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

Low Earth Orbit Visualization

platform.leolabs.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#101

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mapt wrote: post #74

Just a reminder to everybody that we are competitively sprinting towards the brick wall of Kessler Syndrome by building out mega-constellations between about 600km and 1600km, sacrificing humanity's future in order to save a small amount of money right now using lower altitude orbits. Even Starlink is arguably flying too high, but the attempt to compete with them at 1000km where satellites will be causing secondary a…

> sacrificing humanity's future in order to save a small amount of money right now using lower altitude orbits

Kessler is more analogous to pollution than a brick wall. Specific orbits get trashed by a cascade, not the entire sky.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#102

Post by JumpCrisscross »

corrino1 wrote: post #95
philipwhiuk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more that Golden Dome is taking advantage of the architecture that Starlink has proved to be realistic. It will use separate satellites managed by the Space Development Agency (Tranche 0 consisting of proof of concept stuff launched a while ago

Total coincidence that the founding members of SpaceX and Mars Society were former Star Wars people.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Advisory_Council_o...

Pretty much everyone over 50 who had experience in constellations in the 2010s worked on Star Wars.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#103

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Tepix wrote: post #49
mlindner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Starlink was developed for its stated purpose. It's a conspiracy pushed by Russian plants that it's for missile defense. A lot of information on that wiki page is made up. Like the constant talk of griffin.

You're saying he didn't accompany Musk on his trips to Russia when he wanted to buy a rocket (before founding SpaceX)?

> he didn't accompany Musk on his trips to Russia when he wanted to buy a rocket (before founding SpaceX)?

Shouldn’t this disprove the hypothesis? If you wanted Musk to build you a constellation, why would you want him to buy a rocket from Russia?

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#104

Post by mlindner »

Tepix wrote: post #49
mlindner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Starlink was developed for its stated purpose. It's a conspiracy pushed by Russian plants that it's for missile defense. A lot of information on that wiki page is made up. Like the constant talk of griffin.

You're saying he didn't accompany Musk on his trips to Russia when he wanted to buy a rocket (before founding SpaceX)?

Griffin did not fund SpaceX. He does not have any money. And yes Griffin, among several other people, accompanied Musk to Russia as advisors for his private plan to buy rockets to send a mini-greenhouse to Mars. The failure to make a deal is what precipitated the creation of SpaceX. Elon offered Griffin the position of chief engineer at SpaceX, but Griffin refused.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#105

Post by corrino1 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102
corrino1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total coincidence that the founding members of SpaceX and Mars Society were former Star Wars people.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Advisory_Council_o...

Pretty much everyone over 50 who had experience in constellations in the 2010s worked on Star Wars.

Sure, that's why satellite constellations were developed. The thing people might not appreciate is that it's still the main driver for these companies to develop them.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#106

Post by JumpCrisscross »

corrino1 wrote: post #105
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everyone over 50 who had experience in constellations in the 2010s worked on Star Wars.

Sure, that's why satellite constellations were developed. The thing people might not appreciate is that it's still the main driver for these companies to develop them.

> it's still the main driver for these companies to develop them

It’s not. Not by a long shot. Like, OneWeb and Planet Labs are not secretly ABM projects.

It’s a motivation. One that until recently didn’t pay the bills. But it’s never been the motivation for any commercial constellation so far. (Starshield comes close. But I wouldn’t say ABM is even in the top three military motivations for that project.)

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#107

Post by tj_astro »

dguest wrote: post #59
theideaofcoffee wrote: post #14

If anyone is curious, as I was, about the large red shapes on the map, those are the beams of the object tracking/measurement sites. They correlate with the maps at [0]. I was actually pretty blown away when I started reading that page. Apparently those stations can measure [0] https://leolabs.space/radars/

There are "beams" and "instruments". Does anyone know what the distinction is?

The instrument is the particular radar. They usually have two at each location. Each radar is essentially a linear phased array that creates multiple possible beam locations in the radar plane. They light up a beam as a satellite passes through in order to collect measurements. TLDR an instrument has multiple beams.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#108

Post by corrino1 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #106
corrino1 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's why satellite constellations were developed. The thing people might not appreciate is that it's still the main driver for these companies to develop them.

> it's still the main driver for these companies to develop them It’s not. Not by a long shot. Like, OneWeb and Planet Labs are not secretly ABM projects. It’s a motivation. One that until recently didn’t pay the bills. But it’s never been the motivation for any commercial constellation so far. (Starshield comes close. But I wouldn’t say ABM is even in the top three military motivations for that project.)

[dead]

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#109

Post by widowlark »

mapt wrote: post #74

Just a reminder to everybody that we are competitively sprinting towards the brick wall of Kessler Syndrome by building out mega-constellations between about 600km and 1600km, sacrificing humanity's future in order to save a small amount of money right now using lower altitude orbits. Even Starlink is arguably flying too high, but the attempt to compete with them at 1000km where satellites will be causing secondary a…

How is Starlink flying too high? Their orbital decay is something like 5 years right?

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#110

Post by dguest »

tj_astro wrote: post #107
dguest wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are "beams" and "instruments". Does anyone know what the distinction is?

The instrument is the particular radar. They usually have two at each location. Each radar is essentially a linear phased array that creates multiple possible beam locations in the radar plane. They light up a beam as a satellite passes through in order to collect measurements. TLDR an instrument has multiple beams.

Ok so there should be "beams" coming from each "instrument"? I didn't see that, but some of the sites are inactive at the moment.
Post reply on HN