[Pickel B Gravel]

...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?

[Tontogary]

...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?

Maybe because they are in different orbits?
Why would you put a space station in a similar orbit to other objects which could destroy he ISS with a collision? It was probably thought of in advance, and is called careful planning.

What evidence do you have that the ISS is faked, as is the hoax about satellites?

Very often we get asked to prove a statement made, so I challenge you to prove irrefutably that they are hoaxes.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Because most of them are fairly small and they're spaced out hundreds of miles apart, so you can't see them with the naked eye from the ISS.

[Tumeni]

...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?

Because the ISS is in a LOW orbit, with its viewing window, the cupola, facing toward Earth. Thus, the viewing window is facing AWAY from any satellite in a higher orbit.

Because, even though some may be in closer orbits, there's still millions upon millions of cubic kilometres, on average, between them.

Do the maths. Calculate the volume of space available between low orbit and high orbit. Divide that by the number of active satellites, or even by total number of trackable objects.

End result is millions of cubic kilometres, on average, for each.

They're all out of camera range.

[Curious Squirrel]

ISS orbits at 408 km in the sky. The majority of satellites orbit in medium or high Earth orbits, putting them 20,000+ km above the Earths surface. Why would you expect to see any of these sats in a picture of Earth taken from the ISS?

That said, I recall someone pointing out capture of a low orbit sat once or twice, but at the speeds both the sat and ISS are traveling, their meeting time would be very short, and odds of capture within the ISS camera feed unlikely. You aren't going to put a sat up there that could conceivably have a course that takes it regularly too close to the only thing up there with people in it after all.

[AATW]

...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?

Have you heard of Google? It took me 2 minutes to find the answer to this although others have covered it already

https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-ISS-photos-show-any-of-the-thousands-of-satellites-orbiting-Earth-Is-it-a-matter-of-being-in-different-orbits

[Tumeni]

Search YouTube for "Soyuz GoPro", and there's oodles of videos of Soyuz approaching, moving around, and departing the ISS

[nickrulercreator]

Most satellites are in orbits above the ISS. The ISS is in one of the lowest possible orbits. No cameras on the ISS point "out," they all show Earth.

Satellites are relatively small. Most working ones are the size of a car or so, maybe a bit smaller. Some are really big and the size of a bus. A lot of satellites, and nearly all debris, are smaller than a 1'x1' cube.

Space is VERY big. Like, CRAZY big. The distance between one satellite and its nearest could be several dozen kilometers. There's no way you'll ever see that satellite.

If most are above the ISS, and kinda small, and very, VERY far away, why should you see it?

Can you see people from a plane that's only 10 km up? Almost certainly not, unless you have a telescope or something. In fact, most vehicles aren't visible from that height. Objects the same size that could be dozens or hundreds (or even thousands) of kilometers away will be impossible to see.

[douglips]

I was hoping to find a streak of a satellite on time exposure/composites like this one, but I came up empty:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2251.html

I did find a photo of a meteor from the ISS, it's pretty impressive.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/18526403794_369738e1a9_o.jpg

It would be very difficult to get such a picture, Pickel, but it shouldn't be impossible, just not something anybody has intentionally set out to do.

[Tumeni]

When Plane Wave Media can seemingly "pick a satellite, any satellite", and capture it from Earth, why would there be any need at all for the ISS to do so?

[Westprog]

Do the maths.

Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.

[Tumeni]

Do the maths.

Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.

OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...

Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km

(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)

Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;

(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339  cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007

Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669


Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =


2,906,465,742 cubic km each

[AATW]

Let's be absolutely as generous as we can be. Unrealistically so. Let's pretend all the satellites are on the surface of earth. How far apart would they be?

Surface area of a sphere: 4 pi r2
Radius of earth = 6,371km so the surface area of earth is, roughly:

4 x 3.14 x 6371 x 6371 = 509805890.96 square km.

There are more than 21,000 objects larger than 10 cm orbiting the Earth.

Source: https://www.universetoday.com/42198/how-many-satellites-in-space/

509805890.96 / 21000 = 24276.47

Square root of that is 155.8, so if they were evenly spaced they would each have a square of length 155km to themselves.

Now, they're probably not evenly spaced but the point is even in that completely unrealistic scenario there would be plenty of room.
There are lots of them but the space they occupy is very, very big.

[Tontogary]

Also if you think a large proportion will be geostationary, ie over the equator, for communications, and these are clustered around the equator, whereas the space station is not in a geostationary orbit, so misses a lot of them most of the time.

A lot of ther satellites are pretty small, so trying to see something small at a few hundred kilometres is hard, particularly if the sun is not reflecting off of it from solar panels etc.

They would likely be lost against the background stars, apart from different movement of course.

However there are plenty of shots and video and pictures of the space shuttle capturing and also launching, and servicing satellites. But i guess these are all from Nasa so are propaganda from the arch enemy..........

[Treep Ravisarras]

...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?

Engaging in rationalization - conjecture and speculation. Not sure if wise for proper flat earther.

But what I see and observe when I take-off in my plane, has always amazed me. At airport many many planes. As soon as you in the air - no planes to be seen! We pilots say Sky is big. Some call Big Sky theory.

Anyway I don't think you'll get very far with this as round earth assumptions obviously have something even bigger than the sky that objects are in - the assumed space of hundreds of kilometers above earth.

Think answers above prove my point that this not really good topic to enage in as flat earther.

[Westprog]

Do the maths.

Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.

OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...

Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km

(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)

Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;

(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339  cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007

Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669


Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =


2,906,465,742 cubic km each

And so this will go down as another huge win for flat Earth theory where the globalists had no answer.

[Spycrab]

Do the maths.

Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.

OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...

Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km

(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)

Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;

(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339  cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007

Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669


Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =


2,906,465,742 cubic km each

And so this will go down as another huge win for flat Earth theory where the globalists had no answer.

Now hang on, friend.
how exactly does this mean an FE win? 2 billion cubic kilometers apart on average, plus them being difficult to see against the darkness of space, plus the overpowering reflected glow of the earth, makes for a difficult photo. If you're saying that's an absurd measurement, you do realize how large the earth is, right? Not only that, but we're operating on a sphere up to 6.9 thousand kilometers higher than that. It's a large area.

[Tumeni]

how exactly does this mean an FE win? 2 billion cubic kilometers apart on average ...

I think he meant...

[SARCASM]And so this will go down as another huge win for flat Earth theory ...[/SARCASM]

[Spycrab]

Understood. Carry on.

[SiDawg]

This argument is often raised for "space junk" too... There's about 30,000 objects 10cm or greater. Even if they all orbit at the same distance as the ISS, if they area all spread out evenly around the earth then each bit gets an area roughly the size of new jersey to itself. But space junk is mostly 800km above the earth, twice as high as the ISS... but i guess to be fair some times the ISS takes photos "upwards" or across the earth which would include areas of space above it's orbit... but still... New Jersey.

Out of 3600 functional satelites, 500 are in low earth orbit. The rest are at least 19,000km above the earth.. so whats the chances the ISS will see something the size of a satellite 18,600km away? Plus, that's only 3100 objects... so that's 10 New Jersey's as it is, but the height is greater, so that's an area about the size of Alaska, Texas, and California combined... per satellite. So good luck catching that out the window of the ISS on a Nikon D4!

But the 500 in low earth orbit... well, that's about one satellite for an area twice the size of Texas.

So why hasn't the ISS taken photos of satellites? Well it probably has: they would call those days "really really lucky days"