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.
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Farcevalue »

Sorry to interject this into the Google balloon portion of this thread, but I found these theory of relativity numbers interesting. This is from an explanation of how GPS works based on the theory of relativity and "bent space time":
Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.
- http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

Of course this could be entirely coincidental, but how many coincidences does it take to call it a pattern?
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by icarusinbound »

I spotted the 'Project Loon' item as a trending topic on Yootube earlier today, and was planning to post something about it here on Clues later.

Regardless of whether that's synchronicity or a vectored viral, I'm highly skeptical about this project. Hopefully the caustic comments from 'Sam Spade' regarding the lack of technical details are real...and are responded to. Send him an invitation to 'Clues'..

Comparing these balloons with, say, passenger hot air balloons which use LPG burners to rise, and ballast/venting to lower, these curious techno-bubbles don't seem to have any true altitude-tracking system. There is some mention of them being 'recycled', implying that they eventually run out of some kind of propellant, but surely that deserves to be expanded upon constructively.

An interesting lack of reference to GPS (unless I'm missing it?). Intriguing that these swastika-shaped solar panels are facing downwards...so, small in surface area, pointing directly away from their source of energy, and fragile as hell. Everything you don't want in a mesh peer-to-peer datacommunications system, with a potential 100% duty cycle. Tell me more about UV stabilisation of materials, uplink/downlink frequencies, data-rates, contention....interesting that it claims to be able to internetwork at a physical layer between 'Loons' directly, instead of just via the ground terminals. This is one of the fascinating claims of the Iridium satellite phone systems.

Is this just a lot of pseudo-tech eye candy?

I was similarly doubtful about the NASA Gossamer Albatross/Condor programme...
dryden_krIBi0VmPn96kve1CqJUdp6io1_500.jpg
dryden_krIBi0VmPn96kve1CqJUdp6io1_500.jpg (59.18 KiB) Viewed 6305 times
[st]http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/ ... -13413.jpg[/st]
This was touted as being an early in-stage for unmanned lightweight enormous plastic solar drones, radio 'mirrors' that would fly for eternity as super low-cost replacements for these pesky satellite...things. All exceedingly flimsy, in every sense.

I've seen a number of other 'gee whiz' tech-lite Amazing Stories that may in reality be terrifyingly-less than they claim to be. I'll post about them initially in the Chat-Room, I think (Flabbergasted, you're maybe on the same elevator as me about all this, so, please, look out for my post...unless you beat me to it, in which case I shall become somewhat spooked)

[EDIT: Broken image fixed -HP Dec. 21, 2017]
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack »

*


"EUTELSAT 21B - launched by ARIANE rocket"

Below we have two images of what is supposed to be the very same satellite, the "EUTELSAT 21B", allegedly launched by ARIANE into geostationary orbit (36.000km of altitude) on November 10, 2012.

Image
Caption: "Le satellite Eutelsat 21B installé dans un conteneur pour l'envoyer de l'usine cannoise de Thales Alenia Space, où il a été construit, à Kourou en Guyane d'où il sera lancé ce soir. © Thales Alenia Space"
http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/ ... eca_42532/
967-2.jpg
967-2.jpg (196.17 KiB) Viewed 6305 times
[st]http://www.arianespace.com/images/missi ... /967-2.jpg[/st]
Caption: "EUTELSAT 21B reçoit sa charge de propergol."(EUTELSAT21B receives its charge of propergol[solid propellant]).
http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t ... embre-2012

The ESA website says that Eutelsat21B was first injected into orbit at an altitude of 250km with the ARIANE5 rocket - and successively travelled all the way up to its geostationary position at an altitude of 35.786km. The website also explains that "Eutelsat-21B will deliver telecommunications services, data services for corporate networks and governmental administrations, and IP access in Europe, North and West Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia."
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launc ... ch_of_2012

So here are my questions to all rocket scientists - as well as average, thinking people like myself:

1 - Do the above two contraptions even look like the same object?
2 - How was this thing propelled from 250km to almost 36.000km of altitude?
3 - How was this thing braked/slowed down - so that it didn't overshoot its assigned 36.000km orbit?
4 - Where are the thrusters needed to periodically adjust its geostationary orbit?
5 - Why is such a huge object needed to deliver telecom services and IP access? What does it contain?


[ADMIN: Old image link broken; link replaced -HP]
rusty
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by rusty »

I'd like to add another question:

6 - Why are the two ESA actors employees dressed like asstronuts?
HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by HonestlyNow »

Question 1:
If you take what is in image 2, and lay it on what we see as its backside, and having the topside facing the camera, you can then see how that resembles image 1.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack »

rusty wrote: 6 - Why are the two ESA actors employees dressed like asstronuts?
Perhaps because that "propergol" is highly toxic / flammable / explosive? :P
HonestlyNow wrote:Question 1:
If you take what is in image 2, and lay it on what we see as its backside, and having the topside facing the camera, you can then see how that resembles image 1.
You are quite right about that, HonestlyNow and, quite honestly, I meant to delete question 1 just before you made your post... So one mystery is solved. Five left to go! ^_^
Starbucked
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Starbucked »

Russian ILS launch of an SES-6 satellite for SES.

