Cost of lauching and building stratellites

  • 12 Replies
  • 6128 Views
*

ipfo

  • 73
  • Hello, world.
Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« on: March 25, 2008, 10:25:25 PM »
I've done some research on stratellites, and I have not come to a conclusion whether or not the conspiracy is possible to fund such operation. I'll share my analysis with you all.

Length: 245 feet
Width: 145 feet
Height: 87 feet
Volume: 1.3 million cubic feet
Dual envelopes, both made of Kevlar
Powered by electric motors
Outer envelope covered in film photovoltaic (solar) units
Payload capacity: 3,000 pounds
Maximum altitude: 70,000 feet
Desired altitude: 65,000 feet
Proprietary Lifting Gas Technology
Held in position by six onboard GPS units connected to the ship’s engines
Line-of-sight to a 300,000 square mile area
Wireless capability (currently) to an area with a radius of 200 miles
Controlled by earth stations on the ground
Maximum duration: 18 months (a replacement ship will be in position prior to bringing original ship down for retrofitting. The original ship will return to its position after retrofitting).
Each airship is 100% reclaimable


From a height of 65,000 feet, the effective line of sight is roughly 300,000 miles2. In order to have stratellites to replace the function of satellites, we need to have stratellites to cover every square inch of the Earth. From the FAQ, we learn that the Earth's diameter is 24,900 miles. The surface area of the Earth can be calculated with the following formula;

Surface Area = π r2
--- Substituting r with 1/2 of 24,900 = 12450 miles
Surface Area of the Earth = 486,955,000 miles2


In order to cover the entire surface area,

486,955,000 / 300,000 = 1,623 stratellites are needed to be placed in place to cover the entire surface area.

Keep in mind that the "line-of-sight" of a stratellite is not a square, it is actually a circle with radius of 300 miles. To completely cover the entire Earth, we need more than 1,623 stratellites. A conservative estimate would be roughly 2,000.


Continuing with the article, a stratellite costs around 25 ~ 35 million to launch. 2,000 of these will cost 60 billion US dollars just to launch them. This does not include maintenance costs and operation costs such as hiring engineers to monitor these stratellites. According to NASA, they have received 16.25 billion US dollars for their FY 2007 budget. NASA started receiving substantial amount of budget starting as far back as 1958. As of today, NASA has received 618 billion US dollars budget.

Compare to an actual satellite, which costs around 250 million US dollars to launch, stratellites seem to be the bigger bang for the buck. However, we only need 3 satellites to cover the Earth in Round Earth model.


Like I said, this thread is in no way a conclusive analysis. However, I hope this will come in handy when some of you want to make a reference to stratellites.



Work cited:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/13/broadband_airship/
http://www.unitconversion.org/area/square-kilometers-to-square-miles-conversion.html
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf
http://navplus.us/forums/archive/index.php?t-5810.html

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2008, 10:26:42 PM »
Did you consider that it's possible to see farther and have a greater line of sight on a Flat Earth than a Round Earth?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2008, 10:37:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

ipfo

  • 73
  • Hello, world.
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2008, 10:57:45 PM »
Did you consider that it's possible to see farther and have a greater line of sight on a Flat Earth than a Round Earth?


Theoretically, at the height of 65,000 feet on a Flat Earth model, you can see the entire surface of the Earth. However, there are instabilities in the atmosphere such as turbulences, dust, sand, water vapor.. etc. All these elements causes poor visibilities when you are up there. The line-of-sight in the Flat Earth model compare to the Rough Earth model both depends on the weather conditions. For the sake of simplicity, the slight increase in line of sight is negligible. Even if we take the slight increase into consideration, the amount of stratellites we need to cover the entire surface of the Earth will still be within the range of 1500~2000. Either way, using stratellites as our GPS is not cost-efficient. It is, however, highly plausible if they (government) intend to cover it up though.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2008, 11:13:34 PM »
Did you consider that it's possible to see farther and have a greater line of sight on a Flat Earth than a Round Earth?
If you consider that at least one of the supposed stratellites has to be well above the horizon to have a GPS system that can locate positions in altitude as well as longitude and latitude, even the 2000 stratellite estimate is tremendously conservative.

