Help me out /sci/. I can't find any evidence towards there

Get a sat phone and go call in a place without cell coverage.

>build roket
>sit on top
>aim for retrograde trajectory intercepting satelight
>???
Not sure what else would work.

>>8903720
>I can't find any evidence
That means you didn't look.

>>8903727
I'm being serious here.
There's no foolproof evidence.

The best you could possibly get is video footage taken from inside the craft/station/satellite and then transition outside into space.

It just doesn't exist.

>>8903742
you realize most satellites don't have an "inside" right?

>>8903742

Foolproof is the best way to put it considering you are both a fool and can't understand satellites

>>8903751
If we can find such a video, a transition to from an airlock to space, we should be good.

This video is as close as it gets so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsWMAWdG-s4

>>8903742
How do you reckon gps works?
Just asking

>>8903788
I don't know.
If someone asked me to program a tracking system I would try and measure the time and distance between signal and receiver and maybe compare it to another signal close by.

Wikipedia and the likes seem to have a few contradictions, saying that they're on separate frequencies when they're obviously linked to the internet.

Do you know how GPS works? Would you really need a system of satellites all orbiting in unison for it to work?
Wouldn't such a system also allow for 3D tracking?

File: 1492744518080.jpg (58KB, 718x705px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 718x705px

>>8903720
>I can't find any evidence towards there being satellites functioning in orbit around the planet.

Do not despair, OP, luckily, there is one you should be able to check out, even despite being a giant faggot. It's called moon and it's kinda hard to miss.
Then there is a few smaller ones, around 10,000 of them, five or six could be potentially crossing your sky at this very moment. Wait until the dusk and go stargaze. They throw really nice flares when they reflect the sunlight into your eyes.
Then after you see one, go inside and go to http://www.n2yo.com/whatsup.php
and you can check out what kind of satellite it was.

>>8903720
When I was a child in the 1980s I'd lay in the field on the farm and actually watch satellites crossing the sky. Just after dark or before morning was best, but I could still see them at just about any hour after dark. It was pretty neat. Encroaching city glare and computer eyes prevent me from doing that in our modern age.

Now, I just use a telescope to see them or ISS, but tracking by hand kind of sucks.

>>8903720
>I can't find any evidence towards there being satellites functioning in orbit around the planet.
Wait until evening.
Go outside.
Look at the sky.

>>8903943
You can't see any.
There is zero amateur astronomer images of satellites that are legitimate that I've found.
And then there are no observatory images either. No close up videos of satellites passing through view in the hundreds.

The figures vary from 3000 to 30,000 satellites in orbit.
Surely there is some good footage of one up close, if not several.

>>8903720
You can see the damn things, you asshole:
http://www.heavens-above.com/

File: lol.png (140KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x486px

>>8903720
>earth is flat
score

File: isstransit_strip.gif (214KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 320x240px

>>8904047
>> zero amateur astronomer images of satellites
Go eat a bag dicks, there is a wholr hobby dedicated to taking pictures of satellites. Amateurs have even managed to take pictures of spy satellites:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/
https://www.universetoday.com/87005/spying-on-spy-satellites-with-thierry-legault/

File: spy-satellites.jpg (32KB, 768x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 768x500px

Here have some spy sat pics you fuckwad.

Have you considered getting out of your basement, going out at night, and looking up?

>>8904047
>You can't see any.
Yes you can.
You just have to actually go out and look. They're not even hart to spot.

File: 1475711041362.gif (1MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x225px

>>8903723
>>8903723
>>8903723

>>8903820

GPS works mainly based on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration

Ships use it, GPS navigators use it etc. read up on it and it's associated links.

>>8903820
>Do you know how GPS works? Would you really need a system of satellites all orbiting in unison for it to work?
>Wouldn't such a system also allow for 3D tracking?

Yes, yes, and yes.

File: n2yo 01.jpg (97KB, 803x648px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 803x648px

One place to start:
http://www.n2yo.com/

>>8904119
Back to >>>/r/eddit RRREEEE

>>8903720
You can learn when there will be visible transits of satellites in your area, and look at them with your own eyes.

Start here, I guess...

https://www.universetoday.com/103382/how-to-spot-and-track-satellites/

You need to be ready to go look for them weither just after sunset or just before sunrise -- when the place you are standing is dark, but the sun is still illuminating the satellite passing above you.

If you spend the time to learn about this, you will see that satellites are visible exactly when they should be, and do things like pass into/out of the Earth's shadow exactly when they are supposed to. That wouldn't happen for observers in widely separated locations unless there was a satellite in its known orbit.

>>8903919
>Now, I just use a telescope to see them

Why the fuck would you do that? A good set of field glasses is much easier to track, and gathers more light to boot.

SiriusXM satellite radio
DirecTV
Dish Network
SSTV from the ISS
Look up at the night sky every once in a while

>>8904152
The question do you need 18 satellites to do this
And if yes, why do I lose signal when I cross the boarder

>>8903919
What did you see exactly?

>>8903720
You can't really verify anything outside of the earth unless you leave the earth or send a camera up there, assuming you can even trust that. So try building a rocket, attach a camera to it, and examine what the camera records for possible evidence.

File: space-debris-1.jpg (983KB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 3508x2480px

>>8905362
A few hundred photos from space would be fine.
Have there been any research projects from within the ISS?

Even like a 24 hour recording of something? From personnel or a satellite.

I only started this thread because I wanted video of the earth from deep space.
Some documents say these satellites are 30,000 km out.
What and how are they using and communicating with these things if they're not even being used for image transfer?

>>8903720
Have you tried looking up? because you can see a bunch of them.

File: _DSC9141-2.jpg (721KB, 2144x1134px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 2144x1134px

>>8904047
fuck it I'll take the bait.

I took this myself, that streak is a satellite.

>>8905395
That's a white line.

>>8903720
ALERT, OP is a Flat-Earther...don't give them any of your valuable time

>>8905373
I don't think you understand how big the Earth is. Satellites never come close enough to the ISS for astronauts to look out the window and see them, for the same reason they can't look down at Earth and see people walking around.

>>8905409
No I just want a well documented video from deep space.

Sign up for the ISS notification thing, and you'll get an email when it's passing overhead

>>8903742
how do you suppose Dish and Direct TV work?
I really wanna know anon. I worked in that industry and I'd purely love an alternate explanation from some flat earth moron.

File: very-large-radio-satellite-dishes-25859181.jpg (217KB, 1300x1037px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1300x1037px

>>8905465
I just thought they worked through dishes.
Do you even need a satellite in orbit to relay that sort of data?

Did you personally work on any embedded hardware or software in that industry?

>>8905434
Of what exactly?

ah yes, NOAA is a jewish organization and the field of remote sensing is a hoax. fly away troll

>>8905477
Shouldn't we have access to thousands upon thousands of images of the Earth and its landmasses from all kinds of angles and distances from deepspace and high orbit?

A video would be nice.

>>8905487

https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/en/#s=0&md=earth-observation:1
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/

there's countless images and tens of thousands of satellites in orbit. why do you post intentionally false information to cause pointless arguments op

>>8903742
Google Earth
>QED

File: Planet Earth 1.jpg (191KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1600x1200px

>>8905493
This.
This is what I want.

Not a fucking drawing. Not a composite shot from a Google Earth plane.

A shot of the Earth from space.

>>8905487
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/index.html

Not sure why you would expect such a thing anyway, nobody's going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to launch satellites just to take pretty pictures.

>>8905505
What about the Hubble?
How much would a company spend launching an object into orbit anyway?
Surely it wouldn't hurt to put even a low quality camera on board.

>>8905502

a lot of high quality remote sensing data is extremely expensive. -especially- hyper-spectral satellite imagery, to make cool things like hyperspectral cubes. there's tons of free multispectral data though like Landsat imagery. google earth is a combination of sources depending on what kind of resolution you're looking at, and webmaps can have unfortunate projection distortion because of tiling even if it is easier to compute. if you did any research at all, you would find more satellite imagery than you could ever deal with

>>8905518

uhh. i think you can launch and design a cube-sat for ~$10,000 - ~$15,000 ish depending on what kind of hookups you have

>>8905518

there are sensors. cameras are "sensors" i suppose. satellites are passive observers, anything involved in remote sensing has "cameras" but they may focus on other parts of the EM spectrum. like, say, you want to observe vegetation health over time. it is most reflectant in the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum which is not visible to people. the information gathered from this portion of the spectrum is then recolored in a false color projection, to display information about what can't be seen.

File: Orbitalaltitudes.jpg (884KB, 4500x1656px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 4500x1656px

>>8905518
Hubble is in a 500 km orbit, far too close to see the full globe in one shot. And Hubble's optics aren't designed to image something that close anyway, so it would be useless for the task.

Plenty of satellites do carry cameras, and you've been linked to a few of them.

Here's some better examples of the Himawari-8 images:
http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/himawari-8.asp

>>8905345
Because the earth is big and the satellites can only cover part of it at one time.

