How Do Satellites Get & Stay in Orbit? 

Woolywuffta...

:o)

genius

Dad was such a drag...

🙄 really?! Idioms?! Aka colloquial metaphors!! Or is it a pun? “Ether” way it’s a dumb one. 👎🏽😂

What did Issac do for us? Other than steal Calculus from Gottfried.

Lutranereis Leibniz independently invented calculus, and they are both credited with inventing it. However Newton invented infinitesimal calculus and Leibniz is only considered because his notation was preferred. (Not to mention Newton's contributions to optics and other fields of physics dwarf his discovery of calculus.)

Monochromicornicopia You obviously didn't get the joke.

Lutranereis Your comment doesn't contain tone or inflection. You need to punctuate or otherwise indicate your satire.

Monochromicornicopia So you had a choice: The comment is serious, or the comment is a joke. And since you didn't know which one, you thought you'd display your intellectual superiority by assuming that it was serious. You got it wrong, and next time you don't know whether a comment should be taken seriously or not, maybe you'll consider not commenting.

Closeup photos of satellites in space are rare since there rarely are _other_ satellites nearby to take the photos. However, here is the *_TDRS-5 communication satellite_* when it was deployed from the space shuttle Atlantis in 1991: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-43#/media/File:TDRS-E_deployment_from_STS-43.jpg The satellite had a small rocket stage attached to it in order to bring it up to geostationary orbit since the shuttle couldn't go that high. And here's the *_Hubble Space Telescope_* seen from the same space shuttle in 2009 after being overhauled by astronauts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#/media/File:HST-SM4.jpeg

It is interesting to think that the people who actually build those sattelites and the morons who write these comments probably went to the same schools.

Why are you so mad. Try understanding first Try to figure out why people are saying these crazy things There's s good reason for it I was in your position and now I at least see why people don't believe everything they're told at face value. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong But I get where they're coming from and you can't expect anything else

Calling people. Bad names is pointless. It fuels rebellion

@@Veganphobicwhat is crazy is that people actually believe him go and Google satellites go to images not one true real picture

Ya because your shows come from space😂😂😂😂 bs

😂😂😂😂

HAHA Came here to say the same thing :)

*Kerbal

That game frustrated me. My rocket would just spin on its self as it leaves earth and just fly off into space.

Lol commented before reading comments, and mentioned ksp just like you!

Attila Török thanks. Stupid phone never let's me say say what I want! I'll edit when I get home =)

8 years ago... Hello from the future

Well, objects can certainly get shot out into deep space if they're not in a stable orbit around their parent body before trying to re-enter.

I was wondering how high up the first KSP comment would be.

In real life the atmosphere extends much farther than it does in KSP, our satellites get slowed down over years by the occasional atom, which don't exist in KSP.

Yes, and in real life the window between crashing back into Earth and escaping it's orbit is a pretty fucking wide one, which was the only point I was making.

PossumCuber That is something I was hoping they would cover in this video:What are the margins?

How about your eyes? Would that work for you? Because, you can see many satellites in orbit with your naked eyes. That seems like something better, right? Something you can verify with your own eyes?

true i've seen hubble, iss, iridium satellites and a couple of amateur radio satellites since the last 6 months

if we can see satellites with our naked eyes from earth , why cant we see them from the ISS ? let me guess , its too far lmao

@iphil25 A satellite is an object that is in orbit. The *Moon* is a natural satellite. What we send up are artificial satellites. He doesn't call them 'artificial' because they're fake, lol. Ignorance is bliss...

@@MulleDK19 Ironically they ARE fake lol It's only the perception of them that lives on. A better question is how would thousands of satellites remain in orbit without any control or boundaries set in place? Isn't the ISS in DIRE jeopardy of being decapitated by one of the orbiting satellites?! Think about it

+IAN m imagine if these people were in charge of things.

+Your Average American there are so many of them browsing the internet. I think they're just trolling...

Yeah, I had an argument with a woman at work a couple of days ago, she doesn't believe in other planets. Thinks the Earth is the only one.

Your comment should be the "Top Comment" for all RU-vid videos.

stupid people are the ones who believe nasa

"Thare's like buoansy and stoff like sho me som non CGI imegess ya know gurllll"

Satalites are fake. You're a brainwashed puppet. Get on your moms smartphone. Google Satalites for me. Now tell me which is a real photo and which is fake.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SoAD5P1YRnc.html

​@@AlphaFlight You mean the smartphone that uses GPS Satellites for driving directions? I could also ask...what are *Satalites*, but no need to be mean...