Also, if you consider the fact that the first precursors to our current GPS are decades old but the stratellites are just starting to work now, you have even more unexplained holes in this brain dead hypothesis.

*

Kill-9

  • 692
  • House Shaped Earth Proponent
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2008, 12:21:38 PM »
Did you consider that it's possible to see farther and have a greater line of sight on a Flat Earth than a Round Earth?


Theoretically, at the height of 65,000 feet on a Flat Earth model, you can see the entire surface of the Earth. However, there are instabilities in the atmosphere such as turbulences, dust, sand, water vapor.. etc. All these elements causes poor visibilities when you are up there. The line-of-sight in the Flat Earth model compare to the Rough Earth model both depends on the weather conditions. For the sake of simplicity, the slight increase in line of sight is negligible. Even if we take the slight increase into consideration, the amount of stratellites we need to cover the entire surface of the Earth will still be within the range of 1500~2000. Either way, using stratellites as our GPS is not cost-efficient. It is, however, highly plausible if they (government) intend to cover it up though.
This research blows away NASA's conspiracy to make money, since it would cost them a tremendous amount of money to build and maintain these stratellites. And their networkd would have to cover everywhere. Not only would you need it in the most northern habitable parts of canada, but it would need it on the oceans too. Whereas satelites would have a minimal upkeep cost and 1 satelite has a massive coverage potential.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
(random horseshit that doesn't make sense)
Quote from: Viscount Dead Kangaroo
I spend half the day with a dick in my mouth

Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2008, 12:33:54 PM »
May I just mention that the 2,000 estimate may be a bit off. You couldn't deduce your position from just one satellite. you would need at least 4. With the current GPS system, there are normally about 8 visible at any one time, I believe (Although this would vary depending on where they are in orbit), which would make the number of stratellites about 16,000.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2008, 02:06:31 PM »
I've done some research on stratellites, and I have not come to a conclusion whether or not the conspiracy is possible to fund such operation. I'll share my analysis with you all.

Length: 245 feet
Width: 145 feet
Height: 87 feet
Volume: 1.3 million cubic feet
Dual envelopes, both made of Kevlar
Powered by electric motors
Outer envelope covered in film photovoltaic (solar) units
Payload capacity: 3,000 pounds
Maximum altitude: 70,000 feet
Desired altitude: 65,000 feet
Proprietary Lifting Gas Technology
Held in position by six onboard GPS units connected to the ship’s engines
Line-of-sight to a 300,000 square mile area
Wireless capability (currently) to an area with a radius of 200 miles
Controlled by earth stations on the ground
Maximum duration: 18 months (a replacement ship will be in position prior to bringing original ship down for retrofitting. The original ship will return to its position after retrofitting).
Each airship is 100% reclaimable


From a height of 65,000 feet, the effective line of sight is roughly 300,000 miles2. In order to have stratellites to replace the function of satellites, we need to have stratellites to cover every square inch of the Earth. From the FAQ, we learn that the Earth's diameter is 24,900 miles. The surface area of the Earth can be calculated with the following formula;

Surface Area = π r2
--- Substituting r with 1/2 of 24,900 = 12450 miles
Surface Area of the Earth = 486,955,000 miles2


In order to cover the entire surface area,

486,955,000 / 300,000 = 1,623 stratellites are needed to be placed in place to cover the entire surface area.

Keep in mind that the "line-of-sight" of a stratellite is not a square, it is actually a circle with radius of 300 miles. To completely cover the entire Earth, we need more than 1,623 stratellites. A conservative estimate would be roughly 2,000.


Continuing with the article, a stratellite costs around 25 ~ 35 million to launch. 2,000 of these will cost 60 billion US dollars just to launch them. This does not include maintenance costs and operation costs such as hiring engineers to monitor these stratellites. According to NASA, they have received 16.25 billion US dollars for their FY 2007 budget. NASA started receiving substantial amount of budget starting as far back as 1958. As of today, NASA has received 618 billion US dollars budget.

Compare to an actual satellite, which costs around 250 million US dollars to launch, stratellites seem to be the bigger bang for the buck. However, we only need 3 satellites to cover the Earth in Round Earth model.


Like I said, this thread is in no way a conclusive analysis. However, I hope this will come in handy when some of you want to make a reference to stratellites.



Work cited:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/13/broadband_airship/
http://www.unitconversion.org/area/square-kilometers-to-square-miles-conversion.html
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf
http://navplus.us/forums/archive/index.php?t-5810.html

Nice post. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

ipfo

  • 73
  • Hello, world.
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2008, 05:28:04 PM »
May I just mention that the 2,000 estimate may be a bit off. You couldn't deduce your position from just one satellite. you would need at least 4. With the current GPS system, there are normally about 8 visible at any one time, I believe (Although this would vary depending on where they are in orbit), which would make the number of stratellites about 16,000.


I forgot if it was TheEngineer or Usename mentioned the use of infrared image to keep each stratellite stay in the same altitude and physical position. And I suppose these stratellites can be all linked together like a network and their longitude and latitude can be shared and input to some very complex algorithm in order to find out the exact position of an object on the ground. I am not saying that's how stratellites should work, just that it might be possible with the 2,000 stratellites estimation.

Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2008, 05:53:49 PM »
Quote
I forgot if it was TheEngineer or Usename mentioned the use of infrared image to keep each stratellite stay in the same altitude and physical position. And I suppose these stratellites can be all linked together like a network and their longitude and latitude can be shared and input to some very complex algorithm in order to find out the exact position of an object on the ground. I am not saying that's how stratellites should work, just that it might be possible with the 2,000 stratellites estimation.

It may be possible for a system to be developed that allows for someone to determine their position from a single transmitter. The main problem that it would have it that it would involve communication between the transmitter and the receiver, involve some extremely complex device to work out the direction of the signal on either the transmitter or receiver, and would be very difficult to make accurate. I was more basing my estimate off of the current system that we can tell is in place, rather then a theoretical best possible system.

Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2008, 07:04:16 PM »
Nice to see some original research.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2008, 07:50:36 PM »
But some could be ground based, couldn't they?

I mean the entire FE system need not be stratellites?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2008, 07:56:29 PM by Mrs. Peach »

*

ipfo

  • 73
  • Hello, world.
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2008, 09:00:34 PM »
But some could be ground based, couldn't they?

I mean the entire FE system need not be stratellites?


Are you seriously suggesting the possibilities of ground-based GPS? I suppose these are all for decoration then.





What about all those DirectTV satellite dishes installed by cable companies on the roof or outside of a lot of American's houses? They are all pointed to the sky, instead of pointing parallel to the ground as what you would suggest. Now, unless light can somehow bend (reflect) down without the help of stratellites or satellites when it reaches a certain altitude in the sky..

I really doubt it.


Work cited:
http://www.tcdne.org/communications.htm
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite-tv1.htm
« Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 12:04:39 PM by ipfo »

*

Kill-9

  • 692
  • House Shaped Earth Proponent
Re: Cost of lauching and building stratellites
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2008, 11:15:02 AM »
Thats a good point too. I mean, anyone with a satelite and a proper set of instruments can find a satellite in the sky. And if it were ground based, that would likely cost even more and would easily be discovered. AND it wouldn't work for over water, and very unlikely to work in northern places.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
(random horseshit that doesn't make sense)
Quote from: Viscount Dead Kangaroo
I spend half the day with a dick in my mouth