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 AirplaneJoe on November 12th, 2014, 12:42 am

brianv wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_sign

Why don't satellites have or broadcast a call sign Joe? Let me guess - it would be a waste of power?

If I were a designer I would make sure that the satellite had no means of visual or radio identification!

The call sign of the International Space Station was Alpha, now Station.[citation needed]
:blink:


Hi Simon
I just answered a question to brianv, why is that spam? I am quite disappointed about the style used in this forum. I thought this is a discussion about satellites, however if someone does not agree one is called a turd or spammer.
A shame since I really liked the information provided here especially regarding 911. :angry:
AirplaneJoe
Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: November 18th, 2013, 3:28 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on November 12th, 2014, 1:03 am

Airplane Joe,

Here's what you just wrote / copy-pasted :

For example 1990-037B, the Hubble Space Telescope, was the 37th known successful launch world wide in 1990. 1990-037A is the Space Shuttle Discovery on mission STS-31, which was to carry the Hubble telescope into space. The number reveals that it was launched in 1990 and that it was the 37th launch made that year. Spacecraft which do not complete an orbit of the Earth, for example launches which fail to achieve orbit, are not usually assigned IDs.[citation needed]

The designation system has been generally known as the COSPAR system, named for the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) of the International Council for Science.[citation needed] COSPAR subsumed the first designation system, devised at Harvard University in 1958. That system used letters of the Greek alphabet to designate artificial satellites. For example, Sputnik 1 was designated 1957 Alpha 2. The Harvard designation system continued to be used for satellites launched up to the end of 1962, when it was replaced with the modern system. The first satellite to receive a new-format designator was Luna E-6 No.2, 1963-001B, although some sources, including the NSSDC website, anachronistically apply the new-format designators to older satellites, even those no longer in orbit at the time of its introduction.

The catalog is administered in the United States by the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC), part of NASA.[citation needed]

EUTE HOT BIRD 13C (HB 9) can be found in the following categories:
Geostationary
TV
NORAD ID: 33459
Int'l Code: 2008-065A
Perigee: 35,781.8 km
Apogee: 35,804.9 km
Inclination: 0.0 °
Period: 1,436.1 minutes
Semi major axis: 42164 km
Launch date: December 20, 2008
Source: European Telecommunications Satellite Organization (EUTE)
Comments: HOT BIRD 9 will help further advance the development of digital and high-definition TV. As is the case of all Eutelsat's broadcasting satellites, viewers will be able to watch the HOT BIRD 9 TV channels via a simple receive-only dish. The satellite will also deliver channels to cable and DTT networks, and the add-on TV coverage needed for triple-play offers.




Terms of Use

Map
Satellite
EUTE HOT BIRD 13C (HB 9)
LAT: 0.03
LNG: 13.00
ALT: 35797.23 ↑
SPD: 0.00


Two Line Element Set (TLE):


1 33459U 08065A 14315.12770257 .00000076 00000-0 00000+0 0 2195
2 33459 000.0491 032.0747 0002741 193.8600 243.2412 01.00273103 21776

Source: AFSPC
NASA's NSSDC Master Catalog entry for EUTE HOT BIRD 13C (HB 9)


I call that spam. And I call you a spammer. Please get lost. Bye now.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6429
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on November 12th, 2014, 1:15 am

Good heavens...

I apologize to all forum members and readers for having tolerated that "Airplane Joe" clown for so long.

Let's get back to serious considerations concerning the existence of man-made satellites, shall we?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6429
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Critical Mass on November 12th, 2014, 1:28 am

I must say he was a curious individual... why not just avoid the topic if it aggravated him so?

This is a research forum not a 'conviction forum' or a 'I've allegedly read everything in this thread but still need everything to be explained to me as if I were a child' forum.

Bring some evidence to this ball or stay in the chatbox.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby brianv on November 12th, 2014, 1:38 am

Spam aside - there were some strange linguistic anomalies which I noticed about the "Airplane Joe" character.

The repeated use of "911" : "Thanks to this forum I learned a lot about 911", "A shame since I really liked the information provided here especially regarding 911". "It is sad that a lot of very interesting facts concerning 911..."

Unusual tenses: "I thought this is a discussion about satellites". " how does the satellite come out of the rocket and intalls its solar panel", "...and the moonlandings in this forum will being ridiculed by threads like this one ",

Mispellings and incomplete sentences: "meteorits", "brianav"

"It is better to use this energy for more important task I would think."

