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 CitronBleu on August 31st, 2013, 4:50 am

Where do the 480 tons of solid-fuel for Ariane 5's two rocket boosters come from?


Image

Ariane 5 has two EAPs (Étages d'Accélération à Poudre), which are both alleged to carry a total of 480 tons of the following rubbery material called propergol solide:

Image
I could only find a picture of this magical solid fuel from a snapshot taken from French popular documentary series C'est Pas Sorcier.

Image
Ariane 5 EAP

The European Space Agency allegedly sends up to six Ariane 5 rockets every year into LEO, therefore the yearly production of propergol solide destined to the Kourou rocket base in French Guyana should be equal to 6 x 480 tons = 2,880 tons.

Yet I cannot find a single picture of a single gram of propergol solide, anywhere, besides the picture above which is a snapshot from a French science vulgarization TV show.
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 266
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby CitronBleu on August 31st, 2013, 4:36 pm

Where do the 480 tons of solid-fuel for Ariane 5's two rocket boosters come from? (2)


The only mention I found of propergol solide fabrication in France is government-owned company SNPE (Société Nationale des Produits Explosifs) and its branch division Matériaux Energétiques (SME) which makes "one of the ingredients," but mostly is involved in all types of agents of death such as ballistic missiles, warheads, and explosives for the military. SNPE also has another division in Guyana called Regulus, located on the Kourou base, where most of the solid fuel propellant is allegedly mixed and produced for the Ariane rocket.
(http://www.industrie.com/chimie/propergol-regulus-investit-a-kourou,3628)

There are several websites/webzines which document the production site, all of which emphasize the acute complexity and inherent risk of the production-process.* (all in French, see below)

A few observations:

None show, illustrate, or picture at any time the propergol solide. Only the buidings, machinery, and personel involved in the production process are portrayed.

There is no portrayal of the extreme, hostile environment which ought to occur in such a chemical factory: where are the heat, steam, toxic vapors, special suits worn by the personnel?

After reading the "Latitudes" webzine report I searched for six or seven of the names of the personnel quoted/pictured in the report and none could be found anywhere else on Google search engine but as quoted in the above mentioned report.

Much of the machinery names which can be found on the vehicles pictured at the Kourou factory are of the same company which builds the transport vehicles for NASA.

One thing which troubles me about all this space technology is the exponential risk created by the extreme complexity of the fabrication and launch process. Reading about the solid fuel production process for the Ariane 5 rocket I am shocked by the number of steps involved in its creation, each one multiplying the mission failure risk. There are dozens if not hundreds of steps to produce the fuel. If any one step goes wrong, if the proper thickness or homogeneity of the solid fuel is not achieved, then that one, single, failed step will jeopardize the success of the entire mission. If we include every component of the creation from scratch to launch of a rocket, then we could be considering tens of thousands of steps, the success of the mission depending on the proper completion of each one - which begs the question: at what point does it become statistically impossible for a rocket launch to be successful?

*
"Latitudes" Webzine, CNES (French space agency) information magazine, Report on the UPG (Usine de Propergol Guyanais), July 2011 http://en.calameo.com/read/0015003950c018c448b90
Also:
CapcomEspace website, with pictures of the site http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/CSG/ELA3/UPG.htm
and a webpage from CNES, illustrated with cartoon drawings http://www.cnes-csg.fr/automne_modules_files/csg_pub/articles/r358_P18-Dossier_L5_N71.pdf.
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 266
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby CitronBleu on September 1st, 2013, 1:17 pm

Here Monsieur Rudolph Horth, responsible for transport services of Ariane 5 from the assembly building to the launch pad at the Kourou base in French Guyana, demonstrates his skill at driving the transport vehicle without his hands:

Image GIFSoup
Regardez-moi! (Look at me!)

Image

From: C'est pas Sorcier!: Ariane 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVj0WzlPVV8
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 266
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simps on September 5th, 2013, 7:04 pm

I find the graphic below (from wikipedia) quite strange. I'm no astrophysicist, but I understood that orbiting bodies usually follow the same or similar orbital plane as the body they are orbiting?

GPS Constellation
Image

Here is our solar system (from Leicester University):

Image

Saturn (wingmakers.co.nz):

Image

Can any of the more knowledgeable members comment on whether the 'fact' that GPS satellites seem to be able to orbit however they damn well please, is likely?

???
Image
simps
Newbie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: September 4th, 2013, 9:02 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby icarusinbound on September 6th, 2013, 2:34 am

May I respectfully comment, simps, that with your own personally-stated wide-angle technical background, one could be forgiven for having perhaps expected your (presumably) good self to have directly provided this forum with a critiqued comment on this particular backstory:

http://www.astronautix.com/project/navstar.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/project/navstar.htm wrote:Delta II expendable launch vehicles are used to launch the GPS satellites from Cape Canaveral Air Station, FL, into six planes of circular 20,200 km / 12-hour orbits


Perhaps you've navigated me into biting, but I'm well-overdue for a shot at this.

So simps- what's your take on the paradox? Apparently-incontrovertible functionality across the world, yet so many backdrop curiosities push to the fore, including:

- the true mechanism of delivery of satellite systems (in all senses)
- fundamental puzzles as to how 3-axis repositioning really happens in a vacuum
- Apparent fabrication of visual imagery representing mankind's International PlaySpace Station
- I shan't mention Apollo (in a sense it's beyond more words)...but I will commend Simon's shuttle launch 'collage of coincidentals'

Do you feel the demonstrable capabilities of so-called 'satellite' navigation and telecommunications outweigh the strangely-artificial marketing and representational sweet-wrapper we are all tossed?

Anyway, you're a guest here, and I've been gabbling away. I forget my manners- please, go ahead and sing. I may go and prepare supper.
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: November 28th, 2011, 9:49 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby CitronBleu on September 6th, 2013, 3:04 pm

Here is Artemis, one of the first satellites placed into geo-orbit by French rocket Ariane 5. Due to a defect in the Ariane 5 propulsion system, this satellite, launched on 12 July 2001 and intended to be placed into a 36,000 km orbit, only reached 17,000Km.

Image
Model of Artemis satellite in original size

By it's own propulsion system, this satellite then proceeded to successfully place itself to its intended 36,000Km orbital target.

As per wikipedia:

Launched by an Ariane 5 rocket on 12 July 2001, it originally reached an orbit much lower than planned (590 km x 17487 km). It was remotely reconfigured to reach its intended station by means of a novel procedure. First, over the course of about a week, most of its chemical fuel was used to put it in a 31,000 km circular orbit (by raising first the apogee then the perigee, going via a 590 km x 31000 km orbit). Then, its electric-ion motor — originally intended for station keeping and for firing a few minutes at a time — was instead kept running for most of 18 months, pushing the spacecraft into an outward spiral trajectory. It gained altitude at the rate of about 15 km per day, until it reached the intended geostationary orbit.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_(satellite)
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 266
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simps on September 6th, 2013, 10:48 pm

icarusinbound: You've misunderstood me on the following points:

(a) - I explicitly stated in my introduction that I'm a technician, not an engineer. You overestimate me.
(b) - I was not attempting to make you, or anyone else, 'bite'. I asked a question, nothing more.
(c) - Currently, I have no firm take on the 'paradox'. I believe it to be likely that nothing has ever entered "Outer Space" because I doubt there is such a thing.

As to why the functionalities provided by these 'achievements' are possible, I'm not sure yet. But, rest assured, I'm working on it.

Hope you enjoyed your supper.
simps
Newbie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: September 4th, 2013, 9:02 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2013, 11:15 pm

CitronBleu wrote:By it's own propulsion system, this satellite then proceeded to successfully place itself to its intended 36,000Km orbital target.


Oh well, Citronbleu...

