uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

  • 927 Replies
  • 140376 Views
*

feuk

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 570
  • ^ hmmmmm
uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« on: October 11, 2017, 06:19:48 AM »
 sattelites  ;D
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.

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 ?

has anyone ever imaged the thousands of satellites in "orbit" ?

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.

so imho orbiting satellites don't pass the sniff test.
thanks for your time.
"How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It's not easy to become sane."

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2017, 06:36:07 AM »
You umm, you DID see the disclaimer on that second image right?

Also there's no 'juggling' between too small to see and see them with the naked eye. If you know where to look you can see their light point in the sky. But without binoculars or a telescope you will not be able to make out details of them. That's it. That's how they can be both too small to see (in detail) and let you see them with the naked eye (point of light) for some of them.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2017, 07:05:35 AM »
Hi Fe, how's tricks?

Of course, the whole idea of 'orbits' is Pseudoscientific nonsense from the get go.

This will help you understand why; it's a good read:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2017, 08:25:22 AM »
Not to scale.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2017, 08:42:26 AM »
Not to scale.

Irrelevant.

Scale has nothing to do with the problem.

The problem is that gravity accelerates objects downwards, yet satellites in orbit are allegedly unpowered, thus relying solely on the fixed velocity of momentum.

Unfortunately for them, an accelerative force will always overcome a fixed force...

In other words, WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN.

This rule is absolutely without exception - as I have shown, there is an entire, very exact, science devoted to it called Ballistics.

Please read again:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Either the above is correct, or orbital mechanics is correct; but both cannot be correct, as they directly contradict one another.

And, as ballistics are directly observable and provable with simple home experiment, whilst orbital mechanics is not, I know which one I believe to be correct.

It's that simple.

BTW, you're about to go on my ignore list, as your contributions are utterly worthless and stupid beyond belief...

So enjoy the attention while you can.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2017, 09:04:04 AM »
Not to scale.

Irrelevant.

Scale has nothing to do with the problem.

The problem is that gravity accelerates objects downwards, yet satellites in orbit are allegedly unpowered, thus relying solely on the fixed velocity of momentum.

Unfortunately for them, an accelerative force will always overcome a fixed force...

In other words, WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN.

This rule is absolutely without exception - as I have shown, there is an entire, very exact, science devoted to it called Ballistics.

Please read again:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Either the above is correct, or orbital mechanics is correct; but both cannot be correct, as they directly contradict one another.

And, as ballistics are directly observable and provable with simple home experiment, whilst orbital mechanics is not, I know which one I believe to be correct.

It's that simple.

BTW, you're about to go on my ignore list, as your contributions are utterly worthless and stupid beyond belief...

So enjoy the attention while you can.

You mistake me for someone who gives a shit about your "ignore list".

Satellites maintain orbital velocity using gravity. They are falling to earth constantly. I'm sure you knew that already.

You are correct that they must come.e down.

My scale comment was in regards to those artist renditions... Anyway, ignore away, my asshole friend!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2017, 09:07:48 AM »
Not to scale.

Irrelevant.

Scale has nothing to do with the problem.

The problem is that gravity accelerates objects downwards, yet satellites in orbit are allegedly unpowered, thus relying solely on the fixed velocity of momentum.

Unfortunately for them, an accelerative force will always overcome a fixed force...

In other words, WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN.

This rule is absolutely without exception - as I have shown, there is an entire, very exact, science devoted to it called Ballistics.

Please read again:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Either the above is correct, or orbital mechanics is correct; but both cannot be correct, as they directly contradict one another.

And, as ballistics are directly observable and provable with simple home experiment, whilst orbital mechanics is not, I know which one I believe to be correct.

It's that simple.

BTW, you're about to go on my ignore list, as your contributions are utterly worthless and stupid beyond belief...

So enjoy the attention while you can.
Sats still have thrusters to maintain orbit and potentially maneuver. http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5170/8702_read-15604/8702_page-4/

Please try again. Ignoring people who point out your mistakes doesn't make them or your mistakes go away. It simply makes you look childish.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2017, 09:40:39 AM »
You are ignoring this idiot. Show me his idiocy.

That will not be necessary thank you.

Satellites are constantly being ACCELERATED downwards at a rate of  9.8 metres per second SQUARED.

And their velocity is FIXED.

Yet somehow, they can overcome this exponentially increasing  DOWNWARD ACCELERATION for years on end?

Bullshit.

This proves it:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Orbital mechanics is demonstrably garbage; thus, satellites do not exist.

Simple as that.

Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2017, 09:47:16 AM »
You are ignoring this idiot. Show me his idiocy.

That will not be necessary thank you.

Satellites are constantly being ACCELERATED downwards at a rate of  9.8 metres per second SQUARED.

And their velocity is FIXED.

Yet somehow, they can overcome this exponentially increasing  DOWNWARD ACCELERATION for years on end?

Bullshit.

This proves it:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Orbital mechanics is demonstrably garbage; thus, satellites do not exist.

Simple as that.

Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Yet we successfully receive TV from satellites and use GPS for timing and location.  Currently 'seeing' 17 US and Russian satellites from my phone.

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2017, 09:55:18 AM »
You are ignoring this idiot. Show me his idiocy.

That will not be necessary thank you.

Satellites are constantly being ACCELERATED downwards at a rate of  9.8 metres per second SQUARED.

And their velocity is FIXED.

Yet somehow, they can overcome this exponentially increasing  DOWNWARD ACCELERATION for years on end?

Bullshit.

This proves it:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Orbital mechanics is demonstrably garbage; thus, satellites do not exist.

Simple as that.

Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Yes, because 'down' is subjective and changes as the satellite moves. You're also appearing to ignore the reduced gravity they are under because if their height. They are not accelerating 'down' at 9.8 m/s/s. Are you sure you understand orbital mechanics enough to claim they're garbage? You keep linking to ballistics, which requires some tinkering due to the changes in things at high altitude, like greatly reduced drag and reduced gravity.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2017, 10:10:44 AM »
You are ignoring this idiot. Show me his idiocy.

That will not be necessary thank you.

Satellites are constantly being ACCELERATED downwards at a rate of  9.8 metres per second SQUARED.

And their velocity is FIXED.

Yet somehow, they can overcome this exponentially increasing  DOWNWARD ACCELERATION for years on end?

Bullshit.

This proves it:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Orbital mechanics is demonstrably garbage; thus, satellites do not exist.

Simple as that.

Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Yet we successfully receive TV from satellites and use GPS for timing and location.  Currently 'seeing' 17 US and Russian satellites from my phone.

So you claim to be seeing 17 satellites on your phone?

Don't think so.

Welcome to the ignore list.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2017, 10:23:40 AM »
Satellites do, In fact, exist...

Toodles, dumbass!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2017, 10:30:55 AM »

Please read again:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Either the above is correct, or orbital mechanics is correct; but both cannot be correct, as they directly contradict one another.

So what would happen if I fired an object at an angle of 45 degrees to an altitude of 22,000 miles?  Could you calculate the ballistic arc it would trace?  How far will it travel before it lands again?

*

feuk

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 570
  • ^ hmmmmm
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2017, 10:59:30 AM »
Hi Fe, how's tricks?

Of course, the whole idea of 'orbits' is Pseudoscientific nonsense from the get go.

This will help you understand why; it's a good read:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Hey PL ,
Thanks for the link.

satellites  :D .

« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 11:20:45 AM by feuk »
"How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It's not easy to become sane."

*

feuk

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 570
  • ^ hmmmmm
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2017, 11:09:59 AM »
You umm, you DID see the disclaimer on that second image right?

Also there's no 'juggling' between too small to see and see them with the naked eye. If you know where to look you can see their light point in the sky. But without binoculars or a telescope you will not be able to make out details of them. That's it. That's how they can be both too small to see (in detail) and let you see them with the naked eye (point of light) for some of them.

The disclaimer ?
Sure, artists rendition for entertainment purposes only.

Are you claiming to see thousands of satellites in detail through a telescope every night ?

