Trophospheric scatter imitating geo-synch satellites?

It's weird how the satellite coverage is the same shape as the US.
It's possible to make that shape with several smaller circles.(hint hint)

In fact it covers Alaska but NOT Northern Canada!!!

So it abso!utely impossible for one emitter to be doing that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUSTED!!!!

Satellite Busters!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's another oddly shaped blob
https://ukfree.tv/extras/satellite_footprints

It also conforms to country borders

It's weird how the satellites coverage goes into the north sea,next to the UK but conforms to the shape of Italy!!!!!!!!!

BUSTED!!!!!!!

The patterns conform to country borders because of the design of the individual transponders (transmitters).  It's due to programme rights issues in each country.

The Astra 2e footprint cannot be made with three transmitters, it would have to be made from three identical shapes.

It's weird how the satellite coverage is the same shape as the US.
It's possible to make that shape with several smaller circles.(hint hint)

In fact it covers Alaska but NOT Northern Canada!!!

So it abso!utely impossible for one emitter to be doing that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because you say so? Nope! Sorry.

It would be wise to do some checking before you start spouting off about things you know little about. There's lots of information available about beam shaping. Look it up!

The Astra 2e footprint cannot be made with three transmitters, it would have to be made from three identical shapes.

Why?  The shape can be made to whatever is required.

There's also a huge inconsistency with footprint size,

One satellite can do the US and Hawaii but te Astra 2e can only do a fraction of that

There's also a huge inconsistency with footprint size,

One satellite can do the US and Hawaii but te Astra 2e can only do a fraction of that

By design, to restrict reception outside the designated area.  2e has 3 shapes.

From the people who own it - http://www.ses.com/4628866/astra-2e

At least we agree they exist...

Lol if you look on that webpage it says Europe is covered with one beam only,how did they get that irregular shape??

There's also a huge inconsistency with footprint size,

One satellite can do the US and Hawaii but te Astra 2e can only do a fraction of that

So?

Lol if you look on that webpage it says Europe is covered with one beam only,how did they get that irregular shape??

Here's one way to do it. You could have found this yourself.

Lol if you look on that webpage it says Europe is covered with one beam only,how did they get that irregular shape??

The same way the FE Sun does the "spotlight"? How exactly does it get that nice "perfectly" straight line during an equinox?

There's no point in limiting the shape of the footprint because customers need a box to decode the satellite signal!!!

Otherwise no one would pay any money!


Think about it for a second

There's no point in limiting the shape of the footprint because customers need a box to decode the satellite signal!!!

Otherwise no one would pay any money!


Think about it for a second

Said before, broadcast rights. Even with free to air channels.

There's no point in limiting the shape of the footprint because customers need a box to decode the satellite signal!!!

Yes, there is. There's no point in wasting signal power in an area were you're not permitted to have customers. Power budgets on spacecraft are limited; you want to lavish as much power as you can in the area where your customers are and as little as possible elsewhere.

Astra 2e is allowed to have European and middle eastern customers but not eastern European customers? Prove it!

Astra 2e broadcasts to the middle East and Western Europe,both totally different locations with different broadcast standards and rights.

Astra 2e is allowed to have European and middle eastern customers but not eastern European customers? Prove it!

I couldn't care less and don't see why that even makes any difference. If they've tailored the footprint to favor some areas at the expense of others, I presume they have their reasons. If you're curious, you could probably find out if and why for yourself. Maybe by starting with the company itself.

Astra 2e broadcasts to the middle East and Western Europe,both totally different locations with different broadcast standards and rights.

As long as both regions are visible to the satellite and the beam pattern can be directed to them it doesn't matter if they're contiguous or not. Why would it? That's what is so nice about geostationary satellite distribution of data - one bird can provide coverage for up to about 1/3 of the Earth.

The downlinks are all digital, different programming can be allocated to different beams, and conversion to the local TV standard output is handled by the satellite receiver, so what's the problem?

