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.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic
The search resumed over a week ago after repairs were completed.
Thanks for the link. That confirms my thought from several pages ago:
originally posted by: michael1888
Raw Data
Heres a link to the raw data thats just released.
According to what was released, it's a combination, not one or the other as I suspected:
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I'm not sure that Inmarsat's or Exner's analysis is correct; what if they are both wrong? Exner seems to say the reference point is the ground station in Australia rather than the satellite, but what if it's not either the ground station or the satellite, but some combination (sometimes the ground station, sometimes the satellite)?
I don't think Exner took all these into account, but then I'm not sure how Inmarsat took them into account either, such as what do they estimate the " individual aircraft terminal" "fixed frequency bias" and how did they estimate it, or did they? Exner made a big deal about why the frequency offset wasn't closer to zero before the plane took off, but he doesn't appear to have considered this.
The transmission signal path from the aircraft has two components affected by Doppler shift; between the satellite and the aircaft, and between the satellite and ground station.
Inmarsat Classic Aero mobile terminals are designed to correct for aircraft Doppler effects on their transmit signals, The terminal type used on MH370 assumes a stationary satellite at a fixed orbital position.
An individual aircraft terminal will have a fixed frequency bias.
Satellite, terminal and ground station oscillator stability
The correction applied bu the Automatic Frequency Control (AFC) system in the ground station partially compensates for the satellite to ground station Doppler.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic
And look at the date of that article. A week ago.
m.scmp.com...
This is the last week of searching until possibly August, but it's out there looking. Repairs were completed and it returned to the search area.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic
So the articles that say it's back out for a week and has been back out for a well are lies, but the articles that it's broken are the truth. Double standard much?
I'm aware it's going to be discontinued until August, all the sources say that. But it has been repaired and back at sea for a week now, and once this search pattern is ended, then it will be discontinued.
Sorry, but I'm not going top just take your word for it when there are multiple credible sourcessaying otherwise. Unless you can prove them wrong, "read my lips" doesn't come close to cutting it.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic
This source has a reputation to protect and are careful about the things they write.
Flightglobal
Here's a google search about it. Pick your source. All agree that the ROV went back out about a week ago.
Google search
originally posted by: Psynic
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic
The search resumed over a week ago after repairs were completed.
So they would have you believe.
The underwater search was postponed while the 'Yellow Submarine' returned to Perth for "maintenance". After two weeks it returned to the search area, where on it's first dive, it was damaged during recovery and was forced to return to Australia for "repairs".
Due to a "lack of spare parts" supposedly, it has not been in operation since.
They are only attempting to give the impression of a search in progress, they stopped a month ago and never resumed.
nz.news.yahoo.com...
A series of pings detected in the southern Indian Ocean and originally believed to have come from missing Malaysia Airlines jet MH370 are now thought to have been emitted from either the searching ship itself or equipment used to detect the pings, a US Navy official says.
Michael Dean, the US Navy's director of ocean engineering, told CNN that authorities now believed the four acoustic pings at the centre of the search off the West Australian coast did not come from the missing passenger jet's black boxes, but from a "man-made source".
"Our best theory at this point is that (the pings were) likely some sound produced by the ship ... or within the electronics of the Towed Pinger Locator," Mr Dean told CNN on Wednesday.
"Always your fear any time you put electronic equipment in the water is that if any water gets in and grounds or shorts something out, that you could start producing sound."
Link
Coming from the ship itself? What on the ship? Coming from the pinger locator if water seeped in? Sorry but this claim is idiotic. Acoustic pinging at 33 kHz at specific intervals is not a realistic failure mode for water leaking into electronics.
Chris Johnson, a spokesman for the US Navy, described Mr Dean's comments as "speculative" and "premature".