Why NASA is a scam - Satellites aren't real or NASA are total thieves

Just watched the video on Google Loon and it is an interesting concept but there are many issues which could be handled with satellites in a much more efficient and reliable manner IF satellites are real (for those who believe these things aren't real).

A satellite isn't some magic feat of technology. The most difficult aspect of having satellites is launching them and there are many nations that have the capability of doing this and now even private industry has reached this point. A communications satellite operates a lot like how a mirror transmits light from one angle/vector to another by changing the angle of the light beam hits the mirror you change the focus point of the mirror. Communication satellites work in an almost identical manner.

When people use WIFI, you are using something similar to a communications satellite, though the base station is usually stationary. Now the space satellite is stationary in orbit as well. Always in the same place or it can always be on the same course and multiple satellites are used for constant coverage - as one passes to the east, one is coming over head and another one is coming over the west horizon - so there is always a satellite overhead in some angle.

For communications be it video, internet, etc, everything starts at a base station. The base station beams the signal to a satellite via tracking dishes. The satellites can then transmit to other satellites while outside or in the extreme upper limits of the atmosphere (very little air to distort signal).

A satellite needs something like a router to function and it needs an antenna pointing down to the clients (the internet users) and another antenna pointing down to the base station that tracks the satellites. This is identical to a wireless internet connection people use at home. Nothing magical or extravegant in cost. Multiple channels could be used to increase bandwidth for the satellite. There are no magical antennas that cost millions of dollars either.

Now the things that you need to make a satellite would be the following (I'm not a satellite engineer but anyone who is, please correct me, add what I miss or tell me where I'm wrong).

-Power structure - Solar panel array. At 1.3Kw / meter^2, 2 meters is probably way more than what is needed for a satellite by orders of magnitude, even if it only gets power 1/4 - 1/3 of the time. 2 meters is about 2 standard panels.

-Distribution antenna - could be a dish or a something like a yagi. very old tech. very inexpensive. Very easy to construct (even for space use).

-downlink/uplink antenna to base station - probably a dish or unidirectional antenna or combo. same as above.

-satellite to satellite linkage antenna's - unidirectional antenna - same as above.

-Router - establishes connection with base station and/or satellites as well as connects with terrestrial users. Very widely used technology - may need to be hardened for space, but not many millions of $$.

-Manuevering/thrusting mechanism. Most likely either a compressed gas or a liquid this is turned into a gas and used for thrusting. Not expensive & once in orbit would not need to be used very often. Possibly contained in titanium tank or possibly carbon fiber. Thrusting mechanism could be controlled with onboard control computer (actually controlled from ground) which controls gas flow and heating of liquid to gas. "Commonly" available.

-Batteries - Not sure what needs explaining here. IDK what batteries are used in space. Maybe an electro-chemical battery, rechargable (from solar) or even based on a thermoelectric generator (instead of solar) which could also be used to maintain any temp needed for batteries to operate.

-Structure - a housing to contain all this. This depends upon how large the antennas need to be. If a phone the size of a small brick can reach a satellite, then I would suggest that this entire device could possibly be about the size of a washing machine, kitchen range/stove - but probably smaller. The router needs to fit inside, dishes/antennas mounted on the outside, thrust tanks could be inside or outside depending on if they need insulation & batteries (only enough for times when behind the earth - dark side - so something the size - not weight - of a small car battery ) and solar panels - these could unfold from under the unit once in space and positioned to face the sun. This could be made of titanium or probably even aluminum alloy possibly.

When I see that a simple communications relay satellite costs $300-700 million plus the cost to launch, I just don't understand who they are trying to fool. I would be happy to start a company that makes these satellites for that price! I would venture a guess that even $1 million for something like this is much higher than the cost of manufacturing and spread the cost of design out over 100-1,000 units (launch 10-40 per rocket) and the design cost could very well be absorbed into the million/unit cost. I suspect the specs for space worthy satellite units would come out to a price MUCH lower than a million each especially if making enough to cover the globe with internet.

I would take a guess that it would be possible to get 1,000 - 5,000 satellites (capable of internet service) produced for under 1 billion dollars - this doesn't include launching them but I suspect that the number of units per launch could be greatly increased from what it currently is and I have to do a little more research into the actual size of something like this as I suspect it could be much smaller than I suggested.

Now for all of you who think this is all BS, I want you to ponder this. Take 2 linksys WRT54G with an unidirectional, high gain antenna an run it a .25 watts (yes, 1/4 watts). These have made 40km connections at 10Mbps with this technology and this is about 20 years old (at consumer retail level). If we had FCC license and could use high gain antennas on the satellite and run it at 20-50w the coverage area would be huge with a phenomenol signal considering lack of atmosphere for most of the signal. This is all tech available off the shelf now, not in some secret gov lab. Now I know it wouldn't use WIFI G band for connection (most likely K band). The only thing that is the biggest hurdle is all the telemetry of tracking the sat's and getting them in the general orbit, but that is what NASA should be for, to help the private sector with these things since we paid for it.

