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.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Sorry folks for interrupting again with another (quick) question - unrelated to the telecommunication satellites debate.

Here is a quite beautiful aerial picture of the famous Mont Saint-Michel in northwest France. I found it on this page of the European Space Agency (ESA) website.

Image

At first glance, and judging by the apparent elevation angle, I'd say this was snapped from some airplane - or perhaps a balloon.

But no: ESA claims that this photo was snapped by one of the two Pléiades satellites - both allegedly orbiting at an altitude of 694km (approximately twice as high up as the purported orbit of the ISS). Just for comparison, here we have...

MONT SAINT-MICHEL seen from ground level________MONT SAINT-MICHEL seen from "694km of altitude" (?)

Image Image

...and the Moon surface - seen from "22km of altitude" (according to NASA)- more than 30X closer!!
Image
"NASA Releases Closer Looks at Apollo Landing Sites from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter"
http://www.universetoday.com/88692/nasa ... e-orbiter/
This is the third resolution of Apollo sites that the LRO team has released — the first came from LRO’s commissioning phase where the altitude was about 100 km and the resolution was about 1 meter per pixel; next came the release of images from an altitude of about 50 km, with a resolution of about 50 cm per pixel; and now from about 21-22 km altitude with a resolution of 25 cm per pixel.

“These are the sharpest images of Apollo landing sites we’ll probably ever get with LRO,” said Rich Vondrak, LRO project scientist, “as we’ll never go as low in altitude as we were in the past month.”
Does all this add up to you? If not, just who do you think is taking us for a ride here? ESA? NASA? Both? :huh:
Schpankme
Banned
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:02 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Schpankme »

simonshack wrote: Does all this add up to you? If not, who do you think is taking us for a ride here? ESA? NASA? Both? :huh:
Water Vapor Studies using Aircraft Remote Sensing Instruments
http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/irgrp/aircraft.html

"Several aircraft sensors were developed by NASA in the mid 1980's to verify data from new satellite sensors and to collect unique data-sets which would serve to justify future space-based instruments on low-Earth and geostationary observation platforms."

MAMS is a multispectral scanner which measures reflected radiation from the Earth's surface and clouds in eight visible/near-infrared bands, and thermal emission from the Earth's surface, clouds, and atmospheric constituents (primarily water vapor) in four infrared bands. The 5.0 mRa aperture of MAMS produces an instantaneous field-of-view (IFOV) resolution of 100 m at nadir from the nominal ER-2 altitude of 20 km. The width of the entire cross path field-of-view scanned by the sensor is 37 km, thereby providing detailed resolution of atmospheric and surface features across the swath width and along the aircraft flight track. For clouds and thunderstorm features the IFOV decreases with increasing cloud height by a factor of (Z-20)/20, where Z is the cloud height in kilometers.

Image
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by whatsgoingon »

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on Fri May 24, 2013 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by whatsgoingon »

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on Fri May 24, 2013 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman »

Dmitry wrote:
reichstag fireman wrote: However, as the angle of incidence for the radio wave is increased, the wave enters the ionosphere at an ever more oblique angle, and the Maximum Usable Frequency goes up and up! Right up to 10GHz (thats 10 GIGA Hertz) and beyond!

Breit & Tuve 1926? Appleton 1932? IRPL 1943?
All referenced further up the thread.
Breit & Tuve emitted 10 GHz waves back in 1926? Or was it Appleton 1932? There are many (completely pointless) references up in this thread, but may be you can give only 4 short entries:
In 1920s/1930s, shortwave was used for skywave propagation. And the theory hasn't changed - it works too with microwaves today.

