It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: [post=17978089]
1. Right in front of them at the same altitude.
....
5. I know their names and their rank. But I've lost contact with them many years ago when they were assigned to other military facilities.
originally posted by: mikegrouchy ...
Any serous UFOlogist would start pressing against lense sizes in telescopes. I mean personally I'm tired of seeing film of planets and moons. Would be nice to see the hobby of amateur astronomy start making some progress. What about the geostationary satellites. Where are the pictures of these.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity...
I would agree with you, you can indeed cover more ground in a retrograde orbit...
originally posted by: VeritasAequitas
a reply to: Arken
en.wikipedia.org...
The Grumman Aircraft Corporation gave much importance to this mysterious “Satellite”, On September 3, 1960, seven months after the satellite was first detected by radar, a tracking camera at Grumman Aircraft Corporation’s Long Island factory took a photograph of the Black Knight.
The Grumman Aircraft Corporation formed a committee to study the data received from the observations made but nothing was made public.
So apparently an aviation company, who was bought by a military defense contractor, actually studied the 'Black Knight' satellite, and actually made a report on it.
originally posted by: JimOberg
originally posted by: Korg Trinity...
I would agree with you, you can indeed cover more ground in a retrograde orbit...
I do not think you understand the math as well as you seem to think.
Retrograde near-polar orbits are used for earth surface/atmosphere observations that prefer a consistent local sun time for repeated observations over long periods. The precise inclination depends on the operating altitude. These kinds of orbits are designed to let Earth's equatorial bulge twist the orbital plane backwards to match the daily shift of the Sun's position. As a result, ground illumination conditions remain much the same, allowing long-term comparisons to better detect changes.
It has nothing to do with 'covering more ground'.
originally posted by: Arken
a reply to: Wolfenz
Interesting and meaningful points, Wolfenz.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
Then you have little in the way of visualization skills.
A retrograde polar orbit is the ideal orbit for observation purposes as it would in effect be able to cover the entire globe.
This may help you visualize... [snip] As you can see if a satellite is in geosync (GSO) then it is in effect over a single spot. a prograde orbit (low earth orbit) is an orbit going in the same direction in effect as the rotation of the earth, and a Retrograde orbit is in any direction not in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.
A polar retrograde orbit get's to see more of the earth since it covers all vectors within it's own orbital motion coupled with the rotation of the earth.
In addition a polar retrograde orbit is also the most efficient as it can be relatively low in orbit to achieve even greater coverage.
Do you understand now?
Peace, Korg.
What I don't understand is how a few mysterious satellite sightings from the 1950s/1960s have mutated into a 13,000-year-old "Black Knight"?
Do you understand now?
originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: JimOberg
A bit harsh don't you think? I mean his reasoning was a bit off, but the observation is correct (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, as well). If you're rotating in the opposite direction of an object, will the ground not pass by more quickly than if you're spinning in the same direction?
originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: Rob48
..... Most artificial satellites are placed into retrograde orbit, but not necessarily all of them. ....Oh well, FWIW I'll leave it for reference for those who don't. Cheers and carry on
originally posted by: mikegrouchy
That satellite would have to be pretty low for any Amateur Astronomer to see.
The sky is just that damn big, and the amateur telescopes that small.
Satellites are just out of reach of most things below 60 inches, their magnitudes are atrocious, and if they are not in a close earth orbit the problem just gets exponential.
originally posted by: Rob48
If I lie on a lawn chair in my garden at night I can see dozens of satellites passing over with nothing but a pair of Mk1 Baby Blues, and I live in the light-polluted southeast of England.
originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: JimOberg
Hahah, LOL at the sweet-talkers part. You do have a good point there, though. I didn't realize that you worked for NASA, that's pretty awesome. I'm just a bit of a physics/math/space/numbers nerd who's just starting to dive into the wide world of astronomy and the like. You're absolutely right too, It's kind of hard to dispute when someone literally knows the person who is more than likely responsible for the anomaly. I don't know if it was you Jim or someone else earlier, but whoever mentioned the possibility of multiple unknown objects being bunched into one giant misconstrued tale dubbed the BKS, I agree. I think at some level there's a certain level of truth to the notion of there being, at some point in time, unknown objects orbiting the planet. Now whether they're "alien" in nature, a result of lack of knowledge/technology at the point in time that they were observed, or something else entirely, is a different story.