Power needed for satellites

  • 30 Replies
  • 5263 Views
*

1on0ne

  • 156
Power needed for satellites
« on: December 03, 2016, 04:21:20 AM »
Hi

i was watching a nice video about the flat earth (of course) and one guy who is an aviator and an engineer said that simple thing:
"To power a radio broadcast over 1 state of america, one would need around 50 KWatts."


I don't see any satellitte powerful enough to target huge areas on earth (like GPS and such) just because of their distance to earth compared to a radio station, this is just impossible

keep in mind the law of energy dictates that the energy needed increases with the distance squared
So one would need huge power that a couple of solar panels won't do...(1 solar panel is around 200-2000 Watts depending on the size of course)

this logic is also applicable for the stars that would need to produce so much energy that calculus become preposterous
How about that?

Jeff
« Last Edit: December 03, 2016, 04:35:13 AM by 1on0ne »
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

Candlejack

  • 142
  • Econ graduate and a MAP
Re: Power needed for satellites
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2016, 06:11:43 AM »
I think that it's been perfectly stated that satellites need 1,5-2kW of energy, not less, not more. I don't know what's there to discuss about, the 50kW is definitely made up out of thin air.

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Power needed for satellites
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2016, 07:37:50 AM »
I think that it's been perfectly stated that satellites need 1,5-2kW of energy, not less, not more. I don't know what's there to discuss about, the 50kW is definitely made up out of thin air.
lol, a heater has that power, and you think it is enough to send signal to cover a very large zone of land? that's a joke

Jeff
live fearlessly, love endlessly

?

sir_awesome123

  • 277
  • proud NASA shill
Re: Power needed for satellites
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2016, 01:16:50 PM »
I think that it's been perfectly stated that satellites need 1,5-2kW of energy, not less, not more. I don't know what's there to discuss about, the 50kW is definitely made up out of thin air.
lol, a heater has that power, and you think it is enough to send signal to cover a very large zone of land? that's a joke

Jeff

1. heaters put out alot of energy, releasing energy as heat isn't nearly as efficient as doing so in radio waves and i think you know that. 2. you're brain requires 20 watts to function, barely enough to power a dim light bulb and yet no computer of any electricity input or output has ever been made capable of what your brain is capable of. you're making a false equivalence here that because a heater requires 1.5-2 Kw a satellite requiring the same amount of power could not do more than said heater. by your logic our brains can't be sustained by our meek energy needs (eating a few times a day) because they do more than a dim lightbulb.

so i ask you, where do you plug in your brain?
"hey what are you doing?"
"nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
"no really, what are you doing?"

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26236
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Power needed for satellites
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2016, 01:24:29 PM »
Satan is producing the power which requered.   :)
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:

Jura II (until 2031)
Bulma (Until 2030)
Jackblack (Until 2032)

I’m I a globalist AI.

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Power needed for satellites
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2016, 02:37:49 PM »
Satan is producing the power which requered.   :)
Neat, that sounds pretty sustainable. How much CO2 does satan produce?
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Re: Power needed for satellites
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2016, 02:58:08 PM »
I think that it's been perfectly stated that satellites need 1,5-2kW of energy, not less, not more. I don't know what's there to discuss about, the 50kW is definitely made up out of thin air.
lol, a heater has that power, and you think it is enough to send signal to cover a very large zone of land? that's a joke

Jeff

If you could cite some reliable sources that support your claims about the power requirements of satellites, that would help to make your case. The same goes for your figures relating to solar panels.

*

JackBlack

  • 23751
Re: Power needed for satellites
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2016, 03:03:05 PM »
It comes down to exactly how they broadcast it and how much power is required.

If they have directional broadcasts aimed just at Earth, they don't need as much as ones that broadcast in all directions.

So their distance doesn't matter, how much area they cover does.

As for stars, consider just how bright the sun is, and then consider that its brightness will drop as you go further away. Also remember that the sun is a relatively small star.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Power needed for satellites
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2016, 06:48:12 PM »
    I think that it's been perfectly stated that satellites need 1,5-2kW of energy, not less, not more. I don't know what's there to discuss about, the 50kW is definitely made up out of thin air.
    lol, a heater has that power, and you think it is enough to send signal to cover a very large zone of land? that's a joke

    Jeff
    So you are now the local expert on radio propagation. Now I won't pretend to have all the answers here off pat because antenna design, signal propagation, atmospheric attenuation are very large topics and fill books, but there are a few points you might want to look into.

