The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Max_Almond on June 05, 2018, 01:49:08 PM
-
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170605-130904-dn7wy-jpg.27139/)
The above image was taken by the GOES-15 (West) satellite at 11AM (PDT), June 5th, 2017. At least that's what NASA would have you believe. But we don't have to take their word for it, we can check for yourself.
Verifying that satellite images are real is done by comparing them against the "ground truth" - i.e., the actual situation on the ground. Here I'm going to focus on the GOES satellites, particularly GOES-East and GOES-West. The process is:
- Pick a Satellite with the best view of your region
- Find out when it will take full-disk photos
- Pick a day when there's some interesting clouds or contrails in the sky
- At that time go outside and take lots of photos in every direction (over five minutes or so)
- Wait for the full disk photo to be downloaded from the satellite and appear on the web site (about 35 to 40 minutes for GOES images)
- Compare your photos with the satellite image.
#1 - Pick a satellite. Here's a variety of satellites that give high resolution full-disk images:
- Japan: Himawari-8 (JME) (http://'http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/index.html'), RAMDIS Feed (http://'http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/himawari-8.asp#Full')s , JME Feed (http://'http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/largec.html?area=6&element=1&mode=UTC&line=0') (11K)
- USA: DSCOVR (L1) (http://'https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/')
- Europe: Meteosat-10 (http://'http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MSGIODC/RGB/NATURALCOLOR/FULLRESOLUTION/') (11K)
- India: INSAT (http://'http://satellite.imd.gov.in/insat.htm')
- Russia: Elektro-L (http://'http://planet.iitp.ru/english/elektro/elektro_data_eng.htm') (11K)
- USA: GOES-West & GOES-East. (http://'http://www.goes.noaa.gov/goesfull.html') (Raw West (http://'https://goo.gl/zZu2Gh'), Raw East (http://'https://goo.gl/SalWfu'))
Since I'm in California I'm going to use the GOES-West satellite, and get the images from the "Raw West" link, which goes to: https://goo.gl/zZu2Gh (https://goo.gl/zZu2Gh) (I've shortened the link, as it's an FTP site, the direct link is: ftp://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/goeswest/fulldisk/fullres/vis/ (http://ftp://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/goeswest/fulldisk/fullres/vis/)). This gives a list of files like:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2017-6-5_13-40-13-png.27142/)
The latest file should be at the bottom. The filenames are in the date format YYMMDDHHMM then G15 for GOES-15 and I01 for the image type (visible). So 1706051800 is 2017-June-05 1800 UTC. Where 18:00 UTC is the time in UTC, and you will want to convert it to your local time. I use google for this, like:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170605-134431-c66d4-jpg.27145/)
(Note both times say Monday, UTC might be a day ahead or behind the local date, depending on what time it is)
So, I took lots of images at around 11AM, then waited and download the 1800 UTC image. This is a TIF file, and not all programs can open it, so try different ones. Then you will probably want to increase the brightness if you can.
There's a variety of things you can compare, but probably the simplest is the cloud cover - and more specifically the airplane contrails that appear in the image. Here's a closer look at a region of California with some landmarks identified. This is simply a part of the above image.
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170605-131523-8khis-jpg.27140/)
You can see there's a a few contrails there. Notably there's four that form a trapezoid shape around my location. Here I've color coded them:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170605-152104-xk7d3-jpg.27153/)
If you are lucky you will also be able to get a MODIS image from about the same time. This can be helpful in interpreting what you are seeing, but is not strictly necessary:
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=geographic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2017-06-05&z=3&v=-122.90918176234946,37.48960532127974,-118.69043176234946,39.81650961815474 (https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=geographic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2017-06-05&z=3&v=-122.90918176234946,37.48960532127974,-118.69043176234946,39.81650961815474)
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170605-152625-ncggd-jpg.27155/)
Then we just need to compare against the photos. It's best to use a wide angle lens, or if not, you can use the panorama mode on your camera/phone. Ideally you would capture a high resolution 360 degree image of the sky.
This is one I took, unfortunately a few minutes early:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170605-143529-fngov-jpg.27152/)
This makes the contrails look curved, but they are actually straight
Here's the view looking west at 17:56. I've indicated the blue and yellow contrails:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170605-154339-pc5tf-jpg.27159/)
The images being a few minutes off means the contrails have moved. This shows the importance of getting the images as close as possible to the actual imaging time of the satellite.
Here's the satellite image from January 21st, 2018, showing a brief large scale set of row clouds that allowed me to match up the GOES-16 image with what I saw over my house:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/metabunk-2018-01-21-10-14-49-jpg.31196/)
And here's an image from the Suomi NPP satellite, taken a few days ago over Guatemala:
(https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA3Ni84Mzcvb3JpZ2luYWwvZ3VhdGVtYWxhLWZ1ZWdvLXZvbGNhbm8tcGx1bWUuanBn)
(Note: when I say "me" or "my house" or "I" what I actually mean is: "some other person" or "their house" or "them".)
-
Not sure why there hasn't been a response to this thread? I was going to play FE on this one, but I got nothing to debunk
-
Another way to prove same is to compare the output from two separate, independent satellites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC8Yh3UT-Do
-
playing devil's advocate on behalf of the FE'ers that havent responded here. I think what you have actually proved is that NASA and others are utilized ground based weather radar in order to generate these CGI satellite images. makes sense, instead of constant guessing, just use the data you already have from the flat ground. then project that information onto the made up "ball". brilliant NASA.
-
Exactly. Why not? It probably wouldn't cost that much or be that difficult to employ an army of computer programmers to fake these constantly beamed down images of earth so that they match the cloud and contrail and volcano activity that you can see over your own head.
