151–160 of 195 posts
I'm amazed how large satellites have become. They are larger than small countries, like Luxembourg, Cyprus, Trinidad, ... How do they get these huge satellites up in space? Unbelievable...
That's really cool. I know this comment is low-effort, but I don't really care - this type of real-time visualization is really interesting and I want to see more of this sort of thing going forward. That said, the blue dots are "unknown" - what could those possibly be? Not trying to be conspiratorial or anything, but is it some sort of debris from classified operations or foreign intelligence operations?
I only saw one blue dot while looking around (briefly on a laggy computer, so there are probably plenty of others): "L6188942", which you can isolate in the view by searching for it. https://www.n2yo.com/database/?id=81078#results shows there are no results for the "NORAD ID" for that same object. I don't have any domain knowledge here, so can't argue either way, but one possibility I can imagine is it's a place hold…
The fact that I can view LEO objects in real-time on a phone just shows how awesome technology has become. Even 10 years ago, that thought would have been ludicrous.
If you enter "1" for the visualization speed, is that the actual recorded velocities?
I wonder how much light is blocked by this stuff floating around? Seems like there are parallel efforts to make atmospheric dust while this is already up there.
Does anyone know what the altitude scaling is on this?
What tech is powering this? Is it unity or Godot or something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was expecting this, since it's probably the most common criticism of this type of visualization. Problem is, that analysis only looks at half the dataviz fidelity coin. It recognizes the (unavoidable) loss of fidelity in size, but it ignores the (also unavoidable) loss of fidelity in time. It’s a real time visualisation. There is no loss of fidelity in time. Noticing the important distortion in size is legitimate…
>It’s a real time visualisation. There is no loss of fidelity in time. Unless you're going to spend multiple lifetimes watching it in "real time," there is unavoidable loss of fidelity here. I don't mean fidelity in rate-of-time, but in duration-of-time. The total time available limits the duration fidelity, just as our eyeballs and screens limit the size fidelity. Again it's less obvious (hence this confusion), but…
I don’t understand this argument at all. As stated previously, it’s a real time visualization, thus there is trivially no loss of fidelity in time. To claim that is like claiming that a live web cam of a city street has a loss in fidelity because it doesn’t show what the street will look like in 100 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s not a collision estimation tool. It’s a comment about how full it is, not about how likely things are to collide and a reply to a previous comment. > Now keep rolling those dice every day for hundreds of years. Thousands of dice, for thousands of objects. Still low. Orbits between 700km and 800km are mostly lost after the past two decade antisatellites tests. Lower orbits clean fast especially the ones used by…
>It’s a comment about how full it is Why is that "scary," though? It's not like "running out of room" is a plausible risk. Kessler Syndrome limits you long before that. >Risk is not very high. It is managed adequately and the legislation is properly anticipating current developments See my edit to parent, and watch the video (especially the future simulations). The situation is far from "managed adequately" IMO. This…
Seems like we’re going in circles here. Kessler syndrome is about collisions. But one can be concerned about the fullness of a medium without the risk of collisions being the primary concern. This is the case for everyday things like road traffic, restaurant lines, etc.