Satellites : general discussion and musings

[Libero]

I'm certainly no expert in the matter, but I would tend to lean toward the non-existence of satellites myself just from a strict business sense. Understanding that many satellites supposedly have redundant partners that theoretically could take over in event of failure, it would just seem too risky to base my entire business model on something electronic hovering around up in the sky that, if down, could take weeks or months to repair or upgrade, and I know it has been discussed within the forum as to if this may even be possible. It would seem much easier to manage this type of risk and these type of operations from Earth.

I have a portable satellite radio unit in my car, and, funny enough, it has a satellite and terrestrial signal meter.

[reichstag fireman]

At the moment I endorse this position of yours Heiwa. Most of the "space race" and the whole of the nuclear threat must be faked, but so far I am not convinced by all the arguments brought forward for the non-existence of satellites.

And on the contrary, I am quite convinced that man has never flown any higher than an altitude of a few tens of kilometres, and that was only in a gas-filled balloon. So I am even more sure that man has never put anything "into orbit".

I am also somewhat embarrassed by the excessive technological/specialized lingo that is being thrown around in this thread. I am worried this could all be pseudo-science used either as a leverage or as a smoke screen.

Well it's no smokescreen from me. How can that be helped though? Here's an obviously fraudulent paper - from 1962. Almost from the birth of the "satellite" hoax:

http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/art ... anning.pdf

And here's one from 2001 that I would say is accurate and honest.

http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/cl ... onbend.pdf

Here's Appleton's most celebrated paper from 1932. I would say that it is accurate, except the findings are not pertinent to microwaves - the wavelengths used for "satellite" communications - since they weren't easy to generate in 1932.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5245479 ... 245684.pdf

It is not enough if some of us tell us they are "experts" in this or other fields. Either their language is meant for everyone or it is just a weapon used against everyone.

Also citing "papers" as if they were facts might not always work, because there is good reason to think that the Academy normally pollutes scientific truths with propaganda. Especially when working for and with the military.

That can't be helped though. Surely it is for each to decide whether the tenet of a paper is valid.

That 1932 paper from Appleton (above) to my layman's understanding is valid. But Appleton is lying by claiming credit for research that was not his own. A commonstance for the British Empire. Newton? Was he really the first to discover the Laws of Gravity? Nope. Charles Darwin - the son of a banker, twice-failed undergraduate. Did he really pen Survival of the Fittest, and birth the concept of Natural Selection? Nope.

So in the case of Appleton, falsely claiming credit is significant in its own right. The British Empire was seizing theories researched by others. I'm not even convinced that Appleton conducted any research before Americans Breit & Tuve (in 1926). And even less sure that Appleton published anything before then, as he claims. Try and find Appleton's 1925 paper that he cites in his own bibliography. Where is that paper? Since he boasts of beating Breit & Tuve by 12 months, it's surely a hugely important paper. So why isn't it publicly available?

Everyone is told to lie in research. Claiming that experiments are a success when they are not, etc.. Is the theory of ionospheric refraction of radiowaves correct, though? Of course, yes! Ionospheric refraction cannot be disputed. What would make it easier for the layman to understand this concept? Bear in mind, I am a layman myself. But maybe that is to advantage. Which aspects are difficult to grasp?

[Heiwa]

Just for the sake of good order I must say that I believe in the small geostationary TV broadcasting satellites above the Equator, i.e. rotating exactly with the Earth thus appearing stationary, and that I don’t believe in a reflective [refractive?] Ionosphere.

In that case, ionospheric refraction must be a myth?

I have the benefit to live in sunny southern France with a view of the Medeiterranean sea and way out, below the horizon is Corsica. However, now and then on brisk winter mornings I can see Corsica ... due to the light being reflected in the atmosphere ... which can be described mathematically.
Re the ionosphere I believe in quoting properly. It seems easier to put geostationary TV broadcasting satellites above the equator, above the ionosphere, than to build TV broadcasting stations in Sahara, Madagascar or in the middle of the Pacific.

[reichstag fireman]

Re the ionosphere I believe in quoting properly. It seems easier to put geostationary TV broadcasting satellites above the equator, above the ionosphere, than to build TV broadcasting stations in Sahara, Madagascar or in the middle of the Pacific.

The actual site of the skywave transmitter is not important. The skywave transmitter and parabolic antenna can be on the top of a van in West London, or hidden in the depths of Madagascar, or on some uninhabited atoll in the middle of the south Pacific.

The key question is whether ionospheric refraction of radiowaves is a reality or a myth.

And for those who say it is a myth, please explain how a radiowave can travel from, e.g. Cornwall to Newfoundland, despite the curvature of the earth.

Back in 1901, that puzzled the Marconi Company. But by the 1920s, a pretty robust explanatory model had been developed. Which we now know as skywave radiowave propagation. The refraction (bending) of radiowaves in the ionosphere.