And just because it makes no logical sense to do that - I mean, why keep telling us they're sending up new satellites if all that means is more and more work for themselves? - there's no reason why it can't be true.
-
Exactly. Why not? It probably wouldn't cost that much or be that difficult to employ and army of computer programmers to fake these constantly beamed down images of earth so that they match the cloud and contrail and volcano activity that you can see over your own head.
And just because it makes no logical sense to do that - I mean, why keep telling us they're sending up new satellites if all that means is more and more work for themselves? - there's no reason why it can't be true.
NASA has to keep sending up "satellites" in order to keep justifying their budget and keep their conspiracy alive. those rockets are not going to space, they are re-supply ration deliveries headed to the soldiers guarding the ice wall.
Follow the money...
-
Same for the Japanese, I suppose. Imagine if they hadn't (made out they'd) superceded Himawari-8 - the population would have been up in arms!
-
Exactly. Why not? It probably wouldn't cost that much or be that difficult to employ and army of computer programmers to fake these constantly beamed down images of earth so that they match the cloud and contrail and volcano activity that you can see over your own head.
And just because it makes no logical sense to do that - I mean, why keep telling us they're sending up new satellites if all that means is more and more work for themselves? - there's no reason why it can't be true.
NASA has to keep sending up "satellites" in order to keep justifying their budget and keep their conspiracy alive. those rockets are not going to space, they are re-supply ration deliveries headed to the soldiers guarding the ice wall.
Follow the money...
NASA's federal budget doesn't fully represent the $200 Billion a year satellite industry. There is another motive.
-
Exactly. Why not? It probably wouldn't cost that much or be that difficult to employ and army of computer programmers to fake these constantly beamed down images of earth so that they match the cloud and contrail and volcano activity that you can see over your own head.
And just because it makes no logical sense to do that - I mean, why keep telling us they're sending up new satellites if all that means is more and more work for themselves? - there's no reason why it can't be true.
NASA has to keep sending up "satellites" in order to keep justifying their budget and keep their conspiracy alive. those rockets are not going to space, they are re-supply ration deliveries headed to the soldiers guarding the ice wall.
Follow the money...
NASA's federal budget doesn't fully represent the $200 Billion a year satellite industry. There is another motive.
Of which the launch part of that industry only makes up 5.4 Billion. Granted that's about 1/4 of what they get from the government, but it's also the amount of money spent on it WORLDWIDE, and not just to NASA.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185977/distribution-of-the-worldwide-revenues-of-the-satellite-industry-by-sector/
-
NASA's federal budget doesn't fully represent the $200 Billion a year satellite industry. There is another motive.
Exactly Max. NASA tells us it costs $10,000 for every pound we put into orbit....yeah, ok, i dont think so. amateur rocket scientists can launch rockets for a tiny fraction of that cost. NASA is the focal point of the logistics involved with the support of troops at the wall. I bet if you did the math and figured out the true cost of launching a rocket and then calculate the cost it takes to support a remote army in an inhospitable environment like Antartica and i bet those costs added together would account for the majority of its budget.
-
NASA's federal budget doesn't fully represent the $200 Billion a year satellite industry. There is another motive.
Exactly Max. NASA tells us it costs $10,000 for every pound we put into orbit....yeah, ok, i dont think so. amateur rocket scientists can launch rockets for a tiny fraction of that cost. NASA is the focal point of the logistics involved with the support of troops at the wall. I bet if you did the math and figured out the true cost of launching a rocket and then calculate the cost it takes to support a remote army in an inhospitable environment like Antartica and i bet those costs added together would account for the majority of its budget.
This is difficult to do, but I would argue that a rough estimate could be gained by looking at the cost of the Iraq war. From 2003-2010 the DoD says we spent $757.8 billion, or roughly $94.7 billion per year. We sent 130,000 people there at the start of the invasion, and at the end of this period in 2010 we saw about 50,000 still there. We'll go with a rough average of 85,000 there at any one time. This gives us our cost per soldier each year estimate at about $1.1 million. With NASA's budget being $19.3 billion in 2016, this would allow for about 17,000 troops stationed there at any one time. But recall they need to factor in the costs of all the graphic artists they employ, the fake launches, servicing whatever is providing sat TV and sat GPS as well, which I'm not sure how to even begin to calculate those costs. But there's your starting point. (I'd also be curious to see your source and costs for 'amateur rocket scientists' launching equipment into orbit for a 'tiny fraction of that cost' if you could.)
-
NASA has to keep sending up "satellites" in order to keep justifying their budget and keep their conspiracy alive. those rockets are not going to space, they are re-supply ration deliveries headed to the soldiers guarding the ice wall
Most of the satellite launches, and most of the satellites already up there, are not actually NASA satellites, so ....
-
NASA's federal budget doesn't fully represent the $200 Billion a year satellite industry. There is another motive.
Exactly Max. NASA tells us it costs $10,000 for every pound we put into orbit....yeah, ok, i dont think so. amateur rocket scientists can launch rockets for a tiny fraction of that cost. NASA is the focal point of the logistics involved with the support of troops at the wall. I bet if you did the math and figured out the true cost of launching a rocket and then calculate the cost it takes to support a remote army in an inhospitable environment like Antartica and i bet those costs added together would account for the majority of its budget.
