>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.
>>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.
>>16956342What's sad is brainlets like you who think 10k is a lot. Earth orbit is big. Starlink is in the lowest orbits that have lots of atmospheric drag and they decay quickly. The space trash risk is basically nil, first because the density is still extremely low, and second because any collision products deorbit even faster.
>>16956368SHUT IT DOWN
>>16957143Considering Starlink satellite spacing is give or take 1000km, scaling down to bee level, each bee would fly 3-4km apart.Tell me about your HD cameras.
>>16956342We aren't.America is.There's a difference.
>>16959389I dunno why it is all these turdies are always like "we." There's no "we" in space, there's less than five countries with any relevance there at all and only one that's meaningfully capable right now.There's not going to be a "we." You don't get a say. You might get to sit in a jumper chair and we'll pretend you're a real astronaut for a mission here or there. Your treaties and resolutions are pieces of paper.
>>16956368> everything needs to be on the scale of a Zelda map or it's not real
>>16956342Crazy how he managed to outcompete literally the entire rest of the planet.
>>16960084how are the numbers if you compare them by mass?
>>16956412>musk bad because he destroys [hobby i cant afford]weird cope
>>16960127>copeJustification is the word you should be thinking about.
>>16960127How broke are you? A decent tracking telescope will set you back like $300.
>>16960176You need something for 5-10k for this to be a problem.
>>16960177Quite the opposite. Wide field/long exposure is exactly the realm that gets fucked up by satellite interference. Deep zooms like you're showing aren't going to be affected much. It's stuff like nebular photography where you're looking at a relatively large portion of the sky for hours at a time that increases the likelihood that a satellite will streak across your field of view and ruin the image.
>>16956843Hypothetically yes, but practically speaking having the scum of the Earth on our internet has made things immeasurably worse.Some people probably SHOULD just die of dysentery in a place where they might see a light bulb once in their entire life.
>>16956412>so thirdies get internetyou have no clue what it really is for, do you? it's a massive global surveillance/control govt/military network. internet for civilians is just a side business.
>>16960084Seeing this makes me have to ask: why do Starlink and its aspiring competitors need such massive constellations compared to Iridium achieving global coverage with <100 satellites? I assume the Starlink orbits are easier/cheaper to reach, but you'd think that would cancel out over the multiple order of magnitude number difference.
>>16960994Because they need high bandwidth and low latency to compete with land based consumer internet as that is the service they are attempting to provide. You need more satellites on lower orbits to achieve both. Iridium competes in entirely different market more centered around coverage and emergency capabilities on oceans, mountains and wilderness.
>>16956368
>>16960945Why do people gloss over this part? I get that a lot of this thread is bots and shills misdirecting people but you'd think it's be obvious.
>>16960945Military network sure, but Starlink isn't any more useful for surveillance than cell towers.
>>16961022Because it's schizo nonsense. Starlink doesn't have any more surveillance capabilities than any other way of connecting into the internet, it arguably has significantly less capabilities on that regard vs cell towers and landlines. It being an additional way to connect to internet is in fact point against it being a way to control anyone since you have more options to choose from. As for government and military use the civilian traffic by far dwarfs any government and military traffic and neither particularly needs or benefits from a privately owned and operated communications network that some guy can just turn off if he dislikes you.
>>16960994As >>16960998 said, starlink operates in low orbit to provide the strongest signal (more bandwidth) and lowest latency they can.As a result, each satellite moves across the sky quickly, and the ground terminal has to switch satellites about every 15 seconds. In order to keep a new satellite appearing overhead every 15 seconds anywhere on the planet, you need a lot of satellites.
>>16961047The information is bit wrong. The 15 sec is just the standard connection Starlink dish maintains per satellite. However the dish itself tracks half a dozen or dozen sats at any given time, so it can switch to any of them if the 15 second connection window was disrupted for any given reason. The 15 seconds isn't a hardware limitation, its just a standard they chose for smoothed handover. Its sort of like a staggered/optimal connection window for the whole of network which allows Starlink to balance the loads/users/latency/speed/etc. They can maintain the connection for longer than 15 seconds if there is an emergency, but they dont want to because they have the option to switch to a better pool of satellites once 15 seconds window is over. If there arent any other sats, it would still keep going. Its like leasing a car every 2 years and driving the best new car has to offer. It doesn't mean the older car cant be driven, it just means the older is outdated. If you compare the architect to a single GEO sat connection thats maintained constantly, users are fucked if sat bandwidth saturates during peak hours, there is no avoidance, no changing to another satellite to balance the load, etc.
>>16961036>Starlink isn't any more useful for surveillance than cell towers.lmao. you obviously think cell towers aren't too useful for surveillance. do you know how the US military finds people in the middle east for their targeted attacks? now imagine having a US-owned network of sats that act as cell towers capturing IMSIs in the whole surface of the world.and that's just the surveillance side of things. do you know how useful has the internet itself been to the US government and its 3 letter agencies to promote subversion everywhere in the world?why do you think there is a startlink-like DARPA project?
>>16956342Wtf? Where did all of this shit come from? I thought there haven't been more like a dozen rocket launches since the 90s?
>>16962818There are rocket launches every other day.
