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

171–180 of 241 posts

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#171

Post by rlt »

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…

Yes, space is huge, however offsetting that a bit is satellites in LEO orbit at something like 20,000 MPH, so reaction time for collision avoidance is lower than you might expect, and impact velocity will result in a very large debris field.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#172

Post by stainablesteel »

charles_f wrote: post #18

I never realized how many of these buggers there are. It's just impressive of how much a quasi-disposable-commodity small satellites these are. What is the data source?

idk any sources but i've always seen it as a weapon

enemies of the us will not be able to turn off the internet in their own countries if the us wants it, giving power to rebels to coordinate outside of government-controlled connections

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#173

Post by samstave »

teruakohatu wrote: post #17
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…

I took a screenshot of the default view on my web browser. The satellites appear to be around 100km in diameter, but they are in reality 7m wide, so they are 14,000x larger on the map than in reality. The entire constellation would fit within 0.2% of one of the white dots as they appear in the map. Then you need to remember that the space is 3D, unlike road surfaces (ignoring bridges etc.)

I found this helpful, to illustrate how massive the orbital 'spheres' are

https://i.imgur.com/zGaLWDg.jpg

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#174

Post by virtuallynathan »

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…

I really like Mike's version. If anyone has perf tips, I'm happy to pass them on. It's a little out dated, we have a big update coming in the near future to add support for E-Band simulation, etc.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#175

Post by sderfghionio »

lionkor wrote: post #106
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...

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

You forgot:

- who have reliable electrical power

- who need low latency in particular

- who do not need internet access while outside wifi range of their base station

I honestly can't think of more than a handful of applications for which Starlink makes sense. And even then, it would make more sense as a backhaul for a cellular network.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#176

Post by virtuallynathan »

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...

It's only launched in a few African countries, see starlink.com/map

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#178

Post by gpm »

chaboud wrote: post #148
godelski wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no real chance of starlink satellites falling and hitting you.

They're designed to fall out of orbit at the end of their lifespan (or whenever something goes wrong), and fully burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the ground.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#179

Post by gpm »

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."

No.

We all know that we can fill it up.

But every launch the FCC requires you do calculations to show that the chance of collision is below some threshold. I.e. that it (the orbit you are in) isn't full yet.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#180

Post by Retric »

chaboud wrote: post #156
sandworm101 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moon seems pretty stable up there. Doesn't rattle my nerves on iota that it is overhead.

The moon is slowly getting farther away. Starlink satellites are expected to relatively quickly return to earth.

The moon is gaining velocity from earth’s rotation which is a finite energy source, given a long enough timescales it would collide with earth. However, the sun is going to consume the earth before that happens.
Post reply on HN