[Frost]

Does anyone know why in the google maps there is no real satellite pictures of the oceans. Instead we can see this:


http://www.myalbum.co.uk/index.php?m=ft ... y=D3UD3YFT

It's clearly blue plaster. I can understand that if the aerial photos were made by planes there was no point to fly above the oceans to obtain the images of water, but having the satellites what's the problem? Maybe there is some official explanation of it? Also when you zoom some area the images change colors

http://www.myalbum.co.uk/index.php?m=ft ... y=DIICGF3I


This one is a step closer

http://www.myalbum.co.uk/index.php?m=ft ... y=XYK8OCTQ

I wouldn't expect more colorful images from further away.

[Dmitry]

Does anyone know why in the google maps there is no real satellite pictures of the oceans. Instead we can see this:

http://www.myalbum.co.uk/index.php?m=ft ... y=D3UD3YFT

It's clearly blue plaster.

Isn't it a picture of sea bottom? Near continents, their continuations seem to be very natural. For a map of any sort, the bottom relief is mush more informative than water waves.

[Dmitry]

Re the ionosphere I believe in quoting properly. It seems easier to put geostationary TV broadcasting satellites above the equator, above the ionosphere, than to build TV broadcasting stations in Sahara, Madagascar or in the middle of the Pacific.

The actual site of the skywave transmitter is not important. The skywave transmitter and parabolic antenna can be on the top of a van in West London, or hidden in the depths of Madagascar, or on some uninhabited atoll in the middle of the south Pacific.

reichstag fireman,

Do you know why parabolic antennas are used at all?

[Dmitry]

I'm certainly no expert in the matter, but I would tend to lean toward the non-existence of satellites myself just from a strict business sense. Understanding that many satellites supposedly have redundant partners that theoretically could take over in event of failure, it would just seem too risky to base my entire business model on something electronic hovering around up in the sky that, if down, could take weeks or months to repair or upgrade, and I know it has been discussed within the forum as to if this may even be possible. It would seem much easier to manage this type of risk and these type of operations from Earth.

I have a portable satellite radio unit in my car, and, funny enough, it has a satellite and terrestrial signal meter.

Certainly, using satellites, people always have some risk to fail the transmission.

But with skywaves, AFAIK, there is just no chance at all to establish the transmission with the desired level of quality.

Or, you can try it and, in case of success, you'll obtain an enormous market. If all TV/internet services by alleged satellites are fraud and the space myth is invented only to sell cheap toys at high price, what can stop you from selling same thing much cheaper? Customers would be very grateful. If it will work.

[Dmitry]

Is the theory of ionospheric refraction of radiowaves correct, though? Of course, yes! Ionospheric refraction cannot be disputed. What would make it easier for the layman to understand this concept? Bear in mind, I am a layman myself. But maybe that is to advantage. Which aspects are difficult to grasp?

Do steam engines work? Yes!!! I've even seen one.

But it seems to me that modern locomotives are really electric/diesel. Maybe it's a hoax, maybe evil fraudsters hide microscopic steam engines inside... But it seems to me that steam engines are just outdated.

The same way, skywave propagation exists and works, but is not enough to provide the needed quality of service. Laymen are very welcome to prove their claims experimentally or at least with consistent calculations, not only random copy/pasted formulas. Today any of us have many more technical possibilities than Marconi has.

[fbenario]

This seminal paper from 1926 authored by true pioneers (albeit American pioneers) Dr G. Breit and Dr M.A. Tuve.

The bolded phrase is an entirely unnecessary and bad faith slur that detracts from the clarity of your post.

[fbenario]

I have a portable satellite radio unit in my car, and, funny enough, it has a satellite and terrestrial signal meter.

1. Right now I'm with Heiwa and Nonho that the nonexistence of satellites is still, at best, unproven by this thread.

I've owned a MyFi since 2005; MyFis are portable SiriusXm receivers. (It entertains me musically on my daily cycling.) I understand from XM that the terrestrial indicator shows the strength of the radio towers on land that forward the satellite's signal horizontally - contrasted with the satellite's vertical radio signal.

I know absolutely no science whatsoever, so I haven't a clue whether that contrast is sensible - or even possible - as a matter of physics. Don't beat me up if it is a laughable absurdity. My goal here is to share XM's reason for the terrestrial signal-strength indicator.


2. I'm also with Nonho that this thread includes far too many science/math equations and lingo, all scientifically unintelligible to my uneducated ear - which means all that work does little to forward our goal of understanding, and then communicating to the world, the identity and existence of media fakery.

[reichstag fireman]

This seminal paper from 1926 authored by true pioneers (albeit American pioneers) Dr G. Breit and Dr M.A. Tuve.

The bolded phrase is an entirely unnecessary and bad faith slur that detracts from the clarity of your post.

It was intended to contrast the joke below, about the purloining of American research by the British. Taken out of context, of course it looks offensive. Which leaves your sincerity open to question

[reichstag fireman]

with skywaves, AFAIK, there is just no chance at all to establish the transmission with the desired level of quality.

Please explain the "desired level of quality" for the Digital Video Broadcasting standard.

Please tell us how many Bits in Error the DVB system has been built to tolerate.

The answer to save your effort is 2^10-4 bits in error are tolerated in the datastream. The answer can be confirmed in the DVB-S specifications [1]

So in DVB-S, one bit in every 5000, can be erroneous. That's a massive error rate, for which tolerance was built into the system in the early 1990s! The internet would collapse with a BER that bad!

