Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 23:52:37 GMT
Aww, that gold wrapping paper is so purdy. I might re-do my bathroom in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 0:05:13 GMT
Interestingly some of these old satellites have huge orbits
Launched by NASA aboard a Delta rocket from Cape Canaveral on July 10, 1962, Telstar 1 was the first privately sponsored space launch. A medium-altitude satellite, Telstar was placed in an elliptical orbit completed once every 2 hours and 37 minutes, inclined at an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the equator, with perigee about 952 kilometres (592 mi) from Earth and apogee about 5,933 kilometres (3,687 mi) from Earth[5] This is in contrast to most of today's communications satellites, which are placed in circular geostationary orbits.[5]
Telstar would fit the year we went to see this thing because i was about 8 and it was a very big thing at the time for everybody to come out to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 0:09:31 GMT
The sensitive parts of satellites are claimed to be wrapped with gold foil were gold is the most reflective of the metals and incredibly light as it can be made to be extremely thin. So heating is not going to be a problem at all and electronics like the cold Seriously...gold foil. You said they wrapped ONLY the sensitive parts in gold foil...The temperature in the Thermosphere, in this layer, can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. FORTY FIVE HUNDRED DEGREES! Gold's melting point is 1,948°F You would not be heated in the thermosphere because there is almost nothing in the thermosphere to heat you and you would have far more material to lose heat to a far colder environment further away than the few particles around you. If the thermosphere could heat things then the denser gas beneath the thermosphere would be heated and we would all be cooked. The temperature of the thermisphere is measured at a distance by a radiometer rather than up there with a thermometer. Ie a tiny number of particles are intensely hot and give off a characteristic spectrum that can be measured at a distance. Similarly we can be freezing to death in the local presence of a few dozen light bulbs containing a tiny amount of 3000 degree tungsten filament where there are far more particles on the surface area of the tungsten filaments then there are in the local area of the thermosphere if you were up there in it. |
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 14, 2015 0:16:30 GMT
Uh huh. And how do they calculate where to let these things go so they don't fly into space or drop onto earth? And how do they then control the movements around the earth? And why don't they take real pictures of each other to help us better understand how they work?
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 0:20:42 GMT
Uh huh. And how do they calculate where to let these things go so they don't fly into space or drop onto earth? And how do they then control the movements around the earth? And why don't they take real pictures of each other to help us better understand how they work? It is very difficult to get an object on earth to fly off into space. The amount of energy needed to leave earths orbit is massive. Satellites have a fuel tank and thrusters for attitude adjustment. Real pictures of each other? Why? the people who put them there dont require them and any additional technology is more to go wrong and requires a more massive effort to put it in orbit. |
|
|
|
Post by zero11s on Apr 14, 2015 0:22:19 GMT
Seriously...gold foil. You said they wrapped ONLY the sensitive parts in gold foil...The temperature in the Thermosphere, in this layer, can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. FORTY FIVE HUNDRED DEGREES! Gold's melting point is 1,948°F You would not be heated in the thermosphere because there is almost nothing in the thermosphere to heat you and you would have far more material to lose heat to a far colder environment further away than the few particles around you. If there is nothing to heat you there is also nothing to cool you. "colder environment" Only the sun will burn your skin off. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 0:26:13 GMT
You would not be heated in the thermosphere because there is almost nothing in the thermosphere to heat you and you would have far more material to lose heat to a far colder environment further away than the few particles around you. If there is nothing to heat you there is also nothing to cool you. "colder environment" Only the sun will burn your skin off. If we are talking about the thermosphere then it has almost no particles to heat you but you have a massive number of particles that can heat other cooler more distant objects. If you are protected on the sunny side in principle i dont see a problem |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Apr 14, 2015 1:00:57 GMT
I can find what we call satellites pretty easily. Usually if I can see 1 then I can find 3 or more. I have gotten good at it and sometimes I can spot something moving before I pinpoint it.
