind the scenes they're basically another branch of the Military/Intelligence agencies doing things that are more obviously useful for military purposes.

With respect to showing off pictures of satellites, space is one of the few places you can actually enjoy some proprietary technology that isn't too easy to photograph, so there's a plausible reason for satellites to be camera-shy.

I think with most of this "nuke hoax" stuff and various "space hoaxes" it's really more about cover stories for actual technology and missions than about overstating the true state of technological development.

A lot of this technology has filtered down to the consumer level: GPS, Satellite TV, mapping etc. To me that suggests it's been available for military/intelligence consumers for quite a while. Personally I think a lot of the technology really is "there", so to speak, but what they actually do with it and what they claim do are different.
fred
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 1:43 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Unleashed on September 1st, 2011, 3:25 am

fred wrote:Here's some more musing and speculation:

I think a big part of NASA's job is to put a happy public face on a lot of military technology. What the public sees from NASA is mostly party imagery of frat boys playing beer pong in Low Earth Orbit and pretty cartoon illustrations and nifty color pictures--"Look at me, Ma, I'm weightless!" They're kind of the cheerleader squad for math and science education, and their carefully cultivated public image is mainly one of putting on stunts just to say that they did something, e.g. Man on the Moon, Mars Rover, Astronauts, etc.

Behind the scenes they're basically another branch of the Military/Intelligence agencies doing things that are more obviously useful for military purposes.

With respect to showing off pictures of satellites, space is one of the few places you can actually enjoy some proprietary technology that isn't too easy to photograph, so there's a plausible reason for satellites to be camera-shy.

I think with most of this "nuke hoax" stuff and various "space hoaxes" it's really more about cover stories for actual technology and missions than about overstating the true state of technological development.

A lot of this technology has filtered down to the consumer level: GPS, Satellite TV, mapping etc. To me that suggests it's been available for military/intelligence consumers for quite a while. Personally I think a lot of the technology really is "there", so to speak, but what they actually do with it and what they claim do are different.


Hey Fred. I don't mean photographing from space, although I do believe I have seen a model or two shooped before or 'illustrated drawings" thereof. I mean why don't they take pictures of them where they build them? I posted a link on here somewhere that was all about satellites, but when it came down to putting an interest photo with it, of course it was Sputnik, like it was first, best and only or something. You'd think they would at least post one representing the state of modern satellites now.

And they have trackers for the iridiums, so it seems, the ones that are 32,500 miles up minimum.
What I wonder about is though, if there are the stated 17,000 satellites (some are now defunct they tell us and are steadily de-orbiting in an orderly manner, no doubt), why we don't see these objects a heck of a lot more often. I am a sky watcher somewhat and have never seen one. But, with so many, am I wrong in thinking that you ought to be able to spot one just about every time you looked up?

I thought the Mission to Bomb the Moon was fake, too. So what DO you think is the state of modern stars wars technology? Thanks.
Unleashed
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: March 25th, 2011, 4:27 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Dcopymope on September 1st, 2011, 3:42 am

Unleashed wrote:
fred wrote:Here's some more musing and speculation:

I think a big part of NASA's job is to put a happy public face on a lot of military technology. What the public sees from NASA is mostly party imagery of frat boys playing beer pong in Low Earth Orbit and pretty cartoon illustrations and nifty color pictures--"Look at me, Ma, I'm weightless!" They're kind of the cheerleader squad for math and science education, and their carefully cultivated public image is mainly one of putting on stunts just to say that they did something, e.g. Man on the Moon, Mars Rover, Astronauts, etc.

Behind the scenes they're basically another branch of the Military/Intelligence agencies doing things that are more obviously useful for military purposes.

With respect to showing off pictures of satellites, space is one of the few places you can actually enjoy some proprietary technology that isn't too easy to photograph, so there's a plausible reason for satellites to be camera-shy.

I think with most of this "nuke hoax" stuff and various "space hoaxes" it's really more about cover stories for actual technology and missions than about overstating the true state of technological development.