And because even if you could cover most populated areas with fewer, you'd lose redundancies and there are many people like pilots and the military and shipping companies that want to go places where people aren't always

>>8905533
How is the Himawari taking several images over what appears to be a 6 hour period without moving due to its own orbit?

Is that the only shot it has? There has to be more.

>>8905373
Well, you can look at the DSCOVR (i think that's the right acronym) and see the many daily images of earth from L1, which is like 1,000,000km away or so.

Also, most of these satellites dont have cameras. Going to space is hard enough, and every extra kg is even harder. If you know your satellite is gonna be in a certain orbit for however long and you only need it to receive radio signals, why add a camera?

File: constellation.en.jpg (249KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 650x650px

>>8905539
I'm not sure I follow.
Shouldn't such a system of satellites afford full GPS coverage anywhere you are on the planet?

>>8905541
Because even though it is moving at more than a few thousand km/hr, space is very big. Also its in a special sort of orbit to stay in roughly the same place over time, so that it can continously survey west pacific weather

>>8905546
It does basically. Hence why it is the global positioning system. But if there were fewer satellites it would either have gaps in coverage based around geography (no satellites overhead in that area) or time (oops the satellite that was overhead has moved on, gotta wait for the next one) depending on the orbital parameters of the system.

If you lose signal and you're in europe or the USA, its cell signal you're losing which is NOT the same as the GPS system

>>8905541
It's in Geostationary orbit, meaning it's at just the right altitude so it orbits at the same speed as the Earth's rotation. This means it always stays above the same spot on the Earth's surface.

Himawari has thousands of images and constantly takes high res pictures of the full globe every 10 minutes. They're all available on the website.

There are some truly amazing animations of things like forest fires using these images:

http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/images/loop_of_the_day/himawari/20160628000000/video/20160628000000_smoke.gif
http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/images/loop_of_the_day/himawari/20160107000000/video/20160107000000_fire.gif

>>8905547
It stayed in exactly the same spot over a 6-8 hour timeframe while moving at several thousand km/hr?

What kind of orbit is this? Does the satellite have remote controlled thrusters?

>>8905546

GPS accuracy requires 3 or 4 satellites over your position and can be effected by clouds or other attenuation. GPS is basically a radio technology. a consumer GPS device is an antenna of sorts that receives signals from satellites. you can get a position with only 1 or 2, but it will be rather inaccurate, and the accuracy improves due to triangulating received signals based on the time it takes to receive signals from each satellite. your position is determined through some relatively basic math based on how long it takes to receive a signal from each sat

>>8905562
It moves in a circle around the earth at the same speed the earth rotates on its axis.

It may make you even more incredulous to learn that once its orbit, the only thing necessary to keep it there is a relatively small puff of nitrogen or some other storable fuel to make sure it stays in that very fast circle around the earth.

Orbital mechanics is a very bizarre area of study for we who are bound by gravity to what seems like an infinite flat plane. But I'd recommend some study of it (and desu maybe watch a spacex launch or two on YouTube, some other edutainment, or even some lets plays of Kerbal Space Program)

>>8905349
Small dots of light traversing the sky at about the same speed as a high altitude airplane, but way dimmer than a plane with no flashing lights or changes in direction

>>8905560
>>8905590
Could they have been high altitude aeroplanes?

>>8905571
Would nitrogen thrusters even do anything in space?

>>8905610
Why wouldn't they?

>>8905610
Yeah, its a vented gas and so it works the same as any other chemical thruster. Its what spacex uses on the F9 I think, and I'm pretty sure the service module of apollo used it as well (though it may have been hydrazine, can't recall and I'm on the shitter)

>>8905614
Would it? There's nothing to push on or against.
Has anyone tried it in a vacuum?

>>8905619
the gas is expelled with a certain velocity
the expulsion of that gas imparts the spacecraft with a certain force.

there's no need for a medium in this case, it's not like a propeller on a boat or something like that. Just good 'ol newton

>>8905619
Thrusters don't work by pushing against anything. They work by an application of Newton's third law.

And yes, I think you'll find people have tried using thrusters in space.

>>8905615
>and I'm pretty sure the service module of apollo used it as well (though it may have been hydrazine, can't recall and I'm on the shitter)
That was MMH and NTO, so it was more of a conventional bipropellant rocket, but yeah, it's the same principle.

>>8905623
So what's stopping the gas?
Wouldnt a simple hose move only because of the density of the surrounding air it's own gas leak is rushing into?

If nothing was there to act against the pressure, it would just leak out.

>>8905632
>If nothing was there to act against the pressure, it would just leak out.
No, it would move in the opposite direction to the leak, assuming no other force is stopping it. If you stand on a skateboard and then throw a bowling ball forwards, you will move backwards, and it has nothing to do with the bowling ball "pushing" on the air around you.

>>8905641
That has more to do with the ball's weight being imparted onto your balance on the board.
If you stood on a board and threw a bowling ball without moving your legs, you'd be fine.

I don't think it's an apt analogy if we take the assumption that space is like a semi-perfect vacuum.

>>8905632
Well, its pressurized relative to the vacuum, so when the nozzle opens to let some out, the gas seeks to equalize the pressure between vaccum and 1atm (or whatever the exact pressure in the fuel tank is). Alternatively, some spacecraft use rocket power, where an oxodizer and a fuel mix together to make a controlled explosion. In both cases however, newton's 3rd law is the primary driver.

Of you've ever shot a gun op, then you might find it easier to understand a mass-driven spacecraft. Instead of just gas, you can imagine we shoot a cannon out the back of our spacecraft. Every cannonball we fire pushes the cannon backwards, and if we have the cannon attached to the spaceship, we accelerate the spaceship. Even if it takes a few dozen cannonballs to get moving at any speed, there's nothing to stop us either. Thats an easy analogue for a chemical rocket.

Now imagine instead of a cannon, we have an air cannon. Same thing - maybe it takes a few thousand puffs of air, but if you've got time, you can get going real quick. Just don't use all the air if you want to breathe on the way there!

>>8905645
>If you stood on a board and threw a bowling ball without moving your legs, you'd be fine.
That is demonstrably not true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNM5tHou4IQ
Why do you think guns have recoil?

Seems likely you are baiting at this point, but whatever

>>8905659
Isnt it because of the initial explosion and bullet's chemical pressure?

The way I see it is if you blow from your mouth right now, the air you expel and push slows down after several centimeter because it's hitting the density of the surrounding air.

If you blew like this in space, there's nothing to slow it, so it just travels.
Or does it? Does it disperse uni-formally?

There's nothing to act against it.
Could you liken it to not feeling any motion while in a car when you're travelling steadily?

>>8903742
Ex military here. It does. And if you dare to say we can't be trusted, kill yourself. For the respect of the many we lost.

>>8903720
Order dish network you fucking mongrel.

>PTSD from having to configure/align a new satellite dish

>>8905688
>The way I see it is if you blow from your mouth right now, the air you expel and push slows down after several centimeter because it's hitting the density of the surrounding air.
Sure, but what happens to it after it's left your mouth and starts bouncing around off air molecules isn't going to impart any force on you, is it?

If you blew out in space, yes the air would not be slowed by anything and would keep travelling, but you would also impart an equal force on yourself in the opposite direction, according to Newton's third law. This is very basic stuff and the functioning of thrust propulsion in vacuums has been confirmed by thousands of experiments, so it seems like a stupid thing to question.

>>8903720
>Get telescope
>Observe the satellites

>>8905694
>It's there, trust me
This is why no one trusts the military.
You might as well have been working as a mercenary for a private offshore company that is off the books.

>>8905698
Can you talk us through the progress of doing it for a space satellite?

>>8903720
Anything in orbit is inherently a satellite.

>>8905710
It's hard to explain.
The air pushes off of the air.
It slows it down and bunches up.
So the air moves off of itself and the air it's being imparted onto.
Like how your breath has less effect on the air 2 meters away. It slows down.

In a vacuum the gas can't push off of itself, for there's nothing to slow it.
Newton's third law means nothing anyway. There isn't always an equal opposite reaction to every movement.

>>8905502
Does the famous "Blue Marble" photo count?

(I can't upload a pic at the moment because my connection is ass.)

>>8905502
then become a billionaire and have someone launch a satellite far enough to be able to do nothing except take your stupid fucking photo

>>8905748
We feel the same way, really, still, we do protect civilians like you. You should be pleased by that.

But first grow yourself some lifetime experience, will ya. It sure helps you to maintain an worthy relationship. Good luck kid, dare to be bold every once in a while. And keep asking questions. Someday you reach the maturity where you will start giving answers.

>>8905809
Are you gonna be OK?
The propellant pushes on the nozzle.
It's really that simple.
Propellant go out the back, thing go forward.

>>8905345

You require three satellites for your position to be determined. When you get out of range for one satellite (ie you lose signal) you come into range of another satellite or set of satellites that need a few moments to calibrate with your receiver.

