Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

satellitemap.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 241 posts

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#141

Post by [deleted] »

sudhirj wrote: post #78
tenpies wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem like we need a term for a civilisation that decides that serving internet is more important than its ability to observe the universe. Then, in that pursuit, they completely miss an otherwise easily detectable near earth object and become extinct, but the satellites will continue happily beaming internet to a user base that no longer exists. Then again, it's probably a non-issue. Not because the satellite…

This sounds backwards. Inside the atmosphere is a shitty place to observe from, and the cheap launch capacity here can throw up hundreds of Hubbles and James Webbs. We could also fit optics and radar on the Starlink constellations. The idea this cheap satellites will somehow restrict our ability to observe anything seems odd.

[deleted]

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#142

Post by crispinb »

ghaff wrote: post #135
crispinb wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No wasn't suspecting nuisance-satellite of being near-eternal! I mean we have had a real night sky for millenia, and now a handful of men are being permitted, with hardly any communal discussion or decision, to expunge it. Many won't notice, of course, having been denatured by suburbia.

Let's ban commercial aviation at night too. Though I'm not sure why the night sky enjoys special status over the day sky. The rich people wouldn't be getting paid money if lots of people who couldn't otherwise get it weren't happy to pay for Internet.

[flagged]

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#144

Post by walrus01 »

ricksunny wrote: post #134
walrus01 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was this way until very recently, google "starlink lasers". The newer satellites have satellite-to-satellite laser links which can form a chain until they reach a satellite that is presently overhead of an earth station. SpaceX has now started selling the global ocean maritime product version of starlink which specifically advertises full ocean coverage worldwide. I recently saw a person's first hand experience of…

Is the Starlink service geofenced to cutoff where Starlink doesn't have a telco license? Like if the maritime product finds itself sailing within the EEZ of a country that hasn't issued a telco operator license, will the service shut off?

Starlink is live in all of terrestrial Iran right now if you can smuggle a terminal in, and have an accepted foreign method of billing. Whether they choose to geofence certain areas seems arbitrary right now.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#145

Post by enslavedrobot »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #99

No one in Asia or Africa or India seem to be using it. Are we just polluting LEO for the sake of a handful of Americans? I feel like in the US it's not even widely used...

They will. This technology will do a lot to bring the internet to low index of development countries.

It's pretty cool to think about the impact of all the kids who will go from no access to having the world at their fingertips.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#146

Post by ryzvonusef »

noncoml wrote: post #59
fooker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a service meant for SoCal, but I'm sure they see it as a valuable stress test.

Every time Starlink comes up it’s the same argument. “It’s not meant for high population density areas” Without the “high population density areas” it is simply not economically viable

> Without the “high population density areas” it is simply not economically viable

That's their headache, and does not negate the previous point.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#148

Post by chaboud »

godelski wrote: post #68
Veedrac wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space is not really 3d in the intuitive sense from a packing perspective, because satellites take up orbits rather than stationary points and orbits don't pack densely. It's more like an embedded 2d space, the intuition for that being that a ring, think Saturn's, is 2d and intersects any orbit.

Bullshit. Space is definitely 3D and has 3D packing. Starlink is at about 550km. That has an orbital period of 1.5917hrs. Satellites are 7m (as suggested above, but this sounds large). So let's space the next group by 10km. Now the orbital period is 1.5952hrs. We have to go to 580km (+30km) to get to 1.6hrs, which is a difference of 37 seconds. So you got 60km (520km-580km) where you have an error rate of under 1% (0…

Huh. I wasn’t worried before reading this thread. Now I’m a little more worried.

1. We don’t need to worry about Kessler syndrome, as the orbits of Starlink will decay in five years (from 550km). 2. ISS is at 420km.

Has anyone else ever worked with something dangerous dangling over their heads? It’s kind of nerve wracking, even if you know that there’s very little chance of it falling and hitting you.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#149

Post by Symbiote »

kortilla wrote: post #62
noncoml wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time Starlink comes up it’s the same argument. “It’s not meant for high population density areas” Without the “high population density areas” it is simply not economically viable

Based on what? What user count do you think Starlink needs to be economically viable? Napkin math time because the economics for satellites are not intuitive compared to stuff where density is better. 10% of the surface of the earth is inhabited by people. 510 million square kilometers * .1 is 51 million square kilometers. At a service density of only one user per square kilometer, that’s 51 million users for regular…

I have no idea, but this company has subsea cables across many North Sea oil rigs. Maybe they are laid as part of the pipelines.

https://www.tampnet.com/oil-gas

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#150

Post by reaperducer »

modeless wrote: post #7

Frequently Commented Questions: Yes, space looks crowded in these visualizations. But the size of the satellites is exaggerated here by thousands of times. Space is huge and the collision risk is extremely low. If displayed at their true size the satellites would not be visible, and indeed the vast majority are not visible in the real life night sky. The exception is recently launched satellites that are still in tra…

Space is huge and the collision risk is extremely low.

See also: "We'll never run out of IPv4 addresses."

Post reply on HN