@MontereyJack,
Huh. And you think you're not ignorant?
We are told that satellites are flying around the Earth, a full 1265 functioning satellites, zooming around the Earth at 22000 mph. Dude, that speed is something some crackpot came up with. At that speed, something will happen to any object. That is roughly 100x a strong hurricane, and even without atmosphere, that would rip screws off objects if not exert enough force to crush them. We then turn around and say the same thing about Earth. Btw, a non-orbiting Earth needs no such absurd speeds for the moon's orbit.
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist
(Ignore the stuff about Masonic orders or NASA)
But even if we are to assume space travel exists (the article references a radiation field in the thermosphere which generally is responsible for burning objects on reentry, well guess what it burns them on exit too, making both manned and unmanned launches useless), the idea is stupid and insane. Why? Well, think about it. Would it make sense to travel to space to fix a satellite that btw is whizzing past at speeds where we can't comfortably fix it? Or to broadcast a "satellite signal" simply by bouncing it off high flying airships, all of which can land easily if in need of repair? We also have landlines, and underwater fiber optics.
Quote:Why don’t we use satellite communication instead:
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.
Quote:More Nails In “The Satellites Exist” Coffin
Besides land-based technologies, the real pig-in-the-poke that creates the illusion of Satellite utility are Light-Than-Air-Vehicles (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP).
Wikipedia has articles on these devices. Their presence is a far more reasonable aternative to the insane cost of even one satellite.
Basically, high flying solar aircrafts. There's also blimp models.
You know those blimps flying overhead baseball games, where the stadium gets a perfect signal (despite the fact that such an object should block satellite waves in the same way that sonar bounces around objects)? Or how about movies where people are trapped on a deserted island, and can't use their cellphone (6 Days 7 Nights for instance), nevermind that from space it should be reaching even remote islands. Or how satellites seem to get knocked out during a storm. Or how when I've looked in a telescope, I've seen the moon and a couple stars but never one satellite in space. With my naked eye however, I've seen a few at night flying past with flickering lights.
So maybe NASA runs expensive missions and breaks even despite the huge monetary issues and risk of having people in space for months. Or... NASA launches shuttles high enough that we cannot see them, and lands them in remote areas, pocketing the extra money. Maybe in an age where movies are fairly convincing, and even Star Trek looks convincing despite us knowing the ship can't really fly, we should maybe do some questioning about these photos in outer space, and why we don't see the moment of breaking the atmosphere on film, but going up and then "a shot from space". In films as early as the 1920s or so they had cars "driving" with superimposed backgrounds.
You are a sucker. Barnum foretold your birth.