This is difficult to do, but I would argue that a rough estimate could be gained by looking at the cost of the Iraq war. From 2003-2010 the DoD says we spent $757.8 billion, or roughly $94.7 billion per year. We sent 130,000 people there at the start of the invasion, and at the end of this period in 2010 we saw about 50,000 still there. We'll go with a rough average of 85,000 there at any one time. This gives us our cost per soldier each year estimate at about $1.1 million. With NASA's budget being $19.3 billion in 2016, this would allow for about 17,000 troops stationed there at any one time. But recall they need to factor in the costs of all the graphic artists they employ, the fake launches, servicing whatever is providing sat TV and sat GPS as well, which I'm not sure how to even begin to calculate those costs. But there's your starting point. (I'd also be curious to see your source and costs for 'amateur rocket scientists' launching equipment into orbit for a 'tiny fraction of that cost' if you could.)
the Zenit was roughly $800/lb for low orbit and Musk has stated he thinks he can get to $500/lb. NASA isnt putting rockets into orbit, its not possible, so the math they provide publicly is wrong. They have been in the rocket game a long time, so a reasonable they can at least do it as cheaply as the Zenit (or less). thats a discrpency of at least $9,200 for every pound of material they "put into space". so where is the rest of the money going...support for the international troops at the ice wall and for funding of the high altittude airplanes running around the clock, or as you Round Earthers call "satellites"
they have to keep launching rockets, its a huge cash cow for them. imagine the cash flow they are going to have when we start "going" to Mars. wow.
nice work on funding per soldier, i would add a 150% markup based on the cold conditions, and i am sure the extra paid to keep their silence when they return home. the number of soldiers sounds low based on the miles of wall they would protecting. i would estimate 20% of NASA budget for the CGI/PR machine. But also, NASA isnt the only one supporting troops. It could easily by 40,000 troops stationed down there, but there are a lot of "space" agencies kicking in money.
-
NASA has to keep sending up "satellites" in order to keep justifying their budget and keep their conspiracy alive. those rockets are not going to space, they are re-supply ration deliveries headed to the soldiers guarding the ice wall
Most of the satellite launches, and most of the satellites already up there, are not actually NASA satellites, so ....
its all one big pool of money...and of course, as with everything else, NASA/USA is putting in more than their fair share of money
-
NASA's federal budget doesn't fully represent the $200 Billion a year satellite industry. There is another motive.
Exactly Max. NASA tells us it costs $10,000 for every pound we put into orbit....yeah, ok, i dont think so. amateur rocket scientists can launch rockets for a tiny fraction of that cost. NASA is the focal point of the logistics involved with the support of troops at the wall. I bet if you did the math and figured out the true cost of launching a rocket and then calculate the cost it takes to support a remote army in an inhospitable environment like Antartica and i bet those costs added together would account for the majority of its budget.
This is difficult to do, but I would argue that a rough estimate could be gained by looking at the cost of the Iraq war. From 2003-2010 the DoD says we spent $757.8 billion, or roughly $94.7 billion per year. We sent 130,000 people there at the start of the invasion, and at the end of this period in 2010 we saw about 50,000 still there. We'll go with a rough average of 85,000 there at any one time. This gives us our cost per soldier each year estimate at about $1.1 million. With NASA's budget being $19.3 billion in 2016, this would allow for about 17,000 troops stationed there at any one time. But recall they need to factor in the costs of all the graphic artists they employ, the fake launches, servicing whatever is providing sat TV and sat GPS as well, which I'm not sure how to even begin to calculate those costs. But there's your starting point. (I'd also be curious to see your source and costs for 'amateur rocket scientists' launching equipment into orbit for a 'tiny fraction of that cost' if you could.)
the Zenit was roughly $800/lb for low orbit and Musk has stated he thinks he can get to $500/lb. NASA isnt putting rockets into orbit, its not possible, so the math they provide publicly is wrong. They have been in the rocket game a long time, so a reasonable they can at least do it as cheaply as the Zenit (or less). thats a discrpency of at least $9,200 for every pound of material they "put into space". so where is the rest of the money going...support for the international troops at the ice wall and for funding of the high altittude airplanes running around the clock, or as you Round Earthers call "satellites"
Again, do you have a source for any of these numbers? I see an article from 2008 (10 YEARS ago) that gives NASA launches at $10k/pound. NASA no longer directly sends things into space though according to another article. The lowest I see is a 2017 article (http://www.realclearfuture.com/articles/2017/06/01/elon_musk_is_still_the_king_of_low-cost_space_launch_111957.html) that gives SpaceX a cost of $1250/pound as the lowest amount. That article DOES also cite Rocket Labs as still being $10k/pound, however it has significant differences to how SpaceX is launching theirs, including a very different weight limit.
-
Again, do you have a source for any of these numbers? I see an article from 2008 (10 YEARS ago) that gives NASA launches at $10k/pound. NASA no longer directly sends things into space though according to another article. The lowest I see is a 2017 article (http://www.realclearfuture.com/articles/2017/06/01/elon_musk_is_still_the_king_of_low-cost_space_launch_111957.html) that gives SpaceX a cost of $1250/pound as the lowest amount. That article DOES also cite Rocket Labs as still being $10k/pound, however it has significant differences to how SpaceX is launching theirs, including a very different weight limit.
plenty of sources on the Zenit costs per pound, readily available on the line. We can use your numbers for spacex if you like, not that much different in the comparing. but you think a company (spacex) is able to completly bypass NASA that has been around 60+ years this quickly and cut costs from $10k to 1.2k? thats naive.
why do we even care about the $10k/lb NASA number, those are obviously fabricated. no point in even arguing about that.
-
Again, do you have a source for any of these numbers? I see an article from 2008 (10 YEARS ago) that gives NASA launches at $10k/pound. NASA no longer directly sends things into space though according to another article. The lowest I see is a 2017 article (http://www.realclearfuture.com/articles/2017/06/01/elon_musk_is_still_the_king_of_low-cost_space_launch_111957.html) that gives SpaceX a cost of $1250/pound as the lowest amount. That article DOES also cite Rocket Labs as still being $10k/pound, however it has significant differences to how SpaceX is launching theirs, including a very different weight limit.
plenty of sources on the Zenit costs per pound, readily available on the line. We can use your numbers for spacex if you like, not that much different in the comparing. but you think a company (spacex) is able to completly bypass NASA that has been around 60+ years this quickly and cut costs from $10k to 1.2k? thats naive.
why do we even care about the $10k/lb NASA number, those are obviously fabricated. no point in even arguing about that.
