How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

Fantastic! You've realised it's a topic about the shuttle and you are now using my evidence against a shuttle to somehow incite the mods to enter into it as though I'm derailing a topic that was SPECIFICALLY about the shuttle.
You have just shown yourself up as another classic shill.

Read it again scepti, and this time try to comprehend it properly...

Yes, of course! Like I said... you can all hang onto that if you want.
I wonder if you can do something for me. Could you show me a picture of a REAL satellite in space. Just one will do, if you don't mind. I've tried for weeks and I can't find any on my internet.
 Just ONE, that's all I'm asking.

I'll understand if you can't and maybe tell me that clever N.A.S.A disguised them all in Harry Potter type cloaks to fool any stray Alien ships out there, so they don't get destroyed and mess up a good film you were watching on your SATELLITE TV.

Just one. A real one, not a cartoon, ok?

How ironic THIS was in Yahoo news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/every-single-satellite-orbiting-earth-single-image-171639687.html
All those satellites and NOT ONE of them has taken a picture of other sats up there?!

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 06, 2014, 12:49:42 PM

Yes, of course! Like I said... you can all hang onto that if you want.
I wonder if you can do something for me. Could you show me a picture of a REAL satellite in space. Just one will do, if you don't mind. I've tried for weeks and I can't find any on my internet.
 Just ONE, that's all I'm asking.

I'll understand if you can't and maybe tell me that clever N.A.S.A disguised them all in Harry Potter type cloaks to fool any stray Alien ships out there, so they don't get destroyed and mess up a good film you were watching on your SATELLITE TV.

Just one. A real one, not a cartoon, ok?

How ironic THIS was in Yahoo news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/every-single-satellite-orbiting-earth-single-image-171639687.html
All those satellites and NOT ONE of them has taken a picture of other sats up there?!

Oh dear.. so, given a satellite travels about 17,000 miles per hour, when passes the other, the combined speed would be 34,000mph. Given they are only about the size of cars.. you'd need the vision of Superman to see them...

Unless of course you think that you should be able to see a bullet wiz past your head.. then fair enough.


Plus Space is VERY big, they look crowded in that photo, but space is a touch bigger in real life and satellites have pretty massive separation from each other.. even if you COULD see them wiz past..

And most important.. It's VERY Dark in space, so if you were capable of seeing something fly past at 17,000mph, you'd have to wait for the sun to be hitting it.. which is not all the time.

hehe.. it would be like spotting flies from across a football field.

It's just one excuse after another.  Not all those satellites are "wizing" by, hence geostationary.  If you can see them from Earth, there is no reason one of them can't take a photo of AT LEAST one other one up there.  Get real.

Did you get your understanding of physics from the same spongebob ep than Skepti did?

A fast moving object from a distance such as that viewed from the ground looks slow..

Have you seen a jet fly over your head, they are travelling at about 1000km/h but they look MUCH slower than that.

If you fly past a Geostationary Satallte - and your moving at 27,000kmh, its stil to fast to see it.  Even if you were close enough, which you wodlnt be.. do you have any idea how small they are?

Yes we see them from the ground, ONLY when they are reflecting the suns light.. only at dusk or dawn... and that's rare.  And again, they are so far away they do look like they are travelling very slowly.

Geo stationary sat's hover around at 35,785 kms above the surface.. normal sats are orbiting at varying altitudes but all of them are about 20,000 kms lower lol.. I cant see a car from 20,000kms away travelling at 27,000kmh.. can you?

And finally - most sat's have sensors designed to measure things.. not take photo's of other satellites..  the ones that DO have camera's on board are pointing at the earth.. or are telescopes looking out light years to space.. Try catching a fly buzzing around your head with a telescope.. again -I think you'll have a bit of trouble..

Back here on the real world.. these are REASONS not excuses.

It's just one excuse after another.  Not all those satellites are "wizing" by, hence geostationary.  If you can see them from Earth, there is no reason one of them can't take a photo of AT LEAST one other one up there.  Get real.

Here are the pictures taken from NOAA. http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/0106images.html
Click on the downloads.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 06, 2014, 12:49:42 PM

Yes, of course! Like I said... you can all hang onto that if you want.
I wonder if you can do something for me. Could you show me a picture of a REAL satellite in space. Just one will do, if you don't mind. I've tried for weeks and I can't find any on my internet.
 Just ONE, that's all I'm asking.

I'll understand if you can't and maybe tell me that clever N.A.S.A disguised them all in Harry Potter type cloaks to fool any stray Alien ships out there, so they don't get destroyed and mess up a good film you were watching on your SATELLITE TV.

Just one. A real one, not a cartoon, ok?

How ironic THIS was in Yahoo news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/every-single-satellite-orbiting-earth-single-image-171639687.html
All those satellites and NOT ONE of them has taken a picture of other sats up there?!

Here is a picture of the Hubble Telescope as taken from Space Shuttle Atlantis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

Here is another one of Hubble with the Earth in the background

Taken from NASA's website

The Hubble Telescope is a satellite.  These are pictures of it.  I know it will just be dismissed as faked, but proves that neither Earth nor Scepti even attempted to look on their own.  It took me less than 5 minutes to locate this picture.

It's just one excuse after another.  Not all those satellites are "wizing" by, hence geostationary.  If you can see them from Earth, there is no reason one of them can't take a photo of AT LEAST one other one up there.  Get real.

If you compare the difficulty of the task with the capacity of a satellite, it's an overwhelming reason. They are too small, distant and/or fast to be resolved by a satellite equiped to just track the sky or the surface. If they are not in close rendezvouz, it'd be hard to get anything better than a blurred dot (if the satellite even has a camera, that is).

By the way, if we can photograph satellites from Earth, and directional antennas do work best when pointed towards them, what's the point in demanding images from other satellites?

There's a terrible reek of desperation in this topic. I asked a simple question about showing me a satellite and someone shows me a picture of the Hubble, supposedly in space. No satellites, because...well... like they say, they're just too damn small to be seen in space and going too fast.
Did you know that Japan had the bright idea of collecting satellite debris and spent satellites from space by...
Can you guess?....
A net!....A frigging net...you know, like a kid catching butterflies. One bright spark invented a harpoon to spear the debris, I kid you not.
This is the complete and utter bull crap that they feed the ever willing and gullible public, who dine on it all like a nice easy cut steak, with trimmings.
So there you go...the satellites are just too small and too fast but no problem for someone with a machine and net to catch them.
All of those satellites supposedly whizzing about in unison and yet not one picture can be shown, except the supposed Hubble.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All anyone has to do is to look at the amount of satellites that were launched from the 50's to present day from all over the world and then have a look at how many rocket launches would be needed to achieve it all.
Now remember. You will get the desperate ones that will say, " yes but some rockets launched many at once." Well let me tell you something. It's a rarity that they say this has happened, so factor this in and maybe allow them 100 extra satellites to cover for the multi satellite launches.

How in the hell that supposed intelligent people can hang on to this total crap when the evidence is not only clear it's fake, it's downright embarrassingly blatant.

There's a terrible reek of desperation in this topic. I asked a simple question about showing me a satellite and someone shows me a picture of the Hubble, supposedly in space. No satellites, because...well... like they say, they're just too damn small to be seen in space and going too fast.
Did you know that Japan had the bright idea of collecting satellite debris and spent satellites from space by...
Can you guess?....
A net!....A frigging net...you know, like a kid catching butterflies. One bright spark invented a harpoon to spear the debris, I kid you not.
This is the complete and utter bull crap that they feed the ever willing and gullible public, who dine on it all like a nice easy cut steak, with trimmings.
So there you go...the satellites are just too small and too fast but no problem for someone with a machine and net to catch them.
All of those satellites supposedly whizzing about in unison and yet not one picture can be shown, except the supposed Hubble.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All anyone has to do is to look at the amount of satellites that were launched from the 50's to present day from all over the world and then have a look at how many rocket launches would be needed to achieve it all.
Now remember. You will get the desperate ones that will say, " yes but some rockets launched many at once." Well let me tell you something. It's a rarity that they say this has happened, so factor this in and maybe allow them 100 extra satellites to cover for the multi satellite launches.

How in the hell that supposed intelligent people can hang on to this total crap when the evidence is not only clear it's fake, it's downright embarrassingly blatant.

I will ask again, what do all the millions of Sky TV dishes in the UK point to?  Even dishes on the south coast point south into the sky.  The dish set up angle and elevation points to a set of satellites over the equator at 28.2deg east, wherever the dish is located in the UK.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 01:07:10 AM

There's a terrible reek of desperation in this topic. I asked a simple question about showing me a satellite and someone shows me a picture of the Hubble, supposedly in space. No satellites, because...well... like they say, they're just too damn small to be seen in space and going too fast.
Did you know that Japan had the bright idea of collecting satellite debris and spent satellites from space by...
Can you guess?....
A net!....A frigging net...you know, like a kid catching butterflies. One bright spark invented a harpoon to spear the debris, I kid you not.
This is the complete and utter bull crap that they feed the ever willing and gullible public, who dine on it all like a nice easy cut steak, with trimmings.
So there you go...the satellites are just too small and too fast but no problem for someone with a machine and net to catch them.
All of those satellites supposedly whizzing about in unison and yet not one picture can be shown, except the supposed Hubble.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All anyone has to do is to look at the amount of satellites that were launched from the 50's to present day from all over the world and then have a look at how many rocket launches would be needed to achieve it all.
Now remember. You will get the desperate ones that will say, " yes but some rockets launched many at once." Well let me tell you something. It's a rarity that they say this has happened, so factor this in and maybe allow them 100 extra satellites to cover for the multi satellite launches.

How in the hell that supposed intelligent people can hang on to this total crap when the evidence is not only clear it's fake, it's downright embarrassingly blatant.

I will ask again, what do all the millions of Sky TV dishes in the UK point to?  Even dishes on the south coast point south into the sky.  The dish set up angle and elevation points to a set of satellites over the equator at 28.2deg east, wherever the dish is located in the UK.

You've been told time and time again and you don't accept it, so here's the thing. If you ask me this one more time, you're going in the bin for good, your choice.

Quote from: inquisitive on March 07, 2014, 01:16:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 01:07:10 AM

There's a terrible reek of desperation in this topic. I asked a simple question about showing me a satellite and someone shows me a picture of the Hubble, supposedly in space. No satellites, because...well... like they say, they're just too damn small to be seen in space and going too fast.
Did you know that Japan had the bright idea of collecting satellite debris and spent satellites from space by...
Can you guess?....
A net!....A frigging net...you know, like a kid catching butterflies. One bright spark invented a harpoon to spear the debris, I kid you not.
This is the complete and utter bull crap that they feed the ever willing and gullible public, who dine on it all like a nice easy cut steak, with trimmings.
So there you go...the satellites are just too small and too fast but no problem for someone with a machine and net to catch them.
All of those satellites supposedly whizzing about in unison and yet not one picture can be shown, except the supposed Hubble.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All anyone has to do is to look at the amount of satellites that were launched from the 50's to present day from all over the world and then have a look at how many rocket launches would be needed to achieve it all.
Now remember. You will get the desperate ones that will say, " yes but some rockets launched many at once." Well let me tell you something. It's a rarity that they say this has happened, so factor this in and maybe allow them 100 extra satellites to cover for the multi satellite launches.

How in the hell that supposed intelligent people can hang on to this total crap when the evidence is not only clear it's fake, it's downright embarrassingly blatant.

I will ask again, what do all the millions of Sky TV dishes in the UK point to?  Even dishes on the south coast point south into the sky.  The dish set up angle and elevation points to a set of satellites over the equator at 28.2deg east, wherever the dish is located in the UK.

You've been told time and time again and you don't accept it, so here's the thing. If you ask me this one more time, you're going in the bin for good, your choice.

Haha, what fuckwit you are.  So bloody ignorant yet so arrogant.. it's a spectacle that I will be hard pressed to ever see again.

There's a terrible reek of desperation in this topic. I asked a simple question about showing me a satellite and someone shows me a picture of the Hubble, supposedly in space. No satellites, because...well... like they say, they're just too damn small to be seen in space and going too fast.
Did you know that Japan had the bright idea of collecting satellite debris and spent satellites from space by...
Can you guess?....
A net!....A frigging net...you know, like a kid catching butterflies. One bright spark invented a harpoon to spear the debris, I kid you not.
This is the complete and utter bull crap that they feed the ever willing and gullible public, who dine on it all like a nice easy cut steak, with trimmings.
So there you go...the satellites are just too small and too fast but no problem for someone with a machine and net to catch them.
All of those satellites supposedly whizzing about in unison and yet not one picture can be shown, except the supposed Hubble.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All anyone has to do is to look at the amount of satellites that were launched from the 50's to present day from all over the world and then have a look at how many rocket launches would be needed to achieve it all.
Now remember. You will get the desperate ones that will say, " yes but some rockets launched many at once." Well let me tell you something. It's a rarity that they say this has happened, so factor this in and maybe allow them 100 extra satellites to cover for the multi satellite launches.

How in the hell that supposed intelligent people can hang on to this total crap when the evidence is not only clear it's fake, it's downright embarrassingly blatant.

Like I said.  It would be dismissed as fake.  You said, show me a satellite in space.  I did.
Maybe you should look up the definition of satellite since you appear not to know it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+satellite#
And now tell me, how does the Hubble space telescope NOT qualify as a satellite.  Just once, suspend your belief that space travel is impossible.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 01:07:10 AM

There's a terrible reek of desperation in this topic. I asked a simple question about showing me a satellite and someone shows me a picture of the Hubble, supposedly in space. No satellites, because...well... like they say, they're just too damn small to be seen in space and going too fast.
Did you know that Japan had the bright idea of collecting satellite debris and spent satellites from space by...
Can you guess?....
A net!....A frigging net...you know, like a kid catching butterflies. One bright spark invented a harpoon to spear the debris, I kid you not.
This is the complete and utter bull crap that they feed the ever willing and gullible public, who dine on it all like a nice easy cut steak, with trimmings.
So there you go...the satellites are just too small and too fast but no problem for someone with a machine and net to catch them.
All of those satellites supposedly whizzing about in unison and yet not one picture can be shown, except the supposed Hubble.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All anyone has to do is to look at the amount of satellites that were launched from the 50's to present day from all over the world and then have a look at how many rocket launches would be needed to achieve it all.
Now remember. You will get the desperate ones that will say, " yes but some rockets launched many at once." Well let me tell you something. It's a rarity that they say this has happened, so factor this in and maybe allow them 100 extra satellites to cover for the multi satellite launches.

How in the hell that supposed intelligent people can hang on to this total crap when the evidence is not only clear it's fake, it's downright embarrassingly blatant.

Like I said.  It would be dismissed as fake.  You said, show me a satellite in space.  I did.
Maybe you should look up the definition of satellite since you appear not to know it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+satellite#
And now tell me, how does the Hubble space telescope NOT qualify as a satellite.  Just once, suspend your belief that space travel is impossible.

Does the Hubble send TV signals?
Let me makes this plain and clear. Show me one REAL satellite in space that sends back TV signals, I'd like to see just ohne. It's not asking for much and you experts seem to know everything about them so one of you must have something.

Ahhh OK.  So you didn't like my picture of a satellite and now want a picture of a specific kind of satellite.  Move goal posts much?
Now tell me.  If one was to produce a picture of a TV broadcasting satellite, would you mind be open enough to accept it?  Or would you just dismiss it as being "allegedly in space"?

Ahhh OK.  So you didn't like my picture of a satellite and now want a picture of a specific kind of satellite.  Move goal posts much?
Now tell me.  If one was to produce a picture of a TV broadcasting satellite, would you mind be open enough to accept it?  Or would you just dismiss it as being "allegedly in space"?

Who am I in discussion with? A N.A.S.A employee? Just show me a picture if you can. I'd show you one but I cannot find even one. Maybe you can.

Could you show me a picture of a REAL satellite in space. Just one will do, if you don't mind.

satellite  ˈsatəlʌɪt/  noun  1. an artificial body placed in orbit round the earth or another planet in order to collect information or for communication.

Picture of Hubble Space Telescope gets posted.

I asked a simple question about showing me a satellite and someone shows me a picture of the Hubble, supposedly in space.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 06, 2014, 12:49:42 PM

Could you show me a picture of a REAL satellite in space. Just one will do, if you don't mind.

satellite  ˈsatəlʌɪt/  noun  1. an artificial body placed in orbit round the earth or another planet in order to collect information or for communication.

Picture of Hubble Space Telescope gets posted.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 01:07:10 AM

I asked a simple question about showing me a satellite and someone shows me a picture of the Hubble, supposedly in space.

What's up shill, can you not understand that I wanted to see a TV satellite that you have all been banging on about. Are we debating the Hubble beaming signals to your dish?
Sticking pictures up like this makes you look exactly what you are. Weak!

You asked for a satellite, you were given a satellite, it's not my fault that you didn't specify the type of satellite you wanted. I believe there is a thread specifically about satellites as used for TV, why is this not being discussed there? I thought this thread was about the Columbia, and how it got to approximately 210,000ft before breaking apart.

You asked for a satellite, you were given a satellite, it's not my fault that you didn't specify the type of satellite you wanted. I believe there is a thread specifically about satellites as used for TV, why is this not being discussed there? I thought this thread was about the Columbia, and how it got to approximately 210,000ft before breaking apart.

Yeah it was about columbia and it went to satellites quickly. You're in the bin from this point on.

Anyone like to address this? The Columbia debris field was around 480km - compare this to something like the Lockerbie bombing which occured at around 31,000 feet at at around 580kmh which resulted in a debris field around 130km.

Anyone like to address this? The Columbia debris field was around 480km - compare this to something like the Lockerbie bombing which occured at around 31,000 feet at at around 580kmh which resulted in a debris field around 130km.

How many people were killed by the falling debris?

Not to change the subject but here is the picture of the TV broadcast lined up in space. Because they are so far taking a real picture from earth of them is like taking a picture of a beach ball from London to New York. There is an agency that is what they do.

Not to change the subject but here is the picture of the TV broadcast lined up in space. Because they are so far taking a real picture from earth of them is like taking a picture of a beach ball from London to New York. There is an agency that is what they do.

Are you actually being serious? Any reason why you thought bringing this up would convince anyone of anything?

I guess scepti didn't get much love growing up.

Here is the agency that tracks satellites from space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network#Ground-based_Electro-Optical_Deep_Space_Surveillance
It you want a close up of a TV satellite in space it is impossible to see because it is very far. Don't conclude they don't exist. Would a picture of a satellite from another satellite suffice?

Here is the agency that tracks satellites from space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network#Ground-based_Electro-Optical_Deep_Space_Surveillance
It you want a close up of a TV satellite in space it is impossible to see because it is very far. Don't conclude they don't exist. Would a picture of a satellite from another satellite suffice?

Yes, let me take a look at that one.

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 04:57:07 AM

Here is the agency that tracks satellites from space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network#Ground-based_Electro-Optical_Deep_Space_Surveillance
It you want a close up of a TV satellite in space it is impossible to see because it is very far. Don't conclude they don't exist. Would a picture of a satellite from another satellite suffice?

Yes, let me take a look at that one.

Look at the 1 minute and 30 seconds of the video you will see the shuttle launching two satellite. The first is for Direct TV for Canada.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

http://m.space.com/16546-photos-telstar-communications-satellite-anniversary.html
How about two being deployed by the space shuttle?
Scroll through the pictures and take a look at picture 3 and picture 6.  Now that you have your pictures, can we get back on topic?

My question is does it matter how many, if any at all, people got killed by falling debris from Columbia? If no one got killed in a hotel fire, does it mean the hotel didn't burn down?  You question is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 04:58:50 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 04:57:07 AM

Here is the agency that tracks satellites from space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network#Ground-based_Electro-Optical_Deep_Space_Surveillance
It you want a close up of a TV satellite in space it is impossible to see because it is very far. Don't conclude they don't exist. Would a picture of a satellite from another satellite suffice?

Yes, let me take a look at that one.

Look at the 1 minute and 30 seconds of the video you will see the shuttle launching two satellite. The first is for Direct TV for Canada.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I'm still waiting for the picture, not silly video of fakery.