Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Low Earth Orbit Visualization

platform.leolabs.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#21

Post by mlindner »

officehero wrote: post #15
dhosek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proper scale makes the visualization impractical. I wrote about this with respect to a US map showing mountains on my mailing list: https://dahosek.substack.com/p/one-million-stories “any accurate depiction of elevation would be indistinguishable from a flat map at that scale. The coast-to-coast measure of the US is a bit under 3000 miles, while the highest elevation in the continental US is a bit under 4½ miles abov…

Yes and to be clear on what "practical" means here. If there's a mountain between origin-destination for a road trip it's relevant to highlight it. In the case of orbits the objects may be small but they're very fast and very dangerous.

I think calling them dangerous is even a bit misleading as they're well tracked. Some of them even autonomously precisely position themselves rather than be on ballistic trajectory.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#22

Post by mlindner »

AdammadA wrote: post #4

Nice to see United Kingdom using a predictable trajectory. Dismayed by so many other nations just crapping all over the planet without consideration though. The lack of foresight is frustrating.

They're not really crapping all over. Orbits at different altitudes rotate around the planet from precession so any satellites spread out randomly over time.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#23

Post by AngryData »

adastra22 wrote: post #16
ronsor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "spontaneously explode" supposed to be a joke about how Russia will use them as bombs, or are they actually poorly designed?

They actually explode. https://spacenews.com/low-intensity-explosion-caused-russian...

To be fair the article also said it could have been a collision, even if it isn't super likely.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#25

Post by varenc »

elliottkember wrote: post #8

Objects not to scale. Not even close, and no mention of it (that I saw). Graphing scale honestly is extremely important. A lot of people are convinced our sky is full of satellites because of visualizations like this.

An honest visualization to scale would just have the satellites being faint dust smaller than your pixels? Wouldn't be useful. But agreed that if you could zoom in and visualize the actual scale that'd be interesting and informative. Would be cool seeing the difference in satellite size. But would be less useful as a broader visualization of LEO.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#26

Post by mlindner »

corrino1 wrote: post #7
Dragonborn wrote: post #2

[flagged]

[flagged]

That's not true. Starlink was developed for its stated purpose. It's a conspiracy pushed by Russian plants that it's for missile defense. A lot of information on that wiki page is made up. Like the constant talk of griffin.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#28

Post by Rebelgecko »

ronsor wrote: post #11
adastra22 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink satellites are in low enough orbit to decay on very short timescales. More worrisome are Russian satellites in high / very long lived orbits that tend to spontaneously explode.

Is "spontaneously explode" supposed to be a joke about how Russia will use them as bombs, or are they actually poorly designed?

Before the Chinese A-Sat weapon tests, the #1 source of space junk was radioactive coolant leaking from old Soviet nuclear reactors in space (not RTGs, literally nuclear reactors)
Post reply on HN