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

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: notsure1

www.airspacemag.com...

F-35 Helmet

www.businessinsider.com...

The cost includes the computer interface and equipment on the aircraft.

FYI I want them to have the best shi possible.. I just think the price is way more than it should be..

Those helmets are going to cost taxpayers a billion dollars,just those helmets. There is only a couple hundred million taxpayers in the country so that means we all gave 5 bucks just for the helmets .

They government needs to make a better deal is all Im saying those guys will build it for less money . But why would they if the government will pay them 400k a helmet?

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: notsure1

www.airspacemag.com...

F-35 Helmet

www.businessinsider.com...

The cost includes the computer interface and equipment on the aircraft.

FYI I want them to have the best shi possible.. I just think the price is way more than it should be..

Those helmets are going to cost taxpayers a billion dollars,just those helmets. There is only a couple hundred million taxpayers in the country so that means we all gave 5 bucks just for the helmets .

They government needs to make a better deal is all Im saying those guys will build it for less money . But why would they if the government will pay them 400k a helmet?

Who pays for the R&D effort that goes into figuring out how to build it and create the design?

Hint: It isn't done overnight by magical elves for free.

SMFH

a reply to: notsure1

Those helmets ARE the best. And for what they're capable of, that cost is good. They will revolutionize helmet systems and computer systems.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaph, you and I disagree on this concept, I know.

Question for you...

When was the last time an advanced helmet based HUD system meant the decisive difference in an aerial combat situation?

...and how many enemy kills were made by "dumb" A-10's and the like in the meantime?

...and, what happens when we lose the first one of those fabled helmets to an enemy? Does the pilots head explode to destroy the tech? (just kidding, but think about it).

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

OK, not going to waste my time reading everything, so if I recant something that has already been said, just chalk it up to the fact that every time I try to explain a similar concept on here, someone gets all bent out of shape because the world doesn't work like they want it to. Not going to go into a bunch of arguing over that either.

But... you did ask nicely, so here goes a try.

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.

Launch is only one difficult part of having a satellite. There also must be position control, backups, orientation control, etc. Yes, many nations can launch satellites, but most only use their launch capacity for government sanctioned operations. The USA is one of the precious few that both can and will launch a commercial satellite, possibly the only one, and those satellites must meet stringent controls. NASA oversees every aspect of satellite design and operation.

One exception is the micro-satellites, like the CUBESATs that universities launch. There is still minimal oversight by NASA, but these are given a little more leeway since they are not for commercial usage and are so small as to not pose a significant safety risk to the public should something go wrong. Even balloon-mounted equipment is controlled by NASA; one I recently worked on was scrubbed because someone working on altitude control messed up and it started dipping into the airlanes at night.

My part worked flawlessly. Of course.

Launch is not like calling up a mechanic and scheduling a tune-up. NASA only launches every so often, because of the time needed to build and test a rocket. You don't just call up and say, "I want a satellite launched next Monday; do you take VISA?." Launches can be scheduled years in advance, and that in itself means the technology sent into orbit is not the latest and greatest.

The cost of launching is directly related to the size and weight of a satellite (payload), so small and lightweight is not an option but a necessity. The smallest possible components are used. As an example, the passives (resistors and capacitors) I typically work with here are in the 0805 package (0.08" x 0.05"). In a pinch, I can go down to 0603, but even that size means a lot more time and tediousness soldering. Satellites can use 01005 packages in their design (0.01" x 0.005") and that means everything has to be fabricated using robotic devices; humans are simply not capable of working that small. I have never met anyone, regardless of experience and ability, who can go below 0402. To use these tiny parts, the traces on the circuit boards must be smaller as well (otherwise, there is no real size savings). That increases the cost appreciably.

Another thing to consider is that if your WiFi transceiver goes out, you can unplug it and go to the store to get another one. Not so with satellites. You can't just call up NASA and say, "I need to replace my satellite. Is my launch still under warranty?" You also can't get a repairman to ride out and fix it. It's on its own once in orbit. That means it cannot fail prematurely... period. If it does, someone is getting fired (and possibly blackballed). No, it has to work, as expected, day after day, week after week, year after year. That kind of reliability costs money... a lot of money. There are three basic grades of electronic components: retail, which is what I use mostly, with something like 99% reliability; military, which is much more rigorously tested to ensure the parts work correctly every time; and medical, where every individual part is tested. These reliability guarantees receive a premium price, but in some cases that price is worth it... for example, you do not want the firing control mechanism on a fighter jet malfunctioning in the middle of an offensive, and you don't want the heart monitor on a loved one failing at the wrong moment. People can die. In a satellite, that reliability is essential as well, so companies pay the price for it.

On to position and orientation control (GNC)... compressed gasses are not a good solution. You tend to run out of gas pretty regularly. Once out of gas, there is no way to hook up a compressor and fill the tank. You're done. Most satellites use some sort of motor-driven torque control, since electricity can be collected from solar cells. That and the associated control systems to maintain attitude are quite expensive; they have to react to extremely minuscule deviations.

Those solar cells are not like the ones on your roof. They are state-of-the-art, high efficiency, lightweight cells that are specially designed and built for space application. They also have to be protected from high-energy particles they may contact, so they are encased in a tough, transparent covering. Now we're talking advanced materials science and more money. I have held several thousand dollars worth of solar panels in my hand, for a high-altitude balloon, and what I was holding covered less than the 2 square meters you mentioned.

Batteries are lately lithium-based cells. they simply offer the greatest combination of weight, charge density, size, and lifetime. No, not cell phone or laptop batteries... again, these have to be individually tested and verified to work correctly or the satellite will fail when they do.

Most systems have backups, because if one fails, a backup is the only way to maintain operation. So you're talking about a lot of redundancy, which uses up space and weight and costs more.

While many communication satellites do use directional antennas, dish antennas are not the design of choice. A dish must be precisely oriented to a single receiver, placing extra restrictions on attitude control and minimizing the ability of the satellite to communicate with anything else. Dishes are used in ground based transceivers since they point at the satellite in a known location and only at the satellite, plus their position on terra firma means its no problem to get the precise alignment. Satellites do not.

Satellites also need to transmit more power since their antennas must cover a wider arc, and must be more sensitive to received power since consumers demand lower and lower power devices. Low power transmission means the receiver must be more sensitive and that costs money... a LOT of money!

Also, the typical satellite does not operate at the frequencies we are used to here on earth. They can, but it would be a waste of money because the frequency of the carrier determines the rate at which data can be transmitted. An op-amp that works up to 100 kHz might cost me $0.25... one that operates at 10 GHz likely costs $100 and up. Even higher, cutting-edge frequencies can get into thousands of dollars for a single chip.

Finally, nothing is off the shelf in a satellite. Every circuit is designed specifically for the tasks it will perform. There is no "Satellites R Us" corner store.

Now add in thermal and radiation shielding, increasing the weight again... overall, these satellites are marvels of engineering. And they cost like it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

A-10s don't make kills, except against helicopters. They carry AIM-9s for the same reason submarines have escape hatches. So when the pilots are showing their mother their aircraft they can say they have defensive capabilities.

As for advanced helmet systems, they've never been used in an active combat theater that is seeing air to air. They were introduced after the last time we saw air to air combat.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
...and, what happens when we lose the first one of those fabled helmets to an enemy? Does the pilots head explode to destroy the tech? (just kidding, but think about it).

The helmet isn't beyond anything that our potential opponents can do. It just puts things together in a way no one else has before. The big thing is that without the live aircraft systems to plug into, it's just a fancy helmet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Understood.

However, one must ask...why then does the helmet itself cost as much as it does??

If it's just a simple plug-in to much higher tech on the aircraft then why is the helmet itself so special?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's custom fitted for one thing, so it's got a shell inside that only fits one person. Then they have to build all the display systems into the visor, and the helmet itself does more than just act as a monitor. It's got sensors that detect where the pilot is looking, voice control systems, and more. But it needs the EODAS and sensors on the aircraft, as well as using aircraft power as its primary power source.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

why then does the helmet itself cost as much as it does??

Two reasons:

• Economy of scale does not apply. Few people own their own airplane, much less their own fighter jet, so the target audience is quite limited.
  
  
• These flight helmets are designed specifically for the military and are thus classified. The companies that build them have no other potential customers. That means there is no future prospect for using economy of scale, and the total cost of engineering and testing that goes into the design and fabrication of a helmet has to be spread across very few helmets. I charge a nice little sum for prototyping work, which is what this is.
  
  Plus what Zaph said... individual fitting.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Thank you. Showed this thread to my friend who works for NASA Jet Propulsion Lab and we had a good laugh at your expense. It’s obvious that you know zilch about this subject.

For the hard of learning on here that think satellites are not real I don't know if anyone else has posted this.

Hi-Res Images of Earth

or how about this a test video if you look you will see cars moving and the pilgrims walking round the Kaaba.



Now it's mainly the flat Earthers & NASA haters that come up with the claim, but they will be able to go out in secret make a message on the ground which will be photographed only they would know about it and prove themselves WRONG then the might go do some night classes and learn something.

When discussing satellites I'm more interested in why they have to adjust the time clocks on space going devices to sync with Earth.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
When discussing satellites I'm more interested in why they have to adjust the time clocks on space going devices to sync with Earth.

In short, because of the difference in the distance to the local gravity well (Earth). The further from that point you are, the more the time dilation (difference) occurs due to the stretching of spacetime. So, the clocks in the satellites in orbit will run at a different time rate than those on the surface of the Earth. The difference is very minor, but due to the needed accuracy of the clocks used for synchronous operation, they need to be periodically adjusted to match the ones on the surface.

a reply to: Krakatoa

The difference is very minor, but due to the needed accuracy of the clocks used for synchronous operation, they need to be periodically adjusted to match the ones on the surface.

Actually, the clocks are set before launch to run slower so that the time "ticks" are at the same rate as those on the surface. Time of day doesn't really matter much, it's the clock rate that counts.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

The difference is very minor, but due to the needed accuracy of the clocks used for synchronous operation, they need to be periodically adjusted to match the ones on the surface.

Actually, the clocks are set before launch to run slower so that the time "ticks" are at the same rate as those on the surface. Time of day doesn't really matter much, it's the clock rate that counts.

Yet, based upon the travel and height, sometimes they do need to be synced remotely. I was trying to simplify the explanation.

But thanks for your input.

a reply to: rickymouse

Does the gov waste piles of money sure. Does NASA I do not know for sure probably but to be truthful their main problem is politicians like Obama cutting programs like constellation program to fund stuff like how to make NASA more pc towards Muslims yes that is a real thing he did. NASA should be about exploring the heavens not trying to soothe people's feelings .

a reply to: proteus33

Obama cutting programs like constellation program to fund stuff like how to make NASA more pc towards Muslims yes that is a real thing he did.

No it isn't.
The answer you seek is here:
www.nasa.gov...
Constellation was already way over budget and its development was not going well. Oh, yeah. There was the recession thing, too.