It must be a piece of cake nowadays for satellites to propel themselves up to the desired altitude & lock into geostationary orbit... :rolleyes:

Just consider the SYNCOM "barrel" - which allegedly was designed back in the 1960's and was later (in the 80's) supposedly "unloaded from the payload bay of the Space Shuttle at about 400km of altitude" ... successively thrusting itself up to 36.000km altitude and placing itself in geostationary orbit - all on its own! No report of its steering and braking devices available - but WHO cares? We are just supposed to believe in those things - lock, stock and barrel!

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncom

You've gotta love those artists' impressions of our beloved satellites. That's all we have of them, in order to 'prove' their existence! :P
Image
Source (NASA): "The first Geosynchronous Satellite": https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagega ... e_388.html

Quite frankly, it is becoming very hard for me to believe that people still believe in satellites - but I guess that's just me! In any case, I feel that I have evolved since this very thread started in August 2011. I sure wasn't quite ready to accept the non-existence of satellites back then.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6524
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby CitronBleu on September 7th, 2013, 12:05 am

simonshack wrote:
CitronBleu wrote:By it's own propulsion system, this satellite then proceeded to successfully place itself to its intended 36,000Km orbital target.


Oh well, Citronbleu...

It must be a piece of cake nowadays for satellites to propel themselves up to the desired altitude & lock into geostationary orbit... :rolleyes:

Just consider the SYNCOM "barrel" - which allegedly was designed back in the 1960's and was later (in the 80's) supposedly "unloaded from the payload bay of the Space Shuttle at about 400km of altitude" ... successively thrusting itself up to 36.000km altitude and placing itself in geostationary orbit - all on its own! No report of its steering and braking devices available - but WHO cares? We are just supposed to believe in those things - lock, stock and barrel!


It's also quite surprising that engineers who failed to correctly deploy a big metal can on the proper orbit then successfully proceeded to invent, as it is whizzing at galactic speed through the cold void of space, an entirely new, revolutionary, and never-tested propulsion technique...
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 266
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby lux on September 23rd, 2013, 8:37 pm

Just spotted this video of HAM radio hobbyists communicating by bouncing signals off the moon. They call it EME (Earth-Moon-Earth) Communications. Or, at least they say they can.


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

The wiki says this has been going on since 1946.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby ElSushi on October 13th, 2013, 7:56 pm

Looks like Sir David Bowie himself has been looking for satellites at least since the release of his album "Earthling" in 1997. Is Bowie on board with us regarding the sordid satellites " issue " ? Could be...especially when we look into the lyrics.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2FUhqM85bM

Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop

Where do we go from here?
There's something in the sky
Shining in the light
Spinning and far away

Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, Boy's own
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop, (Satellite)
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, (Satellite), Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop, (Satellite)
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, (Satellite), Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop
Looking for satellites
Looking for satellites

Where do we go to now?
There's nothing in our eyes
As lonely as a moon
Misty and far away

Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop, (Satellite)
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, (Satellite), Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop, (Satellite)
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, (Satellite), Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop
Looking for satellites
Looking for satellites

Satellite, Satellite, Satellite, Satellite

Looking satellites
Looking satellites

Where do we go from here?


Bowie is clearly referring to the dumb programs endlessly broadcasted by the World Bullcrap TV Incorporation but could this be also related to the so-called satellites ? Is Bowie giving us some sort of subtle hint ?
ElSushi
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 9:53 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby lux on November 6th, 2013, 6:28 am

Posted for your amusement ...

There is a 1½ hour History Channel documentary on Sputnik called "Sputnik Mania" aka "Sputnik Fever" and based on Paul Dickenson's book Sputnik: The Shock of the Century. You can watch it online here (there may be commercials).

