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

161–170 of 241 posts

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#161

Post by newZWhoDis »

crispinb wrote: post #142
ghaff wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

People like you said the same thing when we built roads, bridges, steam ships, aircraft, and now spacecraft.

Instead of bothering those who are building the future, you’re welcome to run off in the woods and LARP as ted kaczynski. It’s certainly preferable to moaning on the internet about how others are “denatured”.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#162

Post by lm28469 »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #5

There's a bunch of Starlink coverage maps like this; the most useful one (IMHO) is Mike Puchol's at https://starlink.sx/ The nice thing about that Mike's is you can see exactly where you are in relation to nearby satellites and base stations. And get a pretty good guess as to where your packets are going to go. It is all guesswork - SpaceX only shares what they are required to by the FCC. But it's been pretty accurat…

> Mike Puchol's at https://starlink.sx/

With an 8 core cpu, 2060rtx graphic card, 32gb of ram, this thing runs at like 2.5 fps (if even) on chrome and firefox

What we did with web tech is truly amazing

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#163

Post by jessriedel »

lutorm wrote: post #83
jessriedel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what that chart shows. The satellites are not evenly spaced over the globe. Most of the satellites are in 53 degree inclination orbits: those orbits have zero coverage at greater than 53 degrees latitude, and they have non-uniform coverage of smaller latitudes. (To see this, consider a constellation of 90 degree inclination polar orbits: the poles clearly have a higher density of satellites than the equato…

those orbits have zero coverage at greater than 53 degrees latitude That's not actually true -- the horizon distance at those altitudes is several thousand km, and one degree of latitude is about 100km, so the satellites are actually visible quite far to the north of there. Of course, they'll be increasingly far away and close to the horizon, so not optimal for reception.

Agreed

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#164

Post by wkat4242 »

crispinb wrote: post #124
wkat4242 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink sats don't stick around for multiple millennia. Their orbit degrades quite fast. You need much higher orbits for such longevity.

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.

Ah now I understand. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#165

Post by wkat4242 »

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...

In India satellite services are illegal except Inmarsat because they have a deal with them for surveillance. That's probably why. You can get in serious trouble there for carrying a satellite phone too.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#166

Post by dmbche »

reaperducer wrote: post #150
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."

"The bubble is never gonna pop!"

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#167

Post by wkat4242 »

jen729w wrote: post #122
lionkor wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe so - its a very small niche. If I understand correctly, the target audience is: - remote places, with - people who need internet but dont have a wire or fiber running to them, and - who can afford a super expensive starlink (have disposable income), and - for who 3G/4G isnt good enough Thats not a lot of people outside the US

It’s a lot of geographical Australia. Which isn’t a lot of people. A million, perhaps. Two at most.

That's pretty ideal for satellite services. It doesn't cope well with large clusters of customers, having them spread out is pretty ideal.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#168

Post by wkat4242 »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #54

Would polar coverage require satellites that move north to south from pole to pole?

Iridium uses that kind of orbit so they have excellent coverage over the polar areas. With the few customers in that area (all commercialor institutional so they can afford it) they pretty much have that market covered.

Ps talking about the real polar areas here, not Alaska, Nordics etc.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#169

Post by devit »

botanical wrote: post #84
mardifoufs wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet starlink is available where broadband sometimes isn't, so the insensible dreams seem to be coming from those who expect broadband to be deployed even in the most remote parts of the world (not necessarily talking about the place you mentioned, but I certainly wouldn't expect broadband in places like a remote cabin in the woods here in Quebec, or in a lake hunting station). Who cares if Elon is beyond this? I reme…

Why are you framing it as a hate Musk endeavour? So weird. It's pollute the sky because some people are on the hype train. The answer is already radio towers, they can be installed anywhere. We have cheap fibre rolled out throughout South Africa, but now the Square Kilometre Array (which previously had complete radio silence) must deal with this nonsense flying overhead.

Radio towers are at much lower altitude, so you need way more of them than satellites to cover the whole planet. Also you need permission on land and you need a boat in addition to the tower on the sea. Plus always having line of sight to the tower is harder unless you make them extra tall. I assume that makes them much more expensive and is why cell phone coverage is not global.
Post reply on HN