I'm having a problem understanding something...

You know what I find very bizzare. And I could be wrong. and I hope I am. I really do....

But what I find so strange is this....

According to Wikipedia there's suppose to be about about 6,600 satellites in space ( en.wikipedia.org... ) . Followed up by another 170 million pieces of debris in orbit. Out of the 170 pieces 29,000 are larger pieces. Like big chunks ranging from about the size of your fist on up. en.wikipedia.org...

So I see two really very puzzling problems with that.

1) With that much debree wouldn't there be a constant ongoing battle with trying to avoid these objects. Most of which are flying around at around 25,000 miles an hour. So say with the ISS. or any rockets they send up, how on earth do they avoid what would be a complete fog, or beehive of debris? It makes no sense? But It is a big area so it is somewhat probably based on my calculations that this perhaps might be managable. However, it's amazing that no satillites or shuttles, or rockets, or ISS etc etc, have never or rarely ever been hit or even had a near miss of a piece of debree?

2) But here's the one that really puzzles me. And I don't know what to make of this, but if you look at 99.9% of any of the videos or live feeds from ISS or any other rocket that's gone into orbit, or any of the appollo stuff, etc etc, you never see any satillites??? Like seriously where's these 6600 satillites? And the other 29,000 pieces of space debree that are big enough for us to see???? Makes no sense???

Like if you look up during a stary night you can see objects that would appear to be satillites. They look like slow moving stars. Not always but if you look long enough you're bound to see one. But that makes no sense. If there's like 6600 full satilites and another 29,000 larger space debree the whole sky should be a fog of objects floating around.

But I think the biggest and weirdest thing to all this is just looking at the ISS feed on youtube. There's NO SATILLITES. You never ever see any satilities on there. And I asked in chat about that and I got blocked. What's that about??? It's weird. Like that's rediculous.

Here's a video of Google's supposed tracking of just some of the main working satillites, (some of the 6600 floating around). But these are just some of them. They don't show all 6600 in this video, and they dont' show all the 29000 smaller space debree, nor the remaining 170 million micro debree smaller than 10 centemeters in diameter. But still, look how many there are, looking at the ISS feed you should easily be able to see satillites constantly! They should be everywhere???

What gives??? Anyone care to try and explain any of this???

First video,.... this is how many satillites there's suppose to be. And watch this because it zooms in and shows hundreds...



no satillites...



no satillites and no debree or anything....

Probably because ISS is at 400 km and most satellites at 35000 km?

a reply to: truthtalk44

I replied to you in another thread;


What?

A very slight change in Inclination of a Satellite (think 0.001), and a slight different altitude of a satellite (I.e 1 meter) at either Apoapsis (high point of Orbit) or Periapsis (Low point of Orbit) can make that satellite zoom 20-50KM's + away from the ISS itself.

Space around Earth orbits is BIG, and considering the many man different orbits; I.E 352x410KM / 3000x3100KM / 10000x11500KM, you will see with many Inclinations and orbit altitudes that it is near impossible for you to see them act like a swarm of bees.

I suggest you download a Copy of Kerbal Space Simulator and take a go at it, play it with the MechJeb Mod if you do not want to learn how to get a rocket into orbit by yourself, it will help you understand completely how wrong your comprehension abilities are

originally posted by: Indigent
Probably because ISS is at 400 km and most satellites at 35000 km?

How deny ignorance in one easy step.

^^ What Indigent said. ^^

Plus, I think you're underestimating how large the atmosphere is. If there were only 6,600 boats in all of the world's waters (ponds, oceans, lakes, rives, aquifers, etc), there's a good chance they'd literally never run into each other. And if there were 29,000 "large" animals spread across the Earth's surface, it would be incredibly rare for them to ever cross paths, assuming they ever did. But our waters and land are far smaller and far less "deep" than the atmosphere.

As for why we don't see the smaller fragments on footage, here's a simple comparison about the number of insects per acre in some US States (HERE).

In North Carolina, soil samples to a depth of 5 inches yielded a calculation that there were approximately 124 million animals per acre, of which 90 million were mites, 28 million were springtails, and 4.5 million were other insects. A similar study in Pennsylvania yielded figures of 425 million animals per acre, with 209 million mites, 119 million springtails, and 11 million other arthropods.

Yet how many of those hundreds of millions of animals per acre do we see? Assuming that some of the micro sized space fragments are insect sized, it wouldn't be surprising if they were too small to show up on screen or were simply so spread out that we simply don't come across them.

179 million is only a large number to humans; 179 million micro sized objects are insignificant compared to size and scope of the atmosphere.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

okay ya I hear you. But here's the problem, we're not even seeing 1 freaking satillite off the ISS live feed, ever!???? Not even one. Never. There's never 1. They only thing they did put out was this one video floating around youtube of what they show as a satillite that's near by. (that's rediculous!). Like one video like that with 1 satillite, it's most likely fake! It's not live. It's just 1. There's none ever on the ISS live feed. There's no other filmed satillites but this one loaner they claim they got near to so they filmed it. Well if they filmed one, I'm just amazed that we don't see dozens of others. With the volume of supposed satillites and debree there should be tons of them visable as soon you open any video on space. But you never see any. It's clearly a lie in my opinion. I could be wrong, I just don't have any solid proof of that.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Indigent
Probably because ISS is at 400 km and most satellites at 35000 km?

