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

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#41

Post by esjeon »

orbital-decay wrote: post #37
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.

Some kind of a relative velocity at the closest approach or a collision probability overlay would be way more useful to have than proper scale. That would make it immediately clear that lazy well-kept orbits like GEO are much safer than e.g. 567km SSO at the poles. Or some color coding for the apparent magnitude.

While I totally agree with the logic, this particular visualization might mislead unsuspecting viewers into believing that our LEO is almost fully saturated. In reality, the satellites are so small that they would miss each other even if placed on the same orbit.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#42

Post by perihelions »

ricksunny wrote: post #40
Polizeiposaune wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just Russian. There have also been a few cases recently where spent Centaur upper stages -- which were thought to have been completely passivated -- broke apart for unknown reasons. These were in a geosynchronous transfer orbit (with apogee near geosynchronous orbit, perigee down near LEO) so the debris won't decay any time soon.

(May I ask what definition of ‘passivate’ you are applying here? Even allowing for flexibility in the definition or autocorrect, and applying context, I can’t fathom what is intended to be conveyed by ‘upper stages - which were thought to have been completely passivated’)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivation_(spacecraft) ("Passivation (spacecraft)")

And used in context (this context),

> "The incident is the fourth time a Centaur upper stage has broken up since 2018. In the earlier three cases, the breakups created hundreds of pieces of debris, but no known collisions. That has raised questions about a potential design flaw with the stage or a failure to “passivate” the stage by venting propellant tanks and draining batteries, removing energy that could cause a breakup."

https://spacenews.com/faa-to-complete-orbital-debris-upper-s...

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#43

Post by NedF »

dhosek wrote: post #12
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.

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…

> Proper scale makes the visualization impractical.

So lie?

You can see from the comments most Hacker News users can't handle the abstraction.

Your blog post is great, but most people don't know the Earth is a perfect sphere or simple things like the sun is white, the real "Don't Look Up"

Universities have become pop culture, they are Gravity (2013), not 'science', whatever that word means now.

We cross mountains so that abstraction has a use, here it is for the nihilist crowd.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#45

Post by sebzim4500 »

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.

Do you think that some people look at this visualisation and leave with the impression that there are city sized satellites flying above them?

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#46

Post by poulpy123 »

NedF wrote: post #43
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…

> Proper scale makes the visualization impractical. So lie? You can see from the comments most Hacker News users can't handle the abstraction. Your blog post is great, but most people don't know the Earth is a perfect sphere or simple things like the sun is white, the real "Don't Look Up" Universities have become pop culture, they are Gravity (2013), not 'science', whatever that word means now. We cross mountains so…

> So lie?

You're going to enjoy the log scale

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#47

Post by Hacker_Yogi »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #28
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?

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)

This is true! Had no idea!

"The Soviet Union has been flying nuclear power sources in space since about 1965. For the most part these nuclear power sources have been low-power nuclear reactors using a thermoelectric conversion principle."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900051140

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#48

Post by cindyllm »

NedF wrote: post #43
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…

> Proper scale makes the visualization impractical. So lie? You can see from the comments most Hacker News users can't handle the abstraction. Your blog post is great, but most people don't know the Earth is a perfect sphere or simple things like the sun is white, the real "Don't Look Up" Universities have become pop culture, they are Gravity (2013), not 'science', whatever that word means now. We cross mountains so…

[dead]

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#49

Post by Tepix »

mlindner wrote: post #26
corrino1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

You're saying he didn't accompany Musk on his trips to Russia when he wanted to buy a rocket (before founding SpaceX)?

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#50

Post by maybewhenthesun »

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.

well... Out sky is full of satellites. Granted, there's a lot of empty space in between. But ask any (hobby) astronomer and they'll start a rant about starlink :-P
Post reply on HN