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

Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

dewesoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#91

Post by bayindirh »

wongarsu wrote: post #88
bayindirh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't expect this good behaviour to continue. I don't agree. Kessler syndrome is another M.A.D. scenario. Nobody would want it to poison the well for everyone incl. themselves.

By that same reasoning everyone should be doing their best to avoid runaway climate change, yet here we are. The tragedy of the commons is tragic. Things are more civilized in space, maybe in part because of the relatively small number of big players. But at the same time there are tentative signs that we might be in the early stages of Kessler syndrome. It's hard to tell, and by the time we can tell with certainty i…

I think the difference is "perceived cost of the catastrophe". Many parties believe or choose to believe that all the damage done can be reversed, or it can't be that bad (which is very wrong, BTW) or, I'll die anyway, who cares.

For space, this perceived cost might be higher so, the limited number of parties might be more cautious.

Indeed I'm aware of The Tragedy of Commons, but from my view, space is a bit more nuanced.

Wish we were much more diligent about our planet though. We, humans, pillage it like all resources are infinite. Sad.

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#92

Post by pwndByDeath »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #73
radu_floricica wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... good? In more ways than one. The most obvious is that any international body would be easily controlled by the big players, so you'd end up with more centralized control by the same national entities, but now they'd be controlling other countries launches as well. The other problem is that lately international organizations have a pretty bad track record. Two examples, which I've chosen because they are act…

If we aren't careful with space debris [1], deorbit protocols [2], and anti-satellite weapons [3], we risk triggering a Kessler syndrome [4] and permanently blocking our access to space. We currently have no international space agreements outside of not putting nuclear weapons in space, which is wholly inadequate for managing the dangers and safety of space development. The only reason space has been managed decently…

Meh, orbits and nuclei are vastly different scales, I've tried to simulate this by making everything in space-track a 10km radius sphere and it was just a few starlink nudging each other a couple times a week.

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#93

Post by perihelions »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #73
radu_floricica wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... good? In more ways than one. The most obvious is that any international body would be easily controlled by the big players, so you'd end up with more centralized control by the same national entities, but now they'd be controlling other countries launches as well. The other problem is that lately international organizations have a pretty bad track record. Two examples, which I've chosen because they are act…

If we aren't careful with space debris [1], deorbit protocols [2], and anti-satellite weapons [3], we risk triggering a Kessler syndrome [4] and permanently blocking our access to space. We currently have no international space agreements outside of not putting nuclear weapons in space, which is wholly inadequate for managing the dangers and safety of space development. The only reason space has been managed decently…

> "The only reason space has been managed decently well until now is because most of it was done through the US and Europe that have very strict regulations around safety. Don't expect this good behaviour to continue."

That's a very ahistoric narrative. There's been *zero* regulation around space debris in either the US or Europe, for almost the entire space era up until now—most of it isn't in effect yet. Far from being "strictly regulated", US space operates recklessly with regards to space debris. One ongoing example: spent (ULA) Centaur upper stages have exploded in orbit in four separate incidents since 2018, due to ULA's negligence in correctly passivating/deenergizing them. Which they were never obligated to do anyway—not by regulation,

https://spacenews.com/faa-to-complete-orbital-debris-upper-s... ("FAA to complete orbital debris upper stage regulations in 2025")

The reality is that space debris is a less consequential problem than you'd get from reading HN; the early players in space could, and did, get away with being extraordinarily negligent.

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#94

Post by DemocracyFTW2 »

pc86 wrote: post #89
DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That police and justice courts don't catch every thief is not an argument to abolish the judiciary or make stealing legal. That police and judges habitually act in favor of certain people is likewise not an indication that a society without regulatory institutions is better off than one with admittedly flawed ones.

Police and courts have legitimacy because they are created by the sovereign nation. There is no sovereign entity above the nation - you're comparing apples and hammers.

If nations have legitimacy then they can enter into supra-/international bodies and agreements with legitimacy much like two persons can agree on an arbiter to resolve differences in their mutual contracts. This is nothing new and we've been doing it for a long time—the Egyptian 18th dynasty entered into the first known peace treaty with a foreign nation 1500 years BCE; NATO and the United Nations are modern examples. The US, of course, is a country that has been notoriously difficult to get into international agreements (Paris/Kyoto, WHO, ICC).

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#95

Post by aDyslecticCrow »

ACCount36 wrote: post #78
aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we aren't careful with space debris [1], deorbit protocols [2], and anti-satellite weapons [3], we risk triggering a Kessler syndrome [4] and permanently blocking our access to space. We currently have no international space agreements outside of not putting nuclear weapons in space, which is wholly inadequate for managing the dangers and safety of space development. The only reason space has been managed decently…

Kessler syndrome is incredibly overrated. It's completely incapable of "permanently blocking access to space". What it's capable of is "shit up specific orbit groups so that you can't loiter in them for years unless you accept a significant collision risk". Notably, the low end of LEO is exempt, because the atmosphere just eats space debris there. And things like missions to Moon or Mars are largely unaffected - beca…

LEO is indeed exempt (which is a great thing given that it's getting quite crowded up there). But we could easily break geostationary orbits from being viable, as they don't decay from atmospheric drag.