"Plenty of sources" No, post one, it's your claim. I haven't found a single source stating that low. Also remember NASA didn't upgrade their shuttle tech for 20ish years. So yeah, I'd say 30 years of development in many areas can easily result in a reduction of 90+%, just look at what computers did in 30 years.
-
Again, do you have a source for any of these numbers? I see an article from 2008 (10 YEARS ago) that gives NASA launches at $10k/pound. NASA no longer directly sends things into space though according to another article. The lowest I see is a 2017 article (http://www.realclearfuture.com/articles/2017/06/01/elon_musk_is_still_the_king_of_low-cost_space_launch_111957.html) that gives SpaceX a cost of $1250/pound as the lowest amount. That article DOES also cite Rocket Labs as still being $10k/pound, however it has significant differences to how SpaceX is launching theirs, including a very different weight limit.
plenty of sources on the Zenit costs per pound, readily available on the line. We can use your numbers for spacex if you like, not that much different in the comparing. but you think a company (spacex) is able to completly bypass NASA that has been around 60+ years this quickly and cut costs from $10k to 1.2k? thats naive.
why do we even care about the $10k/lb NASA number, those are obviously fabricated. no point in even arguing about that.
"Plenty of sources" No, post one, it's your claim. I haven't found a single source stating that low. Also remember NASA didn't upgrade their shuttle tech for 20ish years. So yeah, I'd say 30 years of development in many areas can easily result in a reduction of 90+%, just look at what computers did in 30 years.
You are the one questioning my numbers, which btw are almost the same as the number you are using ($800 compared to $1,200 compared to $10k) You can find it, it took me 2 minutes, if it really matters so much to you. Even using your numbers, it doesn't matter, still proves my point. NASA inflating costs 8-12x on paper... Why? We know the reason. This has all been discussed.
-
Again, do you have a source for any of these numbers? I see an article from 2008 (10 YEARS ago) that gives NASA launches at $10k/pound. NASA no longer directly sends things into space though according to another article. The lowest I see is a 2017 article (http://www.realclearfuture.com/articles/2017/06/01/elon_musk_is_still_the_king_of_low-cost_space_launch_111957.html) that gives SpaceX a cost of $1250/pound as the lowest amount. That article DOES also cite Rocket Labs as still being $10k/pound, however it has significant differences to how SpaceX is launching theirs, including a very different weight limit.
plenty of sources on the Zenit costs per pound, readily available on the line. We can use your numbers for spacex if you like, not that much different in the comparing. but you think a company (spacex) is able to completly bypass NASA that has been around 60+ years this quickly and cut costs from $10k to 1.2k? thats naive.
why do we even care about the $10k/lb NASA number, those are obviously fabricated. no point in even arguing about that.
"Plenty of sources" No, post one, it's your claim. I haven't found a single source stating that low. Also remember NASA didn't upgrade their shuttle tech for 20ish years. So yeah, I'd say 30 years of development in many areas can easily result in a reduction of 90+%, just look at what computers did in 30 years.
You are the one questioning my numbers, which btw are almost the same as the number you are using ($800 compared to $1,200 compared to $10k) You can find it, it took me 2 minutes, if it really matters so much to you. Even using your numbers, it doesn't matter, still proves my point. NASA inflating costs 8-12x on paper... Why? We know the reason. This has all been discussed.
You're presenting your numbers without a source. It's not on me to provide one. Also, once again, NASA's figures are 30 years old. No wonder it costed so much more per pound. They don't even technically launch their own shuttles anymore.
No, we have your claims, once again without evidence. Care to provide any?
-
You're presenting your numbers without a source. It's not on me to provide one. Also, once again, NASA's figures are 30 years old. No wonder it costed so much more per pound. They don't even technically launch their own shuttles anymore.
No, we have your claims, once again without evidence. Care to provide any?
NASA figures are not 30 years old, thats a lie you are saying. straight off their website, its says "TODAY, it costs $10k per lb"....unless you are saying NASA created this webpage 30 years ago and hasnt updated it???
link (source): https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/astp.html
who said anything about shuttles? are you ignorant to the fact that NASA has many different rockets they use to launch payloads? are you going to continue to provide false facts to try and support your sides of the argument? its all very clear that NASA is lying
here is a link to the launch schedule by NASA, many of them are there own rockets: https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/
try to verify your statements before posting to avoid these types of errors in the future.
-
NASA figures are not 30 years old, thats a lie you are saying. straight off their website, its says "TODAY, it costs $10k per lb"....unless you are saying NASA created this webpage 30 years ago and hasnt updated it???
link (source): https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/astp.html
It's undated, and there's even a disclaimer at the top of the page stating it is being kept online for HISTORICAL purposes ...
Switch to "View Page Source" and there are three dates within - 2004, 2007, and 2008.
So it seems to be over 10 years old.
-
You're presenting your numbers without a source. It's not on me to provide one. Also, once again, NASA's figures are 30 years old. No wonder it costed so much more per pound. They don't even technically launch their own shuttles anymore.
No, we have your claims, once again without evidence. Care to provide any?
NASA figures are not 30 years old, thats a lie you are saying. straight off their website, its says "TODAY, it costs $10k per lb"....unless you are saying NASA created this webpage 30 years ago and hasnt updated it???
link (source): https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/astp.html
who said anything about shuttles? are you ignorant to the fact that NASA has many different rockets they use to launch payloads? are you going to continue to provide false facts to try and support your sides of the argument? its all very clear that NASA is lying
here is a link to the launch schedule by NASA, many of them are there own rockets: https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/
try to verify your statements before posting to avoid these types of errors in the future.
