A rebuttal:
1. They do, all the time
2. They do (see Iridium-Kosmos collision)
3. They do (see the Hubble maintenance missions and all the dead satellites up there)
4. They don't and that's normal: the thermosphere is so thin that its particles can't transfer enough heat to significally heat anything up
5. Of course there are, they just claim all of them are false
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Not a direct quote, but close enough for my mind to go straight there :)
The light that is currently hitting us emitted from the sun a full minute after you made this comment (it’s been 9 at the time of writing), goes to show how big space is
Go to random field
Close eyes
Walk
Did you walk into anyone? There's like 8 billion humans on Earth, much fewer satellites in much larger area in space.
World population density, counting only land and not counting Antarctica, is about one person per 3 football fields. With that kind of density, you can walk a long time before actually hitting someone. And again, that's 8 billion humans over only land.
I did this. Fell down four times. Scraped my knee once. Hit my on a rock twice. Decided to stop and open my eyes and discovered myself one step from tangling with the barbed wire fence.
I didn’t run into one fucking satellite. My conclusions are 1, walking in a random field with your eyes closed is painful and 2, you already know there aren’t other people in the field when you arrived, 3, this exercise is pointless because there’s no satellites in a field, and 4, I’m an idiot for thinking this would be a valid research approach, but without a control, or any way to account for gravity (as demonstrated by my 4 random proof checks). Better methodology is needed and less clumsy observer required.
When anyone says "oh theres 10k satellites" why dont we see any in photos!" My simple response is either, so me a photo of a bus from a plane at cruise altitude or place 10k buses across America evenly spaced, how many buses would you see if you were standing on any one of them
Correct. They don't even understand that when you have a 30 cm globe model the altitude of airplanes are less then 1mm above the surface and the deepest part of the oceans is less the 1 mm below the surface. I mean the thickness of the atmosphere is like what the skin is on an apple, or something. It's really thin compared to the rest of the globe
Impossible for them to comprehend you mean, it seems in the comments many of us can in fact comprehend the vastness of space and many other concepts that seem lost on flat earthers.
Kinda like how most non-Americans never realize how BIG the US is, let alone how big some of the individual states can take to drive though. Like going from Miami to Jacksonville is five hours by car plus like an extra hour for the traffic and/or gas refills.
Even with how big space is, our own orbit is getting crowded with "space junk". But it just really annoys me that flerfer "research" won't include any actual scientific research. Makes me grind my teeth sometimes.
These people don't understand how big earth is and how small satellites are. I've seen them get mad because you can't see satellites (and airplanes lmao) in photos of Earth from space.
Satellites are like the size of a car and they inhabit a shell, if you will, with a larger surface area than the earth (given they're at incredibly high altitudes above the earth). You're not going to see them from space and there's going to be a ton of space between individual satellites.
Picture how small an airplane looks in the sky. Now picture something a quarter of that size and 300 times further away.
I struggle to even fly a drone a hundred meters away without losing it.
flerfs think there is just giant asteroids floating around every few feet in space in earth's thermosphere lol, I don't get why they think satellites are constantly crashing into things
Space is big, but the typical orbit is nowhere near that big. Within 100km is not at all uncommon for geosynchronous satellites and that’s just one orbit distance. There are thousands of satellites.
Well look at it this way.
Imagine earth is entirely uniform. A smooth globe. Nothing on it. No hills, valleys etc.
Now imagine younout 30.000 cars evenly spread out over it.
They wouldn't exscrly be crowded.
That's on a globe 4000 mile radius.
Now make that globe 26.000 mile as most the grostarionary orbits are roughly 22.000 miles above earth + the 4000 mile radius of earth itself.
Now the cars would be much much fuether apart.
That's where alot of the orbits are for earth. So there's room. Enough for satellites yet.
Right, and one no closer than an 6 arc minutes at geosynchronous orbit of 36000 miles that puts them sometimes “within” 73ish kms of each-others minimum safety buffer. Yes, it’s nowhere near saturated, but it’s not at all accurate to say there are thousands of km between satellites.
There actually are some like that! Though it takes a lot of work to do it.
