To all interested in UFO's.
How much and what equipment would be required to place a live HD TV camera into space and be broadcast on an independent cable station for all too see?
Although there is no specific price lists on launch costs due to which rockets are used and what orbits are achieved, also from which country the launch is from a ball-park figure can be estimated of around $10,000 per pound. (www.futron.com)
What equipment would be needed?
1) HDTV Camera
2) Some way to keep it charged (solar?)
3) Protection from space debris
4) Upstream + Downstreaming equipment
5) Servo's for movement and zooming of camera
6) Cable network to broadcast to
What else would we need? I'm not a specialist in this field and would like any ideas on how it would work.
Weather satellites around year 2000 cost $290 million. where as a missile warning sat cost around $680 million. Obviously the technology on a TV sat wouldn't be as advanced as these but it's still alot of cash.
If each person who believes in ET's or are interested in Spacewatch programmes donated $1 each I think this is a viable and important project to be considered.
Any comments??
Wouldn't it be a whole lot cheaper to connect a high-quality video camera to a good telescope, then connect that to a broadband-connected computer which can broadcast the live camera view onto the internet?
You could arrange one or two similar facilites around the world in order to always have a view of the night sky, and make all the video streams available via your site hosted on frihost.
I'm sure you could very easily arrange that for 1/100th of the cost of a satelite and a cable network, and therefore charge each et watcher only one cent.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Wouldn't it be a whole lot cheaper to connect a high-quality video camera to a good telescope, then connect that to a broadband-connected computer which can broadcast the live camera view onto the internet?
You could arrange one or two similar facilites around the world in order to always have a view of the night sky, and make all the video streams available via your site hosted on frihost.
I'm sure you could very easily arrange that for 1/100th of the cost of a satelite and a cable network, and therefore charge each et watcher only one cent. |
Alot cheaper yes. But the sceptics would then say "O it's a plane" Or the usual lights in the sky/ marsh gas/ Venus and all the usual debunking...
If an object came from deep space and stopped above the planet there would be no question of it's origins....yes, but if a spaceship was right in earth's orbit, you could see it not only from space but from the ground too, i mean a large object like that won't go unnoticed. 
(If i get what you are meaning)
but a small ship, would still go unnoticed in space, unless you has dozens of those camera watching every corner of the universe 
| squirrelmaster wrote: |
yes, but if a spaceship was right in earth's orbit, you could see it not only from space but from the ground too, i mean a large object like that won't go unnoticed. (If i get what you are meaning)
but a small ship, would still go unnoticed in space, unless you has dozens of those camera watching every corner of the universe |
If a craft (say the size of a 747) was to enter the atmosphere would you really notice it?
Look up in the sky at the moment and you notice them mostly because of the contrails. Without the contrails you never notice them unless you look really hard. Also they are only flying around 35,000ft.
I got the idea from a space shuttle mission (where they were testing the space tether) In the background on that mission there were objects flying around it.
A good video to watch to get the idea is
NASA Secret transmissions "The smoking gun"yes it's true you wouldn't notice a 747-size ship but when i said large ship i meant large like 20 miles across large!
but then, if there were aliens visiting earth, with that technology wouldn't they have figured out how to cloak their ships anyway(large or small)?
^Not necessarily; there have been a number of sci-fi novels in which the earth is visited by a large (in some cases planet-sized) generation ship. (A generation ship is a spaceship that achieves interstellar travel at relitively very slow speeds by being a self-supporting ecosystem all of itself. The original builders won't see the next star, but thier descendants will.) Such a ship would not require much more technology than we have. Indeed, I believe that if the entire world was dedicated to doing so (not much chance of that), we could build such a ship.
But having your cameras in space does not probe that any objects you observe with them are UFO's...
It could be the space shuttle, or a high-orbit satellite, or a meteor. (It'll be highly unlikely that you'll get a good shot of whatever it is.)