Example frequency is 10.77325 GHz or (1.077×10¹⁰ Hz). That is the microwave frequency on which BBC1 and 2 are broadcast via Astra/SES 1N skywave "transponder 25" into UK/IE [See 1]

Ionosphere electron density (F2 layer) above the tropics on a sunny summer day at the solar cycle maximum = 5.000×10¹² m⁻³
[See 2]

Much simplified Appleton-Hartree equation relating ionosphere electron density (N), carrier frequency (f) and angle of incidence (Θi) into the ionosphere layer, is given by: [See 3]

N = (f² ÷ 81) . cos²(Θi)

Therefore,

5.000×10¹² = ((1.077×10¹⁰)² ÷ 81) ⋅ cos²(Θi)
4.050×10¹⁴ = 1.161×10²⁰ ⋅ cos²(Θi)
Θi = cos⁻¹ √(4.050×10¹⁴ ÷ 1.161×10²⁰) = 89.8930°

And there, measured from the earth normal, is the critical angle: 89.8930°

That is the angle of incidence into the ionosphere when on a summer day above the tropics, our 10.77325 GHz microwave skywave signal is refracted back to earth. Forming a refracted beam pattern that can be received across UK/IE with a "satellite" dish.

It looks counter-intuitive. An incidence angle of 89.8930° is virtually perpendicular to the earth normal, and therefore parallel to the ionosphere. But when we determine the elevation angle of our transmitter dish, we must remember to include the earth central angle in those calculations. [See 4, and 5- diagram earlier in thread ]

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/info/sat ... cies.shtml
[2] http://roma2.rm.ingv.it/en/research_areas/4/ionosphere
[3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/69855678/IRPL ... ds-11-1943 (page 19)
[4] http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/cl ... onbend.pdf
[5] http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1070&p=2374007#p2374007
reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman »

simonshack wrote: Does all this add up to you? If not, who do you think is taking us for a ride here? ESA? NASA? Both? :huh:
Another good find, Simon!

Just comparing the 22MB hi-res Pleiades "satellite" image (9570px*8274px) with a Google Maps aerial photo of the same region around Mont St. Michel, to try and put a scale on the "satellite" image.

The exif metadata for the ESA image has been stripped bare (quel surprise!). But maybe with some info on the camera lens, we could estimate the camera's minimum angle of view, and perhaps work out the altitude at which the image was taken.

Either way, it would need incredible camera optics to obtain an image of that quality from an altitude of more than a few thousand metres.

Image

The above aerial photo is from Google Map. The area in the red bounding box, is roughly the same area as captured in that 22MB "satellite" image from the Europe Space Agency.

The ESA image also has strange distortion to its dimensions. The image has been compressed (re-scaled?) by more than 20% along the latitude, and only the latitude. Presumably rescaled to create the illusion of being taken from an orbiting "satellite".

Image
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Hey look behind you. There's your ass.
Let's keep it civil.

Also, although I am disappointed in Dmitry's answer to a request for proof of satellites, I am curious about Dmitry's question: what are the angles that we are proposing simulate the skywave?

How does a "broadcast" work? What kinds of antennae are there, and what are they variously capable of?

I know, for instance, that with a home WiFi router, I can create a "spread" signal or a "focused" signal, and that I can have one, two or even three antennae on a device, and they can point in different directions and send signals in different directions.

What would be the effect of a much larger, more powerful antenna's signal when it does a "spread" signal instead of "focused", and could it "broadcast"?

Dmitry's allegation hasn't been addressed; that an antenna just isn't capable of broadcasting effectively. Until it is, we should contend with the "satellite" explanation, despite all the lies surrounding them.
Libero
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Libero »

hoi.polloi wrote:
Hey look behind you. There's your ass.
Let's keep it civil.

Also, although I am disappointed in Dmitry's answer to a request for proof of satellites, I am curious about Dmitry's question: what are the angles that we are proposing simulate the skywave?

How does a "broadcast" work? What kinds of antennae are there, and what are they variously capable of?

I know, for instance, that with a home WiFi router, I can create a "spread" signal or a "focused" signal, and that I can have one, two or even three antennae on a device, and they can point in different directions and send signals in different directions.

What would be the effect of a much larger, more powerful antenna's signal when it does a "spread" signal instead of "focused", and could it "broadcast"?

Dmitry's allegation hasn't been addressed; that an antenna just isn't capable of broadcasting effectively. Until it is, we should contend with the "satellite" explanation, despite all the lies surrounding them.

