Wow, this is incredible. Why the GPS satellites are far away from the planet, compared to the other ones?
Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
11–20 of 241 posts
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#12I'm not a user though, so I can't testify to the problems people have been having.
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#13Wow, this is incredible. Why the GPS satellites are far away from the planet, compared to the other ones?
> They are in 12 hour orbits because that is the result of optimizing the number of satellites needed to cover the Earth, plus having at least 4 satellites visible at the same time from a spot on the earth, with the satellites being spread out across the sky. It also helps that they move fairly slowly, so the Doppler is changing slowly during the PN code acquisition phase. Remember that this system was basically designed in the late 1970s, and we didn’t have 2 GHz processors in wristwatches - a GPS receiver had to acquire and process the signals to get a fix, and it had to be something that a single person could carry.
> If you go lower, you need a lot more satellites (see, e.g., Iridium or Teledesic with 77 and hundreds, respectively), and they move faster across the sky. Each GPS satellite carries an atomic clock (Cesium or Rubidium, depending on the batch) and they’re not cheap to build. The fast motion also makes acquisition harder, and low orbits are more affected by the imperfect Earth’s gravity - in order to calculate your GPS position, your receiver needs to know EXACTLY where the satellite is - that’s harder in a low orbit.
> If you go higher, 3 satellites in GEO will cover the equatorial earth, but you also need satellites in inclined orbits - you want your satellites to be spread across the sky, so your position accuracy isn’t degraded because they’re in a line or a clump. I think it actually takes more satellites to get the required coverage from GEO height (think about needing to cover the polar regions) - you could probably do some Molniya orbits, but that makes things more complex for other reasons.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-GPS-satellites-placed-below-ge...
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#14Wow, this is incredible. Why the GPS satellites are far away from the planet, compared to the other ones?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#15I am assuming a single satellite covers very small area, in this case a single hexagonal area
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#16Wow, this is incredible. Why the GPS satellites are far away from the planet, compared to the other ones?
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#17Frequently 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…
Then you need to remember that the space is 3D, unlike road surfaces (ignoring bridges etc.)
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#18What is the data source?
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#19As impressive as the number of Starlink satellites is, the service has become unusable for me in Southern California, particularly for video calls. I’ve been told that the bottleneck is land stations, not satellites. Either way, I’ve had to cancel my Starlink service both at home and work.
Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map
#20I 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?
https://www.google.com/search?q=norad%20tle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-...