Satellites : general discussion and musings

[lux]

I think I found the problem with Mitch:

... 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.

We SCARED the little fellow.

[Maat]

Yeah, and to think I hadn't even posted this yet



I actually made it a while ago in anticipation of this event

[AmongTheThugs]

So Mitch, you believe the 9/11 footage is real? How about the moon landing? Just wondering.

[simonshack]

So Mitch, you believe the 9/11 footage is real? How about the moon landing? Just wondering.

The Mitch Matrixx satellite has been jettisoned from the Cluesforum ship's payload bay and - according to Houston - is believed to be heading for planet Mars in search for the Red Pill.

Funny that Mitch should need to travel that far - since his IP is from Chicago, home of the Wachowski brothers!

[Dmitry]

May I give you my take?
2. nope Inmarsat does not use "geostationary satellite communication" (since the technology only exists in science fiction). All "satellite-based" communications rely on ionospheric radio wave propagation, a.k.a. "sky wave".
3. ditto for GPS.

Thank you very much for your input, reichstag fireman.

To not miss a thing: are broadcasting so called "satellites" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sa ... nous_orbit) also only the ionospheric reflection of remote antennas?

[reichstag fireman]

To not miss a thing: are broadcasting so called "satellites" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sa ... nous_orbit) also only the ionospheric reflection of remote antennas?

That's how I understand it. There are dozens of non-existent satellites supposedly worth trillions of dollars. Claiming no less than 13 satellites of its own, Luxembourg, home of Astra SES, heads the league table of satellite fraudsters. The supposed "uplink" site for Luxembourg's non-existent Astra satellite fleet is the royal palace of the Grand Duke. Yet from elementary studies of the dispersal in the reception footprint(s) for the Astra signals, the implied angles of incidence/refraction, the ionosphere penetration depth (Snell's Law), it is evident that the Astra "uplink site" is not in Luxembourg, but somewhere in Africa (central-east).

viewtopic.php?p=2371477#p2370951

The whole fraud is preposterous. What it basically means is that any Tom, Dick or Harriet could start their own "satellite" TV channel with not much more than an enormous parabolic dish and a pile of dodgy DVDs. (watch this space )

I find it quite funny that the satellite fraudsters have boxed themselves into the corner with their drivel about the (Arthur C) Clarke Belt. Supposedly all geo-stat comms "satellites" are orbiting in that (non-existent) "Belt" of altitude 35,000km.

To maintain the Big Lie, this involves the artificial introduction of a signal latency of 7e7/3e8 (250) milliseconds. Which immediately precludes the use of "satellites" for real-time communication protocols, specifically internet protocols. If satellites truly existed and if they were really in the "Clarke Belt", two-way satellite comms traffic would add half a second of latency. Not great for internet surfing experience.

But maybe that aspect to the "satellite" fraud was a sop to fixed wire providers who otherwise would have blown the whistle over the loss of trade from "satellites" ?! Since the ionosphere (for sky wave propagation) is just a few hundred kilometres altitude, the true latency of "satellite comms" (real name "sky-wave comms") is in the low milliseconds.

Preposterous and pathetic too!

[Dmitry]

The supposed "uplink" site for Luxembourg's non-existent Astra satellite fleet is the royal palace of the Grand Duke. Yet from elementary studies of the dispersal in the reception footprint(s) for the Astra signals, the implied angles of incidence/refraction, the ionosphere penetration depth (Snell's Law), it is evident that the Astra "uplink site" is not in Luxembourg, but somewhere in Africa (central-east).

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2371477#p2370951

Could you please clarify:

* do you present the footprint diagram as a proof of the fraud;
* or you first claim the fraud and then use the diagram to adjust some details?

This is to say, if we suppose for a little moment that Astra satellites really exist, in this case, it is totally impossible to deduce the uplink location from the signal footprint. Just because satellites are not claimed to be plain mirrors: it can use different antennas to receive the signal and to rebroadcast it. The official rough SES map (http://www.ses.com/4232618/fleet-coverage) shows enough satellites above central Africa.

