The Black Knight Satellite - more questions than answers

Maybe it's still classified but I'd be looking at Nazi Germany as a possible source for this thing. These guys were way ahead of everyone else except in the area of the A-bomb.

Hi Everyone, I was realizing that no one has mentioned this:

In 1973, the Scottish astronomer and science fiction writer Duncan Lunan claimed to have managed to interpret a message caught in the 1920s by two Norwegian physicists[21] that, according to his theory, came from a probe orbiting the Moon and sent there by the inhabitants of a planet orbiting Epsilon Boötis.[22] The story was even reported in Time magazine.[23] Lunan later withdrew his Epsilon Boötis theory, presenting proofs against it and clarifying why he was brought to formulate it in the first place.[24]

from en.wikipedia.org...

So the guys who discovered it, disproved it. What do you think? Has anyone seen the evidence for and against?
Which is most plausible? Is there evidence of a cover up?

Originally posted by NJoyZ
So the guys who discovered it, disproved it. What do you think? Has anyone seen the evidence for and against?
Which is most plausible? Is there evidence of a cover up?

The debate was fully in public at the time, I recall following it with interest, and as new evidence came in, Duncan decided his hypothesis was no longer valid and said so. You can email him if you want to hear it from him directly. No hint of nasty MIBs or payoffs. Just authentic scientific inquiry and debate.

To see his words falsely attributed to a fictional 'transmission' from a mythical probe is silly, but hardly unusual for the world of UFOria.

reply to post by JimOberg


Whereas, Venus changing colour and doing loop the loops then growing 4 times the size and vanishing, as an explanation coming from the people you worked for Jim was wholly "scientific".

There again, why would you let Phage explain the STS 88 rather than yourself? Surely you knew, or was there just a hint of guilt nagging at you about that one, cos you know as does anyone else, who knows the first thing about protocols in space are very much against "chucking any more litter than is absolutely necessary from space ships due to the extreme hazards it can cause".

I'd suggest you lay off making the "smart arsed" quips about Ufologists until your own people quit insulting people's intelligence with some of the utter bilge they pass off as a "scientific explanation".

reply to post by Phage


Just for completeness

For one thing, the space shuttles did not have polar orbits.

The public acknowledged space shuttle missions did no involve polar orbits.

Polar orbits

The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit.

There are some benefits, the window of detection of the satellite is shorter and it costs less fuel to make large changes to the satellite overpass.

I do find this whole topic intensely interesting, but I had to laugh at the "shot of the real thing" or possibe "artists impression" of this satellite shown at approx 6:23 in the video. Not sure where they thought this pic was taken from but I most definitely do know...its taken from Episode 1 of "Silver Nemesis" from the Classic Doctor Who Series. :-)

Seriously! Guess that living metal Valadium was more trouble than even they thought! :-)

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Phage

 

Just for completeness

For one thing, the space shuttles did not have polar orbits.

The public acknowledged space shuttle missions did no involve polar orbits.

No space shuttle went into polar orbit. They all launched from Florida on climb-out azimuths ranging from due east to northeast, giving inclinations ranging from 28 to 63 degrees. Attaining polar orbit on such ascent profiles is physically impossible.

Polar orbits

The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit.

There are some benefits, the window of detection of the satellite is shorter and it costs less fuel to make large changes to the satellite overpass.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Do you plan to change the 'overpass' [never heard that term in space orbits] by altering the orbital plane or orbital period? The latter is the usual technique and I don't see how orbital inclination has anything to do with it. Please clarify.

reply to post by JimOberg


I'm no expert but ...

From Last Chapter Opens For Space Shuttle Born Of Compromise @ space.com.

Another Defense Department-driven requirement, Logsdon said, was the ability to take off and return to a West Coast launch site after a single polar orbit. Because of the Earth's rotation, a single polar orbit would not bring the shuttle back directly over its launch site, meaning it would have to glide farther through the atmosphere to land than otherwise would be the case. That drove NASA to add large delta-shaped wings and a more robust--not to mention heavier-- thermal protection system to its space shuttle design.

looking at Astrodynamics @ Wikibooks regarding Launch Inclination and Latitude, I see the point you are making but can't the shuttle and a satellite be moved into polar orbit?

From Wikipedia articles...

STS-61-F (Challenger) Planned Launch Date: 15 May 1986 Primary mission intended to deploy the Ulysses solar polar orbiter with a Centaur-G upper stage. Most of the crew would fly on the first post-Challenger shuttle mission, STS-26. Ulysses itself would eventually be launched by Discovery on STS-41 with an IUS.

Since polar orbits can allow full global coverage on a regular basis, they are often used for earth-mapping, earth observation and reconnaissance satellites, as well as some weather satellites. However, polar orbits require more energy than a typical eastward launch, as they do not benefit from the earth's rotational speed of over 850 miles per hour (1,370 km/h) at this latitude. Achieving a polar orbit from a Florida launch site is possible, but because Kennedy Space Center has major population centers to both the North and South, polar orbit flights would require hugely inefficient maneuvers to avoid them, reducing payload capacity by 30% due to the extra fuel required to reach orbit.

Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6) was declared operational during acceptance ceremonies held on October 15, 1985. However, much additional work and testing was still required. ''Enterprise'' was used for a series of fit checks like those conducted at LC-39 in 1980.

The inaugural polar-orbit flight, designated STS-62-A, and using ''Discovery'' with Shuttle veteran Robert Crippen as commander, was planned for October 15, 1986. However, the ''Challenger'' Disaster of January 28, 1986 grounded the Shuttle fleet as efforts were concentrated on recovery and returning the program to flight after a two year hiatus.

The article STS-62A: The Polar Express also contains more information.

This to me seems to indicate that there is the possibility that non public missions may in fact have used polar orbits. Note that polar orbits as I stated are extremely interesting for military/surveillance purposes. This is also interesting in the context of The Black Knight Satellite.

The overpass I mentioned was in reference to ground detection of the satellite. See the STS-62A: The Polar Express IIRC it mentions some of the defense dep. considerations.

I'm still out on whether its a hoax or not. Has anybody noticed the 7 year/multiples of 7 years intervals of reports that tie into or could possibly tie into this thing? Start with 1953 - go back 7 years to 1946, somebody earlier mentioned something about the Swedish Ghost Rockets in 1946. Subtract multiples of 7 from 1946 and you get 2 opportunities for the radio echoes of the 1930s - '39 and '32. Going forward from 1953 and there is the 1960 report and then the report from 1974 after that - anything from'67?.
If it is a hoax, the multiples of 7 years thing is an interesting angle - a whisp of smoke that only conspiracy folks would grasp for..Circumstantial evidence of a government involvement as only a government could carry out a program of deception for that long? Or, if it happens to be true, a returning orbital flyby that has been collecting data on us every 7 years!
Does anybody have any reports from '81, '88, '95, 2002 or 2009 that could possibly tie in? Let's see if this one has legs...

reply to post by JimOberg

Over the years, better theories were developed and tested.

For instance? Thanks in advance for your reply.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I'm no expert but ...

No apology necessary. You did real homework and it was related to the factual issue at hand. Well done.

From Last Chapter Opens For Space Shuttle Born Of Compromise @ space.com.

Another Defense Department-driven requirement, Logsdon said, was the ability to take off and return to a West Coast launch site after a single polar orbit. Because of the Earth's rotation, a single polar orbit would not bring the shuttle back directly over its launch site, meaning it would have to glide farther through the atmosphere to land than otherwise would be the case. That drove NASA to add large delta-shaped wings and a more robust--not to mention heavier-- thermal protection system to its space shuttle design.

looking at Astrodynamics @ Wikibooks regarding Launch Inclination and Latitude, I see the point you are making but can't the shuttle and a satellite be moved into polar orbit?

Changing course in orbit isn't really like steering a winged vehicle in an atmosphere, or flying a 'battlestar galactica' fighter. I don't mean to imply you think so, I just want to stress how unearthly space flight really is and how our lifetimes of 'common sense' based on our environment can subtly and subconsciously mislead us.

With a velocity of 25,000 ft/sec, needed to avoid falling into the atmosphere, a satellite can change its direction only by sideways thrusting. But from trigonometry, you can determine that to even shift direction one degree requires a sideways velocity change of about 440 ft/sec. To shift 25 degrees, to get into a polar orbit from one attainable from Florida, would require 11,000 ft/sec change.

That number doesn't seem unreasonably considering it takes 25,000 ft/sec [actually the booster needs to 'deliver' about 28,000 ft/sec during ascent due to inefficiencies]. But that also involves massive rockets and fuel tanks. The shuttle, once in orbit, has only a small set of pods with maneuvering fuel, that can deliver 700-900 ft/sec, and half of that is reserved for deorbit.

Now, you CAN launch directly into a polar orbit from Florida, but that means heading due north or south from liftoff. This puts a fully-fuelled rocket right over populated areas for long periods of time, is forbidden for that reason, and never has been done. Occasionally a booster can 'steer' a few degrees steeper after flying out over the ocean but it costs most of the payload performance and is an extreme measure.






]

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Over the years, better theories were developed and tested.

For instance? Thanks in advance for your reply.

This is an exercise best "left to the student". When you've exhausted the resources of search engines, ask again. But you really ought to be able to find this out on your own, no disrespect intended.

Originally posted by Panic2k11

The article STS-62A: The Polar Express also contains more information.

This to me seems to indicate that there is the possibility that non public missions may in fact have used polar orbits. Note that polar orbits as I stated are extremely interesting for military/surveillance purposes. This is also interesting in the context of The Black Knight Satellite.

After the Challenger disaster revealed shocking miscalculations about safety, NASA realized that the high-power Solid Rocket Boosters and the overstressed Main Engines, both required to get into polar orbit, were too hazardous. That was the primary reason the missions were cancelled, even though a crew was already in training for the first launch.

I do have to admit that in the aftermath of Challenger and a series of other rocket explosions, the DoD got a lot more gun-shy about publicity, and soon afterwards launched a routine spy satellite from Vandenberg into polar orbit, and didn't bother to release any news -- or even register it with the United Nations. It got away with it due to deep fog, apparently -- but only for a few months.

But that was a proven-out existing booster. The requirements for a polar shuttle mission were untested, and cancelled. And a shuttle mission really IS a lot harder to hide, especially because people can eyeball it from the ground even when it's in orbit.

The overpass I mentioned was in reference to ground detection of the satellite. See the STS-62A: The Polar Express IIRC it mentions some of the defense dep. considerations.

reply to post by JimOberg

What an amazing bit of technology review that was. Thank you. I do so appreciate when experts come here and elevate our level of knowledge.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by JimOberg

 

What an amazing bit of technology review that was. Thank you. I do so appreciate when experts come here and elevate our level of knowledge.

I think it's important for tightly-focused 'experts' to understand how to explain, because THEY need explanations in most other fields. I've often encountered a cultural 'priesthood mentality' that preserves an aura of 'inside knowledge' not to be disclosed to "the masses". But I've been too excited about how neat the stuff i've been privileged to get into, really is, to shut up about it.

It's usually not a question of intelligence or even experience of non-experts -- the main difficulty I've found is the high degree of assumptions and reasonable guesses -- reasonable for earthside experience -- about really weird stuff, that no longer is applicable to the new world of outer space. You've got to UNlearn a lot of things you think you 'know' -- everybody does, in any field they're not directly exposed to -- and then starting over from the beginning is so much easier.

Now, string theory and cosmology? I have no hope of ever being smart enough to catch on there, and it'll probably change in a few years anyway. So I've just given up and only listen to Michio Kaku to admire his style.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Over the years, better theories were developed and tested.

For instance? Thanks in advance for your reply.

This is an exercise best "left to the student". When you've exhausted the resources of search engines, ask again. But you really ought to be able to find this out on your own, no disrespect intended.

None taken. Like you said, look it up.

Long Delay Echo (LDE) of radio signals circa 1928...

en.wikipedia.org...

I heard the usual echo (from transmissions) which goes round the Earth with an interval of about 1/7 of a second as well as a weaker echo about three seconds after the principal echo had gone. When the principal signal was especially strong, I suppose the amplitude for the last echo three seconds later, lay between 1/10 and 1/20 of the principal signal in strength.

So the radio signal strength weakens each time it circles the globe.

(Signals) travel many times around the world. Signals can travel around the Earth seven times in one second. Such signals are not uncommon.

"Goodacre reports that he pointed his antenna towards the horizon and received his own 28 MHz signal delayed by up to about 9 seconds.... His measurement implies travel up to 65 rounds around the earth." Probably the upper frequency limit for such effects.

The most popular current theory is that the radio signals are trapped between two ionized layers in the atmosphere and then are guided around the world many times over until they fall out of a gap in the bottom layer. (Ducting propagation between air layers in the lower atmosphere is a well-understood phenonemon. See Radio propagation.)

I remember this from my Shortwave experience. A "cloudy day" all over the earth makes for good reception. Signals bounce back and forth between the ground and the clouds traveling further than they would if the skies are sunny. The more cloudy the world is the further the signals travel. Multiple passes over the antenna results in echoes. Long Delay Echoes are caused by returns after traveling many times around the globe. But mostly these are really only short duration "echo plex" sounding echos. Like a guitar on reverb.

The really long delays are the ones that peeked my interest because in the OP's link reference was made to signals that "took days to return". I had never heard of that before and I wondered if there was a hoax afoot or someone recording signals and playing them back. This was in the early days and radio was a somewhat misunderstood technology. Because you hear a broadcast twice on the radio doesn't mean it has been echoed from "Hidden Black Night Polar Orbit Satellites".

To give a indication of how little understood the technology was here is a little twit wit...

heim.ifi.uio.no...

At that time, radio was a novel and unexplored field; it was for instance only a few years since 1924 when the US government had tried to get all transmitters in the country to observe radio silence for 5 minutes every hour for two days to listen for signals from Mars.

Seems the notion of radio signals from other planets was a sought after thing. Embellishment of such sources of atmospheric heterodyning and even hoaxes helped in fact spawn an entire genre called science fiction without which we wouldn't have science I guess. Jules Vern and H.G. Wells were inspired by this stuff I am sure.

In fact H.G. Wells broadcast of the War of the Worlds caused some people (who should have had on their tinfoil hats) to run screaming into the woods. Nowadays with the internet the world ends about every 12 minutes or so.

Thanks prof for sending me to research it for myself. Very enlightening.

Originally posted by NJoyZ
Hi Everyone, I was realizing that no one has mentioned this:

In 1973, the Scottish astronomer and science fiction writer Duncan Lunan claimed to have managed to interpret a message caught in the 1920s by two Norwegian physicists[21] that, according to his theory, came from a probe orbiting the Moon and sent there by the inhabitants of a planet orbiting Epsilon Boötis.[22] The story was even reported in Time magazine.[23] Lunan later withdrew his Epsilon Boötis theory, presenting proofs against it and clarifying why he was brought to formulate it in the first place.[24]

from en.wikipedia.org...

So the guys who discovered it, disproved it. What do you think? Has anyone seen the evidence for and against?
Which is most plausible? Is there evidence of a cover up?

I just did some pseudo research for a post about this. There is a link in the WIKI link you brought that covers this somewhat...
Scroll down to the "Extraterestrial Explanations" section:

heim.ifi.uio.no...

Measurement round-off. But most of the time they seem to have used rather improvised measurement setups. In addition to Størmer's comment above on accuracy, note what van der Pol said [v. d. Pol, 1928] on how measurements were done during the simultaneous reception of echoes in Oslo and Eindhoven on 24 October 1928: The timing of the (first set of) observations was done with a stop watch, while for the (second set of) observations the second hand of an ordinary watch was used.

One second unit. The second is not a universal unit, but may be related to human physiology, as a typical heart beat lasts for one second. If the extra-terrestrial civilization knew us so well that they knew our units for time, then they for sure would know a lot of other things about us as well. Why didn't they choose to communicate to us in a much more obvious way, with all that background knowledge about us already?

I think that the two were playing with a technology that they didn't fully understand. Mapping Long Delay Echos (LDE)s on charts to point to alien civilizations with a second hand on a watch wouldn't be very precise. I believe that is partly why they retracted their announcement. Looking back we can question it and start a whole new conspiracy all over again.

reply to post by intrptr


Yeah, I am not sure what to believe about the long delay echos recorded in the twenties. I am sure there is a good explanation for them, but as to what that explanation is, I don't know.

I'd like to find out more, too. Let's take this chance and see how the new research tools out there can help us delve deeper. If the phenomenon was natural, why has it stopped? Or has it? This is a good chance to 'crowd source' the puzzle.

reply to post by JimOberg

Hey now. As if on cue, Nasa TV pointed out one aspect of the mechanism that could contribute to Long Delay Echoes of Ham radio broadcasts. Fermi's gamma ray detector picked up on a lightning generated gamma burst that traveled along Earth's Magnetic field lines, passing the satellite and then echoing back moments later.

So it seems that it is at least possible for signals (under certain conditions) to do that. Lightning is a lot more powerful than a Ham radio set to be sure, but there you go. Maybe I love Lucy is ghosting around out there to this day --- The Horror

www.nasa.gov...

The distant storm was below Fermi's horizon, so any gamma rays it produced could not have been detected.

"Even though Fermi couldn't see the storm, the spacecraft nevertheless was magnetically connected to it," said Joseph Dwyer at the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Fla. "The TGF produced high-speed electrons and positrons, which then rode up Earth's magnetic field to strike the spacecraft."

The beam continued past Fermi, reached a location, known as a mirror point, where its motion was reversed, and then hit the spacecraft a second time just 23 milliseconds later.