>>8905809
>Newton's third law means nothing anyway. There isn't always an equal opposite reaction to every movement.
Ok anon, I'm sure you're right. That Newton guy was just a dummy after all, and I'll bet noone ever bothered to check his theories or anything.

Meh, I tried. If you want to just deny reality that's in front of your face, good luck to you.

>>8905914
I'm really exited as to where this thread goes from this. So far, OP has been convinced that satelites do not exist, Newtons law's are not real and that rockets do not work in a vacuum. Its either a beautiful troll or a genuine basement-dwelling paranoid person, and i find both equally amusing at this point

>>8905502
There are photos taken of earth by unmanned probes from various distances and photos of earth taken from the surface of the moon and mars and numerous photos and video of the earth taken from orbit, hell the ISS had a stream on YouTube just the other day that was just a few hours of unedited footage of earth from their orbit.

File: mfw.jpg (22KB, 410x337px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 410x337px

This picture perfectly sums up my reaction upon hearing about the flat earth theory and then later watching a few videos and realizing that there is actually evidence that points to earth being flat.

>>8905502

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc

>>8905965
There aren't enough.
24 frames from a Japanese satellite.
One from an Apollo mission.
One from a Brazilian satellite in the 70's.

>>8906058

http://planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pics-of-earth-by-planetary-spacecraft.html

>>8905914
So something here, on Earth, only goes forward because there is gas coming out of it, right?

Why doesn't the gas just spread out?

>>8906061
Come on son, look at this shit.
They even dig up the fact that the same image was used with a post processing filter.

http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/3-earth/2015/20151229_Earth_and_Limb_M1199291564L_color_2stretch_20151211_141513.jpg

>>8906062
Yes. The only reason you don't fly away when you fart is because of the friction caused by the seat you are on or from your boots touching the ground. Remove that friction and... well...
Lets just say interesting things happen if you time your fart with a jump. The bigger both are the bigger the effect so I recommend preparing by eating some food known to cause gasses and holding it in until the right time.

>>8903720
Do you accept that planes fly and it is in fact possible to make metal machines go through the air?

What's the fucking problem?

File: 20130421_kaguyaearthriseaustralia.jpg (185KB, 1886x926px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1886x926px

>>8906061
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOdoeVzMaWg

>>8906074

>one photo looks dumb

And? Look man you already decided what you want to believe. No amount of anything will convince you otherwise. Why even make the thread?

File: 20140513_earthmoon_square1.png (86KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 700x700px

>>8906081
You're not buying this.
Some of them look awful. That shot from the Japanese lunar satellite is just awful.

Some look genuine.

>>8906084

You didn't answer my question.

>>8906075
So why would you move if you farted out enough gas?
Why don't you move at all if you fart out just a little?

It's not the friction of the floor.
You farting like moves you because your fart is hitting the air and the fart itself.
Like constantly pushing against a brickwall that would continuously materialize 30 centimetres from your body.

There's nothing in a vacuum, there's nothing to push off of and the gas can't reach itself due to the even spread.

There was work done towards it a long time ago, the something effect.
J.J. Thompson was involved in the papers. I'll try dig it up.

File: 20160129_20151214_hayabusa2_2.jpg (23KB, 369x369px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 369x369px

>>8906092
I just don't understand it, there are so many inconsistencies.
Let's look at the first three shots of the site, all three from the Hayabusa2, 2015.

The first shot is here.
What is this, a 400x400 image?
Alright, maybe the site saved a thumbnail and they went with it. Whatever.
We can see it's over Antarctica?
>At the time, it was 340,000 kilometers from Earth. Ice-covered Antarctica is at the center of the image, and Australia near the top

Alright. Great.

>>8905571
>what seems like an infinite flat plane.
Even if you thought the earth was a plane, why would you assume it was infinite?

File: 20160129_ONC-W2_20151203_EARTH.gif (165KB, 1004x1004px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1004x1004px

>>8906092
Then we have this.
What the fuck is this? 6, 7 grey-scale shots on an incoming orbit?
Was the satellite orbiting the Earth or is it on an elliptical orbit?
Is the planet even rotating?
Why seven shots?
Take 700 so you can see the full trajectory of the Hayabusa in relation to the Earth.

Where even is this satellite orbiting at?
>as it approached for its gravity-assist flyby

>>8906105
Everybody knows Antarctica is on the bottom of the earth. Satellites are not real

File: 20151202_HY2_ONCT_20151126_RGB.png (113KB, 1024x600px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x600px

>>8906092
Then there's this?
How far out is this satellite going?
What kind of orbit is this exactly?
Why are all these images at different dimensions?

Is that the moon there?
>During that time, Hayabusa2 closed from 200,000 kilometers to just 36,000 kilometers away from Earth

I can't even tell what country that is on the planet.
Before we were at Antarctica.
Is that Australia? South Africa?

Is that the fucking Moon?
Is the moon fully illuminated there, and brown?
Brown moon?
Maybe it's fucking Mercury?

Are you telling me they had the Moon AND the Earth in the same shot and they took ONE image of them both?
They didn't track the orbit, nothing. One photo.

An elliptical orbit that reportedly spans 200,000 to 35,000 km's out.
I've never even heard of that.
Come on. You're not buying any of that.

>>8903720
Look here: http://www.satobs.org/iridium.html

>>8906136
Are you ok?

>>8906105
>>8906116
>>8906136

Again, as I've said before. You didn't answer my question. Why are you asking for explanations if you already decided what you want to believe? You're wasting our time.

Take a course in astronomy or go to an observatory and talk to astrophysicists.

>>8906171
I don't want t waste anyone's time.
I want to come to a conclusion with my friends on /sci/.
I just want to know why the moon is brown.

>>8906204

>I don't want t waste anyone's time.

You are.

>I want to come to a conclusion with my friends on /sci/.

You obviously don't want to come to any conclusion that's not compatible with your already determined beliefs.

>I just want to know why the moon is brown.

Google your dumb questions or:

>Take a course in astronomy or go to an observatory and talk to astrophysicists.

>>8906210
I'm not running on a belief, I'm running on a hunch.
Things just don't add up here. There are too many little things here and there.
Too many glaring things too.

You can't just hand-wave everything to the side.

>>8906116
>>8906136

Instead of asking all these dumb questions, why don't you just research it yourself? Read a book? Go to the source website?
Read wikipedia even? Are you incapable of educating yourself, or are you just here to waste everyone's time?

>>8906171
He doesn't have the iq to ask any question to actual people in a coherent manner that's why he "trolls" on Sci.

>>8906215

Google your dumb questions or: take a course in astronomy or go to an observatory and talk to astrophysicists.

>>8906227
I don't see how they're dumb questions.
They're blunt, but not dumb.

A website will give me a static explanation.
I want a discussion, with evidence and shit flinging from both sides.

All I'm trying to do is stir the pot through some visual inconsistencies and data and get a discussion going.
It's weak to just off-hand an opinion with, "You're a fuckhead", "Low IQ kek", "Go to college".
I find it more concerning that there is such sparse data coming in from these satellites and space programs.
To have a satellite take seven images of an orbit towards a seemingly non-rotating Earth without color, without timestamps, in varying dimensions from image to image with an almost unmanageable orbit gets me curious.
Even if it's just one example.

>>8906258

>I don't see how they're dumb questions.
>They're blunt, but not dumb.

They're dumb and you can easily google them but you won't.

>A website will give me a static explanation.
>I want a discussion, with evidence and shit flinging from both sides.

Go to an observatory.

>All I'm trying to do is stir the pot through some visual inconsistencies and data and get a discussion going.

The only inconsistency here is your lack of knowledge.

>It's weak to just off-hand an opinion with, "You're a fuckhead", "Low IQ kek", "Go to college".

You have consistently showed throughout the thread that It's not an opinion but a belief.

>I find it more concerning that there is such sparse data coming in from these satellites and space programs.

Do your research.

>To have a satellite take seven images of an orbit towards a seemingly non-rotating Earth without color, without timestamps, in varying dimensions from image to image with an almost unmanageable orbit gets me curious.

>Google your dumb questions or: take a course in astronomy or go to an observatory and talk to astrophysicists.

>>8906281
I figured you're smart enough and had some time on your hands.
Surely you could answer a few? Humour me a little if you want.

>>8906329

You humor me. Write a set of questions and go ask a professional at an observatory. 4chan is not designed for in depth discussions.

>>8903720
Buy a rtl2832u and some of copper wire off ebay.
Build an antenna with the copper wire and use it to receive NOAA satellite images.

Anyone can do it and it's cheap ass fuck. No excuse.

>>8906058
There's one of Earth and Moon together by NASA too.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth

>>8903720
Protip- go out at night and look up. Many sate lights are visible and they appear to move past the stars. I've seen many satellites with my own eyes.

>>8905598
No

>>8906136
>Is the planet even rotating?
Yes, you can clearly see the rotation in the gif you posted.
>How far out is this satellite going?
>What kind of orbit is this exactly?
>An elliptical orbit that reportedly spans 200,000 to 35,000 km's out.
I've never even heard of that.
Come on. You're not buying any of that.
Hayabusa2 was a mission to an asteroid that went out of Earth orbit into an orbit around the Sun. It then did a close flyby of Earth which is when these pictures were taken. There is nothing at all unusual about them.

Just make peace with the fact that you have decided to believe something, and are looking for things that don't make sense to you as reasons to keep believing it. You're not interested in actually learning about them.

Go back to whatever flat earth safe space you came from and stop bothering us, you're beyond help.

File: ScottWagnerRPA.jpg (32KB, 551x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 551x480px

This thread is another example.

>>8906058
>One from an Apollo mission.
I don't think so Tim

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

File: FE_LunarEclipse.jpg (5KB, 320x210px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 320x210px

>>8905994
The only way that picture makes sense is to read it from right to left.

>>8907232
Crap that's actually real

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/03/31/scott-wagner-warm-bodies-climate-change/

dont bother engaging with the retard

there's a reason all flat earthers believe crazy shit like "the sky is an LCD screen"

because roundness of the earth was proved centuries ago by looking at the fucking sky and doing a bit of math, clearly well out of OPs league

>>8903720
This is the new rhetorical tactic
passive aggressive
being as obtuse as possible
Pretending to be curious while not demonstrating any interest in honest pursuit of knowledge.

>>8907499
Fucking turtles, man

>>8907232
People keep saying flat earthers are trolls, but this guy's actually a state senator.

>>8908531
And the president believes that GCC is part of a Chinese conspiracy and that vaccines cause autism. Many such cases.

>>8905619
space is full of neutrinos dumbass

>>8905619
Newton's 3rd law. This notion was discredited early last century.

>>8905562
Lagrange points m8

>>8910256
Geostationary orbit has nothing to do with Lagrange points

>>8910571
only if you assume the earth is actually a ball

>>8910633
Why would anyone in their right mind assume otherwise?

>>8910633
>assume

Good thing it's been demonstrably proven.

>>8905994
>there is actual evidence

lol

>>8906702
Why is the moon brown again?
We just had a Japanese satellite show us the moon's horizon as a grey colour.

File: 1453581421055.gif (432KB, 420x340px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 420x340px

>>8911103
man that shit grey as fuck

>>8910236
You can't just apply a law against motion because there's a counteracting force.

There's nothing for it to push against.
Different if there was an explosion in space, or recoil from a gun in space.

>>8908614
What's a neutrino?
Wikipedia is telling me they only interact with the weak subatomic force and gravity.

>>8903820
>measure the time and distance between signal and receiver and maybe compare it to another signal close by.

what you're suggesting is echolocation, but with radiowaves, anon.

>>8911112
What's the difference?
GPS just uses a third tower to find the receiving point, right?

>>8911103
You might want to get checked for colour blindness, anon

File: epicearthmoonstill.png (3MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x2048px

>>8911119
What's with the green and red outline to the right of the moon next to its shadow?

http://stuffin.space/
how has nobody posted this yet

>>8903742
I've seen ISS and many satellites pass ovet during nighttime.

Either that or it's aliens

>>8911140
The different colours in the image are taken separately with single filters. They are taken sequentially, in between the Moon is moving.

>>8903720
Actually you can see the ISS with bare eyes (better with some telescope shit)
Check its trajectory online and catch it at the right moment
Then, simply fuck off

>>8911162
What about the 3,000, 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000+ pieces of spacejunk and satellites in orbit?

People have a hard enough time finding the ISS, which only 250km up.
The entire sky should be moving with objects at night.

>>8903742
You're aware of special relativity aren't you

>>8911174
Do you realize the size of those pieces ? It's invisible from earth for fuckers like us

>>8911109
gas of momentum mv is ejected
momentum is conserved
spacecraft moves with momentum equal to -mv

>>8911157
I've never seen RGB fringing like that on an object that is moving from left to right.

The on-board camera is digital, right?
The shots should all be taken pretty quickly in succession.
The fringing in the image is beyond the scope of the moon too AND to the right.

>>8911181
Forget about the alegbra and momentum for a second.

When you blow, the air from your mouth and surrounding air you're pushing slows down, right?
You can feel the air move 30 centimetres away, but not say at arms length away.

Now blow harder and maybe you can feel it at arms length away, you'll definitely feel it 30 centimetres away.
For the sake of conceptualisation and not to involve molecules or anything, we'll say there's a resistance in the surrounding air.
Simple analogy is to drop a brick in water, the body of water offers resistance to the brick just travelling down.
It's the same with the air.

So what happens when you drop 500 bricks rapidly in succession, all on top of one another into a body of water?
Generally each brick will meet the same resistance from the water, yes?
But it will also collide with the other brick below (if we take out the waves and motion at the entry to the water to help the analogy).

So these bricks piling up will eventually reach the person throwing them in from the water's surface, hitting the boat he is on and causing him to move.
That's the force a fire extinguisher is feeling when its chemicals release at such a high velocity.
The chemicals are bunching up against the air AND the chemicals to a point where the air and chemicals are being pushed back onto the extinguisher and hose.

With the lack of air in space, that momentum would never exist and a nitrogen nozzle or hose used to direct a satellite or ship would never work.

File: getjpeg.jpg (27KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 512x512px

>>8911184
This is not fringing. You won't see an image like that before unless you do astronomy or satellite imaging. Normal cameras use a Bayer filter where all three colours are taken simultaneously. With telescopes and satellites however they usually use single filters sequentially. With some instruments it can take minutes just to change filters.

Here is another example from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey where each colour is done sequentially. Here you can see a Near Earth Object which is moving during the exposures and between them. The result is that it is displaced when the colour composite is made. This is not fringing.

>>8911198
You can use lasers for (very slow) propulsion though

>>8911199
None of that makes any sense.
Several minutes to swap the filters on a digital camera?

We have livestreaming video from certain satellites.
Some of these images from even official sites are nothing more than a few thousand pixels.

I can't even find any information on how satellites use filters during shots or how any of this is programmed so that the software knows when something is in shot, never-minding the reports of satellites lost due to uncontrollable spins while in orbit,

One is taking shots in infra-red (Hubble), one separately in RGB, another is taking 740x670 shots in full colour, another one uses a light filter.

Where did you get this sort of information and assertion that the majority of telescopes and satellites use this sort of tech?

>>8911205
It's the same thing.
It uses plasma explosions against the air.

Unless you're talking about holding a laser and having it move the projector of said laser by will of the photons and electrons and gluons and neutrinos moving out of it.

>>8911178
>Special Relativity
>Time as a dimension
>Bending space

Oh no here we go.

>>8911212
Two ways to transfer momentum actually:
The first way uses photon radiation pressure to drive momentum transfer and is the principle behind solar sails and laser sails. The second method uses the laser to help expel mass from the spacecraft as in a conventional rocket.

>>8911207
>Several minutes to swap the filters on a digital camera?
Saying it's digital doesn't say what the filter mechanism is. And yes, minutes. If you look up an extreme example there is Hyper Suprime-Cam on the Subaru telescope which is the most powerful survey camera ever built. It takes 30 minutes to change filters.

https://www.naoj.org/Observing/Instruments/HSC/

>We have livestreaming video from certain satellites.
Because some of them use bayer filters and simultaneous bands and others do not. The ISS live stream for example uses Bayer filtered cameras. That does not mean all cameras work like that.

>One is taking shots in infra-red (Hubble)
That's wrong. Hubble has 3 imagers on board (4 if you count COS). All of them use single filters which need to be used sequentially to build up a colour image. It has UV, visible and near infrared filters.

>Where did you get this sort of information and assertion that the majority of telescopes and satellites use this sort of tech?
I work in astronomy and I'm not retarded.

Because you're obviously incapable of doing any basic research lets look up EPIC on DSCOVR which took this image. As you can see from this diagram of it's optics it has a filer wheel which means colour images are taken sequentially as I said.

Also if you bothered to look into this image you would find NASA, who published this image, confirmed what I said.

https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=86353

"EPIC’s natural-color images of Earth are generated by combining three separate monochrome exposures taken by the camera in quick succession. EPIC takes a series of 10 images using different spectral filters... But combining three images that are taken about 30 seconds apart produces a slight but noticeable camera artifact on the edges of the Moon... "

File: Image_004.jpg (67KB, 618x398px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 618x398px

>>8911231
Forgot image.

>>8911231
So why aren't there any similar artifacts on Earth's clouds or the continents?

The article said the images are taken at 30 seconds apart.
This satellite is at 1.6 million kilometers out, the moon at 350,000 km out.

How much is the moon moving in the span of one minute and thirty seconds?

How does the camera even know how to keep the Earth in the center of its shots?

