Not the poster, but the issue is one of scale.
Any visualization that showed a full orbit in a visual field that a human can see at once, necessarily has to exaggerate the size of the satellite or it would be completely impossible to see the satellite at that same scale. By millions or even billions of times.
A GPS satellite in medium orbit has an orbital diameter of around 45, 000 km but is only a little over 5 meters in size. A ratio of roughly 10,000,000 to 1.
If you had a visualization a meter wide of its orbit, the satellite to scale would be less than a micron in size. Completely invisible.
The same problem comes up with those ‘topology of the earth’ maps that try to show how things like depth of the oceans, height of the Himalayas, etc. on a globe.
They have to dramatically exaggerate the actual altitude differences for them to be perceptible. [https://www.quora.com/If-Mount-Everest-was-on-a-globe-and-wa...]
The actual to scale difference in height of the Himalayan mountains vs sea level on a regular sized globe would be less than .001 inches. Completely imperceptible without precision measuring devices. Even producing such a globe accurately would be a feat of precision manufacturing.
Even on a giant (1 meter) globe, we’re talking less than 1mm.
Literally smoother than a billiard ball.
But they are the highest mountains in the world, and absolutely breaktaking if near them.
And space is even bigger, and satellites even smaller.