Oh, the satellites are real. You can see them in the sky. Whether we need so many up there is my question. They are expensive and we got along just fine without all the satellites up there in the past. They are doing experiments and observations of our ecosystem, they already know what we are doing wrong, environmentalists have been telling us for decades. But I guess they need proof for our legal system and that is a flaw we have.

We need some satelites up there, we do not need to have a space station or pretty quick people will be taking a ride up there in some fancy rockets. What goes up must come down and we should be concerned about that. All those satellites up there also alter our magnetic field and that metal floating around probably has some effect on our heating atmosphere too. I would bet that the sun hitting those warms up the layer up there quite a bit. It is not an occasional satellite that is a problem, there is tons of pieces of space junk up there that we stuck there. Think about the heating effect of the sun hitting that junk. But blame it on us heating our homes, do not blame it on heat and electricity used to heat NASA or Military factories and buildings. What about all the heat needed to make the rocket stages or the heat given off from the rockets when they go into orbit. Now, if it was a few, that would not be a problem, it is not a few though. Add that to the big jets flying constantly in the sky and Houston we have a problem.

Our government incites a lot of waste of heat and power. Look at all the lights on in this country at night, most in the cities. Look at the power the casinos use in vegas so they can take your money.

If we could create a satellite to monitor our real ecology and do something useful with it, I would be happy. but that is not happening, every launch creates a need for another launch and nobody really does squat with anything. I suppose they will next be telling us that shooting a gun creates global warming.

We do not need to go to mars or the moon, we as consumers pay for that one way or another, the government and NASA just raise the cost of everything. Space X....where did that money come from. It comes or came totally from consumers and taxpayers. In twenty years there will be lots of trips to space, people will work all their life to buy a ticket, leaving nothing to their kids. This is good for the rich, if we stay poor we remain their slaves.

Okay you got me there. Satellites aren't real. The Gov has invisible mother ships spying on us and being used as the satellite itself, even for our GPS. That is how they do Google Earth. The Earth is freaking flat also and we have a dome around us. Google is a government dis info tool that allows all kinds of evil to be uploaded including viruses because people themselves are evil enough to give dis info to the world itself. Therefore, the Gov doesn't have to do anything to the people on the internet.

Google may seem very free when it comes to internet freedom, but in fact it is not. The Gov agency uploads a bunch of junk on google to make it have more variety so it seems like it is less controlled. In reality it is in fact controlled. If they find you or any info against the Gov they shut you down secretly like China.

NASA is hiding all the technology from us because they don't exist anymore. They had been taken over already. Ain't no rocket scientist is helping us anymore. RIP von Braun. Died for a lying cause.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

And then you have to put thermal shielding, radiation shielding, attitude control system, interface, signal booster, and everything else a satellite needs. They're not taking off the shelf components bought at Best Buy, slapping a shell around them, jacking the price up, and putting them in orbit.

I was downloading signals from weather satellites in the the 1980s, so yeah - they're real, and amazingly they weren't all from NASA.

What about all the heat needed to make the rocket stages or the heat given off from the rockets when they go into orbit. Now, if it was a few, that would not be a problem, it is not a few though. Add that to the big jets flying constantly in the sky and Houston we have a problem.

Much less than the sun generates every day.

One thing to remember of sat internet is the signal latency. I suppose people get use to it.

And let's not forget that wireless router technology changes constantly so every 3 to 5 years you would need to replace the satellites with ones with newer technology.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

What you described in the first part of your OP is generally what is known as a LEO, or Low Earth Orbit(ing) satellite. LEO's are used more for imaging than they are communications because tracking can be expensive at the consumer level.

Communications satellites are generally GEO, or Geosynchronous orbit satellites. These satellites orbit in such a way that they remain over the same point on Earth. Some might say at the same rate the Earth is rotating. Therefore they're in the same place in the sky throughout the day, eliminating the need to track them with ground based tracking.

Just FYI.

Secondly, regarding cost; there actually are a number of companies right now experimenting with micro-satellites. India recently launched a rocket which released hundreds of these micro-satellites on a single pass over Earth. These micro-satellites cost tens of thousands, not millions, each to build. So, the concept of cheap expendable satellites is already being explored. Further, the blanket effect you describe is one of the reasons for this. In fact, one of the big investors has publicly stated his goal is to provide free Internet to the whole of planet Earth.

Again, just FYI.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

When I see that a simple communications relay satellite costs $300-700 million plus the cost to launch, I just don't understand who they are trying to fool. I would be happy to start a company that makes these satellites for that price!