>>16956843??? it's literally the worst thing
>>16962818this has to be bait bro
>>16962926If someone isn't getting the space industry information, it actually makes sense. For most of history, sats were just bulk single geostationary objects. Its only in the last few years that Starlink came to be. So if your model of reality isnt updated in the last 4-5 years and Starlink didnt just launch 10,000 sats overnight, they did it throughout the years, so it would hit like a truck if your information feed isnt tuned to this We just launched humans to orbit the moon, first time since 70 year or so. Most Americans do not know anything about this or the project. They dont tune in.
>>16962825>There are rocket launches every other day.Where are the news talking about them? This doesn't seem sustainable resource wise. What are they for?
>>16962948This.
>>16956342We need to build a tall wall
>>16963068https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_in_April%E2%80%93June_2026Do you know how to use search engines? Fuck me you don't even need to know how to use search engines anymore, just ask the LLM.
>>16963118>(((wikipedia)))>(((LLM)))yikes...
>>16963133Are you fucking stupid?
>>16963135I know that I know nothing :o)
european space agency seems to be onto it too
>>16956342I can't relax and just look at a starry night without seeing those little shits flying everywhere, it pisses me off so much. I hope Russia or Iran starts shooting them down and it pollutes the orbit for at least a decade.
>>16963192When they do shoot them down, I hope the sats fall on your head and the heads of your entire family. So that we can cleanse out the entire defective genetic pool from human evolution
>>16958563>>16959445Cope.
>>16959389>>16959689You didn't do it either?Why are you retards trying to take credit from muskman?"I paid my taxes!" ass mfs fr
>see that sky, son?>we're going to break it, one way or the othercool
>>16963494I pay for Starlink, I contribute to the satellite's growth to meet my demand
>>16963550I planted a tree in my yard that probably produces oxygen musk has used in his life
>>16963556i came in the toilet, and your mother has bathed in it, giving birth to youwhos your daddy?
>>16956342I <3 surveillance i love having vast arrays of data harvesting equipment yayyyy
>>16956342Yeah we gonna see what hapen :)
You know they aren't as big as those orange dots, right? In fact, all 10,000 could fit inside a single pixel of orange on that photo.
>>16964974You will break the why you can't see them schizo.
>>16956342The early ones were low enough Kessler wasn't a real issue, now they are over 500km and will take ~25 years to reenter.Mr. Spaceflight is going to end it for profit.
>>16956368Those dots are bigger than NYC, do you think the real satellites are bigger than NYC?
>>16964974Wrong. Mr Musk has launched 100 km wide starlinks that is visible from space
>>16965114Everything is visible from space if you know where and when to look.
>>16963068It gets a llwhole lot cheaper when you can reuse the rockets instead of dumping them into the ocean every time.
What if they just beam up a formshifttronium real.tech plugin and print gold and stuff, little gold relay, some for Earth, some for the Satts, and Some for Space, Good Times, Space Investments
Natural competition should fill the entire sky up. They are trying to give benzo grief over a booster failure.
>>16956342100 satellites isn't sufficient to have a functioning surveillance state/civilization/world10k sounds about right, though...underground..idk....tremmor deterctors? moles?
>>16956342What is Kessler Syndrome? We are fucked. Say goodbye to GPS in 10-20 years.
>>16963216Relax elon, no need to advocate for the genocide of a random anon family.
>>16966609https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/crashclock/
how do they not interfere with rocket launchesisn't there a risk of collision
>>16963068Something as mundane and ordinary as that isn't newsworthy. "Thing that has happened on almost daily basis happened again just as scheduled"—Wow, such interesting news.
>>16957143based retard
>>16966628Space is big, and satellites follow very predictable paths. When putting new satellites in orbit checking to make sure they don't collide with existing ones is a trivial amount of effort compared to all the other stuff you have to do.
>>16956342I want to put you into space
>>16960119https://brycetech.com/reports/report-documents/global-orbital-activity-2025/https://aaszewczak.substack.com/p/market-structure-of-the-launch-industry
>>16961046What feds mean by surveillance and what schizos understand from it is not exactly the same but something like Starlink has amazing potential when it comes to SIGINT (collecting signals, including cell phone) and GMTI/AMTI (radar that detects any vehicle that moves on the surface or in the air).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTpBMPjjFc
So what if someone "acidentally" coded the satelitte wrong and it goes full GTA and collides with all the others causing in a full blown chain reaction?
>>16962818If I could press a button and nuke Vandenberg I'd do it. Shit never shuts up.
>>16959221It's the same retards on every board
Starcloud wants to launch 88,000 satellites.
>>16959455>designed to deorbithow much extra R&D does it take to make them affected by gravity?
>>16971934It would be extremely difficult to cause a chain reaction like that; the first, reprogrammed satellite would have to hit the 2nd with incredible precision to get the debris field to hit a third one, and then getting the debris from that collusion to hit a 4th satellite would be even harder, and so on. The debris field from a destroyed satellite is tiny compared to the spaces between satellites, and obviously can no longer perform orbital adjustments. Meanwhile, the still functional satellites can have their orbits adjusted by ground control to avoid debris. And even in the absolute worst case, that is every Starlink satellite being blown up at the same time, because they are in such low orbits the debris would clear out in like 5 years or so. Starlink sats themselves require regular active burns to maintain their orbits.
>>16961047its also for frequency reuse. The more area a satellite covers, the more people have to share it.
