[Pete Svarrior]

why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function?  Why not simply describe this technology as is?

The most likely reason, to me, is that they'd have to go back on a past lie. Most space conspiracy theories revolve around the idea that space travel has been fabricated to trick the other side of the Iron Curtain that they're totally about to get blasted with an orbital space laser straight out of Star Wars. It would likely not be healthy for the organisations who already told that lie to suddenly go back on it. The aftermath of past exposed conspiracies has never been pretty, and I see no reason to believe that it would be any different in this case.

NASA's current approach, for example, is to fade into obscurity. With their funding systematically dropping and their activities becoming less and less public (and, indeed, less and less existent), they might soon have no need to fix their past mistakes. They'll be somebody else's problem.

[inquisitive]

why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function?  Why not simply describe this technology as is?

The most likely reason, to me, is that they'd have to go back on a past lie. Most space conspiracy theories revolve around the idea that space travel has been fabricated to trick the other side of the Iron Curtain that they're totally about to get blasted with an orbital space laser straight out of Star Wars. It would likely not be healthy for the organisations who already told that lie to suddenly go back on it. The aftermath of past exposed conspiracies has never been pretty, and I see no reason to believe that it would be any different in this case.

NASA's current approach, for example, is to fade into obscurity. With their funding systematically dropping and their activities becoming less and less public (and, indeed, less and less existent), they might soon have no need to fix their past mistakes. They'll be somebody else's problem.

Yet the US, Russia, European countries and China all tell us they have GPS satellites and so do the receiver manufacturers.

[Tumeni]

Most space conspiracy theories revolve around the idea that space travel has been fabricated to trick the other side of the Iron Curtain that they're totally about to get blasted with an orbital space laser straight out of Star Wars. It would likely not be healthy for the organisations who already told that lie to suddenly go back on it. The aftermath of past exposed conspiracies has never been pretty, and I see no reason to believe that it would be any different in this case.

NASA's current approach, for example, is to fade into obscurity. With their funding systematically dropping and their activities becoming less and less public (and, indeed, less and less existent), they might soon have no need to fix their past mistakes. They'll be somebody else's problem.

.. but some of the most active satellite launchers these days (India, say), weren't on any side of the Iron Curtain ... were they?

[Pete Svarrior]

.. but some of the most active satellite launchers these days (India, say), weren't on any side of the Iron Curtain ... were they?

India was firmly committed to close ties with the Soviet Union, and only started supposedly launching satellites some 20 years after them, with assistance from Interkosmos.

They were also hardly "some of the most active satellite launchers".

[Tumeni]

.. but some of the most active satellite launchers these days (India, say)

They were also hardly "some of the most active satellite launchers".

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago. 104 deployed from that one mission. They launched 209 satellites for foreign interests, on a commercial basis, between 1999 and 2017 - that's an average of almost 1 per month.

Seems pretty active to me.

https://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/flipping_book/SI-Jan-Jun2017/files/assets/common/downloads/Space%20India%20Jan-Jun%202017.pdf

[Pete Svarrior]

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.

Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.

Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.

[pj1]

why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function?  Why not simply describe this technology as is?

The most likely reason, to me, is that they'd have to go back on a past lie.

Sorry Pete I'm not following your logic.  Which was the past lie you're referring to? I'm not sure of the timeline of attempted space travel, artificial satellites launched, started to lie about space travel to the public, GPS launched etc and why that would mean going back on a past lie.

[BlackHolesMatter]

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.

Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.

Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.

What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.

[Round Eyes]

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.

Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.

Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.

What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.

if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?

[Pete Svarrior]

Sorry Pete I'm not following your logic.  Which was the past lie you're referring to?

The feasibility of space travel, and our accomplishment thereof. Although I should clarify that I'm speaking hypothetically - I'm not completely sold on the space conspiracy, and it's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

[Nosmo]

if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?

The detailed operation of the GPS system run and maintained by the USA is incompatible with the signal source being transmitters on high altitude planes.
As such high altitude planes would not work with the RE explanation.

[panicp]

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.

Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.

Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.

What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.

if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?

Hi Round eyes,

Before now, I've setup my telescope to track the ISS (and various satellites) and seen them with my own eyes. Because the ISS is so big (108m wide) compared to TV broadcasting satellites only a few metres, the details are easily visible (1). This video shows very nicely how I was able to see of the ISS as it passed over brightly, then faded and disappeared over NNE while still maybe 40->30degs above the horizon (moving into the penumbra and umbra respectively) as its orbital path would predict (even thought I had to move quite quickly as the telescope panned!!). In terms of the distance of this object from earth, not only is it possible to estimate this from the apparent size given the magnification, but far more accurately, readily available equipment can measure the distance to within cm by the use doppler from the observing point on earth (2).

My question is this: if I invited you over to view the ISS through my 16" Dobonian reflector and you saw the detail of the ISS like this video (my scope is even clearer), AND be able to demonstrably measure it's distance with doppler radio measured instantaneously from a Tx/Rx attached to the scope, would you

a) agree the ISS exists and appears to look like what we are told it looks like? If not, what would be your interpretation of what you see?
b) That, given the relative known positions of the sun and ISS, its fade and disappearance are consistent with the exact mathematical predictions of its orbit (moving from its day->night)?
c) Assuming a measured doppler distance of 900,000 feet (about 290 miles), that it is not an aircraft? (The lack of air pressure at that altitude would make the lift from an aerofoil almost zero)
d) That you therefore conclude the force trying to drag it back to earth must be being opposed in another way (i.e. not aerodynamic lift) in order for it to remain up there for any length of time?
e) Where is that force being generated from?

As per my tags, I'm interested in the debate, and would be very interested in your interpretation of the these observations.

Thanks in advance for your reply. 

1)

2) http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Doppler.php (an example of how readily available equipment can be used to track and measure the orbits and distances of satellites).

[Round Eyes]

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.

Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.

Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.

What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.

if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?

Hi Round eyes,

Before now, I've setup my telescope to track the ISS (and various satellites) and seen them with my own eyes. Because the ISS is so big (108m wide) compared to TV broadcasting satellites only a few metres, the details are easily visible (1). This video shows very nicely how I was able to see of the ISS as it passed over brightly, then faded and disappeared over NNE while still maybe 40->30degs above the horizon (moving into the penumbra and umbra respectively) as its orbital path would predict (even thought I had to move quite quickly as the telescope panned!!). In terms of the distance of this object from earth, not only is it possible to estimate this from the apparent size given the magnification, but far more accurately, readily available equipment can measure the distance to within cm by the use doppler from the observing point on earth (2).

My question is this: if I invited you over to view the ISS through my 16" Dobonian reflector and you saw the detail of the ISS like this video (my scope is even clearer), AND be able to demonstrably measure it's distance with doppler radio measured instantaneously from a Tx/Rx attached to the scope, would you

a) agree the ISS exists and appears to look like what we are told it looks like? If not, what would be your interpretation of what you see?
b) That, given the relative known positions of the sun and ISS, its fade and disappearance are consistent with the exact mathematical predictions of its orbit (moving from its day->night)?
c) Assuming a measured doppler distance of 900,000 feet (about 290 miles), that it is not an aircraft? (The lack of air pressure at that altitude would make the lift from an aerofoil almost zero)
d) That you therefore conclude the force trying to drag it back to earth must be being opposed in another way (i.e. not aerodynamic lift) in order for it to remain up there for any length of time?
e) Where is that force being generated from?

As per my tags, I'm interested in the debate, and would be very interested in your interpretation of the these observations.

Thanks in advance for your reply. 

1)

2) http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Doppler.php (an example of how readily available equipment can be used to track and measure the orbits and distances of satellites).

what mount/drive do you have on a 16" dob that can track the ISS?   i used to use a similar sized dob that required me to stand on a tall ladder to observe (longer f, i think a F8).  just keeping a planet in the field of view was difficult to do the magnification being used and the speed the planets moved.  tracking a satellite with significantly more speed would seem a bit tough. 

answering your quesitons:

A - not disagreeing that is what it looks like, but i see no reason that couldnt be a plane either.  of course it doesnt look like any plane you see at an airport, but somethign flying extremely high and most likely solar powered would look different.

B - why wouldnt a plane demonstrate the exact same thing?

C - have you ever done a measurement to verify the height?  coordinating with another person at a different location to measure the precise location in the sky and then do the geometry to verify?

D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine

E - see above

[mattbrown]

D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine

Solar?  C'mon give me a break.  Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine".  The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time.  Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over.  That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.

[totallackey]

D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine

Solar?  C'mon give me a break.  Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine".  The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time.  Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over.  That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.

So your argument against the issue of solar in this case is to provide an example of one that was privately funded and operated at a much lower altitude, ignoring the fact governments have access to more advanced tech...

C'mon give us a break...

[Round Eyes]

D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine

Solar?  C'mon give me a break.  Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine".  The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time.  Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over.  That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.

yeah, so those guys did a really bad job and failed.  so?  how many amateur's failed to make a rocket that could reach space?  years and years of failures to win the prize...yet government allegedly had rockets that could do that 50-60 years ago.   you are kind of proving my point it appears.

NOTE:  example above to prove a point, not saying i believe rockets were launched into space

[mattbrown]

On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen.  They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.

Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist.  I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?

D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine

Solar?  C'mon give me a break.  Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine".  The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time.  Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over.  That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.

So your argument against the issue of solar in this case is to provide an example of one that was privately funded and operated at a much lower altitude, ignoring the fact governments have access to more advanced tech...

C'mon give us a break...

[Round Eyes]

On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen.  They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.

Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist.  I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?

that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days.  that was a relatively low altitude plane as well.  interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS.   solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications.  They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.

[mattbrown]

On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen.  They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.

Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist.  I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?

that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days.  that was a relatively low altitude plane as well.  interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS.   solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications.  They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.

Let's say all that is true, its irrelevant. You are still unable to provide any evidence of your claim. 

And,  the ISS was in orbit years before the Impulse flight project.  The technological breakthroughs in solar over the past 5 years are also irrelevant.

[Round Eyes]

On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen.  They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.

Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist.  I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?

that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days.  that was a relatively low altitude plane as well.  interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS.   solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications.  They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.

Let's say all that is true, its irrelevant. You are still unable to provide any evidence of your claim. 

And,  the ISS was in orbit years before the Impulse flight project.  The technological breakthroughs in solar over the past 5 years are also irrelevant.

you also missed my question on what mount you had on your telescope.

this might be interesting to you....right from NASA themselves:  https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-034-DFRC.html

they discuss solar powered planes dating back to 1995...interesting coincidence that was 3 years before the ISS "launched"

They also disclose they were working on CLASSIFIED government program in the early 1980s to develop a "high altitude, long endurance aircraft"

in 1998 (same year as ISS launch BTW), they talk about the Pathfinder Plus solar plane that tested and reached an elevation of 80,000 feet.

later the Centurion/Helios prototype hit 100,000 feet.   check out the photos.  MANY similarities to the ISS images you see. 

Oh wait there is more!  the ERAST project which says 100,000 feet elevations and would be able to fly continously for weeks or MONTHs at a time with the assistance of a fuel cell.  Wow.  kind of what i have been saying.  crazy.  and all this straight from NASA.

now do you think there is a small chance that NASA doesnt disclose all there technology and what they really have is far more advanced?  thats not some wacky conspiracy theory....that would be a classified government program, like all these other ones we found out about well after the fact.