GOVERNMENT REFORM- TOTAL SWEEPING CHANGE

Great Debates
101

Hey, I don’t believe the space station stuff either…I was just stating that theoretically you could probably assemble the parts from existing programs and utilize them without too many people knowing. And those that do know, may have no idea what they’re working on…Hell, I have no idea what goes on in this building, or how the simulations I run affect real work operations…I just do my job. While I don’t give the Gov. credit for being able to silence everyone, I think you give most people credit for more curiosity than they have.

Monty–
Hell, no. He’s an idiot with illusions of grandeur. My post was not in support of him at all. Just meant to state that there are things going on that most people don’t know about.

mattk–
Again, I agree, but if most amateur astronomers saw something that looked like a big satellite, would they just dismiss it as one of the thousands up there?..I’m betting that they don’t pay much attention to things close to the earth…any astronomer types out there that can comment?

MikeylikesIT–
Hey, do me a favor, don’t help. While I don’t usually post in GD, because most of the regular’s here have more knowledge and better thought out opinions, I have posted before, and consider myself a regular that isn’t know as a flake (till now). Seeing as how you registered yesterday after FA got banned, I really can do without any help…k?

Felice–
Again, I agree…but while most of the trolls that post the “Gov. is out to get us with alien technology” threads tend to make the Gov out to be more than it is, many people here also make it out to be less than it is. My post really had nothing to do with FA point…I actually think that while our Gov has it’s flaws, and needs some changes made, it still a lot better than some countries I’ve lived in.

102

Well, sure. That’s why we have classified material.

I don’t know. I assume by your tone that you’re posting from a gummint computer. So are lots of other people here. But you aren’t posting to a public message board while on a secure line. You are connected to the outside world–therefore, insecure.

Again, sure. They exist. But only the biggest of fools would be using a secure sat link to post to a public internet message board. And the only secure machines that use all caps are ground-based and *extremely[/i secure.

Yup. And of course Ed and Cecil made a point of setting up decryption software on the SDMB so loserboy could post his ramblings.

Possibly not. But a geosynch orbit is still high enough that it can be seen from a long way away. Astronomy folks? How high is a geosynchronous orbit? Then we can figure out how far someone can be away form it and still see it in a telescope above the horizon.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that such a space station could not be constructed and launched in total secrecy. Period. If you want to believe it’s possible, you’re welcome to believe it.

Fine. I agree that most folks with clearances are like that. But there are always some who aren’t. Hell, Aviation Leak . …er, Week magazine managed to find someone to give them specs on the B1B and the B2 before most Americans knew they existed. And those were small projects compared to putting 140 people in a space station!

Good thing.

-andros-

103

Dang UBB codes.

Dang computer.

Sorry for the redundancy, all.

104

I have to agree with you, but I say this, if it were me, there fear would make me do dumb things to.

105

that was very rude, and Im really not taking all this flak well. Im not sure what you are suggesting about FA? but you need to reconsider how you treat new people. I was agreeing with you, and you flame me? sounds like a personal problem.

106

A geostationary orbit occurs at approximately 22,400 miles over the equator. For all intents and purposes, 1/3 of the earth’s surface can “see” a given geostationary satellite. Credit for “discovering” the orbit generally goes to Arthur C. Clarke, who first described it in the 40’s, though he kind of pooh-poohs the idea as obvious.

FWIIW, geostationary orbits are quite valuable and highly sought after. If Uncle were using one for nefarious purposes, everybody would know (They do use them for communications purposes, and everybody does know). The current and prior generations of U.S. surveillance satellites tend to be in low-earth orbit (LEO), better to be close to the object of curiosity. They also tend to be in rocking-inclined orbits, better to cover more ground. Space stations also tend to be in LEO, if only because of the cost of having them higher.

Jesus saves… Gretzky grabs the rebound… He Scores!

107

andros,

Glad you enjoyed my page-2 Onion-esque story! At least someone did. I’ve gotta admit I’m kind of disappointed that it didn’t go over better, but oh well. You win some, you lose some.

~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~

108

Stark i thought it was great, real imagination.

109

A little radio astronomy nitpick here. STARK wrote:

True, Arecibo (and all other radio telescopes, for that matter) can only detect radio waves.

However, (A) the sun emits quite a lot of radio-frequency radiation, and (B) planets and asteroids can and do reflect some incident radio emissions into space, much in the same way an object on Earth reflects radar.

Thus, it is theorietically possible to detect a planet by its reflection of solar radio-frequency radiation alone – although it would be one heck of a weak signal.

I personally believe FORMERAGENT meant that this newly-discovered planet had aliens on it that were, in fact, broadcasting their local version of WXYZ 106.7 FM. He probably wears an aluminum foil hat to protect his brain from them.

The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

110

Last I heard, WXYZ was at 1270 on the AM bands outside of Detroit, MI. (ABC affiliate.)

111

I’m still trying to figure out how you ‘orbit’ the dark side of the moon. As far as I can recall, an orbit requires going completely around something. Often more than once.

I was going to tear his other comments to shreds (a ‘black’ off-budget space station that can support 140 people??? An unknown launch vehicle that makes regular lunar flights to support 140 people???), until I remembered that Trolls are like Tribbles - if you feed them they start to multiply.

