Pluto flyover by New Horizons

[PyramidHead]

But why satellites going further than the moon? That's such a ridiculously specific threshold. Obviously Cerberus believes that satellites exist and can relay data to earth. Anybody with a cellular phone must concede at least this much. So what is the barrier that magically prevents them from going any further than "our backyard?" Do they spontaneously combust at a certain point? It's like someone who is fine with Alan Sheperd landing on the moon in 1971, but refuses to entertain the possibility that he hit a golf ball while he was up there.

 

[dystopian]

But why satellites going further than the moon? That's such a ridiculously specific threshold.

To be fair, they're not actually satellites at that point. A satellite in terms of spaceflight is an artificial object placed into a deliberate orbit around the Earth or another body; so anything we send out into space that crosses beyond lunar orbit is probably either meant to land somewhere or go into orbit somewhere... but in the 2nd case unless it's a solar probe, it probably hasn't achieved its intended orbit yet and therefore is not yet a satellite. /pedantic.

 

[PyramidHead]

But why satellites going further than the moon? That's such a ridiculously specific threshold.

To be fair, they're not actually satellites at that point. A satellite in terms of spaceflight is an artificial object placed into a deliberate orbit around the Earth or another body; so anything we send out into space that crosses beyond lunar orbit is probably either meant to land somewhere or go into orbit somewhere... but in the 2nd case unless it's a solar probe, it probably hasn't achieved its intended orbit yet and therefore is not yet a satellite. /pedantic.

Right, my mistake. Should have said probes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Paralax measurement is more than enough to put source of the transmission near Pluto. It's only 30 a.u. away.
Faking this mission is pointless because doing it is orders of magnitude cheaper.
It's a rather simple flyby mission.

Remember, though, they are limited to the distance they can put two dishes apart in Russia, they don't get to use Earth's movement.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Paralax measurement is more than enough to put source of the transmission near Pluto. It's only 30 a.u. away.
Faking this mission is pointless because doing it is orders of magnitude cheaper.
It's a rather simple flyby mission.

Remember, though, they are limited to the distance they can put two dishes apart in Russia, they don't get to use Earth's movement.

Yes, and Russia is pretty big. So, you could easily get a minimum distance to the source of a signal due to its measured parallax relative to the "fixed" stars behind it. If Russia is, say 6000 miles wide, then something at the distance of Pluto would have a parallax of about 0.5 arcsecond, give or take. Maybe that's below the resolution of radio dishes, but at the distance to Jupiter it's about 2 arcseconds, and to Mars about 5 arcseconds. So, it starts getting easy to tell if a signal is at least as far as Mars, and then you start having to realize that if we can send something out to Mars or Jupiter just to fake a signal from Pluto, why not just go to Pluto?

If Russia suspected we were faking missions, they could reasonably easily set up some radio dishes (or radio arrays) to expose us.

 

[barbos]

they don't get to use Earth's movement.

Why is that?
In any case, using 5000km spaced telescopes can easily give you 1% accuracy for signal from Pluto.
So no need for a larger base.

 

[barbos]

Remember, though, they are limited to the distance they can put two dishes apart in Russia, they don't get to use Earth's movement.

Yes, and Russia is pretty big. So, you could easily get a minimum distance to the source of a signal due to its measured parallax relative to the "fixed" stars behind it. If Russia is, say 6000 miles wide, then something at the distance of Pluto would have a parallax of about 0.5 arcsecond, give or take. Maybe that's below the resolution of radio dishes, but at the distance to Jupiter it's about 2 arcseconds, and to Mars about 5 arcseconds. .

Radio telescope interferometer with a base of 5000km will have 0.0004 arcseconds resolution (I assumed 1 cm wavelengths).

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, and Russia is pretty big. So, you could easily get a minimum distance to the source of a signal due to its measured parallax relative to the "fixed" stars behind it. If Russia is, say 6000 miles wide, then something at the distance of Pluto would have a parallax of about 0.5 arcsecond, give or take. Maybe that's below the resolution of radio dishes, but at the distance to Jupiter it's about 2 arcseconds, and to Mars about 5 arcseconds. .

