Cool Mission?

 It would seem that long vacuum tubes could be built between radio towers to transmit such frequencies at the speed of light. Yet this is not done, hmmm I wonder why not?

Why not just used a large vacuum chamber?

How we test spacecraft before launch
The array of space-simulating test facilities a spacecraft tours through before it can blast off of Earth.


https://blog.jatan.space/p/how-we-test-spacecraft-before-launch


Additional tests for each spacecraft can vary as greatly as the missions themselves. These include specialized antenna testing for communications, optical testing for cameras and telescopes, helicopter-based radar testing for missions studying subsurfaces of planets and moons, deployment mechanism tests for space telescopes like JWST, heat shield and parachute testing for Mars landing missions as well as crew capsules returning to Earth, and more.

We know you’re going to say it’s a lie, and we are all sheep.

So skip the rant, and go right to providing evidence to support your false accusations of lying.

Remember how you said that the rocket burned in a vacuum? I do not remember any valve turned to prevent air backflow. In other words, this rocket test of yours was a cheat. Unprofessionally set up, not perfectly air-free, so yeah nothing is proved.

Here's a professional experiment...

Blue Origin flight. MECO (Main Engine Cut Off) happened at about 191,000 ft.



At 100', oxygen in the atmosphere is 100%


At 10,000', oxygen in the atmosphere is about 70%


At 100,000', oxygen in the atmosphere is about 1%


At 110,000', oxygen in the atmosphere is about 0%


The Blue Origin rocket kept burning for another 80,000' or so.

Now, you may make the distinction between radio and sound, but the point is radar and light spectrum are different frequency. It hits a hologram and typically doesn't see it.

No, that isn't the point.
The point is that radar is light, and light doesn't collide with light.
It doesn't matter what frequency you use.
Light is absorbed and emitted or reflected by matter.
Neither sound waves nor light waves will reflect off light.

Have you any proof that radio waves do propagate across a vacuum? Have you any proof that radio waves are different from sound waves? You got another video where a vacuum sucks up radio waves, and  you can hear a radio playing inside the vacuum?

We have been over this before. You had your garbage refuted, and fled because you couldn't defend it.

If you wish to go back to it, then go back to the refutations of your delusional garbage and deal with them.

So have you any proof that radio waves propagate across a vacuum? Much less radio at the speed of light? It would seem that long vacuum tubes could be built between radio towers to transmit such frequencies at the speed of light. Yet this is not done, hmmm I wonder why not?

Because that would be pure stupidity.
Why do you continually provide such obviously stupid suggestions?
Using a radio link has a very significant motivation, to not need to have lots of infrastructure setup between the locations.
You have a radio transmitter at one location, and a receiver at the other, without needing to build anything in between.
Why would you entirely defeat that purpose to construct a long tube, and then waste more money and resources evacuating that tube?
Not to mention the tube would need to be supported to keep it quite straight all the way so the radio waves would be kept in the vacuum of the tube.

And what advantage does that offer?
It means you get to have the radio waves travel at the speed of light in a vacuum instead of the speed of light in air, or roughly 1.0003 times the speed.

So the question isn't why don't they, the question is why should they do something so utterly stupid and useless?

You're trying to use a buried assumption that everything is driven by a force (which you call gravity, even though such "force" seems to catch-all). Nope, sorry, this is completely plausible without invoking any force.

So you are saying water just magically moves around for no reason at all?

Water seeks its level, but it swirls around rocks, coral beds, deep holes that create whirlpools, zones of different salinity, zones of different water pressure, zones of different temperatures. Oh yeah and I forgot tectonic plates where volcanic activity will eventually form land. All of these mean thar water has never reached worldwide equilibrium in thousands and millions of years. And so, because of this lack of equilibrium, the tides are controlled not by a far away moon or sun (which would make bulge so high that it would swamp all of the world's cities, and so regular that we couldn't function) but by its own swirling about as it moves in and out of shorelines.

If it was simply being driven towards equilibrium, it would not be following those predictable patterns and continuing to flow in these areas.

You need something to keep driving it.
Tectonic activity is too sporadic to cause the tides. Instead it causes tidal waves.
If it was temperature, based upon temperature fluctuations, then it should be tied to those, making the tide intrinsically tied to the day, so the tide shouldn't be drifting throughout the month.
If instead it was based upon locations typically having a given temperature, the drift should be entirely independent of the day and moon phase.

A whirlpool requires some driving force. It doesn't just magically sustain itself.
You can see this yourself with a blender.
Put water in a blender and turn it on, and you can see a whirlpool. But turn the blender off and it stops.
If this was causing the tides, then they should gradually diminish over time until they stop.
This means you need something to keep it moving.
That means you need a force.

Tides are a lack of equilibrium. If you have equilibrium, you have no tides, as happen on some islands, and calm zones of the sea. The moon and sun movement is not synchronized (even a bit) with the tides.

Spouting the same refuted delusional BS will not help you.
As demonstrated before, it most certainly is synchronised, with the highest tides during a full moon and new moon, and the least significant tides occuring at a quarter moon.

they claim it acts when the moon is on the opposite side.

Again, that is how tidal forces work. Your wilful rejection of reality, your wilful ignorance, does not change this fact.

Considering it has already been explained why this happens, and you have provided nothing to challenge this, how about you try defending your BS, by either demonstrating a fault with that explanation or providing an alternative explanation to show it shouldn't happen.

The tides happen during the day or at night, literally any hour, though it typically progresses through the month.

Not literally any hour. At times quite well connected to the Moon, but also depending on your location.

The next high tide today is 1:16pm. The next low tide is 7:47pm.
The moon rises today at 6:43 am and sets at 3:26pm. These times have nothing to do with each other.

Why continue to appeal to moon rise and moon set, as if that should be when high tide happens?
Again, if tides have nothing to do with the moon, why do we see the magnitude of tides oscillate such that tides are largest at a full moon and new moon?
Why don't we ever get a case when the tides are largest in magnitude at a quarter moon?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2023, 08:22:47 AM

 It would seem that long vacuum tubes could be built between radio towers to transmit such frequencies at the speed of light. Yet this is not done, hmmm I wonder why not?

