Satellites have max 20 watts transmit!

I was Senior Mathematician and worked in the radar tracking data department at NASA. Furthermore, I was looking at O minus Cs for Skylab, that’s observed minus calculated range for you civilians out there, and I won the office pool for when Skylab would fall and burn up during re-entry.

Geostationary satellites are not tracked. They’re uh, stationary. GPS satellites are not geosynchronous. So, they are tracked. But satellites that aren’t geosynchronous are tracked by radar, not stationary satcom terminals or receivers. The radar antennas have to be rotatable. I used to be a range rat at NASA.

It would not work too well for satellite tracking since it’s stationary, plus tracking antennas are radar. 😃

I use Arecibo to illustrate the point I was trying to make about the link power budget. You know, if you do not have a lot of power at the transmit end or you have a LOT OF FREE SPACE LOSS you must have a great receiver (high gain) on the other end. Satellites are space limited and power limited, so obviously you have to calculate the gain at the receiver to support the link. In the case of Hubble the received signal is optical, I.e., light. Arecibo is looking for a radio signal, no? Ditto the radio antenna array out west as seen in the movie Contact. Jodie Fosters SETI group in Contact picked up a radio signal. A radio signal just like a satellite signal, with EIRP. The only difference is the radio waves received by radio telescopes are from astrological sources, not satellites. The received signal are not (visible) light. Which brings us to the dodgy subject of light and electromagnetic waves and photons.

Bingo! Arecibo antenna in Puerto Rico is another good example, with diameter of 305m. And the very large log period HF antennas on certain US buildings. The satellite link budget equations I worked with were so long it took a whole page to write them out. 

rodman999993,336 posts12-04-2018 9:24pmConvert you to what, a beam of dark? Can you tell me, whether the universe, is one in need of dark matter, to reach a mathematical equilibrium, just one in a multiverse, or(lately) a hologram, created through information generated by vibrating strings? All the prior vastly simplified, of course. I really thought it was funny, when they expected the weight of the Higgs Boson, to lend credence to either of the first two of the theories and it weighed pretty much dead center of the two expected parameters. I’m simply pointing out that no one can tell me, with certainty(YET), much of anything, regarding this universe. Everyone can’t be correct, can they? It’s not that I can’t be convinced. Just difficult to, given the possibilities. I didn’t intend to turn this thread into another soap. Won’t happen again(I may have said that before). Just trying to have some fun in here(for a change) and it backfired.

>>>>I honestly don’t know what you’re hyperventilating about. I just gave examples of things that are known about the universe. I never said we know everything. Cut me some slack, Jack.

A little refresher course in cosmology wouldn’t hurt, guys. The word is cosmology, not astrology. Nothing to get all hung up about.

Science explained away the existence of God and Heaven? Whoa! That’s seems a little extreme. That’s what is known as a misconception. Ye olde us vs them mentality. How do you explain the fact that many scientists believe in God? Betcha can’t.

Here’s something you can sink your teeth 🦷 into, the observation of gravity waves 2 years ago.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

Are you talking to me? Yes, I believe in certainties. At least for some things. I can philosophize too, but I don’t believe nothing can be proven or that there is no such thing as facts. Why, are you one of those guys that can’t be convinced of anything? Are you trying to..... convert me? 😳

Uh, the time to the beginning of the universe is known within +- .021 billion years. That does not (rpt not) leave much room for doubt. That’s not what we usually call a theory. Look, this isn’t rocket science. 🚀 No reason to act snowed. ❄️

I dunno who that dude is but he’s way out of whack with what we actually know about the universe. Hey, Mack rhymes with Whack. Coincidence?

To whit,

In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2]

and,

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.[1]

(The expression 10-36 is equal to 10 to the minus 36 power.)

That’s because of the very high gain receivers at the other end. You have to account for free space loss. There’s no free ride. I used to do radar data analysis for NASA. I also did satellite link budget analysis for the military. The same sort of idea applies to Hubble Space Telescope being able to detect and photograph galaxies at the edge of the universe, I.e., from pretty soon after the Big Bang.