Long range, high altitude, potenially solar powered airplanes. Nasa website even has a page showing one and even says its used to "test" satellite technology. Trying to formulate a conspiracy theory utilizing ground based system is overly complicated. Occams razor.
ask yourself, which of these two scenarios is easiest:
1. having a large number of airplanes that can fly along pre-determined paths and sustained speeds for a long time utilizing solar powered engines. as planes need more fuel or maintenace another plane takes off and resumes its path; or
2. having a large number of satelittes launched into space as the exact speed and trajectory needed to balance falling back to earth and its velocity matching the rotation (orbit), and also having to do constant micro-adjustments to their atomic clocks to account for time dilation that is related to both gravitational influence and velocities relative to those on earth. these satelittes also have to stay in orbit with no maintenance ever needed.
pretty obvious which one is simpler.
also, why is it that areas have random times of no satellite coverage? i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up: http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm
Long range, high altitude, potenially solar powered airplanes. Nasa website even has a page showing one and even says its used to "test" satellite technology. Trying to formulate a conspiracy theory utilizing ground based system is overly complicated. Occams razor.
ask yourself, which of these two scenarios is easiest:
1. having a large number of airplanes that can fly along pre-determined paths and sustained speeds for a long time utilizing solar powered engines. as planes need more fuel or maintenace another plane takes off and resumes its path; or
2. having a large number of satelittes launched into space as the exact speed and trajectory needed to balance falling back to earth and its velocity matching the rotation (orbit), and also having to do constant micro-adjustments to their atomic clocks to account for time dilation that is related to both gravitational influence and velocities relative to those on earth. these satelittes also have to stay in orbit with no maintenance ever needed.
pretty obvious which one is simpler.
also, why is it that areas have random times of no satellite coverage? i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up: http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm
The satellites are simpler, pretty obviously.
1: Energy - the amount of power we can harness from solar is limited, especially when you look at the technology when we were first launching satellites. They are just starting to develop planes that can fly on solar now, and they aren't at a level to be mass produced. Satellites take no energy to maintain their velocity and all their power can go towards other functions.
2: Pathing - To fly a plane along a predetermined path inside the atmosphere would involve constant monitoring and adjusting due to wind, weather and probably a million other factors. Seriously, how are you supposed to keep an unmanned flight on its course with no GPS? Satellite paths are predictable because there's no random variables in play. Once it's in space, the needed velocity for orbit can be calculated using high school level physics. The atomic clock is not necessary for its pathing, but again, time dilation can be calculated without difficulty.
3: Logistics - just to have a third point. Don't really feel like fleshing this one out.
its not that difficult, at any given time there are tens of thousands of airplanes in flight, following a pre-determined paths...and most are utilizing auto-pilot during the flights (less takeoff/landing). not complicated and we have been doing that a long time. You think its more complicated than managing the thousands of flights travelling thru one of the large airports on a given day?
you are trying to make it sound more complicated than it is to just justify your position.
weather? i am pretty sure thats negligible with the altitudes they are flying.
also, why is it that areas have random times of no satelitte coverage? i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up: http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm
Receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) is a technology developed to assess the integrity of global positioning system (GPS) signals in a GPS receiver system. It is of special importance in safety-critical GPS applications, such as in aviation or marine navigation.
Tom you were corrected on this last time you brought up Lone Survivor. The pivotal scene you are referring to did not use 'the top of a mountain' but it was required for him to move to an exposed position. Which, as mentioned the last time, is to be expected with a sat phone, a device that requires line-of-sight to the 'eye in the sky' of the satellite.also, why is it that areas have random times of no satelitte coverage? i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up: http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm
Good point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_autonomous_integrity_monitoringQuoteReceiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) is a technology developed to assess the integrity of global positioning system (GPS) signals in a GPS receiver system. It is of special importance in safety-critical GPS applications, such as in aviation or marine navigation.
We are constantly by fly-by RE'ers that GPS coverage is constant and everywhere.
There is even a movie about lack of satellite coverage and the problems it causes. In Lone Survivor, a true story depicted in a movie and a book of the same name, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afghanistan.
Tom you were corrected on this last time you brought up Lone Survivor. The pivotal scene you are referring to did not use 'the top of a mountain' but it was required for him to move to an exposed position. Which, as mentioned the last time, is to be expected with a sat phone, a device that requires line-of-sight to the 'eye in the sky' of the satellite.
Lone Survivor is based of the true story of Operation Red Wings, set during the Afghani war, and dramatizes the Navy SEAL counter-insurgent mission, where a four man surveillance team was tasked with tracking Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. To sum up, the four man team goes to reach their position when they stumble across local goat herders. After releasing the herders and realizing that the mission is compromised, they fall back and go to call for extraction, except communications are down and the mountain they’re on has no signal for the SAT phone.
Time on the base is spent fraternizing and talking wedding plans when they get the mission call from Lieutenant Commander Erik Kristensen played by (Eric Bana). The mission is plagued from the beginning with continual difficulty communicating with operations base. From poor to barely audible radio signals to no signal at all, the men decide to hunker down and proceed later to a different peak location to try making radio contact again.
We are constantly by fly-by RE'ers that GPS coverage is constant and everywhere.I'm sorry that happens and causes confusion, but I've been told "xxx said a thing" does not contribute to the conversation. There are outages in GPS coverage. RAIM is used to detect faults and navigation error calculations due to a variety of conditions. Whoever said or implied GPS coverage was complete, constant and omnipresent wasn't accurate.
There is even a movie about lack of satellite coverage and the problems it causes. In Lone Survivor, a true story depicted in a movie and a book of the same name, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afghanistan.
We are constantly by fly-by RE'ers that GPS coverage is constant and everywhere.I'm sorry that happens and causes confusion, but I've been told "xxx said a thing" does not contribute to the conversation. There are outages in GPS coverage. RAIM is used to detect faults and navigation error calculations due to a variety of conditions. Whoever said or implied GPS coverage was complete, constant and omnipresent wasn't accurate.There is even a movie about lack of satellite coverage and the problems it causes. In Lone Survivor, a true story depicted in a movie and a book of the same name, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afghanistan.
The movie Lone Survivor (or the account of the real world Operation Red Wings) is off topic because Satellite phone (Irridium) is a completely separate system from GPS. RAIM has to do with GPS, not satellite phone.
A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.
Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?
Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated" :D
Long range, high altitude, potenially solar powered airplanes. Nasa website even has a page showing one and even says its used to "test" satellite technology. Trying to formulate a conspiracy theory utilizing ground based system is overly complicated. Occams razor.Satellites work for broadcast and navigation. A tv dish points at one.
ask yourself, which of these two scenarios is easiest:
1. having a large number of airplanes that can fly along pre-determined paths and sustained speeds for a long time utilizing solar powered engines. as planes need more fuel or maintenace another plane takes off and resumes its path; or
2. having a large number of satelittes launched into space as the exact speed and trajectory needed to balance falling back to earth and its velocity matching the rotation (orbit), and also having to do constant micro-adjustments to their atomic clocks to account for time dilation that is related to both gravitational influence and velocities relative to those on earth. these satelittes also have to stay in orbit with no maintenance ever needed.
pretty obvious which one is simpler.
also, why is it that areas have random times of no satelitte coverage? i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up: http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
Planes fall out of the sky all the time??!! Did you seriously just say that. You round earthers will say anything to try and prove themselves right. Wow
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
Planes fall out of the sky all the time??!! Did you seriously just say that. You round earthers will say anything to try and prove themselves right. Wow
Sorry yes you're right... i was lazy in my googling. So OK you think we have solar powered planes travelling at Mach 3? That's less impossible than 14,000km/h but still impossible. Think of the solar panel size for a start... and if only 15 miles up, pretty easy to spot the giant solar wings...
As for planes falling out of the sky: OK sure i didn't even bother researching that. But looks like figure is about 90 commercial flights a year? God knows how many total (incl private). Sure there's only 24 GPS "planes" but if they're travelling 24 hours a day... at Mach 3 (!), for the last twenty years... Haven't done the maths but thinking odds of at least ONE falling in a populated spot are pretty high... Could be wrong.
Long range, high altitude, potenially solar powered airplanes. Nasa website even has a page showing one and even says its used to "test" satellite technology.
The presence of that one doesn't support or even imply the presence of multiple others.
ask yourself, which of these two scenarios is easiest:
1. having a large number of airplanes that can fly along pre-determined paths and sustained speeds for a long time utilizing solar powered engines. as planes need more fuel or maintenace another plane takes off and resumes its path; or
2. having a large number of satelittes launched into space as the exact speed and trajectory needed to balance falling back to earth and its velocity matching the rotation (orbit), and also having to do constant micro-adjustments to their atomic clocks to account for time dilation that is related to both gravitational influence and velocities relative to those on earth. these satelittes also have to stay in orbit with no maintenance ever needed.
pretty obvious which one is simpler.
Yes, the second one. Satellites have fewer (if any) moving parts, so don't require maintenance. Planes are subject to the vagaries of weather, atmosphere, and have many moving parts, so need much more maintenance. They're more difficult to keep to position and timetable. Again, citing the ISS - nobody EVER sees it fail to turn up on time. Nobody sees the "replacement plane" moving into position, nor the plane being replaced dropping out of position
also, why is it that areas have random times of no satelitte coverage? i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up:
Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then : http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/
Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... :-B
do you also find it odd that all these space agencies are able to crash there satellites into the middle of the ocean at the end of there service life?
Long range, high altitude, potenially solar powered airplanes. Nasa website even has a page showing one and even says its used to "test" satellite technology. Trying to formulate a conspiracy theory utilizing ground based system is overly complicated. Occams razor.
ask yourself, which of these two scenarios is easiest:
1. having a large number of airplanes that can fly along pre-determined paths and sustained speeds for a long time utilizing solar powered engines. as planes need more fuel or maintenace another plane takes off and resumes its path; or
2. having a large number of satelittes launched into space as the exact speed and trajectory needed to balance falling back to earth and its velocity matching the rotation (orbit), and also having to do constant micro-adjustments to their atomic clocks to account for time dilation that is related to both gravitational influence and velocities relative to those on earth. these satelittes also have to stay in orbit with no maintenance ever needed.
pretty obvious which one is simpler.
also, why is it that areas have random times of no satellite coverage? i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up: http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm
The satellites are simpler, pretty obviously.
1: Energy - the amount of power we can harness from solar is limited, especially when you look at the technology when we were first launching satellites. They are just starting to develop planes that can fly on solar now, and they aren't at a level to be mass produced. Satellites take no energy to maintain their velocity and all their power can go towards other functions.
2: Pathing - To fly a plane along a predetermined path inside the atmosphere would involve constant monitoring and adjusting due to wind, weather and probably a million other factors. Seriously, how are you supposed to keep an unmanned flight on its course with no GPS? Satellite paths are predictable because there's no random variables in play. Once it's in space, the needed velocity for orbit can be calculated using high school level physics. The atomic clock is not necessary for its pathing, but again, time dilation can be calculated without difficulty.
3: Logistics - just to have a third point. Don't really feel like fleshing this one out.
its not that difficult, at any given time there are tens of thousands of airplanes in flight, following a pre-determined paths...and most are utilizing auto-pilot during the flights (less takeoff/landing). not complicated and we have been doing that a long time. You think its more complicated than managing the thousands of flights travelling thru one of the large airports on a given day? you are trying to make it sound more complicated than it is to just justify your position. weather? i am pretty sure thats negligible with the altitudes they are flying.
A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.
Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?
Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated" :D
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.
Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?
Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated" :D
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft? Now that is funny! Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?
A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.
Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?
Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated" :D
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft? Now that is funny! Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?
Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly
A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.
Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?
Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated" :D
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft? Now that is funny! Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?
Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly
i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up. I stick by what I said. The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.
A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.
Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?
Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated" :D
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft? Now that is funny! Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?
Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly
i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up. I stick by what I said. The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.
So you know that sonic boom drastically decreases as altitude increases and the impact once you go past 1.3 Mach is neglible? That kind of aviation knowledge? Remind me to never get on an airplane with you, co-pilot
You round earthers will say anything without any knowledge or research
A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.
Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?
Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated" :D
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft? Now that is funny! Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?
Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly
i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up. I stick by what I said. The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.
So you know that sonic boom drastically decreases as altitude increases and the impact once you go past 1.3 Mach is neglible? That kind of aviation knowledge? Remind me to never get on an airplane with you, co-pilot
You round earthers will say anything without any knowledge or research
I was referring to the silly idea that a solar-powered aircraft that could achieve supersonic flight. Remind me to never read your silly ideas again. As for sonic booms, they are still very noticeable, it's why Concord was not allowed to fly supersonic over land. Get your facts straight or stay out of debates. GPS aircraft indeed... LOL
Do some research and the facts will show GPS uses satellites.A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.
Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?
Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated" :D
Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth. If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math. Reasonable, try again
LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft? Now that is funny! Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?
Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly
i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up. I stick by what I said. The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.
So you know that sonic boom drastically decreases as altitude increases and the impact once you go past 1.3 Mach is neglible? That kind of aviation knowledge? Remind me to never get on an airplane with you, co-pilot
You round earthers will say anything without any knowledge or research
I was referring to the silly idea that a solar-powered aircraft that could achieve supersonic flight. Remind me to never read your silly ideas again. As for sonic booms, they are still very noticeable, it's why Concord was not allowed to fly supersonic over land. Get your facts straight or stay out of debates. GPS aircraft indeed... LOL
Right, of course. You get schooled on facts so you decide to change what we were talking about. OK, great debate tactic. Everything I have said was based on facts and have provided backup as requested, you are the one guessing at things which I then correct you on. Research what you say before posting to avoid these embarrassing exchanges.
Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then : http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/
Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... :-B
But feel free to keep clutching for straws
Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then : http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/
Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... :-B
But feel free to keep clutching for straws
I don’t know what map you’re looking at, but that link goes to the typical representation of Earth when a globe is inconvenient for 2D screens.
Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then : http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/
Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... :-B
But feel free to keep clutching for straws
I don’t know what map you’re looking at, but that link goes to the typical representation of Earth when a globe is inconvenient for 2D screens.
by typical representation of earth when a glob is inconvenient....yeah a flat earth map. it shows antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map. interesting, google earth works fine on my 2D screen
by typical representation of earth when a glob is inconvenient....yeah a flat earth map.No, it is not "a flat earth map" but a projection on a 2-D surface (your flat screen) of a 3-D object (the Globe).
it shows antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map.And it shows the arctic huge and going around the entire north part of the map, that's what the Mercator projection does.
interesting, google earth works fine on my 2D screenand it's interesting that Google Earth does not "show antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map", why?
also, why is it that areas have random times of no satelitte coverage? i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up: http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm