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.
Post Reply
hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:07 pm

GPS : What is it?
A bunch of WTF, IMO! LOL.

I was recently told by some Aussies that it was an Australian who "invented" or in any case popularized a common industrial use for the GPS (Global Positioning System, though we include "S" in the acronym to remind ourselves it could stand for Satellite). And this fellow who presently still lives in Australia if he is still alive, they say, is actually monitored and guarded by a 24/7 crew of armed American guards wherever he goes.

I wonder if it's true, but I haven't been able to find his name. It got me thinking about the whole popularization of the idea that GPS is directly beamed from satellites into our little devices, and who came up with the brilliantly idiotic idea of tracing things further and further away from their situation, their point of relevance, etc. All I did find so far was that Roger L. Easton worked with that classic prankster Wernher Van Braun, and that the first tests according to willywonkipedia involved (as we already know)
In 1972, the USAF Central Inertial Guidance Test Facility (Holloman AFB), conducted developmental flight tests of two prototype GPS receivers over White Sands Missile Range, using ground-based pseudo-satellites
In fact, though it is sort of written with a shrug that only 32 satellites are part of the GPS family (sorry, "constellation" sounds way more spacey-like, don't it?) it is admitted that the majority of the systems are ground systems, composed of:
  • a master control station (MCS),
  • an alternate master control station (AMCS),
  • four dedicated ground antennas (4DGANS), and
  • six dedicated monitor stations. (6DEMOSTESTWITDAHOSTEST)
Sorry but the acronyms aren't all mine. Just loving the military infatuation with acronyms.

So, when the next person says to you "Damn satellite! Why is it saying I'm there?" you might politely remind them satellites have the fuck all little to do with the ground calculations that actually reach the device, and what they are looking at is data that could be gathered from anywhere to triangulate your position using radio/micro/fashionwave frequencies on Earth.

The same article also writes some strange stories about how satellites that move around so distantly from the atmosphere could possibly be of better use than ground-based controls:
satellite maneuvers are not precise by GPS standards. So to change the orbit of a satellite, the satellite must be marked unhealthy, so receivers will not use it in their calculation.


Does this sentence sound strange to you? Satellites are not precise, so to change a satellite's orbit ... then, the satellite is marked "unhealthy" (for the brain?) so receivers will not use it.

It's like random alleged facts about satellites that someone creatively invented, unceremoniously strung together with "so", but without clear logic about why the line of reasoning just split into three parts like a crashing shuttle animation. It continues ...
Then the maneuver can be carried out, and the resulting orbit tracked from the ground. Then the new ephemeris is uploaded and the satellite marked healthy again.
And then Bobby went to the store and so there was a baseball bat and Suzy didn't like it but Bobby liked it so then, all his friends came, so they played baseball. So then, so it was really fun.

Literally the rest of just the portion of the article on the control segment of GPS devolves into industrial advertising and a non-story about vague "upgrades" which are also not explained.

But the entire article itself sounds pieced together in the worst way.
It is also used in amateur astronomy using small telescopes to professionals observatories, for example [?!?], while finding extrasolar planets.
Uh huh. That explains the extrasolar planets, then.

Anyone want to continue the research into what — exactly — "satellites" have to do with GPS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

pov603
Member
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by pov603 » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:46 am

So these '32' small satellites orbit one big satellite, Earth, making '33' in total?

queuebert
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:34 am
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by queuebert » Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:25 am

Perhaps a system like the following is used to move satellites in space--assuming they're up there to begin with.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y

Perhaps rockets could propel the satellite up to a certain altitude then a system similar to the above takes over when the force of earth's gravity is negligable? Of course, we'd still be left with other unresolved questions previously raised. As for the issue of radiation I remember seeing some years ago an integrated circuit manufacturer's catalog (Intel or TI) that offered gamma radiation hardened versions of their chips. Of course, the satellite's circuitry would consist of other components (resistors, capacitors, sensors, etc.) for which radiation hardened versions may not exist, so this still remains a problem to me.

The only answer I can see to the problem of sending devices and people into space, and having them function for years on end as satellites purportedly do, would be the use of classified technology.

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:01 am

It´s very cute, but I don´t see how this could be useful in a satellite (assuming they are up there). Also, the video appears to be an animation from first to last, even the realistic-looking part in the middle with the chameleon wall.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:40 pm

Perhaps rockets could propel the satellite up to a certain altitude then a system similar to the above takes over when the force of earth's gravity is [negligible]?
No, this cube operates by pushing against the surface. What would the cube be pushing against?

And when would gravity be negligible? I thought, according to NASA, we are supposed to be experiencing 90% force of gravity pretty far out.

As for protecting against gamma radiation, according to NASA's own story, the radiation in space is several magnitudes higher than anything on Earth. Partial shielding doesn't sound very effective for so much energy, to me.

But NASA is the one giving us a contradictory picture that most of us seem content to dismiss. So pick and choose which reality you want to believe in from their science priests, I guess.

queuebert
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:34 am
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by queuebert » Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:45 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
Perhaps rockets could propel the satellite up to a certain altitude then a system similar to the above takes over when the force of earth's gravity is [negligible]?
No, this cube operates by pushing against the surface. What would the cube be pushing against? I said "a system like the following", i.e., an inertial drive system might be used, not the cube itself which the video states employs different algorithms than what is (allegedly) used in space. I think an inertial drive system engineered for space use wouldn't need anything to "push" against.

And when would gravity be negligible? I thought, according to NASA, we are supposed to be experiencing 90% force of gravity pretty far out. I was thinking earth's gravity will be negligable at a point closer to earth than it would be. I see now in my example the rocket would have to travel into space where it can't product thrust--sorry, my mistake. I was tired when I wrote the post.

As for protecting against gamma radiation, according to NASA's own story, the radiation in space is several magnitudes higher than anything on Earth. Partial shielding doesn't sound very effective for so much energy, to me. I've already conceded a satellite as a whole can't withstand the radiation--at least not with whatever means are known to the public--just that certain components might.

But NASA is the one giving us a contradictory picture that most of us seem content to dismiss. So pick and choose which reality you want to believe in from their science priests, I guess. One need not select from one of their realities. I've offered a possible alternative.
While this forum raises enough issues about the existence of satellites--I see more reason to doubt their existence than to believe in them--in the end it's still a matter of conjecture. As with everything else space-related we cannot readily travel up there to confirm or deny their existence for ourselves. If they do exist then there must be some reason why we don't get straight answers about them or other space-related matters.

In the end we don't know what it is we don't know about what's going on.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:31 pm

Yeah, I can't refute what you are saying. We don't know what we don't know.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to presume that if science's "physics" continue off into the void (and I am not saying they do, but we may as well speculate into total fantasy if we don't speculate on the path of science we know) then we run into the question of what kind of momentum would propel something in space.

An inertial drive in void knocks against itself with nothing but void to transfer energy to, but it would not move in any direction. That to me is safe to assume. Someone flapping their arms and legs in space as if "swimming" would not go anywhere except further along the pull of gravity, while gravity coldly disregarded their attempted ambulations regardless of how excitedly and quickly they moved.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux » Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:48 pm

An object in space could be moved by creating an imbalance of forces upon it. At the risk of being branded a heretic I confess that I believe that expelling particles or gasses from one end of an object in space could cause that object to move in the opposite direction if done with sufficient mass & force. The reason being simply that an imbalance of forces would be created upon the object.

Of course that doesn't mean that I believe any of NASA's tales of its satellite or rocket exploits or that a rocket would be a good way to get around in space (if you could even get one up there using another rocket). And, in case you were wondering, it also doesn't mean that I relish arguing about "the theoretical behavior of gasses in vacuums" or other such speculative physics oxymorons.

*****************************************************************************************************************************

As an added thought to this post let me pose a riddle for forum members to ponder ...

Two men are floating in space and unattached to anything. They are facing each other some distance apart. One of the men holds a baseball. Can the two men play catch with the ball?

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:50 pm

It's not heretical to known science to say that ejecting something makes one move. Of course an awkward baseball game is practicable. No offense to your musing, but it doesn't take me long to imagine.

However, your "belief" that an ejected gas "with enough force" can cause something to ignore the free expansion of gas belongs in the rocketry discussion, not here.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:02 am

hoi.polloi wrote:It's not heretical to known science to say that ejecting something makes one move. Of course an awkward baseball game is practicable. No offense to your musing, but it doesn't take me long to imagine.

However, your "belief" that an ejected gas "with enough force" can cause something to ignore the free expansion of gas belongs in the rocketry discussion, not here.
Though I did use the work "rocket" in my post I was responding to the question you posed above in this thread as regards satellite movements:
hoi.polloi wrote:...then we run into the question of what kind of momentum would propel something in space.
My post was meant to be a reply to that question.

Sukiari
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Sukiari » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:20 pm

I would just like to say thank you to all the posters on this thread. I have become skeptical of a lot of the things I 'knew' to be true through lifelong brainwashing and thanks to this thread I am now very skeptical of satellites. I can't claim to know one way or the other for sure, and belief is the last thing I'm after, but I would say there's only a 1:17000 chance that I believe they are real any more.

I'm also a radio amateur (a "ham") and I've been thinking about conducting experiments to replicate GPS-like signals on similar bands, in order to determine if I can (as one poster suggested) aim the signal straight up and then recover a portion as it reflects off the ionosphere. I'm quite convinced that there is much experimentation to be done with the ionosphere still, and I have noticed that anomalous effects not explained by the classical theories are quite commonplace.

Thinking about the idea that "satellite" GPS could be emulated by a ground station firing straight up has reminded me of something I often see just off the interstate highway which I often use. I would usually remark to my wife that "I can't imagine what they're doing with an antenna that large pointed straight up" but maybe the mystery has been solved.

Here's a link http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.698042,-1 ... 9&t=h&z=18 to the antenna on Google Maps. Its coordinates are 45º 41.898'N 118º 56.303' W and it's just a bunker with a giant antenna pointed straight up on top. There is (as you can see) an antenna mast on the back side of the fenced location away from the freeway. This location is right nearby what was until recently the nation's largest chemical weapons dump :o but they say they've burned it all up now :wacko: so I guess everything's fine.

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:28 am

^
What a strange place that is!

Image

...and that enormous truck park (or junk yard?) next door!

Sukiari
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Sukiari » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 am

Flabbergasted wrote:^
What a strange place that is!

Image

...and that enormous truck park (or junk yard?) next door!
My old Rav4 blew up (ok just lots of black smoke from a blown engine) right near there 2 years ago. If you look nearby you'll see that Interstate 395 south out of Washington state hooks up with Interstate 84 near some strange bunkers. We pulled off the interstate, and (because my wife and I have had enough car problems that it is just funny in a sad way) laughed about it for a minute. Across the fence, 35' or so away, a bunch of army trucks with heavily armed guys converged on the scene and watched us for a few minutes while I hauled my rifle and ammo out of the back in case of a serious fire (cased of course) and when she yelled at the "WON'T YOU GUYS HELP US OR SOMETHING" they all screeched away as if they saw the devil himself.

I wonder if they thought we were dangerous or if the sheer boredom of guarding thousands of acres of sand and tumbleweeds and sagebrush was just putting the zap on their brains, and they needed to get some levity.

Thankfully the fire went out after I popped the hood and discharged our fire extinguisher into the poor wretched guts of the vehicle, and AAA (an American automobile club / towing service) hauled our sorry butts home.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:57 pm

Radio controlled clocks use an interesting technology. A single radio transmitter called WWVB located in Colorado transmits time codes received all over the USA and beyond. I wonder if this technology might have something to do with how faux satellite tech actually works?

As this plain-English web site describes it …
WWVB is a very interesting radio station. It has high transmitter power (50,000 watts), a very efficient antenna and an extremely low frequency (60,000 Hz). For comparison, a typical AM radio station broadcasts at a frequency of 1,000,000 Hz. The combination of high power and low frequency gives the radio waves from WWVB a lot of bounce, and this single station can therefore cover all of the continental United States plus much of Canada and Central America as well
The coverage map looks like this:

Image
source

So this single transmitter can be received well into the Pacific and Atlantic oceans as well as parts of Canada, Central America and even part of South America.

It would seem to me that it would only take maybe a dozen or so of such transmitters to cover the entire globe.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:28 pm

*

Possible future SAT scenario?

It stands to reason that, if man-made satellites (all the way back from Sputnik to our days) are a hoax, the multinational space industry would already have a working exit strategy in place, in order to gradually phase out the entire scam. Now, what better way to use another, more recent science fraud ("the Global Warming scare") to justify the 'decommissioning' of the older, satellite sham? As it is, here's what we can read at the American Geophysical Union's website:

"Could Rockets Cause Global Warming?"
"A few weeks ago, on the same day as the runway dedication at New Mexico’s “Spaceport America“, the AGU journal Geophysical Research Letters published a paper suggesting that soot from commercial rocket launches could cause significant climate change. Based on the results of climate modeling, the authors found that 1000 launches per year would have the same influence as all of the subsonic air traffic in the world combined."

http://blogs.agu.org/martianchronicles/ ... l-warming/
Image

In fact, there is no lack of tell-tale signs which would go to support this exit strategy thesis: as we know, NASA has already outsourced most - if not all? - of their (alleged) satellite-launch operations to private space companies - and their wondrous Space Shuttles were (quite inexplicably, if you think of it) 'retired' in 2011. To be sure, the Space Shuttles are credited with launching countless satellites - and to have freighted to outer space, piece-by-piece, the many components of their "I$$" batship - and assembled them like a Lego Toy whilst hurling about at 28.000km/h across the vacuum of space... Also, in later years, reports of "man-made satellites falling out of the sky" have been multiplying in the media - with no rational explanations for such a sudden surge of "satellite deaths". So what may possibly be the next phase of what appears to be an ongoing exit strategy?

This solar-driven drone may be a possible answer to that question:
Giant solar plane could stay airborne for 5 years, replace some satellites

Image

"The Solara is intended to loft a payload to 20,000 meters [60,000+ feet] and then keep it [there] for five years, running entirely on solar power. It functions a bit like a satellite, except substantially cheaper and much more versatile. And, you can get it back when you're done. (...) Applications for these types of solar planes are very varied, from disaster rapid response to anti-piracy (the real kind, out at sea) surveillance, to crop monitoring, fire monitoring, providing internet access to remote regions, all kinds of scientific missions (ocean monitoring, cosmic ray monitoring, atmospheric science, weather monitoring, etc). Basically a lot of things that you can do with a satellite, but cheaper."
And guess who is reportedly planning to litter the skies with these bats? <_<

"Facebook Wants to Build 11,000 Drones to Bring Internet to Africa"
"It’s a bird! It’s a plane! Nope — it’s a Facebook drone. The social media site reportedly wants to use drones to bring Internet connection to the two thirds of the world that still lack connectivity, starting with parts of Africa."
Image
http://betabeat.com/2014/03/facebook-wa ... z2xpOjT3eV

11.000 internet drones! Just what Africa needed ! What a silly world we live in... :rolleyes:

Post Reply