"I am on the other not interested in wasting time with ignorant trolls"

"On the other hand I still believe that NASA is very diverse organisation and I think there different sections"

(Was Joe claiming British nationality? )

"And he was right. he lies of NASA from the past are the truth today."

"The majority of the population has no clue anyway what does programs were."

"That alone is a prove of a hoax."

-------------------------

That was approximately a ten minute scan of his recent posts, I don't think I captured them all.

And just to mention the howler that Simon pointed out regarding the "NASA cover up".

I think you did the right thing Simon.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Roe77 on November 13th, 2014, 2:55 pm

It is about time someone presents a thorough analysis of the most recent 'space' nonsense(this time by ESA). The Rosetta spacecraft allegedly landed a probe on a comet. The whole thing doesn't even deserve to be called a hoax, as it is simply a silly joke with the gullible public. The 'lie factory' has just become even more daring. Why is the world letting them get away with so many lies?
Roe77
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: October 28th, 2014, 3:00 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Starbucked on November 13th, 2014, 6:17 pm

That was getting fun . . . getting bloated on popcorn.

Even if Airplane Joe believes in satellites, well that's unfortunate, but he then goes on to give evidence supporting Hubble, which was delivered by the Space Shuttle.
Joe, if you are out there, if you believe in the Space Shuttle, then you have a lot of re-evaluating to do.

Admittedly, I once believed that Hubble was legit until I Googled that it was a Shuttle payload :unsure:
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby smj on November 14th, 2014, 2:27 am

If Joe would like to believe in satellites; he must also believe in explorer 1, no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbs85I_AfEg

and Sputnick and the IGY, no?.. http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects ... korsmo.pdf ... that was dreamed up over Mrs. van Allen's chocolate cake in suburban DC, no?

Airplane Joe must also love this shared moment of triumph between von Braun, van Allen, and Bill Pickering, the director of Jack Parson's Lab... http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweex ... 28_prt.htm ...when they successfully put explorer 1 into orbit, no?
smj
Member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: September 10th, 2014, 11:29 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby anonjedi2 on November 14th, 2014, 2:53 pm

A friend of mine posted this in response to an argument we're having regarding the altitude of a blinky light in the sky which he is convinced is a satellite in LEO.

"Here's how to determine the altitude of a visible satellite pass yourself. You'll need:

- 2 of these simple sextants:

Image



- a friend
- 2 cell phones
- a satellite tracking phone app

When there's a good satellite pass, set up so that you're across town from your friend, each one with a sextant, and on your phones with earbuds in so your hands are free. Look at the satellite through the sextants, and use a count-down so that at exactly the same time, you press the string to the sextant, thus marking the angle of the satellite above the horizon so you can then read it. Take both of your angles, and the distance between the two of you (you can measure this out on Google Earth) and plug them into the following formula:

height of satellite = distance * sin(angle1)*sin(angle2)/sin(angle2 - angle1)

And that will get you the height of the satellite above the ground. If that height corresponds to LEO, then the satellite is real."

:wacko:

Thoughts?
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 711
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on November 14th, 2014, 11:43 pm

anonjedi2 wrote:Thoughts?


SEEING A DISHWASHER - 300KM AWAY

Here are my thoughts, anonjedi - on the top of my head. However 'unscientific' the following little discourse may be, I hope it may be considered as a fair / reasonable / no-nonsense reality-check of the optical implications of :

"Seeing with our bare eyes a dishwasher-sized object at a distance of about 300km".

To be sure, we are told that most satellites are roughly dishwasher-sized, and that the closest ones fly at a minimum altitude of 300km:

"The altitude is usually not less than 300 km for satellites, as that would be impractical due to atmospheric drag".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit


So now, as the keen sky-gazer that I am, let me share with you my own / personal observations of how commercial airliners appear (to my eyes) in my skyline. I live nearby two busy airports and have a panoramic, hillside view of airliners descending towards them. Of course, none of the airliners I can readily spot with my eyes are flying at their standard cruising altitudes (about 10km) - they are much lower than that, since they are approaching the airports and are about to land.

As it is, over the years I have come to the conclusion that those that DO fly over my garden at cruise altitudes (on totally clear, cloudless days, that is) are invisible to my bare eye. Only today in fact, (and as I have experienced on countless occasions), I again heard a faint jet sound overhead as I strolled in my garden. I looked up and scoured the pristine, absolutely cloudless blue sky - but could not for the life of me spot that airliner flying above me (I have excellent eyesight, btw). But let me now get on with my thought exercise.

