Flight Paths

wow you are really tying yourself up in knots aren't you. Just now you said you have not seen any credible evidence for the existance or functionality of satellites, now you say you have used global positioning satellites and never denied their existance. 

I never said that what is called "GPS" does not exist.  In fact, I have admitted to using this technology.  I only question whether or not there are flying transmitters above our heads.  Is that really that difficult to understand? 

Quote from: glokta on February 14, 2014, 02:09:28 PM

wow you are really tying yourself up in knots aren't you. Just now you said you have not seen any credible evidence for the existance or functionality of satellites, now you say you have used global positioning satellites and never denied their existance. 

I never said that what is called "GPS" does not exist.  In fact, I have admitted to using this technology.  I only question whether or not there are flying transmitters above our heads.  Is that really that difficult to understand?

There is no other explanation or evidence of other transmitters.

Do you believe that satellites are used for communication and tv broadcast?

Quote from: glokta on February 14, 2014, 02:09:28 PM

wow you are really tying yourself up in knots aren't you. Just now you said you have not seen any credible evidence for the existance or functionality of satellites, now you say you have used global positioning satellites and never denied their existance. 

I never said that what is called "GPS" does not exist.  In fact, I have admitted to using this technology.  I only question whether or not there are flying transmitters above our heads.  Is that really that difficult to understand?

when the functionality of what we both call gps as users is not possible without satellites then yes, your statement is difficult to understand.

Me--They had positioning signals back in the 40s.
RE--Oh yeah, now we have satellites.
Me--How do we know they are satellites?
RE--Because of the "S" at the end of "GPS".
Me--headache. 

Me--They had positioning signals back in the 40s.
RE--Oh yeah, now we have satellites.
Me--How do we know they are satellites?
RE--Because of the "S" at the end of "GPS".
Me--headache.

thats not quite a true account of the argument is it ? Tut tut. You are leaving out many parts such as limitations of LORAN, the ability to view the iss with your own eyes, accurate satellite triangulation of location and elevation..your inability to offer any evidence of your own to the contrary is the real headache source here.

Are you saying that LORAN can not calculate altitude?

Quote from: glokta on February 14, 2014, 02:03:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:58:14 PM

No, I claim to have not yet seen any credible evidence.

How about your own eyes? http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

Wow, thanks.  If I had gone to art school instead of Engineering school, I might be able to make stuff up like that.

Okay, how I can get a sighting forecast for the ISS which is actually for a town 100km South of my location, and yet see the ISS within a few degrees of it's forecast location anyway?

My explanation: it's at the claimed altitude (330km-430km), which means that a 100km difference between the location for which the forecast was made isn't going to have a huge effect on viewing angles and times.

I'd quite like to hear your explanation.

The ancient Mayans could predict stuff too.  Did they have satellites floating up in the sky?

Are you saying that LORAN can not calculate altitude?

that is my understanding - am happy to be corrected if i am mistaken.

The ancient Mayans could predict stuff too.  Did they have satellites floating up in the sky?

That doesn't really address my point. I'm talking about a man-made structure in orbit around the earth, not a natural celestial event.

You claimed not to have seen any credible evidence of man-made satellites in orbit, the ISS was cited as an easily seen example, you dismissed it, I just wanted to point out that it would appear to be exactly where NASA says it is, implying that they are telling the truth, and we do in fact have man-made objects in orbit around a round earth.

I await your response.

I am not sure what kind of response you want.  Yes, NASA will tell you to look into the NE sky just after sun set and you will see a little light for a minute.  I suppose that is your whole batch of evidence wrapped up, right? 

Just curious, is the ISS in the same general degree of the sky when it flies over any particular area or is it ever lower or higher in the sky?  For example, could it ever be seen just above the horizon at a location directly South of one of the locations they have listed on their schedule?

I am not sure what kind of response you want.  Yes, NASA will tell you to look into the NE sky just after sun set and you will see a little light for a minute.  I suppose that is your whole batch of evidence wrapped up, right? 