This is launched, allegedly, from Baikonur Cosmodrome, which also launches Soyuz to the ISS. <_<


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwDASkWPJU

The launch acceleration rate is very slow and dramatic.
From around 57 seconds notice the different colors of the exhaust plumes:
purple on the left and grey on the right.
There appears to be very little thick grey/white exhaust smoke trailing the rocket as well.

Could this launch video be CGI magic and if so does a real video of an SES-6 satellite launch exist?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack »

Starbucked wrote: Could this launch video be CGI magic and if so does a real video of an SES-6 satellite launch exist?
Starbucked,

You are not seriously wondering whether this might be real /legit video imagery, are you ? :lol:

Image

Image

Edit Update: Someone on YT ("Michail Dugov") has called me mentally ill for suggesting this could be fake imagery... :P
Proton Launch of SES-6 on ILS Proton-M from Baikonur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwDASkWPJU
sceppy
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by sceppy »

There are two simple ways to figure out if rockets are genuinely taking off.

1.The rocket must accelerate at full thrust from a standing start and must do so at speed or it will fall back to earth.
2. The dense "water saturated" atmospheric air, should always create a steam plume behind the rockets hot burning exhaust thrust.

If either of these are not seen in a rocket launch, then it is 100% bogus.
Starbucked
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Starbucked »

Simon, I like to state facts as questions, for legal reasons B)

The programmer who designed that exhaust must have been eating a bowl of neapolitan ice cream!
The exhaust gasses are separated into a distinct pattern of strawberry, chocolate and french vanilla!
bottles-flav.JPG
bottles-flav.JPG (22.17 KiB) Viewed 6304 times
[EDIT: Broken link was something like this, I believe. - HP Dec. 21, 2017]
[st]http://lifeoverice.com/wp-content/uploa ... _Small.jpg[/st]
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack »

sceppy wrote:There are two simple ways to figure out if rockets are genuinely taking off.

1.The rocket must accelerate at full thrust from a standing start and must do so at speed or it will fall back to earth.
2. The dense "water saturated" atmospheric air, should always create a steam plume behind the rockets hot burning exhaust thrust.

If either of these are not seen in a rocket launch, then it is 100% bogus.
Dear sceppy,

You are right. Rockets cannot take off in 'slow motion'. Nor can their speed decrease/increase after a few seconds of their launch - as seen in this ridiculous ESA video (of a rocket purportedly bringing their "CRYOSAT" satellite into orbit) :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSaYIIBZk10

Don't you just LOVE the sound sample they used to simulate this rocket's sound ? :lol:
Vext Lynchpin
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Vext Lynchpin »

It's hard to find good amateur footage of rocket launches. Most of the video I found on Youtube is either official NASA video or amateur video shot from a few miles away, making it difficult to compare.
Starbucked
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Starbucked »

Wouldn't these rockets also need a launch rail or some mechanical system to ensure that they are thrust straight up?

Something like this:

Image

As opposed to what appears to be nothing in the case of the ILS Proton launch or Soyuz, pictured below.

Image

No mechanical launch rail would leave zero margin for error. I wonder if the folks at the model rocketry forum can explain why Nasa et al. doesn't need a launch rail, and if they would like to try launching their Estes rockets without a launch rod
sceppy
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by sceppy »

Starbucked wrote:Wouldn't these rockets also need a launch rail or some mechanical system to ensure that they are thrust straight up?

Something like this:

Image

As opposed to what appears to be nothing in the case of the ILS Proton launch or Soyuz, pictured below.

Image

No mechanical launch rail would leave zero margin for error. I wonder if the folks at the model rocketry forum can explain why Nasa et al. doesn't need a launch rail, and if they would like to try launching their Estes rockets without a launch rod
A rocket is at it's most unstable (balance wise) on ignition.
Apparently they have bolts that somehow hold the rocket to the deck which explode just before lift off. :rolleyes:
Sod the safety. I mean... a rockets tough outer skin would deflect any exploded bolt shrapnel, plus the explosion is carefully deflected away from the rocket. :D
Stuff like "ice" is the major problem, or dangerous chunks of foam (shuttles). That's the main worry, because that stuff sinks ships...not exploding, dense, tempered bolts. ;)
To think that just one of those engines giving out a little bit less thrust on lift off would unbalance the rocket and tip it over.
The Russian rockets are the best ones because they don't require people to be 3 miles away to witness a launch.You only need to be a few hundred metres away (as long as you are a news reporter and a tough "deaf" female ).
These rockets are designed to be set up in the middle of nowhere, with all the equipment needed (including rocket), all packed into a large (probably) rental truck. :D
Starbucked
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Starbucked »

Here is an example of instability in action at the launch of Intelsat 708 from a Chinese rocket not using a launch rail <_<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708
The fault was traced to a lack of output from the power module for the servo-loop in the follow-up frame of the inertial platform.
:blink: sounds good to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_3B


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek

Something about this video and audio strikes me as odd. And the alleged damage seems a bit extreme.

Might this be a Chinese rocket with satellite payload catastrophe psyop?
Post Reply