61–70 of 116 posts
Might be better to replace url with the full press release which has actual information https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-introduces-teraw... >The TeraWave architecture consists of 5,408 optically interconnected satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) and medium Earth orbit (MEO).
Might be better to replace url with the full press release which has actual information https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-introduces-teraw... >The TeraWave architecture consists of 5,408 optically interconnected satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) and medium Earth orbit (MEO).
An even better source, imho: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/blue-origin-we-want-to... ( "Another Jeff Bezos company has announced plans to develop a megaconstellation" )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speed matters a lot. You can fit a lot more walking people than speeding motorcycles in the same space. Satellites need to travel at 8 km/s to not fall down.
> Speed matters a lot Not really. You're correct inasmuch as it increases collision energies. But it also increases momentum, which maintains orbital integrity within predictable bounds. Nobody is maneuvering around satellites, they–and their debris–stay where the math tells them to.
The other underestimated dimension is that satellite manoeuvres use up a finite supply of expensively-launched propellant. That's tolerable when Starlink is doing 50k conjunction avoidance manoeuvres in six months across its constellation, but once it becomes each satellite moving at least weekly you either need bigger satellites carrying more propellant or have to accept significantly higher collision risk than they currently do.
Assuming all these companies are interested in launching their own constellations of ~10K-100K satellites into L/MEO, how many companies could actually do this before cascading collisions starts becoming a real worry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
... It is a very real possibility, but less of a problem below 550km altitude because the decay time is much shorter (and why all of these mega constellations tend to stay at lower altitude, even though ~1000km is generally better for a communications satellite).
Interesting there is an optical networking option for end users (claims ~6TBps). Maybe a really dumb question, but how would the end user's ground station maintain connectivity during cloudy weather? Do they have cloud-penetrating lasers from the MEO satellites? Would that interfere with aircraft, astronomy tools, etc? Some short googling says they have lasers that clear a path for a data carrying beam, but that seem…
Some info from NASA optical communication page. "Even Earth’s atmosphere interferes with optical communications. Clouds and mist can interrupt a laser. A solution to this is building multiple ground stations, which are telescopes on Earth that receive infrared waves. If it’s cloudy at one station, the waves can be redirected to a different ground station. With more ground stations, the network can be more flexible du…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how many companies could actually do this before cascading collisions starts becoming a real worry? Twenty of them at 100,000 birds each to start approaching the density of planes in the sky [1]. Not around an airport. In all of the sky. Oceans and all. Practically speaking, this is not a pressing concern for our generation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46711405
It's interesting that people have a hard time visualizing this. The area in Earth's LEO is, definitionally, bigger than the Earth itself. The SEA parking garage fits 12,000 cars in it. Two of those spread over the entire planet would be an imperceptible amount of space. You could drop a pin on a map your entire life and probably never hit one.
Assuming all these companies are interested in launching their own constellations of ~10K-100K satellites into L/MEO, how many companies could actually do this before cascading collisions starts becoming a real worry?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Speed matters a lot Not really. You're correct inasmuch as it increases collision energies. But it also increases momentum, which maintains orbital integrity within predictable bounds. Nobody is maneuvering around satellites, they–and their debris–stay where the math tells them to.
Orbits are predictable, but they intersect and decay [at different rates] and occasionally get perturbed by space weather. This already needs periodic conjunction avoidance manoeuvres, and whilst orbits are fast satellite manoeuvres are slow , so the notice you need to avoid a conjunction is measured in hours rather than seconds. Can't imagine a scenario in which it would be sustainable for LEO to even approach the d…
This is something people unfamiliar tend to misconceive in their limited thinking on the subject. You can't just tap the breaks to slow down. Changing altitude of satellites is done by speeding up to increase altitude and slowing down to lower altitude. Once you change the velocity and reach the desired altitude, you have to then undo that acceleration to get back to orbital velocity. Fuel is required in both directions. The less fuel used the better for the maneuver. Most satellites EoL is defined by remaining maneuvering fuel vs functionality of the hardware.
My first understanding of accelerating in space was from the old Asteroids game. To slow down, you had to rotate 180° and start accelerating in that direction. Others might learn it from Kerbal.
Assuming all these companies are interested in launching their own constellations of ~10K-100K satellites into L/MEO, how many companies could actually do this before cascading collisions starts becoming a real worry?
Even if these sats do collide and produce debris, they are in decaying orbits, so that stuff will eventually fall back down.