Satellites : general discussion and musings

[Unleashed]

There used to be a fellow poster on another forum who was always writing these fantastic threads about NASA fakery.

In particular, about how the satellites that NASA claims to launch, are as fake as the shuttle missions.
A couple things to consider, one the ones that NASA claims are placed in the exosphere via missiles are subject to an array of various solar radiations that would interrupt and interfere with transmission of signals to the point of negating their being useful at all. Not to mention they never bother to explain how or where the fuel is stored for decades to do the necessary almost constant corrections to keep up with the Earth's transit around the Sun. They are not attaced in any meaningful way according to NASA to Earth's gravitational field.

Then the one's that would be supposedly geosynchronous at 300 to 500 miles up, have the same problem of needing constant corrections to keep it from merely falling to Earth because of having to fight the gravitational forces.

In essense, we are still using old fashioned ground radio waves to send and receive signals off the ionosphere. I tested this myself by calling a tech support group for a national cable system and asking them some pointed questions, which after passing me around to several guys, never could give me answers to my questions. Basically, I was asking if 'rabbit ears' and antennae still work, and if so why? I said, on the one hand you are telling me your signal has to travel out to a relay satellite a thousand miles up. How does the signal "know" that it doesn't have to just bounce off the ionosphere anymore? Or how does it know that some of it needs to bounce off the ionosphere and part of it still needs to hit a relay a thousand miles out? They were stumped.

I finally got one to admit what the box is REALLY for. It has a broader frequency band so that it can hit 300 points on the range instead of 13 that comes standard with your TV. The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

[nonhocapito]

The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

The slant of the dish should change according to latitude. Two italian cities like Milan and Rome, for example, that are at different latitudes but roughly the same longitude, should have dishes pointing roughly in the same direction, but in Rome they should point slightly upward (assuming the satellites travel around the equator).

Assuming the dish has to be pointed right at the general area where the signal comes from (the satellite orbit around the equator, for example, or an antenna on the ground, like you seem to imply) : for low that a dish can be slanted, there is no way it is pointing at anything else but the sky. Even the slightest pointing up would require an incredibly high tower to emit the signal just a few kilometers away, no? Where are these high towers? Have you ever seen any? Also: How can satellites phones work, say in the middle of oceans? How come satellite TV can be watched on cruise ships, or in the middle of deserted, faraway areas? etc.

[reel.deal]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2011/h2011_Irene.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/581936main_20110824_IreneVideo.mov

NASA satellite tracking Hurricane Irene @ 23:10PM 11/08/23 > 11:45AM 11/08/24 edit.
The satellite stays at a fixed point over the US East Coast to photograph Hurricane Irene for a week ?
If the earth rotates @ approx 17,000 mph, the satellite must travel even faster to remain in 'fixed' position ?
The entire US weather-system (half-screen) 'drops-out' 04:15 > 05:45 because... ?
The satellite Hurricane Irene 'photographs' are 'real' ?!?
... composite overlays ?!?

[reel.deal]

[Jonathan]

The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

If we still can rely on basic knowledge such as the earth is a sphere and has gravity which will get weaker the farther you go away from it - satellites are indeed quite possible
Some pictures here cause doubts though.

TV satellites are almost exclusively in geostationary orbit (i.e. above the eqator).
Thats one reason they are more difficult to receive the more north or south you go - far north or south comparativly larger dishes are needed to get a good enough signal.
Dishes in coutries not close to the equator are offset designs - they seem not to point directly at the satelite, but they do (parabolic shape, reflection, focal point).
Some advantages are: easier to mount, less space used, dish will not be filled with water or snow or dirt.

[Unleashed]

The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

The slant of the dish should change according to latitude. Two italian cities like Milan and Rome, for example, that are at different latitudes but roughly the same longitude, should have dishes pointing roughly in the same direction, but in Rome they should point slightly upward (assuming the satellites travel around the equator).

Assuming the dish has to be pointed right at the general area where the signal comes from (the satellite orbit around the equator, for example, or an antenna on the ground, like you seem to imply) : for low that a dish can be slanted, there is no way it is pointing at anything else but the sky. Even the slightest pointing up would require an incredibly high tower to emit the signal just a few kilometers away, no? Where are these high towers? Have you ever seen any? Also: How can satellites phones work, say in the middle of oceans? How come satellite TV can be watched on cruise ships, or in the middle of deserted, faraway areas? etc.

I asked about that, too. He told me there would have to be an uplink/downlink satellite somewhere
in my area that is 300 ft. wide. I started laughing.

Nobody has improved on Marconi. Have you read "Thunderstruck" by Erik Larson? That work involved detailing Marconi's efforts to link ships to radio. If TV had been invented then, you could have watched TV in your stateroom as early as the mid-1900's. The story of Dr. Crippen would have been the first murder mystery real time show on the small screen!

The signal for phones is still bouncing off the ionosphere. The great improvement seems to be that research has shown that parabolic antennas receive and send radio waves more efficiently. The difference in the cellphone towers is that Marconi's research showed that according to the height of an antenna has everything to do with the angle at which the signal strikes the ionosphere. That way the two do not interfere with each other. Neither modern invention requires satellites.

[Unleashed]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2011/h2011_Irene.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/581936main_20110824_IreneVideo.mov

NASA satellite tracking Hurricane Irene @ 23:10PM 11/08/23 > 11:45AM 11/08/24 edit.
The satellite stays at a fixed point over the US East Coast to photograph Hurricane Irene for a week ?
If the earth rotates @ approx 17,000 mph, the satellite must travel even faster to remain in 'fixed' position ?
The entire US weather-system (half-screen) 'drops-out' 04:15 > 05:45 because... ?
The satellite Hurricane Irene 'photographs' are 'real' ?!?
... composite overlays ?!?

If you notice, the first thing Jim Cantore tells you is that they are still sending planes up to take pictures and measure the eye. So the photos seen today are pretty much just like the ones our parents saw in the 1960's onward. They aren't coming from a satellite orbiting the Earth.

After thinking about this I have tried to see if it bears out in other scenarios. There was a professor who was relating the floating mass of garbage bigger than the size of Texas in the Pacific ocean.
It seems that he is frustrated because their funding does not cover the cost of planes to fly over it at a required altitude in order to photograph the Pacific Garbage Patch fully. So he ends up taking pictures from the edges in a boat and "guesstimating" it's size. I said aloud to myself. Wow, too bad we don't have things like satellites to photograph them!

[reel.deal]

looks real, dont it ? this satellite tracking Irene 'sits' way up there, 'unmoved'; zooming in on hurricane details;
for weeks on end. Clever satellite too, got real bored of charting cirrus & cumulonimbus formations over the
USA so just binned them off for an hour or two...

[Unleashed]

The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

If we still can rely on basic knowledge such as the earth is a sphere and has gravity which will get weaker the farther you go away from it - satellites are indeed quite possible
Some pictures here cause doubts though.

TV satellites are almost exclusively in geostationary orbit (i.e. above the eqator).
Thats one reason they are more difficult to receive the more north or south you go - far north or south comparativly larger dishes are needed to get a good enough signal.
Dishes in coutries not close to the equator are offset designs - they seem not to point directly at the satelite, but they do (parabolic shape, reflection, focal point).
Some advantages are: easier to mount, less space used, dish will not be filled with water or snow or dirt.

According to NASA who is enamoured with the number 17,000, that is how many satellites they tell us are in orbit now. Nevermind that there is nowhere close to that number of shuttle missions or launches by US rockets and other countries claim to have sent!
However weak the gravitational field is suspected to be there is still a set amount of decay rate that causes a satellite to "fall" around the Earth with each rotation. This must be overcome. Where are the engines and fuel tanks on a satellite that correct these movements to keep them aloft for a decade or more? The vomit comet can not remain aloft for days on end for training. Just a short trip. Then it must land under it's own power even though it is at the breach of weightlessness, it can't sustain it.

Conversely, if a satellite has achieved "weightlessness", then it is tasked with keeping up under it's own power the trek of the Earth's forward rotation around the Sun.

[Unleashed]

looks real, dont it ? this satellite tracking Irene 'sits' way up there, 'unmoved'; zooming in on hurricane details;
for weeks on end. Clever satellite too, got real bored of charting cirrus & cumulonimbus formations over the
USA so just binned them off for an hour or two...

Ahhhh. Nobody knows how to paint the sky like NASA. They have more experience than anybody.

[anon1911]

hmm... so the earth spins @ 1,040mph/1,675km/h, 465 meters/second. thats more like it.
NASA... 'spins' @ '17,000mph'...
really.

Well in space these speeds are no problem. There's nothing that could stop you from gaining speed, except gravity from other objects (e.g planets) or some small particles cruising around there, but you can ignore these


GPS and weather forcecasting by the way wouldn't work if there were no satelites staying on the exact same place

However weak the gravitational field is suspected to be there is still a set amount of decay rate that causes a satellite to "fall" around the Earth with each rotation. This must be overcome.

That's wrong. How then could the moon circulate around the earth without "falling"? There is some certain rate of speed, due to the lack of my scientific english skills I dont know it's name, that keeps you in the exact same position when circulating around a given object.

Where are the engines and fuel tanks on a satellite that correct these movements to keep them aloft for a decade or more?

i don't know how to build a satelite but a plausible reason why there are no engines at the satelites is, that they cut it of as soon as the satelite is in position.

[reel.deal]

Ahhhh. Nobody knows how to paint the sky like NASA. They have more experience than anybody.

...such a shame then they forgot the ionosphere, probably why i cant get no reception? ...Portugal looked nice, though...

[Unleashed]

hmm... so the earth spins @ 1,040mph/1,675km/h, 465 meters/second. thats more like it.
NASA... 'spins' @ '17,000mph'...
really.

Well in space these speeds are no problem. There's nothing that could stop you from gaining speed, except gravity from other objects (e.g planets) or some small particles cruising around there, but you can ignore these


GPS and weather forcecasting by the way wouldn't work if there were no satelites staying on the exact same place

They have doppler radar which is the predominant weather forecasting tool.
Just like everything else, your GPS is emiting a signal that bounces off the ionosphere. It is tracking your "position" in the same way that subs are tracked. By the ping.

However weak the gravitational field is suspected to be there is still a set amount of decay rate that causes a satellite to "fall" around the Earth with each rotation. This must be overcome.

If it is below the point of "weightlessness" or the gravitation field exertion. Once it is farther out, then you have keep it tethered by means of reaching speed to "keep up". Do you follow?

That's wrong. How then could the moon circulate around the earth without "falling"? There is some certain rate of speed, due to the lack of my scientific english skills I dont know it's name, that keeps you in the exact same position when circulating around a given object.

Geostationary? Centrifugal Force? The Moon exerts it's own gravitational field so strong it can affect tides on the Earth. Satellites do not. The Moon does not circulate around the Earth. The Earth spins on it's axis.

Where are the engines and fuel tanks on a satellite that correct these movements to keep them aloft for a decade or more?

i don't know how to build a satelite but a plausible reason why there are no engines at the satelites is, that they cut it of as soon as the satelite is in position.

And yet NASA claims that these booster rockets are necessary to correct the decay rate if within our atmosphere. Or are lost due to drift when outside it. Just like a satellite will be lost due to drift immediately unless it has it's own power to keep up.

[reel.deal]

Well in space these speeds are no problem. There's nothing that could stop you from gaining speed, except gravity from other objects (e.g planets) or some small particles cruising around there, but you can ignore these

GPS and weather forcecasting by the way wouldn't work if there were no satelites staying on the exact same place

...that keeps you in the exact same position when circulating around a given object.

i don't know how to build a satelite but a plausible reason why there are no engines at the satelites is, that they cut it of as soon as the satelite is in position.

ok, heres the rocket-science
what keeps this 'Irene-tracking' sat in constant fixed position ?
how does it stay 'fixed', what regulates its relative & higher spin speed ?
what optimises its gravity/anti-gravity equilibrium?

[Unleashed]

Here's from the wickedpedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_satellite

Funny or should I say sadly, NASA never bothered to take a photo of this weather satellite, and the NWS doesn't have a picture of it hanging on the wall of their headquarters either. Even though they claim they are so dependent on it for vital info. You have to satisfy yourself that it looks like the cartoon imagery featured here, no doubt.

Look at the antenna that they claim is receiving the radio signal from the satellite! Wow, it looks remarkably like your old aerial antenna you watched TV with!
And someone had the presence of mind to take a photograph of it. Hahahahaha.
hmmmm.