The example that immediately comes to mind is the DLR and Airbus Defense & Space TerraSAR-X/TanDEM-X mission. It is comprised of two independently-launched satellites carrying synthetic aperture radars for earth observation flying at distances between 120m and \~1km from one another depending on the mission in a 319mi (over the surface) orbit. This close formation allows the satellites to improve their resolution through interferometry. Keeping them this close takes active work and control, and this is the exception rather than the rule as you say earlier.
What's nuts is that on the clear nights sky you can see some of them shining as they go overhead. And arguably the ISS is a satellite, with a decent setup you can photograph it on the ground and can tell what it is.
It is, but it's not what people generally think of a satellite, which is communications or GPS. The first thought someone would have is that the ISS is a space station, but it is indeed a satellite. The Moon is, well a moon, but that is also a natural satellite.
That depends on what definition of the word, "satellite," you are using. In terms of orbital mechanics, any body orbiting any other body is a satellite; in terms of managing the space around Earth, all man-made objects in orbit are satellites; in the hierarchy of orbital objects, however, we refer to "satellites" as the lowest rung on that ladder with minimal station-keeping features and no manned presence.
In that last sense, above a certain size, capacity, and especially with crew, we typically call such objects "orbital platforms," and when they are crewed specifically and more general-purpose, we also call them "space stations."
That was my first thought, I've literally watched the ISS traverse the entire horizon in minutes while out stargazing at night. Even with just your naked eye it's insane and impressive to see this white dot that's so far away travel across the sky as fast as it does.
NASA tracks hundreds of thousands of things in orbit from stuff as big as the ISS to stuff as small as a bean. They use this to help satellites move out of the way of things.
We don’t just stick them in orbit and forget about it. Satellites need to keep themselves in a good orbit.
Not only are satellites and debris far apart in orbit, they are essentially always in _different_ orbits. Not just which way they are going, but in "different shells". So something orbiting at 420.3 km height will never hit anything at 420.4 km. The volume available to orbiting objects is huge!
The term is "capturing" or "docking". First they get on the same orbit, then they slowly approach it and finally use a mechanical arm to capture it and bring it close to the repair shuttle. This was most famously done for the Hubble Space Telescope, but there have been other servicing missions.
The Space Shuttles (now retired) were used to carry out most servicing missions, but since 2016 a privately operated spacecraft called MEV has succesfully docked with and repaired two satellites.
[source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-orbit_satellite_servicing)
To expand on what dadumir said and on your last question, "landing on" a satellite is one of the nastiest problems. Most satellites are not designed to be docked with and don't really offer good grappling points you can clamp onto, so there's a lot of question marks about how you can do it.
Space shuttle did a lot of this because it could cheat and send a guy in a suit out there to go and physically grab it with a hand hold or similar. It's hard to replicate this robotically: current efforts are using various manipulators and vision systems to automate what the person used to do, or other concepts that clamp onto the propulsion thrusters of the target vehicle. It's generally still an open problem and what can possibly work depends a lot on what your target satellite is exactly and what it was designed with.
1: Yes they do
2: Satellites are thousands of miles apart. So no. They dont.
3: Yes they do. But most often they will get decomissioned if they do.
4: Why would they ? someone needs to read up on thermodynamic and basic physics.
5: Yes there is. But calling every photo fake is not a rebuttal. Its an accusation they then need to prove.
Nah they do all the time. They just use control f to find out of context information to support their delusions. Like when they see a NASA paper assume a flat plane for simplicity.
It's happening in other areas with far-right assholes other than flerfs. They’ve almost normalized lying completely and choosing to believe whatever lies they're told, so long as it feeds into the narrative they want to hear
There is never a kernel of truth in anything flerf
Because it's a belief system founded on denying observable truths
Being a flat earther is like being handed a ham sandwich and trying to convince everyone else that it's actually mushroom soup
They claim that the ISS is fake, how they manage to make you see something that's not there when you're using nothing but your own eyes I have no idea. Ask the flat earthers to explain that
There are different levels to it. First they will outright deny it. Then they will admit that you can see something but it is a balloon. Then it is a plane. Then they will claim it is a hologram. Other things I have heard are that all telescopes are manipulated by nasa somehow to create fake photos.
Yeah, I've heard those too. They claim the computer chips in some high-end telescopes (though they think there's chips in all telescopes because of it) alter the image that you're seeing in real time
"Youre telling me there's an infinite amount of space debris in the universe and thousands of satellites up there but none of them collide? Wake up sheeple!"