So, for a TV signal coming from somewhere above, we have 2 suppositions:
* it is broadcasted by a ground based antenna and mirrored by the ionosphere;
* it is broadcasted from a satellite/spacecraft.

reichstag fireman, I have a question: could you describe some real life experiment to prove the falseness of exactly 1 supposition?

[reichstag fireman]

if we suppose for a little moment that Astra satellites really exist,

I'm too old for believing in fairytales, Dmitry! Alas, geostationary communication satellites do not exist.

All communications attributed to "satellites" are simply radio waves propagated by refraction from the ionosphere.

That "sky wave" propagation path was recognised over a century ago. Pioneering researchers included Heaviside, Kennelly, Breit and Tuve.

It is only in the last few decades that the "satellite" myth has been promoted (for entirely fraudulent financial gain!).

Just because satellites are not claimed to be plain mirrors: it can use different antennas to receive the signal and to rebroadcast it.

Determining the (approximate) geolocation of the ionospheric uplink for a "satellite" signal is elementary. We use:

• the reception footprint of the signal
• the approximate depth of wave refraction within the ionosphere (just a few hundred kilometres altitude),
• the angle of ionospheric refraction, to derive..
• the angle of incidence of the original radio wave

Given the angle of refraction and the angle of incidence, locating the site of the ionospheric "uplink" is now elementary. The calculation being based on Snell's Law, dating back to 984AD.

Without even reaching for a calculator, we can discover the truth about "satellites" for ourselves. Simply by studying the azimuth and elevation of the domestic parabolic antenna used for reception of "satellite" TV broadcasts. It is soon clear that the communication satellite is just a myth!


From a 1925 research paper on ionospheric radio wave propagation

[Dmitry]

if we suppose for a little moment that Astra satellites really exist,

I'm too old for believing in fairytales, Dmitry! Alas, geostationary communication satellites do not exist.

All communications attributed to "satellites" are simply radio waves propagated by refraction from the ionosphere.

reichstag fireman, I am not a teenager too. This is why, when I discover some claim (like yours one) that is in contradiction with most of that I've heard before, I try to find a proof or a disproof. Is it so foolish?

Consider, for example, the following scenario:
1. You communicate me GPS coordinates of the supposed uplink location.
2. I check Google Maps and other presumed "satellite" photos and see there nothing but a virgin forest on Madagascar.
3. I ask my friend (who, by accident, have a tourist business on that island) to get there and to take some photos.
4. He provides us with pictures of cyclopic antennas.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that SW radio largely uses the skywave effect. And (old, cheap) SW receivers don't have to be strictly oriented, their antennas are very tolerant. If "satellite" TV use the same mirror (at 100 km, with the possibility of many hops sky/earth), people don't really need "dishes", right? You can unmount a dish, replace it with a long wire -- it must work, doesn't it? (And for a 36 000 km far mirror... one really would have to buy a perfect parabolic dish and to aim it very accurately).

About your economic argument: frankly speaking, it does not persuades me. AFAIK, the retail price is determined only by the customer's possibilities. To pump away 60 GBP/month, one can promote "most modern satellites" or "golden cables cleared up with pure pink noise" or "finest, hand crafted sky waves" -- in fact, any customer just watches TV and don't care much about technologies in use. What can really annoy it is the quality. The ghost signal, for instance.

[reichstag fireman]

if we suppose for a little moment that Astra satellites really exist,

All communications attributed to "satellites" are simply radio waves propagated by refraction from the ionosphere.

SW radio largely uses the skywave effect. And (old, cheap) SW receivers don't have to be strictly oriented, their antennas are very tolerant. If "satellite" TV use the same mirror (at 100 km, with the possibility of many hops sky/earth), people don't really need "dishes", right?

You can unmount a dish, replace it with a long wire -- it must work, doesn't it? (And for a 36 000 km far mirror... one really would have to buy a perfect parabolic dish and to aim it very accurately).

Well.. you are talking about shortwave radio wave propagation (just 2MHz or so) whereas the fraudsters' "satellite" communications (in truth just sky-wave propagation) are transmitted on frequencies in excess of 10GHz.

Propagation properties of radio waves from two opposite ends of the spectrum are very different.

Signal attenuation is proportionate to frequency. The higher the carrier frequency, the greater the attenuation of the signal.

That is why cellphone masts are needed every few kilometres rather then every few hundred kilometres. The dominant GSM/UMTS cellphone systems use 900MHz and 1.8GHz. Attenuation at those (low) microwave frequencies is nevertheless significant and very limiting. A distance of just 20 kilometres between base station and cellphone is probably enough to completely degrade the signal from a cellphone transmitting at the statutory maximum 4 watts on 1.8GHz.

Another example of attenuation is illustrated by DVB-T (digital terrestrial TV) reception. We needed to install a high gain rooftop antenna, just to receive a usable signal from a 10kW DVB-T "freeview TV" mast transmitting on ~700MHz from a large hill some 30km from us.

So imagine the attenuation present at 10-12GHz. That is the microwave band used to transmit "satellite" (real name sky-wave) TV signals. Attenuation at 10GHz is many many times higher than the attenuation at 1.8GHz, 900Mhz, or 700Mhz.

Further, signal attenuation is proportionate not only to frequency but also to distance. In fact it is linearly proportionate to distance. Which is why the hoaxsters' claims are so ludicrous. It is impossible to receive a highly modulated 12GHz signal from a (non-existent) hovering "satellite" object in the (non-existent) "Clark Belt" over 30,000km away.

However, if we suppose that "satellite TV" uses sky wave propagation (ionospheric refraction), then things start to make sense. We can estimate the electron density in the ionosphere where the 10GHz signal starts to refract back down to earth. Shall we agree, for argument's sake, on an ionosphere depth of 400km as the point of refraction for 10GHz. That is the altitude at which the wave is bent back to earth. The altitude isn't very important, since we're talking, give or take, just a few hundred kilometres at most. Another element to consider here is the angle of incidence for the wave entering the ionosphere, and the relationship of that angle to signal attenuation. The more obtuse the angle, the less the refractive attenuation. Hence the careful decision-making when siting the skywave uplink transmitter.

Couple that realistic scenario to a very high powered sky-wave uplink transmitter at the head-end. For the Astra/SES signals, the uplink is located in central-east Africa, perhaps Madagascar, or thereabouts. With a head-end output power perhaps into the megawatts, with careful beam focus (see reception footprint of "satellite" signal), with a very obtuse angle of incidence to reduce losses from refraction, and with a high gain parabolic dish and masthead amp for reception in every home. And, now, "satellite TV" (aka "Skywave TV", or let's just call it "Sky TV") is suddenly looking quite plausible And with no need for a "satellite", it's very cheap to roll-out, too!

So who's pocketing the cash swindled from all these phony satellite launches?

[Dmitry]

Well.. you are talking about shortwave radio wave propagation (just 2MHz or so) whereas the fraudsters' "satellite" communications (in truth just sky-wave propagation) are transmitted on frequencies in excess of 10GHz.

Propagation properties of radio waves from two opposite ends of the spectrum are very different.

Signal attenuation is proportionate to frequency. The higher the carrier frequency, the greater the attenuation of the signal.

Did evil fraudsters have chosen this special band to simply loose more electric power or to also overheat the atmosphere?

Seriously, why not use good old SW band? They could steal even more money with it.

That is why cellphone masts are needed every few kilometres rather then every few hundred kilometres.

The dominant GSM/UMTS cellphone systems use 900MHz and 1.8GHz. Attenuation at those (low) microwave frequencies is nevertheless significant and very limiting. A distance of just 20 kilometres between base station and cellphone is probably enough to completely degrade the signal from a cellphone transmitting at the statutory maximum 4 watts on 1.8GHz.

This is wrong.

Once upon a time I found myself in south Sicily when all local GSM masts were down due to some technical incident. My phone indicated "Vodafone MALTA". This is about 100 km, but it worked.

Another time I was home, in Moscow, on some corporative event together with a few hundred cell phone company employees (sure, everybody with a phone connected to the same company network). There are masts on every step in this place, but communications were in big trouble.

