I found two articles from opposite sides of the country where people are reporting seeing Starlink satellites. Looks like SpaceX has been busy:
https://news.yahoo.com/starlink-satellites-streak-across-night-083413980.html
Comments (29)
sorted by:
Whatever you're seeing, is not satellites at 350 miles up. You're being deceived like normal by trickery. Nasa is a fraud. Do you not understand simple math and optics? You think you can see a table sized object at 350 miles? Moron extreme
You can't see satellites from the distances they claim. What your seeing is on balloons. Satellites in space is a hoax
Yup, until you look into it. Who is the largest helium user in the world? NotASpaceAgency, you guessed it. I'll bet you believe men went to the moon also, right?
Get emm patriot, fuck the brain washed retards
It's not a matter of belief. It is a fact that they went---and returned. NASA was straight arrow in those days (though I can't say they are, today).
I know right, Believing nasa is fucking retarded
Not nearly as much as doubting we went to the Moon.
From the very beginning, in the late 50s, you could see satellites from space. Nothing unusual about that. Or, if we can't see them "from the distances they claim," how do you suppose we see the moon, major planets, and stars? Please read up on the subject before you display your ignorance.
How small does a 747 look at 35,000 ft? Now multiply that distance by 10 or 100. Still think you can see them? Research inverse square formula.
It is quite common to see jetliners at 35,000 feet. A 747 (~200 ft long) at 35,000 ft would subtend an angle of 5.7 milliradians. The maximum angular resolution of the human eye is 0.14 milliradians. There should be no problem seeing a 747, unless the lighting conditions cause the airplane to have the same radiance as the sky.
A satellite at night is in an entirely different situation: a small object illuminated by sunlight against a totally black background. In this case, it does not matter whether the object is smaller than human resolution, because its brightness will still be sensed by the retina. The eye will see it as a spot the size of the optical resolution of the eye. This is how we see stars; they are far smaller than our ability to resolve them, but if they are a source of light, they will seem to fill the resolution ability of the eye. Think of a tiny light bulb being lit at the far end of Carlsbad Cavern. It would be visually smaller than the dot on a piece of newsprint held at arms length---but you would see it anyway because it emits light that can be seen.
It helps to understand human vision. I used to be an optical engineer working on eye lens implants.
So how far out would the Starlink, satellite ("the size of a table") have to be before we couldn't see it from reflection of the sun's rays under your understanding?
Look, that's not an easy problem to estimate. The size would control how much sunlight would be reflected, and the question would be whether that much sunlight would be detectable by the human eye---regardless of whether the satellite would be smaller than human visual resolution. As long as a retinal cell receives a strong enough signal, it will register. We see stars easily enough, even though they are often smaller than our visual resolution. I think it is fair to say that a small satellite at geostationary altitude would be next to impossible to see, since I've never heard of anyone seeing those satellites by eye. But in low Earth orbit, easy enough.
I don't think you understand the inverse square law of light genius.
I made my living with this kind of problem, so, yes, I fully understand the inverse law of light propagation. I also understand how the human eye works (and it is apparent you do not). You are making ridiculous claims, with no basis in reality. Satellites are real enough.
Cool story bro
In sorry friend but I've studied this for years. Satellites in space don't exist because space doesn't exist. Satellites hang from balloons, but 99%of all communications is done through fiber optic under sea cables. Google satalloon. Pull up a right angle Calc and what size a satellite would be at claimed distances. You're sadly indoctrinated and a sheep.
I happen to have spent my 40-year career working these problems, which makes me an actual rocket scientist (as well as optical engineer). I don't know what you have "studied," but it hasn't been science. Space is out there, all right. We even communicate with landers on Mars (no fiber optic cables between Earth and Mars).
Cool story bro
I saw them for the first tonight. I counted 40 of them!! I don't even think that I caught the beginning of them, either, so there were probably more. I could only see 3 or 4 at most at a time. I think they're reflecting off of the sun that's over the horizon The one in front would disappear and then you'd see one coming up from behind.
What are these things doing up there??
Yeah, pretty odd time to be launching them if we've got an out of control chyyna rocket pinging around the atmosphere. What could go wrong?
As it turns out, nothing has gone wrong. The Chinese rocket disintegrated over the Indian ocean and the parts fell into the drink...pretty much as predicted. So much for a Chinese space sneak attack.
Saw them last night. Got some video.
It was actually an impressive show of force. None of the people I was with were aware of what was going on beforehand. Hundreds of them stretched from horizon to horizon. Scared the shit out of everyone. We figured it out shortly after. Can’t imagine what unaware people in other countries think is going on. When they find out it’s the Americans they will be shitting their pants. Also was moving way too fast for balloons. There are several websites to track visible times. Lastly, I do believe Space Force is somehow involved in the whole show.
We've all been thinking the Chinese rocket was going to be the sky event. Perhaps it's going to be the Starlink satellites. Who knows? Maybe it's going to be a twofer.