In the ISS decommission report that evaluated different retirement plans [1] for the ISS, the suggestion to park the ISS in a higher orbit was evaluated but dismissed because raising its orbit out of LEO would increase collision risk to >4 years lifetime, and raising it further requires too much fuel.

ISS is currenrly in the higher end of LEO, meaning most debri decay away slowly. But higher orbits are already hazardous, and our space development is still very small-scale in those orbits. "loiter around for years" is already at 5 years. And that's with a relatively small amount of development and short history. If we want to do space in anther 100 year without inch-thick steel armour on our rockets that leave earth, we need some regulation around this.

1. https://www.nasa.gov/faqs-the-international-space-station-tr...

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#96

Post by aDyslecticCrow »

perihelions wrote: post #93
aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we aren't careful with space debris [1], deorbit protocols [2], and anti-satellite weapons [3], we risk triggering a Kessler syndrome [4] and permanently blocking our access to space. We currently have no international space agreements outside of not putting nuclear weapons in space, which is wholly inadequate for managing the dangers and safety of space development. The only reason space has been managed decently…

> "The only reason space has been managed decently well until now is because most of it was done through the US and Europe that have very strict regulations around safety. Don't expect this good behaviour to continue." That's a very ahistoric narrative. There's been *zero* regulation around space debris in either the US or Europe, for almost the entire space era up until now—most of it isn't in effect yet. Far from b…

I think you just argued my point. These are the countries that have the most rules. We've effectively relied on NASA being very careful until recently (yet we still have issues of recklessness and carelessness), but that is not gonna fly (pun intended) going forward.

> There's been zero regulation around space debris in either the US or Europe

I present to you Project West Ford [1], and its influence on the original creation of the Outer Space Treaty. Though the wording of the treaty itself makes little mention of space debris explicitly, it's indeed part of the treaty. But the mild wording and weak enforcement are insufficient to deter recklessness.

- Article I – Freedom of Use and Access

- Article IX – Due Regard and International Consultation

- Article VI – International Responsibility

- Article VII – Liability

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#97

Post by tapland »

seanhunter wrote: post #34
throw578547 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LEO is Low Earth Orbit MEO is Medium Earth Orbit The E is short for the same thing in this case. GEO for Geostationary and HEO for High-Eccentricity are interesting, though.

MEO is Middle Earth Orbit. We have to keep an eye on what Gandalf is up to.

SubEarthOrbit for the dwarves

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#98

Post by axus »

radu_floricica wrote: post #42
NoPicklez wrote: post #3

It's incredible how many satellites Space X have launched It's also surprising from a layman's perspective the "freedom" to launch rockets into space without necessarily needing permission, the originating country of course needs to approve it but none else

That's... good? In more ways than one. The most obvious is that any international body would be easily controlled by the big players, so you'd end up with more centralized control by the same national entities, but now they'd be controlling other countries launches as well. The other problem is that lately international organizations have a pretty bad track record. Two examples, which I've chosen because they are act…

ITU is the big international body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...

Re: Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)

#100

Post by chrisg23 »

zenmac wrote: post #72
carlsborg wrote: post #13

> "Earth has 4550 satellites in orbit" Rapidly obsoleted information. SpaceX alone has > 7500 satellites in orbit. It added 2,300+ satellites in the one year period ending Jun 2025.

Not sure if number of satellites matters so much at this point. As India has already demonstrated that they can launch 100s of them on one rocket. Which means they can very cheaply put them into space as needed. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4226900/Indi...

If you are trying to create satellite internet in low earth orbit (for reduced ping/latency) the satellite moves faster than the earth spins, and the user on the ground loses point to point contact. So there has to be another satellite already over the horizon before the first one goes out of view. Wiki says Starlink sats travel at about 340 miles above the ground.

The easiest alternative to implement is having the satellites in a geostationary orbit so that they are always above a single spot. The altitude necessary for this is higher than 20k miles, and results in very bad ping/latency. Inmarsat is one of these, and I had a chance to use it in the past. It was slow and laggy, as the realities of physics would suggest.

So more satellites means more potential coverage of the globe, or increased capacity over existing coverage regions, or both. It seems very important.

The Indian satellites in the article weighed on average around 6 kilograms. A starlink satellite weighs 227 kg. You can put more telecom equipment in 227 kg than in 6kg. A better metric than #of satellites is probably total mass of satellites, to make broad comparisons more meaningful.

Post reply on HN