@@AlphaFlight yeah I also believe there are no satellites. Look how much they show exist in cgi, imagine how much space trips that is. 1000% fake.

There is more than one satellite on the same orbit doing the same job. As one leaves the area the next one takes over. Much like when your on a cell phone in a moving car, your signal movies from one cell tower to the next keeping your call connected.

Thank you Jack’s Son for explaining that. It makes sense. Have a very good evening!

These days, we don't just launch a single satellite for communications, but an entire network. Sometimes dozens. This way, if one satellite doesn't have line of site with whatever receiving station is intended, then other satellites relay that signal through the network.

they dont exist

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg sometimes 49 thousandsss...

Technically, circular and eccentric orbits intersect with an even amount of orbits... except circular intersect more eccentric ones and vice-versa.

Tyrope Games I was referring to the orbits of satellites being intersected, since most of them are (reasonably) circular.

8 years ago... Hello from the future

@@GrimReefer710 lol !!

@@jaydendimakatso1493 hello person I'll never meet

That’s gunna be bad when it happens

8 years ago... Hello from the future

Because space is a really big place. It's not going to be a dense debris field. There are also people whose job it is to keep track of all space debris and if necessary, alert mission control that a maneuver is necessary to avoid it. The ISS is also hit pretty often by microscopic pieces of debris that mostly do no harm. The bigger pieces could be catastrophic and this is when they move out of the way. Very rarely, they find larger debris heading toward them and don't have time to steer out of the way so they alert the crew and they get into a Soyuz craft and if necessary, they can evacuate the ISS and come back to Earth if needed. They have only had to do this a handful of times...like 4 or 5 times, and they've never been hit in this situation.

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg yes but they be swimming in the sea of it and it's not space it's orbiting earth. Your telling me it's out in space but it supposed to be orbiting EARTH. Like a seaweed patch in the ocean. The live can are supposed to show Sparks or damages to the orbiter. It shows it's like it's brand new. They're supposed to be wear and tear on it from the Debris especially the solar panels.

@@thebuddhaofknowledgemichae2486 Asked and answered Not sure why you are confused on how something can be both in space and orbiting earth. What is your confusion here?

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg you mentioned space. We are talking about the Earth's orbit. If they're are debris. The space station should be receiving ba daily dose of Sparks or mini collisions and they are no way that can be detected from earth. Large debris yes. But small debris you can't detect. The Earth revolves. So every minute you will encounter the same debris. There should be Sparks of contact around the station everyday. Or Solar panels being bruised. Mini dust is infinite and when you make contact it supposed to cause friction. Or it wear down your glass portal of the space station. I don't see any of it during live feeds

@@thebuddhaofknowledgemichae2486 What you expect should happen simply doesnt happen. There is nothing to say beyond that. If you're trying to argue that the ISS is fake or something, someone should tell you that it is visible to the naked eye, and with a cheap pair of binoculars, you can see that it is up there...in the shape of all the pictures of the ISS out there and is in precisely predictable locations. Hundreds of millions of people have seen it. I'm not humoring any nonsensical amd frankly moronic assertions that it is fake. Go troll someone else if that's what you're on about.

It seems to have gone the way of all "science" programming. I'd love to see them try the same sort of patronising dumbed down so far it's actually wrong with sports fans. Instead of coverage of a game, just 10 minutes of fancy graphics and idiotic misinformation.

Actually, not even 10 year olds. Man landed on the moon in 1969 when I was 6 years old. I knew far more about basic orbital mechanics at that age than was presented in this show. I could have told you even then what the minimum orbital velocity was, what escape velocity was. And I would have told you in the *proper* units, not friggin miles per hour!

gasdive They said kilometers.

I would imagine they try to keep it simple to include a wider audience, you would be surprised at the general public's lack of knowledge when it comes to space.

Diana Peña I know, but this is very VERY basic. I held back from saying anything on some of their earlier simple vids for that reason, but I couldn't help myself any longer. I'm not saying we can't have these videos, just saying there could be some more in depth ones as well. (also, I hate how youtube just marked all the negative comments here as spam.)