Why not just used a large vacuum chamber?

Because, you are getting a radio signal from point A (say Richmond, Virginia) to Point B (Seoul, Korea) and then reach Point C. A large vacuum chamber wouldn't actually get to a desired location, we need a long expensive tube in order to get fast and reliable signals. So where are the long tubes stretching thousands of miles?

Meanwhile, fiber-optic cables actually transmit light (not radio waves) which do actually travel at light speed. One of this is cheap science fakery. The other actually works. There are in fact fiber-optic cables stretching across entire oceans. This is working technology, and it's technology that can be repaired. When, when could you possibly repair a satellite in space? Nor would it be possible to construct gigantic glass or plastic vacuum-sealed pipes described above for miles overhead. Oncoming tracks would smash it up, birds and plants would be choked off by crisscrossed overhead pipes, and so on.

Stop with the garbage science. People build things that work, and that sell. And that are easy and cheap to repair.
Radio waves do not work any faster in a vacuum. If they did, there would be vacuum tubes pumped with all the CO₂ that climate scientists tell us is a problem. Light transmits at light speed, radio transmits at (much slower than light) speed. Radio, due to tricks with triangulation and overlapped signals, is good enough for much of our signals and the rest are done through wiring of increasing quality.

In September 2012, NTT Japan demonstrated a single fiber cable that was able to transfer 1 petabit per second (1015bits/s) over a distance of 50 kilometers.[

This is a thing that works. As soon as you send a satellite up, were it actually in space, it couldn't be upgraded and thus becomes obsolete.
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist/
But a "satellite" as in Light-Than-Air-Vehicle (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP), these are things that work. You can fly a plane up to one of these, do a repair, and fly back down. Such things have no need to be in space, and would be completely impractical. As fully impractical as giant tubes like in Futurama. Exactly the type of tubes I just mentioned.


For reference, the things that stand in for satellites. All of these work perfectly fine, and are easy to repair.
https://www.airship-association.org/cms/node/22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_satellite#High-altitude_long_endurance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon#Geostationary_balloon_satellite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_satellite#High-altitude_platform_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_cable

This updated concept of a proven technology takes lighter-than-air vehicles into a realm that gives users capabilities on par with satellites at a fraction of the cost (1 to 2 orders of magnitude less). The HAA will also integrate reconfigurable, multi-mission payload suites. HAA is significantly less costly to deploy and operate than other airborne platforms, and supports critical missions for defense, homeland security, and other civil applications. Its operational persistence eliminates the need for in-theater logistic support. In position, an airship would survey a 600-mile diameter area and millions of cubic miles of airspace.
-Lockheed Martin

600 mile diameter of coverage.

Because, you are getting a radio signal from point A (say Richmond, Virginia) to Point B (Seoul, Korea) and then reach Point C. A large vacuum chamber wouldn't actually get to a desired location, we need a long expensive tube in order to get fast and reliable signals. So where are the long tubes stretching thousands of miles?

What are you babbling about.  Radio astronomy across the vacuum of space, satellites radio communications, the space probes that studied the Van Allen Belts radio communications, radar surveys of the moon and venues, and the radio communications with the Red Bull Stratos - World Record Freefall projected worked just fine without your word salad..

Red Bull Stratos was a high altitude skydiving project involving Austrian skydiver Felix Baumgartner. On 14 October 2012, Baumgartner flew approximately 39 kilometres ((127,851 ft; 24 mi))[1][2][3] into the stratosphere over New Mexico, United States, in a helium balloon before free falling in a pressure suit and then parachuting to Earth.[4] The total jump, from leaving the capsule to landing on the ground, lasted approximately ten minutes.[1] While the free fall was initially expected to last between five and six minutes,[5] Baumgartner deployed his parachute after 4 minutes and 19 seconds.[1]


(127,851 ft; 24 mi)




Reaching 1,357.64 km/h (843.6 mph)—Mach 1.25—Baumgartner broke the sound barrier on his descent,[6] becoming the first human to do so without any form of engine power.[4][7] Measurements show Baumgartner also broke two other world records. With a final altitude of 38,969 m (127,851 ft; 24 mi),[8] Baumgartner broke the unofficial record for the highest manned balloon flight of 37,640 m (123,491 ft) previously set by Nick Piantanida.[9][10][11][12] He also broke the record for the highest altitude jump, set in 1960 by USAF Colonel Joseph Kittinger, who was Baumgartner's mentor and capsule communicator at mission control. These claims were verified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI).[13]

Baumgartner's height record has since been surpassed by Alan Eustace.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Stratos

we need a long expensive tube in order to get fast and reliable signals.

No, we don't.
The signals are quite reliable passing through air.

Again, no one is required to follow your absolute stupidity.

Meanwhile, fiber-optic cables actually transmit light (not radio waves) which do actually travel at light speed. One of this is cheap science fakery. The other actually works.

No, both radio and fibre optic cables work.

Stop with the garbage science. People build things that work, and that sell. And that are easy and cheap to repair.

Actually no. These days people intentionally make things which are incredibly costly to repair, because they want you to have to buy a new one rather than repair the one you have.

Light transmits at light speed, radio transmits at (much slower than light) speed.

All the available evidence demonstrates it transmits at light speed.
Do you have any evidence to show otherwise?

But a "satellite" as in Light-Than-Air-Vehicle (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP), these are things that work.

And as demonstrated by Google are incredibly impractical, due to a multitude of issues associated with them being in the atmosphere.
Conversely, satellites in space don't have those flaws and are much more practical.

But a "satellite" as in Light-Than-Air-Vehicle (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP), these are things that work. You can fly a plane up to one of these, do a repair, and fly back down. Such things have no need to be in space, and would be completely impractical. As fully impractical as giant tubes like in Futurama. Exactly the type of tubes I just mentioned.

