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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Ok, this is the last I'll post on this for a while. As I said in my first post, a webcam satellite would cover only an extremely small portion of space due to it having to be far enough away to get the whole Earth in frame. 1m2 of a total sphere surface area of 22,299,221,004km2 to be exact.
Then it becomes a matter of probabilty. Remembering that the satellite would be over 35,000km above the planet, even a UFO 1km across would have to be within 100kms or so to appear more than a dot (of course, UFOs could actually be interested in the satellite and buzz it, who knows).
When your odds of being able to see something like that blow out to well over 1 in a TRILLION, even if it was there to be seen, you realise how unlikely this is to be happening.

Remember the fuss about the moon photos not showing stars? And that's because the brightness of the moon was drowning out the relatively low brightness of the stars. Looking at Earth would be the same, you'd see no other stars, maybe the sun or the moon once every now and then when the orbit aligns it like that (and if the sun was indeed in shot, it would white-out the image).
The same would go for satellites, they wouldn't be able to be seen unless they were extremely close, and that wouldn't happen because there are certain minimum allowable distances between objects put in orbit. To put it simply: NASA isn't taking the chance of allowing multi-million dollar satellites to come close enough to each other to have a collision.


In fact, as you said earlier promomag, this is a real image of Earth:



Can you see any stars or satellites in that? It's not a matter of timing, if it were possible to see them, you would.
That's basically what an image from a webcam would look like, except with it turning very, very, very slowly (24 hours for 1 rotation).

Sure, people like watching things live. But you're comparing a live event to just a live stream. Maybe if NASA calculated that another satellite, natural or artificial, was going to pass by the webcam sat, then you'd have thousands of people tuning in. That would actually be an event that would stimulate interest.

Lastly, lets say the satellite goes up in space and to begin it has thousands of people tuning in. Over the weeks and months, people begin to lose interest, maybe only tuning in every now and then, maybe once a week, even once a day, but definitely not 24 hours a day/7 days a week.
A UFO flys past, at a range close enough to be seen, and within the tiny area of the space around earth that the satellite covers. Were you recording it? Seeing it happen on a webcam would be the same as seeing it in your backyard without a camera. Even if hundreds of people were watching live, unless someone was recording the feed, you'll have people saying it didn't happen. For your information, I completely believe in UFOs, having seen 3 and a possible 4th over the last 8 years, but I always want some proof.
Who has the hardware, money and time to capture so much footage and review it all? Um... about the only people who do are the governments who you accuse of censoring anyway.

May I suggest that this topic be moved to the space exploration forum? The people there would have a lot more of an idea what they're talking about than I would and probably be able to comment better on the topic, whether against you or with you.





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?)

I never said it was impossible to put a satellite up there, just that the cost wouldn't be justified, and that's the bottom line. Someone has to shell out the money to put it there, and a cash strapped NASA isn't going to.
Also, those satellites you're talking are a network of satellites covering the planet, not just one. Because they are a network, they can be put into orbit at a much lower altitude and cover only a certain smaller area on the Earth.
The only way you're ever going to see a webcam satellite in space is if a geosynchronis-orbit satellite was going to be launched to that altitude for some other purpose, and someone put up the cash to send the cam and the streaming hardware with it.

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




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
4of4, I shall show you stars and moon in space with sunlight taken from the Clementine satellite, don't shower me with some technical impossibility with stars in the background becuase I surely won't tollerate that kind of nonsense.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...



Don't you think our cameras are a little better than when this photo was taken?

It surely was better when they took photos from the moon!



Hmmm?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
BTW -

There is a live streaming 24/7 webcam in space on a satellite streaming the image to earth that lets the user control the cam from the web browser, online right now if you want to see it.

We can justify interest, education, costs involved, technical issues if and when you find it.

I have the link right here, I've played with it, seems ok, could be better, a lot better actually but it would certainly be quite a prize if you can find it yourself.... or you can continue to tell me and everyone else reading this all the reasons why this cam shouldn't exist.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
It's not that they aren't visible, it's that the brightness of one object will drown out other, less bright, ones. It's explained much more clearly in the Moon Conspiracy thread.
That picture you yourself found from Galileo doesn't show stars.
That picture in your reply above this from the Moon's surface doesn't show stars.

The Earthcam you are talking about actually would destroy your argument, not mine. I'm arguing that a satellite with no other purpose than to send a live video image of the Earth will not be made. That image is from a satellite that was put there for other reasons, it just happens to also have that capability. You're arguing that there's no cam in space because the powers that be want the truth hidden away. So why is there that GEVS cam then?


Move this to the Space Exploration thread, there are people there with a much better idea about this sort of thing.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by promomag



Hmmm?


Can you see in this pic the visible wrong shadows positions? The flag shadow is right -> left and the antena shadow is left -> right.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Galileo?

CLEMENTINE man CLEMENTINE

I'm ok if my argument is destroyed by finding an actual webcam in space focussed on the earth in real time, I don't have much credibility at stake for answering my own question.

On the other hand, you've not proven much at all, just a bunch of lengthy replies for all the reasons my question could be answered and wasn't.

Yes I answered my own question, yay for me, I get the prize. What did you get?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
The satellite that supposedly has more purposes than taking pictures, it doesn't, it was put up there for Art.

How expensive was it to put this satellite into space, less the design of course?

The cost was £600,000

Pretty cheap if you ask me



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
yeah, that shadow stuff is pretty crazy huh? Same thing about the stars not being visible becuase of light reflecting off the surface for the moon.

uh huh



I'm patiently waiting for the picture of the mothership to be released once disclosure has come. tap tap tap.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
The GOES program is "Art"? Don't think so, it's the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Program.


Currently, the GOES system consists of GOES-12 operating as GOES-East in the eastern part of the constellation at 75° west longitude, and GOES-10 operating as GOES-West at 135° west longitude. These spacecraft help meteorologists observe and predict local weather events, including thunderstorms, tornadoes, fog, flash floods, and other severe weather. In addition, GOES observations have proven helpful in monitoring dust storms, volcanic eruptions, and forest fires.

The benefits that directly enhance the quality of human life and protection of Earth's environment include:
.Supports the search and rescue satellite aided system (SARSAT)
.Contributes to the development of worldwide environmental warning services and enhancements of basic environmental services
.Improves the capability for forecasting and providing real-time warning of solar disturbances
.Provides data that may be used to extend knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere and its processes goespoes.gsfc.nasa.gov
have another source as well.

£600,000? Maybe for only the materials.


NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have awarded a $423 million contract to Hughes Space and Communications, El Segundo, CA, for the manufacture, launch, and delivery on-orbit of up to four weather-monitoring Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES).
ametsoc.org


As far as explaining Moon photos and how I was saying that stars weren't visable in pictures taken on the Moon (on, meaning standing on the surface) read the Moon Conspiracy thread.

You should take care to not make your posts sound like personal attacks. None of my points have been contradicted in the slightest. I've always maintained that there will never be a satellite for the SOLE purpose of streaming down a webcam image of Earth. GOES provides an image, not from a webcam, and for weather data.

Why is this in the UFOs/Aliens forum?

mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**
Quote Reference.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
BTW -

There is a live streaming 24/7 webcam in space on a satellite streaming the image to earth that lets the user control the cam from the web browser, online right now if you want to see it.

We can justify interest, education, costs involved, technical issues if and when you find it.

I have the link right here, I've played with it, seems ok, could be better, a lot better actually but it would certainly be quite a prize if you can find it yourself.... or you can continue to tell me and everyone else reading this all the reasons why this cam shouldn't exist.



Interesting question in your first post, so how about you tell us the answer.


I found some photos that you might be interested in. I found them, when I went looking for the pic that you posted, in the NASA image database and The Project Appolo Archive. Then I realized that there were way to many photos to scan through in a reasonable amount of time without knowing which apolo mission that picture is from. Would you happen to know, and if you so would you let me know? Call me a skeptic but, I won't believe that photo until i see it on an official NASA or any other associate website, such as apolloarchive.com.


Anyways, here's the links to the photos that I did find, pic1, apollo 15 pic2, apollo 17 pic3 apollo 17

What I find interesting about those photos is the fact that you can see stars. Not many are visible, but it can be compared to looking at the sky in the early evening or early morning. I might be wrong but, those might even be planets. It corroborates the previous statments about the reflection light from the moon drowning out the light from the stars.


hmm
Edit:

Originally posted by promomag
I'm patiently waiting for the picture of the mothership to be released once disclosure has come. tap tap tap.


BTW, so am I.




[edit on 24-1-2006 by ReginalBigsby]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by lnxsys

Originally posted by promomag



Hmmm?


Can you see in this pic the visible wrong shadows positions? The flag shadow is right -> left and the antena shadow is left -> right.


Is it just me or does the shodow of the astronaut not bend? It seems to be photoshoped on, and quite poorly at that. Again which appolo mission is this, I would like to see this photo for myself from a better source(ie. not aliendave.com lol). It's not that I don't buy it, I'm just not convinced.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Where did I say GOES or mention anything about GOES and Art or the Cost? I didn't.

Why are you even responding with this?

Look if an art project can put a satellite in space for the world to play with, I say Nasa can do the same and better.

Here's the link btw since your assumptions on what I'm talking about are so absurd:

www.tate.org.uk...





Originally posted by 4for4
The GOES program is "Art"? Don't think so, it's the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Program.


Currently, the GOES system consists of GOES-12 operating as GOES-East in the eastern part of the constellation at 75° west longitude, and GOES-10 operating as GOES-West at 135° west longitude. These spacecraft help meteorologists observe and predict local weather events, including thunderstorms, tornadoes, fog, flash floods, and other severe weather. In addition, GOES observations have proven helpful in monitoring dust storms, volcanic eruptions, and forest fires.



The benefits that directly enhance the quality of human life and protection of Earth's environment include:
.Supports the search and rescue satellite aided system (SARSAT)
.Contributes to the development of worldwide environmental warning services and enhancements of basic environmental services
.Improves the capability for forecasting and providing real-time warning of solar disturbances
.Provides data that may be used to extend knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere and its processes
Source have another source as well.

£600,000? Maybe for only the materials.


NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have awarded a $423 million contract to Hughes Space and Communications, El Segundo, CA, for the manufacture, launch, and delivery on-orbit of up to four weather-monitoring Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES).
Source

As far as explaining Moon photos and how I was saying that stars weren't visable in pictures taken on the Moon (on, meaning standing on the surface) read the Moon Conspiracy thread.

You should take care to not make your posts sound like personal attacks. None of my points have been contradicted in the slightest. I've always maintained that there will never be a satellite for the SOLE purpose of streaming down a webcam image of Earth. GOES provides an image, not from a webcam, and for weather data.

Why is this in the UFOs/Aliens forum?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
4for4


I've always maintained that there will never be a satellite for the SOLE purpose of streaming down a webcam image of Earth.


"Never" is a powerful word, your position presents yourself as strong and assured.

The link again:

www.tate.org.uk...



Tate in Space is an online artwork by artist Susan Collins in collaboration with the Tate Gallery in the UK. The webpages appear as part of the Tate Online webpages, alongside the pages for physical art galleries such as Tate Modern and Tate Liverpool, to give the impression that Tate in Space is intended as a genuine art gallery, albeit one orbiting the planet, and currently represented by the Tate Satellite.


Read the Wikipedia on it here: en.wikipedia.org...

Ahem.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Look a little further into Tate in Space:


Tate in Space can be viewed as an example of interactive or immersive fiction, with each browser/participant bringing their own extra terrestrial cultural fantasies to the project. In some instances—such as the satellite sightings data—the work relies on participants 'wishing' or 'believing' aspects of the work into existence. However with contributions from space art historians, [architects and space scientists, the site is thoroughly researched, a seamless blend of fact and fiction. Wikipedia



You're right, it is Art, but it's definitely not a satellite.


From the artist's mouth: (interview)


SC: And what was quite interesting about that is that it became about using our low expectations of certain kinds of web technologies. So my web cam (the image was made up in fact of a bouncy ball on my table at home) was constructed through flash animation in such a way as to reflect our expectation that webcam images are jerky and unreliable (I even had to slow the whole thing down to make it more authentic and deliberately put in fuzz every so often so that people would really feel that it's having difficulty connecting). For people to believe it, it had to be authentically low res.....dshed.net



[edit on 24/1/2006 by 4for4]

mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**
Quote Reference.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
4for4, What are you talking about!?



The Tate Satellite was launched on June 6th 2002. It is currently orbiting at an orbital velocity of 7.67 km/sec approximately 400km from earth in a polar to polar low earth orbit. The satellite orbits earth every 92.56 mins and traverses the entire globe in the course of 15.56 orbits - 24 hours - 1 day. tate.org.uk/space/satellite




The cost of building Tate in Space is a fundamental part of the research and development process. The final design for the new Tate will determine its eventual cost. To put a satellite similar to Tate Satellite into orbit costs in the region of £600,000 - the cost of a house in some parts of London. tate.org.uk/space/faq


Ahem.


Originally posted by 4for4
Look a little further into Tate in Space:



Tate in Space can be viewed as an example of interactive or immersive fiction, with each browser/participant bringing their own extra terrestrial cultural fantasies to the project. In some instances—such as the satellite sightings data—the work relies on participants 'wishing' or 'believing' aspects of the work into existence. However with contributions from space art historians, architects and space scientists, the site is thoroughly researched, a seamless blend of fact and fiction.

Wikipedia

You're right, it is Art, but it's definitely not a satellite.


mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**
Quote Reference.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
What are YOU talking about?




SC: Yeah...so its like I'm not just going to make a little piece of art, I'm gonna give you a whole new Tate. So it was kind of like 'oh well sod it'! And then I just had such fun, thinking it up and playing with all those funding constructs...or constraints... the things that both institutions and artists at the moment have to think about... the search for new audiences... innovation... accessibility... that kind of thing.

JR And it fits so well with precisely what Tate is about, that it has fooled a lot of people, and I love that. Sandy Nairne - who was instrumental in commissioning it... His foreword to the project... it sounds SO real, no wonder people fell for it. It speaks about Tate's 'history of innovation' and 'exploration' and you know we are about supposedly pushing boundaries and...dshed.net


From the same interview I referenced before.

mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**
Quote Reference.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Interesting, I must say I fell for that one. Bummer. In any case I don't mind being wrong, a bit dissapointing about tate however I still hold my question and position.

You say never, I say it takes a LOT of balls to say never and will be ignorantly optimistic if I have to.

Never say Never.

And the search goes on.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
It had me going for quite a while as well. I was sitting here saying "surely not possible!", I was in London at the end of 2003 and went to the Tate, didn't see anything about it.

I'm saying never, meaning there will never be a satellite for only that purpose. Most satellites have many different capabilities, as they try to get the most out of the huge costs to put them up there.

I wasn't meaning I'm not interested in it, and that I think it's a waste of time, but if we're ever going to get a webcam in space pointing at the Earth, it's going to be on a satellite with other purposes.

If you were to start a petition or something like that calling for something like a webcam to be put on a satellite to be launched in the near future, I'd gladly sign it. It'd be a really interesting tool, and quite an odd feeling looking down on our own little planet.

The Tate project did bring up a good idea though, it will be either a gallery or museum who'd put up the cash for something like that. Maybe that's an avenue to start looking into?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
You still say never?

You know technology is moving pretty fast. Virgin Galactic coming and all it seems like the private sector is soon to hit the galactic frontier....

Things should get interesting when a business can out perform Nasa.

Which makes me think, Why did they choose New Mexico anyways?

From Wikipedia -


On December 13, 2005, Branson announced that Virgin Galactic will construct a spaceport in southern New Mexico at a cost of $225 million USD[2], and that Virgin Galactic will begin flights in 2008. Plans show that 90% of the complex will be underground.


Underground huh? That's pretty interesting too!

Yeah, if there's anything else in space, like UFOs, disclosure will happen soon.

But as I was saying, technology is moving along nicely, never is a word I'm having a hard time finding in my vocabulary.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I gree with 4for4, no one is going to fund putting a satelite that is only a webcam into orbit, I mean it would be much more conomical for them to add other things onto it, say like still cameras and weather montioring equipment.

It's a really dumb idea to launch a satelite that is only a webcam.


How long do you think it would even stay in orbit?
I mean apart from the fact that satelites orbits decay because of gravity, how long does a wbcam last for anyways, do you really expect that a company is going to spen millions of dollars, because it costs over 1,000,000 dollars to launch something into orbit, to spend the money not just to launch it, but launch a replacement for when it fails?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join