Here's a dishwasher (about the size of most of NASA's / ESA's alleged man-made satellites):
Image

Here is a stock image (not mine) of an airliner - most likely captured in its descending phase (Yes, I know - I don't know at what exact altitude it was flying as this picture was taken - so please bear with my approximating ways - for the sake of this optical thought exercise). Note that I have 'attached' (in Photoshop) the yellow dishwasher underneath the plane's cockpit (to see it, you can enlarge this image by holding ctrl+ on most keyboards). Note also that I've been quite generous with the size / proportions of the yellow dishwasher:
Image

Now, let me postulate that with a really big-ass / professional telephoto lens (such as this Canon 1000mm Image one could possibly take this sort of picture of an airliner cruising at 10km of altitude. Again, I am being 'generous' here - as to the lens-view size of the plane flying at such a height:
Image

Here, I have shrunk that airplane image by a factor of 10, so this is roughly what the airliner would look like (in the big telephoto lens) if it were cruising at 100km of altitude:
Image

Here, I have shrunk the above airplane to 1/3 of the above image - so this is roughly what the airliner would look like (in the big telephoto lens) if it were cruising at 300km of altitude (the minimum altitude we are told man-made satellites fly at):
Image

Now, take away the big telephoto lens and imagine being able to see the yellow dishwasher with your bare eyes.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6429
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Starbucked on November 15th, 2014, 5:45 am

The washing machine analogy is a good one. I would have chosen a Westinghouse, personally.

Just to flip this around, flying in an airplane at perhaps 10 km or less over a city or rural roads and cars become the tiniest of dots below. A car has 4 times the 'footprint' of a dishwasher. Don't think I could see a car from the ISS. Wonder if Chris Hatfield could see cars from the ISS? I'll send him that question via a tweet and see if he responds :lol:
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby rusty on November 15th, 2014, 11:30 am

Let me put it this way: I think that with the given and verifiable (by eyesight) coordinates from the "satellite"-tracking apps it would be mathematically correct to assume that those objects appear to be flying at the indicated altitude. But that does not make them satellites. Even if we assume that those are real objects circling in the orbit of a convex earth (which I don't believe), this begs a host of questions:
1. What proves these are really man-made objects?
2. Even if they are, what proves they are satellites?
3. What are satellites in LEO good for anyway? Why do we need so many of them?
4. Why are they lit up (illuminated) consistently and seemingly all night (?) long? Could they really reflect the sunlight while in earth's shadow? Do they have spotlights of their own?
5. The question of visibility that Simon raises is valid even if they are lit up somehow.

For me, I can't really tell what they are, but I'd rather try speculating what they could be in a concave earth scenario, where they appear to be far away, but are, in reality, a lot closer.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on November 15th, 2014, 8:07 pm

rusty wrote:5. The question of visibility that Simon raises is valid even if they are lit up somehow.


Exactly, Rusty - good point, and a quite basic one : how exactly would any man-made satellite - passing right overhead of us - possibly be lit up ?

See, if this graphic of our solar system is correct...

Image
Source > Smithsonian Institute: http://blog.nasm.si.edu/astronomy/blood-moon/



... well, then the Earth's umbra would not possibly allow any sunlight to reflect from them:

Image

Or am I (with my simple mind) missing something here? Please - oh please - let me know what I am missing. Please. :huh:

The 'moving stars' we see in our night skies are Near-Earth Asteroids - as far as I know (and have witnessed for all of my life).


That is... unless we are to believe that we can spot with our bare eyes dishwasher-sized objects from a distance of about 6000 Km !
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6429
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby lux on November 16th, 2014, 12:56 am

I think the idea is that there is a period of time when the sun is below our horizon (and thus night time) but an object at a high altitude can still be illuminated by direct sunlight. In other words, the higher one's altitude, the later the sun appears to set below the horizon.

Like this only much higher:
Image

But, sunlit or not, I'm not saying that one can see a dishwasher in orbit. That does seem rather incredible to me.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby anonjedi2 on November 16th, 2014, 1:13 am

Thanks for the response, Simon.

It sounds logical to me, but how does one go about debating someone who insists the "experiment" I listed above will allow one to prove the altitude of said object in space? I have heard time and time again from many people the excuse that you can see some satellites in the sky.

I personally have no problem with the idea that there are likely some high-tech military aircraft, drones, etc, flying at extremely high altitudes. This is a much more logical conclusion for me than "things in orbit". But how does one debate the mathematics (theoretical) to someone who believes that math proves this or that by plugging numbers into a formula. :wacko:
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 711
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests