Where did my thread go?

Quote

No Tom, you made a direct reference to a layer of "dark energy" that satellites could be, "taking advantage of".

So I did. That's a sincere possibility. Dark energy exists in your model, too.

If high altitude broadcaster devices didn't exist, how do you explain Satellite TV?

As I said before, and it says in my sig.  That eliminates the conspiracy motive because the things NASA claims exist, actually exist and that means the billions of payoffs aren't there, and there is no reason to lie about the shape of the earth. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2007, 04:39:24 PM

TheEngineer probably moved it to its proper forum.

Don't try and pawn your actions off on me.

-praises-  You tell 'em!

As I said before, and it says in my sig.  That eliminates the conspiracy motive because the things NASA claims exist, actually exist and that means the billions of payoffs aren't there, and there is no reason to lie about the shape of the earth.

With the shuttles and such, obviously NASA has some sort of rocket technology. Since NASA holds a monopoly on rocket patents they're able to send up whatever they want while preventing anyone from following in their tracks.

Sending up satellites (stratellites) for corporations would and is extremely profitable. Simply more they could add to the trillions of dollars they've leeched from the public. 

Wow you've changed your tune studmuffin

The blood curdling Conspiracy knows no bounds to its trickery.

With the shuttles and such, obviously NASA has some sort of rocket technology. Since NASA holds a monopoly on rocket patents they're able to send up whatever they want while preventing anyone from following in their tracks.

Sending up satellites (stratellites) for corporations would and is extremely profitable. Simply more they could add to the trillions of dollars they've leeched from the public. 

Rockets are profitable for publicly traded companies as well.

Publicly traded companies? Boeing is a well known Government contractor.

Interesting bit from that article:

During project development in 1998 Boeing was fined $10m by United States Department of State for technical violations of Arms Export Control Act in handling of missile technology while dealing with its foreign Sea Launch partners, the largest civil penalty of its kind (although it could have been as much as 102 million USD). [10] The Sea Launch project was suspended for two months during the investigation.

The Department of State found that between January 1994 and January 1998 Boeing illegally exported "defense articles" and "defense services", although no national security breaches were determined. [11] The violations were uncovered by Boeing's internal investigation.

At about the same time United States Customs Service attempted to block Sea Launch from bringing Zenit 3SL rockets (classified as missiles) into California for assembly without a munitions import licence. The matter was settled in the company's favour. [12]

Also in 1998, 16 member states of the South Pacific Forum issued a communiqué asking the United States to suspend the project indefinitely until and unless their environmental concerns are remedied. It was mostly criticized by the island nation of Kiribati. [13]

The project was criticized in 1997 by International Transport Workers' Federation (ITWF) for registering its sea vessels in Liberia. [14] In May 1999 Sea Launch reached an agreement with the ITWF, which allows crew members to use ITWF inspectors.

I don't think Tom realises just how many strattelites would be needed to simulate the satellite coverage we have now in terms of telecummunications, GPS or otherwise. Also they would be visible, unless they've invented cloaking devices using all that NASA cash.

Remembering that if the earth was flat higher altitude would provide better coverage

The blood curdling Conspiracy knows no bounds to its trickery.

Thanks, Tom.  I ROTFLMAO over that one.

This just in, Tom is wrong again

Article Preview
Too many rockets spread profits too thin
16 April 1994
VINCENT KIERNAN
Magazine issue 1921
A worldwide glut of rockets for launching satellites could drive some rocket companies out of business warn senior officials from the space industry. At a conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado, last week, they said the outlook is likely to get worse before it gets better as Japan, Russia and China try to lure business away from the US and Europe, and start to offer satellite launches at subsidised prices.

The French rocket builder Arianespace estimates that up to 25 commercial satellites will be launched each year for the next three years. After 2000, the market is expected to shrink to 15 to 17 a year.

According to Jean-Marie Luton, head of the European Space Agency, that is hardly enough to sustain two competing rocket companies, much less the current number plus the newcomers. The prospect is particularly worrying for the US and Europe, which depend on their rocket companies to ...

Are you kidding me? Claiming bankruptcy is a common tact among the business world. Companies "go under" all the time, yet they continue to stay in operation. K-Mart, Sears, General Motors. It's a tactic to avoid paying egregious bank loans.

If running a particular business was truly unprofitable, they wouldn't be doing it!

Weak.

Do you truly believe corporations are "in the red" when they claim bankruptcy?

Most places I've seen keep tight tabs on profits and expenditures week to week so that it's a non-issue. Mom and Pops might go under for good. But it's a non-issue for major corporations. Bankruptcy is just another tool in the arsenal.

If you are running a business and you suddenly see that your profits are lower than your expenditures, guess what, you stop doing it.

Do you truly believe corporations are "in the red" when they claim bankruptcy?

Most places I've seen keep tight tabs on profits and expenditures week to week so that it's a non-issue. Mom and Pops might go under for good. But it's a non-issue for major corporations. Bankruptcy is just another tool in the arsenal.

If you are running a business and you suddenly see that your profits are lower than your expenditures, guess what, you stop doing it.

Ok Thomas.

TheEngineer probably moved it to its proper forum.

And anyway, sustained stratospheric travel in FE is completely possible if your vehicle is lighter than air.

Well, since no solid is lighter than ait that's impossible.

The blood curdling Conspiracy knows no bounds to its trickery.

Ahh you are hiiiilllarious boyo

With the shuttles and such, obviously NASA has some sort of rocket technology. Since NASA holds a monopoly on rocket patents they're able to send up whatever they want while preventing anyone from following in their tracks.

Sending up satellites (stratellites) for corporations would and is extremely profitable. Simply more they could add to the trillions of dollars they've leeched from the public. 

Oh yea, going into space is cheapo.  It's no problem to explore outside our limited view, maintain the ISS, and keep life in space on a cheap budget. [/sarcasm]  Tom, your life wages couldn't even cover a single rocket.  NASA doesn't send up all of it's rockets to put satellites in the area to make money off of anyway, they do alot for science which brings them little money, if any.

I'm hoping Tom will give us some hard evidence to support how profitable it is.

And Mr. Ireland, for the last freaking time, it's a lot!

He wont, because he can't.  All of his side of the argument is speculation, wheras my side is common sense.  And I'm sure if NASA would provide its budget plan, it would show how right I am. 

And I think you better give up with the a lot thing Gayer, because I seem to not be learning.

Yeah, guess he won't *sigh*

And I won't give up, I'm not a quitter

http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

4 Mb budget request for 2008.  I'm at school but I'll look at it at home.

I looked. It was a whole load of no fun to read so I'll leave it to you to look when you get home.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2007, 04:39:24 PM

TheEngineer probably moved it to its proper forum.

And anyway, sustained stratospheric travel in FE is completely possible if your vehicle is lighter than air.

Well, since no solid is lighter than ait that's impossible.

Please tell me you are joking.

Sanity don't seem to bright Engy Baby

Government contractors make a killing when designing and putting up satellites for Direct TV et. all. It could be a ridged stratospheric airship in a non-orbit and no one would know.

DirectTV requires a "sattellite" in Geostationary Orbit, my friend. That's why you have to have the dishes pointed at certain points in the sky. That's also what allows the bigger, motorized dishes the ablity to move and point to different sattelites. My grandfather had one and we fucked with it all the time, switching the TV sattelites to watch certain shows. We'd sit there and watch it move to the same spot all the time. If you had simple airships, you wouldn't have that because of the air currents. Stratollites aren't in a high enough orbit to provide the same fucntionality/reliability as compared to something in an actual Geostationary Orbit.

Sonned.

Quote from: sanity on April 23, 2007, 11:35:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2007, 04:39:24 PM

TheEngineer probably moved it to its proper forum.

And anyway, sustained stratospheric travel in FE is completely possible if your vehicle is lighter than air.

Well, since no solid is lighter than ait that's impossible.

Please tell me you are joking.

What solid, non hollow, object is lighter than air? 

A helium baloon. It's not hollow because it's full of helium!

A helium baloon. It's not hollow because it's full of helium!

Funny man.

Would a block of helium float? 

A block of solid Helium? No, probably not..

I'm not normally one to defend Tom but when he said "lighter than air" I think it's pretty obvious he meant "less dense than air". I mean "lighter than air vehicle" is a pretty common phrase and most people understand what it means right away.

DirectTV requires a "sattellite" in Geostationary Orbit, my friend. That's why you have to have the dishes pointed at certain points in the sky. That's also what allows the bigger, motorized dishes the ablity to move and point to different sattelites. My grandfather had one and we fucked with it all the time, switching the TV sattelites to watch certain shows. We'd sit there and watch it move to the same spot all the time. If you had simple airships, you wouldn't have that because of the air currents. Stratollites aren't in a high enough orbit to provide the same fucntionality/reliability as compared to something in an actual Geostationary Orbit.

Actually, this is not only possible, it is being used.