Satellites : general discussion and musings

[simonshack]

*
Breaking News Clocks


9 OUT OF 72 ATOMIC CLOCKS ABOARD 18 GALILEO SATELLITES have stopped operating!


"Galileo satellites experiencing multiple clock failures": http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38664225


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRvLxnfODn0

Quote from above art-icle :
"The development path to a "European GPS" has been a tortuous one. The project is years late, and the completion cost - expected to be some 7bn euros by 2020 - is substantially higher than that originally foreseen by EU member states."

And on Wonkypedia, we learn that the initial cost estimate for the European Galileo GPS project was...
"The final cost is estimated at €3 billion, including the infrastructure on Earth, constructed in 2006 and 2007. (...) By early 2011 costs for the project had run 50% over initial estimates."

and we also learn that...

"In January 2011, infrastructure costs up to 2020 were estimated at €5.3 billion. In that same month, Wikileaks revealed that Berry Smutny, the CEO of the German satellite company OHB-System, said that Galileo "is a stupid idea that primarily serves French interests."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)

Gotta love it.

[Skinnylegsandall]

This post is a roundabout admission of only land based operation.
"The final cost is estimated at €3 billion, including the infrastructure on Earth,".
No satellite's just ground based.I can dig it.
Seems like those numbers,9 OUT OF 72 ATOMIC CLOCKS ABOARD 18 GALILEO SATELLITES,are always attached to the lies.

[Peter]

Thanks SacredCowSlayer and bongostaple.

Thinking about the European space program nonsense – the Chinese, Japanese and Indians too are all in on the farce, but when the house of lies tumbles down western man is going to be much more distraught than occidental man, and the government of the day must be a little scared. European man incorporates his ideology into his being (another way of looking at it is that he is more mentally feminine and more religious than other races) and he won’t react well to realising that every big world event he has learnt about has been a lie.

This maybe why some truth is officially allowed to slip out – to lesson such impact. I do believe that most Apollo revisionism (to use Apollo as that’s an early one) is official (CIA etc) and is not merely to ensnare wavering and unreliable insiders.

Some more thoughts on a world without satellites.

Maybe radio waves don’t even need to bounce off the ionosphere. Maybe enough of the signal just hugs the earth as it travels round. Nobody really understands gravity. The problem with gravity theory is a human problem – some explanation always has to devised to fill a void rather than scientists just saying they don’t yet know. (I think gravity, on say an object on earth, is more likely to be a pushing force from the cosmos above rather than an attracting pulling force from below).

Anyway, however they travel, radio waves over a long distance would suffer attenuation and need boosting. So instead of satellites maybe earth based relays fulfill that.

In Alaska is the Clear Air Force Station which is supposedly looking out for Russian ICBM missile attacks. Surprisingly it’s in east central Alaska, because if it was situated say 500 miles more to the west it would be able to see 500 miles further west into Russia than it presently does. Maybe it really receives civilian radio waves which, let’s speculate, HAARP Alaska then boosts and re-transmits. Whatever HAARP really does both the official and counter-official explanations have been unsatisfactory so far.

Maybe these huge radio telescopes like Jodrell Bank, UK are not designed to pick up weak signals from somewhere like Andromeda (or whatever nonsense they claim) but from somewhere like Australia instead.

[Peter]

....Looking at a map of the earth which has the north pole at the centre it would appear that the best place for a radar aimed at Russia would be north west Alaska, actually a huge distance from where it is in fact situated. But maybe I'm missing something.

[Flabbergasted]

Thinking about the European space program nonsense – the Chinese, Japanese and Indians too are all in on the farce, but when the house of lies tumbles down western man is going to be much more distraught than occidental man, and the government of the day must be a little scared. European man incorporates his ideology into his being (another way of looking at it is that he is more mentally feminine and more religious than other races) and he won’t react well to realising that every big world event he has learnt about has been a lie.

This maybe why some truth is officially allowed to slip out – to lesson such impact. I do believe that most Apollo revisionism (to use Apollo as that’s an early one) is official (CIA etc) and is not merely to ensnare wavering and unreliable insiders.

This is a bit obscure. I am not following you.

Maybe enough of the signal just hugs the earth as it travels round. Nobody really understands gravity. The problem with gravity theory is a human problem...

Failure to account for the ultimate nature of gravity does not prevent us from observing, predicting and using it with precision in practical applications.

(I think gravity, on say an object on earth, is more likely to be a pushing force from the cosmos above rather than an attracting pulling force from below)

Sceppy?

[Flabbergasted]

As I said elsewhere, the ultimate nature of time, space, matter, energy, conscience and gravity lies outside the domain of modern science. Yet, remarkably, the metaphysical fallacy of the assumptions underlying modern technology does not prevent it from being highly efficient.

Related posts:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1771&p=2394681#p2394681
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424&p=2380347#p2380347
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632&p=2385065#p2385065

(Sorry if this is a bit off topic...)