    I cannot put this too simply or it would be meaningless, but I will try to be brief.
    The big problem is that you can ridicule a topic from pure ignorance, but to answer that ridicule is not so easy.

    Now, I don't know whether your 50 kW figure is for an FM radio or digital TV, so I will assume it is DTV.
    For both satellite TV and terrestrial TV, the signal needed from the transmitter depends on:
    • Transmitting antenna gain,
    • Path attenuation,
    • Receiving antenna gain and
    • Receiver sensitivity.

    Terrestrial TV
    Terrestrial TV uses frequencies in the few hundred up a bit over 800 MHz range.
    • Transmitting antenna gain
      The transmitting antenna only has to cover the one band, but usually cannot be directional as it must broadcast to receivers all around it, so a high gain cannot be achieved. For the moments I will take the effective gain as about 3 dB - a guess!
      Lots to read in Alan Dick, AN INTRODUCTION TO BROADCAST TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS.

    • Path attenuation
      I do not have quick figures here, but the signal has to traverse many kilometers of the lower atmosphere, and at the longer distance cope with obstruction from intervening hills, etc.

    • Receiving antenna gain
      Because such a wide range has to be covered, very high gain antennas are cumbersome and very expensive.
    As a result most terrestrial TV receiving antennae have a gain of less than 6 dB.

    • DTV receiver Sensitivity
      Quote from: Advanced Television Systems Committee, Inc.
      A DTV receiver should achieve a bit error rate in the transport stream of no worse than 3x10-6 (i.e., the FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, ACATS, Threshold of Visibility, TOV) for input RF signal levels directly to the tuner from –83 dBm
      From: ATSC Recommended Practice:
      Receiver Performance Guidelines.

      While this is recommended, many Digital TVs require a much higher signal level of -68 dBm.

    Now satellite TV is quite different. The wavelengths are much shorter making high gain directional antennae quite practical.

    • Transmitting antenna
      This antenna can limit its coverage to a comparatively narrow beam. This depends on the coverage required, but might typically be about 5,000 km in circumference. This corresponds to a beam width os roughly 8°. As a result, the gain of the satellite's transmitting can be much higher than for a terrestrial TV broadcasting antenna.
      A rough calculation (and I stand to be corrected) of the gain of this antenna would be about 20 dB.

    • Path attenuation
      The satellite signal might have to traverse up to 40,000 km, but apart from the spreading beam (the inverse square law), then the signal traverses an effective 10 to There in no path attenuation to contend with in the free space, only in the relative short atmospheric path.

    • Receiving antenna gain
      This is where the biggest gain comes in. Because of the short wavelength, quite small dishes can give a very high gain. A 60 cm dish usuall has a gain of about 30 dB.

    • Receiver sensitivity
      A satellite TV receiver typically has a Low Noise Amplifier (LNA) right on the dish, so a better receiver sensitivity can be achieved for terrestrial TV, commonly about a 10 dB improvement.

    I have hurried through this, but summarising I will table the improvement in the satellite system as opposed to the terrestrial:
    • Transmitting antenna gain: 20 dB vs. 3 dB or 17 dB in favour of satellite,
    • Path attenuation: bit of a guess, assume they are not much different overall.
    • Receiving antenna gain: 30 dB vs. 6 dB or 24 dB in favour of satellite.
    • Receiver sensitivity -80 dBm vs. -68 dBm or 12 dB in favour of satellite.

    Overall this gives the satellite link up to a 53 dB advantage over the terrestrial link, mainly from the narrower beam antennae that can be used.
    This is a power ratio of almost 200,000, some of which lets a lower transmitter be used, some of which is need for the wider area covered.

    But the "power budget" of a TV satellite it is definitely quite possible.

    Must go now, I'll come back later and patch the numerous errors.





    *

    disputeone

    • 25621
    • Or should I?
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #10 on: December 03, 2016, 09:22:51 PM »

    tl;dw

    78 minutes you gotta be kidding me.
    Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns. 

    *

    JackBlack

    • 23751
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #11 on: December 03, 2016, 11:00:24 PM »
    I think that it's been perfectly stated that satellites need 1,5-2kW of energy, not less, not more. I don't know what's there to discuss about, the 50kW is definitely made up out of thin air.
    lol, a heater has that power, and you think it is enough to send signal to cover a very large zone of land? that's a joke

    Jeff

    The 2 operate in fundamentally different ways.

    A radio will broadcast its signal, with it spreading out over an area and just needs to excite a few electrons into moving to be picked up.

    A heater spreads out over a volume, and needs to excite basically everything to warm it up.

    A radio is more like a light (but a point source).
    You typically need a kW heater just to heat a small room. But a few W light can illuminate it.
    A mW laser can be seen from quite a distance at night, even with some of the light being absorbed and the rest scattered all over.

    So the 2 are quite different.

    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #12 on: December 05, 2016, 09:00:26 PM »
    You would be surprised how little power your transmitter requires when your receiving dish looks like this:



    *

    wise

    • Professor
    • Flat Earth Scientist
    • 26236
    • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #13 on: December 05, 2016, 11:09:02 PM »
    And most of them are like this:





    Hungry d(f)ishes are waiting for feeding.  ::)
    1+2+3+...+∞= 1

    Ignored:

    Jura II (until 2031)
    Bulma (Until 2030)
    Jackblack (Until 2032)

    I’m I a globalist AI.

    ?

    sir_awesome123

    • 277
    • proud NASA shill
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #14 on: December 06, 2016, 12:27:54 AM »
    And most of them are like this:





    Hungry d(f)ishes are waiting for feeding.  ::)

    your point?
    "hey what are you doing?"
    "nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
    "no really, what are you doing?"

    *

    JackBlack

    • 23751
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #15 on: December 06, 2016, 01:04:54 AM »
    You would be surprised how little power your transmitter requires when your receiving dish looks like this:



    That is quite dishonest.
    What does it look like for an omnidirectional GPS receiver?

    ?

    sir_awesome123

    • 277
    • proud NASA shill
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #16 on: December 06, 2016, 02:45:10 AM »
    You would be surprised how little power your transmitter requires when your receiving dish looks like this:



    That is quite dishonest.
    What does it look like for an omnidirectional GPS receiver?

    the size of the receiver disk doesn't matter in the context of this energy debate. either satellites meet the energy needs to send data to earth or they don't. honestly i don't know all that much about the energy needs of sending data down from space in the form of radio waves, but i have yet to see any reason to doubt the RE model and it's accepted by the vast majority of the world's population including 100% of the earth's geologists (geology is the study of the earth) with PhDs (i'm sure you could find one or two geologists sitting in their basements with tin foil hats convinced that aliens invented tectonic shift, but definitely none with PhDs). and probably upwards of 99.99% of the rest of the world's scientific community.

    that being said we could all be wrong, however you must agree that to say that the whole world is wrong about any one thing is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. so if you want to say "satellites aren't possible and thus fake and thus the earth is flat" you need more proof for that claim than "the dishes aren't big enough".

    if you actually have evidence proving satellites don't exist or that the earth is flat then for God's sake write a paper and collect your nobel prize.
    "hey what are you doing?"
    "nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
    "no really, what are you doing?"

    *

    1on0ne

    • 156
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #17 on: December 06, 2016, 02:49:19 AM »
    You would be surprised how little power your transmitter requires when your receiving dish looks like this:



    That is quite dishonest.
    What does it look like for an omnidirectional GPS receiver?

    the size of the receiver disk doesn't matter in the context of this energy debate. either satellites meet the energy needs to send data to earth or they don't. honestly i don't know all that much about the energy needs of sending data down from space in the form of radio waves, but i have yet to see any reason to doubt the RE model and it's accepted by the vast majority of the world's population including 100% of the earth's geologists (geology is the study of the earth) with PhDs (i'm sure you could find one or two geologists sitting in their basements with tin foil hats convinced that aliens invented tectonic shift, but definitely none with PhDs). and probably upwards of 99.99% of the rest of the world's scientific community.

    that being said we could all be wrong, however you must agree that to say that the whole world is wrong about any one thing is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. so if you want to say "satellites aren't possible and thus fake and thus the earth is flat" you need more proof for that claim than "the dishes aren't big enough".

    if you actually have evidence proving satellites don't exist or that the earth is flat then for God's sake write a paper and collect your nobel prize.

    well we have proofs that's the whole point! every statement done about heiocentrism can be beaten to the ground by FE or concave earth or whatever

    about satellites, i don't totally believe they do not exist, there are balloons that do about the same thing, but they are not in "space" and they are not "satellites"
    live fearlessly, love endlessly

    *

    JackBlack

    • 23751
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #18 on: December 06, 2016, 02:51:31 AM »
    the size of the receiver disk doesn't matter in the context of this energy debate. either satellites meet the energy needs to send data to earth or they don't. honestly i don't know all that much about the energy needs of sending data down from space in the form of radio waves, but i have yet to see any reason to doubt the RE model and it's accepted by the vast majority of the world's population including 100% of the earth's geologists (geology is the study of the earth) with PhDs (i'm sure you could find one or two geologists sitting in their basements with tin foil hats convinced that aliens invented tectonic shift, but definitely none with PhDs). and probably upwards of 99.99% of the rest of the world's scientific community.

    that being said we could all be wrong, however you must agree that to say that the whole world is wrong about any one thing is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. so if you want to say "satellites aren't possible and thus fake and thus the earth is flat" you need more proof for that claim than "the dishes aren't big enough".

    if you actually have evidence proving satellites don't exist or that the earth is flat then for God's sake write a paper and collect your nobel prize.

    Yes, this is all true (and I am on your side).
    But in the energy debate, it is the smallest receiver (or the most energy flux demanding one) which matters.
    Showing a massive satellite dish is thus dishonest.

    I already have a few papers, still working on the Nobel prize.

    *

    JackBlack

    • 23751
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #19 on: December 06, 2016, 02:52:31 AM »
    well we have proofs that's the whole point! every statement done about heiocentrism can be beaten to the ground by FE or concave earth or whatever

    about satellites, i don't totally believe they do not exist, there are balloons that do about the same thing, but they are not in "space" and they are not "satellites"
    You have it the wrong way around.
    We have proofs that Earth is round, and every statement about Earth being flat or concave can be beaten to a pulp by reality (RE).

    The power requirements would be the same.

    ?

    sir_awesome123

    • 277
    • proud NASA shill
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #20 on: December 06, 2016, 03:51:04 AM »
    well we have proofs that's the whole point! every statement done about heiocentrism can be beaten to the ground by FE or concave earth or whatever

    about satellites, i don't totally believe they do not exist, there are balloons that do about the same thing, but they are not in "space" and they are not "satellites"

    no you have claims, claims which are usually either nonsensical or not backed by any evidence (which there is mountains of for the round earth). sometimes they are very well thought out and logical but still countered in the end (very rare that a flat earth theorist uses objective logic). a very very minuscule fraction of the time they are backed by some form of evidence which is then found to be either faulty evidence or consistent with a round earth as well. i struggle to find a single claim backed by evidence made by flat earth theorists that can't be answered in the context of a round earth.

    i'm not even joking, if you can prove that the earth is flat you will win a nobel prize
    "hey what are you doing?"
    "nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
    "no really, what are you doing?"

    *

    wise

    • Professor
    • Flat Earth Scientist
    • 26236
    • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #21 on: December 06, 2016, 05:18:35 AM »
    And most of them are like this:





    Hungry d(f)ishes are waiting for feeding.  ::)

    your point?

    To reach these hungry dishes supposed it is needed a great power.
    1+2+3+...+∞= 1

    Ignored:

    Jura II (until 2031)
    Bulma (Until 2030)
    Jackblack (Until 2032)

    I’m I a globalist AI.

    ?

    sir_awesome123

    • 277
    • proud NASA shill
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #22 on: December 06, 2016, 05:22:48 AM »
    And most of them are like this:





    Hungry d(f)ishes are waiting for feeding.  ::)

    your point?

    To reach these hungry dishes supposed it is needed a great power.

    your evidence for this claim?
    "hey what are you doing?"
    "nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
    "no really, what are you doing?"

    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #23 on: December 06, 2016, 06:00:19 AM »
    (photos of giant dishes)
    That is quite dishonest.
    What does it look like for an omnidirectional GPS receiver?

    My bad, I read "satellite" and "power" and my brain jumped to deep-space communication. 

    According to Wikipedia, the power of the GPS at your receiver is a miniscule 8 attowatts.  That is 8 billionths of a billionth of a watt.  If we take the 50kW number and transmit it to the Continental US with a surface area of 86,977 billion square feet, that 50kW transmission is roughly 0.574 pico-watts per square foot, 718 million times more power than the 8 attowatts the receiver is looking for. 

    The math above is VERY rough, back-of-an-envelope stuff and should not be considered accurate by any means, but for order-of-magnitude purposes it will serve.  So, that 50kW figure seems a bit high.

    *

    1on0ne

    • 156
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #24 on: December 06, 2016, 06:06:15 AM »
    And most of them are like this:





    Hungry d(f)ishes are waiting for feeding.  ::)

    your point?

    To reach these hungry dishes supposed it is needed a great power.
    yes and why are they always pointing horizontally, or a little bit up. Shouldn't they be pointing most of the time UP ?  ;D
    live fearlessly, love endlessly

    ?

    sir_awesome123

    • 277
    • proud NASA shill
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #25 on: December 06, 2016, 06:06:25 AM »
    (photos of giant dishes)
    That is quite dishonest.
    What does it look like for an omnidirectional GPS receiver?

    My bad, I read "satellite" and "power" and my brain jumped to deep-space communication. 

    According to Wikipedia, the power of the GPS at your receiver is a miniscule 8 attowatts.  That is 8 billionths of a billionth of a watt.  If we take the 50kW number and transmit it to the Continental US with a surface area of 86,977 billion square feet, that 50kW transmission is roughly 0.574 pico-watts per square foot, 718 million times more power than the 8 attowatts the receiver is looking for. 

    The math above is VERY rough, back-of-an-envelope stuff and should not be considered accurate by any means, but for order-of-magnitude purposes it will serve.  So, that 50kW figure seems a bit high.

    you're approaching this argument with much too much logic. they're gonna throw out any math or evidence that doesn't support FE theory. just wait till they say something ridiculous and ridicule it, making your own fact-based assertions won't work.
    "hey what are you doing?"
    "nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
    "no really, what are you doing?"

    ?

    sir_awesome123

    • 277
    • proud NASA shill
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #26 on: December 06, 2016, 06:10:36 AM »
    And most of them are like this:





    Hungry d(f)ishes are waiting for feeding.  ::)

    your point?

    To reach these hungry dishes supposed it is needed a great power.
    yes and why are they always pointing horizontally, or a little bit up. Shouldn't they be pointing most of the time UP ?  ;D

    they are aimed in the direction of a geosynchronous satellite. sometimes that's straight up, sometimes it's not.
    "hey what are you doing?"
    "nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
    "no really, what are you doing?"

    *

    1on0ne

    • 156
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #27 on: December 06, 2016, 06:43:33 AM »
    And most of them are like this:





    Hungry d(f)ishes are waiting for feeding.  ::)

    your point?

    To reach these hungry dishes supposed it is needed a great power.
    yes and why are they always pointing horizontally, or a little bit up. Shouldn't they be pointing most of the time UP ?  ;D

    they are aimed in the direction of a geosynchronous satellite. sometimes that's straight up, sometimes it's not.

    i'm sorry but 99.99% of the dishes i see in Google Images are not vertically pointed, i even have trouble finding even 1 dish that is vertically pointed: they are all a little bit higher than horizontal (there where is the antenna on a moutain not far)
    live fearlessly, love endlessly

    ?

    sir_awesome123

    • 277
    • proud NASA shill
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #28 on: December 06, 2016, 06:59:12 AM »
    And most of them are like this:



    yeah i'd think so. what are the odds of your provider's satellite being directly overhead? why don't you just look up a guide to aim your dish. unless all the t.v. providers are in on the conspiracy as well



    Hungry d(f)ishes are waiting for feeding.  ::)

    your point?

    To reach these hungry dishes supposed it is needed a great power.
    yes and why are they always pointing horizontally, or a little bit up. Shouldn't they be pointing most of the time UP ?  ;D

    they are aimed in the direction of a geosynchronous satellite. sometimes that's straight up, sometimes it's not.

    i'm sorry but 99.99% of the dishes i see in Google Images are not vertically pointed, i even have trouble finding even 1 dish that is vertically pointed: they are all a little bit higher than horizontal (there where is the antenna on a moutain not far)
    "hey what are you doing?"
    "nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
    "no really, what are you doing?"

    ?

    frenat

    • 3752
    Re: Power needed for satellites
    « Reply #29 on: December 06, 2016, 07:34:52 AM »
    Offset satellite dishes like those pictured don't point where you think they point



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_dish_antenna

    They are designed so the feed mast and receiver don't block the signal.