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.
Post Reply
Mickey
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Mickey » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:37 pm

Simon

That is a lot of $$ :D But while browsing the site, I ran across this page. http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/#download
There is a shareware version of the Winhelp edition containing only 1/4th of the information included in the full product. (therefore numerous items are missing and some links are "broken"). This will let you evaluate our Winhelp product. It is downloadable from the link below:

http://www.TBS-satellite.com/ftp/tsew/tse064.zip
There are some old archives here as well http://www.tbs-satellite.com/ftp/tsew/pub-archives/

Maybe it can be helpful till you get your hands on the full product (Again very $$ :wacko:). I am on Windows 7, so I had to get a patch from Microsoft to open the help file included in tse064.zip. They can be downloaded from here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917607

reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:38 pm

simonshack wrote:*

THE SATELLITE ENCYCLOPEDIA http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/

Does anyone here have 7649 euro($9802) to spare? That's what we'd need to fork out to gain full/global access (as an enterprise) for all our members to the SATELLITE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Satellite info doesn't come cheap !

http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/order.html#how
Pennies from heaven! And for public domain guff scraped from other equally disreputable web resources.

So who is the internet mastermind of THE SATELLITE ENCYCLOPEDIA and tbs-satellite.com ?
# whois tbs-satellite.com
# L'outil du Whois est à votre disposition dans le but de vous fournir l'information seulement..

Domain name: tbs-satellite.com
Registrant:
TBS INTERNET
Jean-Philippe DONNIO
22 rue de Bretagne
CAEN, 14000
FR
+33.276305900
dns@tbs-internet.com
Monsieur DONNIO. Who he? From LinkedIn.Com: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/jpdonnio
Jean-Philippe Donnio, President, SSL certificate expert and satellite analyst at TBS Internet, Le Havre Area, France
Résumé de Jean-Philippe Donnio
Languages: French (mother language), English (brought up as a bilingual child), German (scolar)
Expérience de Jean-Philippe Donnio
President - TBS Internet - July 1996 – Present (16 years 3 months)
Satellite Analyst = The Satellite Encyclopedia - February 1993 – Present (19 years 8 months)
France exclusive representative - Thawte - December 1996 - August 2003 (6 years 9 months)
French reseller - DigitalNation - July 1996 – November 2000 (4 years 5 months)
Technical Manager - CPOD Provider - January 1996 – January 2000 (4 years 1 month)
Journalist - TELE-satellite Medien GmbH - March 1995 – June 1998 (3 years 4 months)
For six years, DONNIO (assuming he exists) was France's key player for THAWTE.

That'll be the same THAWTE founded by self-styled "benevolent dictator" MARK SHUTTLEWORTH.
That'll be the same SHUTTLEWORTH claiming to be "the First African in Space". :rolleyes:

Small world, eh?! "DONNIO" (whoever he is, if indeed anyone) spent six years in bed with SHUTTLEWORTH.

From http://www.yatedo.com/p/Jean-Philippe+D ... 677eb4be57#
"I was...in charge of Thawte's representation in France and Belgium. Involved everything from business development & pre-sales to order processing and customer support. Interaction with founder Mark Shuttleworth (working with Mark was a real pleasure).
And from the Official SHUTTLEWORTH Biography: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/biography
After graduating from the University of Cape Town with a degree in finance and information technology, Mark [SHUTTLEWORTH] founded THAWTE, a company specialising in digital certificates and cryptography..

[SHUTTLEWORTH] moved to London in 2001, and began preparing for the First African in Space mission, training in Star City, Russia, and Khazakstan. In April 2002 he flew in space, as a cosmonaut member of the crew of Soyuz mission TM34 to the International Space Station...

