Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[bknight]

What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

Especially since most of those 20,000 "satellites" are actually bits of debris. About 41,000 objects ~10cm and larger, from all countries, in earth orbit have been cataloged by NORAD since the Sputnik 1 launch; over half have since decayed.

Of the ~17,500 (not 20,000) cataloged objects still in orbit only ~4,100 are payloads, and of those payloads only ~1,500 are still active. The rest are spent launch vehicles, random bits of loose hardware, and debris from explosions and collisions -- the most disturbing being deliberate explosions and collisions from antisatellite weapons tests. The Chinese ASAT test in 2007 created over 2,300 cataloged bits of debris. The accidental collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 in 2009 created > 2,000 cataloged bits of debris.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of bits of orbital debris too small to catalog.

Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces?  i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterday

[Chew]

Here is one source: http://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php

[Trebor]

An accretion of stupidities?

The correct term is a 'Youtube of stupidities'.

[ka9q]

Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces?  i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterday

Predicting orbital decays is a bit of a black art. Or, to use my own favorite analogy, it's like predicting the outcome of a roulette wheel. As it gets closer you can begin to predict when, but exactly where is almost always a guess.

You can find all the objects associated with a given launch by looking up its international designator, which is of the form

2016-001A

where 2016 is the launch year, 001 is the launch sequence within the year, and A is the piece of the launch. Usually, but not always, A is the primary payload and B is the upper stage of the launch vehicle. C, D, and so forth are any secondary payloads. Then look for the other objects from the same launch and examine their orbital elements. Unless the perigee is lower than 300-400 km and the eccentricity is near zero, decay is not imminent.

Lots of things affect decay rate, from the mass, size, shape and attitude of the object (which controls its drag) and solar activity (solar maxima heats the outer atmosphere and increases drag at a given altitude). For decaying objects the keplerian orbital elements frequently include the time derivative of the mean motion, another indicator of decay rate. The mean motion is the number of orbits per day, i.e., 24 hours divided by the period. This increases as the orbit decays. When there's no decay and no perturbations, the mean motion derivative is zero.

In recent years it has become customary for launch vehicles to save some fuel to deorbit themselves after their missions are over. They may deorbit very quickly (like within an orbit or two) or they may simply maneuver into (or remain in) an orbit that will decay within some specified number of years.

Edited to add: This might be of interest: http://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php


 

[tradosaurus]

There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.

If there are no satellites, then how was this video recorded:

The longest single take on that video is about 5 minutes long, during which time: Williams talks almost constantly; she moves around in all directions through the air within limited space; her hair remains sprayed outwards; her necklace constantly bounces around rather than sitting against her chest.

The footage can't have been recorded on a Vomit Comet as the longest take is much longer than the maximum amount of time weightlessness can be maintained on such an aircraft.

The footage can't be spliced together from multiple Vomit Comet parabolas as the footage is a single take with no cuts.

The footage can't be faked in normal gravity as Williams floats in all directions and her necklace bounces around.

The footage can't be being replayed in slow motion as she's constantly speaking and her lips synchronise to her speech.

Williams can't be suspended from wires as the rooms she moves through provide no room for the necessary rigs, particularly when she turns around within the sleeping quarters.

Williams's hair is not being held in place with hair spray because she brushes it heavily enough to press it down against her head and the hair springs back into its original shape.

The only explanation which makes sense is that she's in freefall around the Earth.

(I excluded the possibility of anti-gravity machines because I assume you'd reject such devices as even more outlandish than space travel, but please let me know if that assumption is wrong.)

The first obvious sign that it is fake is the woman's hair is sprayed with some hair spray to hold it in place.  If you look in the "vomit comet" scenes women's hair doesn't do that.

You want to know how NASA continue their lies and deceits with the ISS? 

https://youtu.be/QxHc8Ns5g1c

[ka9q]

The first obvious sign that it is fake is the woman's hair is sprayed with some hair spray to hold it in place.  If you look in the "vomit comet" scenes women's hair doesn't do that.

He just said that wasn't the case because of what she does with it, but let's set that aside.

You made a claim. Prove it. Find a woman with similar hair, apply some hair spray, and have her recreate that scene. While you're at it, have her float around the room and do all the other things you see in that ISS video.

You have to test your claims. That's called "science".

[tradosaurus]

Since he doesn't believe in gravity . . . .

True, but whatever force he thinks keeps us stuck to the ground clearly isn't operating in that video...

Throw away the science fiction you have been assuming is reality and watch this video. 