I can also see satellite flashes. From what I can tell this is supposed to be tumbling satellite which turns in such a way to reflect the sun (in the evening/dark out). Some have been relatively quite large flashes and the flash is intermittent. No, this does not look like a plane's lights flashing. Usually I see them flying from the south to the north. And sometimes the opposite. But I have seen them go east as well.
It does seem a bit strange that I can see such bright reflections of a flash from so far away though I have seen in one sky watching session maybe 14 or 16. And that's probably at most 45 minutes. Maybe even only 25 minutes watching. I have seen some weird things too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 1:05:28 GMT
As I wrote, you need to investigate the theory of demons in the sky. To the skeptics, who wonder whether I am joking, I reiterate that I believe in demons, as I have explained plenty of times.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 14, 2015 1:23:42 GMT
They have a fuel tank and thrusters? Are they then constantly fighting gravity if they can't float away? How long do these thrusters last? Do they send astronauts up there to do refills?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 14, 2015 1:31:15 GMT
I can find what we call satellites pretty easily. Usually if I can see 1 then I can find 3 or more. I have gotten good at it and sometimes I can spot something moving before I pinpoint it. I can also see satellite flashes. From what I can tell this is supposed to be tumbling satellite which turns in such a way to reflect the sun (in the evening/dark out). Some have been relatively quite large flashes and the flash is intermittent. No, this does not look like a plane's lights flashing. Usually I see them flying from the south to the north. And sometimes the opposite. But I have seen them go east as well. It does seem a bit strange that I can see such bright reflections of a flash from so far away though I have seen in one sky watching session maybe 14 or 16. And that's probably at most 45 minutes. Maybe even only 25 minutes watching. I have seen some weird things too. And they are doing all of this "tumbling" around to reflect the sun in the VACUUM of space?!?! Nope no satellites. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 6:24:25 GMT
They have a fuel tank and thrusters? Are they then constantly fighting gravity if they can't float away? How long do these thrusters last? Do they send astronauts up there to do refills? A satellite does not have to fight gravity as such but it does have to maintain the same speed for the same orbital height. One way or another maintaining speed is a problem for a small orbiting device - at least in the longer term because of the earths atmosphere. The earths atmosphere does not have a cut off point but instead slowly becomes thinner and thinner. Some amount of the atmosphere is lost to space so any device orbiting the earth is going to eventually slow down as it strikes the particles. These particles are also going to have some impact upon the position of the device and i suppose also the solar wind is going to have some impact too. Overtime therefore you need to bring the position of the device back to where it is intended to be where altering the orbit requires massive energy and is more or less impossible without a very large amount of fuel whereas a slight rotation now and then is far easier and can be done over the expected life of the device. I have not heard of satellite refueling. It is highly uneconomic to rendezvous with an orbiting device due to the enormous amount of fuel required to change orbit. I would guess it is easier to just replace the device. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 14, 2015 7:48:22 GMT
They have a fuel tank and thrusters? Are they then constantly fighting gravity if they can't float away? How long do these thrusters last? Do they send astronauts up there to do refills? A satellite does not have to fight gravity as such but it does have to maintain the same speed for the same orbital height. One way or another maintaining speed is a problem for a small orbiting device - at least in the longer term because of the earths atmosphere. The earths atmosphere does not have a cut off point but instead slowly becomes thinner and thinner. Some amount of the atmosphere is lost to space so any device orbiting the earth is going to eventually slow down as it strikes the particles. These particles are also going to have some impact upon the position of the device and i suppose also the solar wind is going to have some impact too. Overtime therefore you need to bring the position of the device back to where it is intended to be where altering the orbit requires massive energy and is more or less impossible without a very large amount of fuel whereas a slight rotation now and then is far easier and can be done over the expected life of the device. I have not heard of satellite refueling. It is highly uneconomic to rendezvous with an orbiting device due to the enormous amount of fuel required to change orbit. I would guess it is easier to just replace the device. Thanks for participating in this discussion. Please explain what you were asked earlier regarding the light they reflect. How is this possible if the Sun is on the other side of Earth and they don't always fly so high up. How can you see the ISS ? What kind of light is it reflecting if the sunrays can't reach it? You didn't explain how they are deployed either. You can't just throw a bunch of satellites out the window and expect each one of them to assume its proper orbit. Also, you said that in space since it is pretty much vacuum you don't get heated. Well, the satellites themselves are not vacuum. Have you been high up in the mountains? It feels cold, but the Sun still burns your skin. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 8:19:17 GMT
A satellite does not have to fight gravity as such but it does have to maintain the same speed for the same orbital height. One way or another maintaining speed is a problem for a small orbiting device - at least in the longer term because of the earths atmosphere. The earths atmosphere does not have a cut off point but instead slowly becomes thinner and thinner. Some amount of the atmosphere is lost to space so any device orbiting the earth is going to eventually slow down as it strikes the particles. These particles are also going to have some impact upon the position of the device and i suppose also the solar wind is going to have some impact too. Overtime therefore you need to bring the position of the device back to where it is intended to be where altering the orbit requires massive energy and is more or less impossible without a very large amount of fuel whereas a slight rotation now and then is far easier and can be done over the expected life of the device. I have not heard of satellite refueling. It is highly uneconomic to rendezvous with an orbiting device due to the enormous amount of fuel required to change orbit. I would guess it is easier to just replace the device. Thanks for participating in this discussion. Please explain what you were asked earlier regarding the light they reflect. How is this possible if the Sun is on the other side of Earth and they don't always fly so high up. How can you see the ISS ? What kind of light is it reflecting if the sunrays can't reach it? You didn't explain how they are deployed either. You can't just throw a bunch of satellites out the window and expect each one of them to assume its proper orbit. Also, you said that in space since it is pretty much vacuum you don't get heated. Well, the satellites itself are not vacuum. Have you been high up in the mountains? It feels cold, but the Sun still burns your skin. Thanks. It is an interesting subject and we share an interest in the world around us. As i said before it had not really occured to me before that it was necessary to look for satellites at dawn or dusk. I am going to assume however they will be invisible unless they are lit by the Sun, where even tiny mirrors on earth can be seen many miles away. Many satellites are effectively large mirrors because of the gold foil and if they are old and tumbling they must surely flash somewhat but i have never noticed that is the case. As far as i recall the light is constant. I have not seen the ISS. Unfortunately I no longer live in NZ which had an outstanding view of the night sky away from cities so it will be harder for me to check if i can see satellites many hours after it gets dark when the satellite can be calculated (by some method) to be in the earths shadow. To deploy a satellite you need to get almost precisely into the required orbit the satellite requires and then release the satellite. The satellite can make small changes in its orbit so it can slow down a bit and speed up a bit. I was talking about the thermosphere not being able to heat you since it was almost a vacuum. Yes the sun would intensely heat you and you would need to be protected from that - in principle i cannot see an issue with that kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 14, 2015 8:23:52 GMT
aliveandkickingThanks for participating in this discussion. Please explain what you were asked earlier regarding the light they reflect. How is this possible if the Sun is on the other side of Earth and they don't always fly so high up. How can you see the ISS ? What kind of light is it reflecting if the sunrays can't reach it? You didn't explain how they are deployed either. You can't just throw a bunch of satellites out the window and expect each one of them to assume its proper orbit. Also, you said that in space since it is pretty much vacuum you don't get heated. Well, the satellites itself are not vacuum. Have you been high up in the mountains? It feels cold, but the Sun still burns your skin. Thanks. It is an interesting subject and we share an interest in the world around us. As i said before it had not really occured to me before that it was necessary to look for satellites at dawn or dusk. I am going to assume however they will be invisible unless they are lit by the Sun, where even tiny mirrors on earth can be seen many miles away. Many satellites are effectively large mirrors because of the gold foil and if they are old and tumbling they must surely flash somewhat but i have never noticed that is the case. As far as i recall the light is constant. I have not seen the ISS. Unfortunately I no longer live in NZ which had an outstanding view of the night sky away from cities so it will be harder for me to check if i can see satellites many hours after it gets dark when the satellite can be calculated (by some method) to be in the earths shadow. To deploy a satellite you need to get almost precisely into the required orbit the satellite requires and then release the satellite. The satellite can make small changes in its orbit so it can slow down a bit and speed up a bit. I was talking about the thermosphere not being able to heat you since it was almost a vacuum. Yes the sun would intensely heat you and you would need to be protected from that - in principle i cannot see an issue with that kind of thing. So you basically exclude the possibility of fakery? Why do you think fakery is impossible? |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 8:42:11 GMT
Thanks. It is an interesting subject and we share an interest in the world around us. As i said before it had not really occured to me before that it was necessary to look for satellites at dawn or dusk. I am going to assume however they will be invisible unless they are lit by the Sun, where even tiny mirrors on earth can be seen many miles away. Many satellites are effectively large mirrors because of the gold foil and if they are old and tumbling they must surely flash somewhat but i have never noticed that is the case. As far as i recall the light is constant. I have not seen the ISS. Unfortunately I no longer live in NZ which had an outstanding view of the night sky away from cities so it will be harder for me to check if i can see satellites many hours after it gets dark when the satellite can be calculated (by some method) to be in the earths shadow. To deploy a satellite you need to get almost precisely into the required orbit the satellite requires and then release the satellite. The satellite can make small changes in its orbit so it can slow down a bit and speed up a bit. I was talking about the thermosphere not being able to heat you since it was almost a vacuum. Yes the sun would intensely heat you and you would need to be protected from that - in principle i cannot see an issue with that kind of thing. So you basically exclude the possibility of fakery? Why do you think fakery is impossible? I have not considered it for at least the basic idea of a communications satellite. In my life time 'satellite' communications has transformed how we live one way or another. Most of have a personal gps system which is just a simple radio and computer. Today any ordinary person can be anywhere on earth and cheaply send and receive text messages to their friends in real time or more expensively have a phone call - just by taking a slightly larger than normal 'cell phone' with them called a sat phone. www.iridium.com/products/IridiumExtremeSatellitePhone.aspx?productCategoryID=1Incidently via my gliding club i knew an electronics guru who had worked in Australia on the apollo program tracking spacecraft. Without the Australians the americans had no way of communicating constantly with the astronauts so all communications to the astronauts would have to go via his equipment to space and then back to him and then forwarded to the americans. I asked him if he ever doubted they went to the moon and he told me without hesitation that with no doubt at all those signals were coming from outer space. Somebody like that would also know with certainty that a gps device was receiving signals from an object in space, how the device exactly worked and how it exactly calculated your position on earth. I was one of the first people in my club to get a personal gps device - which many regarded as cheating at the time. I was a bit mind blown by the idea i could be receiving signals from space but he said it was actually just a simple radio receiver and combined calculator for number crunching. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 14, 2015 8:59:34 GMT
So you basically exclude the possibility of fakery? Why do you think fakery is impossible? I have not considered it for at least the basic idea of a communications satellite. In my life time 'satellite' communications has transformed how we live one way or another. Most of have a personal gps system which is just a simple radio and computer. Today any ordinary person can be anywhere on earth and cheaply send and receive text messages to their friends in real time or more expensively have a phone call - just by taking a slightly larger than normal 'cell phone' with them called a sat phone. www.iridium.com/products/IridiumExtremeSatellitePhone.aspx?productCategoryID=1Incidently via my gliding club i knew an electronics guru who had worked in Australia on the apollo program tracking spacecraft. Without the Australians the americans had no way of communicating constantly with the astronauts so all communications to the astronauts would have to go via his equipment to space and then back to him and then forwarded to the americans. I asked him if he ever doubted they went to the moon and he told me without hesitation that with no doubt at all those signals were coming from outer space. Somebody like that would also know with certainty that a gps device was receiving signals from an object in space, how the device exactly worked and how it exactly calculated your position on earth. I was one of the first people in my club to get a personal gps device - which many regarded as cheating at the time. I was a bit mind blown by the idea i could be receiving signals from space but he said it was actually just a simple radio receiver and combined calculator for number crunching. Interesting indeed. Thanks for the thorough answer. How do you explain the lack of photos of satellites on the Internet? What if they somehow use astronomical radio sources instead of human-deployed satellites? |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 9:42:04 GMT
I have not considered it for at least the basic idea of a communications satellite. In my life time 'satellite' communications has transformed how we live one way or another. Most of have a personal gps system which is just a simple radio and computer. Today any ordinary person can be anywhere on earth and cheaply send and receive text messages to their friends in real time or more expensively have a phone call - just by taking a slightly larger than normal 'cell phone' with them called a sat phone. www.iridium.com/products/IridiumExtremeSatellitePhone.aspx?productCategoryID=1Incidently via my gliding club i knew an electronics guru who had worked in Australia on the apollo program tracking spacecraft. Without the Australians the americans had no way of communicating constantly with the astronauts so all communications to the astronauts would have to go via his equipment to space and then back to him and then forwarded to the americans. I asked him if he ever doubted they went to the moon and he told me without hesitation that with no doubt at all those signals were coming from outer space. Somebody like that would also know with certainty that a gps device was receiving signals from an object in space, how the device exactly worked and how it exactly calculated your position on earth. I was one of the first people in my club to get a personal gps device - which many regarded as cheating at the time. I was a bit mind blown by the idea i could be receiving signals from space but he said it was actually just a simple radio receiver and combined calculator for number crunching. Interesting indeed. Thanks for the thorough answer. How do you explain the lack of photos of satellites on the Internet? What if they somehow use astronomical radio sources instead of human-deployed satellites? Can you explain what you mean by a photo of a satellite? I think you can find videos of satellites being released from the space shuttle? A satellite phone or a GPS satellite needs to receive information from Earth be able to process it and be able to transmit information. An astronomical radio source is just an emitter of radiowaves where radio waves are just like radiation or light and need have no intelligent origin. They are also light years distance and useless (if it were possible) to enable communications in real time At the end of the day satellite comms is a simple idea if you can justify the billions needed to get one up there. I do wonder about humans in space though. Did Andreas Lubitz really commit suicide or was that just convenient for the aircraft manufacturers? And so forth etc etc.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 14, 2015 13:55:51 GMT
They have a fuel tank and thrusters? Are they then constantly fighting gravity if they can't float away? How long do these thrusters last? Do they send astronauts up there to do refills? Yeah, what jayjay said!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 14, 2015 14:20:05 GMT
Interesting indeed. Thanks for the thorough answer. How do you explain the lack of photos of satellites on the Internet? What if they somehow use astronomical radio sources instead of human-deployed satellites? Can you explain what you mean by a photo of a satellite? I think you can find videos of satellites being released from the space shuttle? A satellite phone or a GPS satellite needs to receive information from Earth be able to process it and be able to transmit information. An astronomical radio source is just an emitter of radiowaves where radio waves are just like radiation or light and need have no intelligent origin. They are also light years distance and useless (if it were possible) to enable communications in real time At the end of the day satellite comms is a simple idea if you can justify the billions needed to get one up there. I do wonder about humans in space though. Did Andreas Lubitz really commit suicide or was that just convenient for the aircraft manufacturers? And so forth etc etc. It seems to me that satellites are not really needed if you have towers and cables everywhere on the surface, and you can use the ionosphere to reflect signals back to us as in skywaveAs for the astronomical radio sources, if they have known orbits they can be used as a reference instead of GPS or you can simply use the cell phone towers for triangulation. I doubt they would spend billions on something which can be done much cheaper. Also, what is the point to have drones if there are actual satellites in space? Apparently, most of the surveillance is done or can be done by drones not satellites. Check out this article: arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/almost-orbital-solar-powered-drone-offered-as-atmospheric-satellite/Basically, in the future they might stop using "satellites" and replace them with drones. Very funny development. It reminds me of the so-called Moon landing. In the 60s they could supposedly fly to the Moon, but later on it turned out too expensive and even dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 14:55:10 GMT
Can you explain what you mean by a photo of a satellite? I think you can find videos of satellites being released from the space shuttle? A satellite phone or a GPS satellite needs to receive information from Earth be able to process it and be able to transmit information. An astronomical radio source is just an emitter of radiowaves where radio waves are just like radiation or light and need have no intelligent origin. They are also light years distance and useless (if it were possible) to enable communications in real time At the end of the day satellite comms is a simple idea if you can justify the billions needed to get one up there. I do wonder about humans in space though. Did Andreas Lubitz really commit suicide or was that just convenient for the aircraft manufacturers? And so forth etc etc. It seems to me that satellites are not really needed if you have towers and cables everywhere on the surface, and you can use the ionosphere to reflect signals back to us as in skywaveAs for the astronomical radio sources, if they have known orbits they can be used as a reference instead of GPS. I doubt they would spend billions on something which can be done much cheaper. Also, what is the point to have drones if there are actual satellites in space? Apparently, most of the surveillance is done or can be done by drones not satellites. Check out this article: arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/almost-orbital-solar-powered-drone-offered-as-atmospheric-satellite/Basically, in the future they might stop using "satellites" and replace them with drones. Very funny development. It reminds me of the so-called Moon landing. In the 60s they could supposedly fly to the Moon, but later on it turned out too expensive and even dangerous. Satellites revolutionised TV because a house removal size van with a dish could turn up to report a story live. Similarly your hand held sat phone is not going to be useful with just earth bound cables and is totally insufficiently powerful to bounce signals off the ionisphere to reach another continent thousands of miles away. The future may well be totally different but we are not there yet. GPS needs to know the satellite position in real time to a few metres, and it needs to send a timestamp from the satellite so the receiver can calculate the distance via the speed of light. An inert object many light years away that has a position plus or minus a few thousands of miles or more cannot help you navigate on earth. When you use your GPS you are not accessing a huge computer somewhere to provide you with your location. You are alone with your small battery somewhere in the middle of nowhere and your unit works out where you are using the information supplied by the satellites. If you think about this it totally proves the satellites are real devices high in space. All you need to be able to do is deconstruct your handheld GPS to prove it is using the satellites position and transmitted timestamp for your unit to calculate the distance between you and each satellite and therefore your position. Obviously if it was not this information would have been released long ago by some teenage hacker Satellite surveillance is limited by the great height of satellites where it requires a huge camera at that height to see small objects. A drone much lower down might be able to achieve a far higher resolution for a better cost. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 16:46:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jayjay on Apr 14, 2015 23:02:33 GMT
Ok, I don't see how you are just shrugging this off. They have to maintain the same speed in order to stay in orbit? That means they have to constantly be burning fuel. Plus have power for their communications. Batteries and Fuel only last so long before they burn out. How are they maintaining these things? Aren't there thousands up there? There is not piece of equipment that has moving parts, especially the ones that BURN FUEL, and has THRUSTERS that do not require proper maintenance. And I mean daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly checks, lubrication, replacement of gaskets, seals, fluids and hoses. Moving parts cause wear and tear on anything. That alone is good reason for them to take pics of each other. Just to do proper checks on the rotating parts. I mean if something goes wrong, won't it then fall to Earth? If there are thousands up there, then there should be multiple cases of satellite failure, float aways, falls to Earth, and banging into each other. How are you looking past this with a simple "I have not heard of satellite refueling."?
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 15, 2015 6:41:37 GMT
Ok, I don't see how you are just shrugging this off. They have to maintain the same speed in order to stay in orbit? That means they have to constantly be burning fuel. Plus have power for their communications. Batteries and Fuel only last so long before they burn out. How are they maintaining these things? Aren't there thousands up there? There is not piece of equipment that has moving parts, especially the ones that BURN FUEL, and has THRUSTERS that do not require proper maintenance. And I mean daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly checks, lubrication, replacement of gaskets, seals, fluids and hoses. Moving parts cause wear and tear on anything. That alone is good reason for them to take pics of each other. Just to do proper checks on the rotating parts. I mean if something goes wrong, won't it then fall to Earth? If there are thousands up there, then there should be multiple cases of satellite failure, float aways, falls to Earth, and banging into each other. How are you looking past this with a simple "I have not heard of satellite refueling."? There is almost nothing slowing them down so there is almost nothing required to keep them in orbit. A satellite cannot just fall out of orbit because it would take a huge amount of energy to enable that to happen., |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 15, 2015 10:06:22 GMT
This article talks about satellites falling. There are some other things in it that do not add up either. They talk about over 500,000 objects up in space! And a nice CGI image to go with it. EDIT: Ok, how stupid. I post about an article but fail to give you the link. Sorry... www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/why-do-satellites-fall/ |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 15, 2015 10:24:21 GMT
Ok, one more thing. Have we ever thought what it means to have over 500,000 objects floating in space around Earth? And they supposedly send up Space Shuttles, Space Stations, women with hair-sprayed hair, satellites, etc., and nothing ever collides? What kind of "math" prevents that disaster?
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 15, 2015 10:27:05 GMT
mattRegarding the hair, I don't think anyone can deny that it is ridiculous and it doesn't make any sense. It was done to achieve a theatrical effect. The objects never collide because they deploy them in precise orbits and everything is calculated in advance with no allowances for mistakes.(sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 15, 2015 11:26:40 GMT
space debris is already a big problem. most of the objects are fairly harmless for a satellite providing they dont get hit in vulnerable places. particle sizes can be tiny chips of paint and so forth
I cannot see there will ever be a solution for the growing amount of rubbish in space. The sky is simply too big to enable it to be collected by anything humans can create. So far there have been few satellite collisions but in time there will be more and the problem is going to get much worse much more quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 15, 2015 13:25:02 GMT
Look all I now is this. When I watch TV...and ANY program featuring some govt agency, they have all this sophisticated equipment...mind blowing stuff. Then, on those occasions when, WITH MY EYES, I was in a circumstance to actually SEE their equipment...I realized that the TV shows were all propaganda. The equipment being used is SO ANTIQUATED, BESTBUY has more sophisticated stuff.
So now I am supposed to believe in a Radiation belt, (Van Allen), no one can prove. A "Karman line" no one can prove. Rockets that are said to go up into "space" when it is CLEAR their flight path levels out and their trajectory is into the closet ocean. And Satellites that can see what blade of grass you planted that no one can prove. Nuclear Bombs the size of a three foot section of sewer pipe that can take out a city that no one can prove...and on and on and on the control and psy-op elements go.
It's ALL nonsense.
The truth: "In the beginning GOD made the Heaven (not God's Heaven already created) and the Earth, dry land to appear (Not water - already created). God made the Firmament and called it Heaven. Heaven is impenetrable by man. YET the Heavenly bodies more about in it. ABOVE the Firmament are the Waters Above the Firmament, known in the Scripture as the Sea of Separation.
In summary, here is the structure of the physical world as it now exists from the face of the Earth upwards:
The lower sea of physical waters (our seas and oceans)
The first heaven (the atmosphere)
The second heaven (what is commonly called outer space)
The sea above outer space and below the third heaven (a sea of separation)
And above it all, there is the Third Heaven.
I have seen no proof that man has ever truly been higher up than 20 miles.
|
|
|
|
Post by oterraplanero on Apr 15, 2015 13:42:24 GMT
This moving light dots can only be defined as UFOs, no one can affirm 100% sure is a plane or satelite... I saw a similar UFO another day in my backyard... It was gettin dark an stars were beginning to apear at the sky... I was talking to my friend and then a very bright star seemed to "pop up" at that moment and called my atention, but as I looked at it, the light began to go weaker and weaker till it became a very little moving white dot, it moved for a few seconds to the southwest and vanished... What was that? I have no idea.
|
|