File: 1310122081_fire_extinguisher_office_chair_spinning.gif (1MB, 368x236px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 368x236px

>>8905809
How Can Satellites Be Real If Newton's Third Law Isn't Real ??

>>8911198
It's not that people don't understand what you're trying to say. It's that way you are saying is nonsense which is easily disproven by testing in a vacuum chamber.

File: eso0907a.jpg (62KB, 700x648px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x648px

>>8911231
So then what about the Hubble?
Apparently it does use three imagers as it's able to take this photo.

>This image was created from images through blue, green and red filters and the total exposure times were 12 minutes, 9 minutes and 7 minutes respectively

Nasa is saying the Hubble moves at 17,000 mph at 350 miles up.
Nasa says it has no thrusters,
How does it take photos with that kind of shutter speed while also sending images able to be layered onto each other through RGB filters when it'll move at about 4000-5000 miles during that time?
It doesn't even have any thrusters to orient itself.

>>8911248
I've never seen such a test in a vacuum chamber anywhere.
You would also need to simulate a lack of gravity.

>>8911255
Ever heard of reaction wheels? Or do you believe momentum is fake physics as well?

>>8911242
Because it's the Moon's orbital velocity Vs the speed of rotation of the Earth. The Moon is much faster.

>How does the camera even know how to keep the Earth in the center of its shots?
You're a big boy. I think you can read the instrument description yourself. If will be either star trackers or an earth aspect measurement system.

>>8911255
Hubble can track the stars with the fine guidance sensor. It orientates itself with reaction wheels and magnetic devices. Please read the wiki before posting such crap.

>>8905896
>we do protect civilians like you
Christ Americans are naive. Which Americans do you protect by intervening in Syria and Cameroon, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, etc, etc? ISIS doesn't attack Americans because "muh freedom", it does it because they have a presence in the regions it wishes to control. Some of these missions are humanitarian, which is well and good, but don't pretend you're saving American lives by laying down your own

>>8911272
It orients the camera? Isnt it only 2.7 meters across?
Nasa says the Fine Guidance Sensors don't work on a pixel basis, but instead on light from the stars.

We just said it's travelling at 17,00 miles per hour over a 28 minutes exposure period, to a satellite that makes it orbit in 97 minutes.

>>8911268
There are no stars anyway in any of the shots.
I don't know what an Earth aspect measurement system is, I can't find any reference to anything using the earth's dimensions as the frame.

I guess they were just lucky they happened to orient the satellite with the Earth exactly centred in frame 1.6 million kilometres away.

>>8911261
You didn't look very hard then, did you?

>>8911289
It orientates the whole telescope and spacecraft. The fine guidance sensor can track to a fraction of a pixel. The telescope will move in between exposures intentionally as a either to remove artifacts.

The important but is that the change in perspective will not alter the scene after tracking because the parallax will be tiny. However with the Moon moving against the Earth you can't just track it because the other object will be affected. It is exactly like the SDSS image I posted.

>>8911293
A star tracker doesn't use the same camera. Do some research. And look up the manual instead of being so fucking lazy.

Yes. They built a spacecraft that cost tens of millions of dollars but depend on luck to keep the Earth centered. How fucking retarded are you?

>>8911309
Why do they put a 2 mexapixel camera on a satellite that cost 12 billion dollars?

>>8911302
Do you have a video? I would honestly love to see it.

>>8911305
Nasa says they don't move the craft because they can't stop it otherwise.
I doubt the camera could move more than a few degrees at best anyway.

They also specifically say the FGS doesn't work on a pixel basis, it works on light.
I don't understand how that would work but that's beyond me.

Why is it moving to remove artifacts? I don't understand.
We just said that moving creates the artifacts as per the previous moon and Earth photo.

>>8911198
Try looking at the other laws of motion as well and understand how these laws apply to tiny gas molecules.

>>8911329
Videos on youtube all seem to have been done in small chambers where people can can up with excuses like it's "pushing against the wall" etc. Unfortunately the only place there's a vacuum big enough to get around that is above us, in the upper atmosphere and space.

If you want a demonstration just watch any rocket launch. At 20km altitude, air pressure is 0.06% what it is at sea level, so assuming your theory is correct, all rockets should start falling out of the sky well before they reach that. But in fact they continue up to 100km and above and actually gain thrust as the air thins, and you can watch that with your own eyes.

>>8903720
Maybe try jumping real high?

>>8911327
It didn't cost 12 billion dollars.

>>8911332
They do move rotate the spacecraft. You're talking out your ass. What do you think the gyroscopes, magnetotorquers and reaction wheels do? If Hubble couldn't rotate it would never point at more than one target. If you're going to claim NASA says something then provide a link.

FGS is an interferometer. How it works is not important. It's purpose is what's important.

Detectors have defects so they how've the telescope in between exposures to cover dead pixels and other issues. That way they can be removed in processing. Images which are misaligned are easily realigned inactive computer. I am talking about Hubble.

>>8911377
I don't think I've ever seen anything go higher than 30 kilometers.
How do space balloons go that high if their gas weight is supposedly heavier than the atmosphere at that point?

File: trolls.jpg (61KB, 320x304px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 320x304px

>>8903720
yeah man gps is fake and they faked all of this ISS transits by getting Gov. officials to throw balls really hard at the right time....

>>8911387
>Hubble has no thrusters. To change pointing angles, it uses Newton’s third law by spinning its wheels in the opposite direction. It turns at about the speed of a minute hand on a clock, taking 15 minutes to turn 90 degrees

>How it works is not important
>dead pixels
>realigning images that literally span galaxies with several different filters
>Gyroscopes in space
>Reaction wheels utilizing action and reaction in space
>Magnetorquer in-line with a now moving telescope satellite

This brings so many complexities into it all it's baffling.
At this point you would ditch the satellite and just use shit on the ground.

>>8911390
>space balloons
ok you made the bait too obvious

>>8911396
>Lose signal
>GPS doesn't work

It's almost like it's working through phone towers.

>>8911408
nice non-argument

>>8911410
Like this Anon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95NDkABAsSk

>>8911411
I lose gps signals all the time when passing under highways without losing phone signals.

>>8911408

>This brings so many complexities into it all it's baffling.

That's why there are thousands of scientists and engineers working on it.

>>8905659
I've always wondered what would be the effect if the dude would catch the tennis balls after they rebounded off the wall

>>8911416
Don't you find it unnecessarily complicated?
How many things would go wrong with this telescope?
How do you dock with it?
How do you repair it?
How do you update the software or the hardware? The camera?

Would it spin out of control if you tried to move it at 17,000 mph?
I don't know.
Nasa says they don't use thrusters for that reason but the can use reaction wheels as if it's different somehow.
How do you slow the reaction wheels down in space?
What's the correction system like on the satellite?
How does that work?
What if it just goes off by inches?
What if it loses its star mark?

Does it recalibrate?
Does it look for other stars?
How does it look for stars?
Nasa says it looks for light. How does that work? There are billions of light sources out there.

It's too much.
There's no evidence for anything either.
If you just had a video of a ship docking with the Hubble and some guys repairing it or operating it from Earth in real-time, fine.

>>8911428
You can always tell you're doing a really good job when you have nothing to show for it other than a few rockets blowing up.

File: 1487595206192.gif (203KB, 248x225px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 248x225px

>>8911434
>I'm a fucking baby who can't even use internet to look shit up, better throw 500 inane questions at some poor fucker who will have to look everything up on the internet, just like I would
how about go fuck yourself?

>>8911434

>Don't you find it unnecessarily complicated?

Flying in space isn't unnecessarily complicated.

>How many things would go wrong with this telescope?

A lot. That's why there is always rigorous testing before launch.

>How do you dock with it?
>How do you repair it?
>How do you update the software or the hardware? The camera?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-103
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-125

>I don't know.

It shows.

>>8911434
You're in luck because there's an entire documentary on how they prepare for the last repair mission of the hubble telescope but you're too lazy to do that.

>How do you slow the reaction wheels down in space?
FOR FUCK'S SAKE. HOW INANE CAN YOU FUCKING GET? I'm starting to believe that you're just a troll that doesn't believe motors exist and that car wheels spin because of magic and fairy dust.

>>8911440
It's alright. NASA don't know how it works anyway.
I'm not expecting an astronomer that trusts engineering on the basis of principle to either.

Like the other boys and girls in this thread.
Motion on the basis of principle. Don't worry about what's exactly happening, here, take this Newton's Third Law and just apply it to fucking whatever.

>>8911437

I can tell they're doing a good job every time I have to navigate using a GPS or talk to my dad over a satellite who works on an oil rig.

>>8911441
I still don't get how you dock with something moving at that speed, having to match it's speed, then lining everything up and not have everyone die in the process due to a collision.

>>8911446
It seems like you don't know what you're talking about and are not resorting to really vaguely-worded non-arguments to try and save face.

>>8911408
Aligning images is very simple. I know many people who've written code to do and there are many packages out there. Amateur astronomers do it too with things like registax and deep sky stacker.