How exactly do you fly a plane, moving at 500 mph, up to a balloon that is fixed in place (or even moving) and execute a "repair" on it? How does that work? How does one "practically" manage such a maneuver? Do tell.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2023, 07:35:50 PM

But a "satellite" as in Light-Than-Air-Vehicle (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP), these are things that work. You can fly a plane up to one of these, do a repair, and fly back down. Such things have no need to be in space, and would be completely impractical. As fully impractical as giant tubes like in Futurama. Exactly the type of tubes I just mentioned.

How exactly do you fly a plane, moving at 500 mph, up to a balloon that is fixed in place (or even moving) and execute a "repair" on it? How does that work? How does one "practically" manage such a maneuver? Do tell.

More likely a helicopter? But the point is, which is more doable? Spending billions to get someone in space (you've yet to prove it can be done) to repair satellites, which routinely get frazzled whenever they skim too close to the Van Allen belts, of which there are thousands, whizzing around.

So not only are they up there awhile routinely doing more repairs than any sane repairman wants to do, but they are chasing around satellites because while the satellite might be geostationary, they are not?!? C'mon man, when are you gonna realize this is stupid?!?
Oh yeah, and they all of this risk pro bono as you can't exactly pay someone in space. So until they get back, they get nothing for their efforts. The repair didn't take? They spend billions of taxpayer money to go back up and fix it?!? Tell how does THIS maneuver work?
There are many many companies in broadcasting that have their own satellites. Which is more plausible here? That all these companies have money enough to launch rockets up to have their ppl up in order that they check each machine for defects? Or that they aren't going up space at significantly lower cost?

And they aren't only balloons. Some are solar powered platform thingies that planes (or at least choppers) might even be able to land on. Or planes designed to fly for extended periods. When they need repairs some of these can simply head down themselves. No satellite even if space can do this. They would instantly burn up on reentry. You saw that video I showed you of the fallen satellite. It looked very intact, with no burn marks. It had only fallen.

More likely a helicopter? But the point is, which is more doable?

Again…

What was your reply to, “Now.  For EchoStar 16 broadcasting from a geosynchronous orbit in the KU band.  Can you give a number of how many balloon stations required to provide the equivalent coverage.  And can you provide any EVIDENCE that the signal from EchoStar 16 is from anything other than from a SINGLE geosynchronous satellite.”

Project Loon’s Internet balloons spotted over Guyana

Posted by: Denis Chabrol  in News Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 21:13 3 Comments



A Project Loon balloon spotted over Trinidad earlier Wednesday. (photo taken by camera phone through a telescope by Mr. Mohamed
[/img]

Now..

In a world where I personally used satellite TV in the 80’s.

Personally used “satellite” email while at sea in the middle of the pacific in the 2000’s on a ship that used GPS satellite for navigation and weapons systems.
(Still waiting on a flat earther to answer what navy has a tactical advantage by treating and modeling the world as flat)

Seen the international space station and the starlink satellites for myself.

In a world where amateurs track spy satellites and space missions.

In the context Google/Loom tried a limited trial of high altitude balloon based communications with balloons that in a short time could be spotted from the ground, showed up on radar, would occasionally crash to the ground, tracked by amateurs, actively broadcasting, with balloons that had to be replaced ever 5 months.

Quote from: Stash on January 21, 2023, 02:33:33 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2023, 07:35:50 PM

But a "satellite" as in Light-Than-Air-Vehicle (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP), these are things that work. You can fly a plane up to one of these, do a repair, and fly back down. Such things have no need to be in space, and would be completely impractical. As fully impractical as giant tubes like in Futurama. Exactly the type of tubes I just mentioned.

How exactly do you fly a plane, moving at 500 mph, up to a balloon that is fixed in place (or even moving) and execute a "repair" on it? How does that work? How does one "practically" manage such a maneuver? Do tell.

More likely a helicopter?

Helicopters top out at about 25,000 feet. Hence no heli-rescues on Everest. The air is too thin.

And if all of your balloons and hovering platforms, or whatever, were sub-25k', A) You'd need a lot of them to provide the coverage required, B) We would see a bunch of them and C) probably would pose a problem for air-traffic.

So, what's your next solution?

And they aren't only balloons. Some are solar powered platform thingies that planes (or at least choppers) might even be able to land on. Or planes designed to fly for extended periods. When they need repairs some of these can simply head down themselves.

LOL. Citation needed!

Let’s see some photos/technical specs/any details whatsoever of these hovering “solar powered platform thingies”, then.

Helicopters top out at about 25,000 feet. Hence no heli-rescues on Everest. The air is too thin.

And if all of your balloons and hovering platforms, or whatever, were sub-25k', A) You'd need a lot of them to provide the coverage required, B) We would see a bunch of them and C) probably would pose a problem for air-traffic.

So, what's your next solution?

You said that they top out at 25,000.

But this is not true.

And in fact helicopters have flown nearly double that height.

The highest altitude a helicopter has ever reached is 40,820 feet (12,442 meters). This was set by Jean Boulet in 1972 while piloting an Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama, which is a French single-engined helicopter and still in service to this day.

It just becomes more dangerous because of pressure and temperature differences.

Interestingly, Jean set a couple more records on that day, though they were achieved unintentionally.

When Jean began to descend, the engine flamed out due to the extreme cold.

This resulted in him performing the highest ever, power off, full touch down autorotation, landing with absolutely no power.

Additionally, Jean is also credited with the largest altitude flown with an autogyro due to his unpowered flight back to the ground.

Not only this, but this height is not an outlier. There are definitely models of helicopter that can fly higher than 25,000. It is not a "top out" point.

Mil Mi-8: 30,000 feet
AS350: 29,000 feet
Aerospatiale SA-313 Alouette II: 26,932 feet

So lastly, can a helicopter reach Everest?

Yes, a helicopter can fly to the top of Mount Everest.

In 2005, Didier DelSalle flew to the top of and even landed on the 8,848 m (29,030 ft) summit of Mount Everest in a Eurocopter AS350 Squirrel, where he remained for 3 minutes and 50 seconds.

He became the first (and only) person to achieve this feat. In fact, the very next day, when conditions were even more challenging, he repeated the landing to prove that it wasn’t just luck.

Sauce: https://executiveflyers.com/how-high-can-a-helicopter-fly/

Which is easier to build? A helicopter that can fly a bit higher than normal (Everest in miles rather than feet is 5.5 miles high)? Or to send a satellite 100 km (62 mi)? More than ten times as high, for all you who have trouble with orders of magnitude.

The other thing is that if it's in need of repair, it's probably started to descend anyway, and the balloon suspended "satellites" rather than the HAPS, LAV, or others.

And if all of your balloons and hovering platforms, or whatever, were sub-25k,
A) You'd need a lot of them to provide the coverage required, B) We would see a bunch of them and C) probably would pose a problem for air-traffic.

Ummmm, (C) actually planes fly higher than this altitude with most of them at a cruising height of 32,000 and 40,000. For the balloon-powered "satellite" if it's in need of repair, it's probably started to descend anyway, and there are also others like the HAPS, LAV, etc. They simply stay away from altitudes that planes fly and they are cool.

(B) Also weather balloons can theoretically fly as 68,000 ft, but even at 29,000 ft we are talking the distance to Everest. You can't see a tiny object from 5 miles away no matter how good your eyes are, especially if it is hiding in clouds.

And as for (A), far less than you might think.

Quote

This updated concept of a proven technology takes lighter-than-air vehicles into a realm that gives users capabilities on par with satellites at a fraction of the cost (1 to 2 orders of magnitude less). The HAA will also integrate reconfigurable, multi-mission payload suites. HAA is significantly less costly to deploy and operate than other airborne platforms, and supports critical missions for defense, homeland security, and other civil applications. Its operational persistence eliminates the need for in-theater logistic support. In position, an airship would survey a 600-mile diameter area and millions of cubic miles of airspace.
    -Lockheed Martin

600 mile diameter of coverage.

For reference, the diameter of the Earth is 7926 mi. With just 14 HAA satellites, you can get coverage from one end of the Earth to another. It shouldn't take more than 300 or so of these to cover most of the Earth. HAA are also large enough that a plane shouldn't crash into them (these ones are blimps). 

In comparison, this is what it says about the satellites supposedly in space.

Right now, there are nearly 6,000 satellites circling our tiny planet. About 60% of those are defunct satellites—space junk—and roughly 40% are operational.

So if space travel is real as you say, why don't you answer your own question? How do we manage a moon or Mars mission with all this crap flying about our orbit? And why haven't the over 3600 defunct satellites been cleaned up? That's a huge footprint there.

1. Either NASA is lying
2. Or the EPA needs to sue them, and make them harvest all these metal shards and such

Pick one.

LOL. Citation needed!

Let’s see some photos/technical specs/any details whatsoever of these hovering “solar powered platform thingies”, then.

LOL, you're so brilliant. Maybe you could actually read wikipedia for a change instead of being ignorant?

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



This is what HAA look like.



Solar powered thingy.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/1/1d/Helios_checkout_flight_%28kauai%29.ogv/Helios_checkout_flight_%28kauai%29.ogv.360p.vp9.webm

Here it is in flight. You can see it over Hawaii, not in space.

And no, I don't have schematics. Do you have schematics of so-called satellites from NASA? Didn't think so.

So if space travel is real as you say,

How about answering the questions asked of you first.

What was your reply to, “Now.  For EchoStar 16 broadcasting from a geosynchronous orbit in the KU band.  Can you give a number of how many balloon stations required to provide the equivalent coverage.  And can you provide any EVIDENCE that the signal from EchoStar 16 is from anything other than from a SINGLE geosynchronous satellite.”

We are not asking what is possible, we are asking for evidence Ecostat 16 for example is something other than a satellite in orbit.

Funny there is a catalog of satellites you can see for yourself. But no catalog nor evidence of a network of flying / balloon platforms being a menace to air traffic. 

Anyway.  The other thing you will not answer.  Comets travel about the solar system.  Why can’t humankind travel the same paths of comets, and mimic their “flight”? 

Quote

LOL. Citation needed!

Let’s see some photos/technical specs/any details whatsoever of these hovering “solar powered platform thingies”, then.

LOL, you're so brilliant. Maybe you could actually read wikipedia for a change instead of being ignorant?

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



This is what HAA look like.



Solar powered thingy.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/1/1d/Helios_checkout_flight_%28kauai%29.ogv/Helios_checkout_flight_%28kauai%29.ogv.360p.vp9.webm

Here it is in flight. You can see it over Hawaii, not in space.

I don’t see anything anyone could land a plane or helicopter on.

And no, I don't have schematics. Do you have schematics of so-called satellites from NASA? Didn't think so.

I said technical specifications (schematics wouldn’t be publicly available).  Here a random one:

https://icesat-2.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/specs

You can find some technical details of every government civilian satellite you care to pick, as well as plenty of major commercial ones.

And no, I don't have schematics. Do you have schematics of so-called satellites from NASA? Didn't think so.

Again… EchoStar 16 was placed in orbit without NASA

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 03, 2023, 05:46:00 AM

NASA's satellites

How was/is EchoStar 16 dependent on “NASA”…

Quote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

EchoStar XVI was built by Space Systems/Loral, and is based on the LS-1300 satellite bus. It is equipped with 32 J band (IEEE Ku band) transponders.[1] At launch it had a mass of 6,258 kilograms (13,797 lb). It has a design life of fifteen years.[2] It has a common configuration with EchoStar XI and EchoStar XV.

The launch of EchoStar XVI was conducted by International Launch Services, using a Proton-M carrier rocket with a Briz-M upper stage. The launch occurred on 20 November 2012, 18:31 UTC from Site 200/39 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.[3][4]

It’s always NASA NASA NASA with you.