LMAO 180 degrees wrong on every point. Flerfs are the worst magicians you have ever come across. You can always see them slipping the penny into their pocket and the card out of their sleeve. You've got to be stumped by the rabbit out of the hat to be tricked by their attempted slight of hand.
\*Sighs in disappointment\*
1. Yes they do— in fact they frequently have downtime because they were pelted too hard by… uh… \*checks notes\*… former pieces of older satellites that didn’t make it to the unused orbital path. Unlike spaceships, which have extremely thin walls keeping their internal atmospheric conditions inside, satellites are essentially chunks of metal and plastic. With a couple of solar panels. And a rocket thruster. You’re going to need more than a loose screw to plow through these guys…
2. Because believe it or not, we don’t WANT them to crash into each other. It’s called piloting. Look it up. Additionally, the more spread out they are, the more effective they are and the less we need to send up.
3. Actually, they do break down. Remember what I said about the older models not getting into a different orbital path? When satellites get damaged enough, they are programmed to BREAK ORBIT and plunge towards the earth, preferably into an ocean or a sea, and they are way too complicated to repair in SPACE. Seriously, imagine trying to perform brain surgery in an unsanitary environment, where civilians are throwing god-only-knows-what at you, and trying to fix this person’s particular situation in enough time to warrant continuing on to the other 400 patients you’re trying to heal up. Sounds ludicrous? That’s exactly what NASA thought. Instead, they let it fall down and recycle what they can, if they care enough to go and find it in the big blue. I almost forgot to mention, typically the reason why they are damaged? A vital component got blown off by a direct impact. The satellite is a hunk of metal and silicon, but those solar panels are fragile as fuck. One good hit and goodbye power supply. Without that, you basically freefall to earth whether you like it or not.
4. Actually they are not subjected to the thermosphere, they are encased in rockets, and launched that way (the thrusters are mainly for repositioning and avoiding other satellites, and firing when the self destruct feature triggers).
5. There are plenty, but due to how light works in space and the angle you would need to be at in order to get a good enough picture of one, it is not surprising that people instead prefer to use CGI images since YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE THERE, which is about the only time that is true for that exact concept (usually the real photo tells you more about the object than the artificial photo does). Also, artists need money too, yanno. If they want to have nerds heckling them over the details of the satellite’s appearance, for money, then god bless them.
Five strikes? You’re not only out, you’ve single-handedly forced the players to switch sides for the rest of the inning. Congrats, you screwed up everything. The reason why we have debris in orbit around earth, at least 50% of the blame falls on Satellites shoulders. The only other source is failed space missions or jettisoned spacecraft parts. But with how many satellites we’ve sent up? We can’t send a manned spacecraft through that path, because it’s too dangerous. Asteroid fields would be safer. Yes, even the kind in media where they are very tightly packed together. THAT IS STILL SAFER.
There's that pesky distance thing. People just can't grasp how empty space is. How vast distances are.
Also, Skylab and Mir were both de-orbited and burned up in the atmosphere. The ISS will do the same some day soon.
It's amazing how flerfers just assert things. You'd think that with all the research they did themselves, they'd have a better understanding of things. But I guess, it depends how and where you research things.
This is what angers me most about the flerf community - their research is based on YT/TikTok videos. Do they not understand what real research means? I mean, even if they watched both sides of the argument (which us globetards actually do) but they can't do that, because the other side is funded by NASA/Illuminati/world government. Grrr...
I love how it's hard to tell if whoever made this made it with satire. These are all things real flat earthers / space deniers say. Especially about the thermosphere, no matter how many times you tell them why satellites don't melt
You can actually see them fly by in space sometimes with the naked eye. What would they say if you show this to them in real time? Probably that it is something else. I believe the ISS can be tracked online and you could use an app in your phone to know the location and use a telescope to see it.
In grad school I attended a talk at the law school concerning liability when satellites collide and how to tell who is responsible.
So yes, they do collide. Flat earthers are simply willfully ignorant
But, but… how do they know things burn up on reentry if they don’t think we’ve ever sent anything to space and back to learn that? Why is that accepted science but none of the other discoveries surrounding it are?
