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.
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Dcopymope »

reichstag fireman wrote:
Dcopymope wrote:no conclusion has been made that proves without any shadow of a doubt that satellites are real or fake
Well I am totally convinced of the non-existence of artificial satellites. They are vapourware.

What burden of proof are you using, Dcopymore, and how are you applying logic to arguments for and against?
You must have applied very different evidential standards when deciding to believe in God.
And then you bring 'God' in the argument, for whatever reason. :rolleyes:

This argument has been going on for months and no real progress has been made at all for either side. I'll have something to say about it when something conclusive is brought forth for or against, if ever. From the start, my view was sort of leaning towards satellites not existing at all, but I'm not fully convinced, and apparently, nor are a few other members.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by icarusinbound »

reichstag fireman wrote:
Dcopymope wrote:no conclusion has been made that proves without any shadow of a doubt that satellites are real or fake
Well I am totally convinced of the non-existence of artificial satellites. They are vapourware.
RF, I am always extremely interested by your posts, and constantly admire your wide range of knowledge.

But.... your stated personal absolute certainty regarding the non-existence of artificial satellites worries me a lot.

My position is not in conflict with the identification of false space imagery. Be it Apollo nonsense, ISS bubbles or Martian fairytales, I'm there with you.

But by contrast, I really think that there needs to be a more balanced opinion taken regarding satellites. To say that there is nothing whatsoever physically transmitting from up there is far too entrenched a position to take. Given the chance I believe I can show this to be the case.

Would you accept that much of your position on this (ie the use of atmospheric refraction in the form of skywave propagation) makes most sense in the context of one-to-many broadcasting, and becomes much-more technically difficult to reconcile in virtually all other alleged satellite-driven technology contexts?

I can expand upon this proposition, if I may be permitted (and please, RF/Simon/other dear CF members in general, don't shout/shut me down without giving me a chance to have a proper say on this matter)
reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman »

Dcopymope wrote:This argument has been going on for months and no real progress has been made at all for either side.

I'll have something to say about it when something conclusive is brought forth for or against, if ever.

From the start, my view was sort of leaning towards satellites not existing at all, but I'm not fully convinced
That's doesn't explain how 'you are where you are'.

If someone asked me why I believe "the 911 attacks" were a hoax, I could probably spent a month explaining my reasoning.

You state that you are "not fully convinced" about artificial satellites. So, please, for the benefit of the forum, elaborate on your reasoning now. What niggling suspicions do you have to support the existence of the 'artificial satellite'.

The off-the-cuff remark: "I'll have something to say about it when something conclusive is brought forth for or against" doesn't really pass muster in a thread called "general discussions and musings".

Why bother posting at all, if you have no opinion either "for or against". The one thing your comment does do, is to bolster the lobby that seeks to marginalise the whole question of the Satellite Hoax, as being one of those "hopeless implausible internet theories", or words to that effect.
reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman »

icarusinbound wrote:.. your stated personal absolute certainty regarding the non-existence of artificial satellites worries me a lot.

My position is not in conflict with the identification of false space imagery. Be it Apollo nonsense, ISS bubbles or Martian fairytales, I'm there with you.

But by contrast, I really think that there needs to be a more balanced opinion taken regarding satellites. To say that there is nothing whatsoever physically transmitting from up there is far too entrenched a position to take. Given the chance I believe I can show this to be the case.
Please do show this. And please do so in the context of our general understanding of ionospheric refractive ("skywave") propagation. Are you of the mind that skywave propagation is a plausible explanation for the reception of radiowaves seemingly from outer space (30,000km away in the so-called "Clarke Satellite Belt")?
Would you accept that much of your position on this (ie the use of atmospheric refraction in the form of skywave propagation) makes most sense in the context of one-to-many broadcasting, and becomes much-more technically difficult to reconcile in virtually all other alleged satellite-driven technology contexts?
What other supposed "satellite" technologies are there? GPS is broadcast technology, albeit with very low entropy - just a few bits per second. That leaves us chiefly to explain the point-to-point skywave link. As with any wireless communications system, the question is one of beam focus, or beam width. We can look to groundwave microwave comms solutions for an answer.