Space telescopes are very complex. You don't go to space because it's easier. As an astronomer who has proposed for Hubble and worked with ground based telescopes I can say it's much easier to work with ground based telescopes. Things like running out of memory aren't an issue and acquisition is way because a human is doing it.

>>8911452

Go and find out.

>>8911452
Ever heard of a reference frame? It's something that's taught at grade school. I have to mention that it's taught at grade school in order to emphasize how fucking stupid you are.

>>8911442
I don't care about how they prepare, I just want to see them do it.
I don't care about any of this, I just wanted to see space shit but no one shows it.
Just show us people docking with a ship or moving into space or whatever.

I don't care about Billy wiping his ass in zero-G.
Humanity is on the verge of space and there isn't a single technical thing about anything.
There are four men in a room spreading out a solar sail made out of aluminium foil while Anon calls me a retard for not understanding how a wheel would work in space.

I don't know how a wheel would work in space, no one does, neither do you.
You don't know how a reaction wheel would work in space. You've never seen it. I've never seen it.

I've never seen anything. It's awful.
There might as well be no satellites and no NASA considering the information we currently have access to.

>>8911434
Read the fucking manual. It covers everything including guide star acquisition and how the FGS works.

And no using a thruster would not spin it out of control. It just isn't precice enough to point a telescope. Stop talking out your ass.

>>8911434
This is an honest question: have you ever considered the possibility that you're just dumb? Or at least that there are people smarter than you whose job it is to figure these things out and make them happen?

A rational person's reaction when they don't understand something is to realise it's probably an issue with themselves, not the entire fabric of reality around them. I mean, there are plenty of things I don't understand and seem incredible to me, like how do air traffic controllers at busy airports stop planes crashing into each other, but I don't then conclude that airline travel is fake. I accept that other people know better than me.

>>8911463

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iss+docking

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spacewalks

>>8911463
>I don't care about how they prepare, I just want to see them do it.
I mean it also covers that but you saying that is just evidence that you're a retard that isn't willing to learn. There's also the fact that there's a fuckton of space footage out there if you look but then you'll just come back here and tell us how it's all CGI.

>>8911460
Do you understand how difficult it would be to not only successfully launch a rocket, line it up with the current orbit of the satellite, not being able to take-off initially on an angle lest everyone dies.

Then matching it's orbital height, straightening out, catching back up to it outside of orbit which is moving that fast.
How you would even orient a ship that size with a rocket, stop it and line it all back up.

Then you have to keep the shit momentarily next to the satellite without colliding with it before you dock, with almost exactly the same orbit pattern.

THEN you have to catch it or connect it or send people out while watching out for other satellites and debris and repair it while everything sits perfectly still and then line up your descent because the thing orbits in an hour and a bit completely so you have to have the exact co-ordinates, timing and math behind the landing assuming nothing goes wrong.

And all you've got to write is, "Bro, ever heard of a reference frame?"
Like you can just wave off all those problems with one gradeschool concept.

>>8911463
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHkibCZQl3s

File: 1476344392930.png (26KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1024x1024px

This thread

File: 1332535892995.jpg (56KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 560x407px

>>8911479

I think everyone is aware of that by now bud I did learn a couple of new things about satellites and space in general desu.

File: 1488974143516.gif (866KB, 352x224px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 352x224px

>>8911475
>Do you understand how difficult it would be to not only successfully launch a rocket, line it up with the current orbit of the satellite, not being able to take-off initially on an angle lest everyone dies.

I'm fucking done with this guy
I was able to teach all of this shit to elementary school kids, but this faggot can't even measure up to those.

>>8911475
You have a lot of misconceptions about how orbital mechanics work and the process of orbital rendezvous, try playing some Kerbal Space Program if you actually want to learn about it. We all know you don't though.

>>8911482
I think you listen to the kids shit talk each other enough on the playground to the point where you can't bring up your lesson or argument for reference frames.

Do they laugh at you too when you explain that shit?

>>8911475
First two paragraphs is what every space mission is so I wouldn't answer it as it doesn't really pertain to your original question, you're just throwing more questions as sneaky way to move the goal post.

>Then you have to keep the shit momentarily next to the satellite without colliding with it before you dock, with almost exactly the same orbit pattern.
Reference frame.

>THEN you have to catch it or connect it or send people out while watching out for other satellites and debris and repair it while everything sits perfectly still and then line up your descent because the thing orbits in an hour and a bit completely so you have to have the exact co-ordinates, timing and math behind the landing assuming nothing goes wrong.
Reference frame.

Understanding what a reference frame is can help you answer these questions.

>>8911485
>Play this game made in Unity to understand every facet of orbits

Jesus Christ Anon fucking stop. Just STOP.

>>8911487
You don't need to maintain speed in space because of how little air friction there is. Once you reach the same location and angular velocity as the object of your target, the fact that you and the object are revolving around the earth and thousands of kilometers per second stops mattering. You could just use the object as a reference. So yes, reference frames.

>>8911480
Op is either the greatest troll i've seen in quite some time, or the dumbest paranoid person to ever grace this board. Either way, its been entertaining

>>8911492
It may not be accurate but it will give you an intuitive understanding of orbital mechanics. Enough for you to stop asking these stupid questions.

File: 3t63g.gif (1MB, 301x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 301x250px

>>8911494
I like to think he just posts and logs off so no one can even correct him

>>8911492
I have literally no idea what you meant by this.

>>8911489
Who cares about a reference frame.
It's a very simply concept.
Catch the satellite. Very simple.

And then jump on the satellite.
Like in that Fast and the Furious movie where they jump on the moving truck.

But no, continue on with the relative bullshit.
Tell us about co-ordinate systems and planes and vectors in relation to the Earth's movement. Keep going.

>>8911503
Do you even read the other replies are you choosing the weakest ones and choose to remain willfully ignorant?

>>8911502
If you don't see the problem with entirely relying on a piece of software made by people who read other work rather than personal experience to understand space-travel, you're in trouble.

>>8911503
>Like in that Fast and the Furious movie where they jump on the moving truck
Theoretically possible but you're forgetting one thing, Fast and the Furious has air resistance, space does not. So yes, reference frames.

>>8911512

Do you believe in internal organs? Have you ever seen your liver working?

File: 131281203226.jpg (72KB, 561x549px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 561x549px

>>8911475
watch videos of jet planes refuling in flight, that is some crazy precision and that's in an atmosphere. watch the red arrows fly inches from each other, if humans can control shit flying fast as fuck like that then you can bet your mortgage computers can

>>8911512
Jesus fucking christ, the stupidity is reaching a level never seen before

>>8911503
>relative bullshit
It's not bullshit. The earth is spinning thousands of kilometers right now but as far as you and I are concerned, that shit doesn't matter so long as we are spinning along with it and our frames of reference are spinning along with it as well. So yes, reference frames.

>>8911515
If you can trick him into stabbing himself then i will buy you a drink

I blame Hollywood.
They made it look like you need a supercomputer to do trivial shit, like tie your fucking shoelaces, when you're in space and this is the end result.
Dumb fucking kids.

>>8911516
It is impressive. But it's much more controlled.

Let's go back to Hubble.
You have something travelling at the speed which can clear it's Earthly orbit in 97 minutes.
In no gravity. Against an unmanned satellite. With your ship reaching the same velocity and trajectory from it's launch.

But I honestly don't think everyone understands how hard that would be.
It would be extremely difficult. You would most likely have dozens of attempts to reach it let alone dock with it.
What's to stop the Hubble from just moving out of control or off its trajectory once you touch it?

Everyone should know that you cannot dock with a satellite in space like that, it's common sense.
You would cage the satellite first.
But then how can you at 17,000 miles per hour

>>8911528
>But it's much more controlled
Turbulence makes it less controlled.

>What's to stop the Hubble from just moving out of control or off its trajectory once you touch it?
reaction wheels

>But then how can you at 17,000 miles per hour
reference frames

>>8911528

>>8911477

>>8911518
You don't feel the motion because of reference frames.
Reference frames are as to their namesake, a point of reference.
They do not determine motion as an absolute.

All three objects are moving at their own pace in space and they're each separate.
Once you're up there, the Earth doesn't matter.

I don't understand where you're coming from with the relativity nonsense.
The satellite will be here in 2 hours. Meet it. That's it.
In fact you need to take the Earth's orbit into account for something like this.
What are you suggesting is the base point of reference then, the satellite?
Who cares? It's at a measurable point in space, find it's trajectory and catch up with it.

>>8911533
Come on, they change shots when it's about to dock.
What happened to the Earth?

File: 1491287587005.jpg (4KB, 249x180px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 249x180px

>>8911528
>But I honestly don't think everyone understands how hard that would be.

