Satellite Media?

Care to explain staellites orbit in FET?

So a satellite is actually a large blimp orbiting at roughly 60 000 feet? Given the speed at which they appear to move across the sky, that would imply a balloon travelling at 1000+ mph. Doesn't seem any more likely to me then an object obeying high school physics.

So general ignore to me. RE wins

So general ignore to me. RE wins

Yeah, Ski hasn't responded to me either. RE does indeed win. Along with common sense.

What keeps what you claim are not truly satellites from crashing into eachother and being knocked down by storms?

Quote from: Ski on May 14, 2012, 05:38:58 PM

Prove and disprove must mean entirely different things in your language.

Oh really? You think having thousands and thousands of stratellites that nobody knows are there, over every country (the requirement for explaining the angle of the dishes pointing at a lower altitude object) is a viable theory?
Didn't they teach you trigonometry at school?
Or is that just a meaningless, snarky, low content post from you?

Of course there would need to be more stratellites to cover the same area than a satellite. I think "thousands and thousands" seems an extraordinarily arbitrary number, but nevertheless, yes there must needs be more of them than alleged.

What keeps what you claim are not truly satellites from crashing into eachother and being knocked down by storms?

At the heights involved stratellites are above weather phenomenon.

Yeah, Ski hasn't responded to me either. RE does indeed win. Along with common sense.

If you start providing me with a stipend, I'll be happy to spend more time here. As it is, I find few enough moments to catch my breath.

Weather phenomenon, maybe. Radiation and meteorites?

At the heights involved stratellites are above weather phenomenon.

Which must imply a 1500 mph balloon.

Quote from: The Knowledge on May 14, 2012, 05:58:41 PM

Quote from: Ski on May 14, 2012, 05:38:58 PM

Prove and disprove must mean entirely different things in your language.

Oh really? You think having thousands and thousands of stratellites that nobody knows are there, over every country (the requirement for explaining the angle of the dishes pointing at a lower altitude object) is a viable theory?
Didn't they teach you trigonometry at school?
Or is that just a meaningless, snarky, low content post from you?

Of course there would need to be more stratellites to cover the same area than a satellite. I think "thousands and thousands" seems an extraordinarily arbitrary number, but nevertheless, yes there must needs be more of them than alleged.

Don't forget the stratellites are supposed to be hidden. Every one you add increases the chances of one of them being seen exponentially. The number of stratellites required to do this would simply be unfeasible to do without public notice. Pilots would see them, astronomy enthusiasts would see them, the public would see them going up and down, they'd show up on radar, they'd show up on photographs, and as you increase their number so you need to increase the number of people needed to keep silent about The Stupid Conspiracy.
*pause while I do some maths to get a rough figure...*

OK, I just calculated that if each stratellite can cover an area of 60 square km (which is a very generous estimate, placing them at the upper limits of the atmosphere) then there would need to be 4060 of them to cover the United Kingdom. Any lower altitude and their number needs to increase. Not only that but they also need to be placed in a configuration with no gaps in coverage. No stratellite can possibly ever break down or stop operating or you'd get the mysterious phenomenon of a whole area losing satellite signal at once while the rest of the country continues to get it. I'm sure Sky's call centres would quickly notice this happening, unless all their phone answering employees are conspiracy members. In which case I know two of them personally.

Just back from Canada a few days ago. I stay in a reasonably remote place, so there is hardly any mobile phone signal. The sat nau on my phone worked ok, though.

I"m not sure how this works if there are no satellites. I was thinking, as a sat nau only needs to receiue a signal to work, it may be possible to function by just receiuing  weak signals from far away mobile phone towers.

Mizuki x

And lets not forget that satellites can be seen, even without a telescope. You can watch, in late evening in summer, the ISS orbit. There are plenty of ways to pick up a satellite, both with and without electronic aid. If we used stratollites in place of satellites, we would need so many stratollites that vision into space would be somewhat obscured.

Just back from Canada a few days ago. I stay in a reasonably remote place, so there is hardly any mobile phone signal. The sat nau on my phone worked ok, though.

I"m not sure how this works if there are no satellites. I was thinking, as a sat nau only needs to receiue a signal to work, it may be possible to function by just receiuing  weak signals from far away mobile phone towers.