Considering making deliberate errors in some things has been the only way to get ANY sort of sources out of you, I think I'll continue to do so thank you very much. Alternatively you could actually provide sources in some manner on your own next time and make this a LOT easier on both of us. How does that sound?
Now, when I'm talking about their figures being 30 years old, I mispoke somewhat as well, so I do apologize. I meant that their flight technology is relatively old when referring to that $10k/pound claim. The site you linked that gives it hasn't been updated in a decade for example. The Delta IV Heavy has a $5.5k/pound cost per launch (at it's cheapest). A slightly more modern rocket, with it's direct competitor in weight lifting being the Falcon Heavy. The SpaceX launches are cheaper as well in part due to their massive push towards reusable components. I would also note the Delta IV isn't used terribly often, seeing only 9 launches (one of which was it's maiden launch) since 2004. This ties into the list you provided, as it's the only NASA launch listed there. While they DO still do launches on their own, they are rare. That list suggests it's only the single Delta IV for this entire year in fact. All the rest are joint launches, and not one of the others uses NASA rockets or shuttles.
For the record, the 'worst case' costs per pound on both the Delta IV and the Falcon Heavy are as follows:
Delta IV: ~$11k/pound
Falcon: ~$4k/pound
Part of this is definitely due to the fact one was designed with re-usability in mind, and another part I suspect is because the Falcon Heavy is newer by a decade or more in it's technology/design, AND part of it's design/mission is to allow trips to Mars or further with cargo. As a note, a Mars trip (Delta IV can't go that far) costs ~$6.5k/pound. Welcome to the rapid advancement of technology.
-
here is a link to the launch schedule by NASA, many of them are there own rockets: https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/
Twelve items listed.
Here's the global launch schedule for the rest of the year, from an independent source; https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
42 items therein, with 10 specified as NASA launch or involvement. That's less than one-quarter of the total. So three-quarters or more of the worldwide satellite effort is not NASA-specific.
-
playing devil's advocate on behalf of the FE'ers that havent responded here. I think what you have actually proved is that NASA and others are utilized ground based weather radar in order to generate these CGI satellite images. makes sense, instead of constant guessing, just use the data you already have from the flat ground. then project that information onto the made up "ball". brilliant NASA.
You do realise that the analysis video I posted included only output from SpaceX and JAXA? No NASA involvement at all.
So you reckon both SpaceX and JAXA had access to this ground radar data for the whole of the Falcon Heavy's orbital track, and for the whole spherical cap visible to the Himawari satellite, and they managed to assemble both datasets into two formats which matched EXACTLY, and that they both managed to do this within minutes of the SpaceX launch?
-
here is a link to the launch schedule by NASA, many of them are there own rockets: https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/
Twelve items listed.
Here's the global launch schedule for the rest of the year, from an independent source; https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
42 items therein, with 10 specified as NASA launch or involvement. That's less than one-quarter of the total. So three-quarters or more of the worldwide satellite effort is not NASA-specific.
no argument here, we all know other agencies are in on the hoax, all of them to be exact. how do you think they can afford to support all those troops at the ice wall?
-
playing devil's advocate on behalf of the FE'ers that havent responded here. I think what you have actually proved is that NASA and others are utilized ground based weather radar in order to generate these CGI satellite images. makes sense, instead of constant guessing, just use the data you already have from the flat ground. then project that information onto the made up "ball". brilliant NASA.
You do realise that the analysis video I posted included only output from SpaceX and JAXA? No NASA involvement at all.
So you reckon both SpaceX and JAXA had access to this ground radar data for the whole of the Falcon Heavy's orbital track, and for the whole spherical cap visible to the Himawari satellite, and they managed to assemble both datasets into two formats which matched EXACTLY, and that they both managed to do this within minutes of the SpaceX launch?
of course they have access, why wouldnt they??!. no NASA involvement??? really? look at NASA's list of launches along with the other agencies, all of them are paying SpaceX to launch their product. SpaceX and others are a for profit company. so yes, they are delivering the same payloads to antartica and getting paid to do so. they can charge less than NASA since they are newer companies without all the legacy costs. simple economics.
Do you really think they have a team of nerds sitting around pulling data from all the ground based radar and drawing the globe in MS Paint or something?! Of course its all automated, thats fairly easy to do.
-
Considering making deliberate errors in some things has been the only way to get ANY sort of sources out of you, I think I'll continue to do so thank you very much. Alternatively you could actually provide sources in some manner on your own next time and make this a LOT easier on both of us. How does that sound?
Now, when I'm talking about their figures being 30 years old, I mispoke somewhat as well, so I do apologize. I meant that their flight technology is relatively old when referring to that $10k/pound claim. The site you linked that gives it hasn't been updated in a decade for example. The Delta IV Heavy has a $5.5k/pound cost per launch (at it's cheapest). A slightly more modern rocket, with it's direct competitor in weight lifting being the Falcon Heavy. The SpaceX launches are cheaper as well in part due to their massive push towards reusable components. I would also note the Delta IV isn't used terribly often, seeing only 9 launches (one of which was it's maiden launch) since 2004. This ties into the list you provided, as it's the only NASA launch listed there. While they DO still do launches on their own, they are rare. That list suggests it's only the single Delta IV for this entire year in fact. All the rest are joint launches, and not one of the others uses NASA rockets or shuttles.