Today [SHUTTLEWORTH] lives on the lovely Isle of Man [internationally-renowned haven for money launderers] along with 12 ducks, the equally lovely Claire, two black bitches and the occasional itinerant sheep. [and an awful lot of other people's money]
An interesting tie-up here with THAWTE, and "DONNIO" and his self-proclaimed expertise in cryptographic certification. This is a favourite haunt for organised crime, an industry rife with financial frauds on an unimaginable scale. :o
..
Of course this is all hypothetical, since the integrity of MARK SHUTTLEWORTH, founder of THAWTE, who boasts of being the "First African into Space", is obviously beyond reproach!

Image
CUNNING SMIRK: MARK SHUTTLEWORTH (L) and "JEAN-PHILIPPE DONNIO" (R)

"DONNIO" is very reclusive, elusive even. For a man purported involved in such prestigious work over so many years, it seems there's only one photo of him! ;) Where all the photos of "DONNIO" attending those ultra-dull industry events around the world?

Just the one (80x80 pixel black and white) photo of "DONNIO"?! Fancy that!
Last edited by reichstag fireman on Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

CitronBleu
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by CitronBleu » Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:27 pm

The notion that man-made satellites do not exist is a fascinating idea. But pointing to the apparent character faults of some of the people involved does not in any way help to substantiate the claim.

Nor does pointing to a website that charges high fees for offering technical information about artificial satellites in space.

I am still interested Simon in your claim that most astronomers believe the bright moving objects in the sky are near-Earth asteroids and not satellites, and as to how astronomers go about making the distinction between them.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7129
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:18 pm

reichstag fireman wrote:
So who is the internet mastermind of THE SATELLITE ENCYCLOPEDIA and tbs-satellite.com ?
Dear RF. I have to wonder : what exactly is up with that? Why does a man working for the last 16 years for a major company (TBS) specialized in internet transaction security - have anything to do with satellites - let alone creating a Satellite Encyclopedia? Am I missing something?

Here's the TBS main page, by the way : http://www.tbs-internet.com/presentation_tbs.html.en

And here's a timeline of the TBS company (from 1994 to 2010) which starts with these lines:
-1994 Jean-Philippe DONNIO creates the Satellite Encyclopedia - in French and English
-1996 Internet outsourcing: Jean-Philippe DONNIO manages dedicated servers (Linux-based servers, hosted in Washington) and creates an ISP
-- TBS Internet becomes Thawte's representative in France.
-- Creation of TBS Internet with two activities: ISP support (Internet Service Provider) and The Satellite Encyclopedia.

http://www.tbs-internet.com/historique.html
So it would seem that TBS actually started out with this Satellite Encyclopedia? :huh: Duh - I don't get it. :(

Anyhow - great find there RF - with the THAWTE / Mark Shuttleworth connection !

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7129
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:40 pm

CitronBleu wrote: I am still interested Simon in your claim that most astronomers believe the bright moving objects in the sky are near-Earth asteroids and not satellites, and as to how astronomers go about making the distinction between them.
That's great, Citron Bleu - I'm glad you're interested in the subject. So am I. :)

Mine wasn't 'a claim' as such - it was more of a hazardous guess - please read that sentence again. I may not have worded it correctly, though. Let me re-phrase it in more detail: what I meant to say is that I doubt any astronomers would deny the existence of NEA's, that there are several thousands of them, and that they have been visible to man's naked eyes ever since the dawn of mankind. Moreover, they can be very large, so it makes sense that they would be visible without the need for a telescope - whereas man-made satellites are considerably smaller. I would be interested in learning how the latter can be seen at all - with the naked eye. That's all.

So how do (amateur) astronomers go about making the distinction between NEA's and artificial satellites? I don't know. I wish to learn.

CitronBleu
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by CitronBleu » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:09 pm

simonshack wrote:how do (amateur) astronomers go about making the distinction between NEA's and artificial satellites?
Question asked.

