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 Flabbergasted on June 16th, 2013, 2:52 pm

Here is a lot more information on the science ("variable buoyancy") and the corporate connections of the GoogleLoon thing:
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/06/g ... loons/all/ (link edited)

I may be a bit slow on the uptake: I can see how to make a gas balloon descend, but I still haven´t understood how to make it ascend to higher layers, even with electricity available. Another reader posted the questions below:

Image
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 669
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Farcevalue on June 16th, 2013, 7:37 pm

Sorry to interject this into the Google balloon portion of this thread, but I found these theory of relativity numbers interesting. This is from an explanation of how GPS works based on the theory of relativity and "bent space time":

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.


- http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

Of course this could be entirely coincidental, but how many coincidences does it take to call it a pattern?
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby icarusinbound on June 16th, 2013, 8:02 pm

I spotted the 'Project Loon' item as a trending topic on Yootube earlier today, and was planning to post something about it here on Clues later.

Regardless of whether that's synchronicity or a vectored viral, I'm highly skeptical about this project. Hopefully the caustic comments from 'Sam Spade' regarding the lack of technical details are real...and are responded to. Send him an invitation to 'Clues'..

Comparing these balloons with, say, passenger hot air balloons which use LPG burners to rise, and ballast/venting to lower, these curious techno-bubbles don't seem to have any true altitude-tracking system. There is some mention of them being 'recycled', implying that they eventually run out of some kind of propellant, but surely that deserves to be expanded upon constructively.

An interesting lack of reference to GPS (unless I'm missing it?). Intriguing that these swastika-shaped solar panels are facing downwards...so, small in surface area, pointing directly away from their source of energy, and fragile as hell. Everything you don't want in a mesh peer-to-peer datacommunications system, with a potential 100% duty cycle. Tell me more about UV stabilisation of materials, uplink/downlink frequencies, data-rates, contention....interesting that it claims to be able to internetwork at a physical layer between 'Loons' directly, instead of just via the ground terminals. This is one of the fascinating claims of the Iridium satellite phone systems.

Is this just a lot of pseudo-tech eye candy?

I was similarly doubtful about the NASA Gossamer Albatross/Condor programme...
Image
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Albatross/Small/ECN-13413.jpg
This was touted as being an early in-stage for unmanned lightweight enormous plastic solar drones, radio 'mirrors' that would fly for eternity as super low-cost replacements for these pesky satellite...things. All exceedingly flimsy, in every sense.

I've seen a number of other 'gee whiz' tech-lite Amazing Stories that may in reality be terrifyingly-less than they claim to be. I'll post about them initially in the Chat-Room, I think (Flabbergasted, you're maybe on the same elevator as me about all this, so, please, look out for my post...unless you beat me to it, in which case I shall become somewhat spooked)
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: November 28th, 2011, 9:49 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on June 18th, 2013, 10:33 am

*


"EUTELSAT 21B - launched by ARIANE rocket"

Below we have two images of what is supposed to be the very same satellite, the "EUTELSAT 21B", allegedly launched by ARIANE into geostationary orbit (36.000km of altitude) on November 10, 2012.

Image
Caption: "Le satellite Eutelsat 21B installé dans un conteneur pour l'envoyer de l'usine cannoise de Thales Alenia Space, où il a été construit, à Kourou en Guyane d'où il sera lancé ce soir. © Thales Alenia Space"
http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/ ... eca_42532/

Image
Caption: "EUTELSAT 21B reçoit sa charge de propergol."(EUTELSAT21B receives its charge of propergol[solid propellant]).
http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t ... embre-2012

The ESA website says that Eutelsat21B was first injected into orbit at an altitude of 250km with the ARIANE5 rocket - and successively travelled all the way up to its geostationary position at an altitude of 35.786km. The website also explains that "Eutelsat-21B will deliver telecommunications services, data services for corporate networks and governmental administrations, and IP access in Europe, North and West Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia."
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launc ... ch_of_2012

So here are my questions to all rocket scientists - as well as average, thinking people like myself:

1 - Do the above two contraptions even look like the same object?
2 - How was this thing propelled from 250km to almost 36.000km of altitude?
3 - How was this thing braked/slowed down - so that it didn't overshoot its assigned 36.000km orbit?
4 - Where are the thrusters needed to periodically adjust its geostationary orbit?
5 - Why is such a huge object needed to deliver telecom services and IP access? What does it contain?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby rusty on June 18th, 2013, 12:14 pm

I'd like to add another question:

6 - Why are the two ESA actors employees dressed like asstronuts?
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby HonestlyNow on June 18th, 2013, 12:24 pm

Question 1:
If you take what is in image 2, and lay it on what we see as its backside, and having the topside facing the camera, you can then see how that resembles image 1.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 368
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on June 18th, 2013, 1:38 pm

rusty wrote:6 - Why are the two ESA actors employees dressed like asstronuts?

Perhaps because that "propergol" is highly toxic / flammable / explosive? :P

HonestlyNow wrote:Question 1:
If you take what is in image 2, and lay it on what we see as its backside, and having the topside facing the camera, you can then see how that resembles image 1.

You are quite right about that, HonestlyNow and, quite honestly, I meant to delete question 1 just before you made your post... So one mystery is solved. Five left to go! ^_^
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Starbucked on June 18th, 2013, 2:04 pm

Russian ILS launch of an SES-6 satellite for SES.

This is launched, allegedly, from Baikonur Cosmodrome, which also launches Soyuz to the ISS. <_<


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

The launch acceleration rate is very slow and dramatic.
From around 57 seconds notice the different colors of the exhaust plumes:
purple on the left and grey on the right.
There appears to be very little thick grey/white exhaust smoke trailing the rocket as well.

Could this launch video be CGI magic and if so does a real video of an SES-6 satellite launch exist?
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on June 18th, 2013, 6:10 pm

Starbucked wrote:Could this launch video be CGI magic and if so does a real video of an SES-6 satellite launch exist?


Starbucked,

You are not seriously wondering whether this might be real /legit video imagery, are you ? :lol:

Image

Image

Edit Update: Someone on YT ("Michail Dugov") has called me mentally ill for suggesting this could be fake imagery... :P
Proton Launch of SES-6 on ILS Proton-M from Baikonur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwDASkWPJU
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby sceppy on June 18th, 2013, 6:36 pm

There are two simple ways to figure out if rockets are genuinely taking off.

1.The rocket must accelerate at full thrust from a standing start and must do so at speed or it will fall back to earth.
2. The dense "water saturated" atmospheric air, should always create a steam plume behind the rockets hot burning exhaust thrust.

If either of these are not seen in a rocket launch, then it is 100% bogus.
sceppy
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: June 9th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Starbucked on June 18th, 2013, 6:57 pm

Simon, I like to state facts as questions, for legal reasons B)

The programmer who designed that exhaust must have been eating a bowl of neapolitan ice cream!
The exhaust gasses are separated into a distinct pattern of strawberry, chocolate and french vanilla!

Image
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on June 18th, 2013, 11:15 pm

sceppy wrote:There are two simple ways to figure out if rockets are genuinely taking off.

1.The rocket must accelerate at full thrust from a standing start and must do so at speed or it will fall back to earth.
2. The dense "water saturated" atmospheric air, should always create a steam plume behind the rockets hot burning exhaust thrust.

If either of these are not seen in a rocket launch, then it is 100% bogus.


Dear sceppy,

You are right. Rockets cannot take off in 'slow motion'. Nor can their speed decrease/increase after a few seconds of their launch - as seen in this ridiculous ESA video (of a rocket purportedly bringing their "CRYOSAT" satellite into orbit) :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSaYIIBZk10

Don't you just LOVE the sound sample they used to simulate this rocket's sound ? :lol:
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Vext Lynchpin on June 19th, 2013, 12:14 am

It's hard to find good amateur footage of rocket launches. Most of the video I found on Youtube is either official NASA video or amateur video shot from a few miles away, making it difficult to compare.
Vext Lynchpin
Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: April 25th, 2013, 10:11 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Starbucked on June 19th, 2013, 6:02 am

Wouldn't these rockets also need a launch rail or some mechanical system to ensure that they are thrust straight up?

Something like this:

Image

As opposed to what appears to be nothing in the case of the ILS Proton launch or Soyuz, pictured below.

Image

No mechanical launch rail would leave zero margin for error. I wonder if the folks at the model rocketry forum can explain why Nasa et al. doesn't need a launch rail, and if they would like to try launching their Estes rockets without a launch rod
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby sceppy on June 20th, 2013, 9:06 am

Starbucked wrote:Wouldn't these rockets also need a launch rail or some mechanical system to ensure that they are thrust straight up?

Something like this:

Image

As opposed to what appears to be nothing in the case of the ILS Proton launch or Soyuz, pictured below.

Image

No mechanical launch rail would leave zero margin for error. I wonder if the folks at the model rocketry forum can explain why Nasa et al. doesn't need a launch rail, and if they would like to try launching their Estes rockets without a launch rod
A rocket is at it's most unstable (balance wise) on ignition.
Apparently they have bolts that somehow hold the rocket to the deck which explode just before lift off. :rolleyes:
Sod the safety. I mean... a rockets tough outer skin would deflect any exploded bolt shrapnel, plus the explosion is carefully deflected away from the rocket. :D
Stuff like "ice" is the major problem, or dangerous chunks of foam (shuttles). That's the main worry, because that stuff sinks ships...not exploding, dense, tempered bolts. ;)
To think that just one of those engines giving out a little bit less thrust on lift off would unbalance the rocket and tip it over.
The Russian rockets are the best ones because they don't require people to be 3 miles away to witness a launch.You only need to be a few hundred metres away (as long as you are a news reporter and a tough "deaf" female ).
These rockets are designed to be set up in the middle of nowhere, with all the equipment needed (including rocket), all packed into a large (probably) rental truck. :D
sceppy
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: June 9th, 2013, 3:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests