The Black Knight satellite ((( in the sky before sputnik )))

Unless it has some kind of masking technology it should be rather easy to fine with oh, 10,000s of amateur astronomers one would think.

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by PennySaint

 

I think it's strange that you would say that there was nothing on ATS about his topic and then you proceeded to use direct quotes from the other thread in your post.

Report him to the mods.

*Or whine, you could keep whining...

Originally posted by Malcram

One thing that jumps to mind is that it might be possible for two objects in different orbits to be in reasonably close proximity for a time, enough for someone to use the phrase "Was detected shadowing the Sputnik" loosely and poetically. Perhaps the statement was first made in reference to the time before the specific orbit was known and the phrase arose in reference to what was perceived to be the case at the time, when it was observed, rather than later when the orbit was known?

Just thinking out loud.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by Malcram]

It might be possible, but two objects traveling 17,000 MPH perpendicular to each other if and when they pass I wouldn't think there would be much of a shadow...hehe


[edit on 18-1-2010 by Xtrozero]

I remember now!

Yes, this was big news when it first came out. As far as I know it is legit.

Edit to add link on LDEs.

Other suspicious NEOs.

[edit on 1/18/2010 by Matyas]

reply to post by PennySaint


I have not heard of this before, and I was engaged in very ccovert areospace work in the 1980's and 90's. We had the ability to move satilites to other orbits in 1960, starting with "Corrona". It was the first spy satalite, at least according to the party line...

You raise some interesting points. I have long thought human civilization has risen and fell many times. After all, that odd satalite might even be ours (humanity), launched a very long time ago.

is this thing still in orbit????
you would think with all of the technology that we have today we would be able to track it if not send someone up there to take a look at it, right???

To those of you who think that a satellite can stay in geostationary orbit forever and a day.

It can't.

There is such a thing as orbital decay.

It happens because of gravitational pull and it is the reason why there is thruster fuel on orbiting satellites.
Once they run out of thruster fuel their orbit starts to decay and eventually they plummet...

Gravitational pull is the very same reason for our moon drifting away from earth and it the reason why the moon can influence tidal waters.

If the moon is enough to cause a tide of several meters because of gravitational pull why shouldn't a small(ish) satellite be influenced by the same forces? Have we already invented anti-gravety?

A fascinating thread. It reminds me of another mystery. Back in the 80's(?) when voyager spacecraft flew past Saturn, there was a brief flurry of interest in a mysterious radio source that was in one of Saturn's rings. It was referred to as the 'blivit in the B ring'. It apparently was a very powerful radio emission (just noise) and when optical telescopes were focused on that part of Saturn's B Ring, they were unable to see anything unusual. Their telescopes were powerful enough to make out any object larger than a car. Which means that something smaller than a car was emitting a lot of radio energy. Another aspect was that these radio signals were polarized which means nothing to a non-engineer like me but apparently all natural radio signals like those from our sun, are NOT polarized. There was some speculation that perhaps this was some kind of alien intelligence test to see if we would make the effort to send a manned mission to Saturn to investigate. Shades of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 monolith. I never did learn what if any concensus the scientists came to.

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by PennySaint

 

I think it's strange that you would say that there was nothing on ATS about his topic and then you proceeded to use direct quotes from the other thread in your post.

This suspicion has already been raised and addressed in this thread just a few posts prior to yours. It's not actually 'strange' at all.



[edit on 18-1-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


You may be right in theory but a geostationary orbit is very high. Something on the order of 24,000 miles above the earth. There is still stuff in low earth orbit (200 miles or so) that's been orbiting since the 60's. Even if orbital decay is a fact, it may still take thousands of years for a geo-stationary satellite to decay low enough to fall to earth but here is my question. Why don't planetary orbits decay to the point where they fall into the sun? Isn't that the same thing?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

It might be possible, but two objects traveling 17,000 MPH perpendicular to each other if and when they pass I wouldn't think there would be much of a shadow...hehe

LOL True, in that case you might get as far as 'Sha.."

But were these two objects actually in orbits that were perpendicular (at 90 degrees) to each other, as you appear to suggest?

Or are you using that as an extreme example for comic effect.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Mystery Object Discovered in Earths Orbit

(click to open player in new window)

Hi Slayer, some of those pictures in that video are very interesting indeed -do you know if theres any info on the heritage?



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c9a3a54bcd54.jpg[/atsimg]

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by Beancounter72
reply to post by HolgerTheDane

 

You may be right in theory but a geostationary orbit is very high. Something on the order of 24,000 miles above the earth. There is still stuff in low earth orbit (200 miles or so) that's been orbiting since the 60's. Even if orbital decay is a fact, it may still take thousands of years for a geo-stationary satellite to decay low enough to fall to earth but here is my question. Why don't planetary orbits decay to the point where they fall into the sun? Isn't that the same thing?

[I]While a geostationary orbit has many benefits and uses it also has drawbacks. Like all satellites, the orbit of a geostationary satellite will decay over time. Due to the drag of gravity from the Moon and the Earth, the satellite will slowly lose speed. This will first cause the satellite to drift from the fixed point on the Earth's surface it is supposed to stay focused on. Eventually it will no longer be able to maintain the speed necessary to stay in orbit, and will be caught and pulled down by the force of the Earth's gravitational field.

or this one


While a geostationary orbit should hold a satellite in fixed position above the equator, orbital perturbations, such as by the MoonMoon
The Moon is Earth's only natural satellite and the fifth largest satellite in the Solar System. The average centre-to-centre distance from the Earth to the Moon is , about thirty times the diameter of the Earth. The common centre of mass of the system is located at about —a quarter the Earth's...
and from the fact that the Earth is not an exact sphereSphere
A sphere is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space, such as the shape of a round ball. Like a circle in two dimensions, a perfect sphere is completely symmetrical around its center, with all points on the surface lying the same distance r from the center point...
cause slow but steady drift away from the geostationary location. Satellites correct for these effects with station-keepingOrbital stationkeeping
In astrodynamics orbital station-keeping is a term used to describe a particular set of orbital maneuvers used to keep a spacecraft in assigned orbit, either low earth orbit , or geostationary orbit...
maneuvers. In the absence of servicing missions from the Earth, the consumption of thruster propellant for station-keeping places a limitation on the lifetime of the satellite.


Orbit Maintenance

Once in their mission orbits, many satellites need no additional orbit adjustment. On the other hand, mission requirements may demand that we maneuver the satellite to correct the orbital elements when perturbing forces have changed them. Two particular cases of note are satellites with repeating ground tracks and geostationary satellites.


To your question about planertary orbit decaying into the sun:
check Newtons laws on this site

Found another bit from The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System which suggests a possible timeframe for orbital decay.

"The problem of a possible satellite collision due to the geostationary orbit decay is examined in view of the increasing number of geostationary satellites and the hazard of in-orbit exhaustion of fuel. A number of orbital decay mechanisms are outlined, among them electromagnetic drag on a charged satellite, meteorite and micrometeorite collisions, and solar radiation pressure. It is suggested that a geostationary satellite be boosted up to an altitude of 100-150 km prior to the expected exhaustion of fuel, which will delay the problem by about 500 years. "

Thos states that an orbital change from 37.000 km to 100-150.000 km delays the collission problem by 500 years.

In other words the orbital decay from 100.000 km+ to 37.000 km (63.000 km) takes about 500 years.

So from 37.000 km to Critical Plummet Orbit must be much less than 500 years.

reply to post by anubis1_1


We are faced with the very tantalizing probability of an alien artifact within human reach.

I linked to NEOs because these orbits are different from Earth orbits. As simply as I can state it, satellites can move around the Sun longer than around the Earth without active course correction.

My assumptions are as follows:

1. There are numerous civilizations (out there), some say no more than 60 based on the Drake equation, I say more than a million in our galaxy alone based on a hunch.

2. Like us, they find it more feasible to send probes to other stars. Most likely in the millions for each space faring culture.

3. These probes can afford to wait, and are highly intelligent. How would you build a probe to make contact if your civilization is not likely to be around after the fact?

4. Being intelligent, the probes collect data on new civilizations when a new spectrum is used by them, and send a signal based upon its findings. Then they start scanning other spectrums when the original one fills up with noise.

5. The probes can actively modify their orbits by taking advantage of natural resources, thus preventing tampering or destruction.

6. In the future these probes will become harder to find, primarily because our communications will become quieter over time and we will begin venturing further out into space.

7. Then we will begin sending our own.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


Your explanations of why satellites in geo-synchronous orbits decay makes no sense. Geo-synchronous orbit means the satellite falls towards the earth at precisely the same rate at the horizon of the earth falls away. That's why it stays above the same spot on earth all the time. if the satellite were to drop lower, it would speed up and would no longer be geo-stationary. The physical laws governing celetial bodies are the same whether it's a moon or a satellite. And don't quote me Newton's Law's. His THEORIES have never been either experimentally or mathematically proven to work all the time, everywhere without exception. We refer to them a Laws because that's what Newton suggested they be called. If the moon can orbit the earth for billions of years then a satellite can too.

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
It is suggested that a geostationary satellite be boosted up to an altitude of 100-150 km prior to the expected exhaustion of fuel, which will delay the problem by about 500 years.

This statements makes no sense at all. A geostationary satellite has to be at an altitude of over 36,000 km, therefore it can't be boost 'up to an altitute of 100-150km'.

Originally posted by Beancounter72

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
It is suggested that a geostationary satellite be boosted up to an altitude of 100-150 km prior to the expected exhaustion of fuel, which will delay the problem by about 500 years.

This statements makes no sense at all. A geostationary satellite has to be at an altitude of over 36,000 km, therefore it can't be boost 'up to an altitute of 100-150km'.

You are right - of course

Who in the seven hells of the abyss wrote this then

Original website

EDIT: After searching more it is likely that the abstract in the above article has a typo (or not enough information) and that it should read that it should be boosted a further 100-150 kilometers out.

Which would influence my calculations greatly.

So from 35.786 kilometers PLUS 150 kilometers it would take about 500 years.

So it would probably take some time to reach 300 kilometer orbit which apparently is the plummet altitude.

Even with a bit of acceleration I get to be something like 70.000 years.

Sorry about the misinfo.

But it's still not forever and a day


[edit on 19.1.2010 by HolgerTheDane]

Originally posted by Beancounter72
reply to post by HolgerTheDane

 

Your explanations of why satellites in geo-synchronous orbits decay makes no sense. ***snip***
If the moon can orbit the earth for billions of years then a satellite can too.

So the reason for the satellites to have propellant on board to make staionary corrections is just made up by the governing bodies?

And the reason for shifting satellites to the graveyard orbit is unfounded?

Therer is one clear difference between a communicatuions satellite and the moon. Size.

The moon orbit the earth and the gravitational forces are almost nullified because of the orbital speed. Forces required to shift 81 billion tons are rather significant.

A communications satellite is influenced by the gravity well of earth AS WELL AS the moons gravity field. The forces to shift - or influence - a weight of about 900 kilos are significantly less than needed to influence the moon.

Solar radiation pressure and third-body perturbations are mentioned a lot of places when talking about orbital decay. Surely these concerns, mentioned among other places at NASA's website, are not fictional?

I love this subject and this thread (and all the others about this subject).
I found several things and wanted to highlight them here:

Link to the book (the scanned version!)
See the full book here, if you are a member of Scribd (free!) you can download the PDF version:
John Keel - Disneyland of the Gods

And for the hi-res versions of the images often referred to... there are CLEARLY people who have problems finding them, and the YouTube videos simply don't give these images justice... here you go... and yes - they are BIG... in fact many browsers will scale the image to your screen, and so click on the resulting image to get the full version (BIG!!!)

*** Please be aware that these are links to the FTP site of nasa.gov... but it is public and there is no warning or login etc ***

Image Number: STS088_STS088-724-65_3
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Image Number: STS088_STS088-724-66_3
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Image Number: STS088_STS088-724-67_3
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Image Number: STS088_STS088-724-68_3
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Image Number: STS088_STS088-724-69_3
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Image Number: STS088_STS088-724-70_3
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Enjoy!
askbaby