The film leads us through the first year following the launch of Sputnik. In 1958, a nuclear weapon was tested in the atmosphere by either Russia or the United States every three days. By the end of that year, nothing was the same. Sputnik spurred us into an arms and space race, necessitating the creation of an academic army of scientists and engineers. This led to the development of NASA, massive reforms in our education system, and the discoveries that enabled many of the consumer technologies on which we depend today (The Internet, cell phones, global positioning systems, credit card verifications and high-definition televisions). The launch of Sputnik also led to widespread panic, fear and anxiety as leading politicians and the media whipped the public into an escalating mass frenzy - only months after Sputnik's launch, 60% of Americans thought that nuclear war was imminent and that 50% of the American population would likely die (Gallup Poll, April 1958).


Here is a trailer:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXS1-X3ehh0
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on November 10th, 2013, 2:06 pm

*
A couple of days ago, this was in the Italian TV and newspapers...


"Satellite Goce cadrà sulla Terra tra il 9 e l'11 novembre 2013, Italia 'a rischio' "
"The Goce satellite will fall on Earth between november 9 and 11, Italy 'at risk' "

http://www.ogginotizie.it/279714-satell ... n9_OXBWySo


Image

In English (New York Times):
"Satellite Will Fall to Earth, but No One Is Sure Where" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/scien ... .html?_r=0


As the story goes, the GOCE satellite (aka "the Ferrari of space") is expected to "break up in 50 parts" (the largest weighing up to 100kg) which will rain down on our heads sometime / somewhere tomorrow, November 11 (or 11/11, of course). Italian TV / news media, having diffused for two full days the terrifying news that GOCE may fall somewhere in Northern Italy (with Italy's "FEMA" advising people to stay inside their homes!), today say that alert has been lifted: GOCE will not, after all, fall anywhere near Italy (sorry folks, we were just joking!) :rolleyes:


The satellite-silliness just goes on and on...


**********
Edit to add:

A surreal quote from the 'father' of the GOCE satellite:

"L'aerodinamica gli ha consentito di essere controllato con una forza minima: aveva un motore a ioni in grado di fare una pressione pari a quella esercitata da un fiocco di neve che impatta su una petroliera"".

"Aerodynamics [Its aerodynamical shape] allowed it to be controlled [propelled?] with minimal force: it had an ion engine which was able to exert a pressure equal to that of a snowflake impacting an oil tanker."

http://torino.repubblica.it/cronaca/201 ... -70628605/
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6524
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on November 10th, 2013, 8:15 pm

*


The "SPUTNIK" launch platform : STILL GOING STRONG 56 YEARS ON !


Well, ladies and gents,

Just in case you don't know, "SPUTNIK 1" was, allegedly, the first man-made satellite ever to be launched (Oct4, 1957) - by the Soviets from the BAIKONUR cosmodrome. Lately, I have been looking into the Sputnik saga at length, but before I start sharing with you the hilarious historical tale of this earliest of space propaganda-hoaxes, let me just post this image-comparison between what we are meant to believe are the very first SPUTNIK launch (1957) and one of the very latest SOYUZ launches (2013):

Image
sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS91qhYVIHg --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rO7EF5IOEY

That's right - not much appears to have changed in the last 56 years over in Russia : They apparently still use the very same rocket launch-pad structure - and still shoot their launches from the same camera angle with, it seems, pretty much the same photographic quality. We must admire the Russians ability to make the most out of their shoe-string space budget!...


***********
To be fair, NASA also strives to contain their space-imagery budget, year after year: viewtopic.php?p=2354060#p2354060 :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6524
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on November 11th, 2013, 11:48 pm

*

Phew - well THAT was a close call! :o :rolleyes:

After Italy was terrorized by the media for two days - concerning the possible crash of the "GOCE" satellite upon our heads, it apparently crashed somewhere else, at 1am CET - today November 11...


"The space agency (ESA) posted on its website that GOCE re-entered Earth's atmosphere about 1 a.m. CET on a "pass
that extended across Siberia, the western Pacific Ocean, the eastern Indian Ocean and Antarctica."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/11 ... z2kNcDPlo8


Good heavens - what clowns...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6524
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests