I Bought a Satellite and All I Got Was This Stupid News Post

[SilentHunter7]

*double post*

 

[SilentHunter7]

*snip*

Let's hope the satellite is over Canada. God knows they need an alternative the crap they've been handed.

This is awesome and all, but can you really "park" a satelite? The things don't hold that much fuel...

Of course you can. Once you get a payload out of the atmosphere, all you have to do is accelerate it enough so that it'll orbit the earth. Once you hit orbital velocity, you don't need any boost to keep altitude. You're effectively going so fast that you're missing the Earth as you fall. They actually call these 'parking orbits'.

And at 22,000 mi above sea level, (36,000 km), a satellite at orbital velocity will complete one orbit in exactly one day. Meaning the satellite will always be above the same part of the earth, with no fuel needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_Orbit

This is the reason people with satellite dishes don't need to move the dish every 5 seconds to keep it pointed at the satellite.

 

[angry_flashlight]

The question remains how the poorest nations of the world are supposed to afford computers with an internet connection fast enough to load most sites without taking three pages per page.

Although it's a nice idea.

 

[Voodoomancer]

This is awesome and all, but can you really "park" a satelite? The things don't hold that much fuel...

Of course you can. Once you get a payload out of the atmosphere, all you have to do is accelerate it enough so that it'll orbit the earth. Once you hit orbital velocity, you don't need any boost to keep altitude. You're effectively going so fast that you're missing the Earth as you fall. They actually call these 'parking orbits'.

And at 22,000 mi above sea level, (36,000 km), a satellite at orbital velocity will complete one orbit in exactly one day. Meaning the satellite will always be above the same part of the earth, with no fuel needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_Orbit

This is the reason people with satellite dishes don't need to move the dish every 5 seconds to keep it pointed at the satellite.

I know that, I was just wondering if the satellite had enough fuel to move it into the needed orbit from whatever orbit it is in now, unless it's orbital position is another reason they want to buy it.

 

[SilentHunter7]

I know that, I was just wondering if the satellite had enough fuel to move it into the needed orbit from whatever orbit it is in now, unless it's orbital position is another reason they want to buy it.

Oh. My bad. Well probably. It is a communications satellite, so I'd imagine it's in some kind of stationary orbit. But if they wanted to move it over Africa or something, all they'd have to do is raise or lower its altitude by kilometer or two, and wait until it's in the right spot, and then bring it back to a Geosynch altitude. You'd only need a few kilos of fuel to do that, though it would shorten the life of the satellite, as you'd have a lot less fuel for minor orbital corrections over the years.

And if it's not, the space shuttle can move it to wherever the hell they wan- oh wait, that's right, they canceled the shuttle program.

 

[Carnagath]

I bet when the sum gets high enough he's just gonna take the money and run and you'll never hear from him again. Cause that's what Greeks usually do. And I'm qualified to make that statement, being Greek myself.

 

[Vanaron]

All you have just done is shown how little you know of the reality in many of these countries. Believe it or not, but the Western world is a far more pleasant, peaceful place than the likes of Somalia and Columbia.

You have no idea where Colombia is, do you?

Your phone calls are monitored whether you like it or not etc.
Can you really imagine, say, Columbia, or Somalia having such strict measures in place?
And yes you have to be a damn realist - being an idealist will just lead to people getting killed "BECUZ WAT I DID WAS DER NICEST THING 2 DO!". Not everyone is raised in a sunshine world filled with rabbits and candy, you have to consider the darker implications as they are very real and more so in these volatile countries.

The idea that the reason the US is safe with the internet because the big brother is watching you is dumb... In fact the reason Colombia has such a high murder per capita rate is because if you do or say the wrong thing the FARC will come and kill you, hard... The US government is to "strict measures" what the care bears are to hate speech when compared to the FARC.

Seriously, the problem on all of these places you just mentioned is ignorance... People being kept down by their overlords through ignorance. A problem to which the internet is a part of the solution.

Knowledge is a Human Right and the Internet is a mean through which knowledge is spread, keeping knowledge from people because "they can't handle it" is quite fascistic.

Edit: Adding a to where a to was due.

 

[sosolidshoe]

Clever idea that hasn't been thought through. You will need to provide said people with wireless receivers and PC's if need be, not to mention claiming the internet is a "human right" is absurd. When the internet is better monitored with the illegal & dangerous content removed, sure, then claim it as a right, but before then, tread carefully as we've seen in Egypt what modern communications can result in (not to mention the countless paedophiles arrested).

In Egypt? What, you mean the mass of oppressed citizenry rising up against a corrupt and autocratic regime which has plunged them and their families into poverty while stealing vast sums of public money? That Egypt?

Sounds fucking brilliant to me.

Access to information is very much a human right, without information we cannot make free choices, either as citizens or as consumers. Since the internet is the pre-eminent method of accessing information in the modern world, why the hell wouldn't access to it be considered as much of a right as any other?

 

[VirusHunter]

Blah blah blah "internet isn't a right" blah blah

But just look at what's happening these days in terms of commercialism and restrictions on the internet. Having a free, non-profit internet service provider would be a good step towards free speech and free access to information rights. It would certainly be a blow to governments who try to restrict or censor internet access in their countries.

 

[SilentHunter7]

How did mass communications and Rwanda work out?

You mean the 'mass communications' that were controlled by the government? When only one entity is allowed to speak, then I'd say information isn't exactly free.

Maybe if the Hutu had access to information sources other than the official propaganda, they would've realized that their government was full of shit.

 

[SilentHunter7]

But that doesn't change the fact that what can be promoted via mass communications can cause massive problems. Is the internet not used to help organise terrorism etc? These countries would need communication monitoring more than any other, and yet the idea would promote a completely unregulated internet connection. Go go naive Westerners.

Who would monitor the internet? Who on earth has the clairvoyance and moral and ethical authority to judge what information should and should not be shared? Homeland Security? A local dictator? You?

And I don't think anyone from a developed country can say that they need internet monitoring more than anyone considering we're the ones that invented 4chan and software piracy.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Who should monitor the internet - let's see...the same people that monitor your phone calls? Seems a good idea to me.

So you're saying you'd be cool with it if President Obama suddenly ordered Homeland Security to block anything on the internet that bad-mouths the United States? So that noone in the UK, France, Russia, China, or Japan could voice disapproval, or broadcast news on the web that paints the US in a negative light?

In the entire history of human civilization, more often than not, measures taken to regulate information to protect the people quickly changes into regulations to protect the interests of a select few.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Ermm... faster than the speed of light? No. Surely they're planning on beaming this from the satellite with waves that travel at ostensibly less than the speed of light?

Eh, no to both.

Obscure theories aside, nothing can go faster than light.

But, a satellite usually broadcasts radio signals of some kind, which is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is, in short, a form of light.

Thus, it the satellite will transmit at the speed of light precisely.
(minus the lag for the satellite to reprocess and retransmit whatever signals it is getting.)

No; it will have to travel through the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not a vacuum. Thus it will travel at a speed of light, but not the speed generally referred to as `The speed of light'.

The atmosphere is mostly composed of air though.
The speed of light in air is near enough to the speed of light in a vacuum that it's only different if you're being pedantic.
And over the distances involved, the internal processes within the satellite itself will still dwarf that speed difference by millions of orders of magnitude.

But, technically, OK, you got me. The speed of light in the earth's atmosphere is lower than that commonly cited as the speed of light. (Ie. Speed of light in a vacuum.)

 

[Vrach]

This sounds good and all... until you realize we've already ran out of IP addresses...

Y2K MAN, Y2K!!!!! Also, IPv6. Look it up.

Also, that sounds awesome. Hope the guys pull it off

 

[SilentHunter7]

I have to congratulate you on that blatant strawman. Since when was national security the same as preventing the freedom of speech?
The West is lucky enough to have such an established law & order system that we need only monitor communications. However in places like Columbia and South Africa, regulation would be needed as they do not have the adequate law & order in place to quickly act if terrorism etc was to be promoted through the internet.

Again, who would regulate it? The Dictators over there, or a foreign power? How would they know what's good for the people or not? Would the regulator be looking out for the people's interests, or their own?

How would you regulate it? Put up a giant firewall, ala China? Somehow get foreign jurisdiction over the country? Put a puppet in power?

Why would you regulate it? Do you seriously think these people need to be told what to think and say? The internet is more than a tool for terrorism, and not all 3rd world citizens want to bomb 1st world countries. The internet is a tool of learning and a catalyst for sweeping cultural and scientific advancement, and shouldn't be denied to anyone because of what some retards *might* use it for.