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.

 

Ask yourself why

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Responding to AmoebaSized Points:

1: Never said I was slick.

2: Really? Show me the facts to back up your point.

3: Couldn't this be any more obvious or did you really need to take the time to post this as a point just to better your position?

I'm asking why, I'm badmouthing people who respond with silly points such as yours becuase they are slightly meretricious at best.

To continue, Did I miss all the satellites listed where? And yes I've read the data on the images I have seen.... and?

How do you know what my hardware and software is or isn't capable of?

Like I said, you're being slightly meretricious.




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Hmmmm I suppose we are both wrong

As of 11-05 there are less than 1000 satellites (811) in total for the world:

www.ucsusa.org...

here is a graph, notice the civilian count


www.ucsusa.org...




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I'll tell you something... and listen up carefully. There are no live feed cams of the moon or Earth because no one in government wants UFO's to be caught on camera... which has happened in the past with the US shuttle missions.

Peace and love.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgoodpasture
I'll tell you something... and listen up carefully. There are no live feed cams of the moon or Earth because no one in government wants UFO's to be caught on camera... which has happened in the past with the US shuttle missions.

Peace and love.


Exactly.
Government deny everything but if this live feed cams show us something about a UFO, they wont deny what everybody can see live.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I was going to write a lengthy comment, but accidently clicked another link researching for it when it was almost finished. Here's the condensed version.

1. A satellite with a webcam that would fit the entire planet in frame (like this image, thanks AmoebaSized) would be a long way away. In fact if you have a look at that image, you'll note that it shows a view from roughly 35,750km above earth. To put even a small satellite into geostationary orbit at that altitude would cost a LOT of money. Would it be possible? For sure, but NASA or any other organisation are never going to do it because...

2. It would be incredibly boring. You know when you're on a long haul flight and they have an image of a map displayed, with your plane tracing a route over it as it flies? And how it hardly ever seems to move? Well that'd be a lot more exciting than looking at Earth. You do remember that it takes a full 24 hours for the Earth to complete a full rotation. You would have to watch it for a long time before you would be able to tell it has moved, and even then, you wouldn't have noticed because it would be so gradual.

3. Satellites whizzing past? Watch it 24/7 for months, maybe years and it might happen once or twice. Think about the scale of this... the diameter of earth is about 12,750km. Halve that to get the radius (6,375). Add that to the altitude of the satellite (6,375 + 35,750) and you have 42,125km. Do you remember doing Pi at school? Well to work out a circumference of a circle you first multiply the radius by 2, then multiply by Pi, 3.14159265358979323846 and on and on and on.

To save you scratching your head too much, here is the answer: The satellite would be on an stationary orbit in a circumference 264,679km long. That's a lot of space it's not covering. And that's only on a two dimensional plane.
3D (looking at a sphere, not the edge of a circle) would make the area the satellite can see appear miniscule. It would only see maybe 1m2 of a total sphere surface area of 22,299,221,004km2. (Here is the site I used to calculate this, try it yourself.)

I can't actually find something that will calculate that as a percentage, someone who is better at maths than me, please step in. Also check me on
the rest of my maths, I'm a bit out of practice.

Sorry, but I have to throw a little more maths at you. Probability. Probability of some object of interest entering that relatively miniscule area of coverage, and close enough to actually see it... Well you get the picture.

And lastly, please, please, please don't take this as me being nasty. I just wanted to highlight the truly immense distances and show that the cost of putting such a satellite would never be justified.

[edit on 23/1/2006 by 4for4]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
But the answer to why might be more than some people can handle, perhaps that's why anything from space shown to the public is filtered, edited, and doctored before it gets public view.

promomag - Just about everyone has given you a logical/rational answer to your presumed question and you beat them down. Face it. You aren't asking a question at all.

You are making a statement in the guise of a question. You're less concerned about NASA and Education as you are about propping up some smoke about a sinister cover up or scheme. Be straight forward and announce what it is you want to say and why you believe it. Don't post something as a bait question you feel you already know the answer to.


[edit on 23-1-2006 by nullster]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
A conspiracy theory!

about me?!

you are too kind



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I think you've spent more time on this than you probably should have. Look, If you're not interested in such an option to view the earth live from space 24/7, then my only question to you is, why spend so much time on responding to this?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
You know it only took me less than a minute to find the sites I used to calculate that, and Pi is a formula we all learnt at age 14 here.

I'd say my one reply showing why it'll never happen actually took less time to write then all of your other posts in this thread.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Bravo,

But if this doesn't interest you, why respond?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I didn't say it didn't interest me, I said that such a webcam would never generate enough interest from the general public to ever be economically viable. Remember, it's your tax dollars that would be putting it up there.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
If you think about it, weather agencies have live cameras pointed at the Earth 24/7, unfortunately these images generally aren't available to the public.

They even use cameras with different light spectrums like infrared.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I actually think that such a webcam would indeed arouse much public interest. Children the world over could use it as an education resource along with adults in various fields and just people wanting to take a gander.


I can think of plenty of public funded excercises that waste much money and are certainly not as valuable, interesting or educating.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Considering my tax dollars are already spent on things I have absolutely no regards for as I'm sure many other tax payer dollars, yah I don't think this would bother me or other taxpayers as much as you think.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Well I can only say I'm glad that most governments don't think the way you do. Fiscal responibility is pretty much the most important thing a government has, and a government who'd spend billions to put that webcam in space is NOT financially responsible.

Exactly how will a webcam be an educational tool, compared to the many other photographs and footage of the earth from space? Being live doesn't make it any more or less educational.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
And you would know wouldn't you. Now now 4for4, let's not drag this discussion into fiscal responsibility of governments, it's quite off topic. however I would be more than happy to engage you further on this subject if you would like to start a new thread in a different forum of course.

The educational tool question you ask looks to be a straw man. The fact is your opinion finishes it off nicely with "Being live doesn't make it any more or less educational." And you have every right to believe this is so just as I have every right to believe there should be a live web cam in space 24/7 focussed on the earth.

As far as an interested audience, there's plenty of proof to show there is interest:

www.mediaweek.com...

Do you think the ratings would be just as high if say the event was released a day, perhaps a week after the event took place, or, do you think it's much better to see something live? You don't need to answer this just as much as I don't need to answer your question about the educational value of such a system if it were in place.


Originally posted by 4for4
Well I can only say I'm glad that most governments don't think the way you do. Fiscal responibility is pretty much the most important thing a government has, and a government who'd spend billions to put that webcam in space is NOT financially responsible.

Exactly how will a webcam be an educational tool, compared to the many other photographs and footage of the earth from space? Being live doesn't make it any more or less educational.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4for4
Being live doesn't make it any more or less educational.


The problem of being live is that if an UFO appears NASA wont (and cant)deny. Everybody saw live so there is no way of deny. That proves a great reason about the use of live cams there.

[edit on 23/1/06 by lnxsys]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I'd just like to shortly address the whole issue of a live webcam seeing a UFO.

Firstly, if this is focused only on Earth, there is a very miniscule chance that one will even fly through the picture.

And if it did, unless it was a true spaceship thing, or flashing "Hi we're aliens." NASA would just explain it off as space junk or optical effects or such things.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I think what everyone fails to understand is, we have cameras pointed at things like the Aurora from space, the Sun from space, and the earth's weather systems from space (which by distance would be uh unrealistic right 4of4?), all of them live, feeding our news stations 24/7 updating images all of the time.... for example the Aurora cam updates every 10 minutes, The sun, every 4 hours, and the earths weather, every 3 hours. For some reason the Aurora must be really impressive to update every 10 minutes right?

If your argument is based on cost, bandwidth, or public interest, educational significance then I think you all need to really take hard look at what your saying here.... and ask yourselves what kind of logic is being used with points like these?

Earth Cam:

www.goes.noaa.gov...



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
That's correct, space junk is all over in the earths lower orbit, and, I think it would be neat to see it floating around... may not be educational but sure entertaining!









 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join