In fact, unlike radio/TV broadcasting devices, cell phone masts are not dumb amplifiers/re-translators. They are connected to base stations having limited capacity. Each station can handle not so much concurrent connections. This is why masts density must correlate with the number of active clients.

Another example of attenuation is illustrated by DVB-T (digital terrestrial TV) reception. We needed to install a high gain rooftop antenna, just to receive a usable signal from a 10kW DVB-T "freeview TV" mast transmitting on ~700MHz from a large hill some 30km from us.

An interesting fact: after the fire (Y2K) at Ostankino tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostankino_Tower#Accidents), rooftop antennas are no more in service in Moscow. All freeview TV is provided by cable operators. For example, I use an operator that supplys free TV signal and the Internet access by the same cable (with DOCSIS). By the way, they could easily mount some hemisphere on the roof top and declare that the signal goes through the space. I would not pay them more for the same service.

In the meantime, my little kitchen TV set is not connected to the cable. But its little antenna works fine. Yes, the tower is only 6 km far and is directly visible through the window. My parents' dacha is 60 km from here, they don't have rooftop antenna, but use some wire construction with an amplifier.

So imagine the attenuation present at 10-12GHz. That is the microwave band used to transmit "satellite" (real name sky-wave) TV signals. Attenuation at 10GHz is many many times higher than the attenuation at 1.8GHz, 900Mhz, or 700Mhz.

Why imagine? How exactly many many? Show me the numbers please.

Further, signal attenuation is proportionate not only to frequency but also to distance. In fact it is linearly proportionate to distance.

Attenuation? To the distance? LINEARLY? In what units do you measure it? What direction diagram do you consider?

The point about direction is essential. Imagine an emitting antenna E that broadcasts in pure vacuum (so there is no absorption/refraction/reflection at all) and two identical receiver antennas: R1 at 6 km and R2 at 60 km. The question is: how will differ the power of signal consumed by R1 and R2?

Answer 1. For isotropic emitter, R2 will consume 100 times less power than R1. Indeed, the *same* wave first pass through the sphere of PI*(6km)^2, then through PI*(60km)^2 = 100 * PI*(6km)^2. The power is distributed *uniformly*, so we have to divide it by the sphere surface.

Answer 2. For ideally directed emitter (a good parabolic mirror or, even better, a laser) both receivers will consume the same amount of energy. Indeed, in case of strictly directed propagation, distance does not matter.

Answer 3. For the same ideally directed emitter R2 will not receive any signal at all. Because it will be eclipsed by R1.

Which is why the hoaxsters' claims are so ludicrous. It is impossible to receive a highly modulated 12GHz signal from a (non-existent) hovering "satellite" object in the (non-existent) "Clark Belt" over 30,000km away.

Look, reichstag fireman, you claim that it's impossible. You mean I must trust you. Let's suppose it. And if someone say that skywave is a pure fiction -- should I trust him? No? But Why? Maybe you'll point me at some SW radio and invite to do some tests? OK, that way I'll *know* (not only believe) that SW radio really works.

What can you point at to prove me that dish antennas really receive skywave, not space signal? Something that I could check with my own hands please.

...Couple that realistic scenario to a very high powered sky-wave uplink transmitter at the head-end. For the Astra/SES signals, the uplink is located in central-east Africa, perhaps Madagascar, or thereabouts. With a head-end output power perhaps into the megawatts, with careful beam focus (see reception footprint of "satellite" signal), with a very obtuse angle of incidence to reduce losses from refraction, and with a high gain parabolic dish and masthead amp for reception in every home. And, now, "satellite TV" (aka "Skywave TV", or let's just call it "Sky TV") is suddenly looking quite plausible And with no need for a "satellite", it's very cheap to roll-out, too!

So who's pocketing the cash swindled from all these phony satellite launches?

Megawatts? You know, I've heard about skywave (not any mention of space, only skywave) antennas of right that power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Woodpecker. FYI, it (literally) was powered by 2 dedicated of totally 4 blocks of Chernobyl nuclear plant.