With appropriate antennae to form a point-to-point link, beam width (proportionate to signal dispersion) is reduced to just a fraction of a degree. That solution - very tight beam focus - works perfectly for point-to-point skywave propagation, too. In fact, in many circumstances, a skywave link will work better than a ground-based link. The skywave link does not suffer the problems of "multi-path fading" - i.e. signal reflections from hills, trees, buildings, nor the problems when passing over different ground terrain. Microwaves passing over water propagate differently to those passing over a corn field, for example.
I can expand upon this proposition, if I may be permitted (and please, RF/Simon/other dear CF members in general, don't shout/shut me down without giving me a chance to have a proper say on this matter)
It's a fascinating subject, so I certainly wouldn't shut you down!
fast67vellen2o
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:38 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by fast67vellen2o »

reichstag fireman wrote:
[RF: this image?]
Image


Aside the larger question of the non-existence of artificial satellites: what is it in that image which makes you sure that it is "completely bogus"? Your conclusion must have been based on personal study. Please talk us through that analytical process.

"the French space agency CNES rotated the Pleiades Earth observation satellite to capture this image of Envisat."

This photo was supposedly taken from the Pleiades Earth observation satellite (according to the MSN article).

Here is some information according to Wickedpedia on this particular satellite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(satellite)

Now if I am reading this correctly, one of the main jobs of this particular satellite is: "Land planning: detection and identification of small features (e.g. vehicles, roads, bushes)".

If this particular satellite really has the photographic capabilities that they are claiming it has, then why such a blurry photo?
reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman »

Hi, fast67vellen2o,

I appreciate your sincerity, though it's hard to reconcile the two schools of thought here. On the one hand, there are those claiming the image is fake (obviously fake, imvho). Yet we accept or, at least, we don't challenge the broader claim that it was taken by an "artificial satellite" (a monstrously fake claim, imvho). It's one of those quandaries of "limited hangout". Adopting the second premise as fact is to set a contrived and very stifling boundary to the whole discussion. What a to-do!
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by fbenario »

This is downright laughable.



Image


US Air Force’s 1950s supersonic flying saucer declassified

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1375 ... classified
lux
Member
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

Last edited by hoi.polloi on Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fix link
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by fbenario »

reichstag fireman wrote:[1] Hi, fast67vellen2o
...
[2] we don't challenge the broader claim that it was taken by an "artificial satellite"
On [2] - Oooh, well done, Reichstag. I would suggest there is no such thing as an 'artificial satellite'. The term itself has an internal truism (such as "a = a"), and thus becomes, at best unhelpful, at worst a meaningless neologism.

Thanks for making me focus on the term.

On [1] - Hey, fast67vellen2o, what the h**l kind of username is that? Please explain its genesis. It actually looks like one of the so-called 'unbreakable' passwords we're encouraged to use on every website - as if anyone could remember so much malarkey. Silliness.

EDIT: Sorry, fast, I now see it is a reference to cars.
Last edited by fbenario on Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
lux
Member
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

^ It's a car thing. Google it.
MrX
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:42 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by MrX »

Here is supposidly a picture from Lushtoto, Tanzania - which is practically right at the equator.
Image

Shouldn't these dishes be pointed basically straight-up?

Original link here: http://www.world-traveler.eu/travels-af ... nzibar.htm
MrX
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:42 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by MrX »

Sorry about previous post -- they would only be straight up if the Geo-Sat was straight above. Still, these antennas should be on a "line" of consistant elevation that can't be verified from this picture without exact location and location of camera, I believe. There are some odd dish angles from photos at the equator (Africa, South America) but this proves nothing.
MrX
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:42 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by MrX »

Does this make sense from Abu Dhabi -
dishes_abu.JPG
dishes_abu.JPG (63.1 KiB) Viewed 6002 times
Link: http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news ... ite-dishes

Seems awful low elevation - we're higher and I don't see anything that low. Some look 180 deg off in azimuth - but that's assuming they work.


[st]http://www.thenational.ae/deployedfiles ... _-_UNI.jpg[/st]
Last edited by hoi.polloi on Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: replaced hotlink with archival screen shot
reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman »

Latitude, Longitude and dish antenna Azimuth and Elevation are needed for any determination. And as you've already said, the azimuth of the skywave link could be parallel to the equator. Whether west to east, or east to west.