For a while pulsars were thought to be proof of intelligent life, untill we figured out what they really were.
| squirrelmaster wrote: |
| but then, if there were aliens visiting earth, with that technology wouldn't they have figured out how to cloak their ships anyway(large or small)? |
thats a very good point, and it wouldn't require technology that much more advanced that our own to make a virtually invisible craft. All you would really need is a powerful enough computer and you could make active camouflage that could make an object virtually invisible from a distance. And given technology a thousand or a million year more advanced who knows what they could do. | Teezgaff wrote: |
To all interested in UFO's.
How much and what equipment would be required to place a live HD TV camera into space and be broadcast on an independent cable station for all too see? |
You can get a satellite and launch for around $600,000-$900,000 using a small Japanese firm :
http://www.digitalworldtokyo.com/2006/07/send_your_love_into_space_on_a.php
The camera cost would be trivial.
Regards
Chris
That's wild! The bottom of the line only has a 10cm cube as a payload, but the next step up has communication gear for 1 million USD.
| Quote: |
... is based on the MySat-1 craft and is called ARCSat-X. It's a more complicated model with communications gear and motors to keep it stabilized in space.
"Lots of researchers at universities don't have a big budget for putting things into space. So this is very affordable at $1 million compared to $50 million [for a conventional launch]." It will also be much faster, he said. It will take between one and two years from initial preparation to launch, compared to between five years and seven years for the Japanese space program. |
| HoboPelican wrote: |
That's wild! The bottom of the line only has a 10cm cube as a payload, but the next step up has communication gear for 1 million USD.
| Quote: | ... is based on the MySat-1 craft and is called ARCSat-X. It's a more complicated model with communications gear and motors to keep it stabilized in space.
"Lots of researchers at universities don't have a big budget for putting things into space. So this is very affordable at $1 million compared to $50 million [for a conventional launch]." It will also be much faster, he said. It will take between one and two years from initial preparation to launch, compared to between five years and seven years for the Japanese space program. |
|
Great.... Now would would we need to broadcast??
How about the soon to be defunkt UK terrestial broadcasting equipment and keep the terrestrial TV system alive as a public broadcast system??? | Teezgaff wrote: |
Great.... Now would would we need to broadcast??
How about the soon to be defunkt UK terrestial broadcasting equipment and keep the terrestrial TV system alive as a public broadcast system??? |
Uh, not sure what you are asking. Are you planning to broadcast this in the sense of antennas and transmitters and such? Seems like you would be limiting your audience. Why not a web site with a live feed? | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Teezgaff wrote: |
Great.... Now would would we need to broadcast??
How about the soon to be defunkt UK terrestial broadcasting equipment and keep the terrestrial TV system alive as a public broadcast system??? |
Uh, not sure what you are asking. Are you planning to broadcast this in the sense of antennas and transmitters and such? Seems like you would be limiting your audience. Why not a web site with a live feed? |
I was thinking more of where would we transmit the signal from the space camera too. | Teezgaff wrote: |
I was thinking more of where would we transmit the signal from the space camera too. |
Well, since it's not in geosync, you'd either need a number of sites around the world, or a system to burst transmit data when in position...I'd think multiple recieving sites is more realistic. Radio is not my area, but I'd imagine the receiving equipment would be fairly simple... antenna layout would be the biggest issue, I think. | Teezgaff wrote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: | | Teezgaff wrote: |
Great.... Now would would we need to broadcast??
How about the soon to be defunkt UK terrestial broadcasting equipment and keep the terrestrial TV system alive as a public broadcast system??? |
Uh, not sure what you are asking. Are you planning to broadcast this in the sense of antennas and transmitters and such? Seems like you would be limiting your audience. Why not a web site with a live feed? |
I was thinking more of where would we transmit the signal from the space camera too. |
Ig geosync orbit then wide spectrum broadcasting is out.
Why not adopt the most technically simple and cheap approach. Send the data from the satellite downstream to a simple PC with basic web server software. Hook the PC up to the web and webcast - costs almost nothing.
ChrisWell ideally we need a view like this:-
with some kind of camera like the SONY HVR-Z1U HDV
with zoom control and always live stream with anything interesting being replayed via seperate stream...
Lets raise the cash...... 
Just for giggles, anyone want to make a stab at how huge an object would have to be to be picked up that sort of view...say an object directly above the apparent horizon? I'd ballpark a ship the size of the New York metro area MIGHT show up...
This seems pretty pointess. Unless an object came right up to the camera, you'd have a better chance of seeing it with a pair of binoculars. | HoboPelican wrote: |
Just for giggles, anyone want to make a stab at how huge an object would have to be to be picked up that sort of view...say an object directly above the apparent horizon? I'd ballpark a ship the size of the New York metro area MIGHT show up...
This seems pretty pointess. Unless an object came right up to the camera, you'd have a better chance of seeing it with a pair of binoculars. |
Hmmmmm... true.... maybe something on the lines of this then but closer.... LOL
It is hard to get a proper pic of wot we need .... LOL 
Ideally we need dark space in view and a reasonable horizon??How easily you forget about the vast distances involved.
Hypothetically, say a camera was put into space and it found nothing, what would you say? You would say that some how the government manipulated the signal and took all the UFOs out. Cause thats the argument of all the UFO freaks, and thats why its pseudoscience.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
Just for giggles, anyone want to make a stab at how huge an object would have to be to be picked up that sort of view...say an object directly above the apparent horizon? I'd ballpark a ship the size of the New York metro area MIGHT show up...
This seems pretty pointess. Unless an object came right up to the camera, you'd have a better chance of seeing it with a pair of binoculars. |
Well using the simple : lens-focal-length/distance = scale would give you the answer for a particular camera.
For an object (say) the size of a car, to be visible it would (say) need to be 1/100 scale on the photo.
At a distance (say) of Mars you would need a focal length a half million miles 
C. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: |
Just for giggles, anyone want to make a stab at how huge an object would have to be to be picked up that sort of view...say an object directly above the apparent horizon? I'd ballpark a ship the size of the New York metro area MIGHT show up...
This seems pretty pointess. Unless an object came right up to the camera, you'd have a better chance of seeing it with a pair of binoculars. |
Well using the simple : lens-focal-length/distance = scale would give you the answer for a particular camera.
For an object (say) the size of a car, to be visible it would (say) need to be 1/100 scale on the photo.
At a distance (say) of Mars you would need a focal length a half million miles
C. |
I know my above example is frivolous... 
On the scale shown... If an object passed at the same distance as earth from the camera, an object of 533.333333....km wide would be 1mm wide.
But as I said the camera would have to be closer.. Or have a good zoom....LOL | Teezgaff wrote: |
I know my above example is frivolous... :oops:
On the scale shown... If an object passed at the same distance as earth from the camera, an object of 533.333333....km wide would be 1mm wide.
But as I said the camera would have to be closer.. Or have a good zoom....LOL |
Why not do something much more interesting and try to design a launch vehicle to get a small payload into orbit yourself. There's a guy in Yorkshire who is doing pretty well with a sugar powered rocket at the moment...
xC | Bikerman wrote: |
Why not do something much more interesting and try to design a launch vehicle to get a small payload into orbit yourself. There's a guy in Yorkshire who is doing pretty well with a sugar powered rocket at the moment...
xC |
that sounds interesting, do you remember where you found it? | squirrelmaster wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Why not do something much more interesting and try to design a launch vehicle to get a small payload into orbit yourself. There's a guy in Yorkshire who is doing pretty well with a sugar powered rocket at the moment...
xC |
that sounds interesting, do you remember where you found it? |
Yes - I've met the guy....he's really serious :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/425774.stm | Bikerman wrote: |
| Teezgaff wrote: |
I know my above example is frivolous...
On the scale shown... If an object passed at the same distance as earth from the camera, an object of 533.333333....km wide would be 1mm wide.
But as I said the camera would have to be closer.. Or have a good zoom....LOL |
Why not do something much more interesting and try to design a launch vehicle to get a small payload into orbit yourself. There's a guy in Yorkshire who is doing pretty well with a sugar powered rocket at the moment...
xC |
Been done
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/04/spaceshipone.attempt.cnn/index.html
http://www.virgingalactic.com/
A British billionaire can make a cheep (compared to the alternatives) way of getting not space and NASA can't.
Probably cause there too busy with crap like the a "hyper drive."
AWESOME, i had not known that Virgin was doing that with the SpaceShipOne technology. I hope the price lowers though, cuz i would not pay 200K for it, but 2K i would most definately
and about the hyperdrive, getting to mars in 3 hours does not need faster than light travel in that other dimension. The scientist was just stating that as an accessory to the fact. Even if they don't get faster than light, it would still be faster, and a colony on Mars would be more feasable. (but that's just my opinion) It'll still cost allot but it will be allot cheaper that what NASA is doing and its only a suborbital flight but its a start and allot better than what NASA is doing.
as for cost wise heck yeah its cheaper, but nasa is a government agency so what do you expect - for them to spend money wisely HA.
It is going to be a good time for man when they redesign the SpaceShipTwo design to be like a cargo ship, then you could get a relatively cheap way of putting satellites up 
maybe there will be a boom of space real estate and there will be lots of space stations/hotel/resorts. (but we would have to solve the gravity issue first)
then it would definatly be easier to spot a UFO, because of the people in orbit i would say mlds. just imagine all the electricity and stuff.. 
Just as a side note, it would be a horredous waste of resources to have only one camera per satellite.
Have multiple cameras facing different directions! You could also have infared imaging cameras, et cetera.
You might also want to consider using a radar-based approach instead of a visual approach. Perhaps make the camera automaticly zoom in on any object detected by radar matching certain perameters?
Here's an idea, record the electromagnetic fields; presumably any ship capable of crossing between stars would have a significant em signature.
Anyway, if the aliens were hostile, would we stand a chance? and if they were friendly, wouldn't they announce their presence openly?
i cannot believe i didn't think of more than one camera!
i guess i was thinking the solar panels could only power one, but then i don't really know about that.
How much power do they generate?
The solar panels would spend the vast majority of their power on broadcasting the signal back to Earth. The camera's power drain (athough you should take it into account) would be trivial compared to that.
As for how much power solar panels produce, its different for every different panel, but I think it's around 30 watts per sq foot. (You'll also have to take into accout that the satellite will be in Earth's shadow sometimes (unless you put it into polar orbit parellel to Earth's orbit around the sun).)
Have you considered buying an obsolete spy satellite and pointing it in the opposite direction? (Polar orbits put that into my head; most spy satelites use polar orbits so that they can move to different locations quickly.) It probably wouldn't be that much more expensive than building and launching your own, and you'd be spared the trouble of designing and building it. (I wouldn't know the first thing about where to buy one though... Try Russia?)
| Quote: |
| Have you considered buying an obsolete spy satellite and pointing it in the opposite direction? (Polar orbits put that into my head; most spy satelites use polar orbits so that they can move to different locations quickly.) It probably wouldn't be that much more expensive than building and launching your own, and you'd be spared the trouble of designing and building it. (I wouldn't know the first thing about where to buy one though... Try Russia?) |
I've not been on here for aaaages... Like the idea.. may get a sub too..This is such a fantastic idea!
Remember those old 'space' screensavers. Wouldn't it be great to have a screensaver that was actually a live feed of REAL space!
Why isn't NASA doing this already? Wouldn't it be a really great PR activity for them???
NASA do a screensaver for the mars mission at the moment and they update the pictures approx once a week. There also used to be an old satellite channel that used to show video from mir although I can't remember the name of the channel.
Here's one for you.....
The earth is approx 4 times larger than the moon?
How come when we see images of earth from the moon that it looks no bigger than the moon from earth??
It's not going to happen. The orbiting Camera might pick up Classified information. You are talking about putting a Camera into a secret area, perhaps THE most secret area. Is space really that secret? Anybody can point a telescope into the sky and see whatever they want.
Nobody owns space, and so nobody should "legally" be able to stop you putting a camera up there.
OK Richard, I give you permission to put a Camera up there.
Also you are not likely to spot anything with a telescope. Anything you do see via a third parties more powerful facilities can of course be "filtered".
I'm not saying Space is secret but the average Joe does not have any real access and it's possible we do not have all actual information.