It would look a bit more than a 'little light'
http://www.geek.com/gearlog/daytime-iss-venus.jpg
(The structure in the top left)

And no, it's not a plane (I've had someone tell me that's what it was once). From it's shape alone, atmospheric flight would be possible at the speeds it moves.

That looks nothing like what I have seen. 

That looks nothing like what I have seen. 

If you looked at it with the naked eye, maybe not, but if you looked at it with a telescope or strong pair of binoculars, you would see differently I can assure you.

So, with a pair of binoculars, I will be able to see the ISS and Venus at the same time during the day?

In the early hours yes. If Venus happened to appear next to it anyway. Remember that the photo may appear brighter due to a high ISO or longer exposure.

Just curious, is the ISS in the same general degree of the sky when it flies over any particular area or is it ever lower or higher in the sky?  For example, could it ever be seen just above the horizon at a location directly South of one of the locations they have listed on their schedule?

Not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll take a stab at answering anyway.

At a given moment in time, when the ISS is directly over a given location, it would be just on the horizon for someone approximately 2,000km away in any direction. This does not mean it would be visible from 2,000km away, although it might well be, I haven't tried it out to see.

For my example, the 100km difference between my location and the location I get forecasts for would make a maximum difference to the viewing angle of about 15° at the point it passes directly overhead. This is about equivalent to the distance between your index finger and pinky finger with your fingers splayed as far as they go at arms reach. At other points, the difference in viewing angle would be less (would you like a diagram to show why this is?). This is consistent with my experiences of viewing the ISS.

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 03:01:06 PM

Are you saying that LORAN can not calculate altitude?

that is my understanding - am happy to be corrected if i am mistaken.

still waiting...

I am not sure what kind of response you want.  Yes, NASA will tell you to look into the NE sky just after sun set and you will see a little light for a minute.  I suppose that is your whole batch of evidence wrapped up, right?

Can you explain how it is that if I'm observing a satellite moving overhead, I can follow its path across the entire visible sky from horizon to horizon, and clearly moving against the relatively stationary "blanket" of stars behind it?

If it's not a man-made satellite I'm watching (whose path I get from a NASA chart in advance of its appearance) can you tell me exactly what it might be?  And/or if it's not man-made, then how can NASA predict its path so accurately?
 

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on February 14, 2014, 06:35:32 PM

Just curious, is the ISS in the same general degree of the sky when it flies over any particular area or is it ever lower or higher in the sky?  For example, could it ever be seen just above the horizon at a location directly South of one of the locations they have listed on their schedule?

Not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll take a stab at answering anyway.
At a given moment in time, when the ISS is directly over a given location, it would be just on the horizon for someone approximately 2,000km away in any direction. This does not mean it would be visible from 2,000km away, although it might well be, I haven't tried it out to see.
For my example, the 100km difference between my location and the location I get forecasts for would make a maximum difference to the viewing angle of about 15° at the point it passes directly overhead. This is about equivalent to the distance between your index finger and pinky finger with your fingers splayed as far as they go at arms reach. At other points, the difference in viewing angle would be less (would you like a diagram to show why this is?). This is consistent with my experiences of viewing the ISS.

Yes, thank you, that's what I meant.  I wondered if for all the locations on their schedule, it would be mostly overhead as opposed to seeing it on the horizon.  I would think many people would've seen it on the horizon but no one has ever reported seeing it there or taken pics of it there.  Not that I know of, at least.

Quote from: glokta on February 14, 2014, 03:37:49 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 03:01:06 PM

Are you saying that LORAN can not calculate altitude?

that is my understanding - am happy to be corrected if i am mistaken.

still waiting...

Watch the low content posting.  Consider this a warning. 

Quote from: glokta on February 15, 2014, 03:41:37 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 14, 2014, 03:37:49 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 03:01:06 PM

Are you saying that LORAN can not calculate altitude?

that is my understanding - am happy to be corrected if i am mistaken.

still waiting...

Watch the low content posting.  Consider this a warning.

a low content post is unfortunately required to avoid you ignoring a post and hoping it will be forgotten. So, can you please show me how LORAN calculates altitude.

When I have time, I will do some research and present my findings to you. 

When I have time, I will do some research and present my findings to you.

oh. I am suprised you havent already done any research being that loran was your evidence of how satellites were not needed to provide 3 dimensional locating. Good work  i wont hold my breath for your research ..

When I have time, I will do some research and present my findings to you.

You may have missed it, but I'd appreciate it if you'd also address my earlier questions as well:

Can you explain how it is that if I'm observing a satellite moving overhead, I can follow its path across the entire visible sky from horizon to horizon, and clearly moving against the relatively stationary "blanket" of stars behind it?

If it's not a man-made satellite I'm watching (whose path I get from a NASA chart in advance of its appearance) can you tell me exactly what it might be?  And/or if it's not man-made, then how can NASA predict its path so accurately?

 

Quote from: jroa on February 15, 2014, 08:16:13 AM

When I have time, I will do some research and present my findings to you.

You may have missed it, but I'd appreciate it if you'd also address my earlier questions as well:

Quote

Can you explain how it is that if I'm observing a satellite moving overhead, I can follow its path across the entire visible sky from horizon to horizon, and clearly moving against the relatively stationary "blanket" of stars behind it?

If it's not a man-made satellite I'm watching (whose path I get from a NASA chart in advance of its appearance) can you tell me exactly what it might be?  And/or if it's not man-made, then how can NASA predict its path so accurately?

 

Are you watching it with your bare eyes, or are you using some type of satellite tracking app?  The reason I ask is because, generally speaking, you do not often get to see a satellite travel completely from one horizon to another when it flies directly over your head. 

Are you watching it with your bare eyes, or are you using some type of satellite tracking app?  The reason I ask is because, generally speaking, you do not often get to see a satellite travel completely from one horizon to another when it flies directly over your head.

Watching with naked eyes from the southern-most point (almost) of Australia.  I should've mentioned it wasn't directly overhead, so didn't traverse fully from one horizon to the other—rather an arc of the horizon, before it was lost from view behind a low mountain range.

COSMOS 2227   MAG 5.0, Starts at 12º NNE.  Although it was a fairly low magnitude, where I live in the sticks there's zero atmospheric and/or light pollution.
 

Quote from: jroa on February 15, 2014, 09:16:29 AM

Are you watching it with your bare eyes, or are you using some type of satellite tracking app?  The reason I ask is because, generally speaking, you do not often get to see a satellite travel completely from one horizon to another when it flies directly over your head.

Watching with naked eyes from the southern-most point (almost) of Australia.  I should've mentioned it wasn't directly overhead, so didn't traverse fully from one horizon to the other—rather an arc of the horizon, before it was lost from view behind a low mountain range.

COSMOS 2227   MAG 5.0, Starts at 12º NNE.  Although it was a fairly low magnitude, where I live in the sticks there's zero atmospheric and/or light pollution.

I spotted a faint object a few nights ago while relaxing outside, and checked the app on my iPhone to see what it was (it clearly wasn't a plane). Turns out it was a bit of space junk; a rocket body specifically. I sat there for a while and watched it drift steadily across the sky until it was no longer visible. Just thought you might find that interesting.

Quote from: jroa on February 10, 2014, 09:57:11 PM

How do we know what our flight path is?  We just take the word of the airlines, now don't we?

No, we don't. You can follow the exact movement of most commercial planes online, in real time, from the comfort of your chair.

Speaking from experience commercial aircraft flying  under control of the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States are being tracked by radar and computer systems. Air Traffic Controllers at Air Route Traffic Control Centers across the United States are observing these aircraft on their computer screens. This is in real time. For example by observing their computer displays the controllers know exactly the identify of the aircraft, the type of the aircraft, the speed of the aircraft, the altitude of the aircraft and other data. Air Traffic Controllers know exactly where these aircraft are located at all times. That is what Air Traffic Control is all about.

This is not the only system in the world . Each country in the word has their own system.

jroa, is this what you are having trouble understanding ? I am trying to make some sense of this thread. There really is no reason to question flight paths.  Am I missing something ?