Satellites : general discussion and musings

[lux]

The guitar in the hands of the actornaut is seen "floating" even though it is supposed to be in the "dry" part.

So does the chain around his neck.

I am struck with how smoothly the camera appears to float through the passageways without once bumping into anything or making any jerky movements.

[reichstag fireman]

*

"The ISS is maintained in a nearly circular orbit with a minimum mean altitude of 278 km(173 mi) and a maximum of 460 km (286 mi)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ce_Station

The same wonkypedia page today (30 May 2012) now offers a completely different altitude range to the one you quoted above on 31 Oct 2011.

Today the page reads..

The ISS is maintained in a nearly circular orbit with a minimum mean altitude of 330 km (205 mi) and a maximum of 410 km (255 mi). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ce_Station

Did someone adjust those altitude figures to keep the hoax afloat? Was the myth unravelling because of the old figures?

The ISS has supposedly been up there since 1998, so why would its altitude limits change only in the last few months?

[reichstag fireman]

To fully appreciate the myth of the man-made satellite, we must focus on Edward Appleton, the British astro-physicist from the early part of the 20th century. Appleton is (in)famous for his research on the ionosphere.

The ionosphere is an ionised (electrically-charged) layer of the earth's atmosphere. The original research on the ionosphere was carried out by respected scientists including Heaviside, Kennelly, Breit and Tuve. Research that was then purloined by Appleton.

Appleton weaved several Big Lies into that valid research and presented it as 'progress'. It was to pave the way for the Great Satellite Hoax. Appleton was a key player in the fraud. In 1947, Appleton was undeservedly awarded a Nobel Prize for his bogus contribution to science.


Founding Father of the Great Satellite Hoax
Professor Sir Edward Victor Appleton, GBE, KCB, FRS


Appleton weaved Big Lies into valid ionospheric research

The original ionosphere studies by Kennelly, Heaviside et. al, were spurred by Marconi's success at bridging the Atlantic with his wireless apparatus. Right back in 1901 it was realised that the curvature of the earth meant that a mechanism other than ground wave propagation must be responsible for Marconi's successful radio transmission from Cornwall to Newfoundland.

A century later, we universally recognise that Marconi's radio signal was propagated not by ground wave, but via a 'sky-wave' path in the ionospheric region of the earth's atmosphere.


Proof of ionospheric radiowave propagation (circa 1925)
(Breit & Tuve's method for establishing the altitudes of ionospheric layers)

In those early studies of ionospheric radiowave propagation, another layer of the ionosphere (the F layer) had just been discovered. The F layer was found to be critical to radiowave propagation at higher frequencies. Coincidentally, these are the very frequencies used by "geostationary comms satellites" today.

In 1931, Appleton gave a lecture in which he reported that the newly-discovered F layer of the ionosphere had been determined (by others!) using ionosonde probing to have an altitude of some 370km ±50km. A remarkably similar altitude range to that claimed for the International Space Station. Another coincidence?


Comical NASA diagram on ionospheric radiowave propagation (click for original)

Much ionospheric research remains classified to this day, sadly preventing categoric verification, but the implications here are huge.

A microwave signal at a suitably high frequency directed at the maximum obtuse angle of incidence into the ionospheric F layer will be refracted back to earth with very little attenuation, where it can be received over a wide footprint.

A rudimentary formula for ionospheric radiowave propagation was developed. It incorporates the refractive index (determining the depth at which wave-bending begins), the 1000 year-old Snell's Law, the carrier frequency of the signal, and the electron density at the pertinent depth of the ionospheric layer:



The constants to that formula were established 90 years ago but have remained classified since the early 1930s, censorship justified initially by the looming WWII.


The Satellite Hoax emerged from behind the storm clouds of WWII

Armed with a complete formula, it would straightforward to direct a well-shaped Ku-band 12GHz microwave beam at an azimuth of some 215° into the F layer from, for example, Madagascar. The wave would be refracted back to earth (at an angle determined by Snell's Law) where, for those receiving it in Western Europe, it would be appear to be coming from a SES/ASTRA "geostationary comms satellite".


