No sour grapes, only right analysis.  Man-made satellites cannot "orbit" without falling to earth.  What goes up, must come down.  Anything man made up in the sky has propulsion or it falls.  Period.  At 22,000 ft, the suggested height of satellites, there is no oxygen, so no engines.  Heat alone would cook the electronics. The lack of coverage before towers became widespread is proof.  Otherwise, why towers? Areas without coverage prove we are served by nearly 100% ground based communications (leaving a very small percentage of propelled type vehicles to POSSIBLY carry some signals.  Under ocean and underground cables would not be necessary if thousands of satellites magically floated above.  NASA and aeronautics agencies are repeatedly caught hoisting their own petard.  
  
hoist by one's own petard
(idiomatic) To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".

.
Thank you for waiting around for me to post so you can chime in with more nonsense.
. 
You're wrong, as usual, of course, like your "analysis" -- NOT.
.
Manmade satellites orbit every day, and they're doing it right now. They eventually come down like Skylab and Mir did, but it takes years for that, usually. The propulsion is needed only to get them up there, actually. But you know that.
.
At 22,000 feet they don't need oxygen.  Heat doesn't damage electronics when they're shielded. But if the shields fail, it can.
.
What "towers" are you talking about? Cell phone towers? You don't say.
.
Radio waves don't work under oceans. Duuuh.
.
Still worried about NASA, eh? I guess you have to have something for your shrill, inane complaints.
.

.
Thank you for waiting around for me to post so you can be contrary, again.
.
This proves how ill-tempered you are, and what a sour attitude you have, unfortunately, for all to see.
.
Sad.
.
The thrusters used in outer space don't have to rely on ambient oxygen to work. No, they don't. But you know that.
.
 Heat shields protect from 2000+ degree temps?  Where are these in the real world?
.
Have you ever heard of high temperature resistant materials? 
.
Your oven in the kitchen has some. And your car has even more. If you have a car, that is.
.

So, for the flat earth proponents, why couldn't satellites work even in a flat earth model?

from NASA's website:
How Do Objects Stay in Orbit?
An object in motion will stay in motion unless something pushes or pulls on it. This statement is called Newton's first law of motion. 

.
In our context (trying to discuss these things with flat-earthers) it must be recognized at this point that flat-earthers deny the principle of inertia (momentum) integral to Newton's first law of motion. They accuse Newton of being a pagan (which he wasn't) and a satanist (another falsehood) who speaks the language of Antichrist (a third fallacy).
.
The problems flat-earthers make for themselves begin at the foundation of right thinking. They deny what they see the instant they realize that what they see imputes fatal problems to their sacred-cow false-god flat-earthism, which is a worshiping of idols (according to the Apostle).
.
Without the principle of inertia, any attempt at analysis of how material bodies move, resist changing their state of motion and remain in motion, becomes a pile of nonsense. There can be no intelligible discussion of the nature bodies in motion or at rest exhibit under this defect of thought, whether the bodies be on the surface of the earth or in any way suspended in the atmosphere or beyond. We can't even talk about how a video camera suspended from a lighter-than-air balloon moves according to its own inherent attributes, for example.
.
Add to this that the mere mention of gravity sends every flat-eather willing to chime in, into an uncontrollable fit of apoplexy due to their terrified aversion to the topic of gravity. When they refuse to consider the effects of gravity, how can they be expected to think about what happens if gravity were taken away?
.

Without gravity, an Earth-orbiting satellite would go off into space along a straight line. With gravity, it is pulled back toward Earth. A constant tug-of-war takes place between the satellite's tendency to move in a straight line, or momentum, and the tug of gravity pulling the satellite back.

An object's momentum and the force of gravity have to be balanced for an orbit to happen. 

.
Oh, BTW a person discussing this must have a balanced mind or else the discussion will be dead in the water.
.

If the forward momentum of one object is too great, it will speed past and not enter into orbit. If momentum is too small, the object will be pulled down and crash. When these forces are balanced, the object is always falling toward the planet, but because it's moving sideways fast enough, it never hits the planet. Orbital velocity is the speed needed to stay in orbit. At an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers) above Earth, orbital velocity is about 17,000 miles per hour. Satellites that have higher orbits have slower orbital velocities.


So what if these satellites were moving around in circles (like the sun and moon do on a flat earth model).  According to this, it's "moving SIDEWAYS" that keeps the object from being pulled down by gravity.  That can happen even if the object is moving around in circles above a flat earth.

So, IMO, based on this, it would seem that the rejection of the existence/possibility of satellites would not be essential to flat earth theory.

.
Four more problems: flat-earthers deny any "flat-earth model" saying they don't have one and they don't need one.
Secondly, when we say "sideways" and flat-earthers hear that word, what they think is not what we are thinking when we say it.
Third, flat-earthers can't handle mentioning gravity, for reasons explained above.
Fourth, being unwilling to consider what natural laws keep their hypothetical "sun and moon" in "motion" above a "flat-earth" they're manifestly INCAPABLE of discussing how those laws would affect the movement of satellites. They say "there are no satellites" and that includes asteroids, comets, space dust, space trash, rocks, picnic baskets or empty whiskey bottles, to name a few.
.
It is the LACK OF PRINCIPLES in the thinking of flat-earthers that makes them unable to enter into the discussion.
.
Consequently there is no point of trying to discuss with a flat-earther the relationship of asteroids to meteors, or meteors to meteorites. They don't want to even go there.
.
You see, in a real world the sun and moon moving as they do, if the earth were "flat," would make no sense because at any moment the sun or the moon would keep moving in a straight line toward the "dome" and crash into it, in a real world. Consequently flat-earthers deny momentum and attempt to excuse any right thinking in this area due to the challenges it poses to their loony (and false) hypothesis.

.
The problem with that plan is, there isn't any "dome."
That there is no dome is demonstrably factual.
Sometimes a signal bounces back, sometimes it doesn't.
If a "dome" were there it would always bounce the signal back.
The fact that the signal only bounces SOMETIMES and usually DOESN'T is proof there is no dome. QED.
.

You rail at odds with Scripture, Augustine, Lactantius, Severian, St. John Chrystostom, Moses, Enoch, Origen, and St. Jerome.  You have not proven the dome does not exist.