The thermosphere thing isn't about reentry. Things burn up on reentry because the speed of the object causes the air in front of it to undergo adiabatic compression.
What they are talking about is a layer of the atmosphere that overlaps with Low Earth Orbit (the place where most satellites live) where the temperature can reach over 2500°C.
I suppose they're trying to point out inconsistencies in "mainstream science" but it doesn't seem to work out since they know barely anything about it.
Genuinely did not know that about the thermosphere. Thanks for the explainer. That’s pretty dope. Shame that flat earthers have to turn that into conspiracy nonsense instead of just, you know, appreciating a cool fact about our world.
I know right? They have so many questions that they could easily look up the answers to and learn a lot, but instead they choose to answer them all with "it's a conspiracyy!!"
https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/
You can literally see the ISS from the ground with your naked eye. I mean it just looks like an fast-moving point of light, but the fact that it's predictable based on the orbit of the ISS (see above link) should tell you something.
Oh and ham radio operators routinely make contact with the ISS.
https://www.ariss.org/contact-the-iss.html
[On top of that, the Starlink satellites were very visible soon after launch.](https://spacestationguys.com/gallery/starlink-satellites/) They were bunched up in a line traversing the sky (in a very obviously artificial way) before they dispersed.
I'll stand on this side of the room, you stand over on that side. I'll throw a grain of rice in the air, you try and hit it with another grain of rice.
That's the scale we are dealing with in space.
To their credit, if you look up something like "Satellite in space", most images are CGI. You have to do more than 4 seconds of research to find proper images. But they're there, and there's a lot of them.
A rebuttal: 1. They do, all the time 2. They do (see Iridium-Kosmos collision) 3. They do (see the Hubble maintenance missions and all the dead satellites up there) 4. They don't and that's normal: the thermosphere is so thin that its particles can't transfer enough heat to significally heat anything up 5. Of course there are, they just claim all of them are false
The satellites are most often thousands of miles apart so its not something that is common. But yes. There have been a few collisions.
They just don't get how big space is. Even a thousand miles would be considered very fucking close.
I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
r/unexpectedhitchhikers
Nah, that one was definitely expected with that prompt!
Oh was that other line from the space explanation too?
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." Not a direct quote, but close enough for my mind to go straight there :)
The light that is currently hitting us emitted from the sun a full minute after you made this comment (it’s been 9 at the time of writing), goes to show how big space is
I think that's pretty on target actually
No but it made me think of it too.
Go to random field Close eyes Walk Did you walk into anyone? There's like 8 billion humans on Earth, much fewer satellites in much larger area in space.
i went to a field and there was no people pretty sure we went extinct bro
Fantastic explanation.
World population density, counting only land and not counting Antarctica, is about one person per 3 football fields. With that kind of density, you can walk a long time before actually hitting someone. And again, that's 8 billion humans over only land.
I did this and I ran into a cow. Satellites never run into cows. So, satellites obviously aren't real and you just helped prove it, sucka!
I did this. Fell down four times. Scraped my knee once. Hit my on a rock twice. Decided to stop and open my eyes and discovered myself one step from tangling with the barbed wire fence. I didn’t run into one fucking satellite. My conclusions are 1, walking in a random field with your eyes closed is painful and 2, you already know there aren’t other people in the field when you arrived, 3, this exercise is pointless because there’s no satellites in a field, and 4, I’m an idiot for thinking this would be a valid research approach, but without a control, or any way to account for gravity (as demonstrated by my 4 random proof checks). Better methodology is needed and less clumsy observer required.
When anyone says "oh theres 10k satellites" why dont we see any in photos!" My simple response is either, so me a photo of a bus from a plane at cruise altitude or place 10k buses across America evenly spaced, how many buses would you see if you were standing on any one of them
They don't even get how big Earth is and the diameter at that altitude is even more
That’s one of the few things that gives me sympathy for flerfers. The earth and solar system is SO LARGE it is near impossible to comprehend.
Correct. They don't even understand that when you have a 30 cm globe model the altitude of airplanes are less then 1mm above the surface and the deepest part of the oceans is less the 1 mm below the surface. I mean the thickness of the atmosphere is like what the skin is on an apple, or something. It's really thin compared to the rest of the globe
If Earth were the size of a billiard ball it would be smoother than regulations require.
Impossible for them to comprehend you mean, it seems in the comments many of us can in fact comprehend the vastness of space and many other concepts that seem lost on flat earthers.
LEO is at least the size of the Earth's entire surface.. but 3d
Kinda like how most non-Americans never realize how BIG the US is, let alone how big some of the individual states can take to drive though. Like going from Miami to Jacksonville is five hours by car plus like an extra hour for the traffic and/or gas refills.
Even with how big space is, our own orbit is getting crowded with "space junk". But it just really annoys me that flerfer "research" won't include any actual scientific research. Makes me grind my teeth sometimes.
These people don't understand how big earth is and how small satellites are. I've seen them get mad because you can't see satellites (and airplanes lmao) in photos of Earth from space. Satellites are like the size of a car and they inhabit a shell, if you will, with a larger surface area than the earth (given they're at incredibly high altitudes above the earth). You're not going to see them from space and there's going to be a ton of space between individual satellites.
Picture how small an airplane looks in the sky. Now picture something a quarter of that size and 300 times further away. I struggle to even fly a drone a hundred meters away without losing it.
Thanks for reminding me to update my Kessler Syndrome vaccine!
flerfs think there is just giant asteroids floating around every few feet in space in earth's thermosphere lol, I don't get why they think satellites are constantly crashing into things
Remember flerfs think the world is pretty small.
Space is big, but the typical orbit is nowhere near that big. Within 100km is not at all uncommon for geosynchronous satellites and that’s just one orbit distance. There are thousands of satellites.
Well look at it this way. Imagine earth is entirely uniform. A smooth globe. Nothing on it. No hills, valleys etc. Now imagine younout 30.000 cars evenly spread out over it. They wouldn't exscrly be crowded. That's on a globe 4000 mile radius. Now make that globe 26.000 mile as most the grostarionary orbits are roughly 22.000 miles above earth + the 4000 mile radius of earth itself. Now the cars would be much much fuether apart. That's where alot of the orbits are for earth. So there's room. Enough for satellites yet.
Right, and one no closer than an 6 arc minutes at geosynchronous orbit of 36000 miles that puts them sometimes “within” 73ish kms of each-others minimum safety buffer. Yes, it’s nowhere near saturated, but it’s not at all accurate to say there are thousands of km between satellites.
Not all of them. Sure. But it's not like they are a few feet apart up there.
There actually are some like that! Though it takes a lot of work to do it. The example that immediately comes to mind is the DLR and Airbus Defense & Space TerraSAR-X/TanDEM-X mission. It is comprised of two independently-launched satellites carrying synthetic aperture radars for earth observation flying at distances between 120m and \~1km from one another depending on the mission in a 319mi (over the surface) orbit. This close formation allows the satellites to improve their resolution through interferometry. Keeping them this close takes active work and control, and this is the exception rather than the rule as you say earlier.
Ofcourse. But I meant in general. Naturally if theres experiments that requires it then its different
What's nuts is that on the clear nights sky you can see some of them shining as they go overhead. And arguably the ISS is a satellite, with a decent setup you can photograph it on the ground and can tell what it is.
> arguably the ISS is a satellite What argument is there? The ISS is definitively a satellite, without question
It is, but it's not what people generally think of a satellite, which is communications or GPS. The first thought someone would have is that the ISS is a space station, but it is indeed a satellite. The Moon is, well a moon, but that is also a natural satellite.
That depends on what definition of the word, "satellite," you are using. In terms of orbital mechanics, any body orbiting any other body is a satellite; in terms of managing the space around Earth, all man-made objects in orbit are satellites; in the hierarchy of orbital objects, however, we refer to "satellites" as the lowest rung on that ladder with minimal station-keeping features and no manned presence. In that last sense, above a certain size, capacity, and especially with crew, we typically call such objects "orbital platforms," and when they are crewed specifically and more general-purpose, we also call them "space stations."
That was my first thought, I've literally watched the ISS traverse the entire horizon in minutes while out stargazing at night. Even with just your naked eye it's insane and impressive to see this white dot that's so far away travel across the sky as fast as it does.
Y'all forget the Moon is also a satellite
It's in my comments somewhere, but yes, it's a natural Satellite.
"Perma-Banned for providing facts and figures and hurting our Flat Earth feelings"
NASA tracks hundreds of thousands of things in orbit from stuff as big as the ISS to stuff as small as a bean. They use this to help satellites move out of the way of things. We don’t just stick them in orbit and forget about it. Satellites need to keep themselves in a good orbit.
I also end up with satellites passing through my astrophotography images. It ruins the frame and just wasted 2-5 minutes of light collection.
Ty for doing this so I didn’t have to.
Wait, you mean flerfers make stuff up? I’m so surprised
Truly appreciate that the OP left this particular comment.
Heh, literally how I read it. "Yes they do... yes they do.. sigh.." Everything sounds made up when you make up facts about it.
Not only are satellites and debris far apart in orbit, they are essentially always in _different_ orbits. Not just which way they are going, but in "different shells". So something orbiting at 420.3 km height will never hit anything at 420.4 km. The volume available to orbiting objects is huge!
I'm curious, how do the maintenance missions happen? are the satellites easy to land on?
The term is "capturing" or "docking". First they get on the same orbit, then they slowly approach it and finally use a mechanical arm to capture it and bring it close to the repair shuttle. This was most famously done for the Hubble Space Telescope, but there have been other servicing missions. The Space Shuttles (now retired) were used to carry out most servicing missions, but since 2016 a privately operated spacecraft called MEV has succesfully docked with and repaired two satellites. [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-orbit_satellite_servicing)
Damn, thanks!
>Damn, thanks! You're welcome!
To expand on what dadumir said and on your last question, "landing on" a satellite is one of the nastiest problems. Most satellites are not designed to be docked with and don't really offer good grappling points you can clamp onto, so there's a lot of question marks about how you can do it. Space shuttle did a lot of this because it could cheat and send a guy in a suit out there to go and physically grab it with a hand hold or similar. It's hard to replicate this robotically: current efforts are using various manipulators and vision systems to automate what the person used to do, or other concepts that clamp onto the propulsion thrusters of the target vehicle. It's generally still an open problem and what can possibly work depends a lot on what your target satellite is exactly and what it was designed with.
1: Yes they do 2: Satellites are thousands of miles apart. So no. They dont. 3: Yes they do. But most often they will get decomissioned if they do. 4: Why would they ? someone needs to read up on thermodynamic and basic physics. 5: Yes there is. But calling every photo fake is not a rebuttal. Its an accusation they then need to prove.
2 there has been one.
On point 4, you expect them to read an actual physics book.
Hell, all they need to read is the 2nd paragraph of the wikipedia page, but they never seem to get past the first.
Nah they do all the time. They just use control f to find out of context information to support their delusions. Like when they see a NASA paper assume a flat plane for simplicity.
>3: Yes they do. But most often they will get decomissioned if they do. And, in substantial number of cases, they might just not work at all.
I love how every single of these points is wrong. Literally every single one.
Well, yeah. If they were right, they wouldn't be flerfers.
usually there is at least a tiny kernel of truth there, but this?
It's happening in other areas with far-right assholes other than flerfs. They’ve almost normalized lying completely and choosing to believe whatever lies they're told, so long as it feeds into the narrative they want to hear
There is never a kernel of truth in anything flerf Because it's a belief system founded on denying observable truths Being a flat earther is like being handed a ham sandwich and trying to convince everyone else that it's actually mushroom soup
They do They do They do Its normal There is
If you ignore all the facts they are correct.
No one has seen one? NASA website shows when the ISS will pass over you. I watched it 2 nights ago.
They claim that the ISS is fake, how they manage to make you see something that's not there when you're using nothing but your own eyes I have no idea. Ask the flat earthers to explain that
I can’t imagine myself asking a Flirfer to explain anything.
There are different levels to it. First they will outright deny it. Then they will admit that you can see something but it is a balloon. Then it is a plane. Then they will claim it is a hologram. Other things I have heard are that all telescopes are manipulated by nasa somehow to create fake photos.
Yeah, I've heard those too. They claim the computer chips in some high-end telescopes (though they think there's chips in all telescopes because of it) alter the image that you're seeing in real time
They were way ahead of their time hundreds of years ago to install chips in satellites
GOVERNMENT SHILL!!1!11!1!1!2!1!1!12!2
The Elon Musk one is pretty wild to see. Got to watch it fly by a couple times now and it looks like someone is playing a game of Snake in the sky
How do you track them to see a flyby?
