Admission that they don't use satellite for internet

LORAN is more than a half century old.  You people don't think that they would have better and more advanced technology today?

Well, there is eLoran, but it can hardly be confused with GPS:
http://www.ursanav.com/solutions/technology/eloran/

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 26, 2016, 03:04:25 PM

They did it in ww2 with the loran system ,with no satellites necessary, 70 yrs later they could have one as accurate as you want

Exactly.

And that was with analogue valve tech.

You got digital microprocessors now, & I'm told that graphene tech's a big deal for radars too...

Dunno if the military are using it already but it's on the way for sure.

Link to technical details please.  Specifications etc.

Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.

You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country

Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone

Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.

The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 26, 2016, 05:51:40 PM

Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.

You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country

Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone

Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.

The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.

If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......

Quote from: frenat on May 26, 2016, 07:32:20 PM

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 26, 2016, 05:51:40 PM

Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.

You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country

Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone

Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.

The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.

If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......

You do not understand.  They work successfully.

Quote from: frenat on May 26, 2016, 07:32:20 PM

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 26, 2016, 05:51:40 PM

Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.

You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country

Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone

Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.

The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network?

If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......

Of course satellite phones depend on ground stations. How else could the signal connect with the terrestrial phone system.
We all need a bit of advice at times.  Learn to engage brain before writing anything!

Go and learn a bit about satellite phone systems, then come back and talk sense. This article might be a starting point:

Satellite phone
A satellite telephone, satellite phone, or satphone is a type of mobile phone that connects to orbiting satellites instead of terrestrial cell sites. They provide similar functionality to terrestrial mobile telephones; voice, short messaging service and low-bandwidth internet access are supported through most systems.

from: Satellite Phone

But, there are two basic approaches:
The Iridium system uses LEO satellites that can communicate with each other and ground stations. These can handle connections even when the satellite in range cannot contact a ground station directly.
There are other systems that use geostationary satellites which have a defined footprint on earth. For example one can cover the whole of Australia.

Go and read up on sat phones.

LORAN is more than a half century old.  You people don't think that they would have better and more advanced technology today?

Well, yes you are quite correct.  Positioning systems now rely on satellite technology.

Quote from: frenat on May 26, 2016, 07:32:20 PM

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 26, 2016, 05:51:40 PM

Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.

You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country

Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone

Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.

The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.

If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......

No, the satellite has to be in range of an Earth station.  the user has to be in range of a satellite in range of that station.

Quote from: frenat on May 26, 2016, 07:32:20 PM

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 26, 2016, 05:51:40 PM

Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.

You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country

Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone

Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.

The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.

If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......

Seriously, learn alittle about a system before you try and say it doesn't exist. This entire thread is nothing but you making incorrect statements from a position of ignorance then ignoring the responses to your incorrect statements.

You have no idea how any of the systems actually work, your basic claim is that maybe some secret organization has technologies that no other engineer on the planet knows about and are actively defrauding the world. You also make no effort to actually prove any of your statements, like looking at the raw GPS data or hooking up a scope to the GPS antenna to verifiy the frequecies it is receiving.

Just because you don't understand something does not mean no one else does either.

You have to be in range of an earth station to use a LEO satellite phone,so there is no reason for satellites to be used,its just basic logic.
Towers would do the same job with exactly the same functionality.

This is the coverage of 3 satellites



How many cell towers have that coverage
IsatPhone

You have to be in range of an earth station to use a LEO satellite phone,so there is no reason for satellites to be used,its just basic logic.
Towers would do the same job with exactly the same functionality.

It's the satellite that has to be in the range of the earth station...

You have to be in range of an earth station to use a LEO satellite phone,so there is no reason for satellites to be used,its just basic logic.
Towers would do the same job with exactly the same functionality.

You have no idea what it means for a satellite to be in range of an earth station, do you?  The user does not have to be in range.  The satellite does.

And the user obviously has to be in range of the satellite.

According to Wikipedia this makes the phones useless in isolated areas, so this about as useful! As a bunch of towers,

And the user obviously has to be in range of the satellite.

According to Wikipedia this makes the phones useless in isolated areas, so this about as useful! As a bunch of towers,

the user can be in range of the satellite and far out of range of the ground station.

And the user obviously has to be in range of the satellite.

According to Wikipedia this makes the phones useless in isolated areas, so this about as useful! As a bunch of towers,

With every post you make yourself seem more ridiculous than ever.

Of course the "user obviously has to be in range of the satellite". Any child would know that.

Though in the case of the Iridium system a satellite can connect to the ground station via other satellites, so each satellite does not need to be itself in range of a base station.

I fail to see why YOU can't research this yourself and not appear so completely ignorant on the subject!

ONE SATELLITE covers the whole area of Australia! This is a coverage map of the Optus D3 satellite. As far as I know this is primarily for Satellite TV, but Optus also provides Satphone services.

That satellite is located over the equator at 156° E (Just to the NE of New Guinea) and the green line shows the aiming direction from Hobart in Tasmania and is not the only satellite serving Australia (in addition to the Iridium system that Telstra utilises).

And in case you wonder if Australia needs Satellite Phones, here is the mobile phone (cell-phone) coverage map for Telstra over Australia (and no other carrier covers it better).
So you see there are large areas without coverage from land based towers.

I suspect parts of Asia and Africa have poorer coverage.

I don't know how many SatPhone satellites there are, but
Iridium has 72 Operational (66 in active service 6 spares) in Low Earth Orbit plus
numerous Geostationary satellites providing Sat Phone services and Satellite internet.

If you are interested, you can look up more yourself!

From Wikipedia:

Globalstar: A network covering most of the world's landmass using 44 active satellites. However, many areas are left without coverage since a satellite must be in range of an Earth station. Satellites fly in an inclined orbit of 52 degrees, so polar regions cannot be covered. The network went into limited commercial service at the end of 1999

That makes no financial sense,using satellites that can't cover many areas, it would be cheaper to use ionosphere bouncing or some other propagation technique with towers.
This would give the same functionality of a satellite phone at a fraction of the cost.

First of all, that was 1999 and this is 2016.  Care to update your story with current coverage statistics?

Secondly, Globalstar is not the only satellite communication service available.  Using primarily LEO satellites, it may not offer the best coverage either.

Even if the story is old it doesn't make sense

44 satellites at current prices is about 12 billion
Then you need to build 44 earth stations??

It would cost a fraction of that to build towers

Why do you think you'd need a separate station for each satellite?

From Wikipedia:

Globalstar: A network covering most of the world's landmass using 44 active satellites. However, many areas are left without coverage since a satellite must be in range of an Earth station. Satellites fly in an inclined orbit of 52 degrees, so polar regions cannot be covered. The network went into limited commercial service at the end of 1999

That makes no financial sense,using satellites that can't cover many areas, it would be cheaper to use ionosphere bouncing or some other propagation technique with towers.
This would give the same functionality of a satellite phone at a fraction of the cost.

Rubbish!

You forgot Iridium (which I did tell you about), with 66 operational LEO satellites, which does NOT need each satellite in contact with a ground station and all the geostationary satellites used for Sat Phone services.



Ionosphere bounce is simply not a reliable form of communication. Go look up data on service performance.


Even the topic title was quite deliberately misleading.
The quote "We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line." WAS NOT an "Admission that they don't use satellite for internet" - that is deliberately misleading - that's all you can call it! It was simply a statement that "satellites . . . . . can't carry terabytes of data" and are not economical for "broadband internet services"

Even if the story is old it doesn't make sense

44 satellites at current prices is about 12 billion
Then you need to build 44 earth stations??

It would cost a fraction of that to build towers

  Huh?  Where did you get the idea that each individual satellite needs its own ground station?  Did you even read the wiki article that you referenced?

A network of ground gateway stations provides connectivity from the 40 satellites to the public switched telephone network and Internet. A satellite must have a Gateway station in view to provide service to any users it may see. Twenty Four Globalstar Gateways are located around the world, including 7 in North America.

Even if the story is old it doesn't make sense

44 satellites at current prices is about 12 billion
Then you need to build 44 earth stations??

It would cost a fraction of that to build towers

By the way Telstra alone is building another 429 phone towers this year, and that is just to fill in "black spots" in existing coverage.
You certainly have know idea on the financing of this sort of thing.
Crawl back into you burrow and do some real reserch. When you have the qualifications to judge these things come back and try again! And no, I am no expert on the financial side of these things, though I have been close to this area for decades.


I suppose you are just trying to big-note youself with the Flat Earth community! Probably work too. 

Don't you ever tired of making a fool of yourself.

Nice try with the humourless gaslighting, Geoff, but there's no escaping the fact that you wrote this:

Quote from: rabinoz on May 26, 2016, 03:18:19 AM

Yes, if the clouds contain water droplets, ice or snow.

What a jackass!

All I'm saying is that satellites can't do anything that we can't do on the ground,
There are so many airships ,planes and towers that everything is covered.

Short wave radio, an old technology can reach anywhere on the planet so being able to get a signal from somewhere in the Australian outback isn't impressive or impossible without satellites.

If you deny this, please explain how a caravanner (yes, I am one and a member of a club with wide connections) with Satellite TV can go to any remote area in Australia, aim the dish at a known location^[1] over the equator and get TV signal.

Receiving TV signals in the out back isn't impressive or impossible because:

Virtually all long-distance reception of digital television occurs by tropospheric ducting (due to most, but not all, DTV stations broadcasting in the UHF band).-quote from Wikipedia article on tropospheric propagation.

I'm not saying that's what happened in your case,merely that it is possible without satellites.tropospheric propagation must be reliable if it's being used for TV broadcasting.

You could have been pointing your dish at a blimp at high altitude. Google uses them to beam signals and wifi at people.


If all satellites were erased from history and all the money refunded, then the satellites were replaced with airships it would be much cheaper. The only difference would be the need for more blimps than satellites.

The satellite TV companies in new Zealand and the UK are called sky broadcasting. Probably an allusion to using blimps ^_^

The airships are also below the highly reflective noctilucent clouds, unlike satellites.

The satellite TV companies in new Zealand and the UK are called sky broadcasting. Probably an allusion to using blimps ^_^

Or maybe just an allusion to using the sky itself?

The airships are also below the highly reflective noctilucent clouds, unlike satellites.

Why put expensive airships below a thing that is a natural reflector & does the same job?

Also, the power demands both for transmitting & station-keeping of blimps in the upper atmosphere may be prohibitive. Blimps don't like cross-winds or pressure variations!

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying blimps, plus drones & buoys, do not play a part in the overall scheme...

But the main part is just bouncing signals round the sky, like they've always done.

With a bit of artificial help from comm-trails in high-traffic areas.

Quote from: rabinoz

If you deny this, please explain how a caravanner (yes, I am one and a member of a club with wide connections) with Satellite TV can go to any remote area in Australia, aim the dish at a known location^[1] over the equator and get TV signal.

Receiving TV signals in the out back isn't impressive or impossible because:

Virtually all long-distance reception of digital television occurs by tropospheric ducting (due to most, but not all, DTV stations broadcasting in the UHF band).-quote from Wikipedia article on tropospheric propagation.

I'm not saying that's what happened in your case,merely that it is possible without satellites.tropospheric propagation must be reliable if it's being used for TV broadcasting.

You could have been pointing your dish at a blimp at high altitude. Google uses them to beam signals and wifi at people.


If all satellites were erased from history and all the money refunded, then the satellites were replaced with airships it would be much cheaper. The only difference would be the need for more blimps than satellites.

The satellite TV companies in new Zealand and the UK are called sky broadcasting. Probably an allusion to using blimps ^_^

The airships are also below the highly reflective noctilucent clouds, unlike satellites.

Please provide a link to a broadcaster using tropospheric scatter.

Note we are dicsussing how current systems work and not what might be possible.  Please explain how airships would be used and the issues of frequency coordination for multi channel HD broadcating.

Please provide specific details of Google using blimps.

UHF DTV requires near line of sight, no scatter.

yeah it is probably mostly reflection, it is the easiest way,
The magical reflective clouds are supposed to be rare near the equator, (coincidentally where developing nations tend to be ^_^)

So those areas are probably augmented

The clouds do seem to cover large areas, most of the sky in most pictures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c71d5/p01c70j5

There are a lot of viewer submissions of these 'incredibly rare' clouds

Its weird that the guy above is called inquisitive because all his questions can be answered with wikipedia and google,
google the google blimps
and
wikipedia trophospheric propogation

Just for his info its trophospheric ducting not scattering , that DIgital TV uses.

yeah it is probably mostly reflection, it is the easiest way,
The magical reflective clouds are supposed to be rare near the equator, (coincidentally where developing nations tend to be ^_^)

So those areas are probably augmented

The clouds do seem to cover large areas, most of the sky in most pictures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c71d5/p01c70j5

There are a lot of viewer submissions of these 'incredibly rare' clouds

Its weird that the guy above is called inquisitive because all his questions can be answered with wikipedia and google,
google the google blimps
and
wikipedia trophospheric propogation

Just for his info its trophospheric ducting not scattering , that DIgital TV uses.

DTV does not use ducting.  Why do you not post links from professional sources to prove your statements.

No proof of blimps used for widespread communication.  Satellite use proven.

yeah it is probably mostly reflection, it is the easiest way,
The magical reflective clouds are supposed to be rare near the equator, (coincidentally where developing nations tend to be ^_^)

So those areas are probably augmented

The clouds do seem to cover large areas, most of the sky in most pictures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c71d5/p01c70j5

There are a lot of viewer submissions of these 'incredibly rare' clouds

Yeah, I'm not sure where these bloody things came from.

Not sure how much of the data about them I can trust, either...

HAARP was up near the North Pole, maybe that played a part in creating them?

The military seemed very keen to encourage a million-&-one daft conspiracy theories about what it could do, but it always looked like just a giant radar station to me...

Worth looking into maybe?

Oh, & ignore 'inquisitive'; I'm undecided if it's some kind of bot or not, but it's definitely a time-waster.