>10k starlink satellitesWe're just putting whatever we want in space now?
Just periodically send up some magnetic orbital roombas that will collect everything.
>>16956342>none visible from any of the recent "moon expedition" "photos"
>>16956368Hello mr. Kruger.
>>16956361its easier to develop gravity magnetic fields and just vacuum them in
>>16956342I cant wait for Bezos satellites to start crashing into Musks. this shit gonna be funny
>>16956342>there are microplastics in my orbit
>>16956342>destroys earth based astronomy for amateurs and professionals alike just so thirdies get internetcan somebody put a buillet in this bald cunt already
>>16956369So you saw them?
>>16956342Legally set up laser towers and burn the trash. Elon's not going to get away from making a PayPal out of nature.
>>16956681Do you see bees when you are riding on a train?
>>16956361
>>16956412internet anywhere on the planet is cool
>>16956342Anons in this thread (and apparently people in general) don't really understand how polluted the sky is already from existing satellites that this is a barely noticeable drop in the bucket.Try using a telescope sometime for a couple hours a night and you'll start spotting all sorts of man-made orbital traffic and I doubt any of what you spot will even be starlink related.
>>16956381Yeah bro, if you can imagine it then it will be real!
>>16956875Starlink makes up about 2/3rd's of all satellites.
>>16956342There are billion cars on the road. in a 2D plane on earth. In space with 3D space, you can put up billion satellites without issues. Its even easier since sats are following a static predictable path so everything can be calculated easily years in advance
Random place, random time.
>>16956681There's not enough contrast to see them from the outside looking in, dumbass.If you're looking down on the Sun-side of Earth, the Earth is as bright or brighter than the Starlinks so they get washed out.If you're looking down on the night-side of Earth, the Starlinks aren't reflecting any light up so they're as dark as the Earth. In theory they could be observed by occlusion while passing over major planet-side light sources but too small to observe with the naked eye.If you're on the ground in a place with relatively dark (black) skies all you have to do is get an app that tracks Starlinks and look up. They reflect Earthglow and light pollution back towards the ground so they're visible even to the naked eye despite being small (think how you can see the light from a flashlight at a distance even if you wouldn't normally be able to make out the flashlight itself from that far away).I see Starlinks zip across my telescope's field all the time, even chased a few by hand for fun. They're incredibly annoying if you're trying to take a long-exposure image since they make ugly streaks in the picture.
>>16956695I would see 10,000 bees if my eyes were HD cameras I'm sure.
>>16957135I love how retards think that the obvious explanation that is given and is known by everyone is just it and that's that.You type forever and just say things that everyone knows.Its not convincing.The people "up there" don't do much to prove anything if it's really going on.How many satellites before they are visible?CIA can zoom in on a license plate from space. But we can't ever get a video of these things zipping around from a camera "up there"?I have a celestron, pretty high dollar one. Auto zooms on whatever I want.
>>16956368That's because they don't have massive indication radii like in these helpful graphics
>>16957162Not really though.
>>16956342Im certain it wouldn't be too difficult to prove 10k rocket launches.
>>16957143No.
>>16957073
>>16957145This post is extremely low quality.
>>16957230Why would you assume 1 sattelite per launch?https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/462734-most-satellites-launched-on-a-single-rocketSpaceX got the world record for most satellites launched on a single rocket at 143
>>16956843I’d agree if we had new videos of jeets taking train engines to the back of the head all the time but its still like the same 8 videos from 2024
>>16956681motherfucker are you absolutely fucking completely dumb retarded?what the fuck is wrong with you
>>16956368How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast this morning?
I thought /sci/ was supposed to be the smart board
>>16956342Energy is calculated out before expiration. How much expansion of usage over the population using it for propagation? There's not much time anyway.
>>16957162Why the insane seethe over a simple question lmaoCalm the fuck down it's not that serious
>>16956342Not whatever we want, but whatever we can. Only 1 person is capable of doing this. Only 1 company. Only 1 nation.
>>16957145>The people "up there" don't do much to prove anything if it's really going on.Because they have better things to do than "prove" basic shit to incredulous retards who won't believe them anyway.
>>16956361They're designed to deorbit themselves at end of life, and even if that fails they're not in highly stable orbits anyway.
Kessler will be the end of life for all of them.
