▲ 796 ▼ I bet it's an engineering marvel though. (lemmy.world) submitted 1 year ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/funny@sh.itjust.works 81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] j5906@feddit.org 36 points 1 year ago (16 children) You can see it from space permalink fedilink source hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 42 points 1 year ago (6 children) Those photos are from planes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Probably, but the entire idea of "you can see it from space" is stupid anyways. Its only meaningful if its with the naked eye and the distance is specified. You can see anything from space if you have enough optical zoom... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago You can see anything from space if you have enough optical zoom... Naw, there's theoretical a maximum resolution, iirc it's a few centimeters. Too much air in the way diffracting the light permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hupf@feddit.org 4 points 1 year ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN permalink fedilink source parent [–] peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Planes? I had always assumed it was satellites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* In the bottom middle of the screen it tells you the surveyor. At least it used to I haven’t checked in a while. permalink fedilink source parent [–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago Satellites have adequate resolution for imaging large areas with high coverage, but aside of stuff like spy satellites they don't usually image smaller areas in high resolution all that well. Most of the closer up images on places like Google Maps are aerial photos. I'm in Finland and when Google Maps first launched we only got low resolution satellite images and some aerial photos of a few cities. The difference was pretty clear. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago You can see people's backyard trampolines. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (6 children) No, you can't. This is what earth looks like from space... https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ most of google maps uses airplane aerial shots. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Literally, yes you can, on that specific website's satellite imagery. Bloody thing's over 10 km wide, it's the size of a large city. I can still easily spot it on my screen if I zoom far enough out to also include Edinburgh and Riyad! The only way not to see it from space would be to look in the wrong place or when it is cloudy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What am I looking at? The white dot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) The oval beige thing that takes up 1/5th of the width of the screenshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It is 10km wide? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293 Also, I don't see any beige oval that takes up 20% of the screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293. 225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck. Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Almacca@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago I counted 8 of them on site. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 42 points 1 year ago (6 children) Those photos are from planes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Probably, but the entire idea of "you can see it from space" is stupid anyways. Its only meaningful if its with the naked eye and the distance is specified. You can see anything from space if you have enough optical zoom... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago You can see anything from space if you have enough optical zoom... Naw, there's theoretical a maximum resolution, iirc it's a few centimeters. Too much air in the way diffracting the light permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hupf@feddit.org 4 points 1 year ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN permalink fedilink source parent [–] peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Planes? I had always assumed it was satellites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* In the bottom middle of the screen it tells you the surveyor. At least it used to I haven’t checked in a while. permalink fedilink source parent [–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago Satellites have adequate resolution for imaging large areas with high coverage, but aside of stuff like spy satellites they don't usually image smaller areas in high resolution all that well. Most of the closer up images on places like Google Maps are aerial photos. I'm in Finland and when Google Maps first launched we only got low resolution satellite images and some aerial photos of a few cities. The difference was pretty clear. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Probably, but the entire idea of "you can see it from space" is stupid anyways. Its only meaningful if its with the naked eye and the distance is specified. You can see anything from space if you have enough optical zoom... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago You can see anything from space if you have enough optical zoom... Naw, there's theoretical a maximum resolution, iirc it's a few centimeters. Too much air in the way diffracting the light permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hupf@feddit.org 4 points 1 year ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago You can see anything from space if you have enough optical zoom... Naw, there's theoretical a maximum resolution, iirc it's a few centimeters. Too much air in the way diffracting the light permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hupf@feddit.org 4 points 1 year ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN permalink fedilink source parent
[–] peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Planes? I had always assumed it was satellites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* In the bottom middle of the screen it tells you the surveyor. At least it used to I haven’t checked in a while. permalink fedilink source parent [–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago Satellites have adequate resolution for imaging large areas with high coverage, but aside of stuff like spy satellites they don't usually image smaller areas in high resolution all that well. Most of the closer up images on places like Google Maps are aerial photos. I'm in Finland and when Google Maps first launched we only got low resolution satellite images and some aerial photos of a few cities. The difference was pretty clear. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* In the bottom middle of the screen it tells you the surveyor. At least it used to I haven’t checked in a while. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago Satellites have adequate resolution for imaging large areas with high coverage, but aside of stuff like spy satellites they don't usually image smaller areas in high resolution all that well. Most of the closer up images on places like Google Maps are aerial photos. I'm in Finland and when Google Maps first launched we only got low resolution satellite images and some aerial photos of a few cities. The difference was pretty clear. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago You can see people's backyard trampolines. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (6 children) No, you can't. This is what earth looks like from space... https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ most of google maps uses airplane aerial shots. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Literally, yes you can, on that specific website's satellite imagery. Bloody thing's over 10 km wide, it's the size of a large city. I can still easily spot it on my screen if I zoom far enough out to also include Edinburgh and Riyad! The only way not to see it from space would be to look in the wrong place or when it is cloudy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What am I looking at? The white dot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) The oval beige thing that takes up 1/5th of the width of the screenshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It is 10km wide? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293 Also, I don't see any beige oval that takes up 20% of the screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293. 225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck. Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (5 children) Literally, yes you can, on that specific website's satellite imagery. Bloody thing's over 10 km wide, it's the size of a large city. I can still easily spot it on my screen if I zoom far enough out to also include Edinburgh and Riyad! The only way not to see it from space would be to look in the wrong place or when it is cloudy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What am I looking at? The white dot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) The oval beige thing that takes up 1/5th of the width of the screenshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It is 10km wide? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293 Also, I don't see any beige oval that takes up 20% of the screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293. 225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck. Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What am I looking at? The white dot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) The oval beige thing that takes up 1/5th of the width of the screenshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It is 10km wide? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293 Also, I don't see any beige oval that takes up 20% of the screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293. 225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck. Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) The oval beige thing that takes up 1/5th of the width of the screenshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It is 10km wide? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293 Also, I don't see any beige oval that takes up 20% of the screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293. 225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck. Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It is 10km wide? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293 Also, I don't see any beige oval that takes up 20% of the screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293. 225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck. Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293. 225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck. Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293. 225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck. Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago I counted 8 of them on site. permalink fedilink source parent