For skywave reception in Lushtoto, Tanzania, the transmitter could be in South America - Belize or Suriname - for example. Such a link would still use a refraction point above the tropics, somewhere above the mid-South Atlantic Ocean. Or alternatively, and again for RX in Tanzania, a viable TX could equally be in Indonesia to the east, also offering a refraction point above the tropics.

Mentioned earlier, the regions of higher electron density are always sought for the point of refraction. This is to increase the Maximum Usable Frequency of the skywave signal. The higher that frequency, the more information that can be modulated on the carrier wave. And more information means more garbage TV channels, higher video and audio definition, more simultaneous telephone connections, and greater backhaul bandwidth for IP traffic, etc.

Image
RX in Tanzania with TX in South America with refraction point over mid-South Atlantic?
Or TX in Indonesia with refraction above the Indian Ocean?


Due to quirks in the geomagnetic fields, there are equatorial "anomalies" in the ionosphere layer. The F2 layer - the ionosphere region with the highest electron density - is not uniform about the equator.

In the plot below, note over South America the 'dip' in the F2 layer peak to below the equator. And over west Africa, note the hump above. Quirks which need to be accommodated when selecting and establishing a TX site for skywave propagation.

Image
Ionospheric anomalies

As an aside, there is no technical reason - other than issues of climate, remoteness (and politics) - to prevent the use of Antarctica for skywave transmission. Offering valuable azimuth angles for reception across all continents, the polar continent may be extremely important for skywave transmitter sites. Does that function partly explain the territorial claims for the land - the so-called War for Antarctica? And during Antarctic exploration expeditions, does research into skywave propagation form part of the work undertaken?

EDIT: For the foF2 anomaly plot, see: http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/cl ... onbend.pdf
Last edited by reichstag fireman on Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7345
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack »

*

I sincerely wish to get a knowledgeable answer (from some space expert / or rocket scientist) to a simple question - perhaps the simplest in fact - regarding satellites and space travel in general. My question being:

How do man-made satellites/space stations survive the hazards of LEO (low earth orbit) ?

( a short video that I originally found on the space.com website ) :

THE EXPANDING DANGER OF SPACE DEBRIS: FRAGMENTATION
http://www.space.com/9818-expanding-dan ... ation.html


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YR-GjNLwtg

Here's what Whackypedia has to offer regarding satellite collisions:
"In the 2009 European Air and Space Conference, University of Southampton, UK researcher, Hugh Lewis predicted that the threat from space debris would rise 50 percent in the coming decade and quadruple in the next 50 years. Currently more than 13,000 close calls are tracked weekly."

"A report in 2011 by the National Research Council in the USA warned NASA that the amount of space debris orbiting the Earth was at critical level. Some computer models revealed that the amount of space debris "has reached a tipping point, with enough currently in orbit to continually collide and create even more debris, raising the risk of spacecraft failures". The report has called for international regulations to limit debris and research into disposing of the debris."

(...)
"The great majority of debris consists of smaller objects, 1 centimetre (0.39 in) or less. The mid-2009 update to the NASA debris FAQ places the number of large debris items over 10 centimetres (3.9 in) at 19,000, between 1 and 10 centimetres (3.9 in) approximately 500,000, and that debris items smaller than 1 centimetre (0.39 in) exceeds tens of millions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision
As the story goes, the first - of only eight LEO (low earth orbit) satellite collisions - took place in 2009, destroying an American "Iridium" satellite, and an old Russian 'defunct' satellite. Here's the story as reported by the BBC:

"Russian and US satellites collide"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7885051.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

Don't know about you, but I'm a getting a growing feeling that all these stories are nothing but a bunch of spacedust-fairytales... The more I read about man-made satellites, the more I question their very existence. Just check out at this horridly photoshopped image of an alleged 'space debris' which purportedly fell in Saudi Arabia on January 12, 2001:
Image
On 12 January 2001, a Star 48 Payload Assist Module (PAM-D) rocket upper stage re-entered the atmosphere after a "catastrophic orbital decay".The PAM-D stage crashed in the sparsely populated Saudi Arabian desert. It was positively identified as the upper-stage rocket for NAVSTAR 32, a GPS satellite launched in 1993.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
Post Reply