Live data from Hacker News

Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

satellitemap.space

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#81
post #74
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sometimes baffled how people's knee jerk reaction is to think how to ban this. And yet those same people complain about their parents that claimed that Rock'n'Roll or DnD should be banned because it's satanic. This is literally the coolest thing we as a species achieved that doesn't serve self-preservation purposes.

Problem is this capability is concentrated in the hands of 1. A private company. 2. Of a single country with inconsistent leaders. I’d be less anxious if Europe had this capability instead.

I don't like that either, but nothing's stopping others from following the same path and achieving the same capabilities, other than their own inability or refusal to do what's already been done. It's been over a decade since Falcon 9's first successful landing and we're only recently starting to see similar feats from others.

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#82
post #50
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully disagree as you're comparing the surface to the size of the object, so it definitely matters. Here's some math: Average Earth diameter: 12742kms + 10km Average airplane surface area = 500m2 12752^2*pi = 510,865,389km2 Surface flight/plane = 1021730 planes Starlink orbit height = ~500km Surface at orbit = ~551,712,377 so ~8% increase (which is non-negligible) Average Starlink satellite surface area = ~7m2…

I would argue that 8% is absolutely negligible; however one thing that isn't is that airspace is a narrow band vertically (12 km? Not sure exactly), while LEO is about 800 km thick (from about 200 km, because the Kármán line isn't good enough, to about 1000 km). Conversely: > Daily flights 50k-100k. Total number of satellites Those 20k satellites orbit roughly every 95 minutes, so they're doing ~15 orbits per day, an…

Airplanes are much more likely to collide, but they don't dump hyperspeed shrapnel into the airspace that persists for months or years when they do. It makes sense to be extremely paranoid about satellite collisions.

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#83

I always like looking at this one https://platform.leolabs.space/visualization

i just clicked on one satellite and followed it as it moved. it crossed a continent in like a minute. Is that accurate? Seems too fast.

Moreover, are the satellites all moving around like that, haphazardly?

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#84
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is this capability is concentrated in the hands of 1. A private company. 2. Of a single country with inconsistent leaders. I’d be less anxious if Europe had this capability instead.

Europe isn't the sort of place that would develop this capability

France has Eutelsat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat>.

Germany had SES/Astra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SES_Astra>.

The EU as a whole as the Galileo satnav / GPS project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation_...>.

There are numerous other EU satellite comms providers, though most are aimed at commercial/broadcast services. That's a departure point for satellite-phone or satellite-internet, however.

Europe can and has developed similar and/or precursor capabilities.

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#85
post #35
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of space in air, and yet we have multiple midair collisions every year.

Surface of a sphere (spheroid) is the square of the diameter. Planes fly at ~10kms, satellites at orders of magnitude higher.

Aircraft have both anticollision detection systems and maneuverability often lacking in satellites.

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#86
post #74
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sometimes baffled how people's knee jerk reaction is to think how to ban this. And yet those same people complain about their parents that claimed that Rock'n'Roll or DnD should be banned because it's satanic. This is literally the coolest thing we as a species achieved that doesn't serve self-preservation purposes.

Problem is this capability is concentrated in the hands of 1. A private company. 2. Of a single country with inconsistent leaders. I’d be less anxious if Europe had this capability instead.

You will be fine. China will have this capability soon.

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#87
post #15

Why are there demarcations towards the poles where the satellite density drops off? Seems Norway, Sweden and Finland have a much lower density of satellites .

polar orbits are hard, you have to take a big oblique track dipping into the lower lattitudes to run a trajectory that allows you to counter gravity. the anti collision manuevers are hard as well. orbits are simpler at lower lattitudes where you run a trajectory, close to parallel to the equator.

Populations are also far lower than at lower latitudes.

This affects both commercial potential (fewer possible subscribers) and bandwidth congestion (dittos). For both you'd want fewer birds in those orbits, and orbital dynamics only strengthen the argument.

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#88
post #83

I always like looking at this one https://platform.leolabs.space/visualization

i just clicked on one satellite and followed it as it moved. it crossed a continent in like a minute. Is that accurate? Seems too fast. Moreover, are the satellites all moving around like that, haphazardly?

there is a default three.js control panel. By default it has speed at 25x and 'Follow Earth' checkmark, which makes camera do weird things.

Re: Satellite Tracker – Live Map of Starlink and 30k Satellites

#90
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10% is an outrageously large change in a normal loan interest rate and an irrelevant change when comparing the weight of a paper plane to a real one. Keeping in mind another factor in your comparison was 7700%, I'm inclined to agree the 10% is negligible in context. It's fun to think about though.

But 10% is 50 million square kilometers. If we project this surface area to a theoretical planet with a diameter of 2000kms this planet alone would support 2000+ Starlink satellites in LEO. This is again not negligible.

There are all sorts of such scenarios beyond the one being discussed where it's a relevant amount. This is true of most any measure or metric and why the context that we're talking about the skies of Earth compared to the LEO of Earth is key. Once you remove that context and start comparing against other things you can any difference insignificant or critically massive by choice.
Post reply on HN