[aa5]

That is a good point about Western man versus the peoples in Asia and their view of their own governments. In Asia the idea that their own government lies, or that the people of the government use their positional power and most of the tax revenues to enrich themselves - these ideas would not be shocking or upsetting to people in Asia.

For people in the West there is a religious level belief in government. Probably when people like the upper middle classes lost their faith in God this was emotionally traumatizing, so instead of going all the way in the pain, they transferred that human need to worship onto government. An example is how Western people are so passionate about elections, because first off they believe the process is honest and they really have control, and secondly because they believe that with the right politicians government can take us closer to utopia.

[Altair]

Hi Cluesforum!

I'm new here and like to be controversial by saying I DO believe satellites exist. It felt funny to write that . I am with you on 9/11, NASA and Nukes but not this and I don't think this thread brings up strong arguments against man made satellites.

Yes most of our communication go through cables today but that is because the rise of the Internet and because its cheaper and more convenient to use the existing cables today. Satellites are best suited for broadcasting. Not for two way low latency communication like you need for the Internet.

I've been on boat trips since childhood and in the eighties there was a navigation system that predated GPS. I've forgot the name but it was pretty inaccurate. GPS was a revolution and much more accurate. I find it hard to see how and why they would fake that.

I believe manned space travel is impossible not because you cannot send a man into space but because re-entry is impossible. It's not possible to "air brake". Trying that would give you the same fate as a meteor. First you burn. Then you crash.

I also think Occam's razor is relevant here. I see the reason and motivation behind the 9/11, NASA and Nukes hoaxes. But why fake Sats?

Just my 2c

Hi all,

I wanted in first place to express my stance, but I've found easier to just quote patrix post, as is almost identical to what I think. Anyway, the more I research about the topic, the more incongruences I find and I'm entering a state of cognitive dissonance. I'll write down a summary of data against/for the existence of artificial satellites.

FOR:
- Most LEO satellites can be seen by the naked eye over a predictable orbit, which is readily available to anyone, in resources as for example, http://www.heavens-above.com/ and the Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org) program.
- Installing a sat dish is a task that can be performed by anyone with some knowledge and performing some simple calculations in order to find the azimuth and elevation for a given location. Well, I've done it myself a number of times and everything worked as advertised.

AGAINST:
- Heat management: I don't think it's possible to keep the inside of a satellite within the working temperature range of the electronics. In space, the only way to interchange heat with the environment is by radiation and the temperature will go up until the received radiation in the 'sunny' side is equal to the emitted radiation by the shaded side. That's all to it. The only way to control it would be by altering the albedo (reflection coefficient) of the spacecraft, but that's not something that can be done easily while in orbit. At most, it would be possible to 'move' heat from the hot side to the cold one, but only with some kind of fluid pump that would be rather unreliable for long term continuous operation, and still, that could not alter the global energy balance; just would distribute internal heat more evenly.

- Orbit stabilization: Specially at GEO, a satellite is (would) be exposed to many forces that alter its orbital trajectory. From solar wind to gravitational influences of Sun and Moon. So, the sat needs thrusters that make small corrections to keep it on track and also to keep the required attitude, always pointing towards a very precise point on Earth. Purportedly, all sat designs have them, but I've not been able to find any high-res photos (in fact, most illustrations are 'artist impressions') where they can be clearly seen. Plus, there are some problems with them: the limited amount of fuel that can be carried and should suffice to stabilize a 3-4 ton sat for up to 15 years. There are more sophisticated systems as Hall effect plasma thrusters, but they reportedly only supply a force of up to 600 millinewtons, that is, just enough for lifting 60 grams in earth's gravity.

Moreover, there is almost no serious scientific papers about those two very important topics. And other web pages that try to explain this are really sketchy and rather divulgative.

So I didn't get to any conclusion. Any hypotheses should explain arguments for and against. But anyway, this smells really fishy...

Some reference links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall-effect_thruster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar_(satellite_bus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacebus#Spacebus_3000

[Altair]

Oops... just doing some more research I've found this vid of the Hispasat launch, a recent one from Jan 27th.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP4igkKhZtE

Please notice the comments at 3:30. It seems the girl who is narrating has noticed that the control center is giving the confirmation of the major events with a significant delay, and feels obliged to give some explanation, even as absurd as that those events must be validated by Moscow before... But "it's perfectly normal".

[hoi.polloi]

Altair, I can't help but wonder if all these satellite proponents are appearing just in time for Clues Chronicle 17 coming up soon ... you definitely came here on your own accord without assignment or suggestion from someone else, right?

I am teasing a little; The Clues Chronicle does not have a huge audience and you can be sure none of the poor arguments coming from satellite proponents lately can sustain much serious consideration without a colossal amount of faith in the lying science priesthood.

Most LEO satellites can be seen by the naked eye over a predictable orbit

But what are you seeing with the naked eye? That's a fascinating comment in and of itself.

Just think about it, and tell us what you think is happening exactly when you can see with your naked eye a supposedly appliance-sized device hundreds of miles away shining like a light. And can you explain the consistent/constant light from such a thing as the "satellites" they are claimed as? How do such lights compare to those supposedly thousands of miles away? With your naked eye can you differentiate — without consulting some official information list — the naturally occurring Near Earth Object pass bys from so-called man made satellites (that, by the way, are said to survive at such heights beyond the atmosphere — beyond the thermosphere — for years)?

I truly would love a reasonable and realistic explanation of this phenomenon as you see it, as a satellite believer.

[aa5]

My speculation on those small objects sometimes seen high in the sky is that they are non-man made objects that are caught orbiting the Earth. Many likely have irregular shapes. But if the object is large enough and the shape of the object lines up to reflect the sun to where you are standing, they will be visible for a time.

Although it is remarkable to me how uninterested the astronomy community seems in natural satellites.

In fact the amateur and professional astronomers seem to have no interest whatsoever in anything within our solar system. Talk to them about a cloud nebula thousands of light years away and they are excited. Search for a recent amateur picture of Mars with high definition cameras and telescopes and you are going to be searching and searching.

[simonshack]

Although it is remarkable to me how uninterested the astronomy community seems in natural satellites.

.

Exactly!

Even NASA knows about NEAs, for chrissakes!

"The number of discovered near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) now tops 15,000, with an average of 30 new discoveries added each week. This milestone marks a 50 percent increase in the number of known NEAs since 2013, when discoveries reached 10,000 in August of that year."
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/catalo ... tops-15000

And I always get a big laugh when I go to Wonkypedia and read this caption describing the below animated gif:

"Flyby of asteroid 2004 FH (centre dot being followed by the sequence). The other object that flashes by is an artificial satellite."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object

[aa5]

That gif of asteroid 2004 FH, people would assume they were seeing a man-made satellite orbiting the Earth, if they happened to be out and see it. And think the flyby was a fast moving comet or something similar.

[brianv]

Most LEO satellites can be seen by the naked eye over a predictable orbit, which is readily available to anyone, in resources as for example, http://www.heavens-above.com/ and the Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org) program.

That gif of asteroid 2004 FH, people would assume they were seeing a man-made satellite orbiting the Earth, if they happened to be out and see it. And think the flyby was a fast moving comet or something similar.

Seriously? Which Constellation are we looking at here? Looks like a screen-cap from Lost in Space.

[Altair]

Altair, I can't help but wonder if all these satellite proponents are appearing just in time for Clues Chronicle 17 coming up soon ... you definitely came here on your own accord without assignment or suggestion from someone else, right?
(...)

Right, I found cluesforum googling about Apollo and ISS hoaxes, of which I have no doubt, but when it comes about satellites it looked to me a bit of a stretch. Anyway, I'm still reading this thread and seeing many of my objections addressed, but let's say that at this moment I'm just a 'satellite doubter'. Waiting for the Clues Chronicle then...

Most LEO satellites can be seen by the naked eye over a predictable orbit

But what are you seeing with the naked eye? That's a fascinating comment in and of itself.

Just think about it, and tell us what you think is happening exactly when you can see with your naked eye a supposedly appliance-sized device hundreds of miles away shining like a light. And can you explain the consistent/constant light from such a thing as the "satellites" they are claimed as? How do such lights compare to those supposedly thousands of miles away? With your naked eye can you differentiate — without consulting some official information list — the naturally occurring Near Earth Object pass bys from so-called man made satellites (that, by the way, are said to survive at such heights beyond the atmosphere — beyond the thermosphere — for years)?

I truly would love a reasonable and realistic explanation of this phenomenon as you see it, as a satellite believer.

I'm running some numbers. Yes, in fact the 'appliance' analogy makes sense. I happen to live by the seaside and in a clear night, a lighthouse that is just 30nm (about 50 Km.) away is barely visible. And that's a heck of a light bulb. It doesn't make sense that a dishwasher sized sat at a minimum distance of 100 Km. (usually much more) just reflecting sunlight is a lot brighter. It's also puzzling that the (supposed) ISS, as per heavens-above data, in a good pass over my location, would be at a linear distance of 2.200 Km. from the spotting location when rising above the horizon and a minimum of 500 Km. when passing over, yet when I observed it its brightness was quite stable in all of its trajectory. Anyway, this is quite strange both for an artificial sat and a natural one.

The predictability could be explained if there were NEAs orbiting Earth, of course, as it's just a matter of getting the orbital elements and putting them into a database (and giving them fancy names and some history).

Anyway, any hypotheses should also explain why GPS and direct sat TV work... GPS signals can be faked quite easily, in fact some highway tunnels in Madrid have some kind of GPS transmitters, and you don't lose signal when traveling through them, despite being quite long and deep. But having all the planet with this kind of coverage it's absurd.

Still lots of things to read, but as for now I'm in no-man's land. For one side, I don't believe satellites are technically feasible, but on the other hand, GPS and sat broadcast have to be explained in some way.