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

Starlink Satellites Tracker

findstarlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 147 posts

Re: Starlink Satellites Tracker

#41

Post by ortusdux »

cryptoz wrote: post #27
ortusdux wrote: post #21

For the record, these satellites are inserted in groups of 60 at half their orbital height. They have onboard thrusters to boost up to the final operational orbit. There is high atmospheric drag at lower altitudes, so they deploy their solar panels horizontally during this boost period, which usually lasts less than a month. These horizontal panels reflect the sun just after sunset and just before dawn. Once they are…

> Basically, the constellation's effect on the night sky is proportional to the number of launches in the last month, not the total number in orbit. For the major brightness issues sure, but they are not invisible or undetectable while in operation. Surely the effects are proportional to both the recent launches and the whole size. I think it's a bit early to dismiss the whole sky effect of multiple Starlink-style co…

The current satellite version (VisorSat) has a magnitude of about 6, which is generally considered to be the limit of what is visible with the naked eye in a light-pollution free area.

Once you start using any optics they will be visible.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2101/2101.00374.pdf#:~:te....

https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-stellar-ma...

I might sit down and do the math to see how 1500 satellites at mag 6 compares to 60 at mag 2.

> I think it's a bit early to dismiss the whole sky effect of multiple Starlink-style constellations in operation.

I wasn't trying to dismiss their effect, just address the people who say "you think those 60 are bad, imagine when there are 20,000", or "there go the Americans, ruining the night sky for the whole world".

I have no idea how oneweb or blue origin will handle this issue.

> Also isn't Starlink intending to do launches for the rest of time?

Their satellites are designed for a 5 year lifespan. Without constant boosts, they will deorbit and burn up fully in the atmosphere. This is great, because they will not become space junk, and they can't cause the dreaded kessler syndrome. The downside is that they will need to be constantly replenished. Hopefully this will be streamlined when they can launch 600 at a time, reducing the number of launches by a factor of 10.

Re: Starlink Satellites Tracker

#42

Post by Diederich »

User23 wrote: post #12
Diederich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go outside this evening if the sky is clear. If you're anywhere between 30 degrees and 60 degrees, there are multiple starlink satellites in your line of sight all the time. Can you point them out? No, they're invisible at their operational altitude.

That depends on how dark the area is. I heard that in a Bortle 5 or lower area they are naked eye visible, which really sucks for stargazers. Especially since some of the more interesting naked eye observations have to be done using peripheral vision.

I know that these sats will affect many telescopic observations, but that's been happening a long time.

I understand that this interference will end up being several times more frequent. However, for many years, satellite streaks have been algorithmically removed from observations. It's possible that those algorithms will need to be upgraded.

That's a small price to pay in exchange for robust and high speed Internet becoming available to huge numbers of people all over the world.

Re: Starlink Satellites Tracker

#43

Post by thereisnospork »

grecy wrote: post #36
ortusdux wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! Things will be really interesting when they can use Starships to launch batches. I've seen estimates that they could launch 600 starlink satellites at a time. They could theatrically also launch fewer, but put them all the way into their final orbit, skipping the few weeks of light pollution.

> They could theatrically also launch fewer, but put them all the way into their final orbit I wonder if they might choose to do this so the sats keep more of their onboard fuel, and will be able to keep themselves in orbit a bit longer before the inevitable re-entry burn up.

I'd guess it is more efficient to have them boost themselves, so that they act as an additional rocket stage. (and so not need the delta V to elevate and then de-elevate starship's orbit.)

Re: Starlink Satellites Tracker

#44

Post by anonyxyz »

Kiro wrote: post #34
bowmessage wrote: post #4

We are polluting our night skies and dark places.

So what? What is the higher purpose of not "polluting" the night sky?

It's introducing a fuck ton of low orbit debris that is already interfering with astronomical research. Satellites that fail or break are stuck up there.

Re: Starlink Satellites Tracker

#45

Post by fighterpilot »

gambiting wrote: post #39
fighterpilot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then tax SpaceX for the light-pollution externality until they fix it (which they say they're going to do). I don't think depriving rural communities and poor countries of access to the internet is really the best solution to such a non-problem.

What are you talking about?? Here in Poland(which isn't a poor country!) You can't even buy Starlink here, our astronomical organisations are already complaining about the pollution of the sky, but how can Poland tax an American corporation polluting our sky???? So the question should be - how can an American corporation deprive other countries of accessible view of the sky for profit and get away with it? Because it…

It's the same argument as for a carbon tax. It's imperfect, because the benefit only flows to the local government (when the commons is globally shared, as you point out), but it's the best practical solution since it broadly aligns incentives with that of the commons.

Your solution to simply deprive rural communities/poor countries of internet access is a non-starter. What you're ignoring is that the positive externalities of the tech vastly, vastly outweigh the negative (and supposedly fixable) externalities. Not to mention it's a take that's rather selfish since you're not the one that pays the price of banning this tech.

Re: Starlink Satellites Tracker

#46

Post by gambiting »

herewulf wrote: post #33
gambiting wrote: post #15

I honestly can't believe Starlink is allowed to do this. It's an absolute travesty, polluting the view of the sky for ALL people on Earth to an absolutely unprecedented degree, for profit of an American corporation. Absolutely despise it, wish all countries of the world came together and demanded the deployments to stop.

I'm curious if you say the same thing about airplanes (which aren't exclusively American either). They are also quite noisy.

Think about it - when Starlink is fully operational there won't be a single place left on earth without several of their satellites always in view. The same definitely cannot be said about planes. Also countries retain full sovereignty to decide whether to allow planes flying above them - same cannot be said about satellites. Countries which cannot even use Starlink are having their night sky polluted by it.

Re: Starlink Satellites Tracker

#48

Post by gambiting »

fighterpilot wrote: post #45
gambiting wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about?? Here in Poland(which isn't a poor country!) You can't even buy Starlink here, our astronomical organisations are already complaining about the pollution of the sky, but how can Poland tax an American corporation polluting our sky???? So the question should be - how can an American corporation deprive other countries of accessible view of the sky for profit and get away with it? Because it…

It's the same argument as for a carbon tax. It's imperfect, because the benefit only flows to the local government (when the commons is globally shared, as you point out), but it's the best practical solution since it broadly aligns incentives with that of the commons. Your solution to simply deprive rural communities/poor countries of internet access is a non-starter . What you're ignoring is that the positive exter…

But Starlink isn't, wasn't, and never will be "for providing internet to poorer countries". It's always going to be first and foremost about selling internet to people in wealthy countries in areas without good local internet options. Are we really pretending that people in "poor countries" can afford the cost of the equipment and the subscription? Or that Elon Musk is doing this as some kind of charity?

The main problem that I have here is that the uniformity of a full Starlink setup means the entire earth is covered in it, and literally no one else except for Americans has any say in it. That's what's absolutely not cool in my opinion.

Re: Starlink Satellites Tracker

#50

Post by Dylan16807 »

grecy wrote: post #36
ortusdux wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! Things will be really interesting when they can use Starships to launch batches. I've seen estimates that they could launch 600 starlink satellites at a time. They could theatrically also launch fewer, but put them all the way into their final orbit, skipping the few weeks of light pollution.

> They could theatrically also launch fewer, but put them all the way into their final orbit I wonder if they might choose to do this so the sats keep more of their onboard fuel, and will be able to keep themselves in orbit a bit longer before the inevitable re-entry burn up.

That's a tradeoff that could be made, but the onboard ion thrusters are about 5x as efficient as the rocket. They'd probably be much better off making the onboard tanks a bit larger and launching to the same low orbit.
Post reply on HN