To build and maintain something similar on Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Uganda or Somali to pump some cash from naive Western customers... Sorry, it sounds to me much more like fiction than the official satellite legend.

[hoi.polloi]

Forgive my ignorance, please, I beg you.

But could you two please put what you are saying in more layman's terms, if you please? This discussion is getting hard to follow. Diagrams might help.

[reichstag fireman]

Forgive my ignorance, please, I beg you. But could you two please put what you are saying in more layman's terms, if you please? This discussion is getting hard to follow. Diagrams might help.

Early 20th century, it was recognised that the earth's atmosphere has a special sub-layer called the ionosphere. This 'ionised' or electrically-charged layer causes radio waves to be "refracted" or bent.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere

A radio wave, whether shortwave or microwave, which is focused appropriately towards the ionosphere, will refract down to earth again, where it is received over a large footprint of the earth. Bingo, we have "satellite" communications, but without the satellite!

This became known as "sky-wave propagation" and was theorised in 1901. By the 1920s it was confirmed as fact.


Source: http://hs8jyx.blogspot.sg/2010/06/how-i ... vered.html

The "satellite" fraudsters deny that sky-wave propagation exists for microwave signals. They claim that only lower frequencies (below VHF) are refracted by the ionosphere. Here is a comical NASA diagram containing that fib. Count all the other fairytales in it!


Original image at: http://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/educatio ... c/iono.htm

The swindlers claim that higher frequency radio waves - VHF, UHF and microwave frequencies - pass straight through the ionosphere and into outer space (see above). This Big Lie is crucial to selling the fairytale of non-existent "satellite" communications. As well as the scams of the International Space Station, the Apollo Hoax, and a whole gamut of other space frauds.

To date, man has never created a radio wave of an intensity to pass through the ionosphere (and there is no receiving apparatus beyond the ionosphere anyway!) So all claims of Space Travel including the latest supposed footage from the "Mars Expedition", by definition, are hoaxes.

However, with the right equipment, we could soon demonstrate sky-wave propagation at microwave frequencies, to prove the "satellite" claims are fraudulent. We would reproduce the research of early pioneers, Breit and Tuve, Heaviside and Kennelly et al, from the 1920s. But with the advantage of modern oscillation circuitry to generate a carrier wave at a microwave frequency, something those early researchers did not have. Their ionospheric studies were confined to shortwave propagation.


Dr Gregory Breit (left) and Dr Merle Tuve (right), 1927.

The technique of Ionosonde probing, illustrated below, could be adapted for any probe frequency, including the microwave frequencies supposedly used for "satellite" communications today.


Ionograms from ionosonde probing - illustrating the depths of ionospheric refraction (but not the angle of incidence...) as a function of radio wave frequency (and only showing up to 10MHz)


Equipment used for ionosonde probing

Source: http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFull ... 051-02.pdf
Source: http://www.antennex.com/prop/prop0807/prop0807.pdf
Source: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2402.pdf
Source: http://pdfcast.org/download/irpl-radio- ... ndbook.pdf


Since few of us have access to the power needed to perform ionosonde tests at microwave frequencies - probably requiring a transmitter power in the hundreds if not thousands of kilowatts, those tests just aren't practical. And we can have little optimism that Jodrell Bank or Kennedy Space Center would lend out their equipment for independent research

It's clear that the lies about sky-wave propagation were being laid by Sir Edward Appleton and his cohorts in the Anglo-American empire, right back in the 1930s.


Sir Edward Appleton, KBE, nobel prize winner 1947

Appleton claims in one paper that the angle of incidence of a radio wave directed into the ionosphere has no relationship to the attenuation/refraction of the signal. It's important to understand why that is false.

All of the satellite dishes on our homes have an acute* angle of elevation from the horizon. The dish elevation is no where near the normal angle. That is to say, it is no where near vertical, or perpendicular to the horizon. The angle of incidence for the ionospheric uplink transmitter must be similarly acute from the horizon.

