I think I am the most qualified person to answer this question. Yes, they do. Source- I used to be a satellite communications systems operator and maintainer.

has he never seen the moon before?

Go stargazing, you'll see them.

If you're too impatient for that, or live somewhere with too much light pollution to see small ones, look for the International Space Station: http://www.isstracker.com/

Alternatively, look into how GPS works. Or satellite phones. Or ask yourslf what the purpose of a satellite dish is, if there's no satellites.

Seriously, satellite dishes work by pointing their face in the direction of a geostationary satellite. If there wasn't anything up there the dishes wouldn't work or wouldn't require directional tuning.

One fun thing about the ISS tracker is that you can manipulate the ISS's position by simply changing the time on your computer. It's pretty neat.

Why would it store current ISS position?

What do you mean? Like why would it actually track the ISS live when it can just predict where it will be using maths?

sometimes i can only see the satellites out of the corner of my eye, my night vision must suck :(

That's normal, peripheral vision is more sensitive to light than central vision.

TIL!

I used to work on satellites - does that mean I'm finally part of one of the big conspiracies?

go away from the city and light polluted areas and just watch the sky, you'll see plenty of them mate

If they don't, I wonder how my TV used to get a signal when I was a kid.

When I was a kid they told me they came from an antenna up on the hill, then in the late 70's Gannett kinda changed that, Navstar Global Positioning System satellites from Rockwell was in the 70' as well, how old are you 30?

How would they 'orbit' a flat earth?

Who cares? The earth is not flat.

Not that I believe the earth is flat but I did just finish reading the book of Enoch. A book left out of the bible. Enoch is Noah's great grandfather. It reads:

And that which (thus) rises is the great luminary, and is so named according to its appearance, according as the Lord commanded. 37. As he rises, so he sets and decreases not, and rests not, but runs day and night, and his light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they are both equal.

The fact that Hebrew scripture was written by people who believed the earth to be flat means nothing except that they wrote it a long time ago. There is zero inspired scripture that insists the earth is flat, for that matter.

Just because the Sun and Moon are the same size, it doesn't follow that the earth is flat. This could just as easily justify the concave hypothesis.

I'm not sure that bronze age mythology is the best source of scientific knowledge.

I didn't suggest that it was, I just don't see anything in that passage that suggests a flat earth is all.

Like I said, I didn't say I thought it was flat nor does the passage suggest that. All I was saying that it was interesting what it says...

Interesting indeed.

Cans can't exist in a flat earth.

And worms would tunnel through to the turtle supporting the flat earth

Maybe. But then they could just dig down to the turtle supporting him.

I don't think they do. Why don't we have a live feed of Earth with all those satellites up there? There aren't really any pictures of Satellites in orbit, how do the computers in them survive the heat and radiation? So many questions.

Wow.... seriously your reasons hold no water at all. Its logic like yours that lead idiots down the wrong path.

You cant see satellites in pics because they are miniscule in the view of the earth.

So sad and scary that people like you sway others unknowingly down the wrong path

Dumb question here....but can you see sats w naked eye? I've always thought they're too small w no light ...but at night I see what looks like stars slowly moving across sky in varius directions, which I assume are sats...input?

At best you would see them as flashes of light as they move across the sky. The only one that you might see continually is the ISS, which is big enough to see continually as it moves across the sky.

For ISS visibility, NASA has a website you can check to see if the ISS is currently overehead .

You can see some satellites continuously, they do just look like moving stars.

Or you could use the old Greek term for wandering star, a planet.

No, planets (that you can see) are usually much brighter and you can't immediately discern their movements just from a quick look. Satellites look like dim stars and you can clearly see them move across the sky in a couple of minutes.

I know they look different. I was just making a point about how you said they look like moving stars.

I have sat out in the Australian outback, hundreds of miles from running water, and seen satellites as clear as day. I know what they look like and how they differ from planets.

Relevant /u/?

Actually it's a perfectly logical question that most people never ask themselves.