[Edit for minor clarification and to correct punctuation]

It's more likely to be towers making those footprints, they conform to geography like towers.

I think all this regional stuff is just an excuse for the footprint shape

It's more likely to be towers making those footprints, they conform to geography like towers.

Towers? I thought you were proposing troposcatter as the mode.

You never answered this question:

More than the entire contiguous US can be covered using one satellite and 50 cm receive antennas. How many of those troposcatter systems would it take to accomplish that?

Then there's the obvious follow-on question:

What directions would the receive antennas have to point?

I think all this regional stuff is just an excuse for the footprint shape

Thank you for sharing your idle musing. Speculation is a poor substitute for knowledge.

Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 10, 2016, 12:15:51 PM

That's interesting, but I'm pretty sure my satellite dish doesn't weigh 840 lbs!

I'm pretty sure your car's not a Hummer too...

Because it's not built to military specs.

Thanks for reinforcing my position Pepe!!

It's more likely to be towers making those footprints, they conform to geography like towers.

I think all this regional stuff is just an excuse for the footprint shape

More guess, guess, guess. Never any evidence and never a valid answer to the hard questions, like we KNOW where the Geostationary Satellites are by triangulation from the required dish directions and those transmitters are NOT at 50,000 feet or whatever, they are at close to 35,786 km and we have to point the dishes there to get a signal.



But, if you want to seem the slightest bit credible you will explain satellite TV dish alignment to us!



<<  added question >>

More guess, guess, guess.

That you choose to call logical deductions based on available evidence 'guesses' shows you are only here to misdirect & disinform.

Moreover, you keep boasting ex-globe is avoiding your question, yet your post did not contain a single question.

Please stop lying, Geoff.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 12:11:51 AM

More guess, guess, guess.

That you choose to call logical deductions based on available evidence 'guesses' shows you are only here to misdirect & disinform.
Moreover, you keep boasting ex-globe is avoiding your question, yet your post did not contain a single question.
Please stop lying, Geoff.

That better?

That better?

No; retro-editing your posts to cover up the fact that you were lying is not 'better', Geoff.

It is just presents more evidence from which we can logically deduce you are here only to misdirect & disinform...

Quote from: rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 03:22:10 AM

That better?

No; retro-editing your posts to cover up the fact that you were lying is not 'better', Geoff.
It is just presents more evidence from which we can logically deduce you are here only to misdirect & disinform...

Yes I guess the real professional on "lying, misdirection  & disinformation" would know all about that!

Since poor old ex-something-or-other can't answer it, the ekSpurt on everything to do everything would know the answer.

We KNOW where the Geostationary Satellites are by triangulation from the required dish directions and those transmitters are NOT at 50,000 feet or whatever, they are at close to 35,786 km and we have to point the dishes there to get a signal.



But, if you want to seem the slightest bit credible you will explain satellite TV dish alignment to us!


If I haven't lost count that's two (2, II, deux, zwei, δυο) questions for your kind attention!

Thanks in advance for the information.

<< Just added a bit of retro-editing  for the heck of it >>

There's no point in limiting the shape of the footprint because customers need a box to decode the satellite signal!!!

Otherwise no one would pay any money!


Think about it for a second

Yes, it takes about one second to guess (yes, I did say guess, but it is an "informed" guess).

The smaller the coverage area the less power is needed from the transmitter (or the higher achievable signal level).
Someone more up in satellite TV can verify that.

Why don't you just tell me why TV cannot be broadcast with troposcatter,instead of asking questions and playing games

Troposcatter works with the ku band

Why did you avoid this question:


why do you think that troposcatter systems, or more general over-the-horizon comms, were invented in the first place?


Also, if you read the Raytheon literature properly, you'd see one of the big selling points of their system is that is allows the operator to switch between troposcatter and satellite comms on the fly.  Do you think Raytheon are lying about this?  If so, then why do you believe anything else they say?

You might also want to check out the range of satellite systems they sell as well:

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sat_comms/

Why don't you just tell me why TV cannot be broadcast with troposcatter,instead of asking questions and playing games

Troposcatter works with the ku band

Simple, we KNOW where the Geostationary Satellites are by triangulation from the required dish directions and those transmitters are NOT at 50,000 feet or whatever, they are at close to 35,786 km and we have to point the dishes there to get a signal.

All over say Australia if reception is wanted for the Optus C1 satellite, the directions required for dish alignment point to the Optus C1 at 156° E.

There are other reasons too:

• Range is far too short
• Along with the attenuation caused by absorption and scattering, the channel causes additional, time-variant,
  fading of the signal level. The fading is categorized into short-term and long-term fades. The rapid fading
  (on the order of seconds) is the result of random phase additions of the scatterers causing constructive and
  destructive interference. from TROPOSCATTER AT THE KU BAND.

Plus lots more! Look go read it for yourself in TROPOSCATTER AT THE KU BAND!

why do you think that troposcatter systems, or more general over-the-horizon comms, were invented in the first place?

Because satellites exist only as military-industrial propaganda.

And people have been bouncing signals around the sky since the invention of radio; so it's hardly a new technology.

But anyhoo; you shills are clearly playing your 'let's pretend that everyone is avoiding my questions' game...

It's a very old & very boring game, & you are so shit at it you even got caught demanding answers to a question you had not asked...

But it's a living, I guess?

And oh look - while I was typing this Geoff squeezed in yet another unnecessary shitpost; that's three in a row now...

Of course, this provides yet more evidence from which I can logically deduct that he knows when I am writing a post...

But he's so shit at his shit job he cannot understand that.

And as for a tiny, solar-powered, flying trashcan being able to transmit a signal through the atmosphere from 35,789km away; LMFAO!!!

Sober up you useless old troll.

But, then that's what the AI model PL does what a question comes in that not yet been entered into its Positronic memory banks!

The standard response is to spout rubbish "Sober up you useless old trolls" and much worse till its master (Skepti I guess) comes along with the new data - which will be completely wrong, but an AI model PL wouldn't know that!

Guess I'll just have to wait till the puppeteer comes along with the info. I'm patient.

Has the PL AI had a PM module added? If so it could send a PM to this "Geoff" that it seems to crave. You would think that traces of Geoff would has been erased by the "Selective Erasure Module" by now, but I guess there's a problem in the design of that.


Possibly a bit of AI type CBT might help - bit outside my area of expertise though.

rabinoz, the Geoff he is probably referring to is this:

Model Bessie Bardot, husband Goeff Barker and TV personality Miriam attend a gala event for the celebration of Barbie's 45th Anniversary at the Establishment restaurant June 7, 2004 in Sydney, Australia.

(http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/socialite-lady-sonia-mcmahon-attends-a-gala-event-for-the-news-photo/50937286)

WOW! You have a really hot wife...

Why don't you just tell me why TV cannot be broadcast with troposcatter,instead of asking questions and playing games

Troposcatter works with the ku band

"Works" and "works well enough for TV" is different. In fact, this seems to be confirmed by the website you provided.

This monstrosity does not look like what I have on my rooftop:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_229209.pdf

Also, apparently, after 50 miles it works shit.

Troposcatter is possible in the Ku band, BUT it has a high signal to noise ratio. You can't do much with it.

NASA shills help me discover mind blowing new facts

https://books.google.com/books?id=h08DiFtwwYQC&pg=PA539&lpg=PA539&dq=troposcatter+television&source=bl&ots=nvphQVX8cw&sig=vSCOxSYUv2k6uaUR14VZ4IbFfWM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL3enmsKDNAhVBQlIKHVBACtQQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=troposcatter%20television&f=false

In 1978 The Brits broadcast a soap opera to troops in Germany with a single tropospheric scattertower.
They use larger dishes but if the signal power is in increased smaller dishes can be used.
That's 500 miles for a single tower!

And the PDF that Geoff links to....it says only positive things in the conclusion section. Section 1.8page 5