When I fullscreen this page the globe is 870 pixels wide, equating to about 9.1 miles per pixel. Each satellite is represented by a cube 3 dots on edge. This equates to 27 miles per edge or 19,683 cubic miles of volume for each square represented. That's approximately four times the total volume of the Great Lakes in the US.
Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
161–170 of 248 posts
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a lifespan of about 5 years, the limit is the amount of maneuvering propellant to compensate for atmospheric drag they have on board. Next gen, which will be launched by the much larger Starship, may have a lot more propellant. Most are in a five year orbit. This means that if SpaceX loses control of the satellite it will deorbit in five years due to atmospheric drag. Under control they deorbit within hours…
If they send them farther out does that increase their lifespan due to thinner atmosphere? Why target 1 year instead of five year?
Yes, higher orbits would have increased lifespan, a little bit longer for satellites under control and likely decades longer for satellites out of control.
I think the primary motivation for lower orbits would be compatibility with cellular telephones. While they have gotten it to work at current altitudes, it must be a lot easier at lower ones.
Other reasons could be decreased latency, less overlap/interference between coverage areas, reduced chance of Kessler syndrome, decreased power usage for transmission & reception.
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#163I've been confused why our Starlink coverage is so good in rural Manitoba, Canada. On HN and elsewhere I heard complaining from Americans about how the service is over-subscribed and over-saturated, but everyone I talk to here raves about the service. I assumed we simply had less subscribers.
This visualization has revealed another reason to me: the satellites hit the northern extent of their orbit and dwell over our province. Who knew orbital mechanics would work out in our favour.
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#164Kuiper and other proposed LEO networks have a lot of catching up to do in terms of actually sending hardware to space. There's a wikipedia page for list of starlink launches and just scrolling through it and skimming takes a considerable amount of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_and_Starshiel...
I was about to comment in agreement while also mentioning about having a means to put the hardware up there. But then I realized that there's absolutely no reason why they couldn't just pay SpaceX to put them up there (until Blue Origin is up to the job). SpaceX has put a few Amazon payloads into orbit already.
SpaceX has little reason to thwart any competition since it's just creating more demand for their services, thus in theory helping to reduce the cost of putting mass into orbit, funding future efforts and further solidifying their position as the industry leader.
Not that SpaceX could/would thwart competition since it would be met with a great deal of pressure from the gov.
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#165I made a version of whatsoverhead.com but for satellites: You could ask it, "Hey, Siri, what's overhead…in space?" and it would tell you what the nearest satellite to you was. It was an attempt to help situate yourself in the invisible world of spacecraft flying overhead all the time. The thing is, 70-90% of the time the answer is "STARLINK-1234". It was shocking to me. The app achieved the goal I intended, and the a…
Part of that is because starlink shells are lower down than many other satellites. You are never going to have a GPS satellite or a GEO stationary one be the nearest to you because there is always going to be lower satellites nearer.
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen them in orbit? I look at the sky regularly in a low light area and I've not seen any "pollution", but maybe I don't know how to look?
I was walking my dog a few months ago right after dusk and randomly saw the starlink train, it was a linear constellation marching across the entire sky, from horizon to horizon, and lasted at least 2 minutes. It was both amazing and disturbing.
The "train" is only visible for a week or two after launch. Once the satellites get to their operational orbits they are not visible. So you'll never see the thousands of satellites that are up there; they can't possibly ruin your view of the night sky.
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#167I made a version of whatsoverhead.com but for satellites: You could ask it, "Hey, Siri, what's overhead…in space?" and it would tell you what the nearest satellite to you was. It was an attempt to help situate yourself in the invisible world of spacecraft flying overhead all the time. The thing is, 70-90% of the time the answer is "STARLINK-1234". It was shocking to me. The app achieved the goal I intended, and the a…
Part of that is because starlink shells are lower down than many other satellites. You are never going to have a GPS satellite or a GEO stationary one be the nearest to you because there is always going to be lower satellites nearer.
Yes, I eventually had it give answers for each of LEO, MEO, and GEO just because it got extremely boring having "STARLINK" almost always be the answer.
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satellites launched in a polar orbit only cover polar areas. It's more cost effective to design orbits with more area and customers under them.
Polar orbits cover the entire Earth, like all other low orbits, in fact, they cover more than any other orbit. And there are people up there: all of Northern Europe and Alaska, and most of the UK, Russia and Canada. I am sure there is a good reason, but it surprised me too. I expected more polar orbits, like Iridium.
Most of the population lives below 53 deg. It makes sense to put the satellites there instead of having them bunch up near the poles. They also have 70 deg planes that cover most population centers. In future, they are planning planes at 42 and 48 deg that can better cover lower latitudes.
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#169[flagged]
It's easy to forget given the direction Elon has been heading ever since the "pedo guy" comment but there are a lot of techno-optimists who are obsessively in love with all things SpaceX (and - tho now to a lesser extent - Tesla). This turf isn't astro but it's also not really turf to begin with - just a very enthusiastic singular blade of grass.
This is one of the dumbest takes i have seen on HN in a while.
Re: Real-time map of every Starlink satellite in orbit
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a lifespan of about 5 years, the limit is the amount of maneuvering propellant to compensate for atmospheric drag they have on board. Next gen, which will be launched by the much larger Starship, may have a lot more propellant. Most are in a five year orbit. This means that if SpaceX loses control of the satellite it will deorbit in five years due to atmospheric drag. Under control they deorbit within hours…
If they send them farther out does that increase their lifespan due to thinner atmosphere? Why target 1 year instead of five year?
Having them as low as possible improves latency, which is a big selling point of Starlink over incumbent geostationary services like Hughesnet.