If the thermosphere is as hot as they claim it is, and there is no significant atmoshphere in which to radiate(Which is how cooling works) the heat away from the satellite, the absorbed solar radiation would decimate delicate electronics systems (which are producing their own heat mind you).

The "science" of satellites breaks down almost immediately with just the slightest bit of inquiry and a basic understanding of thermodynamics.

"Basic understanding of thermodynamics", don't make me fucking laugh.

If you had a basic understanding of thermodynamics, you'd understand that the thermosphere being described as "hot" means that the gas particles in it have a lot of energy, because that's how temperature works (in general). You'd also understand that the particle density is incredibly low, so the total energy transferred from gas particles to your satellite or whatever is very low.

Secondly, you're confusing radiative cooling with conductive cooling. Considering there's only three basic ways of transferring heat, I'd expect someone with a "basic understanding of thermodynamics" to know the difference between them. You don't need an atmosphere or any sort of medium to radiate away energy. Spacecraft don't use conductive or convective cooling for the exact reason that you need a medium to do it and so it obviously doesn't work in space.

The science of satellites breaks down with just the slightest bit of misinformed inquiry and a incredibly basic, if not outright wrong, Dunning-Kruger understanding of thermodynamics.

so the total energy transferred from gas particles to your satellite or whatever is very low.

Heat isn't "transfered" from the gas particles to the satellite. That's the stupidest explanation I've ever heard.

Do you think that a sidewalk heats up to 140 on a hot day because the gas particles in the atmoshphere are transfering their heat energy?

No, it's directly absorbing solar energy and because it's a better conductor than the surrounding atmosphere, and thus it get's significantly hotter.

You don't need an atmosphere or any sort of medium to radiate away energy.

Really? Because where do you think that energy goes when it "radiates" away?

This dude just read a few wikipedia articles and decided he'd have a go.

What a joke.

Ps. you know how I know you're from topminds? ....da-da-da-dunning-kruger.

It's your ace in the hole.

Some energy is transferred from the gas particles to the satellite and vice versa, it's just a small amount in total because there aren't a lot of particles.

The sidewalk heats up due to radiative heating from the Sun, although there is some conductive heat transfer to and from the atmosphere as well. How do you think energy from the Sun gets here through the vacuum of space?

The energy radiates away into space as EM radiation.

You actually have no clue about thermodynamics or how heat transfer works.

Lol, this is great.

So tell me Einstein!

Why do the sidewalk, the hood of my car, and the interior of my car, all reach vastly different temperatures if they are all being heated by "radiative" heating?

If I'm using a uniform heat source like sunlight warming the atmosphere, everything should arrive at the same temperature.

Why do the sidewalk, the hood of my car, and the interior of my car, all reach vastly different temperatures if they are all being heated by "radiative" heating?

If I'm using a uniform heat source like sunlight warming the atmosphere, everything should arrive at the same temperature.

Haven't you ever wondered why the water in a stovetop pot heats up more slowly than the pot itself? Different materials heat up at different rates based on their physical composition. This is grade-school science.

Different objects will heat up at different rates. They will absorb and emit more energy depending on their shape, size, surface, material, etc. and their temperature will depend on their heat capacity, i.e. water will take longer to get from temperature X to Y than say, asphalt, because the water actually requires more energy to get to the same temperature. The sidewalk is dark asphalt whereas the hood of your car is probably reflective metal, so it will heat up at a slower rate. The interior of your car also experiences a greenhouse effect which traps heat.

If you left them in the Sun, everything would indeed eventually reach the same temperature. Please note that putting your hand on the car/pavement is in absolutely no way an accurate way of telling the actual temperature of an object.

Seriously, do you just think energy transfer through radiation don't real or something?

Are you serious? How old do you think the earth is?

What does that have to do with anything?

Your ability to understand scientific evidence and come to logical conclusions. It's 2000 years isn't it? You think the earth is 2000 years old.

Radiation is the transfer of energy by light so it doesn't need a medium

Well thats a simplified version.

Light doesn't require a medium, heat does.

The medium of heat transfer is light in this case

I agree. He is transferred into the satellite via light wave radiation it cannot be transferred out.

Yes it can, it is being transferred out exactly the same way it was transferred in, by radiation

He is transferred into the satellite via light wave radiation it cannot be transferred out.

Again, look up black body radiation. Objects get rid of heat via EM radiation in the infra-red spectrum.

Ah yes.

Underlying the assumption that satellites can dump tremendous heat in a vacuum with perfect efficiency is some completely unproven theory.

Go fucking figure.

Unproven? Are you really that stupid?

We have vacuum chambers on earth. It's easy to prove this if you have the right equipment. You are just arrogant enough to believe that you are right and all the other scientists and engineers in the world are wrong.

Go fucking figure.

What medium is used to transfer the heat from the sun to the earth?

You are trying to derail this conversation. The satellite can emit all of the infrared radiation it likes into a vacuum. Without heat transfer it will combust.

Emitting infrared radiation is a form of heat transfer. You're taking energy out of a system in the form of heat.

Seriously, it's right there on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer

The three fundamental modes of heat transfer are conduction, convection and radiation.

Emitting radiation into space literally is heat transfer. The heat is taken away by EM radiation and is no longer in the satellite, i.e. the satellite is now cooler after emitting radiation.

Heat transfer through conduction and convection does. Objects also lose energy through radiation, in which energy is emitted as EM radiation.

Went and got a posse I see...

Consensus reality.

Nope, I've no idea who any of these other people who have replied to you are.

You're just completely wrong and multiple people have decided to tell you so.

That.

Or this thread got crossposted to shitlords'r'us...

Probably. That tends to happen with things that are hilariously wrong, people find them funny and show them to other people.

Sorry, there is nothing wrong about it.

The assertion that a satellite can dump tremendous levels of heat in a vacuum with perfect efficiency is based on nothing more than theory and some cgi images.

At the end of the day, it's just you putting your faith in untestable science.

Good day sir.

Yeah, a satellite can radiate into a vacuum as much as it likes. There is no efficiency involved because it's just radiating. The only measure you could make comparable to efficiency is energy radiated as a fraction of power generated/received.

Go and make yourself a fire. Grab a log from the fire, notice how the heat is conducted to your hand. Hold your hand above the fire, notice how the heat is transferred to your hand by convective air currents. Hold your hand away to the side of the fire, notice how heat is transferred to your hand by radiation from the fire. Also please note that you hand receives radiation from the fire in all these situations, but in the third one experiences virtually no conductive/convective heat transfer.

I'm glad you said good day, because I'm done here. You're either a troll or just fucking retarded. :)

You are comparing combustion to an inanimate object absorbing tremendous radiation.

You are the idiot if you cannot understand how the two are different.

why should a piece of hot coal follow different laws in physics than a satellite?

In terms of heat transfer, the two object are not different at all. Countless people have tried to inform you that radiation heat transfer also happens in a vacuum.

On top of that, radiation is related to the surface of an object. Thus by engineering the surface of a satellite, you can control its equilibrium temperature.

Radiative emission works the same way bro :)

I'll have one more go at breaking it down for you:

Fire hot, fire emit black body radiation, fire cool down.

Satellite hot, satellite emit black body radiation, satellite cool down.

Can't explain something through repeatable scientific experimentation? Make up fantastic and unprovable theories.

http://i.imgur.com/CAXyaoA.png

Ah yes, the only reason multiple people will disagree with you is because someone else went and got their friends to back them up, it's definitely not because you're unable to understand physics taught to 14 year olds.

This thread is at the top of asshats anonymous.

Troll harder brigade minion...

What the fuck is asshats anonymous?

Dude if you have a group of people telling you 2+2=4 dont accuse them of being a posse. They are right, you are wrong.

Really? Because where do you think that energy goes when it "radiates" away?

Look up "Black Body Radiation" when you get a chance. It's how satellites get rid of heat in space.

You mean black magic, since black body radiation clearly doesn't real, as /u/Redchevron has shown us.

Because where do you think that energy goes when it "radiates" away?

It radiates away from the satellite in all directions.

Into what?

Radiation as a means of heat transfer requires air molecules...

No it doesn't heat radiation is transferred via electromagnetic waves.

If it needs air molecules then how the fuck did it get from the sun to the satellite in the first place?

You do understand I'm talking about thermal radiation and not light wave radiation?

Thermal radiation is infrared radiation which is transferred via electromagnetic waves.

LOL.

Infrared radiation is a detectable wave doesn't dissipate heat.

You have to be a troll.

An ant emits infrared radiation when I roast it under a magnifying glass. This doesn't stop the ant from being destroyed.

Because the amount of heat energy it gains is greater than the heat energy it loses. Seriously, have you ever taken a science class in your life?

So how does a satellite lose enough energy not to combust into a ball of flames?

By emitting that heat gained via radiation. How fucking dumb are you?

You people are so fucking dense.

Infrared wave radiation is not equal to heat transfer.

Yes it does.

Thermal radiation is exactly the same this as "light wave radiation" both of these are the same type of energy, the same as an X-ray, a microwave, and cellphones. They are all just different wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. EM energy does not require any (known) medium to transfer energy. Conduction and convection both do, conduction requires contact between molecules, and convection just describes heat movement within a fluid.

Basically, you realllllly do not understand what you're talking about.

Dude basic thermodynamics... Radiation... Its certainly not as efficient as active cooling with a fan or a closed loop of a liquid (Which some spacecraft do use)

As long as the device isnt absorbing heat (Radiation) and is facing anywhere besides the sun it will radiate heat. Even if slowly it will happen.

We also arent talking about high end gaming PCs these are Mhz clocked CPUs and hardened memory specifically designed for use in space.

Dude...

This thread is 3 days old and buried.

The only reason it's being visited is because it's posted to a troll sub.

I used to work at a factory that made satellites. I was part of the science group in the Solar Array team. A large part of my job was making sure that solar cells could handle fluctuations of temperature from -200C to around +300C (or thereabouts, it was a decade ago and I don't remember the exact numbers).

We'd "thermally cycle" them in a special oven, by spraying them with liquid nitrogen to get down to -200C, then baking them back up to whatever the max temperature was. I think it was 300 or 400C. Then we made sure the cells were fine afterwards.

Another thing that took up a large amount of my time was calculating the projected power output from a solar wing over the next 18 years or so, given where the thrusters are in relation to the solar wings, given where we are in the solar flare cycle, given the satellite's orbital slot.

Yes, radiation does degrade the satellite wings over time. But they're still doing fine after 15 years - not as well as the day they deploy, but still enough to power the satellite.

I'm pretty sure the wings never get over a couple of hundred degrees celsius. And that's only the parts that are under direct sunlight. The reverse sides are generally a couple hundred below zero.

Whatever thermodynamics you think you understand, is clearly not correct. If it predicts melting satellites, its predictions are wrong based on dozens of satellites being up there and not melting.

Lol, get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!

"I used to work at a satellite factory"

That's has to be the best one I've ever seen.

And you just happen to be pursuing day old threads on a conspiracy forum to share this expertise?

HAHAHAHA.

Sad I didn't see it when it was fresher. You'll be happy to know that two of the lads in the Solar Panel Lab were Young-Earth Creationists. The first ones I'd ever met in real life.

Lol, i predict this comment will be deleted shortly.

Lol, i predict this comment will be deleted shortly

Much like the flat earth model, you are incapable of making accurate predictions.

By me? Why?

Edit: I'm really excited to get to talk to someone who denies the existence of things I worked on directly. Most conspiracy theories have nothing to do with anything I have first-hand knowledge of.

Congratulations! You're the dumbest person I've had the pleasure of laughing at all year!

How did this happen? Did you never go to school or are you oblivious and ignorant for some other reason?

All of these accounts parrot the same tired attack.

You were brainwashed at school. It's incredibly sad if you've failed to realize this fact at this point in your life.

Not just at school, but also in a building where I saw satellites in various stages of assembly, worked with the components myself, and also spent time analyzing telemetry data to compare it to our projections.

Such a conspiracy! To keep thousands of engineers and scientists making spaceworthy satellites, just to fool people into thinking spaceworthy satellites exist!

Are you Mitchell and Webb?

Interesting how many honest users decided to stalk this thread with a good amount of their time today...

Like I said elsewhere, it's not every day I encounter someone who thinks my old job can't exist. I'm really excited that there's finally a conspiracy theory about stuff I have first-hand knowledge of.

Why don't we have a live feed of Earth with all those satellites up there?

Live Stream from ISS

Most satellites dont have a go pro on them. You can view the data they are generating in real time though.

http://www.opensats.net/

Another interesting site.

There aren't really any pictures of Satellites in orbit

We do have a few images of shuttles releasing Satellites but once again no one pays a few million to put a camera into space, they are usually loaded with sensors or comms equipment.

how do the computers in them survive the heat and radiation?

http://www.dansdata.com/spacecomp.htm

Read up on this link.

Most mission critical hardware is running a variation of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory

Its radiation and EMP proof. While you wont be playing Farcry on a machine running with this memory you wont really have to. The satellites and electronics in space arent doing a bulk of the computing. They are very simple and typically handle a few very important duties. Why calculate things in space when you can transmit the relevant data and have the solution beamed back?

Heres another example of a hardened CPU used in many space applications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_RAD6000

Including spirit and opportunity rovers.

So while you are correct that these things are more difficult than most people assume its not anywhere near impossible. Humans are smart as fuck give us a bit of credit.

Excellent post. Saved for future reference.

So many questions.

Why don't you try and do some research to answer them?

Why don't we have a live feed of Earth with all those satellites up there?

First page of Google search results for "live satellite feed"

There aren't really any pictures of Satellites in orbit

First page of Google search results for "amateur astronomy satellite image"

how do the computers in them survive the heat and radiation

I'm not technically-versed in satellite construction, but I assume the same way one hardens computers to survive heat and radiation on Earth. Again, why not do some research to find out how satellites are designed?

EDIT: First page of Google search results for "how do satellite cooling systems work"

We do have live feeds of the Earth (Weather maps, GPS, Intelligence gathering) but the satellites are in low orbit, just like the ISS. They can't capture the whole Earth, if that's what you meant, because they are not high enough.

If you want a picture of the full globe, we do have satellites in geo-stationary orbit. However, satellites in geo-stationary orbit stay orbiting the same place over the earth all the time (hence the "stationary") part of the name.

One such satellite that has frequently updated images available is Himiwari-8. You can see the latest images from this satellite at the link below:

http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/himawari-8.asp

Seriously, satellite dishes work by pointing their face in the direction of a geostationary satellite. If there wasn't anything up there the dishes wouldn't work or wouldn't require directional tuning.

Relevant /u/?

One fun thing about the ISS tracker is that you can manipulate the ISS's position by simply changing the time on your computer. It's pretty neat.

sometimes i can only see the satellites out of the corner of my eye, my night vision must suck :(

Dumb question here....but can you see sats w naked eye? I've always thought they're too small w no light ...but at night I see what looks like stars slowly moving across sky in varius directions, which I assume are sats...input?

Actually it's a perfectly logical question that most people never ask themselves.

If the thermosphere is as hot as they claim it is, and there is no significant atmoshphere in which to radiate(Which is how cooling works) the heat away from the satellite, the absorbed solar radiation would decimate delicate electronics systems (which are producing their own heat mind you).

The "science" of satellites breaks down almost immediately with just the slightest bit of inquiry and a basic understanding of thermodynamics.

Interesting indeed.