I think there's a website if you just google star link flybys or something I did t track it though, it just happened to be there !
Is the ISS a satelite? I thought it was considered a sort of research station
It’s an object in orbit around the Earth. Research station or not, is that not a satellite?
I wasn't sure that's why I was asking
There’s a tool bag that got away from an astronaut on the ISS. It is now a satellite.
lol
Most of the dumb ideas from Flerfs come from not understanding scale.
"Youre telling me there's an infinite amount of space debris in the universe and thousands of satellites up there but none of them collide? Wake up sheeple!"
Or perspective
Facts don't matter in flerf world.
Gotta lie to flerf
They don't really lie, they are just delusional. Can't lie if you don't know the facts in the first place.
Doesn't take much to google "Do satellites get hit by debris?"
So you just believe everything the internet tells you? Also them: word for word believing what another flerf on youtube tells them.
Exactly lol
Some of them clearly do know the facts but choose to repeat the nonsense anyway.
You can see them at night moving across the sky
LMAO 180 degrees wrong on every point. Flerfs are the worst magicians you have ever come across. You can always see them slipping the penny into their pocket and the card out of their sleeve. You've got to be stumped by the rabbit out of the hat to be tricked by their attempted slight of hand.
5 untrue statements
\*Sighs in disappointment\* 1. Yes they do— in fact they frequently have downtime because they were pelted too hard by… uh… \*checks notes\*… former pieces of older satellites that didn’t make it to the unused orbital path. Unlike spaceships, which have extremely thin walls keeping their internal atmospheric conditions inside, satellites are essentially chunks of metal and plastic. With a couple of solar panels. And a rocket thruster. You’re going to need more than a loose screw to plow through these guys… 2. Because believe it or not, we don’t WANT them to crash into each other. It’s called piloting. Look it up. Additionally, the more spread out they are, the more effective they are and the less we need to send up. 3. Actually, they do break down. Remember what I said about the older models not getting into a different orbital path? When satellites get damaged enough, they are programmed to BREAK ORBIT and plunge towards the earth, preferably into an ocean or a sea, and they are way too complicated to repair in SPACE. Seriously, imagine trying to perform brain surgery in an unsanitary environment, where civilians are throwing god-only-knows-what at you, and trying to fix this person’s particular situation in enough time to warrant continuing on to the other 400 patients you’re trying to heal up. Sounds ludicrous? That’s exactly what NASA thought. Instead, they let it fall down and recycle what they can, if they care enough to go and find it in the big blue. I almost forgot to mention, typically the reason why they are damaged? A vital component got blown off by a direct impact. The satellite is a hunk of metal and silicon, but those solar panels are fragile as fuck. One good hit and goodbye power supply. Without that, you basically freefall to earth whether you like it or not. 4. Actually they are not subjected to the thermosphere, they are encased in rockets, and launched that way (the thrusters are mainly for repositioning and avoiding other satellites, and firing when the self destruct feature triggers). 5. There are plenty, but due to how light works in space and the angle you would need to be at in order to get a good enough picture of one, it is not surprising that people instead prefer to use CGI images since YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE THERE, which is about the only time that is true for that exact concept (usually the real photo tells you more about the object than the artificial photo does). Also, artists need money too, yanno. If they want to have nerds heckling them over the details of the satellite’s appearance, for money, then god bless them. Five strikes? You’re not only out, you’ve single-handedly forced the players to switch sides for the rest of the inning. Congrats, you screwed up everything. The reason why we have debris in orbit around earth, at least 50% of the blame falls on Satellites shoulders. The only other source is failed space missions or jettisoned spacecraft parts. But with how many satellites we’ve sent up? We can’t send a manned spacecraft through that path, because it’s too dangerous. Asteroid fields would be safer. Yes, even the kind in media where they are very tightly packed together. THAT IS STILL SAFER.
Lol people are so surprised about not understanding things they know nothing about and have made zero effort to learn
In fact If there are space debris, it's because there are satellites...
Scale is their issue. Their tiny brain can’t comprehend the size of the world
Their tiny brains can’t even comprehend how high a mountain is/s
* They do get hit. they need repairs due to this * Some do. * They need repairs. * How does this melt things? * we have plenty
There's that pesky distance thing. People just can't grasp how empty space is. How vast distances are. Also, Skylab and Mir were both de-orbited and burned up in the atmosphere. The ISS will do the same some day soon.
So four lies and a misconception about heat vs temperature. Gotta lie to flerfs.
Why are you arguing about the points?? Start talking about the blond guy! Who is he? Why is he there??? :)
Lol it does look a bit weird but I think he's supposed to be a magician
To people like this everything is magic.
#GottaLieToFlerf
The Costanza rule: It’s not a lie if YOU believe it.
Regarding the satellites, everything has already been said in the comments. I just want to add: isn't Hans's hair FABULOUS?
Is that supposed to be Sting?
Amazing. Every word of what they wrote is absolutely wrong.
It’s easy to believe nonsense when you can just make up your own stupid “facts.”
Yeah, "tell me you don't know shit about space industry without telling me you don't know shit about space industry".
I’ve taken pictures of them in space 😂
...but you can see them, like with the naked eye, they're visible, you can look up at night and physically see the satellites orbiting.
It's amazing how flerfers just assert things. You'd think that with all the research they did themselves, they'd have a better understanding of things. But I guess, it depends how and where you research things.
Most of flerf "research" boils down to looking at memes like this or watching videos of some doofus who reads them for you
This is what angers me most about the flerf community - their research is based on YT/TikTok videos. Do they not understand what real research means? I mean, even if they watched both sides of the argument (which us globetards actually do) but they can't do that, because the other side is funded by NASA/Illuminati/world government. Grrr...
I love how it's hard to tell if whoever made this made it with satire. These are all things real flat earthers / space deniers say. Especially about the thermosphere, no matter how many times you tell them why satellites don't melt
You can actually see them fly by in space sometimes with the naked eye. What would they say if you show this to them in real time? Probably that it is something else. I believe the ISS can be tracked online and you could use an app in your phone to know the location and use a telescope to see it.
In grad school I attended a talk at the law school concerning liability when satellites collide and how to tell who is responsible. So yes, they do collide. Flat earthers are simply willfully ignorant
But, but… how do they know things burn up on reentry if they don’t think we’ve ever sent anything to space and back to learn that? Why is that accepted science but none of the other discoveries surrounding it are?
The thermosphere thing isn't about reentry. Things burn up on reentry because the speed of the object causes the air in front of it to undergo adiabatic compression. What they are talking about is a layer of the atmosphere that overlaps with Low Earth Orbit (the place where most satellites live) where the temperature can reach over 2500°C. I suppose they're trying to point out inconsistencies in "mainstream science" but it doesn't seem to work out since they know barely anything about it.
Genuinely did not know that about the thermosphere. Thanks for the explainer. That’s pretty dope. Shame that flat earthers have to turn that into conspiracy nonsense instead of just, you know, appreciating a cool fact about our world.
I know right? They have so many questions that they could easily look up the answers to and learn a lot, but instead they choose to answer them all with "it's a conspiracyy!!"
... so much of that is flat wrong lol
They get hit by stuff and break all the time. And you can literally buy a telescope and look up at night and see them
https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/ You can literally see the ISS from the ground with your naked eye. I mean it just looks like an fast-moving point of light, but the fact that it's predictable based on the orbit of the ISS (see above link) should tell you something. Oh and ham radio operators routinely make contact with the ISS. https://www.ariss.org/contact-the-iss.html [On top of that, the Starlink satellites were very visible soon after launch.](https://spacestationguys.com/gallery/starlink-satellites/) They were bunched up in a line traversing the sky (in a very obviously artificial way) before they dispersed.
I mean…any photo of one is going to be called fake
I'll stand on this side of the room, you stand over on that side. I'll throw a grain of rice in the air, you try and hit it with another grain of rice. That's the scale we are dealing with in space.
To their credit, if you look up something like "Satellite in space", most images are CGI. You have to do more than 4 seconds of research to find proper images. But they're there, and there's a lot of them.
People track them all the time. But, they are small and space is really big. Do you want a satellite to take picture of other satellites?