Radio telescope interferometer with a base of 5000km will have 0.0004 arcseconds resolution (I assumed 1 cm wavelengths).

Close. New Horizons' downlink frequency is 8.4 GHz so a wavelength of 3.6 cm., still allowing plenty of resolution for an interferometer to determine the distance of the probe.

 

[Cerberus]

Wel, that would depend on what your qualifications were and why you were hired, wouldn't it?

I'd guess that 99% would start on the bottom rung. The other 1% would more than likely be invited to join a) because of qualifications, or b) hired by someone at a senior level whom they know in the sense that 'It's not what you know, it's who you know.'

I didn't start at my company at the lower rungs. I had experience they wanted for a job that was some distance above entry level. Not everyone being hired at NASA would be 'lower rungs,' some will have experience, training or other qualifications for higher positions. Positions that would require their complicity.

See above. Do you work for NASA then?

Many people have changed fields in their careers. It's especially easy to do right after your face has been plastered across magazine covers for drawing attention such as proving the moon landing was faked, or evolution is a conspiracy, or any other big whistle-blowing event. The post-career talk show circuit and memoir markets are very attractive to some people.

In context, nobody would believe them. In fact you'd be one of the disbelievers. You're obfuscating and dissembling to suit your stance, and I suggested that continuing this line of discussion is serving no purpose. Like others, you obviously have a closed mind on this subject.

 

[Cerberus]

But you have offered no substantive nor substantiated argument whatsoever; all you've done is to write what you've read somewhere. Anyone can do that - in fact many are on this very thread!!!

Your standard are impossible.

If I share with you our scientific findings, you will just say that I'm just repeating what others tell me.

If I share with you those findings in great detail, presenting ironclad arguments and the most solid of evidence, you will still just say that I'm repeating what others tell me.

If scientists themselves share these things with you, you will just say that they are lying and just saying things.

No matter what evidence is presented before you, and by whom, you will not accept it. That is why people are being facetious towards you. Because to speak with you at all is a waste of time, so we might at least entertain ourselves a little by doing so.

In other words, you don't what to hear what I say because it forces you 'to think the unthinkable'??

 

[Cerberus]

Of course 'space exists', I've never said it doesn't! Jesus wept!
'Have we been there'? Only in 'the back yard' viz the moon; further out? No!

Why not?

Here's an interesting image detailing humanity's record in interplanetary space:

Show

View attachment 3533

What is your evidence that the dozens of space missions performed by multiple countries around the world have all been faked?

You can deflect away evidence that the missions have been performed all night long. But you are making a positive claim--that all space missions beyond the Moon's orbit are faked.
Where's your evidence? Let us see what you have, so that we can evaluate it. If you have none, then your claim can be dismissed.

Your move, Cerberus.

So where's your evidence that they aren't faked? I think we're starting to go around in circles on this thread.

 

[Cerberus]

Speaking of 'intellect' that should be 'too' many.

And, do you have any evidence that anything's been faked? You made a positive claim and threw the burden of proof out to your critics. What do you have FOR your assertions?

That had nothing to do with intellect, more to do with making a typo. But well done you for spotting it!

 

[barbos]

Your standard are impossible.

If I share with you our scientific findings, you will just say that I'm just repeating what others tell me.

If I share with you those findings in great detail, presenting ironclad arguments and the most solid of evidence, you will still just say that I'm repeating what others tell me.

If scientists themselves share these things with you, you will just say that they are lying and just saying things.

No matter what evidence is presented before you, and by whom, you will not accept it. That is why people are being facetious towards you. Because to speak with you at all is a waste of time, so we might at least entertain ourselves a little by doing so.

In other words, you don't what to hear what I say because it forces you 'to think the unthinkable'??

But you don't say anything other than "NASA are frauds! NASA are frauds!"

 

[dystopian]

In other words, you don't what to hear what I say because it forces you 'to think the unthinkable'??

No, it doesn't force me to 'think the unthinkable'. If only it did, that'd be something.

No, I want to hear what you say so I can *make fun of it*; because I've heard it all before and because no matter how much you are demonstrated by others to be wrong you will still stubbornly cling to your archaic notions.

 

[James Brown]

Why not?

Here's an interesting image detailing humanity's record in interplanetary space:

Show

View attachment 3533

What is your evidence that the dozens of space missions performed by multiple countries around the world have all been faked?

You can deflect away evidence that the missions have been performed all night long. But you are making a positive claim--that all space missions beyond the Moon's orbit are faked.
Where's your evidence? Let us see what you have, so that we can evaluate it. If you have none, then your claim can be dismissed.

Your move, Cerberus.

So where's your evidence that they aren't faked? I think we're starting to go around in circles on this thread.

 Space_exploration

You're the one making the claim. What do you have to back it up?

 

[Cerberus]

In other words, you don't what to hear what I say because it forces you 'to think the unthinkable'??

No, it doesn't force me to 'think the unthinkable'. If only it did, that'd be something.

No, I want to hear what you say so I can *make fun of it*; because I've heard it all before and because no matter how much you are demonstrated by others to be wrong you will still stubbornly cling to your archaic notions.

The bottom line is this: You (nor others) have any more proof that it did take place than I have that it didn't. If I'm wrong, well it's immaterial in the grand scheme of things and I'm man enough to shrug if off with a hey-nonny-nonny; but if you're wrong you're really gonna feel stupid. One day they're going to become so brazen in the belief that there are those like you who won't question what they say, that they'll say something so outrageously ridiculous that even you won't believe it. Hold that thought!

 

[dystopian]

No, it doesn't force me to 'think the unthinkable'. If only it did, that'd be something.

No, I want to hear what you say so I can *make fun of it*; because I've heard it all before and because no matter how much you are demonstrated by others to be wrong you will still stubbornly cling to your archaic notions.

The bottom line is this: You (nor others) have any more proof that it did take place than I have that it didn't. If I'm wrong, well it's immaterial in the grand scheme of things and I'm man enough to shrug if off with a hey-nonny-nonny; but if you're wrong you're really gonna feel stupid. One day they're going to become so brazen in the belief that there are those like you who won't question what they say, that they'll say something so outrageously ridiculous that even you won't believe it. Hold that thought!

No, that isn't the bottom line. We *do* have more proof than it took place than you have proof that it didn't. Overwhelmingly so. You just pretend that this isn't the case by doing the equivalent of a child putting their fingers in their ears and going 'lalalala'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'd guess that 99% would start on the bottom rung.

Pulling numbers out of your ass is exactly as compelling as making absolute statements.

The other 1% would more than likely be invited to join a) because of qualifications, or b) hired by someone at a senior level whom they know in the sense that 'It's not what you know, it's who you know.'

Are you down on the Pluto fly-by because your job application didn't get you into the inner circle?

See above. Do you work for NASA then?

You compared the NASA job hiring standards to "like you would if you were accepting a position in any other firm," Another absolute statement.
NOW you want to make a distinction between NASA and 'any other firm.'
Hope you're strapped in on those U-turns. Don't want any whiplash, do we?

In context, nobody would believe them.

In the argument, though, whether they're believed or not, you still have no evidence of any insider revealing the fraud.
The 'exposes' are coming from outsiders. So, again, you have a huge conspiracy and NO ONE revealing anything.

In fact you'd be one of the disbelievers.

Can't say that unless we can evaluate the evidence provided in the expose.
Note that you offer bupkes for evidence, so denying your silly story is not comparable.

You're obfuscating and dissembling to suit your stance,

You're the one making shit up to protect your stance. You have to, people keep poking holes in your assertions or asking for a reason to believe they're true.

and I suggested that continuing this line of discussion is serving no purpose.

...he said once more.

Like others, you obviously have a closed mind on this subject.

You keep using 'obviously.' You need to look that word up.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I'm wrong, well it's immaterial in the grand scheme of things and I'm man enough to shrug if off with a hey-nonny-nonny;

But what have you provided for us to think that you're right?
You HAVE made it a positive claim. Based on what?

 

[barbos]

Cerberus, just cut the crap. It's clear you have a grudge with NASA, so tell us what it is?