Mizuki x

May be you need to look a little bit closer into those things. Be zetetic!

Just back from Canada a few days ago. I stay in a reasonably remote place, so there is hardly any mobile phone signal. The sat nau on my phone worked ok, though.

I"m not sure how this works if there are no satellites. I was thinking, as a sat nau only needs to receiue a signal to work, it may be possible to function by just receiuing  weak signals from far away mobile phone towers.

Mizuki x

Read the many posts about satellite dishes and geostationary satellites in this thread.

Just back from Canada a few days ago. I stay in a reasonably remote place, so there is hardly any mobile phone signal. The sat nau on my phone worked ok, though.

I"m not sure how this works if there are no satellites. I was thinking, as a sat nau only needs to receiue a signal to work, it may be possible to function by just receiuing  weak signals from far away mobile phone towers.

Mizuki x

Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that the sat nav isn't receiving a signal from phone towers? In which case where is the signal coming from?

I agree, which is exactly why a "satellite" is nonsensical.

It actually makes perfect sense if you believe the earth is round, has gravity, and a limited atmosphere.  Orbits are mathematically very feasible (and simple), which in my opinion they are "sensical".

Now if you want to argue that gravitation is nonsensical that is a different story.

OK, I just calculated that if each stratellite can cover an area of 60 square km (which is a very generous estimate, placing them at the upper limits of the atmosphere) then there would need to be 4060 of them to cover the United Kingdom.

I think your "generous" estimate seems laughable in light of projected coverage areas from white-world projects. Is it possible you don't have nearly enough knowledge to make a plausible estimate?

Quote from: The Knowledge on May 16, 2012, 04:40:10 AM

OK, I just calculated that if each stratellite can cover an area of 60 square km (which is a very generous estimate, placing them at the upper limits of the atmosphere) then there would need to be 4060 of them to cover the United Kingdom.

I think your "generous" estimate seems laughable in light of projected coverage areas from white-world projects. Is it possible you don't have nearly enough knowledge to make a plausible estimate?

Some would call that "generous" estimate slightly conservative. Your incomprehension is seems laughable, especially since he's the one who can actually crunch numbers. You haven't even got a deep enough knowledge for that.

No, he pulled a number out of his hindquarters. I'll trust the aerospace companies involved over, his generous estimate in light of his history of not having a clue what he is talking about.

No, he pulled a number out of his hindquarters. I'll trust the aerospace companies involved over, his generous estimate in light of his history of not having a clue what he is talking about.

I'm unfamiliar with his history and his hindquarters. What have aerospace companies said about the number of stratollites necessary to cover the number of devices covered by satellites?

Quote from: Mizuki on May 16, 2012, 11:29:31 AM

Just back from Canada a few days ago. I stay in a reasonably remote place, so there is hardly any mobile phone signal. The sat nau on my phone worked ok, though.

I"m not sure how this works if there are no satellites. I was thinking, as a sat nau only needs to receiue a signal to work, it may be possible to function by just receiuing  weak signals from far away mobile phone towers.

Mizuki x

Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that the sat nav isn't receiving a signal from phone towers? In which case where is the signal coming from?

Hi Mathsman.

Ye, i do think this. It may not be phone towers that the signal is coming from at all. I am open-minded.

Mizuki x

Quote from: Ski on May 17, 2012, 06:25:11 PM

No, he pulled a number out of his hindquarters. I'll trust the aerospace companies involved over, his generous estimate in light of his history of not having a clue what he is talking about.

I'm unfamiliar with his history and his hindquarters. What have aerospace companies said about the number of stratollites necessary to cover the number of devices covered by satellites?

Sanswire, for example, is planning on a coverage area with a radius of 200 miles. I'll crunch some conservative numbers with a real footprint estimate and I come up with 325,565 sq km. This is so far removed from the "generous" estimate of 60 sq km to make it laughable. It's just further proof that he has no idea what he's talking about.
That means roughly one stratellite is needed to provide coverage over the UK. To be sure, I think the actual number involved is probably five times that. I imagine there is substantial overlap to make sure that outages are uncommon.

Quote from: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 17, 2012, 06:28:39 PM

Quote from: Ski on May 17, 2012, 06:25:11 PM

No, he pulled a number out of his hindquarters. I'll trust the aerospace companies involved over, his generous estimate in light of his history of not having a clue what he is talking about.

I'm unfamiliar with his history and his hindquarters. What have aerospace companies said about the number of stratollites necessary to cover the number of devices covered by satellites?

Sanswire, for example, is planning on a coverage area with a radius of 200 miles. I'll crunch some conservative numbers with a real footprint estimate and I come up with 325,565 sq km. This is so far removed from the "generous" estimate of 60 sq km to make it laughable. It's just further proof that he has no idea what he's talking about.
That means roughly one stratellite is needed to provide coverage over the UK. To be sure, I think the actual number involved is probably five times that. I imagine there is substantial overlap to make sure that outages are uncommon.

"Sanswire is planning": it's not what the case now and wasn't years ago.

200 miles coverage over the UK? Are you shure your projections are correct.

Anyway there is no, there has never been an evidence of stratellites.

Ski, please enlighten us with links to technical caracteristics of ACTUAL(not planned) stratellites.

Sanswire, for example, is planning on a coverage area with a radius of 200 miles. I'll crunch some conservative numbers with a real footprint estimate and I come up with 325,565 sq km. This is so far removed from the "generous" estimate of 60 sq km to make it laughable. It's just further proof that he has no idea what he's talking about.
That means roughly one stratellite is needed to provide coverage over the UK. To be sure, I think the actual number involved is probably five times that. I imagine there is substantial overlap to make sure that outages are uncommon.

Did you notice, on the same site, where it said they would need 300 for proper coverage of the continental United States due to the limited frequencies and users each could handle (likely due to limited payload capacity)?  Did you also notice where that it continually referred to them as "airships" and said they would be 500 feet long?

While disproof of "stratellites" currently being used to fake signals is difficult (particularly considering one answer for why they aren't seen is "secret military technology"), the Sanswire site is hardly evidence for their use at this time.  Considering the technology as described on that site would envolve hundreds of 500 foot long dirigibles in the sky above the United States alone.

No, he pulled a number out of his hindquarters. I'll trust the aerospace companies involved over, his generous estimate in light of his history of not having a clue what he is talking about.

Gee, you lot really are a bit thick, aren't you? You have completely forgotten about the angle of the receiving dishes, which is the crux of the idea.
The dishes are all pointing at the same point on the celestial dome. If they don't point there, they don't receive a signal.
The dishes need to point at an exact spot in the sky. They also need to NOT receive a signal if they're not pointing at that spot. Therefore the signal from the "stratellite" cannot just blanket a 200 mile area. They need to be tight beams. The 60 square km figure actually represents the amount of variance you can have in the precision of dish angle. I will now draw a diagram to illustrate the idea for your tiny minds.

Now please do try to keep up with this, Ski et al. It's tough mathematics and geometry but if you persevere, a glimmer of understanding may penetrate.

Observe stratellite A. It is broadcasting a signal that is picked up by dish Y, represented by the orange line between them. For an observer looking in the direction of the dish, the signal appears to be coming from a point on the celestial equator.
Now consider dishes X and Z. If they are also picking up signals from stratellite A, then to an observer at those sites the signal appears to be coming from a position either above or below the celestial equator for X or Z respectively. However, as we know from the observation of satellite dishes all over the entire world, they actually are angled to point at the celestial equator within a reasonably close tolerance. This means that dish X must therefore be picking up its signal from a second stratellite, B, in order to maintain this angle.
So why can't dish X be pointing at the equator but picking up a signal from stratellite A anyway? Simply because if you move the dish off position, the signal goes away. This proves that the dishes are directional and cannot pick up signals properly when angled in other directions.

So how do we arrive at the figure of 60km for the spacing of stratellites?
There will be a limit of precision for how the dishes must be angled, allowing for some tolerance of mis-alignment. However there will be a limit beyond which the dish will cease to pick up a signal. If the stratellites are at the top of the atmosphere, I estimated the distance on the ground between the upper and lower limits of precision to be about 60km. Of course the cunning mathematicians among you will realise that the higher the stratellites, the further apart you can have them for a given dish angle tolerance, and therefore higher altitude = less stratellites needed, and lower altitude = more stratellites needed.
Since I don't actually know what the tolerance of dish angulation is, the 60km figure is somewhat of a guesstimate, but its basis of estimation is sound.

