Help me out Veeky Forums

>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 n2yo.com/whatsup.php
and you can check out what kind of satellite it was.

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.

>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.

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.

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

>earth is flat
score

>> 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:

hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/
universetoday.com/87005/spying-on-spy-satellites-with-thierry-legault/

Here have some spy sat pics you fuckwad.

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

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

...

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

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

>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.

One place to start:
n2yo.com/

Back to RRREEEE

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...

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.

>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

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

What did you see exactly?

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.

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?

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

fuck it I'll take the bait.

I took this myself, that streak is a satellite.

That's a white line.

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

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.

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

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

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?

Of what exactly?

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

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.

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

Google Earth
>QED

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.

epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
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.

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.

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

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

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.

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:
rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/himawari-8.asp

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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:

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

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?

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

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)

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

Could they have been high altitude aeroplanes?

Would nitrogen thrusters even do anything in space?

Why wouldn't they?

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)

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

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

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

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!

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

Seems likely you are baiting at this point, but whatever

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?

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.

Order dish network you fucking mongrel.

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

>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.

>Get telescope
>Observe the satellites

>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.

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

Anything in orbit is inherently a satellite.

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.

Does the famous "Blue Marble" photo count?

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

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

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.

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

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.

>Newton's third law means nothing anyway. There isn't always an equal opposite reaction to every movement.
Ok user, 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.

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

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.

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.

youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc

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

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

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?

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

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