NO
NO you fucking potato, it wouldn't be hard.
Don't you fucking get why is everyone mentioning reference frames here?
Once you go the same general direction and same general speed, you are only making minute corrections.
Aerobatics are much harder to pull off than orbital approaches, much MUCH fucking harder.
Going at 27,000km/h doesn't mean shit, they are both going the same speed, one of them needs to go 1km/h faster to catch up, that's fucking it.

>>8911538

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9tjdkp-vZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-2ld2WVtow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaX7DGSO31s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scGc1NS_IV8

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110010964.pdf

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/docking_with_ISS.pdf

>>8911535
>What are you suggesting is the base point of reference then, the satellite?
Yes, that's exactly it. Once you take out the fact that you and the satellite are moving at the same exact angular velocity relative to one arbitrary stationary point, you can just use the satellite itself as a frame of reference. Making those small adjustments are now a lot easier when you start disregarding irrelevant things.

>>8911531
>Turbulence

I would call a 0-G environment a worse sort of turbulence.
Especially considering the size of the ship interacting with the satellite.

And then you're bringing up reaction wheels, as if the ship will be outfitted with a control station to move the satellite.
If a ship does have access to that I'd be very interested in the operation.

>>8911545
>I would call a 0-G environment a worse sort of turbulence.
why? actually fucking say it
>Especially considering the size of the ship interacting with the satellite
this is a fucking non-sequitur

>>8911539
>Let's just speed up 7 more kilometres with the rocket ship

And then it's not even the speed.
You need the height, the trajectory.
You can't just have the ship get on an invisible train track and speed up while it's locked in an orbit.

Your constant trying to match the height and trajectory would constantly be moving the ship off course. They're both moving real fucking fast at that point.

"Frames of reference" is not needed here.
The fact is that both objects are travelling at this and that speed.
If you hit the satellite, you're hitting it at 17k miles per hour.

>>8911555

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_BRFa6s9fs

>>8911541
>5 minutes each

T-Thanks NASA...

>>8911558
>>8911562

>>8911555
>The fact is that both objects are travelling at this and that speed.
To what frame of reference?
>you're hitting it at 17k miles per hour
But the satellite is also moving at 17k miles per hour.

>>8911562

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2IOU7SQOdQ&t=2917s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ndckCXXwE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3aREIoaD6A

Btw. you never responded to my question. Do you believe in your eternal organs? Have you ever seen them? How do you know they're there?

>>8911565
There is no frame of reference.
They're just travelling. They're just moving.

Oh wait they're travelling around the sun.
Wait, they're moving through the galaxy too I guess.

The reason you can just toss all that to the side is because you know, it travels around the earth, every time, in 97 minutes.
So you just calculate against that.

>>8911576

Do you believe in your eternal organs? Have you ever seen them? How do you know they're there?

44 7a 48 74 4c 4b 71 75 70 7a 48 74 71 54 75 69 70 32 48 74 71 32 75 69 56 55 45 79 4c 4a 41 62 56 54 4d 75 6f 55 41 79 59 50 4f 75 6f 7a 44 74 6f 54 79 79 59 74 30 58 51 44 63 48 6e 4a 31 79 56 54 79 6d 56 54 41 69 6f 4b 4f 66 4d 4b 45 79 59 50 4f 76 71 4b 44 74 6e 4a 34 74 4d 54 53 68 4d 32 49 6c 59 74 30 58 51 44 63 48 6e 54 79 6d 56 54 79 6d 56 54 53 6d 56 54 31 31 4c 32 74 74 4c 4b 5a 74 46 46 4f 77 4c 4a 34 74 4d 54 38 68

-------------------------------------------------------------
http://sosrff.tsu.ru/?page_id=62

>>8911569
I don't. I just assume based on other people being chopped up.
Like how you assume those videos are valid of anything. Not to say that they aren't.

I liked it when they showed what the crew were doing.
How did they even get to the satellite anyway?
An approach would be really interesting to see.

>>8911580

Have you seen people chopped up? Do you have evidence of it?

>>8911584
Sure, I've seen a lot of movies.
A lot of characters die during the story, some die really gory deaths.

>>8911588

So why are you assuming it's true?

>>8911576
Now you're getting what a frame of reference is. And somehow, you're still stupid enough to not see how it applies to two small objects in orbit and how one object can be used as a point of reference. Yes, you have to know the trajectory and velocity of the satellite itself to get there but once you get to the location and achieve the same exact angular velocity, you can just disregard the fact that you're travelling at 17k mph relative to some arbitrary point somewhere in the orbit, and use the satellite itself as a point of reference when you're doing docking mechanics.

>>8911591
I figure there's no reason a movie would lie about the inside of the human body.
Producers and directors don't lie.

>>8911594

How do you know that? Have you seen directors and producers? How do you know they exist?

>>8911555
>If you hit the satellite, you're hitting it at 17k miles per hour.
Orbital approaches are done from behind not head-on you monumental fucking retard.
Want me to draw you a fucking picture?
You need to accelerate to orbital speed to get and stay on fucking orbit.
Once you're there you are moving at walking speed relatively to everything else up there.


What the FUCK do you not comprehend?

>>8911594
> budget

>>8911555
>If you hit the satellite, you're hitting it at 17k miles per hour
I. Object A is stationary while Object B is moving 5cm/s towards Object A.
II. Object A is moving 10cm/s away from Object B while Object B is moving 15cm/s towards Object A
Both of these situations will produce the same exact force from the change in momentum. So, as far as the satellite is concerned, if you're moving 17k miles per hour with it, you're moving 0k miles per hour relative to the satellite.

>>8911592
It's travelling that speed because of the Earth.
It's not a rest because you're travelling the same speed as it. Nothing's at rest, Nothing.
Lo and behold, if you hit that satellite hard enough, guess where it's going and at what speed?
I guess nowhere because it was travelling at 0 mph all along with the ship.

You can disregard as much as you want, still doesn't slow anything down.
It's still going to make that orbit. And you still have to get off the planet at at least the same speed.

You don't understand that the ship isn't necessarily on the same orbit as the satellite.
It's not a train track around the Earth. You have to move it up and back and down and up.
And as soon as something goes wrong, as soon as you accidentally collide with Hubble it's gone.
Where? Who knows.
Maybe you just graze it and now it's slowly descending.
Or does it start going further away from the Earth?
Now you have a new trajectory and speed to follow.

>>8911599
Except in all those videos where it's coming in from the side, underneath.
But that doesn't really matter anyway.

You can't reach it anyway, it's why there are no approach videos from the Earth to the satellite in full.
I don't know what the write.
It's travelling at this speed but it's not because physics says so.

Alright. Whatever.

>>8911611
>And as soon as something goes wrong, as soon as you accidentally collide with Hubble it's gone.


Well, OK, anon. So that's why you don't collide with the Hubble.

Have you ever driven on a freeway, anon? Ever change lanes? Some of those cars are going 60, 70 miles per hour. Very dangerous. If you run into one of the cars it's came over.

>>8911604
Fucking Christ.
When you hit the satellite what will happen?
It's not just "in an orbit". It's moving at whatever speed.
We just gave the speed how many times.

When you collide with a another car on the road at 60 mph you're both gone.
And that's with gravity and friction.

>>8911626
This is the thing now. You can't avoid a collision at that speed. It's over as soon as you touch it.

Soon as you hit that other car at 70, it's over.

>>8911140
Not gonna lie that just looks shopped even if its real

>>8911621

There are no full videos of cars being made in factories. Are cars fake?

>>8911627
>When you collide with a another car on the road at 60 mph you're both gone.
You're being vague with the variables there. If you and another car are traveling at 60 in the same direction and you're behind him, you can theoretically tailgate and give him a slight nudge provided that both of you have very precise gas pedals and neither of you suddenly hit the break causing a massive enough change in momentum. Life isn't a Michael Bay film where shit explode out of nowhere.

>>8911642
Of course it's shopped. Look at the image quality on the moon.
Fucking lazy job and these guys are defending it.

That other Japanese moon orbiter image up there is worse. No one here should be defending any of these images because they're better than that.

>>8911637
Exactly. And because it's so dangerous, it's literally impossible to change lanes on a freeway with causing a fatal accident.

>>8911648

How do you know it's shopped? Were you there when they took the photograph?

>>8911645
You have to go with better analogies. Cars and satellites are two different things.

Let's look at all the videos posted here so far.
We have dockings and orbits and this and whatever.

What's the one thing that's missing from all of them? What's the one transition that would prove absolutely everything for rocket travel and satellite repairs?

>>8911648
Ok I'm not on your side because you're a fucking moron if you're the guy saying we can't prove there are any satellites up there. Don't rope me in with you you absolute dolt.

>>8911653
>how do you know it's shopped

Well the earth is flat, but that pic is round, so therefore it's shopped.

>>8911627
When it comes to collision and changes in momentum, it's not the fucking velocity that matters, it's the difference in velocity. Get it in your thick skull, this is fucking high school level physics.

>>8911653
Come on man, an RGB composite through a digital camera with 30 second delays outputting to a 1024x1024 output?