112

formeragent also said it would be very difficult to see the space station in the asteroid belt. well, then it would be equally difficult to get/receive transmissions. light & sound waves travel in a straight line. if you couldn’t site it, you couldn’t communicate w/ it.

as for amateur astronomers, they are generally far more sophisticated that the designator ‘amateur’ might suggest. i know a couple of the people who were in the group that discovered a recent comet. most of the close-up discoveries (i.e., in this solar system) are made by amateurs. it’s what these guys live for. somebody would have noticed the activity.

113

Hey, ok, I was dumb, I was wrong. But I have known people just like him in the Bureau and “other” agencies. I guess things like that make me a “nervous nellie”. I would rather be safe than sorry.

andros, you know a lot about computer stuff, where’d you learn all that?

114

tracer,

You are, of course, correct about the theoretical possibility of receiving solar-emitted radio signals that have bounced off a planet; but I wonder about the ‘real-world’ possibility of such a task. Any such signal would be, as you say, very weak. Does anybody know if Aricebo (or any other radio telescope) has ever ‘seen’ Pluto? Extra planets would have to be out even further…
special,

I’m not sure what you mean by this:

Not to be an ass, but are you suggesting that we communicate with our known space stations by yelling really loudly? Also, sound doesn’t travel in a straight line, anyway, does it? How else could you hear a sound emitted from a source you cannot see?

~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~

115

well, stark, healthy skepticism is surely a good thing; but ya see, light & sound are just 2 manifestations of the same thing. (honest. check any physics book.) perhaps you were around when we had guys go to the moon? no? well, we couldn’t communicate w/ them all the time their ship was orbiting the ‘back’ side of the moon.

got a cell phone? seen the translator towers? ever go for a ride into the mountains & loose your car radio signal? you were out of range of the transmitters; something was blocking the signal.

we can bounce signals off the ionosphere or off some stationary satellite or off translator towers. if it’s the right frequency & there’s a large enough object close by (the earth is large enough), the sound signal–like a light signal–will bend, a little. but for the most part, we only know what those mars probes do when they are in sight because sight = hearing.

& once you can see it, sure, go ahead & yell reeeeallly loud.

The purpose of life is to matter, to count, to have it make a difference you lived at all.

116

special,

I’m sorry, but your attempts at clarification are only confusing me more! You say,

This is patently false. Visible light is a manifestation of electromagnetic radiation, just one small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Light has no physical substance and can travel without benefit of a physical medium to transport it (in other words, light, as well as all other e-mag radiation, can travel through a vacuum). Sound on the other hand, is caused by vibrating air molecules and must have a medium to conduct it (in other words, sound can not travel through a vacuum. Since none of my physics books suggest e-mag radiation and sound are the same stuff, I would welcome any reputable scientific site you could point me to that says otherwise.

Of course we could not communicate with any lunar missions when they were cut off from the line-of-sight of the earth. That’s because the method of our communication, radio waves, travel only in straight lines and have a limited depth of penetration into a solid object. In other words, the radio waves could neither bend around the moon, nor penetrate through it the moon to reach our astronauts on the other side. The same is, of course, true for the other form of e-mag radiation you mentioned: cell phone transmitting towers.

You then say,

I have no problem with this statement - assuming that the ‘signals’ you refer to are e-mag radiation near the frequency of radio waves. But in the next sentence you say,

I’m sorry, but huh? Are you saying that sound waves are bounced off the ionosphere?? If so, you are confusing the e-mag signal (the carrier of the information) with the sound that is produced when receiving equipment translates the e-mag signal into audible audio.

And finally, the tone of your last sentence suggests that you, too, see the absurdity of trying to communicate via sound waves to a space station. But given the mish-mash of science in the rest of your post, I’m not really sure you fully understand why such an effort would be wasted.

Please correct me if I’ve misconstrued any of your statements.

~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~

117

dhanson
Member posted 01-06-2000 10:11 PM

Unless the object is in a geostationary orbit.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online:

118

MikeylikesIT
Member posted 01-06-2000 02:53 PM

This has to be the funniest statement ever posted on this board or its previous incarnations!

119

Well, Monty, sort of. A geostationary orbit takes a satellite completely around the earth just like every other orbit. The difference is that the orbital period is equal to one day, so that the satellite appears to stay over a fixed place. I don’t know whether a “lunarstationary” orbit is possible, given the earth’s gravity, the moon’s slow rotation period and whatnot.

I suspect that dhanson was just having a little semantic fun with our troll. A “lunarstationary” satellite, if one can exist, wouldn’t “orbit the dark side of the moon” any more than a geostationary satellite “orbits North America.” It would simply orbit the moon, staying on the dark side relative to all us clueless civilians.

I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

120

Interesting question. I don’t know enough about such matters: how HAVE they deduced the existence and characteristics of those planets that have been reported to be orbiting other stars?

Also,

I am trying to figure out if this is possible (using a couple of coffee cups on my desk) and I just don’t see how it could be. A satellite that remains on the back side of the moon, relative to us, could never orbit the moon. I mean- to orbit the moon, it has to go around the moon, doesn’t it? The rotational period of the moon is so slow (1/28 days) that one side of it is always facing us. So if the satellite is going around the moon, then at least part of the time - well, about half the time, actually - it will be on the side of the moon that IS facing us.
Isn’t it?

Felice

“Everything, once understood, is trivial.” -WES