A phony "satellite" footprint

Best guess is that is exactly what is happening. The "man-made satellite" exists only on the pages of childish sci-fi books from twerp-perps like Arthur C. Clarke.


Satellite Hoaxster, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, exiled British pedophile

We are told that the SES ASTRA fleet of "geostationary comms satellites" each weighing a whopping 3000kg+ are orbiting at an altitude of 35,000km in the [Arthur C.] "Clarke Belt".

We are told that this ASTRA "satellite fleet" is responsible for broadcasting over 1,000 TV channels of mind-numbing garbage into Western Europe ("for a subscription of just £60 a month"!)

The myth of "satellite" TV is reaping enormous profits for "satellite owners" - not least for the Grand Duke of Luxembourg and his family, direct descendants of the ogrish House of Orange-Nassau. The obscenely wealthy grand duchy owns 94% of SES/ASTRA stock today.

The SES/ASTRA business, alone, is supposedly worth €7 billion. On top of that are the subscription revenues gouged out of us by the likes of Rupert Murdoch via his wretched BSkyB "satellite" TV operation.

But yet another layer of deceit is involved, to prop up this monstrous Hoax. It is the introduction of an artificial communications latency. This is to create the false impression that the "satellite" TV signal recovered and rendered by our idiot boxes has travelled the 70,000km (35,000km up and 35,000km down) to and from the ASTRA "satellite" in the mythical Clarke Belt.

In truth, the signal takes the much shorter 2000km path from (roughly) east Africa, to the 300km height of the ionospheric F layer before its refraction back down to Europe, where the signal is recovered by our parabolic "satellite" dishes and receivers.

Since the speed of light in free space is 300,000,000 m/sec, this element of the hoax requires the introduction of an artificial latency of (7e7/3e8) seconds or some 250msecs. Roughly a quarter second of artificial delay is added to the signal. That fake latency is introduced trivially at the "head-end". And short of intercepting the up-wave before it actually hits the ionosphere, that aspect to the fraud is impossible to detect in the down-wave.


Conjuring a satellite from thin air!

Now that's magic! And a big round of applause for the lovely Debbie McGee, please!

[Mitch Matrixx]

reichstag fireman - If you had time to look up the findings of Marconi, and Clarke and the Ionosphere etc, then surely you had time to look up how satellites actually work, no?

You see, there's no child's imagination, or magic going on here. It's just straight up irrefutable science. Satellites are real, and they are up in space right now, making sure things here on earth keep going smoothly. In some cases they could be linking this very hypertext across giant oceans. I'm actually shocked at the level of disinformation that can be put forth on this site. Get with reality, and enough with the guesswork already... Guessing games are fun, discovering how things work is even better. It doesn't take much to verify the existence of satellites. A pair of high powered binoculars, and a computer and a bit of math is all it takes (and a bit of patience). There are plenty of websites, scientific applications, and mobile apps out there that do just this, although you can see real satellites in space with you own eyes if you are lucky.

Here is some basic help:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite1.htm

http://www.heavens-above.com/

http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missions/list_of_satellites/

I'm sure that you already have your mind made up though in some contrary fashion, and that you will find a way to twist data and concoct your own "unique" version of how all of these complex transmissions are simply and accurately bounced off layers of the ionosphere in some circa 1930s-1960s method!
I don't know what's worse, if you're making this all up on purpose, or if you actually believe it... Whatever the case, it is borderline criminal to mislead others.

[lux]

^ Mitch links to a NASA site for "clarification" while making the bold accusation:

... it is borderline criminal to mislead others.

Mitch is obviously a comedian.

[Mitch Matrixx]

Who's the comedian Lux? You have nothing but one liners, and ad hom insults to spew. That California pollution may be getting to your common senses .

Here's some more scientifically backed info, JPL is in Cali, maybe you can go there and ask them some questions that have been burning inside.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/index.php

[lux]

Who's the comedian Lux? You have nothing but one liners, and ad hom insults to spew.

Only for jerks. Feel special.

Here's some more scientifically backed info, JPL is in Cali, maybe you can go there and ask them some questions that have been burning inside.

As a matter of fact I live pretty close to JPL and have met people who work there. I even had to call the cops repeatedly on one of them (a neighbor) for violent and insane behavior. But, thanks for the suggestion, Mitch. I'll pop over there this afternoon and ask them if they know why you are such a dick.

Meanwhile, here's another joke for you:

[Mitch Matrixx]

Who's the comedian Lux? You have nothing but one liners, and ad hom insults to spew.

Only for jerks. Feel special.

Here's some more scientifically backed info, JPL is in Cali, maybe you can go there and ask them some questions that have been burning inside.

As a matter of fact I live pretty close to JPL and have met people who work there. I even had to call the cops repeatedly on one of them (a neighbor) for violent and insane behavior. But, thanks for the suggestion, Mitch. I'll pop over there this afternoon and ask them if they know why you are such a dick.

Meanwhile, here's another joke for you:

Ba-bump-bomp psssssshhhhhh! Will you be here all week lux?

I'm starting to see the trend here, you try and discredit science and laboratories by making the people seem unstable? You had to call the cops on the "Kooky JPL employee", and you call me a dick (for the second time now) when I present factual data to support the existence of satellites. Very neat little trick you have learned from your days spent on the forum. However, the problem is that not you or any other members of the forum can conclusively debunk the existence of man made satellites. While on the other hand there is a magnitude of evidence that says they exist, some of which I have linked to here on this thread. All you have done is make yourself look silly by responding with juvenille insults. It's quite amusing to see you resort to such desperate attacks, rather than responding with any kind of evidence to support the argument.
Since you don't trust NASA or JPL, how about amateur space explorers, and satellite trackers, are they all "in on the scam" too?
What will it take to get you to believe that this stuff is real, do you have to see it with your own eyes? Maybe lux and Reichstag should start correcting the flawed analyses of all of these "hoaxster" space and satellite services!

http://www.satobs.org/brite.html

Bright Satellites & Resources

Introduction

This page provides resources for beginners new to visually observing Earth orbiting man-made satellites. Two subscribers to SeeSat-L maintain a group of satellite elements for bright satellites.
100 (or so) Brightest Satellites

Jay Respler created and maintains an element set or elset on T.S. Kelso's web site in the US. Jay also compiles a monthly review of astronomical happenings and satellite related links titled "Skyviews".

These satellites are normally brighter than magnitude 4, two magnitudes brighter than the minimum limit of magnitude 6, the brightness needed in order to be seen with the un-aided eye in clear dark skys. Keep in mind that a difference of five magnitudes is defined as a factor of 100 in brightness. Therefore a difference in a 1 magnitude value corresponds to a factor 2.5 in brightness (actually the 5th root of 100 or 2.512). Further discussion on the meaning of "magnitude" values and their relationship can be found in this archived post on SeeSat-L.

The list of satellites in the elset by Jay Respler is reproduced here and is sorted by descending order of inclination. The elset provided by Jay is sorted by ascending order of the satellite's catalog number.
Resources needed to observe satellites
Prediction Services

There are several satellite viewing prediction services on the web.

The Heavens-Above site is a prediction service which includes Jay Respler's "100 (or so) Brightest Satellites", among others. In addition, this service provides predictions for the Iridium series of satellites that provide local flares to observers. If you are a beginning observer you might want to read the Beginner's Observing Guide page.

Please go to the VSO satellite prediction page to find links to other good prediction sites.
Tracking Program

First, you need to obtain a tracking program if you want to generate your own predictions either in tabular or graphical form. There are satellite prediction services on the Internet that will generate predictions in tabular form for a limited number of satellites. But if you want to predict satellites of your own choosing in a format you find more useful, you will need to install a tracking program on your computer. You can find some tracking programs and prediction services links on the Tracking Programs and TLE Resources page and on the Satellite Prediction Software page.
Two Line Elements (TLEs)

There are a few sources on the internet that provide the orbital elements of various types of satellites. You can find some of these resources on the Tracking Program and TLE Resources page.

Information in the TLE

You can find a representative TLE on the Tracking Program and TLE Resources page, with information on some of the individual elements. Some of the information that is helpful to a newcomer is the satellite catalog number, the satellite international designation, the epoch date and the inclination of the satellite.
Inclination

In order for an observer to view a satellite he or she must be near to or below the Earth latitude that corresponds to the inclination of a given satellite. As an example, if you lived above 70 N or S latitude, (besides probably being cold ;-) you would not be able to observe the International Space Station, which has an inclination of 51.6 degrees. The ISS's most extreme northern or southern track over the Earth never exceeds 51.6 N or S latitude.

Fortunately, most of the satellites in the "50 Brightest Satellites" and "100 (or so) Brightest Satellites" listings have an inclination greater than 70 degrees, thus you could live as far north or south as 80 degrees latitude and observe most of these satellites.

Generally, for satellites having an altitude of 300 km or less, your viewing location can be no greater than 10 degrees in latitude above the corresponding inclination of a given satellite. The higher the altitude of the satellite, the higher the satellite will be above the horizon to an observer.
Magnitude of Brightness Associated with a Satellite

Information on visual magnitude is not included in a satellite's orbital elements; however, some satellite prediction programs include databases of standard magnitude data, enabling them to estimate realistic magnitude based upon range to the observer and phase angle of the satellite for any point of travel above the horizon.

A separate listing of over 1500 satellites and their associated magnitude can be found in a listing called qsmag.zip periodically updated by Mike McCants that is used in his Quicksat satellite tracking program. This listing can stand alone.

The "Molczan" magnitude values and the "Quicksat" magnitude values are based on different assumptions and different observations.
Assumptions:

The "Molczan" magnitude values are based on 50% illumination; the "Quicksat" values are based on 100% illumination. The difference mathematically is 0.8 magnitude. The "Molczan" magnitudes are 0.8 magnitudes fainter due to this assumption.

The "Molczan" values are based on "mean" magnitudes, while the "Quicksat" values are based on "maximum" magnitudes. Typically (for a cylinder) the "mean" magnitude is about 0.7 magnitudes fainter than the "maximum" magnitude. On average, the cylinder is tilted about 45 degrees relative to the observer compared to its maximum possible attitude.

The sum of the two differences in magnitude is about 1.5 magnitudes. So a typical Cosmos rocket would appear in the Quicksat magnitude file as intrinsic 4.0 and in the Molczan file as intrinsic 5.5 , that is, its value of brightness in magnitude would be dimmer compared to the Quicksat value.

Observations:

Many of the Molczan magnitudes are derived (mathematically) from the physical dimensions of the object. This magnitude value is denoted by "d". The Molczan magnitudes that are derived from observations are denoted with "v" and were computed by Rainer Kracht based on Russell Eberst's observations.

The Quicksat intrinsic magnitude values were derived from observations by Mike McCants.

Regardless of what magnitude value system you use as a reference, most likely the satellite will not display its brightness at the magnitude value provided in either list except possibly at one point in time during its transit.

Either magnitude value system compares one satellite to another in terms of brightness and only provides a relative comparison, not necessarily an absolute value.