Don't give me that shit.

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

Just look at some of the images from this. Kind of proves theres atleast one doesn't it? Can it be /thread/ yet?

>>8911656

>You have to go with better analogies. Cars and satellites are two different things.

Why?

>What's the one thing that's missing from all of them?

I don't know. Do you know the whole launching procedure?

>What's the one transition that would prove absolutely everything for rocket travel and satellite repairs?

You tell me.

>>8911665

How do you know it's shopped?

>>8911657
You can't do it.
You can look and look and look through that night sky as much as you want. You won't find a single one.

I mean I know it's been said but the moon is a satellite and so is the ISS two things you can see with the naked eye so really what is the point of this thread?

>>8911669
I know that Japanese orbiter is shopped, I can see the fucking earth.jpg crop in the background.

Look at that moon again and tell me it isn't shopped.
5 frames of the Moon going across the Earth.

>>8911671
See
>>8911675

>>8911681

>I know that Japanese orbiter is shopped, I can see the fucking earth.jpg crop in the background.

How do you know that? Do you have evidence of it? Did you see the guy photo shopping that onto the back?

>Look at that moon again and tell me it isn't shopped.
>5 frames of the Moon going across the Earth.

If you can prove to me that it's shopped I'll believe you.

>>8911611
>It's not a rest because you're travelling the same speed as it. Nothing's at rest, Nothing.
Son you might actually be fucking stupid.
I mean, this shouldn't a hard concept to grasp.

>You don't understand that the ship isn't necessarily on the same orbit as the satellite.
YOU don't understand, don't fucking drag people down to your level, we are all trying to make you understand, but you're fighting back as if someone was trying to break you on a wheel of pain.

>It's not a train track around the Earth. You have to move it up and back and down and up.
It's easier and safer than any kind of synchronized movement back down on earth, fucking PERIOD. Walking down the street with someone is more dangerous, since you can just fall into a manhole or get hit by a semi out of nowhere.
That humongous speed DOES NOT matter when everything has it. There is no air to bob you up and down and no ground or stationary object to fuck you up, like down on earth.
>And as soon as something goes wrong, as soon as you accidentally collide with Hubble it's gone.
Last fucking time, you launch to get behind something, not fucking collide with it. You go almost as fast as the object you're trying to dock with HOURS before you're anywhere near it. and you're lagging BEHIND it, all this time, just trying to align and catch up at snail pace. Soyuz trip to ISS takes 6 hours, that's several orbits of trailing.
You are increasing your speed at meters per second, then once you start doing the docking maneuver it's just centimeters per second.
And NO, hitting when the difference in your speed is centimeters per second won't fucking catapult it into space or crash it down to earth, what the fuck?

>>8911675
One one has seen the ISS.
The amateur astronomer shots are fake and only started cropping up in 2006.
Any other bright objects being caught are asteroids or ships on re-entry.

File: 1491548329534.jpg (26KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x300px

>>8911692
>

>>8911692
What? You can see it without aid of any kind, it was over Glasgow in january I saw it my fucking self.

File: 1309294744451.jpg (35KB, 407x742px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 407x742px

>>8911692

>>8911689
Look, it's really simple. Forget the relativity concepts, they're just fucking up your train of thought.

You can orbit the earth at any speed, right?
That's it. That's all there is to it.
The thing is travelling at x speed.
You think because the frame of reference is null it has no effect on nothing?
It's not null, the ship is going at the same speed.
It's not bumper cars at that sort of speed.
It's running on a curve too.

A car travelling at 17k mph would destroy itself if it crashed.
But then we say that was only due to the friction against the ground thanks to gravity.
So what happens when you touch something at 17k mph with no gravity with a ship of that size?

>>8911698
Go on. Tell everyone what you saw.

File: orochidoppo.png (46KB, 252x438px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 252x438px

>>8911692
snort

File: 1307143361613.jpg (20KB, 350x392px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 350x392px

>>8911713
The ISS...

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream

>>8911709

>Cars and satellites are two different things.

>>8911709
>relativity concepts
The concept of frames of reference is the very foundation of all physics calculations. You can't do vectors without it and orbital mechanics is all about vectors.
>A car travelling at 17k mph would destroy itself if it crashed.
Against an object that is stationary relative to some arbitrary point that both the car and the object are referenced to
>But then we say that was only due to the friction against the ground thanks to gravity.
what did he mean by this?
>So what happens when you touch something at 17k mph with no gravity with a ship of that size?
>>8911660

>>8911717
It didn't come to your front door.
Tell the thread what you saw.

What did you see, 8 solar panels flying across the night sky with the naked eye?

>>8911722

>>8911717
Lol sounds like tech support

>>8911709
>So what happens when you touch something at 17k mph with no gravity with a ship of that size?
Touching it does nothing if you, yourself are at 17k mph as well. Are you expecting some sort of Bay-tier explosion or something?

>>8911720
You realise these objects would just spin out of control while in orbit right?
Don't buy this bullshit that they're sitting straight with the moon as the comparison.
They'd be fucking spinning at ridiculous speeds.
That's the point of this. This hypothetical is like a perfect equilibrium.
the ship and the satellite are in perfect unison, and any touch to either will just effect their speed's ever so slightly.

As soon as you hit it, even just slightly, it's gone. That's all there is to it.
It would just pick up rotational speed and you'd never be able to touch it again.

You're in zero-g with something sitting ever so delicately in place at 17,000 miles per hour.
The car crashed because it hits something, it's momentum breaks against whatever it hits.
What does the satellite have to hit?

>>8911709
>Forget the relativity concepts, they're just fucking up your train of thought.
Jesus fucking Christ, do you even know how physics work? It's your train of thought that's fucked up because you vehemently reject the concept of reference frames as something that applies in everything physics related. No one can fucking explain orbital mechanics without this grade school concept the same way no one can explain calculus to anyone doesn't have a grasp of basic arithmetics.

>>8911729
What's keeping the satellite balanced?

>>8911736
It's not going at 17,000mph relative to whatever it's docking with, it's moving pretty slowly

>>8911745

http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite6.htm

File: 1321696245726.jpg (47KB, 363x308px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 363x308px

>>8911736
Did you skip your gcse's and go straight to making stuff up?

File: 1476187383478.jpg (135KB, 680x1020px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 680x1020px

>>8911709
>You can orbit the earth at any speed, right?
No, you need to go a certain speed to actually stay up at certain altitude.
>That's it. That's all there is to it.
Sure.
>The thing is travelling at x speed.
Yes
>You think because the frame of reference is null it has no effect on nothing?
You have a penchant for fucking non sequiturs and it irritates me to no end.
What you just wrote is akin to saying "You think just because there is water in the ocean, the garbage men will collect on Thursday?"
THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

>It's not null, the ship is going at the same speed.
It's going at the same speed once they match, which takes hours and the difference in their speed is something you could probably outrun in later stages on foot.
>It's not bumper cars at that sort of speed.
their speed relative to each other is few kilometers per hour, literal fucking walk, stop eating dicks goddammit.
>It's running on a curve too.
They are fucking FALLING, of course it's a curve.
>A car travelling at 17k mph would destroy itself if it crashed.
Into a wall, A FUCKING WALL OR ANOTHER CAR HEAD ON not another car in front of it going one mile per hour slower, how do you fucking function you moron?
>So what happens when you touch something at 17k mph with no gravity with a ship of that size?
When you TOUCH it?
Do you understand Shuttle weighted 22 fucking tons? And Hubble 11 tons?
You might want to at least kick it.

For fuck's sake my head hurts...

File: 129100075920.jpg (103KB, 718x719px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 718x719px

>>8911745
>keeping it balanced

balanced on what?
it's moving with constant velocity and there is a net of 0 force acting on it. bodies in motion will tend to stay in motion until acted on by an external force.

>>8911736
>It would just pick up rotational speed and you'd never be able to touch it again.
Your hitting it straight through from behind in the same direction as where the orbit goes. There is absolutely no way it could gain any sort of rotational speed from that unless you fuck up and attempt docking without the docking systems aligned.

>The car crashed because it hits something, it's momentum breaks against whatever it hits. What does the satellite have to hit?
You were insisting that a a huge collision will happen when two objects moving at the same exact (high) speed in the same direction relative to one arbitrary point attempt to dock each other.

Also, the concern with minute rotations were already discussed earlier. Do you even remember thrusters and reaction wheels that were discussed a few posts up?

>>8911758

There's no weight in space so it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 10000 tons. That's the whole point of being weightless.

>>8911775
Mass is still an important thing to consider.

>>8911775
but it is still massive and will only gain a small amount of momentum for any force applied to it. so when it dock and they touch it doesn't go flying of. It will lock in there could be magnets there to help afaik

File: keanu.jpg (27KB, 551x549px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 551x549px

>>8911480
What if this flat-earth meme is a *benign* psyop? Just to get people to read more about outer space, physics and earth sciences?