sattelites
below are a few artists impressions (of course) of alleged satellites in "orbit".
take a good look and mull over the following.....
it is claimed many thousands of satellites are currently in "orbit", it is also claimed many thousands of tons of meteorites fall to earth each year......hmmmmm.
of course some micro meteorites are classed as dust, ok fair enough, even one the size of a pea travelling at high velocity would at least cause damage or bump one a fraction of a degree onto a different trajectory.
Why do you mob keep bringing up the
same old trivial material?
Space is huge. It is much larger volume than the surface of the earth, yet on a tiny part of the surface of the earth there are over one billion cars.
How many cars are there in the world? The answer…
One billion.
That’s right. According to data compiled by US publication Wards Auto, the world vehicle population topped one billion for the first time ever in 2010.
The milestone was achieved on the back of a 35.6-million-vehicle increase for the year, which saw the global registered fleet rise from 980 million to 1.015 billion.
From caradvice, How many cars are there in the world?
These
1,000,000,000 cars are driven on just a very small proportion of the surface of the land. They are sort of "contolled".
Then in less than 20 km above the surface of the earth there are over 6000 tracked aircraft in the air and an unknown number of untracked airsraft - light aircraft.
But 20,000 sarellites, etc, spread over more than the area of the earth and up to 35,000 km, is a minute density.
Some do collide, and pieces of space debris have hit the ISS. The space station can be manoeuvred away from larger objects.
Strangely enough Mr Physical Observer, you are far the first to think of this, even NASA knew about decades before you.
It is a matter of concern
Will we ever run out of space for satellites?
We already are running out of available space, at least for one, particularly valuable orbit.
Yes, space itself is vast - even that volume composed solely of Earth-centric orbits. All areas of space are not, however, created equal. Desirability, and by extension, occupancy, is determined by the capabilities and costs of our technology and the particular advantages that some orbits provide over others. For example, low Earth orbit offers superior ability to remotely sense the Earth's surface, shielding for astronauts from many types of radiation under the protection of the planet's magnetic field while simultaneously being the most cost effective for the placement of payloads on a price per pound basis.
From Will we ever run out of space for satellites?
so..looking at the above artists impressions, and accounting for natural space debris...isn't this idea of thousands of satellites just chilling, avoiding high velocity debris and each other just complete bollocks ?
Nothwithstanding the above, satellites, including the ISS do get hit, but only one has been destroyed.
This is what happens when a tiny piece of flying space debris hits the ISS It's pretty unnerving that something so small could cause such a significant crack, but the ISS is orbiting Earth at 17,150 miles per hour. The Cupola's massive 80 cm windows are made of fused silica and borosilicate glass that can help it withstand the force of this space junk — to an extent. An impact like the one above poses no real threat to the ISS, according to the ESA, but debris up to 1 cm could cause critical damage while anything larger than 10 cm could "shatter a satellite or spacecraft into pieces."
"I am often asked if the International Space Station is hit by space debris," Peake said in a statement. "Yes — this is the chip in one of our Cupola windows, glad it is quadruple glazed!"
NASA has previously conducted special maneuvers to avoid larger, more dangerous debris. In 2014, flight controllers were able to raise the ISS's altitude by half a mile in order to avoid an old part of a European rocket barreling down in its orbital path.
From: This is what happens when a tiny piece of flying space debris hits the ISS.
has anyone ever imaged the thousands of satellites in "orbit"?
There is no way to image all of the satellites and debris at once, but quite a number have been photographed individually.
Many amateurs photograph the ISS and astronomical telescopes have observed the geostationary satellites.
But, you try to imaging photographing thousands of objects up to the size of a bus, up to 35,000 km away, moving at anywhere up to 27,000 km/hr.
it appears the satellite squad shift between "you can see them with the naked eye" and "they are to small to see" juggling which ever response meets their needs, bless em, just don't expect any actual evidence.
The light from the ISS and the Iridium satellites is often seen and quite on schedule, but how can anyone give evidence of "naked eye" sightings.
But, there are photos!
You can see the most of the satellites lined up along the earth's equator, and the others are following analemmas, as geosynchronous satellites do. Each of these satellites can be tied to a specific launch. They can't be natural satellites, because they only started appearing when we started launching them, and they are in orbits that were carefully chosen for their intended purpose, as are all artificial satellites. It's much easier to observe lower satellites, though. Geostationary satellites are too far away to get anything but a faint image.
Some see the significance of those "little lights in the sky", and some are
so close minded and blinkered that they mean nothing!
Then there is this sort of thing. Note that
geostationary satellites are not quite
stationary, they move in small "figure of eights::
Astra geostationary satellites through telescopeThen there are photos of the ISS taken on cameras such as the Nikon P-900, as in Look at this photo. That certainly looks like the
ISS and taken by an amateur with a Nikon D900:
THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AS CAPTURED WITH THE NIKON P900’S MONSTER ZOOM
February 9, 2016
Shortly after its announcement I read a review of the Nikon P900 super-zoom bridge camera, where the author excitedly said it can be used to shoot objects as far as ten miles away.
Judging by this photo of the International Space Station, captured by Naftali Maimon, I’m happy to say the P900’s 83x 2000mm-equivalent zoom is also capable of snapping photos of objects 250 miles away.
That’s right, this photo was captured with a $597 bridge camera!
Naftali’s interest in celestial objects is no surprise, considering he’s a veteran fighter pilot in the Israeli Air Force, but I doubt even he expected such an impressive result.
“The first challenge,” Naftali told DIYP, “was focusing; automatic focus obviously wouldn’t work, so I focused manually on the moon (the range is different but seemed good enough)”.
His next challenge was to track the ISS while fully zoomed (to avoid changing the focus). This is no easy feat with such a crazy zoom and a tiny moving object, and Naftali says he practiced on locating stars for several minutes before space station’s pass in order to do so.
The image above, captured with the camera’s maximum optical zoom, was achieved after massively cropping the original photo and applying some work in post.
Naftali was able to crop the ISS so tightly thanks to the P900’s 16MP sensor, . . . ..
Obviously this photo won’t be winning any astrophotography contests, but it is absolutely mind-blowing that such a cheap camera can capture a structure the size of a football field cruising through space at 27,600 kilometers per hour at an orbital height of 400 kilometers.
Photography, THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AS CAPTURED WITH THE NIKON P900’S MONSTER ZOOM
As noted, the quality is not great, but it is not easy to photograph the ISS with any sort of camera, largely because it moves so fast, but it can be done.
so imho orbiting satellites don't pass the sniff test.
thanks for your time.
You just make baseless claims that reflect your own ignorance on the topic and so lazy that you are unwilling to do any research.
IMHO,
Mr feuk, your claims
don't pass the sniff test.