So much debris around the Earth.

This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.

To view other archive projects go to https://archives.mabination.com

Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-01-07 08:20

No wonder they put bee hive into the file name. @_@

[Image: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/spacecraft-operations/space_debris/Bee-Hive-5_H1.jpg]
chaolin wrote on 2012-01-07 08:39

They're cleaning it up aren't they? They designed that "net" satellite not too long ago?
Xemnas wrote on 2012-01-07 12:40

I only have one question: who/what is launching metal pipes and bottles into space.
Cucurbita wrote on 2012-01-07 15:22

Those aint debris. Those are saties.

Its not as bad as the picture makes it look. Those are scaled icons, not actual pictures of them. They're too small to be seen if you took a picture in this scale.
Kaeporo wrote on 2012-01-07 16:56

Nearly all of the satellites that i've connected to using a Ground Multiband Terminal lie to on that thin ring of geostationary satellites (hoving over the equator at 22,236 miles).

[Image: http://www.sather.afcent.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/111007-F-ZB240-401.JPG]
ZazieTheBeast wrote on 2012-01-07 17:21

Quote from Cucurbita;726204:
Those aint debris. Those are saties.

Its not as bad as the picture makes it look. Those are scaled icons, not actual pictures of them. They're too small to be seen if you took a picture in this scale.

aww was hoping we'd have our own artificial rings of saturn in the future
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-01-07 17:41

Quote from Cucurbita;726204:
Those aint debris. Those are saties.

Its not as bad as the picture makes it look. Those are scaled icons, not actual pictures of them. They're too small to be seen if you took a picture in this scale.

It's actually all the stuff in orbit, unless I misread something on the site. Though now that you mentioned it I think I massively misread something.

Yes, I am aware they're scaled, but it's still a lot, considering we've only been able to fare space for a few decades, and with not exactly huge traffic.
But yes, the scaling makes it look way more cluttered than it is.

Amazing either way.
Cynic wrote on 2012-01-07 17:47

Regardless, I'm confused as to why we need to many in space at once.
Kaeporo wrote on 2012-01-07 21:22

Quote from Cynic;726294:
Regardless, I'm confused as to why we need to many in space at once.

1. Increases coverage by expanding satellite footprint (ie: reciprocity).
2. Satellites are limited to specific frequency bands which meet customer requirements. AT&T can't pass traffic through Milstar, for example.
Cucurbita wrote on 2012-01-08 03:00

Quote from Cynic;726294:
Regardless, I'm confused as to why we need to many in space at once.

If it were up to me we I'd put wayyyy more up there.

But supposedly we just hit the limit where is no longer safe to place any more without risking collision between the satellites. Or so I read.

Regardless, if you consider how big each satellite is, and how big the planet truly is, then you'll realize its not a lot at all. In fact, even if we blew this image up a hundred times, the satellites would just be little specks. Dots.