In further reference to transmitter power requirements, since that seems contentious - the main terrestrial TV transmitter serving the Greater London area - the Crystal Palace transmitter - has a total output power of 1.2 megawatts for six multiplexers providing some 50 TV channels on UHF frequencies. Even that power output is insufficient. Numerous additional "relays" are also needed for the blackspots around London which have no reception from the main Crystal Palace mast.


Source: http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=TQ339712

Note the (tiny) size of the reception footprint for one of the most powerful TV transmitters in Britain. That's all the coverage you get for 1.2 megawatts of total power output. Imagine, now, how efficient and economical sky-wave propagation is instead! Once it's dressed up as "satellite TV", a small fortune can be charged for it!

Much of the research into ionospheric radiowave propagation was conducted in the run up to WWII. At the outbreak of war, the research was concealed ostensibly on the grounds of national security. However, with war over, the research remained secret, setting the stage for the great "satellite" swindle.

Since it's too difficult sifting fact from fiction amongst NASA's innumerable lies, it's more practical to extrapolate the very early ionospheric research from way before WWII. That is probably also true for particle physics - splitting the atom - and similar malarkeys. Re-visit the earliest research, before the gangsters realised its worth and concealed the scientific truth for their own foul gain.

* two errors earlier - signal attenuation is not linear to transmission distance, but proportionate to the inverse square of the distance of transmission (which belies NASA's falsehoods even more). Secondly, for microwave propagation, the angle of incidence (theta) of a "satellite (skywave) uplink signal must be as small as possible. The rule here is the Secant Law where the maximum usable frequency (MUF) = critical frequency (fc) / cos(theta) = fc sec(theta) . So as theta (the angle of incidence) approaches zero - that's when the dish is pointing parallel to the earth's horizon - the MUF of skywave propagation approaches infinity. That's the point where Appleton lied and claimed the opposite was true. It also explains why our satellite TV dishes have very small angles of elevation. If the non-existent "satellite" was located directly above the reception area (e.g. western europe for the Astra/SES hoax) the incidence angle of the uplink would also have to be close to the normal. But then the maximum usable frequency, because of the Secant Law, would be too low to support skywave propagation of a microwave signal.

[hoi.polloi]

To sum it up, your theory is that NASA has a fascination or obsession with communicating the idea of Earthly things "escaping" from Earth (e.g.; energy, waves, people, minerals, etc.) when the fact of the matter is: things on/around/near Earth generally stay on/around/near Earth. Makes sense. The Star Trek philosophy of bringing carpeted dens with Earth-like gravity, a giant home theater system and La-Z-Boy armchairs far into the distant reaches of deadly space always seemed a little disturbing to me. Thank goodness it's just an absurd Anglo fantasy of sugar-addled geeks like myself!

Another set of questions, slightly related, possibly already covered:

1. Satellites would come crashing down because there aren't any thrusters to keep them poised/orbiting above gravity's pull?

2. The shuttle would come crashing down because there's no atmosphere to coast on and the design is too clunky anyhow?

3. More to the point of the subject at hand (and sorry if I'm not reading carefully enough to divulge this from your post, but) you mention "TV transmitters" with megawatts of power output and "sky-wave". What are these two different things? What are they (allegedly) and how are they allegedly used? And how does this relate to portable phone towers?

Please explain the separate concepts of TV transmitters (What do they use? Just giant antennae?), sky-wave (How does this relate to "satellite dishes"?) and "cell phone towers" (What is the typical perception of cell phone towers' interaction with satellites, and how is it wrong since satellites are not real?)

[reichstag fireman]

To sum it up, your theory is that NASA has a fascination or obsession with communicating the idea of Earthly things "escaping" from Earth (e.g.; energy, waves, people, minerals, etc.) when the fact of the matter is: things on/around/near Earth generally stay on/around/near Earth. Makes sense. The Star Trek philosophy of bringing carpeted dens with Earth-like gravity, a giant home theater system and La-Z-Boy armchairs far into the distant reaches of deadly space always seemed a little disturbing to me. Thank goodness it's just an absurd Anglo fantasy of sugar-addled geeks like myself!