Blikmin I’ll chat man. I’m on the process of questioning everything, I’m far from highly educated, however I’m intelligent and value the scientific method as well I understand and see mathematics in everything we experience. My biggest concerns arise from the ever changing boundaries at which the equations change. The point at which an object stops rotating with the planets atmosphere and begins to fall. Now of course I realize an explanation has been given in this video for this critical calculation... I personally can not fathom the amount of variables that must exist for this calculation to be made with any consistency( given that the Karman line altitudes are far from decided or constant ) ultimately it seems we have never left earths atmosphere? So either the moon is in our atmosphere ( which I believe NASA has acknowledged) or we have really.... 🤔actually that’s the only logical conclusion 🤷‍♂️

it is not possible to have the shortest day of the year (winter solstice) in the northern hemisphere and the longest day in the southern hemisphere at the same time if the earth is flat... but those who stealthily and deceivingly control ALL the major misinformation/disinformation around the globe want to keep us all divided and keep us all divided on all subject matters... 🙂

uvarvu1 Well, have they shown us any yet? Or do we need to do a welfare check for you?! Not totally joking...let me know that you are okay.

+uvarvu1 No, you are not worthy, subhuman.

+uvarvu1 yeah right Satellites are Bull Shit and this Video also!!!

+uvarvu1 You don't need a video. You can see them with your own naked eyes. You can even use some average binoculars to see the shape of something as big as the International Space Station. Not a very bright one here, folks. So, I can save you the time by assuming your response to this will be some kind of childish insult followed by NOTHING resembling an actual argument that directly addresses anything I've said. Textbook : Troll.

+Ahmed12585 Well if you hate satellites so much, then why did you click on this video?

8 years ago... Hello from the future

Go outside. See the ISS fly past in the sky. Bullshit? I think not.

watch ISS livestream, there you wouldn't call it BS

Smitty it's still your little knowledge

yeah i got the brain of a 2 year old. or maybe im a 2 year old disguised as a 13 year old. we will never know xD

Nothing wrong with that. If it teaches you physics, then more power to you.

It's both fake

WAKE ur as up

For starters, you seem to be under the impression that satellites need a constant source of power to maintain their speed. That's most certainly not the case. Space is virtually a vacuum, and in accordance with Newton's law of inertia, an object in motion will remain in motion, so those satellites will for all intents and purposes maintain the speed they got from the initial launch. Most satellites have some sort of fuel supply and small engine built in for periodic boosts - - because space is not a PERFECT vacuum. There is a tiny bit of drag, so the satellites need to be boosted up to speed a couple of times a year, but the amount of fuel needed is minimal. Once a satellite runs out of fuel, it is at the mercy of gravity. As drag slows the satellite, it's orbit will decay and eventually it will become unstable and fall; burning up in the atmosphere. However, it takes a while for drag to do its work. Years. You can't find an answer because it seems you have a misunderstanding of how orbits work.

+Willoughby Krenzteinburg Not buying onto the whole thing.. but hey, life goes on.. chill out. Thanks for the reply bro.

+F.A. M.Z. No satellites just some BS...

George Mckenzie Right. Whatever gets you through the day, brah.

Easier. They keep falling but due to earths movement they stay in orbit

Earth hasn't has to deal with drag though

8 years ago... Hello from the future

Mathematics.

Tell you what, if you can come up with an additional 1490 m/s delta-v to deorbit a satellite, we'll gladly stop trashing up LEO and MEO.

That should have been part of the original plan. Don't send it up if you can't dispose of it properly once you're done with it. It's like going on a picnic with no trash disposal bags & just leaving the stuff you're done with to clutter up the area. If we don't start acting responsibly, space will one day be Way more dangerous than it already is.

Lutranereis you could build a big reflective plate and vaporize bits of satalite off to deorbit them! Or is that too scifi?

TheDajamster To send a satellite into a graveyard orbit, it requires 11 m/s delta-v. That's insignificant, about 3 month's worth of correctional burns for your typical GSP satellite. That 1490 m/s more that's required to deorbit the satellite is *33 years worth* of correctional burns. We currently don't have the ability to send up satellites with that much fuel in a cost effective way. Simply put, if we had to deorbit every satellite that we put up, we'd have almost no satellites, and the cost of using them would be great. But how dangerous are we really talking about here anyway? These satellite graveyards are at thousands of kilometers higher than low Earth orbit, where almost all of our human activity takes place. We're actually more at risk with the small stuff in LEO than we are of these satellites in MEO and HEO. I'm certainly with you that we should be responsible about what we put orbiting our planet, but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that what we're doing is what we have the technology for right now.

thief9001 Laser debris systems are pretty awesome, and hopefully we'll be using them very soon to deorbit debris.