Any images ?
(Not drawings or finger paintings but photos)

Actual evidence might help support your rather wild claims.
"How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It's not easy to become sane."

*

feuk

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 570
  • ^ hmmmmm
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2017, 11:18:33 AM »
Yet we successfully receive TV from satellites and use GPS for timing and location.  Currently 'seeing' 17 US and Russian satellites from my phone.

Ground based tech.

Are you really seeing Russian satellites on your phone ?
Really ?

Come on man.
"How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It's not easy to become sane."

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2017, 11:24:28 AM »
Yet we successfully receive TV from satellites and use GPS for timing and location.  Currently 'seeing' 17 US and Russian satellites from my phone.

Ground based tech.

Are you really seeing Russian satellites on your phone ?
Really ?

Come on man.
Receiving from Russian GPS satellites.  Please provide links to documentation on how GPS works.

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2017, 11:53:16 AM »
Yet we successfully receive TV from satellites and use GPS for timing and location.  Currently 'seeing' 17 US and Russian satellites from my phone.

Ground based tech.

Are you really seeing Russian satellites on your phone ?
Really ?

Come on man.
Ever notice how satellite dishes are pointed?  In North America they all face south.  And at an angle that would quickly make ground based tech useless.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2017, 11:59:50 AM »
Not to mention satellites TV dishes all g the equator...
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2017, 12:01:02 PM »
You umm, you DID see the disclaimer on that second image right?

Also there's no 'juggling' between too small to see and see them with the naked eye. If you know where to look you can see their light point in the sky. But without binoculars or a telescope you will not be able to make out details of them. That's it. That's how they can be both too small to see (in detail) and let you see them with the naked eye (point of light) for some of them.

The disclaimer ?
Sure, artists rendition for entertainment purposes only.

Are you claiming to see thousands of satellites in detail through a telescope every night ?

Any images ?
(Not drawings or finger paintings but photos)

Actual evidence might help support your rather wild claims.
I meant the whole 'size isn't accurate' bit.

Don't have a telescope at home right now, and you need to know exactly where to look to see one anyway. I'll see what I can do, maybe if I can find a camera and tripod to borrow....

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2017, 12:05:32 PM »
sattelites  ;D
below are a few artists impressions (of course) of alleged satellites in "orbit".





take a good look

OK.

The second one says: "Note: Artist's impression; size of debris exaggerated as compared to the Earth"

The first one isn't to scale, either.

Quote
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.

Out of those "thousands of tons", how many objects are the size of a pea? If you don't know, why did you bring it up? How much of a "bump" would such an object cause? Unless you run some calculations, you're just speculating with no rational basis.

Quote
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 ?

Nope!

Most man-made objects in orbit (satellites and "space junk") are in the region of low earth orbit roughly 200 to 500 km above earth's surface (ISS is around 400 km). The volume of this region is 130 billion cubic kilometers. That's 13,000 km3 each for ten million objects. For reference, a cube with volume 13K km3 would be about 23.4 km on a side.

Despite what those images show, satellites are pretty far apart on average.

What about natural stuff up there? If you can get a reliable estimate of its distribution, you should do the math and show us what you find. Until you do the math (based on reasonable estimates) your speculation is meaningless.

Quote
has anyone ever imaged the thousands of satellites in "orbit" ?

Has one person imaged all of them? Highly unlikely. So?

Quote
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 larger and brighter ones can easily be seen naked eye. To see the dimmer ones (dimmer because they're small, nonreflecting, or distant) requires optical aid. Where's the problem? This is like pretty much everything else.

Quote
so imho orbiting satellites don't pass the sniff test.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It should be given attention commensurate with the actual effort you put into forming it, which appears to be vanishingly small.

Quote
thanks for your time.

You're welcome!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2017, 12:39:11 PM »

Please read again:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Either the above is correct, or orbital mechanics is correct; but both cannot be correct, as they directly contradict one another.

So what would happen if I fired an object at an angle of 45 degrees to an altitude of 22,000 miles?  Could you calculate the ballistic arc it would trace?  How far will it travel before it lands again?

It is physically impossible to fire any solid object to the height of 22,000 miles, so your question is moot.

Lay off the sci-fi is my advice.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2017, 12:43:14 PM »
We have fired humans over 200,000 miles from Earth.

We have fired "solid objects" (Voyager probes) out of our solar system.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2017, 12:57:15 PM »
sattelites  ;D
below are a few artists impressions (of course) of alleged satellites in "orbit".





take a good look

OK.

The second one says: "Note: Artist's impression; size of debris exaggerated as compared to the Earth"

The first one isn't to scale, either.

Quote
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.

Out of those "thousands of tons", how many objects are the size of a pea? If you don't know, why did you bring it up? How much of a "bump" would such an object cause? Unless you run some calculations, you're just speculating with no rational basis.

Quote
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 ?

Nope!

Most man-made objects in orbit (satellites and "space junk") are in the region of low earth orbit roughly 200 to 500 km above earth's surface (ISS is around 400 km). The volume of this region is 130 billion cubic kilometers. That's 13,000 km3 each for ten million objects. For reference, a cube with volume 13K km3 would be about 23.4 km on a side.

Despite what those images show, satellites are pretty far apart on average.

What about natural stuff up there? If you can get a reliable estimate of its distribution, you should do the math and show us what you find. Until you do the math (based on reasonable estimates) your speculation is meaningless.

Quote
has anyone ever imaged the thousands of satellites in "orbit" ?

Has one person imaged all of them? Highly unlikely. So?

Quote
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 larger and brighter ones can easily be seen naked eye. To see the dimmer ones (dimmer because they're small, nonreflecting, or distant) requires optical aid. Where's the problem? This is like pretty much everything else.

Quote
so imho orbiting satellites don't pass the sniff test.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It should be given attention commensurate with the actual effort you put into forming it, which appears to be vanishingly small.

Quote
thanks for your time.

You're welcome!

Cool story bro...

You should write a book about it.

Ah, snap!

Someone beat you to it:

https://www.wired.com/2011/05/0525arthur-c-clarke-proposes-geostationary-satellites/

Anyhoo, if these satellites are still being permanently affected by gravity then why aren't they constantly accelerating?

They supposedly start off at 17,000 mph, and gravity will accelerate them at a further 9.8 metres per second squared...

So after a week or two they should all be whizzing round the Earth at an ungodly rate...

The night sky would look like a Catherine wheel!

Yet this does not happen, does it?

Because they don't exist.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2017, 01:02:05 PM »
Meanwhile satellite tv works for millions...

Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2017, 01:16:06 PM »
Meanwhile satellite tv works for millions...
Meanwhile Legba still doesn't understand how to add velocities together to figure out the answer to his question, and puts anyone who disagrees with him on ignore. O.o

*

Zaphod

  • 137
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2017, 02:14:59 PM »
PL

I'm sure you're just having fun trolling, but just in case you're not it might be an idea for you to look up what "acceleration" and "velocity" actually mean.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2017, 02:19:22 PM »
He should probably look into vector components while he's at it.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2017, 02:27:36 PM »
PL

I'm sure you're just having fun trolling, but just in case you're not it might be an idea for you to look up what "acceleration" and "velocity" actually mean.

They mean two different things, just as I stated:

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=25401

So you have no point and I am still correct.

You are also on my ignore list due to trying to sneak bullshit past me with one of your minor sockpuppets.

The imaginary concept of orbital mechanics violates the observable science of ballistics...

FACT.

Quibbling over definitions will not change that.

He should probably look into vector components while he's at it.

No I should not.

You know nothing about physics and all your suggestions are garbage.

But thanks for letting me know that Zaphod is your sockpuppet, slowpoke.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2017, 02:29:04 PM »
sattelites  ;D
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.

Quote
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
Quote from: Lawrence Roberts
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?
Quote from: feuk
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.
Quote
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.

Quote from: feuk
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.

Quote from: feuk
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 telescope

Then 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:
Quote from: Liron Samuels 2
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.

Quote from: feuk
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.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 05:37:02 PM by rabinoz »