Your actual observed brightness will vary depending upon the actual percentage of illumination, range, elevation and visibility conditions. If the satellite is at a low elevation with the majority of the sunlight falling opposite to the side being viewed and visibility conditions are poor, chances are you will not observe the satellite. It's important that satellites be viewed in the portion of the sky opposite the rising or setting sun in order to see their potential brightness. In other words, view satellites in the western portion of the sky in the morning and in the eastern sky in the evening.
Description of Satellites

Some good resources that describe the function of various satellites are:

SpaceWarn

Jonathan's Space Report

Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica

Still waiting for some evidence on your behalf.

[lux]

I'm starting to see the trend here ...

Darn! He's on to me! Can't fool ol' Mitch I guess.

... and you call me a dick (for the second time now) when I present factual data to support the existence of satellites.

Only the 2nd time? I could have sworn it was at least three.

However, the problem is that not you or any other members of the forum can conclusively debunk the existence of man made satellites.

Then I guess your work is done here. Yet you remain. Go figure.

All you have done is make yourself look silly by responding with juvenille insults. It's quite amusing to see you resort to such desperate attacks, rather than responding with any kind of evidence to support the argument.

Yeah, I'm really desperate, Mitch.

What will it take to get you to believe that this stuff is real, do you have to see it with your own eyes?

As a matter of fact that's EXACTLY what it would take.

Still waiting for some evidence on your behalf.

And, I'm still waiting for you to buzz off.

But, I guess Mick Jagger was right.

Do you know what Mick Jagger was right about, Mitch?

[simonshack]

Gentlemen/women,

Let me attempt to moderate what seems to be the start of a senseless ping-pong match of "you can't prove it" laments.

As things stand today, none of us forum members can prove the existence (or not) of satellites either way. I personally have seen many bright dots flying across the Norwegian firmament at night - ever since my childhood. And yes, I was told they were man-made satellites. That's as far as my 'firsthand eye-witness' experience of satellites goes. Please keep in mind that this thread is still titled "Satellites, general discussion and musings". It is but a humble - yet logically sound extension of our Cluesforum space-related research which, as far as I'm concerned, has convincingly expounded and demonstrated the bogusness of a vast amount of media-reported space conquests peddled by the international space industry - spanning all the way from Gagarin through NASA's purported moon landings, their "Space Shuttles" and their "International Space Station". With such mountains of lies coming from this particular, self-anointed "scientific community", it behooves every free thinker of this world to question the entire bulk of their alleged enterprises.

I will kindly ask Mitch Matrixx to tone down his twitchy responses to the sound skepticism expressed by various valid members of this forum. Also, I'd ask you not to start linking to countless satellite articles published by the space community - without expounding the reasons why you personally believe they are any more believable than, for instance, the vast literature available in support of the existence/reality of the ISS. Thanks.

[Mitch Matrixx]

Sim-On Shack,

Let me please clearly explain something to you briefly, and then I will allow you to return to your self appointed pedestal of “alternative truth” to direct your minions of deception.

I discovered your “work” on accident a little over one year ago on the YouTube. I'm not a truther or any kind of conspiracy theorist in any regard, but I did find your cleverly cut and pasted videos to be entertaining. Being the slightly jaded and cynical bloke that I am, I found your forum to be a fresh dose of sarcastic hilarity. I can appreciate the dark approach in the "Jumpers" forum and the neat play on words with the “VicSims” etc, but then I realized how serious you all are about this stuff. Which is really rather scary considering you're not just trying to be ironic or funny as I initially thought you were.

After going from lurking to adding to a few posts where I too spotted a few oddities, I have gradually come to see the full intent of your site, which is clearly to mislead, and misdirect people's attention.

You and your regular contributors (if they are indeed all separate individuals, which I am doubtful) have but one singular purpose, that being outright deceit. I do not throw this accusation around lightly.
I am down with media fakery, I believe in greedy corrupt corporations, and government individuals who fancy themselves as gods. I also believe that you weave your own web of misdirection right here.

However, if you think for one second that I will let the issue of space travel and satellite(s) existence and communication etc. slide in favor of your soap box preaching, you have another thing coming.