I'll wait for answers.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/16153 ... satellite/

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

Dmitry's argument for satellite dishes

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:39 pm

Is it a satellite or a sad-lie? So far, the argument for the existence of satellites is the following, in order of believability and provability by the average person:

1. Physical, visual evidence in the sky of passing balls of light that are not stars (the only true proof of something - of which we don't know much about at this time - but has in the past been attributed to a number of different things including angels, ghosts, man-made media satellites and other superstitious, unproven phenomena)

2. Extremely, pathetically bad photos made with very special, expensive equipment (which I have yet to investigate) of things that don't resemble anything but that which you can see with your naked eye anyway - negating the need or use of such equipment for the most part (unless you have a desire for the ball of light to have a name, in which case your expensive equipment can attach a digital label to the ball of light for some reason)

3. Government- military- and media-controlled photo sessions of places with extremely high security or highly controlled framework (such as "education" facilities), where people are apparently constructing the physical objects (but whose same sessions are tainted persistently with signs of photoshop, digital artifacting, or outright computer generated imagery (CGI))

4. Lists and matrices of recorded data, given to you upon request from the people holding that data - sometimes for a considerable sum of money. (Which sounds a bit like a Ponzi scheme alright!)

5. The broadcasts of data successfully beamed wirelessly from location to location (though, this has been done before with Walkie Talkie radios, ionosphere bounce, portable phones, transceivers, and a huge variety of other instruments prior to the advent of the satellites story).

And yet, Dmitry says signals are being sent. And are being received. Without the use of any of those technologies, but with the exclusive single-technology use of a very, very, very expensive and very, very, very difficult-to-maintain invention known as the man-made media satellite.

And this is proven because the angle of a dish.

I'm sorry but that is quite extraordinary to me. To Dmitry (a professional of something related to media - what was it again?) the angle of the dish somehow indicates to Dmitry, despite all the strangeness of the aforementioned "evidence" of man-made media satellites, that the signal cannot be sent from Earth but must be coming from far in the reaches of outer space beyond our Earth, something like hundreds - or even thousands - or tens of thousands - of kilometers away from Earth!

Dmitry, please explain in very simple terms how the angle of a dish explains that no other technology besides theoretical satellite technology is being used to transmit a signal received by this device.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7129
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:22 pm

*


****************** :wub:************************* :wub: **************************
Satellite NEAR and asteroid EROS - a love story

or how a man-made satellite met a (woman-made?) asteroid


This is - in NASA's words - a true story. A romantic close encounter between an artificial, man-made satellite with a yummy cosmic body, a potato-shaped asteroid named "EROS". In 1996, as the story goes, NASA launched the "N.E.A.R. Shoemaker" satellite which first circled our planet (capturing stunning images of the Earth and her Moon) then slingshotted away on a zillion-mile, four-year journey for a Valentine's Day orbital rendez-vous (February 14, 2000) with EROS - the second largest near-Earth asteroid.


"NEAR, the Shoemaker" ******************************** "EROS, the asteroid"
ImageImage


Here is one of NEAR's stunning portraits of the Earth and the Moon - together - snapped during its voyage to EROS.
(Naturally, all stars have been removed from this photo, so as not to spoil the nocturnal serenity of the scene.) <_<
Image
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires ... 240230.gif

The NEAR satellite then gently circled around EROS for another year (as any true gentleman would do) , gradually slowing down - and finally touching down on EROS's 'surprisingly smooth' surface on February 12, 2001. In NASA's own words, it was "the softest landing of all time", and NEAR the Shoemaker wasn't hurt in the process - although NEAR's camera "was not in a position to take images". Fortunately so, one may say - with respect to NEAR's and EROS's intimacy. As it was, a ten-day extension of NEAR's love affair with EROS was granted and "would be funded out of the project's budget reserves", as reported in this February 14 (Valentine's Day 2001) article:
"NEAR Shoemaker's mission extended by ten days"
Image
Image
http://spaceflightnow.com/near/010214extend/
Thereafter, all contacts were lost with NEAR the Shoemaker who, we are told (perhaps rejected by EROS? :( ) - froze to death...
"At 7 p.m. EST on February 28, 2001 the last data signals were received from NEAR Shoemaker before it was shut down. A final attempt to communicate with the spacecraft on December 10, 2002 was unsuccessful. This was likely due to the extreme -279 °F (-173 °C, 100 K) conditions the probe experienced while on Eros."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEAR_Shoemaker

