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

221–230 of 241 posts

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#221

Post by modeless »

chaboud wrote: post #220
modeless wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The satellites can't just fall out of the sky suddenly like something hanging above your head. That's not how orbital mechanics works. ISS would have warning of any threat long in advance, plenty of time to make an avoidance maneuver or return to Earth in their lifeboat.

Is ISS between satellites that are expected to de-orbit and the Earth, or is it not? I'm well aware of tracking and avoidance mechanisms, but, up until now, I hadn't considered the orbital planes in use.

The satellites are expected to control their deorbit, just as they controlled their ascent, and neither controlled ascent nor controlled descent pose any threat to ISS. If a satellite failed in orbit and was unable to control its deorbit, it is still very unlikely that it would come anywhere close to colliding with ISS on the way down. And in the very unlikely event that it did, again there would be plenty of advance notice for ISS which could do a maneuver to avoid it.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#222

Post by crispinb »

edgyquant wrote: post #181
crispinb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a civilisation that decides that serving internet is more important than its ability to observe the universe It's slightly worse than that. Starlink is only viable because of huge gaps in planned provision of what is now a basic utility (even government services in many parts of the world are hard to access without the internet). We're actually giving up our inalienable and multimillenial rights to a real night sky…

This is such a bad take. How would you get internet to the deep Amazon or the middle of the ocean without satellite?

How will you get access to a real night sky, if there's no democratic control over billionaire's actions?

You just assume (without argument) that the internet has to be absolutely everywhere (and all high-bandwidth). You can argue it, and then figure those arguments into pros/cons. If you see none of the cons, you are not even part of the debate (you're just an ideologist). To assume one side, without interrogation or thought, is to be a decerebrate plaything of the billionaire's momentary whim.

I don't even particularly like the notion of a 'take'. As if it's just an opinion about one minor supermarket choice. It's not. I see it more as a fundamental attack on my planet and species, by a self-appointed colonising elite.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#223

Post by enslavedrobot »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #206
enslavedrobot wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is? Most of these countries have really strong 4g already...

More than a third of the world has never used the internet according to the UN.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#224

Post by crispinb »

wkat4242 wrote: post #164
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.

Ah now I understand. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Not at all. I phrased the comment clumsily in a quick fly-by way, so it was very easily misunderstood ;)

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#225

Post by chlorion »

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…

Thanks for posting this!

I see a lot of people getting riled up about "space junk" and how we have filled the space with tons of junk.

Humans are really bad at understanding things that are really big, and the amount of space is incredibly larger than they realize, to the scale where these satellites are literally like a gallon of water in the ocean.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#227

Post by kortilla »

botanical wrote: post #80
kortilla wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad news, it’s already over “your sky” because it’s how LEO works. > Fibre should be rolled out for internet access, not another unsensible Musk dream You want to roll fiber through national forests and parks to serve a few rural people? How do you prefer the ocean faring population to get access?

Why does it have to go through the parks? And radio towers work just as well, it doesn't have to be a satellite hundreds of kilometres up in the sky. Ships already have access to internet through satellites already, there doesn't have to be even more EDIT. I meant why does the fibre have to through parks as a reason for having starlink

People who claim the satellite internet on ships now is good enough are as ignorant as people who claim dial-up is good enough.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#228

Post by kortilla »

twosdai wrote: post #159
kortilla wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agree with you, and your 2nd point about the b2b areas being important. However I think the general math you do needs a bit more nuance. You'd want to exclude all people living in cities so you'd need to exclude the land mass taken up by cities to get a more accurate estimate. Also I'm not sure where you get the 10% number from for people inhabiting the world. From this report they talk about humans impacting 15% o…

> You'd want to exclude all people living in cities so you'd need to exclude the land mass taken up by cities to get a more accurate estimate.

No you wouldn’t. The entire point is that Starlink works fine in cities for a small count of users.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#229

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

randomcarbloke wrote: post #132
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

Yeah, I guess "it's not meant for high population density areas" argument would work if rurals didn't also have garbage service on Starlink.

compared to what?

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#230

Post by ezconnect »

pjscott wrote: post #90
ezconnect wrote: post #81

That's a lot of junk orbiting earth.

Those are functioning communication satellites, not yet junk. At the end of their (fairly short) planned lifetimes, they will use their maneuvering thrusters to de-orbit. And even if that fails, they're in a low enough orbit that they'll naturally fall out of the sky and burn up in the atmosphere about a decade after launch. Do you have any further objections?

They are still junk, their only purpose is military.
Post reply on HN