As it is, much like the SimCity thread before, I have presented adequate links and information to prove my argument about the ABSOLUTE existence on satellites. As it stands you have only presented one NASA video to date that bothered me enough to comment on questioning its validity.
It's actually quite laughable, that like Kentrailer, you seem delusional enough to claim that you have single handedly proven the NASA videos as fakes, much as you make the bold claim that all 911 footage is faked! Holy cow man, how do you sleep at night?

Twitchy responses eh? Why, because I don't buy into your fanciful version of REAL existing space craft that can be seen with a pair of binoculars or a medium powered telescope?
Get REAL Sim-On Shack!
You have to be kidding me with this stuff. You have the gall to insult people in entire droves with this so called evidence that you routinely recycle through the invisible reaches of the internet. You foster a virtual hostel for anti American, anti Semitic, and anti reality drivel and sentiment, and then have the balls to question the ideas of the few who stand up against your misleading garbage? All from the comfort, and seclusion of where exactly... Italy? Nice try dude.

I don't think so... I won't sit back and let you talk about real events and circumstances as though they were all cartoon fantasy as you post this insulting trash about my fellow human beings. I have heard enough of your rhetoric to spot your end goal of distraction and revisionism. It was a fun ride but I think I'll get off now and let you return to your delusional state of grandeur.
Good luck with that, and thank you for inspiring me to do real research, instead of taking your word for everything like so many have blindly done before. It has been enlightening and hilarious at the same time.

Congratulations Sim-On... Your site has just become a personal pet project of mine.

[whatsgoingon]

Mitch, pal. Post something that convinces me either way but presently, what is there to go on here? You think the ISS is real? But these tirades are irritating and seem to be only purposed to disrupt the forum, which must be in fact your real motive. Sorry it had to end this way. You had a brain at first, but now you have gone crazy.

[simonshack]

Get REAL, Sim-On Shack (...)

"Mitch Matrixx" calling me "Sim-On" - what honor! Makes me feel realer than real ! How clever of you, Mitch darling...

You foster a virtual hostel for anti American, anti Semitic, and anti reality drivel and sentiment, and then have the balls to question the ideas of the few who stand up against your misleading garbage? All from the comfort, and seclusion of where exactly... Italy? Nice try dude.

Huh? "Anti American, anti Semitic, and anti reality drivel and sentiment"?... Thanks for the laugh, Mitch!

And yeah, I live in Italy. Do you think I lie about that? That I simulate the reality of myself? Are you a conspiracy theorist?

"Seclusion?" Well - it's not like I hide in a remote cave in Afghanistan - or is THIS what you are suggesting?

Now what exactly do you do for a living, Mr Matrixx? Would it be too much too ask? I now see that you edited, on May11 2012, your introductory post at Cluesforum, replacing it all with this lone 'smiley':

viewtopic.php?p=2358261#p2358261

What's the deal with that, Mitch? Why did you delete your intro? Are you for real?

[Maat]

Oh but you are not allowed to question or doubt "authority" and the "scientific" establishment — or encourage anyone else to examine and think for themselves either dontcha know, Simon? That's heresy!

Congratulations Sim-On... Your site has just become a personal pet project of mine.

But implied threats like this reveal its neurotic resentment and ego-centric motivation loud and clear

Can we flush now, please? (it's gettin' stinky in here)

[simonshack]

My last comment on Mitch Matrixx's pompous and grandiose rant - evidently meant to discredit yours truly - and the entire Cluesforum research...

Good luck with that, and thank you for inspiring me to do real research, instead of taking your word for everything like so many have blindly done before.

No one is ever meant to "take my word blindly" for anything, Mitch Matrixx dear. This forum exists precisely for the purpose of intelligent debate. Yes, in order to keep it intelligent, we occasionally filter out silly/angry/ambiguous/flip-floppy/twitchy members - such as yourself. We're all rather weary of fools.

I truly hope you can understand this much, professor Matrixx. Have fun with your personal pet project.