I wonder how they are going to explain this one?

https://vimeo.com/161656838

Would love to hear the explanations once 1000s of these privately owned little satellites are in orbit taking video etc...

I saw a company offer to put a larger satellite into orbit for 8000, they are put into a self-decaying orbit however, so all evidence 'burns up' when they 're-enter'

I would like to see any footage taken with these satellites too.

https://vimeo.com/161656838

Would love to hear the explanations once 1000s of these privately owned little satellites are in orbit taking video etc...

Care to summarize the video?  I'm on satellite internet, and we've almost reached our data limit for the month. 

Quote from: ScifiAgent on May 29, 2016, 02:25:22 PM

https://vimeo.com/161656838

Would love to hear the explanations once 1000s of these privately owned little satellites are in orbit taking video etc...

Care to summarize the video?  I'm on satellite internet, and we've almost reached our data limit for the month.

They are planning to make satellites the size of a matchbox for public sale. The prize will be less than 1000 $.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 29, 2016, 03:47:22 PM

Quote from: ScifiAgent on May 29, 2016, 02:25:22 PM

https://vimeo.com/161656838

Would love to hear the explanations once 1000s of these privately owned little satellites are in orbit taking video etc...

Care to summarize the video?  I'm on satellite internet, and we've almost reached our data limit for the month.

They are planning to make satellites the size of a matchbox for public sale. The prize will be less than 1000 $.

Satellites like that might need a mother satellite to handle communication with the earth, so I'm wondering how they will handle that. 

https://vimeo.com/161656838

Would love to hear the explanations once 1000s of these privately owned little satellites are in orbit taking video etc...

That's easy! They'll just deny it and call it a hoax.

Quote from: ScifiAgent on May 29, 2016, 02:25:22 PM

https://vimeo.com/161656838

Would love to hear the explanations once 1000s of these privately owned little satellites are in orbit taking video etc...

That's easy! They'll just deny it and call it a hoax.

For once in your life you are correct. Those satellites are fake, traveling in outspace is one big hoax.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 29, 2016, 06:40:04 PM

Quote from: ScifiAgent on May 29, 2016, 02:25:22 PM

https://vimeo.com/161656838

Would love to hear the explanations once 1000s of these privately owned little satellites are in orbit taking video etc...

That's easy! They'll just deny it and call it a hoax.

For once in your life you are correct. Those satellites are fake, traveling in outer space is one big hoax.

"Fake?"  Fake how?  What are those little white dots whizzing around in the night sky, and why do they follow Kepler's laws?

Why can telescopes be used to get pictures of planets millions of miles away,but no decent pictures of satellites?

Planets are huge! Also the closest satellites move relatively very fast, hard to take a good pictures of them.

Nice try but people are able to locate geostationary ones , and take long exposure pictures of them.
So their movement isn't an issue.

But no one is able to get any decent pictures of them outside of white dots.

The same people who can post pictures of mercury with their own home telescope can't get a picture of a scientific wonder that is much closer?

Why can telescopes be used to get pictures of planets millions of miles away,but no decent pictures of satellites?

Define "decent".


http://www.skymania.com/wp/2011/03/amateur-snaps-astronaut-on-spacewalk.html/3655/

The ISS travels fast but the guy above said it's impossible to get pictures of fast moving orbiters

The ISS travels fast but the guy above said it's impossible to get pictures of fast moving orbiters

I said hard, and it is, if you look for images of the ISS you mostly see blurry images, that one above is quite good. Also the ISS is huge compared to most orbiters, so the rest are much harder to spot.

To back up my statement that planets are easier to see than satellites.
Mars is 21 500 times further away than geosynchronous satellite
But is 338 500 times bigger (if a satellite was a 20m diameter, they are smaller)

P.S. I picked Mars because it is closer to earth than it will be for the next 2 years tonight. I can see it and it is a big bright dot!

You're being contradictory
If people can take pictures of geosynchronous satellites with a camera and zoom lens then why no satellite pictures.

If people can take pictures of geosynchronous satellites with a camera and zoom lens then why no satellite pictures.

I said they can, it is just hard. Using my simple math on top, Mars is more than 15times bigger in the sky than a geosynchronous satellite.

here is a picture of Mars taken with the most powerful telescope we have

From that you can guess that a armature astronomer is not going to see a geosynchronous satellite with his little telescope. And professional astronomers are not interested in taking pictures of things well understood.

Nice try but people are able to locate geostationary ones , and take long exposure pictures of them.
So their movement isn't an issue.

But no one is able to get any decent pictures of them outside of white dots.

That's because they're so small they are point sources (i.e. "dots") for ground-based telescopes. Geostationary satellites orbit about 36,000 km above the equator. At that distance an object would have to be at least 175 meters in size to subtend 1 second of arc. Theoretically, a telescope with 20 cm (8") aperture - a common size for amateur equipment - can start to resolve about 1 arcsec in visible light, but looking through the atmosphere limits even larger telescopes to not much better than that. Regardless, no geostationary satellites are anywhere close to that large, so they're beyond the resolving power of any ground-based telescopes except possibly for a few very large (expensive!) ones with (expensive!) adaptive optics; as mentioned, time on those instruments is so valuable that messing around trying to image satellites for no real purpose isn't practical. A quick search didn't turn up any physical dimensions for geosynchronous satellites, but http://www.livescience.com/32583-how-big-is-the-international-space-station.html gives about 109m as the length of the ISS, and mentions that it is the largest man-made object in space.

The same people who can post pictures of mercury with their own home telescope can't get a picture of a scientific wonder that is much closer?

Geostationary satellites are simply too small to resolve from the ground. Mercury, on the other hand, is much larger. During the recent transit, Mercury had an apparent diameter of 12 arc seconds, easily resolved by even modest telescopes; at quadrature (half illuminated as viewed from earth) its apparent diameter is about 7 arc seconds.

That's just the way it is.

You're being contradictory
If people can take pictures of geosynchronous satellites with a camera and zoom lens then why no satellite pictures.

People can't take detailed pictures of geosynchronous satellites. They are too small and too far away. Points of light are all you're going to get.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 29, 2016, 06:40:04 PM

Quote from: ScifiAgent on May 29, 2016, 02:25:22 PM

https://vimeo.com/161656838

Would love to hear the explanations once 1000s of these privately owned little satellites are in orbit taking video etc...

That's easy! They'll just deny it and call it a hoax.

For once in your life you are correct. Those satellites are fake, traveling in outspace is one big hoax.

Saying the same thing over and over and over again will not make it true.

The ISS travels fast but the guy above said it's impossible to get pictures of fast moving orbiters

No, I believe he said "Also the closest satellites move relatively very fast, hard to take a good pictures of them.
It would be a good idea you would read, learn and inwardly digest what is written, before you post.

There is a big difference between "hard to take a good pictures of them" and "impossible to get pictures of fast moving orbiters".

To paraphrase a sign I saw in a workshop "Hard jobs done immediately, impossible ones take a little longer."
You whole argument seems to be that you cannot understand the Globe, so the earth must be flat!
So many seem to decide that the earth must be flat before they have examined the evidence.

A quick Google search was all I needed to find these:





Among others. They aren't as clear as, say,  the pictures of Mars. After all, the red planet is almost seven thousand kilometers wide, while the biggest manmade satellite, the ISS, is about a hundred meters long.

Edit: Hi! New here, let's be friends!

Of course, pictures are all fake anyways, so why ask for them?

Why can telescopes be used to get pictures of planets millions of miles away,but no decent pictures of satellites?

There are many pictures of satellites with telescopes. I have observed the ISS with my telescope, but haven't had the chance to take a photo. Seriously though, Google it, you'll find many pictures.