This nice and all, but as I've told you before, you not only do not need to go to space to plant a satellite, but it is incredibly poor planning to do so.
The problem is that you just "told" us, with no rational justification, and had it exposed as pure BS, with you just ignoring all the problems with it.
Why not outside Earth? Well...
Because that would require admitting space exists, and that we have launched things into space, which destroys your delusional fantasy. You need it to all be fake, even if it costs vastly more to fake it.
1. Satellites aren’t used because they can’t carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line.
2. The bandwidth available using a single fiber optic cable and a laser beam is much much greater than you can get from a single satellite radio channel. This is due to the higher frequency and shorter wavelength of light compared to microwaves. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth.
3. An undersea cable is a bundle many fiber optic cables. Consider each fiber cable as a channel. You can have more channels, each with a higher capacity, than you can build radio channels into a satellite.
4. The uplinks and downlinks cost and putting the satellite in space is a huge huge ask and far more risky.
5. The delay for satellite communications would be around 255ms both uplink and downlink. For continuous traffic this not to a bad price to pay. But for burst traffic (like voice) you pay for the delay at each pause. The Rule of Thumb is 10MS per 1000 miles so Rule of Thumb to Europe on say TAT-8 would be about 75MS vs 510MS for satellite.
6. Finally, you can fix a broken cable. Once you launch the satellite you don’t get a chance to fix it if it gets broke.
Mostly number 6, though.
1 - Satellites are not used for everything, but there is plenty that they are used for, including satellite TV, satellite internet and GPS. Importantly, faking this with ground based systems (especially on a FE) would require so many transmitters (or transceivers) it isn't funny.
This is because satellite TV typically uses geostationary satellites, with receivers aligned to them based upon a RE with geostationary satellites, and with slight misalignment causing a very poor signal.
If you wanted to replicate that with ground based transmitters, you need loads of them for them to be in the correct location for the receivers to be pointing at, and to provide the required coverage.
With GPS, with it covering the globe, using satellites which rely upon the time required for the transmission to go from the satellite to the receiver, you would need to pretty much blanket the entire Earth in transmitters, and that would still likely cause problems for accurate location determination.
1,2 and 3 all focus on specific types of communication, which does not apply for everything.
More importantly they focus on the benefits of using a wired connection, which means it only actually works when you have wires coming in.
You can't try using them to claim what is provided by satellites is not.
4 - This would rely upon Earth actually being flat, and presented as such. Otherwise, a satellite can be a far cheaper option, with the cost of a single transmitter/transciever vs so many it isn't funny.
5 - Again, this depends on what you are doing. For example, GPS uses that delay to calculate location.
For one way transmission, like satellite TV, the delay doesn't matter.
6 - And fixing that broken cable can take an incredibly long time. Satellite constellations typically have significant redundancy built in.
But you can't get to space in the first place
Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.
each time a satellite needs to be added or repaired requires billions.
And faking it with ground based systems would likely cost more.
So, when they saw Sputnik there probably was an aerial object that people saw in the sky at night. They also got a signal from it. But can you prove it actually was in space? No, I bet you can't.
You mean it would be countless aerial objects, such that it could be observed from so many locations, in a position consistent with it being in space. But then people should have seen multiple such objects, but they didn't.
And wasting so much more fuel to keep it moving at such high velocities.
All the available evidence indicates it was in space. There is nothing except delusional paranoia that indicates it was not in space.
But my cellphone service runs on GPS!
No, it doesn't.
Your cellphone services runs on towers. The GPS used to provide your location runs on GPS satellites.
This is why you can often have cell service indoors while GPS is blocked by the building, and why in remote locations you can have GPS, but not cell coverage.
Trying to fake GPS with ground based systems would be insane.
It just makes you gullible.
No, it demonstrates you are gullible and desperate.
Space would destroy your fantasy, so you need to do whatever you can to pretend it isn't real, so you will accept whatever pathetic BS claims it isn't real.
Oh hey, we're astronomers who probably have ties to NASA. We'll test the distance of this satellite which will provide an opportunity for funding if we say it's in space, because US politicians are invested in this dick-measuring campaign against Russia. Clearly there is no vested interest here.
Quite the opposite.
This would mean the US lost.
What would be better is if they claimed that Russia was just using a fast plane rather than something in space, and use that as an excuse for even more funding to make sure we beat them.