Quote from: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 17, 2012, 06:28:39 PM

Quote from: Ski on May 17, 2012, 06:25:11 PM

No, he pulled a number out of his hindquarters. I'll trust the aerospace companies involved over, his generous estimate in light of his history of not having a clue what he is talking about.

I'm unfamiliar with his history and his hindquarters. What have aerospace companies said about the number of stratollites necessary to cover the number of devices covered by satellites?

Sanswire, for example, is planning on a coverage area with a radius of 200 miles. I'll crunch some conservative numbers with a real footprint estimate and I come up with 325,565 sq km. This is so far removed from the "generous" estimate of 60 sq km to make it laughable. It's just further proof that he has no idea what he's talking about.
That means roughly one stratellite is needed to provide coverage over the UK. To be sure, I think the actual number involved is probably five times that. I imagine there is substantial overlap to make sure that outages are uncommon.

Maybe a satellite can cover 300 square kilometres. But stratollites are a little low for that, don't you think? True, 300 square kilometres could comfortably cover the UK. But do you know how large, and how much energy, a stratollite would have to be to cover that much land, with that many devices? We're not just talking about speckling the English countryside with infrared light. We're talking a sufficiently strong signal for every mobile device in the country. Last census indicated that there are about 75,750,000 mobiles in use in the UK. That's an optimum of five bars, or however the device measures signal strength, for over 70 million devices. You think one device can do that successfully, and from the stratosphere?

Quote from: Ski on May 17, 2012, 07:35:50 PM

Quote from: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 17, 2012, 06:28:39 PM

Quote from: Ski on May 17, 2012, 06:25:11 PM

No, he pulled a number out of his hindquarters. I'll trust the aerospace companies involved over, his generous estimate in light of his history of not having a clue what he is talking about.

I'm unfamiliar with his history and his hindquarters. What have aerospace companies said about the number of stratollites necessary to cover the number of devices covered by satellites?

Sanswire, for example, is planning on a coverage area with a radius of 200 miles. I'll crunch some conservative numbers with a real footprint estimate and I come up with 325,565 sq km. This is so far removed from the "generous" estimate of 60 sq km to make it laughable. It's just further proof that he has no idea what he's talking about.
That means roughly one stratellite is needed to provide coverage over the UK. To be sure, I think the actual number involved is probably five times that. I imagine there is substantial overlap to make sure that outages are uncommon.

Maybe a satellite can cover 300 square kilometres. But stratollites are a little low for that, don't you think? True, 300 square kilometres could comfortably cover the UK. But do you know how large, and how much energy, a stratollite would have to be to cover that much land, with that many devices? We're not just talking about speckling the English countryside with infrared light. We're talking a sufficiently strong signal for every mobile device in the country. Last census indicated that there are about 75,750,000 mobiles in use in the UK. That's an optimum of five bars, or however the device measures signal strength, for over 70 million devices. You think one device can do that successfully, and from the stratosphere?

This highlights the importance of distinguishing between omnidirectional signal pick-up and directional, dish-type reception. I think this might also be whistling over Ski's head.

So, if there are no satellites in space, then how do I get satellite imagery current to within 48 hours on targets we raid or attack while in combat? How does my Dagger(GPS) work to within 1 meter if I'm in a location (like Afghanistan) where there are absolutely no towers, and any towers that could be there would be blocked by the 20,000 foot peaks that cover the entire Eastern portion of the country?(Where a large contingent of US forces are located) Are you saying that all the imagery that I used on operations that got me to and from my attack locations were fake?

So, if there are no satellites on space, then how do I get satellite imagery current to within 48 hours on targets we raid or attack while in combat? How does my Dagger(GPS) work to within 1 meter if I'm in a location (like Afghanistan) where there are absolutely no towers, and any towers that could be there would be blocked by the 20,000 foot peaks that cover the entire Eastern portion of the country?(Where a large contingent of US forces are located) Are you saying that all the imagery that I used on operations that got me to and from my attack locations were fake?

Be sure that Ski's answer will be akin to "Those pictures are taken by stratollites, not satellites."