patrix » December 19th, 2016, 10:21 pm wrote: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_thrusterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar_(satellite_bus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacebus#Spacebus_3000