Well then why don't you go and do that and put your money where your mouth is?

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Are you seriously trying to make an argument that satellites aren't real? What's next? The Earth is flat?

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

NASA doesn't make commercial communication satellites. Top manufactures include: Orbital Sciences, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Loral.

In fact, NASA has nanosat programs to demonstrate the usage of consumer grade tech for smaller, cheaper satellites. The "PhoneSats" come to mind that are basically cubesats built around smart phones.

As for the big commercial satellites, there's a lot more going on. These are major investments. They've got to be hardened to survive launch and the harsh environment of space (radiation, unimaginable temperature shifts), they've got to have some measure of redundancy for things that can go wrong (can't very well send a field tech to work on them).

You've got to have propulsion, control and telemetry systems for keeping it in orbit, moving/reorienting it.

That's without getting into the specifics of the capacity. I read up on them a few years back and from I remember they basically had a couple dozen transponders, each with raw bandwidth comparable to OC-3. I don't know if you've seen the prices on service provider level terrestrial networking hardware but you ain't picking it up on eBay for $10.

But like anything else, anything purpose built comes at a premium because there's not enough competition to drive down the prices. Still, I think if you're spending millions on putting something vital to your company in space, your going to be okay with paying a premium.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Are you wondering why there aren't any pictures of the Earth even remotely similar to this, on any scale?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

And then you have to put thermal shielding, radiation shielding, attitude control system, interface, signal booster, and everything else a satellite needs. They're not taking off the shelf components bought at Best Buy, slapping a shell around them, jacking the price up, and putting them in orbit.

Yeah but 300 Million on the low end? Thats BS... But of course so is a 10,000 $ hammer lol.. Alot of skimming on that 300 million..

Eta. I totally believe satellites are real just saying 300 million yeah right...

a reply to: notsure1

You're talking about electronics that are designed to work in probably the harshest environment known to man, for decades at a time, with no chance of repairing them. You're not getting that for $1,000.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: notsure1

You're talking about electronics that are designed to work in probably the harshest environment known to man, for decades at a time, with no chance of repairing them. You're not getting that for $1,000.

Not for 1000 no . But 300 million? How much were the first ones to go up?

A GPS satellite cost $43 million to build and $55 million to launch in early 1990s. GPS III satellites will cost an estimated $500 million each and $300 million to launch.

Yeah seems legit..defensesystems.com...

a reply to: ZombieZygote

Because there are no satellites the size of Sinai. The earth has a circumference of 40.075 km (average). Do you really think you could spot a satellite the size of a car?

Adding to everything that has been said about why they are so expensive, there is also some redundancy. This means you have backup systems in case you get bitflips on microcontroller level or anything related to damage (cosmic rays).

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: notsure1

You're talking about electronics that are designed to work in probably the harshest environment known to man, for decades at a time, with no chance of repairing them. You're not getting that for $1,000.

Not for 1000 no . But 300 million? How much were the first ones to go up?

A GPS satellite cost $43 million to build and $55 million to launch in early 1990s. GPS III satellites will cost an estimated $500 million each and $300 million to launch.

Yeah seems legit..defensesystems.com...

I guess you are forgetting that it is not just the cost of hardware, but the cost of the people's salaries that work to design build, test, launch, track, and remotely reprogram (if needed). All those people also need a support network of administrative and logistic support as well.

All those factors add into the costs of a single (or very very few, i.e. less than 5) item to produce. If they were making them by the thousands or millions, then the cost would be reduced due to the scale.

Try understanding how businesses work....and basic supply/demand economics.

a reply to: notsure1

The first ones to go up sent a morse type signal and that's it. The WS-117L, the Corona satellites (photographic satellites that dropped the film canister back to Earth) cost $108.2M in 1958 dollars ($0.92B in 2018 dollars), total cost of Corona, in unadjusted dollars, was $850M.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: notsure1

The first ones to go up sent a morse type signal and that's it. The WS-117L, the Corona satellites (photographic satellites that dropped the film canister back to Earth) cost $108.2M in 1958 dollars ($0.92B in 2018 dollars), total cost of Corona, in unadjusted dollars, was $850M.

Damm... But I will never believe those numbers are what it really costs this is the government after all.

An idiot flatearther launched a rocket a while back for like 20 bucks lol.. (I know it wasnt 20 bucks)

a reply to: notsure1

And it didn't even reach 2000 feet.

As someone said, if they built 1,000 of them, the cost would drop drastically. Any time you build what's essentially a one off, you pay for it. Look at the B-2. They reduced it to 21 aircraft because it was too expensive, but when they dropped the number bought, it almost doubled the cost per airframe. All the R&D, tooling, salaries, manufacturing, is now coming through one product instead of being spread over many products.