All of which reminds me of an old Chet Baker tune... ;)

My Funny Valentine
Sweet Comic Valentine
You Make Me Smile With My Heart
Your Looks Are Laughable,
Unphotographable
Yet You're My Favorite Work Of Art


******************************************************************

Further sources and links to the NEAR / EROS love story:
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacecraft/near.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/near.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mi ... ros_2.html
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/fi ... /eros.html

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

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:15 am

Is the sun really so close to the Earth that there could be this much of a lighting difference between the moon's and the Earth's umbras? At 93 million miles away from a 239k distance? Let's say the distance from the enormous wall of light that is the sun's surface facing us is 389 times the distance the Earth from Luna. Because that's what NASA says it is.

Image

The lighting of the two bodies should be almost exactly the same to fit with NASA's story (and most scientific measurements of such things).

Ergo, this is definitely not a "photograph" by scientific standards:
Image

At best, it's a crude artistic rendering of a fiction.

reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by reichstag fireman » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:06 am

simonshack wrote:*
****************** :wub:************************* :wub: **************************
Satellite NEAR and asteroid EROS - a love story

or how a man-made satellite met a (woman-made?) asteroid


This is - in NASA's words - a true story. A romantic close encounter between an artificial, man-made satellite with a yummy cosmic body, a potato-shaped asteroid named "EROS". In 1996, as the story goes, NASA launched the "N.E.A.R. Shoemaker" satellite which first circled our planet (capturing stunning images of the Earth and her Moon) then slingshotted away on a zillion-mile, four-year journey for a Valentine's Day orbital rendez-vous (February 14, 2000) with EROS - the second largest near-Earth asteroid.
Quite a romance. Almost saucy enough for a sci-fi special in Mills & Boon!

lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:49 am

Image

And, of course, no stars.

Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Farcevalue » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:08 am

I read about this a while back: that the earth is not round. It actually makes a bit of sense to me, the earth being less regular in shape than the NASA photos would indicate. Seems the consensus of physicists is that the earth is a flattened sphere, elongated about the equator due to centrifugal force. Those absolutely round out of focus marble earth pictures seem a bit suspicious.

Image

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7129
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:22 am

*

If you ever wondered what sort of scientific advances satellites can offer to mankind - read this September 2, 2012 article:
Whisky space experiment tribute launched
ImageImage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-19456905

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7129
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:31 am

*

Yet, the original purpose of these man-made satellites was much more noble - as Wernher Von Braun explains here: <_<


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZaLvVLiP4U

CitronBleu
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by CitronBleu » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:33 am

I found this interesting diagram portraying Earth's umbra from informational site Wikipedia:

Image
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra

The length of Earth's umbra is determined to be from 1.36 to 1.40 million km long, using a simple equation available online. The shape of the umbra between the Earth and Moon, according to diagram above, does not appear to be in the shape of a cone - but more rectangular, with "straight," almost parallel edges.

I understand that at high latitudes a viewer within Earth's umbra could technically observe an object in the sky while it (the object) orbits outside of the umbra, and directly reflects the Sun's light to the viewer.

However if the viewer is standing at the Equator on a point located on the ecliptic plane, the umbra extends to a minimum of Earth's radius, 6,371 km. (If you look at the above diagram and place yourself right on Earth's equator and look in any direction, the umbra will totally cover at least one Earth radius distance within your sight).

Also I am wondering if there is a way to calculate the reflection coefficient of the Sun off an orbiting Earth satellite, according to the composition of its surface materials: mylar foil and other materials, and to correlate this figure to the size of the satellite and to the distance with the viewer in order to determine if it possible to physically detect a man-made satellite in the sky with one's own eyes? That is, if the brightness observed on a moving object in the sky can possibly be a passing artificial satellite in the first place.

Post Reply