*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« on: September 07, 2018, 01:40:01 PM »
If the earth is indeed flat, and there are no satellites in space, does anyone here think it could be possible that a project such as SHARP (Stationary High Altitude Relay Platform) could have been refined to a point where it can maintain sustained flight without ever needing to refuel?

They're ultralight unmanned aircraft for the purpose of being a communication relay that are powered by microwaves directed at them from the ground.  They would typically fly in a small radius to stay within the microwave transmitter's field.  Since SHARP there have been many advances in similar high altitude aircraft.

To me, this would seem the most logical and cost-effective approach to transmitting signals across the earth, especially if people have dishes pointed up at a specific place in the sky.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

*

Offline MCToon

  • *
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2018, 04:03:37 PM »
There are a large number of satellite dishes on houses. I have personally aimed one and found it's direction is critical in getting a signal, there is not a lot of variance before the signal drops.  There is no rational way to deny that satellite dishes are getting a signal from somewhere.  I'll take this as a priori.

To place a transmitter in the line of sight of these dishes is required. 

I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

*

Offline MCToon

  • *
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2018, 04:03:58 PM »
I've seen claims of high altitude balloons like weather balloons, however a basic balloon is subject to the winds, for our use these must be stationary.  You could outfit a balloon with steering propellers.  I suppose you would call this a blimp, semantics.  Let's call it blimpatellite.

So, outfit a high altitude blimpatellite with positing propellors.  Then the position has to be very consistent so the dishes on everyone's houses don't have to be repositioned.  The blimpatellite must know it's absolute position.  GPS is the obvious solution, so, GPS satellites are also blimpatellites.

The problem now is high altitude winds.  We're told these are fast, this would be difficult to overcome with a blimpatellite.  Not sure how this can be addressed.  Thoughts?
I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

*

Offline MCToon

  • *
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2018, 05:34:45 PM »
If the earth is indeed flat, and there are no satellites in space, does anyone here think it could be possible that a project such as SHARP (Stationary High Altitude Relay Platform) could have been refined to a point where it can maintain sustained flight without ever needing to refuel?

They're ultralight unmanned aircraft for the purpose of being a communication relay that are powered by microwaves directed at them from the ground.  They would typically fly in a small radius to stay within the microwave transmitter's field.  Since SHARP there have been many advances in similar high altitude aircraft.

To me, this would seem the most logical and cost-effective approach to transmitting signals across the earth, especially if people have dishes pointed up at a specific place in the sky.

Let's call these plantellites.

An airplane has a lower ceiling than a balloon because it requires more air density to keep aloft. 

These plantellites must be high enough that we cannot see them with our naked eyes and somehow also get missed by the thousands of people with telescopes.  They could be black so you don't see them through a telescope at night.  During the day they could get drowned out by the other light.  Or maybe a color changing bottom?

Flying in a tight circle and using GPS plantellites could maintain location.

There is a problem of refueling.  I've seen claims of solar powered planes, but this only works for part of the day, no solar power at night.  That leaves batteries at night, difficult, even an ultralight plane needs a lot of power to maintain altitude.  This is complicated by any winds.  I suppose you could have a plantellite in place for as long as fuel allows, then swap out for another plantellite.  This requires a large ground operation as these plantellites would be stationed over the entire world to service all the dishes pointed at them.
I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2018, 02:25:46 AM »
If the earth is indeed flat, and there are no satellites in space, does anyone here think it could be possible that a project such as SHARP (Stationary High Altitude Relay Platform) could have been refined to a point where it can maintain sustained flight without ever needing to refuel?

They're ultralight unmanned aircraft for the purpose of being a communication relay that are powered by microwaves directed at them from the ground.  They would typically fly in a small radius to stay within the microwave transmitter's field.  Since SHARP there have been many advances in similar high altitude aircraft.

To me, this would seem the most logical and cost-effective approach to transmitting signals across the earth, especially if people have dishes pointed up at a specific place in the sky.

Let's call these plantellites.

An airplane has a lower ceiling than a balloon because it requires more air density to keep aloft. 

These plantellites must be high enough that we cannot see them with our naked eyes and somehow also get missed by the thousands of people with telescopes.  They could be black so you don't see them through a telescope at night.  During the day they could get drowned out by the other light.  Or maybe a color changing bottom?

Flying in a tight circle and using GPS plantellites could maintain location.

There is a problem of refueling.  I've seen claims of solar powered planes, but this only works for part of the day, no solar power at night.  That leaves batteries at night, difficult, even an ultralight plane needs a lot of power to maintain altitude.  This is complicated by any winds.  I suppose you could have a plantellite in place for as long as fuel allows, then swap out for another plantellite.  This requires a large ground operation as these plantellites would be stationed over the entire world to service all the dishes pointed at them.

And that's where I thought SHARP was a plausible explanation.  It could theoretically fly at very high altitudes.  I'd have to ask one of the engineers what altitude he expected it to be capable of flying.  Looked it up.  ~70,000ft.  It has no need to land because the craft would be able to indefinitely convert microwaves to dc power.  It wouldn't depend on sunlight, and I would imagine depending on the frequency used the power transmission wouldn't be affected by clouds or bad weather.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2018, 02:30:10 AM by Bad Puppy »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2018, 04:36:54 AM »
And that's where I thought SHARP was a plausible explanation.  It could theoretically fly at very high altitudes.  I'd have to ask one of the engineers what altitude he expected it to be capable of flying.  Looked it up.  ~70,000ft.  It has no need to land because the craft would be able to indefinitely convert microwaves to dc power.  It wouldn't depend on sunlight, and I would imagine depending on the frequency used the power transmission wouldn't be affected by clouds or bad weather.

From what I was just reading, the tests in the 80's required an 80m diameter array to beam up the power. Seemingly, you would need a globe littered with arrays to manage the number of satellites today. Subsequent to the early SHARP tests, solar tech go a lot better thereby dispensing with the need for the microwave power.  Fast forward to Google's recent attempts to build solar drones for internet relays, an effort they abandoned in 2016.

All in all, kind of seems easier to just launch a satellite.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12877
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2018, 07:06:20 AM »
Let's call these plantellites.
We do not need a new term for stratellites. Bad Puppy has pretty much identified one of the oldest responses to the question of "but what about satellites?" - although the additional info about plausibility from a RE perspective is very much appreciated.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2018, 01:39:01 PM »
And that's where I thought SHARP was a plausible explanation.  It could theoretically fly at very high altitudes.  I'd have to ask one of the engineers what altitude he expected it to be capable of flying.  Looked it up.  ~70,000ft.  It has no need to land because the craft would be able to indefinitely convert microwaves to dc power.  It wouldn't depend on sunlight, and I would imagine depending on the frequency used the power transmission wouldn't be affected by clouds or bad weather.

From what I was just reading, the tests in the 80's required an 80m diameter array to beam up the power. Seemingly, you would need a globe littered with arrays to manage the number of satellites today. Subsequent to the early SHARP tests, solar tech go a lot better thereby dispensing with the need for the microwave power.  Fast forward to Google's recent attempts to build solar drones for internet relays, an effort they abandoned in 2016.

All in all, kind of seems easier to just launch a satellite.

Yes, in a world with space travel it would seem easier.  For this thread I stepped outside of my round earth bubble and closed off space as an option.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5336
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2018, 04:23:45 PM »
Let's call these plantellites.
We do not need a new term for stratellites.
Actually, the correct term would be pseudolite (pseudo satellite) which covers both airborne and ground based satellite simulators (cell towers, etc.).  Stratellite, on the other hand, is a trademarked brand name for a stratospheric airship being developed by Sanswire.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 04:41:26 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete