Points marked in green represent active satellites. Points marked in gray are inactive satellites that are still intact. Points marked as red are tracked pieces of space debris.
Up and down arrows zoom in and out. Use the mouse to rotate.
Source data provided by Analytical Graphics, Inc., obtained November 29th, 2013
the graphic doesn’t load for me.
too bad, because it’s pretty neat
JudgeMental said:
the graphic doesn’t load for me.
From http://www.chromeexperiments.com/globe
This is a WebGL experiment, so try running it with Google Chrome.
thanks, but nah. it opened in IE but when i tried to do stuff it just went away somewhere. IE isn’t my normal browser, opera is.
works fine in firefox
i have no patience. i don’t know how hard it is to code something that’ll work in all browsers.
Surely that is a problem for the browsers to solve?
i don’t know, is it?
Millions of web pages, handfuls of browsers…
furious said:
- i don’t know how hard it is to code something that’ll work in all browsers.
Surely that is a problem for the browsers to solve?
Sorry, what do you mean by that?
Millions of web pages, handful of browsers…
You can’t render a web page, but other browsers can, then your browser needs to improve…
furious said:
- Sorry, what do you mean by that?
Millions of web pages, handful of browsers…
You can’t render a web page, but other browsers can, then your browser needs to improve…
Ok. WebGL (the technology used by this app) is fairly new-ish, and the major browsers all support it, but I guess not all browsers provide the same level of WebGL functionality. Also, browser makers can’t force users (or operating systems) to upgrade to the latest versions. So some people won’t be able to properly view all Web pages that utilise WebGL.
So, it is still not the web developers responsibility…
sigh
well it’s an interesting page anyway
It doesn’t work on my portable device but I’ll be sure to check it out when I am in front of a regular type computer…
furious said:
- Also, browser makers can’t force users (or operating systems) to upgrade to the latest versions. So some people won’t be able to properly view all Web pages that utilise WebGL.
So, it is still not the web developers responsibility…
Traditionally, it has been. Mostly because earlier versions of IE deviated quite a bit from W3C standards, and so developers had to ensure their pages would look good on IE as well as on browsers that adhered to the standards. Things are a lot better these days in that respect, but still not as good as they could be.
Great graphic (though not so good colouring for the colour-blind). Notice the gap in the ring of equatorial geostationary satellites, that’s over the Pacific Ocean.
mollwollfumble said:
Great graphic (though not so good colouring for the colour-blind). Notice the gap in the ring of equatorial geostationary satellites, that’s over the Pacific Ocean.
Yes. Why does the grey band of inactive satellites seem offset from this green ring?
the grey are defunct satellites and have most probably been boosted out of their original orbits so that they don’t interfere with the working ones. they usually keep enough fuel in them for this purpose.
It worked for me in firefox.
JudgeMental said:
the grey are defunct satellites and have most probably been boosted out of their original orbits so that they don’t interfere with the working ones. they usually keep enough fuel in them for this purpose.
I don’t understand why they don’t have to shoot them out of orbit entirely.
not enough fuel.
JudgeMental said:
not enough fuel.
They need to be sent with an FBM 1 attractor so they will at least clump together into a single mass that will be easy to avoid.
1. Fucken Big Magnet.
There’s still loads of other space debris that need to be avoided. Perhaps the patented BFM can clump those together as well?
Divine Angel said:
There’s still loads of other space debris that need to be avoided. Perhaps the patented BFM can clump those together as well?
Absolutely.
Are the ones on the outside the geostationary ones?
The green ones are.
Speedy said:
Yes. Why does the grey band of inactive satellites seem offset from this green ring?
I’d like to ask Speedy’s question again, as I don’t think Judge’s answer really covered it.
The grey band is most obvious if you keep spinning the graphic whilst looking on the plane of the Earth’s equator. It looks like it’s offset maybe 20-25 degrees from the plane of the equator, so I’ma take a guess and say that those are all satellites initially launched from Florida, and they form a distinct band because the USA has put so many of the damned things up there.
If that sounds reasonable, could someone else put the explanation in here of why launching from a certain latitude, the easiest orbit is offset by the same number of degrees, because I’ve tried to type it out here but realize I don’t really know, or at least that I’m not very able to put it in words for some reason today.
BTW, very cool graphic. Thanks for sharing.
i would imagine the easiest orbit is the one that is headed as due east as possible so that you get the most help from the earth’s rotational speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_track
gives some info on orbit inclinations.
Yeah, but I think it is the angle of the “band of grey” compared to the equatorial plane that Speedy was asking about.
I’m sure it has something to do with the least energy required to get the satellites initially in to orbit – it results in them orbiting the Earth in a great circle which is at an angle to the equatorial great circle, with that angle being equal to the latitude from which the satellite was launched.
Thanks JudgeMental
seeing as those grey satellites appear to be at the same altitude as the green geostationary ones then they wont be “orbiting”. just like the geo ones aren’t “orbiting”.
JudgeMental said:
seeing as those grey satellites appear to be at the same altitude as the green geostationary ones then they wont be “orbiting”. just like the geo ones aren’t “orbiting”.
All satellites, geostationary or not, orbit the centre of gravity of the Earth I would have thought?
Isn’t that what orbiting means?
geo ones are stationary over the same spot on the earth, why i put “orbiting” in quotes to differenciate between these and ones that eith go faster or slower that the rotation of the earth, so, if in the case of the grey one, one is 10 degrees below the earths equator and at geo height it will be stationary over a point 10 degrees below the equator. it wont “orbit” from 10 degrees below to 10 degrees above. or at least i think this is so. may not be.
JudgeMental said:
geo ones are stationary over the same spot on the earth, why i put “orbiting” in quotes to differenciate between these and ones that eith go faster or slower that the rotation of the earth, so, if in the case of the grey one, one is 10 degrees below the earths equator and at geo height it will be stationary over a point 10 degrees below the equator. it wont “orbit” from 10 degrees below to 10 degrees above. or at least i think this is so. may not be.
I’m pretty sure only satellites on the equatorial plane can be geostationary. The grey band, whilst it’s at the same distance from the Earth as the geostationary satellites won’t actually be hovering over one spot on the Earth’s surface as they orbit – the spot will move up and down (north and south) as they orbit.
Anyway, for some reason my heads all “fuzzy” today and I’m not explaining things as well as I’d like so I think I’ll just stop for now :)
if they are the same distance from the CoG then they must be going at the same speed. regardless of inclination.
though i would guess that such inclined orbits would not be stable. DV is the one for this stuff.
esselte said:
JudgeMental said:
geo ones are stationary over the same spot on the earth, why i put “orbiting” in quotes to differenciate between these and ones that eith go faster or slower that the rotation of the earth, so, if in the case of the grey one, one is 10 degrees below the earths equator and at geo height it will be stationary over a point 10 degrees below the equator. it wont “orbit” from 10 degrees below to 10 degrees above. or at least i think this is so. may not be.
I’m pretty sure only satellites on the equatorial plane can be geostationary. The grey band, whilst it’s at the same distance from the Earth as the geostationary satellites won’t actually be hovering over one spot on the Earth’s surface as they orbit – the spot will move up and down (north and south) as they orbit.
Anyway, for some reason my heads all “fuzzy” today and I’m not explaining things as well as I’d like so I think I’ll just stop for now :)
Yes.
Other satellites can be geo*synchronous* but only equatorial satellites can be geostationary.
esselte said:
The grey band, whilst it’s at the same distance from the Earth as the geostationary satellites won’t actually be hovering over one spot on the Earth’s surface as they orbit – the spot will move up and down (north and south) as they orbit.
That’s my assumption as well. Although that doesn’t explain why 99% of them are dead.
esselte said:
I’m sure it has something to do with the least energy required to get the satellites initially in to orbit – it results in them orbiting the Earth in a great circle which is at an angle to the equatorial great circle, with that angle being equal to the latitude from which the satellite was launched.
Yes.
Wikipedia has an article on geosynchronous orbits and one on more general inclined orbits , but neither article has a decent diagram. But there is one on the page about analemmas
It’s almost like one is a projection of the other.