How deny ignorance in one easy step.

Where do you get this? That's rediculous. Most are 35000 out, get real. what are you smoking? Watch that first video. Clearly most are near by around where the ISS is. Most debree and most satillites are in lower earth orbit accroding to wikipedia and the nasa site. There's only a few that far out, like a few dozen supposed GPS satilites. And the ISS is filming toward the horizon so we should be able to see many in the distance that are farther out. YOu're just presuming.

a reply to: Indigent

Where do you get this? That's rediculous. Most are 35000 out, get real. what are you smoking? Watch that first video. Clearly most are near by around where the ISS is. Most debree and most satillites are in lower earth orbit accroding to wikipedia and the nasa site. There's only a few that far out, like a few dozen supposed GPS satilites. And the ISS is filming toward the horizon so we should be able to see many in the distance that are farther out. YOu're just presuming.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm just not buying it. I mean we see jet planes flying at 30000 ft all the time. And there's only about 5000 of them flying over the US at any given time. yet you'll be almost anywhere (not necessarily in the city) and you'll look up and see a jet 30000 ft away clearly visable. yet on the ISS feed there should be way way way more sightings because you're viewing area is like literally millions of square miles. And yet you can't even find 1 object??? GET REAL! What am I even doing in here.

a reply to: truthtalk44

Mate, no need to be rude.

Please have a look at This Site first before you continue insulting people, it will help you understand the orbits of a lot of satellites and junk around earth, it's a Satellite Tracking site.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

Sattelites ?? always wondered if they are real..

a reply to: MuonToGluon

Mate, no need to be rude.

get real. what are you smoking?

Well what is it? pick out your mind...

And if you are gonna be quoting wikipedia now... well none of your numbers are correct according to it, they even got a list of the ones at 35k km

a reply to: truthtalk44

Can you see those jets on the ISS feed, too? Can you also see the hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, trains, etc on those ISS feeds? Like I said, I think you're severely underestimating the size and scope we're dealing with here. If you look at a mountain that's only a dozen miles away, you wouldn't see the objects on the mountain that were 10cm or smaller. But you're expecting to be able to see objects that small across a viewing area of "literally millions of square miles", as you put it?

Actually, never mind. Believe what you want.

Wish I could flag you twice.
I didn't even watch the videos to wonder exactly what you are asking. Good questions but I haven't read any of the other answers so maybe I should go and do just that, I might learn something or not

i think you brain isnt grasping the sheer size of space.

Hey!
Finally a interesting thread. How about just for grins and giggles now I'm wondering if there is a policy with the ISS that they just don't publicize pictures of satellites due to anything from them being proprietary tech, to international treaties maybe?

Admittedly I think (IIRC) most aren't as large as what the general public is lead to believe from movies and such. Plus with zero gravity they don't need to be designed to be aerodynamic either.

a reply to: truthtalk44

There is the matter of scale, colour contrast, the equipment being used to take the shot, and the fact that these objects are further out, because unlike the ISS, most of these satellites are former communications satellites of various purposes and ownership. That necessitates them being further out, because they get a better, broader area of view of the planet that way, allowing them to aid communications over a larger square mile radius.

And as for how on Earth active satellites and other active mission gear avoids these hazards, well as it happens, satellites which are actually in use, do have to have their orbits altered from time to time, to avoid known debris fields. A small shunt in an environment where there is no atmospheric pressure to slow a body down, results in fairly large changes in course with relatively small amounts of expenditure of energy, these course changes being completed by a secondary burst of propulsive force, counter to the first, to cease the movement. When the danger passes, sometimes a satellite will be instructed to re-establish its original position.

a reply to: truthtalk44

you know that i find bizzarre :

you asked this exact question in another thread - recieved answers [ which you obviously disagree with ]

ignored those answers [ all are actually correct BTW ]

and instead started a new thread

why ?

the cynic in me opines that you is attempting to get an echo chamber response you like - but thats not going to happen

a reply to: TrueBrit

Plus there's the resolution of the ISS cameras, the quality of the feed itself, the resolution of the screen we're watching the feed on, the size of the screen we're watching the feed on, etc. Depending on those factors, we wouldn't see one of these objects even if it was technically in an area that's onscreen.

Then there's the speed of the objects and the ISS, with many satellites moving at around 28,000 km/hr (17,000+ mph). I'm highly doubtful that we'd see a 10cm or smaller fragment that's 10s of thousands of miles away from the camera & moving at 17,000 mph in a different direction from the ISS. That would be like us flying over Japan towards Siberia while expecting to see a bird that's flying at 17,000 mph over China towards Australia. (I guess that's a decent example. Meh.)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Precisely so.

The purpose of asking these questions ought to be to learn, but as other posters have pointed out, this may not be the intention of the OP in this instance.