A lot of this technology has filtered down to the consumer level: GPS, Satellite TV, mapping etc. To me that suggests it's been available for military/intelligence consumers for quite a while. Personally I think a lot of the technology really is "there", so to speak, but what they actually do with it and what they claim do are different.


Hey Fred. I don't mean photographing from space, although I do believe I have seen a model or two shooped before or 'illustrated drawings" thereof. I mean why don't they take pictures of them where they build them? I posted a link on here somewhere that was all about satellites, but when it came down to putting an interest photo with it, of course it was Sputnik, like it was first, best and only or something. You'd think they would at least post one representing the state of modern satellites now.

And they have trackers for the iridiums, so it seems, the ones that are 32,500 miles up minimum.
What I wonder about is though, if there are the stated 17,000 satellites (some are now defunct they tell us and are steadily de-orbiting in an orderly manner, no doubt), why we don't see these objects a heck of a lot more often. I am a sky watcher somewhat and have never seen one. But, with so many, am I wrong in thinking that you ought to be able to spot one just about every time you looked up?

I thought the Mission to Bomb the Moon was fake, too. So what DO you think is the state of modern stars wars technology? Thanks.


Whatever advanced tech they may have, I wouldn't tag it as "star wars technology", it makes it sound more like science fiction when none of the it is science fiction at all, its all known science at a much higher level than what is presented to us as "cutting edge" or new.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby fred on September 1st, 2011, 4:01 am

Unleashed, If you get out somewhere very rural, away from all the smog and light pollution you should be able to see many satellites go by.

Unlike planes which are coming back down to earth every day (and hence pretty easy to catch a glimpse of) satellites spend their whole pre-orbit lives in a little military-industrial cocoon, and therefore it's probably easier to keep their bells and whistles classified.

As for what they're doing with technology, I believe that a lot of the current consumer-grade technology is basically old military or spy tech. For example, the micro-SD cards in your phone, bluetooth, consumer GPS, Google Maps, "search engines" etc probably existed a decade or two earlier in more expensive incarnations, as Miniature digital storage devices, radios for "short-range agent communications", missile guidance systems, map intelligence, NSA transcription technology, etc. Things like spread-spectrum radios find their way into billion-dollar military projects long before they make their way into $99 cell phones at Best Buy.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think that that while there certainly is a lot of folly surrounding the notion that the Cold War Superpowers were always teetering on the brink of Nuclear Destruction, I do believe that they have nuclear technology working enough to power nuclear submarines and power plants and even blow things up. It wouldn't surprise me if the whole Rosenberg spy scandal was some kind of psyop. Usually those sort of things would be kept out of the public eye and handled discretely rather than through show-trials. Maybe they were the Jared Lee Loughner of their day.

With all the money and effort that got poured into various "star wars" programs over the years, I would be shocked if they couldn't at least blow things up and shoot some things down. Maybe the technology doesn't live up to hype and expectations, but I would be very surprised if it doesn't work at all. I certainly could be wrong.
fred
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 1:43 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Unleashed on September 5th, 2011, 2:41 am

Space Junk reaches a "tipping point".

Article includes attactive artist's rendering! :P
Image

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14757926

Darn. If only we had something like a space station in LEO with cameras, or satellite cameras that could take pictures from space!
Unleashed
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: March 25th, 2011, 4:27 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby pov603 on September 5th, 2011, 7:50 am

Hey, this is serious stuff!

If you had a planet the size of earth which was completely paved and let loose 17,000 [?] small and large motorized vehicles, to go around and around in parrallel lines with an odd few going off in different directions, there would be mayhem and pile-ups galore...wouldn't there?

In all seriousness, I can only imagine that most, if not all of the objects would ever 'see' each other again and for NASA to make out there is a catastrophe waiting to happen is ludicrous.

There may be collisions, but only caused from the objects that shouldn't be there ie 'tool kits/bags [?]' or other such items which are not on a pre-planned/programmed orbit.