Hoi,

For what it's worth, yesterday I attempted to locate information regarding regional based outages for a few American satellite based media providers thinking that in most cases, surely if the technology was real that the physical satellite would not be able to discriminate as to where it could beam its signal. For the television providers, I couldn't find any info regional outages other than ones that may have also been attributed to bad weather conditions but for the radio providers I did find a few. Additionally, there are far more reported 'dead spots' for satellite radio broadcast where there shouldn't be considering the supposed reach. Given the size and shapes of the receiving antennae for each of the technologies and the fact the radio providers already admit to using terrestrial based repeaters, it seems that the radio technology is much more likely to be terrestrially based and once again begs the question as to why they would need a satellite in the first place. For the television technology, however, it's still an unknown.
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 »

By now we all know I listen to SiriusXM while cycling. I often lose the signal at the bottom of a steep hill, or while riding next to woods. Reception returns as soon as I ride out of the valley, or pass the woods. The radio has to stay on the south side of my body at all times.

Are my reception problems evidence that satellites can exist, or evidence that Sirius, at least, isn't sending me the signal from a satellite?
reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman »

fbenario wrote:By now we all know I listen to SiriusXM while cycling. I often lose the signal at the bottom of a steep hill, or while riding next to woods. Reception returns as soon as I ride out of the valley, or pass the woods. The radio has to stay on the south side of my body at all times.

Are my reception problems evidence that satellites can exist, or evidence that Sirius, at least, isn't sending me the signal from a satellite?
The signal attenuation caused by the trees (awful things at microwave frequencies), reduces the Signal to Noise ratio (SNR) of the SiriusXM signal to a level below that at which your handheld receiver can recover the signal. That happens whatever the origin of the signal - groundwave, skywave or even, erm, "satellite" (for those who believe in such things!)

P.S. Some of the biggest erm, "satellite" transmitter dishes in the world.. (Raisting, Bavaria, Germany)

http://www.arnodietz.de/panotemp/raisting_alpen.html
bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by bostonterrierowner »

I have not followed this thread closely because I am not a "technological" type of guy but I want to attract other members' attention to a long lived but supposedly failed idea of satelite mobile phones . I have heard of staelites phones for many years , well over decade I believe that there is or was a corporate provider of such a service called IRIDIUM . My point is that at least to me it is very suspicious that this technology didn't break through like GSM , GPRS or 3G . Why don't I see satelite mobile phones being used by corporate world ? Why put up with losing your range when travelling ? Why bother to cover whole countries with GSM anthenas when we could just use satelite signals ? Technology is here ...

To summarize : I have seen mobile phones being just toys for the rich in the early 90ies , than over time becoming cheaper and cheaper to the point in time where even the toddlers use ones ? The same with CD , VHS , microwave ovens etc.

Why isn't it the case with satelite mobile phones ? :)
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Heiwa »

Evidently it is possible to launch satellites/sputniks/scrap of any kind incl. humans to orbit Earth at various altitudes in various capsules. You just need a strong rocket to accelerate the satellite /sputnik/rubbish to about 8 000 m/s velocity or 27-28 times the speed of sound or so and ascend to 200-400 km altitude to release the thing.
And there you are! Orbiting Earth. Isn’t it awful?
If you want to get down in one piece safe and sound … you have a problem. Or two. You are high up! And you are at great speed. Earth gravity is great! How to get down? How to brake?
Answer?
There is no way!
It is as simple as that.
No way.
Anything that is sent up into orbit around Earth can only come down in flames, burnt into ashes and atoms, etc. Like fireworks.
Of course SovComSputBresznevCrustjevNikita and NasaDisneyKennedy and HitlervonBraunGôring and other disinfo people suggest otherwise.
But they are wrong. :rolleyes:

Why does media treat these clowns with any sort of respect? They were jokes!
pliablematerial
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:21 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by pliablematerial »

The question that occurs from this thread is "why would satellites be fake?"

I can think of two reasonable hypothesis:

1) Pure profit. Satellites are very expensive. A lot of money changes hands in the business schemes that surround them.

2) Propaganda. Observe Hollywood movies that endlessly show satellites being used as tools of repression, surveillance, and terror from above. Now notice that the same entertainment companies are responsible for creating the idea of the satellite in the first place by using "satellites" to deliver their product.

On a side note, I would mention that physics is a theory, and that things like satellites are meant to be proofs of that theory.

