[DuniyaGolHai]

An evidence of cold welding came forward in 1991, when the Galileo spacecraft’s antenna got locked down and it never opened. It was later revealed that the umbrella shaped antenna, which was locked before the spacecraft’s take off got cold welded after the spacecraft left Earth. The metal tools used outside the space station in the vacuum of space are coated or covered with plastic so as to prevent them from sticking together.

Do FE'er dispute this???

[Round Eyes]

An evidence of cold welding came forward in 1991, when the Galileo spacecraft’s antenna got locked down and it never opened. It was later revealed that the umbrella shaped antenna, which was locked before the spacecraft’s take off got cold welded after the spacecraft left Earth. The metal tools used outside the space station in the vacuum of space are coated or covered with plastic so as to prevent them from sticking together.

Do FE'er dispute this???

so you are trying to use a NASA failure as "evidence" they went into space?  you do realize that is preposterous.

[Tumeni]

so you are trying to use a NASA failure as "evidence" they went into space?  you do realize that is preposterous.

Well, there's two options

1. The craft went into space
2. The craft did not go into space

If 1, either the mission went as planned, and the story about the failure was invented, or the failure occurred as described. If the former, why make up the story about the failure?

If 2, then either the operators circulate a story about a successful mission, or a story about the mission with the failure. If the latter, why would the operators make up a story about a failed mission?

The inevitable conclusion is that the mission went as described, with the documented failure.

No?

[Round Eyes]

so you are trying to use a NASA failure as "evidence" they went into space?  you do realize that is preposterous.

Well, there's two options

1. The craft went into space
2. The craft did not go into space

If 1, either the mission went as planned, and the story about the failure was invented, or the failure occurred as described. If the former, why make up the story about the failure?

If 2, then either the operators circulate a story about a successful mission, or a story about the mission with the failure. If the latter, why would the operators make up a story about a failed mission?

The inevitable conclusion is that the mission went as described, with the documented failure.

No?

i dont believe it went into space, but thats not really the point.  this is about as worthless "proof" as one can provide to disprove anything.

like saying "the car got a flat tire, this proves that i went to the grocery store".  would be alot easier to just provide a receipt that you were there

[Tumeni]

i dont believe it went into space, but thats not really the point.  this is about as worthless "proof" as one can provide to disprove anything.

OK, let's say it's not a proof, more of a thought experiment. 

If you don't believe it went into space (and you're correct about this), then why would the operators behind the non-mission make up a story about a mission failure, when the mission didn't happen?

Surely if they wanted to keep the money flowing in, from either Govt or paying-customer sources, they would want to create an impression of success, otherwise they lose future customers?

No? 

[Tom Bishop]

i dont believe it went into space, but thats not really the point.  this is about as worthless "proof" as one can provide to disprove anything.

OK, let's say it's not a proof, more of a thought experiment. 

If you don't believe it went into space (and you're correct about this), then why would the operators behind the non-mission make up a story about a mission failure, when the mission didn't happen?

A convenient excuse to get out of having to supply years of data.

[SpaceCadet]

i dont believe it went into space, but thats not really the point.  this is about as worthless "proof" as one can provide to disprove anything.

OK, let's say it's not a proof, more of a thought experiment. 

If you don't believe it went into space (and you're correct about this), then why would the operators behind the non-mission make up a story about a mission failure, when the mission didn't happen?

A convenient excuse to get out of having to supply years of data.

Petabytes of information on the universe have already been  "discovered" . A generating a few more terabytes of data will definitely not be an issue. If they have  "faked" so much already, why stop there? You know they still need to keep the money flowing in to be siphoned off to maintain the conspiracy anyway, so why present failures?

[Tom Bishop]

i dont believe it went into space, but thats not really the point.  this is about as worthless "proof" as one can provide to disprove anything.

OK, let's say it's not a proof, more of a thought experiment. 

If you don't believe it went into space (and you're correct about this), then why would the operators behind the non-mission make up a story about a mission failure, when the mission didn't happen?

A convenient excuse to get out of having to supply years of data.

Petabytes of information on the universe have already been  "discovered" . A generating a few more terabytes of data will definitely not be an issue. If they have  "faked" so much already, why stop there? You know they still need to keep the money flowing in to be siphoned off to maintain the conspiracy anyway, so why present failures?

What petabytes?

The broken antenna reduced the amount of data the craft could collect and send. A good excuse for under-delivering on promises.

[Round Eyes]

i dont believe it went into space, but thats not really the point.  this is about as worthless "proof" as one can provide to disprove anything.

OK, let's say it's not a proof, more of a thought experiment. 

If you don't believe it went into space (and you're correct about this), then why would the operators behind the non-mission make up a story about a mission failure, when the mission didn't happen?

A convenient excuse to get out of having to supply years of data.

Petabytes of information on the universe have already been  "discovered" . A generating a few more terabytes of data will definitely not be an issue. If they have  "faked" so much already, why stop there? You know they still need to keep the money flowing in to be siphoned off to maintain the conspiracy anyway, so why present failures?

This is a really bad 'fact' to try and use to disprove flat earth.  Go back to the drawing board, and count this one as a win for FE.  "Broken satellite proves found earth" ... Lol, you can't make this stuff up.

[Tumeni]

What petabytes?

The ones that were collected by other craft than Galileo


The broken antenna reduced the amount of data the craft could collect and send. A good excuse for under-delivering on promises.

Less data from this craft, but all as expected from others.

[Tumeni]

This is a really bad 'fact' to try and use to disprove flat earth.  Go back to the drawing board, and count this one as a win for FE.  "Broken satellite proves found earth" ... Lol, you can't make this stuff up.

Well, your best argument against it seems to be just  "I don't believe... " ... which isn't much of an argument

70+ years of other satellites, along with the independent efforts of those who have;

tracked them,
laser-ranged them,
seen them through telescopes,
downloaded data from them,
monitored and imaged weather patterns with them,
used them for news-gathering and outside broadcast,
tracked their motorised assets through them,
launched a car on one, and
watched/listened to domestic TV and radio ......

all proves a spherical earth. The satellites that fail are simply the price of working with modern tech.

There's a satellite industry in most every civilised country on Earth. Get used to it. The many thousands/millions involved in these industries are not all "in on the hoax" ....

Here's one instance of the (independent, scientific) folks who laser-range the orbital satellites;

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/

and here's a demo of the (independent, commercial) folks who make and sell tracking telescopes which can monitor/image the orbital satellites;

[Round Eyes]

Well, your best argument against it seems to be just  "I don't believe... " ... which isn't much of an argument

Why are you trying to bring other information/discussions into this thread, please stay on topic.  the OP suggested that an engineering error  somehow proves satellites are real.  Its a horrible argument and has been debunked.  if you want to have another discussion about satellites in general i would suggest you start a new thread. 

[Tumeni]

Why are you trying to bring other information/discussions into this thread, please stay on topic.

Because I regard them as relevant to the thread, and to the arguments herein (i.e. whether or not "satellites are real". You clearly don't. Hey-ho.


the OP suggested that an engineering error  somehow proves satellites are real.  Its a horrible argument and has been debunked.  if you want to have another discussion about satellites in general i would suggest you start a new thread.

Was it "debunked" elsewhere, or do you regard your "I dont believe it went into space" as a successful debunk?