For the record, the 'worst case' costs per pound on both the Delta IV and the Falcon Heavy are as follows:
Delta IV: ~$11k/pound
Falcon: ~$4k/pound
Part of this is definitely due to the fact one was designed with re-usability in mind, and another part I suspect is because the Falcon Heavy is newer by a decade or more in it's technology/design, AND part of it's design/mission is to allow trips to Mars or further with cargo. As a note, a Mars trip (Delta IV can't go that far) costs ~$6.5k/pound. Welcome to the rapid advancement of technology.
real nice, making deliberate errors, nice debate style there.
worst case scenarios. keep cherry picking data to suit your argument.
SpaceX isnt saying $4k/lb, as there most recent launches were way lower, which you already know.
You should request updated costs from NASA, all i can go off of what is publicized on there very own website...again, which uses the word TODAY
You do realize that you are arguing with me about minor details, a few hundred dollars per pound variance in different figures, but you are essentially proving the NASA hoax for me. NASA says $10k/lb and you are saying its a fraction of that. ok, i agree. so why are they using double/triple/quadruple/etc figures for there budgetting?
-
You should request updated costs from NASA, all i can go off of what is publicized on there very own website...again, which uses the word TODAY
... on a page which was clearly written more than ten years ago!
-
Considering making deliberate errors in some things has been the only way to get ANY sort of sources out of you, I think I'll continue to do so thank you very much. Alternatively you could actually provide sources in some manner on your own next time and make this a LOT easier on both of us. How does that sound?
Now, when I'm talking about their figures being 30 years old, I mispoke somewhat as well, so I do apologize. I meant that their flight technology is relatively old when referring to that $10k/pound claim. The site you linked that gives it hasn't been updated in a decade for example. The Delta IV Heavy has a $5.5k/pound cost per launch (at it's cheapest). A slightly more modern rocket, with it's direct competitor in weight lifting being the Falcon Heavy. The SpaceX launches are cheaper as well in part due to their massive push towards reusable components. I would also note the Delta IV isn't used terribly often, seeing only 9 launches (one of which was it's maiden launch) since 2004. This ties into the list you provided, as it's the only NASA launch listed there. While they DO still do launches on their own, they are rare. That list suggests it's only the single Delta IV for this entire year in fact. All the rest are joint launches, and not one of the others uses NASA rockets or shuttles.
For the record, the 'worst case' costs per pound on both the Delta IV and the Falcon Heavy are as follows:
Delta IV: ~$11k/pound
Falcon: ~$4k/pound
Part of this is definitely due to the fact one was designed with re-usability in mind, and another part I suspect is because the Falcon Heavy is newer by a decade or more in it's technology/design, AND part of it's design/mission is to allow trips to Mars or further with cargo. As a note, a Mars trip (Delta IV can't go that far) costs ~$6.5k/pound. Welcome to the rapid advancement of technology.
real nice, making deliberate errors, nice debate style there.
worst case scenarios. keep cherry picking data to suit your argument.
SpaceX isnt saying $4k/lb, as there most recent launches were way lower, which you already know.
You should request updated costs from NASA, all i can go off of what is publicized on there very own website...again, which uses the word TODAY
You do realize that you are arguing with me about minor details, a few hundred dollars per pound variance in different figures, but you are essentially proving the NASA hoax for me. NASA says $10k/lb and you are saying its a fraction of that. ok, i agree. so why are they using double/triple/quadruple/etc figures for there budgetting?
Sorry, wasn't aware we were in debate. We're sitting here in general last I checked. Weird.
How is providing the 'worst case' cherry picking? I didn't use it to make any argument, I even put the best case scenario for the Delta right in the body of my post. The same for SpaceX has already been provided previously. I'm not attempting to do anything with it beyond presenting it as more information that could be of use.
I'm saying NASA's costs are higher, because their tech is older/aging. It doesn't have the same efficiencies that SpaceX was able to build into their rockets, because they didn't exist when the current 'fleet' of NASA rockets were created.
playing devil's advocate on behalf of the FE'ers that havent responded here. I think what you have actually proved is that NASA and others are utilized ground based weather radar in order to generate these CGI satellite images. makes sense, instead of constant guessing, just use the data you already have from the flat ground. then project that information onto the made up "ball". brilliant NASA.
You do realise that the analysis video I posted included only output from SpaceX and JAXA? No NASA involvement at all.
So you reckon both SpaceX and JAXA had access to this ground radar data for the whole of the Falcon Heavy's orbital track, and for the whole spherical cap visible to the Himawari satellite, and they managed to assemble both datasets into two formats which matched EXACTLY, and that they both managed to do this within minutes of the SpaceX launch?
of course they have access, why wouldnt they??!. no NASA involvement??? really? look at NASA's list of launches along with the other agencies, all of them are paying SpaceX to launch their product. SpaceX and others are a for profit company. so yes, they are delivering the same payloads to antartica and getting paid to do so. they can charge less than NASA since they are newer companies without all the legacy costs. simple economics.
Do you really think they have a team of nerds sitting around pulling data from all the ground based radar and drawing the globe in MS Paint or something?! Of course its all automated, thats fairly easy to do.
Disregarding the fact that you have yet to present a single shred of evidence for any of these claims, let's talk about one thing. "They can charge less than Nasa" and "For profit company". Alright, if they're in this for a profit (as is, so you claim NASA) and are having to WORK with NASA, why oh why are they presenting their costs as being 10-20% of those of NASA? How does this make any sense? Seeing as supposively these numbers are just made up, why not 80-70% of the cost to still look like it's progress, but keep a nice profit margin? Or hell, why worry about showing a reduced cost at all? I think you're just making word salad here.
-
Sorry, wasn't aware we were in debate. We're sitting here in general last I checked. Weird.
How is providing the 'worst case' cherry picking? I didn't use it to make any argument, I even put the best case scenario for the Delta right in the body of my post. The same for SpaceX has already been provided previously. I'm not attempting to do anything with it beyond presenting it as more information that could be of use.
I'm saying NASA's costs are higher, because their tech is older/aging. It doesn't have the same efficiencies that SpaceX was able to build into their rockets, because they didn't exist when the current 'fleet' of NASA rockets were created.
.
.
.
Disregarding the fact that you have yet to present a single shred of evidence for any of these claims, let's talk about one thing. "They can charge less than Nasa" and "For profit company". Alright, if they're in this for a profit (as is, so you claim NASA) and are having to WORK with NASA, why oh why are they presenting their costs as being 10-20% of those of NASA? How does this make any sense? Seeing as supposively these numbers are just made up, why not 80-70% of the cost to still look like it's progress, but keep a nice profit margin? Or hell, why worry about showing a reduced cost at all? I think you're just making word salad here.
you really like to parse words to fit your argument. we are going back and forth on something, so yes, for intents and pursposes...this is a DEBATE. geez
anything the governement (NASA) is involved in is going to be more expensive than private companies....$10k toilet ring a bell?
Regarding decreased costs. if they didnt offer a substantial savings over NASA costs they wouldnt get any contracts. NASA is trusting them a lot to be able to deliver the payloads to the ice wall without the rocket blowing up, for them to not be in control there has to be a demonstrated reduction. Remember these nonsense costs are based on going into orbit, not just to the ice wall, so there is already a huge inflation. They can also play with the pounds of payload to increase profits, such as saying the payload weight 2x as much as it did. put this all together and plenty of profit.
In the end, the rocket launces are just about keeping up the show the fund NASAs budget, the majority of the shipments are still going via ship delivery, but that isnt in NASA budgets so they need something to fund everything else..i.e. high altitude planes (satellites), CGI, etc etc.
BTW the proof that they are using planes as satelittes is not very well hidden on their own page. high altitude planes (70,000 ft cruising altitude) that "test" satellite sensor development...lol, ok: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html
-
In the end, the rocket launces are just about keeping up the show the fund NASAs budget ...
BTW the proof that they are using planes as satelittes is not very well hidden on their own page. high altitude planes (70,000 ft cruising altitude) that "test" satellite sensor development...lol, ok: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html
That page says they have TWO planes of this type. Are you really suggesting that they form some nefarious programme to convince the world that there are satellites up there, when there's not? Really? With just two planes?
-
In the end, the rocket launces are just about keeping up the show the fund NASAs budget ...
BTW the proof that they are using planes as satelittes is not very well hidden on their own page. high altitude planes (70,000 ft cruising altitude) that "test" satellite sensor development...lol, ok: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html
That page says they have TWO planes of this type. Are you really suggesting that they form some nefarious programme to convince the world that there are satellites up there, when there's not? Really? With just two planes?
lets keep this on the other thread, i responded there.
-
If the satellites - and the ISS - weren't at the stated altitudes, but were really high altitude drones or planes, it could only possibly appear to work for a single observer, but whenever two or more were looking from different locations, the angles wouldn't add up. Like so:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2f5c12991748696ba900d303093ad8a0.gif)
-
If the satellites - and the ISS - weren't at the stated altitudes, but were really high altitude drones or planes, it could only possibly appear to work for a single observer, but whenever two or more were looking from different locations, the angles wouldn't add up. Like so:
of course it would work
question, have you ever called a friend that lived over a hundred miles away and gone out together and looked at the ISS at the same time? how wide is the observable ISS path?
-
question, have you ever called a friend that lived over a hundred miles away and gone out together and looked at the ISS at the same time? how wide is the observable ISS path?
Not personally. But other people have.
Here's a video where two people just a kilometre apart were able to calculate the altitude of the ISS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80y2LP1bWH4
From these observations the video maker estimated that the ISS would be ~408 km above the flat-Earth and 414 km when including the Earth's curvature. He also determined that the ISS is about 109m in width and has a velocity around 7 km/s.
Pretty close for two guys with cameras.
-
Not personally. But other people have.
Exactly
-
Not personally. But other people have.
Exactly
Have you ever personally witnessed the ISS to be a drone, then?
And why completely dismiss the video that proves the ISS is at its claimed altitude?
-
Not personally. But other people have.
Exactly
Have you personally verified they have a high altitude plane that looks exactly like the ISS?
Have you personally verified these high altitude planes even exist? (After all, your source is the NASA website, what if they're lies too just like satellites?)
Have you personally verified the military personnel patrolling Antarctica?
How about the flights that go there regularly to stock them back up?
If not, how can you claim any of these things are true by your logic?
-
Not personally. But other people have.
Exactly
Have you ever personally witnessed the ISS to be a drone, then?
And why completely dismiss the video that proves the ISS is at its claimed altitude?
you guys are the ones claiming to know the exact height, speed and makeup of the satellite. you provide claims about how easy it is to simply go out and triangulate the exact height of the ISS to verify. it SOOOOO easy...yet not a SINGLE round earther on this website has ever done it. hmmm....
-
Have you personally verified they have a high altitude plane that looks exactly like the ISS?
Have you personally verified these high altitude planes even exist? (After all, your source is the NASA website, what if they're lies too just like satellites?)
Have you personally verified the military personnel patrolling Antarctica?
How about the flights that go there regularly to stock them back up?
If not, how can you claim any of these things are true by your logic?
you are the ones claiming to know everything about the ISS and present it as fact. i have provided evidence that it is very likely a NASA (or other agency) high altitude jet, which their own wesbite includes many clues to help support that. you RE'ers love to try and pose these questions, you act as if you know what you are talking about and you are just regurgitating what you have been told. I can do the same to you:
1. Have you worked for NASA and been involved in the design of satelittes
2. Have you ever viewed the satelittes with high powered telescope and track individual satelittes and make out there exact shape
3. have you ever determined the height of the ISS yourself and compared the geometry of its track with another person to triangulate the height?