Most modern technology, if you get right down to it, is an attempt to prove that the "religion" of science is superior to other religions.

Just like other religions they make miracles, and put on shows, and have saints, and all that bullshit.

Doesn't mean that it is all true or all false, but it helps to look at these things from a historical perspective.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

Here is an orbit calculator. I have no idea if it is accurate but it's fun to play with:
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/earth_orbit
CitronBleu
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by CitronBleu »

simonshack wrote:
Pinaki wrote:
Frankly, to think that a satellite, so far away from the earth's crust, would appear to a naked eye seems really hard to digest. And to think that a sun's reflection on such a far away satellite is watchable by naked eye sounds silly to me. So, as far as I am concerned, it is a silly argument(shining objects seen by naked eye are satellites) in favor of pro-satellite view. I would think that those shining objects seen by the naked eye must be either much bigger or much closer than what the satellites are supposed to be. So, I assume them to be planes.
Dear Pinaki,

They're not planes - but quite simply Near-Earth asteroids. I don't think anyone would question the existence of Near-Earth asteroids.

Even Wickedpedia knows about the existence of Near-Earth asteroids : <_<
NEAR-EARTH ASTEROIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_asteroids (scroll 1/3 down the page)

These are objects of 50 meters or more in diameter in a near-Earth orbit without the tail or coma of a comet. As of May 2012, 8,880 near-Earth asteroids are known, ranging in size from 1 meter up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed). The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be about 981. The composition of near-Earth asteroids is comparable to that of asteroids from the asteroid belt, reflecting a variety of asteroid spectral types.
But of course, Wickedpedia feels the need to show us this gif - with this ridiculous caption:

Image
Wiki Caption: "Flyby of asteroid 2004 FH.
The other object that flashes by is an artificial satellite."


Hogwash. No way is that fly-by flash (with tail !!!) an "artificial (i.e. man-made) satellite"! If anything (and providing the above clip is legit) it is what we colloquially call a 'falling star' - a.k.a. a meteor, burning up as it enters Earth's atmosphere. Most likely, the clown who wrote that caption has an agenda to uphold the myth of man-made satellites.

Instead, the orbiting object in the middle of the above gif looks exactly like the countless sightings I remember from my childhood, while gazing at the Norwegian skies on summer nights - back in the 70's. I (and my brothers and cousins) would see such moving dots quite reliably - every 10/15 minutes or so! - following them with our eyes across the full width of the amazing Norwegian star-crowded firmament ( before falling asleep on my grandfather's lawn). In fact, we would also observe a great deal of meteors - briefly flashing by as seen in the above gif - so I am not saying the above clip is necessarily doctored. You'd have to be quite lucky to capture such a shot with a camera / telescope - but it is certainly not impossible to do so.

Unsurprisingly, Wickedpedia 'spices up' that article with lots of fear-mongering (NASA-inspired) rubbish - what with the potential catastrophic dangers of big asteroids colliding with Earth with the force of ten zillion Hiroshima bombs and so forth... :rolleyes:
"On March 23, 1989 the 300-meter (1,000-foot) diameter Apollo asteroid 4581 Asclepius (1989 FC) missed the Earth by 700,000 kilometers (430,000 mi) passing through the exact position where the Earth was only 6 hours before. If the asteroid had impacted it would have created the largest explosion in recorded history, twelve times more powerful than the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever exploded by man."
So, yes Pinaki: I fully concur with you that the idea of the dots we see flying across the night skies being man-made satellites (most of them supposedly as big as washing machines - if not smaller) which reflect sunlight - is utterly ludicrous. Instead, it makes perfect sense that these would simply be one of our 8880 Near Earth asteroids flying by. Does it not?

To be sure, some of them occasionally fly by as close as this :

Asteroid 2005 YU55 to Approach Earth on November 8, 2011
Image
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news171.html

They are not planes. And they are not man-made satellites. Only Near Earth asteroids.

Man-made satellites are only Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs).

This is an interesting idea Simon.

However I am not sure how that would work in regard to the predictions of sigthings of man-made satellites.

I am no atronomer but I imagine astronomers would pick up on the obvious association between the predicted paths of satellites and those of NEAs.
Post Reply