nokidding wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:45 am
When is a satellite not a satellite?
Hope you don't mind me replying with another question:
When is CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) not
You also wrote: "Attitude Control is the big problem for a satellite, preventing and correcting spin, and accurately aligning instruments, antenna and booster nozzles."
Great, I'd certainly agree that these aspects would be very problematic. Yet, we're told that the badass "rocket scientists" of this world have masterfully solved all of these problems - and are now managing and monitoring several thousands of man-made satellites revolving along precision-orbits around Earth. For instance, let's take a look at the so-called "GAIA satellite"
, the pride & glory of ESA (the European Space Agency): it is said to be hurtling at hypersonic speeds around Earth (since 2013) to collect high-precision astrometric data of our cosmos - and to be capable of collecting stellar parallax measurements within an error margin / resolution of "better than 0.001 arcseconds"
(yup, 1 milliarcsecond!). We may also read that its mission was originally planned to last 5 years, but "since its detectors are not degrading as fast as initially expected, the mission could therefore be extended
" until 2025. Oh, and we're also told that "the limiting factor to further mission extensions is the supply of fuel for the micro-propulsion system, which is expected to last until November 2024."
Now, to address your above-mentioned issues of attitude control, would you like to speculate (I know, neither you or I are rocket scientists - but give it a try!) as to exactly how this would be achieved for this "GAIA satellite" hat-shaped contraption (with its fancy fold-out solar panels)? Where are the "attitude-correcting" boosters? And where would that fuel supply (enough to last 10 years or more) for the "micro-propulsion system" - whatever that means - be stored?
The "GAIA satellite" - as depicted on ESA's official website : https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Imag ... IA_Cam01_2
Need I add that the above "images" are extremely crass
CGI artwork (far worse than that used in childrens' modern computer games)? Why so? If your answer will be "because it's impossible to photograph satellites in the sky in HD"
, why wouldn't ESA at least offer us some hyper-realistic imagery of their wondrous, billion-dollar Gaia satellite by simply using photographic composites of the REAL THING as it was (purportedly) being assembled here on Earth? Mind you, the same goes for ALL the imagery proposed by NASA, SPACEX and the other "space agencies" of this world - as thoroughly demonstrated on this forum for over a decade now.
See, I don't know about you, but I personally have had enough of having my intelligence offended by the ridiculous claims, narratives, pscience-fiction and pathetic CGI imagery that's being continuously thrown at the public by these self-anointed rocket scientists and their "space agencies". Having said that, anyone is of course free to believe that they have truly launched thousands of satellites up in space which, after an initial "push" by a rocket launcher, keep circling around Earth at hypersonic speeds (for years or decades on end) while having their orbits and attitudes finely regulated by remote-control from ground-based stations... And this, without EVER being struck by any of the billions of meteorids constantly "crashing" into our atmosphere. Quite franky, I'd rather believe in the existence of Santa Claus.