Out of what is up there [17,000?] has NASA said how many are not in planned orbit?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 738
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby reel.deal on September 5th, 2011, 10:53 am

pov603 wrote: Out of what is up there [17,000?] ;) :rolleyes: :P ,,,has NASA said how many are not in planned orbit?

Rubbish Atmosphere: Space Debris In Orbit
ImageImage
The European Space Agency has just released these images showing every piece of debris circling the Earth.
Scientists say there are now 12,000 bits of trash in orbit - and only 700 of them are satellites.
Everything from fragmentary remains of exploded craft to tools dropped during spacewalks is out there.Picture courtesy of ESA
At closing speeds reaching 50,000kmph, even the smallest bits of space debris can cause serious harm to spacecraft; larger ones can cause catastrophe. Picture courtesy of ESA 3:19pm UK, Tuesday April 15, 2008
http://news.sky.com/home/media-gallery/1312949
:)

so... that equates to 5,000 more chunks of 'debris' since 'Tuesday April 15, 2008'...
"and only 700 of them (were) satellites..."
:rolleyes:

;)
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Unleashed on September 5th, 2011, 1:51 pm

700 Satellites! What??
I suppose as long as you are making it up as you go along, you can say whatever you like.
I have noticed many stories are disappearing that told of the 17,000 satellites in orbit, and/or have been changed to say they were TRAVELLING at 17,000 mph.

This story, I mean report, says there are almost 7,000 satellites. 6,578 to be exact listed in their tracking catalog. And the rest have been relegated to being man-made objects of 17,000 give or take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite

And here, Pov603, you have the story about the two satellites crashing (which they knew was going to happen sooner or later), in which they have no idea how much debris it made or how big the pieces or where they went. So that 17,000 is just a round number give or take a giblet.

But amazingly, such an occurence did not lead to any reported damage to any other satellites.
Though you might think that each piece of debris would keep travelling outward until it hit "something", that stopped it's trajectory.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491225,00.html

Along with such brilliant ideas like umbrellas, and magnetic dragnets, we have "housekeeping spacecraft", which not unlike Rosie the Maid, which might whip out robotic arms with a dustpan and sweep up those pesky debris!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14405118

Warning: This article shows a picture of the most dangerous type of space debris, a Jaws of the atmosphere, if you will, the spent rocket bodies circling above us.
Unleashed
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: March 25th, 2011, 4:27 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby nonhocapito on September 5th, 2011, 2:43 pm

As always in this discussion there is a negligent overlooking of the actual vastness of space were these things take place.

It matters little if the pictures we find on the internet show a planet surrounded by a scary amount of junk. They're just pictures.

7,000 or 17,000 or 170,000 pieces is nothing. Suppose you have 17,000 pieces of junk scattered in the ocean, and you don't want to get in touch with them. Would you stop bathing? What the chances would be for you to make an encounter with one of these pieces? Now consider that the space were satellites supposedly move is much much larger and deeper than all the oceans on earth.

I am open to the idea that space is an unwelcoming environment for a lot of the bullshit activity we are showed by the media. But none of this space junk argument supports in my opinion the idea that satellites are an impossibility.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Jonathan on September 5th, 2011, 3:50 pm

nonhocapito wrote:As always in this discussion there is a negligent overlooking of the actual vastness of space were these things take place.

It matters little if the pictures we find on the internet show a planet surrounded by a scary amount of junk. They're just pictures.

7,000 or 17,000 or 170,000 pieces is nothing. ...


Thanks, you spoke from my heart.
Add to that that most satellites are orbiting the same general direction as far as I know - they are shoot up utilizing the earths rotational speed to save fuel.
Same must apply to the junk as well.
That in turn makes the speed of the junk less dangerous because the relative speed between satellites and junk is not nearly as fast as it appears.
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: July 26th, 2011, 9:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Unleashed on September 5th, 2011, 4:07 pm

You guys are awfully sanguine about it.

All I can say is what goes up, must come down! Somewhere... :P
Unleashed
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: March 25th, 2011, 4:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests