[Tumeni]

No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.

Yet SpaceX has, prior to the Falcon Heavy, launched a number of satellites for the likes of Orbcomm, Iridium, SES, and a selection of others.

It has a queue of others waiting for the same services.

What do you think these other companies are doing, given that some of them existed long before SpaceX did, and at least one has had satellites launched by other operators? You don't really think they're all "in on the hoax too", do you?

[AATW]

I'm sure they didn't. But in the years following the invention of the airplane, technological advancements and innovations flowed at a natural rate. Commercial airlines sprang up throughout the 1910s and 20s. Flight quickly became a key element of warfare. The jumbo jet wouldn't come around for a long time, true, but thousands of people all over the world were still directly witnessing and taking part in the phenomenon, all within just a few decades of the invention.

In contrast, commercial space travel is stagnant. It's been over sixty years since the first man supposedly flew in space, and yet the prospect is still as extraordinarily expensive, risky, and tightly-regulated as ever. What progress have these space entrepreneurs made? How are they any closer to launching space tourism as a viable industry than when Hughes first hawked the idea?

I'm not really sure what point you're making. When I was a kid we used to dream about moon bases and flying cars. Hasn't happened.
There was talk of cold fusion which would produce limitless clean energy. That hasn't happened either.
We used to dream about robot servants and automated houses and that is closer to reality.

I guess my point is some technical problems simply turn out to be harder to solve than others and it's next to impossible to predict these things.
The aviation industry has gone backwards in terms of speed - Concorde was in the 60s and nothing since has been anywhere near as fast.
Why? Because it is fundamentally difficult and expensive to accelerate large things to high speeds.
F=ma
For an object with a large mass - like an airplane or rocket - you need a LOT of F to generate that a. And we still don't have a particularly efficient way of generating that.
Where the airline industry has progressed though is comfort and entertainment. Having a screen in the back of the seat in front of you on which you can choose to show a load of films, TV shows or play music was the stuff of dreams when I first started flying, now it's routine.

Technology often advances quickly in times of war when a lot of resources are put into research. The Space Race came out of the Cold War and two super-powers trying to gain dominance of space.

I don't entirely agree that commercial space travel is stagnant. 7 "space tourists" have now visited the ISS. Now companies like Virgin are in the race it will happen if it is commercially viable. I'd say it's closer to reality than it was when I was a kid.

[Tumeni]

Further to my earlier post, SpaceX has around 14 launches scheduled for later this year, including two more Falcon Heavy launches.

The payloads include;

a Bangabandhu 1 communications satellite for the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission,
a Crew Dragon spacecraft on an uncrewed test flight to the International Space Station,
the U.S. Air Force’s first third-generation navigation satellite for the Global Positioning System,
10 satellites for the Iridium next mobile communications fleet,
the SES 12 communications satellite for SES of Luxembourg,
the 17th Dragon spacecraft mission on its 15th operational cargo delivery flight to the International Space Station,
the 18th Dragon spacecraft mission on its 16th operational cargo delivery flight to the International Space Station,
the Arabsat 6A communications satellite for Arabsat of Saudi Arabia, and
the U.S. Air Force’s Space Test Program-2 mission with a cluster of military and scientific research satellites.

That, to me, is quite some assembly of fakery, even IF    - IF -   you could realistically allege that all of these organisations are "in on the hoax" .....

[Dr David Thork]

Get people watching the rocket, meanwhile add the payload to a balloon and launch elsewhere from the public's gaze.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_balloon_satellite


https://worldview.space/fly-your-payload/

[AATW]

And where is your evidence that this is what is going on with, say, GPS or TV or weather satellites? The second linke says:

Stratollites can maintain position over specific areas of interest for days, weeks, and eventually months on end.

That wouldn't really cut it for things like TV satellites, or are you claiming that they're sending a new one up there every few months? Where is your evidence for any of this? You're just desperately reaching rather than considering that your world view may be wrong.

[inquisitive]

Get people watching the rocket, meanwhile add the payload to a balloon and launch elsewhere from the public's gaze.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_balloon_satellite


https://worldview.space/fly-your-payload/

would would could would. Laser broadband???

[Tumeni]

Get people watching the rocket, meanwhile add the payload to a balloon and launch elsewhere from the public's gaze.

Can you provide any meaningful proof that any SpaceX payload has been launched in this manner?

[Dr David Thork]

Many things are just ground based.

Loran was repurposed to provide GPS ... television is usually provided by TV masts ... you don't have to keep running for "they float in orbit around the earth".

Can you provide any meaningful proof that any SpaceX payload has been launched in this manner?

[inquisitive]

Many things are just ground based.

Loran was repurposed to provide GPS ... television is usually provided by TV masts ... you don't have to keep running for "they float in orbit around the earth".

Can you provide any meaningful proof that any SpaceX payload has been launched in this manner?

We have tv from masts and from satellites, which use dishes.

GPS that we all use is nothing to do with Loran.

The existance of a does not prove the non existance of b.

[AATW]

Many things are just ground based.

Loran was repurposed to provide GPS ... television is usually provided by TV masts ... you don't have to keep running for "they float in orbit around the earth".

Where is your evidence for that?
You can't just keep asserting stuff like this without a scrap of evidence.

[Dr David Thork]

The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.

[inquisitive]

The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.

And uses satellites for neat universal coverage.

[Tumeni]

Many things are just ground based.

By implication, then, others (the 'not many') are not .....

Yes, I KNOW we (for instance) in the UK received terrestrial TV from ground-based transmitters for many years. This led to the construction of many transmitters, because a single ground-based transmitter cannot cover the whole UK. The evidence that many transmitters are in use comes from travelling around the country and seeing TV aerials pointing in different directions, such that they are beamed on their nearest transmitter.

Satellite TV covers the whole of the country from one transmitter, above the equator, as evidenced by millions of satellite dishes, all pointing the same way - even those on the South Coast, which point out to sea.


television is usually provided by TV masts

Usually. But not always.

[Dr David Thork]

And uses satellites for neat universal coverage.

Actually no. It seems is you want to plug the holes in GPS you add further ground based aerials.

http://www.locata.com/technology/locata-tech-explained/locatas-inventions/

television is usually provided by TV masts

Usually. But not always.

So says the indoctrinated.

[Tumeni]

The design of GPS is based partly on ....

So some of it, by implication, is NOT based upon that which you quoted?

[AATW]

The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.

Why are you quoting from a Wiki pages which goes into a lot of detail about the satellites which make GPS work?

[Dr David Thork]

The design of GPS is based partly on ....

So some of it, by implication, is NOT based upon that which you quoted?

Sure. They came up with a new co-ordinates system that made the earth seem round. Loran-C made the earth seem awful flat.

The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.

Why are you quoting from a Wiki pages which goes into a lot of detail about the satellites which make GPS work?

I have to pick a source you'd be happy with and focus on the bits where the mask slips.

[AATW]

You have yet to provide any evidence for a mask existing.

[Tumeni]

So says the indoctrinated.

I've been receiving TV in the UK for many years. I know where the TV transmitters are. I know where my local cell masts are. I can look them all up from online sources to confirm what they are.

I've moved between locations, and had to retune analogue and digital terrestrial TVs because of those changes, but whenever it came to installing a satellite system - it always points to that same spot in the sky. 20-odd degrees elevation, and South. Never toward a transmitter or a mast.

Please, please, tell me the source of my 'indoctrination' ....

[Dr David Thork]

So says the indoctrinated.

I've been receiving TV in the UK for many years. I know where the TV transmitters are. I know where my local cell masts are. I can look them all up from online sources to confirm what they are.

I've moved between locations, and had to retune analogue and digital terrestrial TVs because of those changes, but whenever it came to installing a satellite system - it always points to that same spot in the sky. 20-odd degrees elevation, and South. Never toward a transmitter or a mast.

Please, please, tell me the source of my 'indoctrination' ....

Satellite dishes point south ... but they don't point up.



The transmitters face north so you always point your receiver dish south. Kind of obvious. Makes it easy to always find a transmitter if the TV companies all point them the same way.