You know many countries have their own space agencies. 

Rasad-1 is an imaging satellite that has been built and launched successfully by Iran. The satellite was sent into the 260 kilometres orbit by a Safir rocket launcher on 15 June 2011.[37][38][39] It beams back to earth pictures with 150-meter resolution. It decayed from orbit three weeks after launch, on 6 July 2011.[40][41]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Space_Agency

Why would the Iranian space program lie for NASA? 

No, how about you listen? That way I won't have to repeat myself.

I already told you the answer to this. Geostationary orbit is supposedly produced when the satellite keeps pace with Earth's rotation. But geostationary doesn't mean stationary. So this Ecostat 16, had we wanted to see it, he would see it whizzing past if he went into space. A person visiting space would be at an asynchronous orbit. They would supposedly be gravitating around this supposedly rotating Earth as it supposedly continues its orbit.  But they wouldn't match the rate of something designed to keep a geostationary orbit meaning it would pass them.  You just weren't listening or understanding the implications of what I said.

Now for the rest. Before you even ask why these things can't be seen when Google Loom balloons could... Google Loom is not trying to be stealth. They admitted their balloons were exactly what they said they were, atmospheric balloons for creating signals.

But I wondered, so I asked the internet, "How does stealth tech work? Wouldn't radars just pick it up anyway?"
Internet said, "Beep boop beep," and spat this out.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/question69.htm

The goal of stealth technology is to make an airplane invisible to radar. There are two different ways to create invisibility:

• The airplane can be shaped so that any radar signals it reflects are reflected away from the radar equipment.
• The airplane can be covered in materials that absorb radar signals.

Most conventional aircraft have a rounded shape. This shape makes them aerodynamic, but it also creates a very efficient radar reflector. The round shape means that no matter where the radar signal hits the plane, some of the signal gets reflected back:

A stealth aircraft, on the other hand, is made up of completely flat surfaces and very sharp edges. When a radar signal hits a stealth plane, the signal reflects away at an angle, like this:

In addition, surfaces on a stealth aircraft can be treated so they absorb radar energy as well. The overall result is that a stealth aircraft like an F-117A can have the radar signature of a small bird rather than an airplane. The only exception is when the plane banks -- there will often be a moment when one of the panels of the plane will perfectly reflect a burst of radar energy back to the antenna.

And there are stealth satellites already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite_program)

Porter Goss, a former Congressman and former CIA director, and George Tenet, former CIA director, have both vigorously supported successors to Misty, despite several attempts by Senators Dianne Feinstein and John D. Rockefeller IV to terminate the program. The primary contractor is Lockheed Martin Space Systems.

Read that again.

Porter Goss, a former Congressman and former CIA director, and George Tenet, former CIA director, have both vigorously supported successors to Misty, despite several attempts by Senators Dianne Feinstein and John D. Rockefeller IV to terminate the program. The primary contractor is Lockheed Martin Space Systems.

Now zoom in.

The primary contractor is Lockheed Martin Space Systems.

Lockheed Martin

The SAME company that now makes HAPS, HAA, and so on. All of these are stealth satellites.

Go back to Langley, VA with all the other counterintelligence trolls online. Tell them I sent you.
Cuz I don't buy that you can be this willfully ignorant anymore.

And there are stealth satellites already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite_program)

A whole whopping 2 satellites, supposedly.  Both trajectories were detected and tracked by amateurs, before the project was cancelled.

Clear proof that there are thousands of stealth blimps floating around, that no one has seen or tracked.

No, how about you listen? That way I won't have to repeat myself.

Because you provide your delusional opinion, not evidence

I already told you the answer to this. Geostationary orbit is supposedly produced when the satellite keeps pace with Earth's rotation. But geostationary doesn't mean stationary.

It’s stationary to a fixed point on earth.

So this Ecostat 16, had we wanted to see it,

Wait…. I didn’t ask for you to lie and convolute the issue.

I asked for evidence of a balloon network, and how many balloons it would take to provide the same coverage of EchoStar 16.


Do you have evidence the signal coming from EchoStar 16 isn’t being broadcast by EchoStar 16 in geosynchronous orbit. Do you have evidence the single point broadcast point of EchoStar 16 is from multiple “floating platforms” in a large area? How many platforms would be required to duplicate the same broadcast footprint as EchoStart 16.  At what altitude.  Why can’t these platforms be triangulated to your proposed altitude? 


Aircraft crash all the time?  With never a report of one of the platforms crashing?  With never a “hole” in the broadcast net from a crashed or malfunctioning platform? 

In addition, surfaces on a stealth aircraft can be treated so they absorb radar energy as well.

What does being spotted and seen from the ground like this balloon have to do with being stealth?

Project Loon’s Internet balloons spotted over Guyana

Posted by: Denis Chabrol  in News Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 21:13 3 Comments



A Project Loon balloon spotted over Trinidad earlier Wednesday. (photo taken by camera phone through a telescope by Mr. Mohamed
[/img]

How is a platform constantly emitting a broadcast signal going to be “stealth”. Radio silence is part of being “stealth”. 

Quote from: Stash on January 21, 2023, 08:44:41 AM

Helicopters top out at about 25,000 feet. Hence no heli-rescues on Everest. The air is too thin.

And if all of your balloons and hovering platforms, or whatever, were sub-25k', A) You'd need a lot of them to provide the coverage required, B) We would see a bunch of them and C) probably would pose a problem for air-traffic.

So, what's your next solution?

You said that they top out at 25,000.

But this is not true.

And in fact helicopters have flown nearly double that height.

Quote

The highest altitude a helicopter has ever reached is 40,820 feet (12,442 meters). This was set by Jean Boulet in 1972 while piloting an Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama, which is a French single-engined helicopter and still in service to this day.

Yes, and a record that still stands today, 50 years later.

Commercial flights fly at that altitude. Why are these repair operations never seen by the 10's of millions of people who fly?

Again, you'd need a gazillion of these flying contraptions you completely made up all over the place to provide coverage at low altitudes like that.

It just becomes more dangerous because of pressure and temperature differences.

Why would pressure and temperature be a problem for a helicopter but not a plane?

One dude actually landed his The AS350 B3, was certified to a maximum operating altitude of 23,000′, on the Everest summit. Never been done before or since.

Russia has a couple of pressurized cabin helos.

In any case, what's your source for helicopters repairing balloons and flying platforms? Do you have any first hand knowledge of such endeavors?

Quote from: Gonzo230 on January 18, 2023, 07:54:33 AM

bulmabriefs,

Quote

Now it says that radar cannot detect holograms, as radar is based on sound frequency and a hologram is based on light frequency.

Please can you explain where you're getting this from? How is the frequency of audible sound related to radar? Where is your source/evidence for this please?

I asked the internet "Can radar detect holograms."

 Internet said, "Beep boop beep," and spat  this out.

Quote from: Reddit

Radar is nothing more than a very sophisticated way of shouting loudly and listening for the echoes. Sound bounces off of solid objects; holograms and laser beams are made of light and therefore don't reflect sound waves at all. So the answer to your question is "no"  2 Bang_Bus • 2 yr. ago

Now, you may make the distinction between radio and sound, but the point is radar and light spectrum are different frequency. It hits a hologram and typically doesn't see it.

No, I meant 'Please can you explain where you're getting this [this being as radar is based on sound frequency ] from. How is the frequency of audible sound related to radar? Where is your source/evidence for this please?'

I suggest you read 'Stealth Warplanes' by Doug Richardson (and old book now, but still good on the fundamentals of stealth) before further embarrassing yourself yet again on your lack of knowledge on radar stealth.

Still waiting, when you have time, for you to answer all the questions I've put to you on radar, including the one above.

Thanks.

But the point is, which is more doable? Spending billions to get someone in space (you've yet to prove it can be done) to repair satellites, which routinely get frazzled whenever they skim too close to the Van Allen belts, of which there are thousands, whizzing around.

Again, all it takes to tell is to look at Google abandoning their project using balloons.

For most of them, the idea isn't to repair them. It is to make them last, or make them cheap.

For satellites, they go to space where they are fairly safe.
For balloons, you still have the cost associated with the satellite, just a lower launch price. But then it is much more likely to be damaged or blown around.
If it fails, it needs to come down, get repaired and then relaunched.

Overall, it is cheaper to put them in space, so they don't need maintenance.

C'mon man, when are you gonna realize this is stupid?!?

We have realised your crap is stupid quite some time ago. The question is why can't you?
Why do you insist on repeating such stupid crap?

There are many many companies in broadcasting that have their own satellites. Which is more plausible here? That all these companies have money enough to launch rockets up to have their ppl up in order that they check each machine for defects? Or that they aren't going up space at significantly lower cost?

Or that they aren't sending people to check for defects as the satellite would be able to report defects, and isn't in any significant risk of damage?

You saw that video I showed you of the fallen satellite. It looked very intact, with no burn marks. It had only fallen.

No, you didn't. You provided a video of a fallen balloon, which was always said to be a balloon, except by you and foolish/deceptive news reporters.

It just becomes more dangerous because of pressure and temperature differences.

And the reduction in pressure reducing lift, reducing the payload, making it harder for them to carry any supplies for a repair.

Which is easier to build? A helicopter that can fly a bit higher than normal (Everest in miles rather than feet is 5.5 miles high)? Or to send a satellite 100 km (62 mi)? More than ten times as high, for all you who have trouble with orders of magnitude.

LEO satellites are at 40 000 km.
As it uses a different system for propulsion, that is easier.

(C) actually planes fly higher than this altitude with most of them at a cruising height of 32,000 and 40,000.

Different planes cruise at different altitudes. And planes will need to pass through those altitudes.

You can't see a tiny object from 5 miles away no matter how good your eyes are, especially if it is hiding in clouds.

I wouldn't call a massive balloon a tiny object.

For reference, the diameter of the Earth is 7926 mi.

The diameter of the RE is that.
The diameter of the FE is typically portrayed as 40 000 km, or ~25 000 miles.
That means you would need 40 to go from one side of Earth to the other.
That means you would need closer to 2000 to cover all of Earth.

And that is just for one provider. For additional providers (unless they are going to share) you will need multiple.

And if you want to use them to fake satellites above a RE, you need even more to make sure they are in the right location for a RE.

Quote

Right now, there are nearly 6,000 satellites circling our tiny planet. About 60% of those are defunct satellites—space junk—and roughly 40% are operational.

So roughly 2400 for all the providers, vs 2000 for a single provider.

I know which one sure sounds better.

How do we manage a moon or Mars mission with all this crap flying about our orbit? And why haven't the over 3600 defunct satellites been cleaned up? That's a huge footprint there.

1. Either NASA is lying
2. Or the EPA needs to sue them, and make them harvest all these metal shards and such

Or yet again you are spouting crap.

At 400 km altitude, or r=6771, the total area is 576123368 square km.
So if every satellite was at that altitude each one would have 96020 square km to be in.
As a comparison, Austria has an area of roughly 83871 square km.
And with so many satellites being less than 1 m wide, that is a lot of holes.

But of course, not all satellites are at LEO of 400 km, some are much further out, giving even more space.

No, how about you listen? That way I won't have to repeat myself.

How about you follow your own advice, listen to others, and stop repeating such BS?

But geostationary doesn't mean stationary. So this Ecostat 16, had we wanted to see it, he would see it whizzing past if he went into space.

And if they went into a geostationary orbit, they would not see it whizzing past.

I suggest you read 'Stealth Warplanes' by Doug Richardson (and old book now, but still good on the fundamentals of stealth) before further embarrassing yourself yet again on your lack of knowledge on radar stealth.

Still waiting, when you have time, for you to answer all the questions I've put to you on radar, including the one above.

Thanks.

So ummm, look around you. What do you see?

Cuz I see Jack Black, you (twice), Stash, and DataOverflow all asking me questions.

They are not one of them actually interested in my answers though. Nor do they listen to my responses, forcing me to repeat things over and over again.

To JackBlack. You're muted. I only respond to you if I want to. Right now, I don't want to. Sorry.

To Gonzo. I don't owe you an answer. Especially since I already answered it. Bats emit high-pitched sound (not radio waves). The radar technology is identical to this. You are bouncing sound at stuff. If it is a sharp angle or a material that eats sound, it has stealth. That you don't always know before building how effective a material is at eating sound doesn't mean they haven't getting better since the first models. But I think it's awfully coincidental that the same company involved in stealth surveillance satellites are now making these platforms.

So Data, discontinued project? Not hardly. The signals are coming from a place we can't identify.

And all of you still haven't gotten the memo that even if this technology is flawed, it can be built and repaired at a fraction of the cost it takes to launch these into space, a fraction of the cost to repair them in space, and significantly less risk.

And that 50 year record is from helicopter records we know of. There is a significant difference between that and something nearly double. And when you say that this is a "top out" and the actual top out is nearly double, they indeed can travel that high. No progress in 50 years? Bullshit. They have rockets that can go ten times as fast since Apollo, yet they haven't secretly invented helicopters that can fly higher than that in all this time? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit! Propeller systems somehow cannot work in thin air, but combustion can not only burn in such layers but move faster? Stop the bullshit already. 

Here's the real truth. If a spaceship can broadcast a signal from the moon (as you say) then any aircraft can be turned into a "satellite". This means this is a satellite.





As is this.



And this.



And this.



Satellites getting in the way of air traffic? Satellites ARE air traffic. And air traffic routinely maneuvers around blimps, weather balloons, helicopters, and stealth jets on a daily basis without the public being any the wiser. I have never seen a blimb from a plane, so obviously they give each other wide berth.

And if "not everything can be a satellite" and you can't add radio transmitters to aerial devices, you'll need to explain signals 238,855 miles away (where the moon is supposed to be). But planes CAN send signals. So can submarines.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-got-planes-and-submarines-talking-water-to-air

Still wanna keep this up? You don't win arguments by ganging up on someone 4-1. You just piss them off.

And all of you still haven't gotten the memo that even if this technology is flawed, it can be built and repaired at a fraction of the cost it takes to launch these into space, a fraction of the cost to repair them in space, and significantly less risk.

Just for the record, we don't really "repair" satellites. Famously, Hubble was. Not so famously, way back in 1980, the shuttle crew "repaired" a satellite. There was an automated refueling mission test a decade or so ago. But aside from orbit maintenance, remotely firing thrusters, other maintenance and repair doesn't really happen...ever.

Now, back to the main show: How have you determined the cost benefits?

How exactly are these repairs made? Do guys and gals repel from helicopters and slide down the skin of a balloon? Who performs this sort of work and why has nothing like this ever been seen by, well, anyone? (I would love to see it, sounds amazing)

Do you have first hand knowledge of such operations? Is this what you are actually claiming, actually believe, or are you just spit-ballin' ways that the same results with satellites could be achieved through alternate means?

Cuz I see Jack Black, you (twice), Stash, and DataOverflow all asking me questions.
They are not one of them actually interested in my answers though. Nor do they listen to my responses, forcing me to repeat things over and over again.

Quite the opposite.

Your BS gets refuted, you ignore the refutation, and repeat the same refuted BS.
The one forcing you to repeat yourself is you, because you don't want to accept reality.

To JackBlack. You're muted.

I get it, you can't refute what I have said, so you just ignore it, because you can't handle reality.

But don't worry, I realise you are too far gone.
I will continue refuting your BS, even if you ignore me.

So Data, discontinued project? Not hardly. The signals are coming from a place we can't identify.

We can and have identified.
You just ignore that because you don't like the answer.

And all of you still haven't gotten the memo that even if this technology is flawed, it can be built and repaired at a fraction of the cost it takes to launch these into space, a fraction of the cost to repair them in space, and significantly less risk.

Because that is entirely your baseless claim.
A claim contradicted by Google's project, which they abandoned because it wasn't practical.
If it was actually practical (compared to satellites), Google wouldn't have discarded it.

Propeller systems somehow cannot work in thin air, but combustion can not only burn in such layers but move faster? Stop the bullshit already.

Follow your own advice.

Propeller systems rely upon the air. The less air that is there, the less lift they generate.
Rockets do not rely upon the air.
They rely upon expelling their exhaust at a high velocity, which results in them being pushed forwards.

Here's the real truth. If a spaceship can broadcast a signal from the moon (as you say) then any aircraft can be turned into a "satellite".

That isn't truth. That is delusional BS.
A key defining trait of a satellite is that it is orbiting a body, so it doesn't need to continually waste fuel to remain in place.

That means a helicopter, burning fuel to remain airborne can never count as a satellite.

Still wanna keep this up? You don't win arguments by ganging up on someone 4-1. You just piss them off.

And you don't win arguments by repeatedly spouting delusional BS, ignoring the refutations, repeatedly jumping topics and so on.

So Data, discontinued project? Not hardly. The signals are coming from a place we can't identify.

For EchoStar 16.
You literally have the satellite broadcasts so people can find, aim, and tune into the line of sight broadcasting of the satellite.  You literally have thousands of satellite dishes pointing to the satellite because of the nature of the frequencies it broadcasts.

Again..

Do you have evidence the signal coming from EchoStar 16 isn’t being broadcast by EchoStar 16 in geosynchronous orbit. Do you have evidence the single point broadcast point of EchoStar 16 is from multiple “floating platforms” in a large area? How many platforms would be required to duplicate the same broadcast footprint as EchoStart 16.  At what altitude.  Why can’t these platforms be triangulated to your proposed altitude? 


You keep listing aircraft that would be highly visible from the ground.  Aircraft very susceptible to air turbulence that would make line of sight communication requiring a line of sight receiver like a dish hard to consistently receive the transmission.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 21, 2023, 05:47:31 PM

And all of you still haven't gotten the memo that even if this technology is flawed, it can be built and repaired at a fraction of the cost it takes to launch these into space, a fraction of the cost to repair them in space, and significantly less risk.

Just for the record, we don't really "repair" satellites. Famously, Hubble was. Not so famously, way back in 1980, the shuttle crew "repaired" a satellite. There was an automated refueling mission test a decade or so ago. But aside from orbit maintenance, remotely firing thrusters, other maintenance and repair doesn't really happen...ever.

They actually do repair stuff. When Wifi and stuff goes down for non-satellite stuff because of storm and downed wires, they tell you it's because of storm and downed wires. When the same thing happens for satellite tv, they make an excuse about signal, while they hook together the system again. They would also get stern warnings from the EPA, and bills enough to shut them down if they left thousands of instances of space debris for shuttles to crash into.



You can't just leave a big mess and not get sued by the government.

Now, back to the main show: How have you determined the cost benefits?

There are none.

Ohhh noes, they can maybe see the satellite. So we need to put it into space. Nobody cares about that. You reveal they're actually balloons and planes and blimps, people gasp for a second, then they get on with their lives.
No one cares.

Hey we can get a wider signal from space to cover more area. But a better signal from closer is preferable. And it's not just about repair, you can upgrade parts. Upgrading saves money and means profit. Also if the signal is so great, why do we have over 6000 satellites?

Hey it makes alot of sense to be out in space because you can orbit. Or you could just fly, and throw that bit about geostationary orbit out the window. Plus the further out you are, the more interference you have from the ionosphere, cosmic radiation, or the Van Allens. That stuff fucks with the signal and fucks with the satellite.

But I can get shows from Korea. Yeah, and? Whether you're using FE model or RE model you can do this without necessity of satellites being in space. In the latter one, atmospheric satellites simply bounce signals at each other to move around the curvature.

It's also a dangerous space flight where the shuttle can blow up, after spending millions. There is no benefit to this cost.

This is all to perpetuate a fraud, that nobody besides NASA cares about. This is to make NASA rich at taxpayer expense.
 If the fraudsters just would go away, the public would fund "satellite" companies like Samsung for their atmospheric satellites at a fraction of cost we spend on NASA. They'd even give them a profit margin, because they pay them directly for finally being honest. We could have a government subsidy for atmospheric satellites, but NASA is aking to asking for 10x or even 100x the cost in profits. Satellite radio or television is not this expensive, and areas where other signals can't get (out in the woods) could benefit from a more robust system. It deserves to have a small safety net. NASA as far as I know is only funding themselves, not companies like Samsung and Sony, so money that could build better stuff is wasted.

, they tell you it's because of storm and downed wires. When the same thing happens for satellite tv, they make an excuse about signal, while they hook together the system again.

What are you blabbering about.

Yes.  Satellite signals are lost to heavy rain for example.

Can you point to any long term regional satellite signal outage during clear weather because of a crashed or malfunctioning floating platform?


Anyway.

There was this nationwide microwave tower network that worked on line of sight.  Used by the telephone companies.  Nothing to do with receiving home line of sight satellite signals.  The distance between each telephone tower was limited by the curvature of the earth vs the cost of building taller and taller towers.

Anyway.  One reason the network of towers were abandoned because satellite’s are more efficient and cost effective,

Vintage Skynet: AT&T’s Abandoned “Long Lines” Microwave Tower Network


Obsolete in today’s world of fiber optics, satellites and wireless internet, many of the towers have been taken down or swapped out for cellular use. Some, however, serve as emergency backups in rural areas. And others, it would seem, are so built into the aesthetic of their associated buildings that owners have seen no reason to remove them.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/vintage-skynet-atts-abandoned-long-lines-microwave-tower-network/

AT&T made history 63 years ago when it launched the $40 million microwave radio-relay skyway, a network of 107 microwave towers.

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/spencer-harding-the-long-lines/amp

The liability, cost and maintenance of maintaining and powering over 100 relatively high powered microwave towers. 

Vs a company placing a few satellites in orbit that require no maintenance and maintenance staff/network and very little infrastructure over their 5 to 10 year lifespan.  With no monthly electric bill as required for each tower.

This is all to perpetuate a fraud, that nobody besides NASA cares about.

Again.  What does EchoStar 16 have to do with NASA?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

EchoStar XVI was built by Space Systems/Loral, and is based on the LS-1300 satellite bus. It is equipped with 32 J band (IEEE Ku band) transponders.[1] At launch it had a mass of 6,258 kilograms (13,797 lb). It has a design life of fifteen years.[2] It has a common configuration with EchoStar XI and EchoStar XV.

The launch of EchoStar XVI was conducted by International Launch Services, using a Proton-M carrier rocket with a Briz-M upper stage. The launch occurred on 20 November 2012, 18:31 UTC from Site 200/39 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.[3][4]

Again…

Do you have evidence the signal coming from EchoStar 16 isn’t being broadcast by EchoStar 16 in geosynchronous orbit. Do you have evidence the single point broadcast point of EchoStar 16 is from multiple “floating platforms” in a large area? How many platforms would be required to duplicate the same broadcast footprint as EchoStart 16.  At what altitude.  Why can’t these platforms be triangulated to your proposed altitude? 


Aircraft crash all the time?  With never a report of one of the platforms crashing?  With never a “hole” in the broadcast net from a crashed or malfunctioning platform?


Floating platforms that could be documented as being visible from the ground like this balloon.

Project Loon’s Internet balloons spotted over Guyana

Posted by: Denis Chabrol  in News Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 21:13 3 Comments



A Project Loon balloon spotted over Trinidad earlier Wednesday. (photo taken by camera phone through a telescope by Mr. Mohamed
[/img]

Floating platforms whose broadcasts would allow for the triangulation of each platform’s position and altitude.