*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Polar Orbits
« on: March 20, 2016, 02:22:22 AM »
This is something I mentioned in passing already, but to make it official; how do Polar Orbits work in the Flat Earth Model? Alternatively, couldn't something in polar orbit easily prove flatness/rotundity? Are polar orbits even possible in FE model? The wikipedia page is quite suspiciously sparse, though funnily enough it is by far the largest wikipedia article for Inclination classifications.

I also don't understand the phrase on the wikipedia page "The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit." Wouldn't that be the same case with all other types of orbits? On a globe, all orbits pass to the 'other side of the globe', right? Why is there specific emphasis here? X and Y axis shouldn't mean anything on globe orbits, right? IE Equatorial orbits would just be flying in circles above the FE, where Polar orbits would have to go 'under' the FE; is that possible? What is under the FE?

Anyway I'm at an impasse on this one.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2016, 02:25:58 AM »
Already figured out one thing as soon as I posted; I'm assuming my wiki quote means, that there aren't any bases in the North/South to detect them.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2016, 04:03:04 AM »
This is something I mentioned in passing already, but to make it official; how do Polar Orbits work in the Flat Earth Model? Alternatively, couldn't something in polar orbit easily prove flatness/rotundity? Are polar orbits even possible in FE model? The wikipedia page is quite suspiciously sparse, though funnily enough it is by far the largest wikipedia article for Inclination classifications.

I also don't understand the phrase on the wikipedia page "The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit." Wouldn't that be the same case with all other types of orbits? On a globe, all orbits pass to the 'other side of the globe', right? Why is there specific emphasis here? X and Y axis shouldn't mean anything on globe orbits, right? IE Equatorial orbits would just be flying in circles above the FE, where Polar orbits would have to go 'under' the FE; is that possible? What is under the FE?

Anyway I'm at an impasse on this one.
No problem! Notwithstanding all the evidence for satellites, TFES denies the existence of any artificial satellites.
As you say a "polar orbit" would be meaningless. The is a North Pole, but (supposedly) no South Pole (notwithstanding all the evidence and video from the actual Pole).

I think what is meant by "The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit." a satellite in an geostationary orbit "hovers" over one spot and can be viewed continuously by anyone in range.

You will note where Wiki says that polar orbits can cover the whole earth and that the "Iridium satellite constellation also uses a polar orbit". The Iridium satellites are used for satellite phone services and a satellite hands the service over to another Iridium satellite when before it goes out of range.

GPS satellite each orbit the earth twice a day and have an inclination of 55° and so do not cover polar regions well.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2016, 04:50:52 AM »
This is something I mentioned in passing already, but to make it official; how do Polar Orbits work in the Flat Earth Model? Alternatively, couldn't something in polar orbit easily prove flatness/rotundity? Are polar orbits even possible in FE model? The wikipedia page is quite suspiciously sparse, though funnily enough it is by far the largest wikipedia article for Inclination classifications.

I also don't understand the phrase on the wikipedia page "The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit." Wouldn't that be the same case with all other types of orbits? On a globe, all orbits pass to the 'other side of the globe', right? Why is there specific emphasis here? X and Y axis shouldn't mean anything on globe orbits, right? IE Equatorial orbits would just be flying in circles above the FE, where Polar orbits would have to go 'under' the FE; is that possible? What is under the FE?

Anyway I'm at an impasse on this one.

Orbit inclinations and altitudes are used for different applications.  Since changing one or both will change how often a satellite will pass over and/or near the same point on a planet.

Being close to an polar orbit is good for gathering data over the surface like weather or spy satellites.

If you research further you will learn why the vast majority of pictures of Earth were composites.  Changed somewhat recently with DSCOVR and Himawari-8.

Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2016, 08:44:11 AM »
Polar orbits are used for mapping as well since the earth rotates under the satellite which eventually will make it pass every possible point on the surface
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2016, 03:43:15 PM »
I also don't understand the phrase on the wikipedia page "The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit." Wouldn't that be the same case with all other types of orbits?

A geostationary orbit rotates once every 24 hours, and in the same direction as the earth rotates (picture it orbiting in the plane of the equator). So, to an observer beneath, the satellite appears stationary. Similarly, any point on the close side of the planet to the satellite remains in view permanently.

Polar orbits can't do that. They can, however, do a clever precession so that they pass over the same point at the same time(s) every day - useful for doing comparisons of locations over time, as the shadows stay pretty constant from day to day - except for seasonal variations - so images are easily compared. What's more, they also orbit several times a day and the relationship holds for everywhere they orbit over, so you can do it to the whole planet.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2016, 07:54:20 PM »
Thanks for replies, I think I see how each (directional at least) FE model 'satellite' works now:

Equatorial (or any related to latitude) = flying in circles above FE.
Geostationary = 'not moving' at all in relation to Earth = just a balloon sitting there above FE.
Polar (or any related to longitude) = flying in highly eccentric (like a stretched rubber band) orbits above FE.

So, there are a lot of replies relating to the middle one, geostationary; however my main question remains relatively unaddressed; why is there emphasis that Polar is the odd man out? On a globe, both latitude and longitudinal orbits should have similar 360 degree motion, just in intersecting direction. I  still don't see why, I mean I even did some more research, and I was wrong; there are indeed both arctic and antarctic bases, such as the remnants of the old DEW Line and the notorious 'only entrance' to Antarctica. Even John Oliver lampshaded this in one of his videos (the 'don't come to AA' one).

Anyway sorry if I'm drifting off topic, just anything related to Antarctica has fascinated me for years since before I got interested in FE; now I just have a new context from which to be interested in - that's why there was such a fuss about the BKS initially, even then Polar Orbits were considered implausible, for reasons I've never quite been able to comprehend.

If you research further you will learn why the vast majority of pictures of Earth were composites.  Changed somewhat recently with DSCOVR and Himawari-8.

RE: composite pics conspiracy: I am somewhat familiar with this (quite compelling) argument (especially when NASA openly admits to it). Why is there no footage of any rocket launches into space? Not even SpaceX tried this, though the publicized it 'returning'. Understandably there isn't much footage from say, battleships, ACC, or submarines either, but still. It's well beyond the point of a national security concern now, if it isn't a conspiracy, and there's nothing to hide by declassifying the space race.

The Iridium satellites are used for satellite phone services and a satellite hands the service over to another Iridium satellite when before it goes out of range.

GPS satellite each orbit the earth twice a day and have an inclination of 55° and so do not cover polar regions well.

RE: Iridium satellites: they claim to have plenty of spare IS's up there as well, as many as 5 per group; also the wiki states that the very first ever satellite collision was of this class; which reminds me of another (more recent) point, about the recent Chinese attack on their own 'satellite' - if satellites are real, I guess NASA now will have to update all the known space debris? That sounds like a lot of work, and should cause a lot of problems for say, as you mention, the Iridium network - it's been over a month since this 'supposed attack', but none of the networks have gone down? I assume it was at a different altitude and orbital path, but debris is relatively uncontrolled in an explosion? Also, explosions in space?

I forgot space travel was a conspiracy in FE model, but is there any speculation about what is 'beneath' the FE?
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2016, 12:37:24 AM »
Thanks for replies, I think I see how each (directional at least) FE model 'satellite' works now:

Equatorial (or any related to latitude) = flying in circles above FE.
Geostationary = 'not moving' at all in relation to Earth = just a balloon sitting there above FE.
Polar (or any related to longitude) = flying in highly eccentric (like a stretched rubber band) orbits above FE.

So, there are a lot of replies relating to the middle one, geostationary; however my main question remains relatively unaddressed; why is there emphasis that Polar is the odd man out? On a globe, both latitude and longitudinal orbits should have similar 360 degree motion, just in intersecting direction. I  still don't see why, I mean I even did some more research, and I was wrong; there are indeed both arctic and antarctic bases, such as the remnants of the old DEW Line and the notorious 'only entrance' to Antarctica. Even John Oliver lampshaded this in one of his videos (the 'don't come to AA' one).

Anyway sorry if I'm drifting off topic, just anything related to Antarctica has fascinated me for years since before I got interested in FE; now I just have a new context from which to be interested in - that's why there was such a fuss about the BKS initially, even then Polar Orbits were considered implausible, for reasons I've never quite been able to comprehend.

If you research further you will learn why the vast majority of pictures of Earth were composites.  Changed somewhat recently with DSCOVR and Himawari-8.

RE: composite pics conspiracy: I am somewhat familiar with this (quite compelling) argument (especially when NASA openly admits to it). Why is there no footage of any rocket launches into space? Not even SpaceX tried this, though the publicized it 'returning'. Understandably there isn't much footage from say, battleships, ACC, or submarines either, but still. It's well beyond the point of a national security concern now, if it isn't a conspiracy, and there's nothing to hide by declassifying the space race.

I forgot space travel was a conspiracy in FE model, but is there any speculation about what is 'beneath' the FE?

Why would they?  They are not out to prove the shape of the Earth or spaceflight is possible and does happen.  Most people accept it does happen.

You can find videos, but their main reason they had cameras recording was not to offer evidence of space flight but to monitor things and have something to review if something went wrong.

[vid][/vid]





There are more all you have to do is look for them. You can also find

Then of course you can watch the live stream from the ISS.

The problem just like the shape of the Earth is no one is out to prove it to a small group of people. 

I will also point out that the videos exist, but are not accepted as evidence and considered faked by people who think space travel cannot happen.  So why bother making vids or pictures that will be dismissed anyway?




*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2016, 02:27:19 AM »
I exceeded login time typing this, so sorry if this posts twice.

Why would they?  They are not out to prove the shape of the Earth or spaceflight is possible and does happen.  Most people accept it does happen.

You can find videos, but their main reason they had cameras recording was not to offer evidence of space flight but to monitor things and have something to review if something went wrong.

Then of course you can watch the live stream from the ISS.

The problem just like the shape of the Earth is no one is out to prove it to a small group of people. 

I will also point out that the videos exist, but are not accepted as evidence and considered faked by people who think space travel cannot happen.  So why bother making vids or pictures that will be dismissed anyway?

Yes, I have viewed a few over the years (many more recently since getting into FE), but obviously all of these videos tend to end at about the same altitude (I assume at the point of reaching the rocket phase during which the cameras are shed). I mean, I've always taken space travel at face value; the deepest I've ever gone is to look into moon landing hoaxes (half-halfheartedly; had no reason to look too far) before FE. However, the altitude most of these (NON-CGI) videos seem to end at, seems to be precisely the altitude which go-proers (1, 2, 3, 4; search 'go pro near space' for several more balloon/rocket videos) have demonstrated to be as high as commercial rockets/balloons can go. Now, I'm not big into accusing NASA (and the like) of CGI, but when they make it this easy... Many of those go-proers aren't even Flat Earthers, just doing it for fun, or whatever their own motivations are; a lot of competition to go higher than the previous one.

Anyway I'm not really arguing that point, just realized I could have been more specific about the videos 'not being available'; I meant, there's only 'initial-lift-off-to-a-certain-altitude' videos or 'what-can-be-written-off-as-CGI' videos, and no real videos showing complete transition between the two. Now, I may be wrong here, but I have searched for say... rendezvous with the ISS, but most of that is about a computer program or video game where simulations of it are happening. But, thank you for providing those videos, and I will continue to look for more as I can; I want to find the 'proof' as much as anyone.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Polar Orbits
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2016, 04:03:29 AM »
I exceeded login time typing this, so sorry if this posts twice.

Why would they?  They are not out to prove the shape of the Earth or spaceflight is possible and does happen.  Most people accept it does happen.

You can find videos, but their main reason they had cameras recording was not to offer evidence of space flight but to monitor things and have something to review if something went wrong.

Then of course you can watch the live stream from the ISS.

The problem just like the shape of the Earth is no one is out to prove it to a small group of people. 

I will also point out that the videos exist, but are not accepted as evidence and considered faked by people who think space travel cannot happen.  So why bother making vids or pictures that will be dismissed anyway?

Yes, I have viewed a few over the years (many more recently since getting into FE), but obviously all of these videos tend to end at about the same altitude (I assume at the point of reaching the rocket phase during which the cameras are shed). I mean, I've always taken space travel at face value; the deepest I've ever gone is to look into moon landing hoaxes (half-halfheartedly; had no reason to look too far) before FE. However, the altitude most of these (NON-CGI) videos seem to end at, seems to be precisely the altitude which go-proers (1, 2, 3, 4; search 'go pro near space' for several more balloon/rocket videos) have demonstrated to be as high as commercial rockets/balloons can go. Now, I'm not big into accusing NASA (and the like) of CGI, but when they make it this easy... Many of those go-proers aren't even Flat Earthers, just doing it for fun, or whatever their own motivations are; a lot of competition to go higher than the previous one.

Anyway I'm not really arguing that point, just realized I could have been more specific about the videos 'not being available'; I meant, there's only 'initial-lift-off-to-a-certain-altitude' videos or 'what-can-be-written-off-as-CGI' videos, and no real videos showing complete transition between the two. Now, I may be wrong here, but I have searched for say... rendezvous with the ISS, but most of that is about a computer program or video game where simulations of it are happening. But, thank you for providing those videos, and I will continue to look for more as I can; I want to find the 'proof' as much as anyone.


This one is speed up since it is rather tedious to watch the whole thing.  During rendezvous the spacecraft approaches really slowly. When you see the Shuttle flip it is to visually check for any damage or missing tiles that may have occurred during the ascent.


From the shuttle approaching ISS


Here is the Soyuz.


Here is Soyuz from ISS perspective. Not the same Mission from above.

I find sometimes when searching for stuff using words that will most likely be used by most people works best.

For the above I searched," Shuttle from ISS" and "Soyuz from ISS" and flipped both to find videos from the space craft approaching.