Absolutely.

Touché

@World Viral Daily You can spot the ISS pass over your head at night against the dark sky when its solar panels reflect the sunlight . In the daytime as it passes over your area on the earth you can't see it, but it has live cameras that are pointing downwards and you can see the area of the earth where you are at that time.

Right and we went to the moon too past all that radiation in the 70s with space foil to protect us lol. If you think this you're a tool and very gullible

8 years ago... Hello from the future

​@@bradleymilton1720 Nasa uses helium balloons...it's all fake

Pretty much. They obviously weren't launched from the sun like satellites are from Earth. But they are all falling towards the sun but they move fast enough sideways that they miss the sun and keep falling. This is an orbit. That's what our moon does around earth and what Saturn's rings do around Saturn. Orbits are amazing!

The principles are all the same, yes. However, planets experience virtually no drag and their orbits are stable.

Yes

Although around the sun obviously

Jacob Thomas Unless you're one of those crazy geocentrists.

the terms you are looking for is "rendevous", try searching for footage of vessels docking onto the ISS.

Lmao this is very possible too

@@DYZYLink its not, they burn up in the atmosphere

Ah, the Kessler syndrome. I don't think it will be much of an obstacle to get to mars though. Space is big, even the small part of it that is high earth orbit, and the sattelites are really small. So we would be extremely unlucky to actually hit one of them. Though if we keep cluttering space around Earth there will eventually be an accident. Sadly people are very good at pushing todays problems to the next generation. "We need wood, let's cut down all the trees, let our children worry about how to get wood in the future" "I don't see a problem with throwing my garbage in the ocean, it goes away, whe ocean is big, it's no problem." "I need my car to get to work, let someone else worry abou global warming" "Why should we recycle plastic when it is so much easier to just burn it?" "Bumping sattelites into a higher orbit makes them not our problem anymore." Just to mention a few.

If they can get past the learning curve. First they need to learn how to fly in a straight line

rayamat01 lol yeah the learning curve is very steep... it took me a month to get into orbit proper, without MechJeb

anthonyhdean Really? I just watched a lets play..then bought the game..played the tutorial and went to mun and minmus the same day (not back thou ;) )...understanding mechjeb was harder then to learn how to orbit..still dont use mechjeb as autopilot..only when building stuff. Hardest thing in my opinion is to rendevouz with my spacestations =P

Sizzlik it all became easier once I learned hot to use the nav ball. Plus Mech Jeb is a bit cheaty but its a single player game so I guess you're not hurting anyone

rayamat01 Didnt said it is a cheat..its an autopilot..good for efficient orbiting once you set it up right. I just said it was harder for me to learn how mechjeb works than it was learning to get in orbit manually. And yes..the nav ball is the most important tool that you need to understand first =) Without it its pretty much impossible to get into orbit efficient

Not sure what you are asking, but just try googling this stuff. If you really want more detail on rocket engines, EverydayAstronaut is a great channel. Scott Manley is great too.

@@PsychoMuffinSDM Thx ..! Any way ..I find ok..Bestregards from Tonchy! ✌💕🍷🥂👌

the storm is between your antenna and the satellite. the signal needs to travel through the storm, and during such conditions some data may be lost/altered and the signal becomes weaker

Thrusters.

Actually satellites are constantly falling towards earth but due to earths revolution satellites stay in orbit just like atmosphere of earth stays with it. so the speed of satellite is the falling speed towards earth due to gravity but it doesn't fall because earth is constantly moving/revolving pretty much same how planets are revolving around sun but planets have zero drag as they have vacuum around them but satellites have drag of earth's atmosphere so they stay in orbit but somehow after decade or so they stop revolving so they need occasional thrust to keep them going

Jim Sagubigula thrusters do not work space. Propulsion needs an atmosphere to push of of. Noth can travel in a vacuum.

Funny, your comment is the most ignorant obvious worthless waste of cyber space I've read. Deliberate none committal. Second part is legit. If you're to much of a vague puss to express and stand by an opinion. Then you're right. you're not a part of humanity. Alone and empty. Riding the fence till your nuts get cut. You don't have to endure pain. Be pro-off-yourself active. *FOR EVERYBODY'S SAKE!*

@@raymond3803 but why'd u take it so serious tho 😂its not even dat deep cuz

@@Natius284 You're in pain, I was trying to help. Help you make the right decision. What's your nearest bridge? Do you have a balcony? Gas stove? A chair you can stand on? razor blade? Pills? Here's a documentary --> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Zwl-Pa_QT0M.html Good luck.

@@raymond3803 im not suicidal my g

@@Natius284 1 denial 2 anger 3 bargaining 4 depression 5 jump 6 beg forgiveness 7 hospital 8 promise 9 jump from higher 10 success

Me2

Except, luckily, we don't have to deal with orbital decay.

The difference is that in real life, the atmosphere doesn't disappear at 70km.

Walz Kerbin is a hell of a lot smaller than Earth.

Mark Tuchinsky And the atmosphere of Earth still doesn't disappear anywhere. It extends indefinitely, and its density at a given altitude varies hugely just from solar activity.

I HOPE YOU WAKE UP FROM THE COMA...

ilL tRy

+Mark Little Guessing you're trolling? In case you aren't, the reason this "fantabulous highway" isn't used is because it would cost way too much to get any commercial vehicle into that altitude. But hey, suggest that to Boeing/Airbus engineers, they might not have thought of that...

+GReaperEx a little bit of both...

Ah, yes! Spaceship to get from London to New York. Who wouldn't want to buy an $18 million dollar ticket?

i read this as he said it wtf xD

And maintain it ,good question

8 years ago... Hello from the future

Hello from 10 months in the future@@GrimReefer710

This is what happens when you simplify something so much that it's wrong.

you clearly don't understand the concept...

since I've wasted couple of seconds to comment, let me correct your brain. "horizontal motion has no effect on vertical motion." yes you are correct, but the things that matters of putting something in orbit is its horizontal motion, NOT its vertical motion. The reason why we put it up there are because of the existence of a thick atmosphere and of course, mountains...

I do understand. My problem was with a science show stating incorrect information about something we established hundreds of years ago. I'm not being arsey about it, but just don't. I don't know everything and I don't expect anyone else to, mistakes happen. The idea is we project an object so fast that the horizon drops faster than the projectile falls. Objects in orbit are continually falling towards Earth, they just keep missing.

Isaac, Robert Green is right and SciShow is wrong. The cannon ball doesn't "fly parallel to the earth until gravity pulled it back down to the ground". It never flys, nor does it travel parallel to the ground except at a single point at apogee. It simply (ignoring air resistance) enters a highly elliptical orbit. One that soon intersects the ground. Just like any other object released in a gravitational field. The big boost in horizontal velocity simply circularises the orbit.

cos it stays at the orbit of the earth far far away and it doesn't have any thrusters to move so that it can change its orbit

Vladimir Nachev Because the moon is 225,772 miles away. much farther than artificial satellites

the moon is actually getting further away as time passes and also slowing the erfs rotation.

the moon is 3200 miles away, it is part of earth

+Dallas Quinley No, it's much farther out.

Yes, we call it the moon.

Did you meant “natural ones”?

The moon

people who have never played Kerbal Space Program.

curious people

We have search engines for curious people

mavxr 1. This is a bit more interesting than reading about it. 2.They're answering a question asked by one, but that many don't know the answer to. If the question never comes to mind, you'll never search for an answer. SciShow and SciShow Space (and a multitude of other awesome channels) provide answers to questions you may have never thought of asking.

Mat Comtois Maybe if the video subject wasn't elementary

Can I has some pie? :(

James Collins No.

Chef:I baked you a pie! Little boy:Oh boy!What flavor?! Chef:Pie flavor!(disoriented electric guitar noise)

8 years ago... Hello from the future

Vague answer: because at re-entry, the satellite collides with the molecules of air, and each molecule causes friction that heats up the satellite, thus basically setting it on fire, because their falling speed is so great. That's why stuff, that fall to the Earth from space, fires up. On its way out, on the other hand, there are no molecules or atoms to collide with, thus it simply moves away.

Tadej Smerke If a rocket is going 16,900 mph on its way out at 350,000 ft and 17,150 mph on it's way back in when it hits 350,000 ft, either way it is going roughly 17,000 mph at 350,000 ft. Question: what is the minimum speed it would take a rocket or any craft for that matter to begin reaching critical temperatures? Would they become glowing red hot if they were going 14,000 mph? 12,000 mph? Because 12,000 mph, 14,000 mph and 17,000 mph are all considered as high-hypersonic speeds. High hypersonic speeds require considerable thermal protection. And think about this. The shuttle reaches roughly 17,000 mph at at 350,000 ft. It still needs to climb another 950,000 ft or 180 miles to get to the ISS. But it only needs to accelerate 150 more mph to reach the ISS's speed? Nothing about that makes sense.

reversecourse Now, I'm not rocket engineer, but I might try and explain how I see things; Sound is made by moving through the air and compressing air molecules, so they kind of travel in waves, and your ear can detect that motion of waves. Planes and rockets do go multiple times faster than sound when they go out into orbit, but only as long as they are in our atmosphere - you hear them, because they are pushing away air and thus creating sound. Now, they can't reach such massive speeds as to actually start burning when going out of orbit because they have to fight the force of gravity on their way out. BUT, that only happens in the atmosphere. Once in space, there is no air, so nothing to produce sound; there are no molecules they can hit, thus there can be no 'ignition' caused by the drag of air. In space, everything travels so much faster than sound, because there are no molecules that can slow them down. So once the Shuttle needs to climb to the ISS, it's basically traveling inside empty space, so nothing can slow it down or affect it. But once they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere, they are already traveling at such massive speeds + gravity is pulling them down, so it's easy to see, why they can start to burn; they are hitting those air molecules so fast, that they cause an ignition because of sheer drag. I hope I made some sense.

A satellite is protected inside a rocket on it's way up and out. It basically becomes like an unprotected ballistic free falling meteor on the way down, with all it's unprotected sides burning up easily. In fact, the Space Shuttle comes close to burning up on re-entry if things don't go exactly right. It if loses a few of it's small thermal shields, the heat burns through the hull like a blowtorch. Keep in mind that getting up to speed to exit the Earth's gravitational pull is very difficult to do, so it is easy to maintain a speed just below the melting point. On re-entry, anyone who has watched a meteor fall knows that even a monkey can make something burn up in the way back down. Try this: Load a dump truck full of rock and try to drive up the steepest hill you can find. You might be able to maintain 55mph on the way up, but you have to fight with every ounce of energy. Now turn around and go back down. No engine needed. Halfway down, you are burning up the brakes, and nearing 80 mph. Same thing with rockets. They need to push with everything they have to get out, but coming back down can be a real whore. If anything they need to slow their descent to make it back in one piece.

glassdogangle satellites don't exit Earth's gravitational pull.

8 years ago... Hello from the future

if they are not being affected by atmospheric drag, they are permanently in orbit. if they are within the atmosphere like the ISS (only in the very upper atmosphere) then yes they do need occasional adjustments.

Basically 2 conditions are needed to keep any object moving in a circle: (1) A force towards the centre or orbit. (2) A tangential velocity. The gravitational force provides the first condition and the satellite gains its initial velocity from the service vehicle/rocket that launched it in orbit. Once a satellite is up to the correct velocity it will continue moving at this velocity as there will be no air-resistance to slow it down. (Remember Newton's First Law of Motion). Now the satellite is in a continuous freefall orbit. Take care.

well said. though they will tell you and they cant agree. anywhere from 1300 to 8500 satelittes anywhere and they cant agree from 400 kms to 20000. I suppose the further out they are the less chance we have of spotting them.

+Flat Earther EXACTLY!!!

You know rockets almost never carry 1 satellite per launch right. One of India's rockets managed to send up 104 satellites in one launch. Try again tinfoil hatter.

+OzzelTheComposer It is precisely BECAUSE of that, that satellites do work.

Wrong. Makes no sense.

+OzzelTheComposer Makes no sense to you, THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE!!

+OzzelTheComposer Im with you on that. First off he is wrong about which goes faster. Those that are closer can go slower than the satellites are further away. Hes not even sure himself. I dont believe anything about space till we get 24\7 streaming video of the earth

"Periodically" is a happy answer? Seriously dude, people need to stop using the word gay in a negative context.

You just undermined your own argument by saying 'happy', the definitions of words change through generations.

Super Hans I'm aware of that. Using it in a negative way is still bad, so just stop please. That's all I'm saying.

I respect your opinion but I'm not going to do that

Fine. I can't make you. I will just think less of you as a person. So I hope that's ok with you.

the individual air molecules at that altitude have on average the amount of kinetic energy that a 2000 degrees more dense air down on earth would have. the satellites aren't really affected by the temperature of the gas because the air density up there is so low. they don't collide too often with air

+Tardigrades so how can satellites stay cool when the accumulated heat has no air to deflect itself away from satellite?

it radiates heat through electromagnetic radiation. research blackbody radiation.

so cuz the air density up there is so low the satellites dont melt , ok but i presume in outer space there is no air at all , so there is no heat ? then one can just fly straight up to the sun and dont burn/melt ?

Lemcal Kerman ?... i like coca cola

People like you are just hell bent on rejecting the existence of satellites. If you had a photo of one, you'd just call it fake. There aren't going to be many photos of satellites because for the most part, they are launched with robotic missions. Many of the satellites have cameras, but they are not designed to take selfies. The good news is : you don't NEED a video of a satellite in order to know they exist - you know, since you can SEE many of them with your own naked eyes.

Blake Snipe I'm not the one to blame... I'm only telling the truth from my pov... I made it my civic duty to find real images of satellites a few months ago and seriously made a fool of myself in spite of a heated debate with a friend... I even watch the video clip you posted btw and still it's a painting of animation... Pls tell me you don't actually believe those to be real photos images... I'm asking you as nicely as possible to pls help me find real photo images of satellites so I can even things out with my friend...

As far as communication cell towers are for cell phones... Weather forecast are also ground base... They also use underground or should I say underwater cable for internet across the ocean (did you know that)... Google use planes and vans for GPS... Which explain why the so called satellite images are not in real time...

Blake Snipe "If you had a photo of one, you'd just call it fake." Sir if I had a real photo of a satellite we wouldn't be having this conversation... If I had a real photo of a satellite in orbit this video wouldn't be necessary... It's all propaganda ....

E Jones I posted no video clip, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. There are thousands of photographs of the International Space Station. There are thousands of photographs of the Hubble Space Telescope. There are thousands of photographs of other various satellites. You deem every single one of these photographs as CGI. In other words, fake. Just like I said. Here's how you operate : You do not believe there are satellites or anything in orbit, so if you see a photograph of something claiming to represent an object in orbit, you AUTOMATICALLY deem it to be CGI because in YOUR mind, it is the only explanation for how such a photo can exist. Just as I said - even if you saw a photograph of a satellite, you'd just call it fake - because so far - YOU HAVE. Cell phones use cell towers to transmit calls and texts - and a few phones use it for triangulation. However, the GPS function of phones uses a GPS satellite network. Actual GPS devices use satellites as well. Satellite television (Dish Network, DirecTV, etc.) use satellites as well. Satellite internet uses satellites. I'm not talking about ALL internet service providers; I'm talking about SATELLITE ISPs. Google Earth is a composite. The photographs change as you zoom in and out. The wide angle images - generally lower resolution come from satellites. The high resolution (zoomed in) photographs come from aircraft. Doppler radar is indeed ground based - and I didn't say anything different. And then finally - something you failed to address in all your rambling - you can SEE satellites with your naked eyes.

Why do you think they need fuel to "stay up there" (besides for drag)? Why do you think they can't navigate nor maneuver? Why do you think they would drift off?

PsychoMuffinSDM " BECAUSE "of the hundreds and hundreds of meters that WOULD be there through the centuries of time itself , to believe other wise is self defeating , this IS a double think statement, and a lot of people can't do it .

@@fredroger1544What do you mean by hundreds of meters? Meters of what? Meters Where? Please form coherent sentences. You didn't answer any of the questions I asked regarding your original assertion, which apparently exists from a lack of understanding of orbital mechanics. And not understanding something does not mean it doesn't exist.

PsychoMuffinSDM m meteors

@@fredroger1544 Ok... that doesn't really make sense either. Meteors are what enter the earths atmosphere and crash. So by definition, they are not going to "be there through the centuries of time itself" and I am assuming you there "there" as orbit? I still don't understand why you think they need all this fuel to stay up there and why they can't navigate. Can you explain why you think that?

You know this is how a feel when I watch a video that keeps telling me miles when I grew up learning metric....