Title: RAW FOOTAGE: Balloon, aka NASA "Satellite" Floats Across Full Moon Source:
YT URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfdkWy0QtE&feature=youtu.be Published:Feb 3, 2018 Author:Flat Earth Dude Post Date:2019-09-28 17:41:37 by Liberator Keywords:NASA, Satellite, Balloon Views:31099 Comments:184
(Video taken through a Nikon P900 camera)
Poster Comment:
Cool! Great shot of the Moon as well. (Sure doesn't seem like it's 239,000 miles away.)
So.... is balloon technology how NASA really photographs earth? It appears they are able to attach an equipment gondola to the Balloon...and let 'er rip into Low Earth Orbit.
One also wonders if "Astronauts" are actually embedded into a special Balloon gondola instead what's depicted in those dodgy "ISS" shots. Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space.
Moving juuuust a bit slower than 17,000 MPH. Source:
With respect to, 'HOW STUFF WORKS', I mis-formatted the post, so it's my fault there's some confusion.
OF NOTE:
According to 'HOW STUFF WORKS' and the link I provided:
"Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph.(27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space.
We see neither traveling at 17,000 mph -- whether a gi-normous NASA balloon or the pix taken from NASA "Satellites" (which are actually "gondolas" tethered TO balloons at low earth orbit.)
NASA's Giant Helium Balloons will neither be escaping much beyond the stratosphere, nor dragged to earth via "gravity"...
They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.
They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.
What would be the point of a randomly-drifting mission for either photography or passenger flight?
Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.
What would be the point of a randomly-drifting mission for either photography or passenger flight?
I don't believe they are randomly drifting; I believe it/they are radio-controlled (just like drones and other aircraft.)
There are potentially plenty of purposes or missions.
Recon? Weather and atmospheric gauging and mapping? Sensor Equipment? Carrying Radio Frequency equipment? The whisper-quiet monitoring of specific people, places, and things?
Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived.
These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.
I concur that something like a Hubble is NOT floating/drifting randomly. (I know -- in your past life knowledge and participation in space projects and engineering were your wheelhouse. It's very likely you were excellent in your expertise -- though at the same time it doesn't necessarily mean you knew what other departments' missions were or "science" from which *they* based they area of expertise on.
(Fwiw, in the about video, the Hubble is discussed a bit.)
Regarding "the horizon," we will have to disagree on its definition, given our limited perspective due to vanishing point of sight-line. I don't believe one technically exists as I disbelieve in the existence of earth curvature.
I was going to post a very brief vid titled, "STILL FLAT." But...according to YouTube sign-in is require because the material was flagged as "Inappropriate For Some Users." (!!?!! HUH??!) Was THAT tell us??
When G00gle is deeming "Flat Earth" as "Dangerous", it means..."DANGER! TRUTH AHEAD!"
Here's what I see. Am I nuts? Or is some (any) of this plausible?