Another set of questions, slightly related, possibly already covered:

1. Satellites would come crashing down because there aren't any thrusters to keep them poised/orbiting above gravity's pull?

2. The shuttle would come crashing down because there's no atmosphere to coast on and the design is too clunky anyhow?

Just intuitively it all sounds like drivel. We are told that the fanciful International Space Station is supposedly now the size of a football pitch (she likes her food!) and weighs in at a whopping 400 metric tonnes(!). How could something with such vast mass possibly have sufficient fuel to maintain a ~300km altitude, against the enormous gravitational force of the earth? What NASA is claiming here is perverse! It's an insult to our most basic understanding of the laws of motion. According to NASA, at a superficial altitude of just 300km, the earth's gravitational pull has become so dramatically weak that just a couple of little squirty-hissy things on the "ISS" are enough to maintain an equilibrium of forces to keep it up there in orbit??

3. More to the point of the subject at hand (and sorry if I'm not reading carefully enough to divulge this from your post, but) you mention "TV transmitters" with megawatts of power output and "sky-wave". What are these two different things? What are they (allegedly) and how are they allegedly used? And how does this relate to portable phone towers?

Please explain the separate concepts of TV transmitters (What do they use? Just giant antennae?), sky-wave (How does this relate to "satellite dishes"?) and "cell phone towers" (What is the typical perception of cell phone towers' interaction with satellites, and how is it wrong since satellites are not real?)

Sky-wave means radio waves refracted from the ionosphere. Its opposite method of propagation is ground-wave which does not (or is not intended to) use the ionosphere to propagate the waves.

Examples of ground-wave propagation include (microwave-frequency) cellphones, UHF TV broadcasts, VHF (FM) broadcast radio, etc. Examples of sky-wave propagation include "satellite" TV, "satphone", GPS, etc..

Which reminds me, a couple of years ago I was drawn into a GPS project - to develop some software to drive a GPS module. We used gpsd, the open-source daemon for GPS. See: http://catb.org/gpsd/hacking.html The communication protocol used by GPS gives no indication that it is using "satellites"

A controversial (former?) grandee of Linux - Eric "ESR" Raymond has now ingratiated himself as admin of the gpsd project, after being told to bugger off from the Linux kernel development by Linus Torvalds. And now Raymond is using the gpsd project to hard-sell the "satellite" myth - Raymond talks about "satellites punching their GPS signals through the ionosphere".. Yawn.... Since GPS was so readily modified to use additional groundwave stations (DGPS) for greater precision, complementing the global coverage of skywave-based transmitters, why would anyone bother with "satellites" for GPS at all? Any answers, Mr Raymond? Hmm..

These are typical raw "sentences" from a GPS receiver, supposedly based on signals received from "GPS satellites".

$GPGGA,212734,4740.0569,N,12219.6612,W,1,08,74.00,73.9,M,638.000000,M,,*6D
$GPRMC,212734,A,4740.0569,N,12219.6612,W,0.000000,0.000000,020403,18.936255,E*60
$GPGSA,A,3,17,06,23,15,16,18,10,30,,,,,152.00,74.00,133.00*3F
$GPGGA,212735,4740.0569,N,12219.6612,W,1,08,74.00,74.1,M,638.000000,M,,*63
$GPRMC,212735,A,4740.0569,N,12219.6612,W,0.000000,0.000000,020403,18.936255,E*61

These closed-standard GPS "sentences" are documented here: http://aprs.gids.nl/nmea/

If you read Raymond's document with the assumption that when he talks of "satellite" that's new-speak for "skywave transmission site", everything suddenly falls into place.
In our GPS project, the retrieval of those sentences from a GPS module was as far as I was involved, but front-ends like xgps, plot the received data graphically:

Just three fields of any relevance, - timestamp "satellite" azimuth and elevation. Nothing that can't be achieved with skywave..



GPS modules with USB peripheral controllers to plug into a PC cost just 5 or 10 bucks. And they let you get right down to the nitty-gritty of what's in a GPS signal. So could be a good starting point for someone interested in thoroughly debunking the myth of "satellite" based GPS..