4. Have you ever inspected a satelitte before it was loaded into a rocket?
I mean, its ridiculous the extremes you guys go to to try and prove a point. admit it, you have NO idea, other than what you have been told and/or read on the internet.
I question NASA and provide my thoughts. you have no thoughts. the thread topic was proving that satellites (and their images) are real. I have provided critical thought on exactly how these images can be faked by NASA.
-
You're saying that the video I provided above is faked and the guys who made it are liars?
-
If the satellites - and the ISS - weren't at the stated altitudes, but were really high altitude drones or planes, it could only possibly appear to work for a single observer, but whenever two or more were looking from different locations, the angles wouldn't add up. Like so:
of course it would work
question, have you ever called a friend that lived over a hundred miles away and gone out together and looked at the ISS at the same time? how wide is the observable ISS path?
We know that satellites work for broadcast and navigaation.
-
You're saying that the video I provided above is faked and the guys who made it are liars?
i am saying that you havent tried to re-create the math and observations. I have seen that video many times and i think their math based on the observations appear correct....but i have no way to know the angles observed were done correctly and how accurate they were. You round earthers love to use that video and say how easy it is for you and a friend to do the observation and calculation....yet, not a single person here has tried on their own...interesting for something so easy.
Either it isn't true or you cant personally do the math. which is it?
-
You're saying that the video I provided above is faked and the guys who made it are liars?
i am saying that you havent tried to re-create the math and observations. I have seen that video many times and i think their math based on the observations appear correct....but i have no way to know the angles observed were done correctly and how accurate they were. You round earthers love to use that video and say how easy it is for you and a friend to do the observation and calculation....yet, not a single person here has tried on their own...interesting for something so easy.
Either it isn't true or you cant personally do the math. which is it?
If I didn't know any better I'd say you were trolling. ;)
-
You're saying that the video I provided above is faked and the guys who made it are liars?
i am saying that you havent tried to re-create the math and observations. I have seen that video many times and i think their math based on the observations appear correct....but i have no way to know the angles observed were done correctly and how accurate they were. You round earthers love to use that video and say how easy it is for you and a friend to do the observation and calculation....yet, not a single person here has tried on their own...interesting for something so easy.
Either it isn't true or you cant personally do the math. which is it?
If I didn't know any better I'd say you were trolling. ;)
Maybe you should leave the low content posting in AR/CN
Back to the subject... So you are saying you wont reach out to a fellow friend in the area the next time ISS flies over and do the experiment? its so easy, should only take you a couple minutes between observation and doing the geometry.
here is a link you can use to find out the next time it will be near you: https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/index.cfm
Maybe you and Tom bishop could collaborate on this together
-
Have you personally verified they have a high altitude plane that looks exactly like the ISS?
Have you personally verified these high altitude planes even exist? (After all, your source is the NASA website, what if they're lies too just like satellites?)
Have you personally verified the military personnel patrolling Antarctica?
How about the flights that go there regularly to stock them back up?
If not, how can you claim any of these things are true by your logic?
you are the ones claiming to know everything about the ISS and present it as fact. i have provided evidence that it is very likely a NASA (or other agency) high altitude jet, which their own wesbite includes many clues to help support that. you RE'ers love to try and pose these questions, you act as if you know what you are talking about and you are just regurgitating what you have been told. I can do the same to you:
1. Have you worked for NASA and been involved in the design of satelittes
2. Have you ever viewed the satelittes with high powered telescope and track individual satelittes and make out there exact shape
3. have you ever determined the height of the ISS yourself and compared the geometry of its track with another person to triangulate the height?
4. Have you ever inspected a satelitte before it was loaded into a rocket?
I mean, its ridiculous the extremes you guys go to to try and prove a point. admit it, you have NO idea, other than what you have been told and/or read on the internet.
I question NASA and provide my thoughts. you have no thoughts. the thread topic was proving that satellites (and their images) are real. I have provided critical thought on exactly how these images can be faked by NASA.
1. No, I don't live anywhere near NASA bases.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. See 1.
I've tested many of NASA's assertions, as well as many more made by the FE'rs on this site and others. 90% of the FE ones come up lacking ime. The only one that wavers in my experience is lasers over long distances. But that one is just an interesting oddity when taken with everything else. You're the one presenting this idea of 'think for yourself, do it for yourself' not me. I don't claim to know everything about the ISS, but my personal observations match the information that's given. You're making a claim and your only evidence is that something that could maybe work to fulfill the same role, likely exists. That seems like a pretty weak case to me. Yet you appear to believe it with zero personal evidence for it. You're making things up in an effort to have a position that isn't just 'I don't know'.
-
how wide is the observable ISS path?
I've watched it from Central Scotland when it's been passing south of the UK.
-
Not personally. But other people have.
Exactly
Have you ever personally witnessed the ISS to be a drone, then?
And why completely dismiss the video that proves the ISS is at its claimed altitude?
you guys are the ones claiming to know the exact height, speed and makeup of the satellite. you provide claims about how easy it is to simply go out and triangulate the exact height of the ISS to verify. it SOOOOO easy...yet not a SINGLE round earther on this website has ever done it. hmmm....
I don't have two telescopes.
-
i have provided evidence that it is very likely a NASA (or other agency) high altitude jet,
No, you haven't.
which their own website includes many clues to help support that.
What, the article about the TWO high-altitude jets? Nah ... that doesn't support that
I have provided critical thought on exactly how these images can be faked by NASA.
All you've done is a "could be this, might be that" speculation.