Re: SpaceX Starlink internet
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:31 am
Someone is taking the board too seriously.....
UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://ujrefugees.net/
All due respect, I agree with your analogy but disagree with your logic. Again, being somewhat limited on knowledge on how the technology of these telescope projects work, it just seems (to me) you are again missing the whole point. You are thinking of the telescope you look through in your back yard (or wherever) and a camera as the same. This is correct. You look through- instant image. That's not how these Billion $ telescopes work. You have your 100 m (whatever) telescope there and you have another one on the other side of the Earth both focused on the same area you are studying. Coordinated timing and long term viewing is the key. Neither has a 100m telescope. They both together are a telescope of 12,000 miles ( diameter of the Earth).Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:22 amThis is essentially correct (in layman's terms).Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:48 ami think what he means is that their focal point in that area would be so minute that satellites at this elevation would be negligible. but i don't know shit about astronomy.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 pmAnd you are wrong. Just like the famous "Deep Field" survey by Hubble back in the day, they also need to be focused on a particular point in the sky over a long period of time with no deviation or obstruction, like wut's meteor survey. Those distances demand it. They aren't pointing and clicking, Dude.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:33 pmThat's not how it works, dude.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:27 pmAnd that's amateur. Can you imagine what it does with those Billion $ telescope arrays doing different projects sometimes requiring absolute no interference.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:16 pm I've been an amateur astronomer for 35 years and I'm here to tell you that satellites are a royal pain in the ass!
Earth telescopes focusing on things billions of miles away are not hampered by low focus satellites.
Think about it like this. If I take my Nikon camera and I focus on and take a picture of something a mile away, whatever is 10 feet in front of me will be horribly out of focus. Now multiply that by 5 billion miles and add a black background.
Don't need to. I'm not going psycho. I do know when that time comes though and will step away for a few. Something CQ needs right now.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:28 amare you doing it now?CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:26 amWho hasn't. It's not poking in threads and taking pot shots occasionally. Everybody does that. It's what makes the site fun. But if you watch his responses and times, he's obviously hovering over his keyboard waiting to pounce at the first sign of a new post, striking and then not realizing what he just typed didn't have anything to do with the post or thread subject. That's when your internal self should be flashing a warning signal saying "Dude, logoff, step away and take a few days to clear your head". Believe me, I've done that several times over the years.
in terms of using 2 points to view the same thing from 2 perspectives, that makes sense. but you are going to have to explain how those two are functioning as a single telescope.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:48 amAll due respect, I agree with your analogy but disagree with your logic. Again, being somewhat limited on knowledge on how the technology of these telescope projects work, it just seems (to me) you are again missing the whole point. You are thinking of the telescope you look through in your back yard (or wherever) and a camera as the same. This is correct. You look through- instant image. That's not how these Billion $ telescopes work. You have your 100 m (whatever) telescope there and you have another one on the other side of the Earth both focused on the same area you are studying. Coordinated timing and long term viewing is the key. Neither has a 100m telescope. They both together are a telescope of 12,000 miles ( diameter of the Earth).Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:22 amThis is essentially correct (in layman's terms).Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:48 ami think what he means is that their focal point in that area would be so minute that satellites at this elevation would be negligible. but i don't know shit about astronomy.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 pmAnd you are wrong. Just like the famous "Deep Field" survey by Hubble back in the day, they also need to be focused on a particular point in the sky over a long period of time with no deviation or obstruction, like wut's meteor survey. Those distances demand it. They aren't pointing and clicking, Dude.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:33 pmThat's not how it works, dude.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:27 pm
And that's amateur. Can you imagine what it does with those Billion $ telescope arrays doing different projects sometimes requiring absolute no interference.
Earth telescopes focusing on things billions of miles away are not hampered by low focus satellites.
Think about it like this. If I take my Nikon camera and I focus on and take a picture of something a mile away, whatever is 10 feet in front of me will be horribly out of focus. Now multiply that by 5 billion miles and add a black background.
CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:48 amAll due respect, I agree with your analogy but disagree with your logic. Again, being somewhat limited on knowledge on how the technology of these telescope projects work, it just seems (to me) you are again missing the whole point. You are thinking of the telescope you look through in your back yard (or wherever) and a camera as the same. This is correct. You look through- instant image. That's not how these Billion $ telescopes work. You have your 100 m (whatever) telescope there and you have another one on the other side of the Earth both focused on the same area you are studying. Coordinated timing and long term viewing is the key. Neither has a 100m telescope. They both together are a telescope of 12,000 miles ( diameter of the Earth).Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:22 amThis is essentially correct (in layman's terms).Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:48 ami think what he means is that their focal point in that area would be so minute that satellites at this elevation would be negligible. but i don't know shit about astronomy.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 pmAnd you are wrong. Just like the famous "Deep Field" survey by Hubble back in the day, they also need to be focused on a particular point in the sky over a long period of time with no deviation or obstruction, like wut's meteor survey. Those distances demand it. They aren't pointing and clicking, Dude.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:33 pmThat's not how it works, dude.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:27 pm
And that's amateur. Can you imagine what it does with those Billion $ telescope arrays doing different projects sometimes requiring absolute no interference.
Earth telescopes focusing on things billions of miles away are not hampered by low focus satellites.
Think about it like this. If I take my Nikon camera and I focus on and take a picture of something a mile away, whatever is 10 feet in front of me will be horribly out of focus. Now multiply that by 5 billion miles and add a black background.
CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:11 am I'm way lacking on the knowledge/ technology used on these ground based telescope projects. Hubble/ future Webb space telescopes even more.
They have actually done it with 3 telescopes. It's called Interferometry. Give it a Google and read a little bit about it.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:54 amin terms of using 2 points to view the same thing from 2 perspectives, that makes sense. but you are going to have to explain how those two are functioning as a single telescope.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:48 amAll due respect, I agree with your analogy but disagree with your logic. Again, being somewhat limited on knowledge on how the technology of these telescope projects work, it just seems (to me) you are again missing the whole point. You are thinking of the telescope you look through in your back yard (or wherever) and a camera as the same. This is correct. You look through- instant image. That's not how these Billion $ telescopes work. You have your 100 m (whatever) telescope there and you have another one on the other side of the Earth both focused on the same area you are studying. Coordinated timing and long term viewing is the key. Neither has a 100m telescope. They both together are a telescope of 12,000 miles ( diameter of the Earth).Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:22 amThis is essentially correct (in layman's terms).Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:48 ami think what he means is that their focal point in that area would be so minute that satellites at this elevation would be negligible. but i don't know shit about astronomy.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 pmAnd you are wrong. Just like the famous "Deep Field" survey by Hubble back in the day, they also need to be focused on a particular point in the sky over a long period of time with no deviation or obstruction, like wut's meteor survey. Those distances demand it. They aren't pointing and clicking, Dude.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:33 pm
That's not how it works, dude.
Earth telescopes focusing on things billions of miles away are not hampered by low focus satellites.
Think about it like this. If I take my Nikon camera and I focus on and take a picture of something a mile away, whatever is 10 feet in front of me will be horribly out of focus. Now multiply that by 5 billion miles and add a black background.
Again, I'm pretty frustrated at not having a grasp on the modern technology involved so I'll dumb it down for myself. 100 m telescope. There's your image. 2 on opposite sides of the Earth, computer technology 12,000 mile telescope. I would welcome input from anyone that has knowledge on how this works. I'm already setting aside some time to Google this to educate myself. Kind of pissed off I don't grasp how this concept works. I get the basics.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:54 amin terms of using 2 points to view the same thing from 2 perspectives, that makes sense. but you are going to have to explain how those two are functioning as a single telescope.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:48 amAll due respect, I agree with your analogy but disagree with your logic. Again, being somewhat limited on knowledge on how the technology of these telescope projects work, it just seems (to me) you are again missing the whole point. You are thinking of the telescope you look through in your back yard (or wherever) and a camera as the same. This is correct. You look through- instant image. That's not how these Billion $ telescopes work. You have your 100 m (whatever) telescope there and you have another one on the other side of the Earth both focused on the same area you are studying. Coordinated timing and long term viewing is the key. Neither has a 100m telescope. They both together are a telescope of 12,000 miles ( diameter of the Earth).Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:22 amThis is essentially correct (in layman's terms).Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:48 ami think what he means is that their focal point in that area would be so minute that satellites at this elevation would be negligible. but i don't know shit about astronomy.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 pmAnd you are wrong. Just like the famous "Deep Field" survey by Hubble back in the day, they also need to be focused on a particular point in the sky over a long period of time with no deviation or obstruction, like wut's meteor survey. Those distances demand it. They aren't pointing and clicking, Dude.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:33 pm
That's not how it works, dude.
Earth telescopes focusing on things billions of miles away are not hampered by low focus satellites.
Think about it like this. If I take my Nikon camera and I focus on and take a picture of something a mile away, whatever is 10 feet in front of me will be horribly out of focus. Now multiply that by 5 billion miles and add a black background.
Thanks. Same concept- they've proposed putting 2 Hubble type satellites on opposite sides of the sun and create a 200 million mile base telescope.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:04 amThey have actually done it with 3 telescopes. It's called Interferometry. Give it a Google and read a little bit about it.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:54 amin terms of using 2 points to view the same thing from 2 perspectives, that makes sense. but you are going to have to explain how those two are functioning as a single telescope.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:48 amAll due respect, I agree with your analogy but disagree with your logic. Again, being somewhat limited on knowledge on how the technology of these telescope projects work, it just seems (to me) you are again missing the whole point. You are thinking of the telescope you look through in your back yard (or wherever) and a camera as the same. This is correct. You look through- instant image. That's not how these Billion $ telescopes work. You have your 100 m (whatever) telescope there and you have another one on the other side of the Earth both focused on the same area you are studying. Coordinated timing and long term viewing is the key. Neither has a 100m telescope. They both together are a telescope of 12,000 miles ( diameter of the Earth).Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:22 amThis is essentially correct (in layman's terms).Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:48 ami think what he means is that their focal point in that area would be so minute that satellites at this elevation would be negligible. but i don't know shit about astronomy.CentralTexasCrude wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 pm
And you are wrong. Just like the famous "Deep Field" survey by Hubble back in the day, they also need to be focused on a particular point in the sky over a long period of time with no deviation or obstruction, like wut's meteor survey. Those distances demand it. They aren't pointing and clicking, Dude.
Think about it like this. If I take my Nikon camera and I focus on and take a picture of something a mile away, whatever is 10 feet in front of me will be horribly out of focus. Now multiply that by 5 billion miles and add a black background.
Okay, I think I can explain it now. Thanks for the link.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:04 am
They have actually done it with 3 telescopes. It's called Interferometry. Give it a Google and read a little bit about it.
Edit: Here, check this out.
https://www.popsci.com/technology/artic ... nt-object/
bumpwoohooguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:03 pm SpaceX has been building out high speed satellite internet access, and no, this isn't your grandfathers inter..wait, your grandfather didnt know anything but how to effectively kill Nazis (bless his heart)...
This isn't your uncles satellite internet... No, the other uncle, the one didnt go away for doing bad things on the internet... mooving on
Starlink - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
"The cost of the decade-long project to design, build, and deploy the constellation was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be at least US$10 billion."
So all you people out in the sticks may actually have decent internet for once, in the next couple of years.
You know who else this will benefit?
South American cam whores streaming over DSL currently suspended between banana trees.
![]()
I think someone noticed all the Columbian whores went missing from Chaturbate...Animal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:12 ambumpwoohooguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:03 pm SpaceX has been building out high speed satellite internet access, and no, this isn't your grandfathers inter..wait, your grandfather didnt know anything but how to effectively kill Nazis (bless his heart)...
This isn't your uncles satellite internet... No, the other uncle, the one didnt go away for doing bad things on the internet... mooving on
Starlink - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
"The cost of the decade-long project to design, build, and deploy the constellation was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be at least US$10 billion."
So all you people out in the sticks may actually have decent internet for once, in the next couple of years.
You know who else this will benefit?
South American cam whores streaming over DSL currently suspended between banana trees.
![]()
woohooguy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:43 amI think someone noticed all the Columbian whores went missing from Chaturbate...Animal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:12 amWell, look what the cat drug in.woohooguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:03 pm SpaceX has been building out high speed satellite internet access, and no, this isn't your grandfathers inter..wait, your grandfather didnt know anything but how to effectively kill Nazis (bless his heart)...
This isn't your uncles satellite internet... No, the other uncle, the one didnt go away for doing bad things on the internet... mooving on
Starlink - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
"The cost of the decade-long project to design, build, and deploy the constellation was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be at least US$10 billion."
So all you people out in the sticks may actually have decent internet for once, in the next couple of years.
You know who else this will benefit?
South American cam whores streaming over DSL currently suspended between banana trees.
![]()
bump![]()
![]()
Well, look what the cat drug inwoohooguy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:43 amI think someone noticed all the Columbian whores went missing from Chaturbate...Animal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:12 ambumpwoohooguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:03 pm SpaceX has been building out high speed satellite internet access, and no, this isn't your grandfathers inter..wait, your grandfather didnt know anything but how to effectively kill Nazis (bless his heart)...
This isn't your uncles satellite internet... No, the other uncle, the one didnt go away for doing bad things on the internet... mooving on
Starlink - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
"The cost of the decade-long project to design, build, and deploy the constellation was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be at least US$10 billion."
So all you people out in the sticks may actually have decent internet for once, in the next couple of years.
You know who else this will benefit?
South American cam whores streaming over DSL currently suspended between banana trees.
![]()
![]()
![]()
AYYYY whats up guys!