Learn why your god is called gravity,  Could the letter "G" in the masonic symbol stand for gravity?  Is it a coincidence that quite a few of the astro-nots were masons?

https://youtu.be/QxHc8Ns5g1c

[tradosaurus]

The first obvious sign that it is fake is the woman's hair is sprayed with some hair spray to hold it in place.  If you look in the "vomit comet" scenes women's hair doesn't do that.

He just said that wasn't the case because of what she does with it, but let's set that aside.

You made a claim. Prove it. Find a woman with similar hair, apply some hair spray, and have her recreate that scene. While you're at it, have her float around the room and do all the other things you see in that ISS video.

You have to test your claims. That's called "science".

The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.

Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity? 

[ka9q]

The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.

Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.

It was just explained to you that the "vomit comet" (or any other synthetic freefall) can only be maintained for a short time. About 20 seconds, in fact. Perhaps you can guess what would happen if an airplane tried to maintain it much longer. Videos from the ISS regularly last for hours.

Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?

No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe you should try to understand them.

[bknight]

Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?

No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe you should try to understand them.

Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.

[DD Brock]

The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.

Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.

It was just explained to you that the "vomit comet" (or any other synthetic freefall) can only be maintained for a short time. About 20 seconds, in fact. Perhaps you can guess what would happen if an airplane tried to maintain it much longer. Videos from the ISS regularly last for hours.

Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?

No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe you should try to understand them.

Didn't they film some of the ISS scenes underwater to simulate zero g and pull off some of the long shots?

Not gonna lie, I actually enjoyed the movie, tho I found the concept of Bullock's character operating unknown equipment so handily ridiculous. However, she was in her skivvies a lot, so it worked for me, lol!

[ka9q]

Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces?  i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterday

Here are the TLEs (Three-Line Element sets) from www.celestrak.com for this most recent GPS launch:

2016-007A               
1 41328U 16007A   16036.83090352  .00000088  00000-0  00000+0 0  9993
2 41328  55.0751 239.8894 0002661 313.2982  46.7560  1.97572917    05
2016-007B               
1 41329U 16007B   16036.31121856  .00000092  00000-0  00000+0 0  9996
2 41329  55.2159 239.3020 0138188 287.2086  69.6654  1.93486559    05

The international designator of the launch is 2016-007, i.e., the 7th launch of this year. The orbit looks right for GPS: 55 degree inclination, ~12 hour period. The epochs (times of set validity) is the 36th day of 2016, i.e., Feb 5 (UTC).

Object A has the smaller eccentricity (0.0002661) so it is probably the GPS spacecraft itself.

Object B appears to be the Centaur. Because of its low mean motion (1.93486559 rev/day) and relatively small eccentricity (0.0138188) it doesn't look like it's going to decay any time soon. But the epoch is over 12 hours before that of the spacecraft, and I don't know if it had finished its maneuvers yet. OTOH, it looks like the Centaur took the GPS satellite most of the way to its final orbit, and it takes a lot of delta-V to deorbit from there so I suspect they decided to just leave it up there.

It's much easier to deorbit a launch vehicle in low earth orbit, or from a highly elliptical transfer orbit since they have low perigees, and a small burn on apogee will bring it down in half a orbit.

[raven]

 Tradosaurus, look at Livestreaming video like this. It would be hard enough to render a real time CGI of that level of detail, but to add animated clouds that follow the weather patterns world wide, also in real time? Your fantasy holds no bounds, does it? It shows the position of the ISS over the globe as well in another area, though I've already linked you to Heavens Above to let you find the overpass time for the ISS and other satellites. Have you tried it out yet?

[ka9q]

Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.

On the other hand, the visuals were gorgeous, even if a little inaccurate.

The CGI people have something called the "uncanny valley" for computer-generated humans, and I think there's something like it for science fiction -- especially space travel. When you get the visuals as good as Gravity got them, then the remaining errors (notably those in physics) become far more glaringly obvious.

I can make up a bowl of popcorn and enjoy Star Wars and Star Trek as much as anybody because there's no pretense of realism. But Gravity drove me nuts because it did pretend. But not only did it get the physics very wrong, it also had actors who behaved nothing like real astronauts.

[tradosaurus]

The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.

Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.

It was just explained to you that the "vomit comet" (or any other synthetic freefall) can only be maintained for a short time. About 20 seconds, in fact. Perhaps you can guess what would happen if an airplane tried to maintain it much longer. Videos from the ISS regularly last for hours.

Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?

No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe you should try to understand them.

Typical elitist response from a globe earth cult member.   So tell me what "laws" of physics were violated in the movie?  Because it looks like a typical movie production from NASA.