Live data from Hacker News

Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

satellitemap.space

11–20 of 241 posts

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#13
post #6

Wow, this is incredible. Why the GPS satellites are far away from the planet, compared to the other ones?

I thought the answer to this would be simple but it's pretty complex! From a Quora answer:

> 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

#14
post #11
post #6

Wow, 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

I thought the same, but they're actually below geostationary orbit. They have 12 hour orbits. Also, they don't orbit the equator, which is required for a geostationary orbit. See my comment above with more details.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#15
I’m curious about how can they ensure connectivity for a particular area. Is it just that they place a bunch of satellites in orbits and hope that they have enough density? Or is there a method to the madness?

I am assuming a single satellite covers very small area, in this case a single hexagonal area

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#16
post #6

Wow, this is incredible. Why the GPS satellites are far away from the planet, compared to the other ones?

As far as I know, the GNSS (GPS, GLONASS, etc) satellites needed to have more of Earth visible at all times, so they are farther away. Not an expert, just very interested.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#17
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.)

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#19
post #3

As 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.

SpaceX have sought approval for 12,000 satellites, with a possible extension to 42,000. Right now they have less than 4,000. I think they have substantially fewer satellites than they believe they require, and the service is probably doomed in the long run if they can't get Starship flying.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#20

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?

NORAD publishes orbit element data for everything launched.

https://www.google.com/search?q=norad%20tle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-...

Post reply on HN