Perhaps we can also look at the channel capacity of, for example, the latest, shiniest ASTRA/SES non-existent" "satellite" - the "Astra 1N".

The "Astra 1N" was purportedly launched late 2011 and supposedly went into service only in the last few weeks. The finite life of "satellites" and the launching of new "birds" ties in with the "satellite" re-branding fraud. Just another swindle from the gangsters of the City of London, tapping the pension fund managers to finance the building and launching of new "satellites"!

Astra 1N supposedly has transponders with bandwidth of 33MHz, supporting 40Mb/s (AFTER Reed-Solomon error correction!). Using MPEG2 compression, that bandwidth can multiplex up to a dozen TV stations in standard definition, or three hi-definition TV stations with object-based MPEG4. Extraordinary efficiency.

It seems easier to put geostationary TV broadcasting satellites above the equator, above the ionosphere, than to build TV broadcasting stations in Sahara, Madagascar or in the middle of the Pacific.

Amazing stuff!

It sounds like you are quite sure that the 10GHz "satellite" signal (of 33MHz bandwdith) rather than refracting from the stone's throw distance of 275km up in the ionosphere, has actually travelled an astonishing 66,000 kilometres, to and from the Arthur C Clarke "Satellite" Belt?!

Do you want to buy a bridge? I have a choice for sale, for the discerning collector of bridges! Suspension Bridges, Tower Bridges, Wheatstone Bridges, Angelica Bridges, you name it, we sell it!

Also Dmitry, you offered to calculate the refractive index (mu), for whatsgoingon's estimated refractive height of 600km for skywave propagation of a "satellite" footprint covering NW Europe using a supposed TX site located in N.Algeria.

You and I both know that is physically impossible. However, perhaps you could calculate a valid index and show your proof, just to illustrate that the TX site for a "satellite" footprint covering NW Europe must be far further south than Algeria.. e.g. Australasia.

[1] http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/300 ... 10102p.pdf

[Libero]

A company called Sea Launch appears to be providing the ocean based launch point for many of the entertainment related satellites including those from XM Radio, Dish Networks and DirecTV here in the states. I was wondering if Heiwa may have any familiarity with the company's operations?

I'm not located too far out of Long Beach, the location of the command ship if we need any in-person pictures and if a picture of the command ship would even assist us. It's unclear as to where they keep the floating launch pad platform.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch_Commander

[reichstag fireman]

I have a portable satellite radio unit in my car, and, funny enough, it has a satellite and terrestrial signal meter.

1. Right now I'm with Heiwa and Nonho that the nonexistence of satellites is still, at best, unproven by this thread.

That's a shame. You accept the moon landing was a hoax, the Mars missions, too, and 9/11, 7/7 etcetera... but on occasion, you do like to trust Them, if only a little bit, to accept at face value the satellite scam?! Always a shame to be deceived but as ever your prerogative!

I've owned a MyFi since 2005; MyFis are portable SiriusXm receivers. (It entertains me musically on my daily cycling.) I understand from XM that the terrestrial indicator shows the strength of the radio towers on land that forward the satellite's signal horizontally - contrasted with the satellite's vertical radio signal...

My goal here is to share XM's reason for the terrestrial signal-strength indicator.

It's not a product available here. Brits are way too mean to pay $150 + £12 a month for music, so it's not even clear what it is. If there is a network of ground-based 'repeaters' which relay the "satellite" signal over VHF/UHF, then why bother with a "satellite" receiver in the device at all?

From glancing briefly at the homepage and the wonkypedia entry, the system apparently supports "140 channels" of music at up 320kbps per channel. That's the sales blurb.. The truth on wikipedia is a system with a bitrate of just 39kbps per station or even worse. I'm listening to an MP3 at 173.2 kbps on the PC and that is only just pleasing to the ear. 39kbps ouch..

Another assumption here is that all 140 channels are available simultaneously. Probably not.. maybe 70 channels at most?

So there is a ~ 3 Mbps (39k*70) bandwidth requirement for the SiriusXM (non-) "satellite". With an efficient modulation scheme (4-QAM?), those 70 stations can be multiplexed and squeezed into a single radio channel of just a few MHz in width. With the bitstream spread across multiple subcarriers packed tightly into that radio channel, each subcarrier carrying a symbol of just a few data bits, the baud rate would drop to single digits.

And that's how, even with a very low signal to noise ratio, given the appalling reception the tiny panel antenna in that device must provide, the bitstream from the skywave signal can still be recovered. The same is true of GPS (another skywave technology) - the baudrate for that too is extremely low, which again is used to overcome the low signal to noise ratio.

2. I'm also with Nonho that this thread includes far too many science/math equations and lingo, all scientifically unintelligible to my uneducated ear - which means all that work does little to forward our goal of understanding, and then communicating to the world, the identity and existence of media fakery.

It's not my field either, but after a few days reading, it's quite possible for all of us to understand skywave radiowave propagation as competently as anyone embarking on an undergraduate astrophysics degree programme.

If this doesn't fit into the remit of the site as a whole, then I understand that.