7 ms·

So there are ~1,459 artificial satellites orbiting the Earth right now. Am I the only one that thinks adding 4,425 is a bit much? Certainly there is a way to do

by eddieh 9y ago

So there are ~1,459 artificial satellites orbiting the Earth right now. Am I the only one that thinks adding 4,425 is a bit much? Certainly there is a way to do this with less space junk?

stcredzero 9y ago
If 4,425 low orbit satellites which are responsibly recovered can subsume the function of some large chunk of the ~1,459 currently existing, then this will actually substantively reduce the amount of space junk being introduced to Earth orbit. This is assuming that the launches and satellites create zero debris, which is in line with SpaceX's goal of total reusability. (Harder to reuse a vehicle that has things falling off of it.) Low orbit satellites will fall back to earth much sooner than ones in higher orbit. I would also expect SpaceX to responsibly de-orbit and scuttle their satellites, if for no other reason than to make their own lives easier.
throwahey 9y ago
Space is big, we won't be running into any issues with satellite collisions since they can be positioned in three-dimensions and there is a lot of space. Operational satellites are not considered space-junk since they typically have predictable or fixed orbits which can be avoided. Space junk is non-operational stuff, with potentially unpredictable orbits.
- sigstoat 9y ago
  so long as it has a sufficient radar cross section, the orbits of non-operational stuff can be predicted just fine. NORAD tracks the location of everything big enough to track, and makes it all available.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    > and makes it all available Well not 'all'; naturally the published elements omit objects related to 'national security' and objects which weren't announced as space vehicles e.g. debris. They are also published under a very restrictive license; I can't forward the elements to you, nor publish anything derived from them, such as predictions for a pass. End-user eyes only.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  All satellites will eventually be non-operational, so the question is: do they have a plan for picking up these 4500 pieces of future space junk once they are no longer in use?
  - coolspot 9y ago
    Low orbit junk quickly falls back onto earth if not supported by engines.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      "quickly" can still be several years, or more.
      - Tuna-Fish 9y ago
        The industry standard is deorbit within 25 years after end of mission. The SpaceX proposal (1) plans for deorbiting of every satellite within one year after the end of their mission. (1) http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATLOA2016111500118&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/report...
  - golergka 9y ago
    They're in LOE, so they just go into atmosphere and burn.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TrainedMonkey 9y ago
These satellites are in MEO (1150km) which is relatively sparsely trafficked. Here is a good visualization http://stuffin.space/ http://stuffin.space/ . If you zoom out MEO would be just above the dense sphere of space stuff in LEO. And if you think 4.5k is a lot wait until you hear about phase 2. Thankfully that is in close LEO and without constant propulsion things would deorbit in a matter of weeks. See https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/17/spacex-testing-its-own-satellite-broadband-internet-network.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/17/spacex-testing-its-own-satel...
- maccam94 9y ago
  yeah, from what I've read they will have enough fuel to stay aloft for ~5 years. They won't be a source of permanent space debris.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Isn't space debris more about collisions which spew out thousands of tiny bits which are hard to track and may have a ludicrous velocity relative to things they run into? AIUI, large objects a relatively easy to track and avoid if you have the gas and are on a collision course.
    - azernik 9y ago
      Every satellite floating around without maneuvering capabilities is one more chance for that existing tiny debris to hit something and cause a chain reaction.
    - maccam94 9y ago
      The worst kind of space debris sits in orbits outside of the atmosphere where there is negligible drag. Since these satellites will be in very low orbits that require propulsion to stay aloft, any potential debris from collisions or inoperable satellites will fall back to Earth relatively quickly. https://www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html https://www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html
    - Kemschumam 9y ago
topspin 9y ago
> Am I the only one that thinks adding 4,425 is a bit much? Probably not; all such endeavours are met by fear. Allow me to further unnerve you; this is just the first phase. The complete system, should it ever be realized, will have more than 8,000 satellites. And that's just SpaceX. There are competitors planning to launch systems of similar scale. My wife called it the 'Cambrian explosion of space.' Effective, if not entirely correct, analogy.
- ddoolin 9y ago
  The article mentions 12,000 total final satellites, but the other 8,000 operate at different altitudes/frequencies so they will need to be approved separately.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    The other 8000 are going to be orbiting so low that they'll have to constantly raise their orbit to avoid re-entry.
martythemaniak 9y ago
Maybe your sense of "much" is thrown off by not-to-scale visualizations. Space is big, even near-earth space is bigger than the entire surface Earth. These 1500 satellites are probably, on average, the size of a van. Is 1500 vans distributed on surface of the earth "much"? These SpaceX / Starlink satellites are considerably smaller - about the size of an oven or washing machine. What does it mean for 4500 ovens spread out over the surface of the earth to be "much"?
- topspin 9y ago
  > These SpaceX / Starlink satellites are considerably smaller - about the size of an oven or washing machine. The dimensions that appear in the FCC application[1] are 4.0 x 1.8 x 1.2 meters. About size of a small passenger van actually. Doubtless that will not be the launch size, but they will have these dimensions while in operation. [1] http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1159449 http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1...
- nkoren 9y ago
  Yes, space is, like, infinitely bigger than people imagine it to be. However your analogy is incomplete unless those 4500 ovens are wandering the surface of the Earth at mach 25.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Well, we do have thousands of airplane-sizes airplanes wandering the atmosphere at mach speeds. And we wouldn’t consider the airspace "full".
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      It's full enough that it requires continuous guidance and collision avoidance measures. And the majority of those planes are not going even close to as fast as satellites in LEO/MEO move.
      - 9y ago
rtkwe 9y ago
Depends on what you mean by "doing this." Having them in a lower orbit means smaller equipment required to connect, lower latency compared to connecting to satellites in GEO, and smaller lower power satellites. To get those benefits they have to be close which means more satellites for full coverage. Also it's not like even this particular orbit will be full when SpaceX is done at 1150 km orbit the 4425 satellites would each have a bit over 80,000 km^2 to themselves on average if they're spread out evenly.
gizmo385 9y ago
How are SpaceX going to monitor and maintain TT&C on 3x the number of satellites that are currently orbiting the planet? That seems like a bigger question in my mind.
pascalxus 9y ago
There's only ~1459 satellites in orbit and already someone wants to prevent more building. What's the reason for this? Preserve neighborhood character? too much noise? are you worried about the traffic? If you arbitrarily regulate everything before you even begin to innovate, you'll never know what inventions could have been created: that's why there hasn't been hardly any innovation in housing construction over the last 20 years.
- lopmotr 9y ago
  In New Zealand, if you installed certain new fangled plastic plumbing a few decades ago, you house may now be unmortgagable for a new buyer because it's been silently spraying water inside your walls for years. 20 years ago there was also a rush of monolithic cladding, now many of those houses are silently rotting due to invisible leaks into the walls. Fun new construction does reduce costs but can ruin people many years later if it's too wild west.
  - nickik 9y ago
    For this to be a good argument you have to assume that the regulater understands all of these things and makes systematically better choices then the people who build the houses. Or it would require qualifing all materials before being uses. That would increase time before deployment massivly, making new devlopment less attractive. Economist talk about 'permissionless innovation' being incredible important for progress.

by eddieh 9y ago

So there are ~1,459 artificial satellites orbiting the Earth right now. Am I the only one that thinks adding 4,425 is a bit much? Certainly there is a way to do this with less space junk?

stcredzero 9y ago

If 4,425 low orbit satellites which are responsibly recovered can subsume the function of some large chunk of the ~1,459 currently existing, then this will actually substantively reduce the amount of space junk being introduced to Earth orbit. This is assuming that the launches and satellites create zero debris, which is in line with SpaceX's goal of total reusability. (Harder to reuse a vehicle that has things falling off of it.) Low orbit satellites will fall back to earth much sooner than ones in higher orbit. I would also expect SpaceX to responsibly de-orbit and scuttle their satellites, if for no other reason than to make their own lives easier.

throwahey 9y ago

Space is big, we won't be running into any issues with satellite collisions since they can be positioned in three-dimensions and there is a lot of space. Operational satellites are not considered space-junk since they typically have predictable or fixed orbits which can be avoided. Space junk is non-operational stuff, with potentially unpredictable orbits.

sigstoat 9y ago
so long as it has a sufficient radar cross section, the orbits of non-operational stuff can be predicted just fine. NORAD tracks the location of everything big enough to track, and makes it all available.
- dingaling 9y ago
  > and makes it all available Well not 'all'; naturally the published elements omit objects related to 'national security' and objects which weren't announced as space vehicles e.g. debris. They are also published under a very restrictive license; I can't forward the elements to you, nor publish anything derived from them, such as predictions for a pass. End-user eyes only.
craftyguy 9y ago
All satellites will eventually be non-operational, so the question is: do they have a plan for picking up these 4500 pieces of future space junk once they are no longer in use?
- coolspot 9y ago
  Low orbit junk quickly falls back onto earth if not supported by engines.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    "quickly" can still be several years, or more.
    - Tuna-Fish 9y ago
      The industry standard is deorbit within 25 years after end of mission. The SpaceX proposal (1) plans for deorbiting of every satellite within one year after the end of their mission. (1) http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATLOA2016111500118&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/report...
- golergka 9y ago
  They're in LOE, so they just go into atmosphere and burn.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

TrainedMonkey 9y ago

These satellites are in MEO (1150km) which is relatively sparsely trafficked. Here is a good visualization http://stuffin.space/ http://stuffin.space/ . If you zoom out MEO would be just above the dense sphere of space stuff in LEO. And if you think 4.5k is a lot wait until you hear about phase 2. Thankfully that is in close LEO and without constant propulsion things would deorbit in a matter of weeks. See https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/17/spacex-testing-its-own-satellite-broadband-internet-network.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/17/spacex-testing-its-own-satel...

maccam94 9y ago
yeah, from what I've read they will have enough fuel to stay aloft for ~5 years. They won't be a source of permanent space debris.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Isn't space debris more about collisions which spew out thousands of tiny bits which are hard to track and may have a ludicrous velocity relative to things they run into? AIUI, large objects a relatively easy to track and avoid if you have the gas and are on a collision course.
  - azernik 9y ago
    Every satellite floating around without maneuvering capabilities is one more chance for that existing tiny debris to hit something and cause a chain reaction.
  - maccam94 9y ago
    The worst kind of space debris sits in orbits outside of the atmosphere where there is negligible drag. Since these satellites will be in very low orbits that require propulsion to stay aloft, any potential debris from collisions or inoperable satellites will fall back to Earth relatively quickly. https://www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html https://www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html
  - Kemschumam 9y ago

topspin 9y ago

> Am I the only one that thinks adding 4,425 is a bit much? Probably not; all such endeavours are met by fear. Allow me to further unnerve you; this is just the first phase. The complete system, should it ever be realized, will have more than 8,000 satellites. And that's just SpaceX. There are competitors planning to launch systems of similar scale. My wife called it the 'Cambrian explosion of space.' Effective, if not entirely correct, analogy.

ddoolin 9y ago
The article mentions 12,000 total final satellites, but the other 8,000 operate at different altitudes/frequencies so they will need to be approved separately.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  The other 8000 are going to be orbiting so low that they'll have to constantly raise their orbit to avoid re-entry.

martythemaniak 9y ago

Maybe your sense of "much" is thrown off by not-to-scale visualizations. Space is big, even near-earth space is bigger than the entire surface Earth. These 1500 satellites are probably, on average, the size of a van. Is 1500 vans distributed on surface of the earth "much"? These SpaceX / Starlink satellites are considerably smaller - about the size of an oven or washing machine. What does it mean for 4500 ovens spread out over the surface of the earth to be "much"?

topspin 9y ago
> These SpaceX / Starlink satellites are considerably smaller - about the size of an oven or washing machine. The dimensions that appear in the FCC application[1] are 4.0 x 1.8 x 1.2 meters. About size of a small passenger van actually. Doubtless that will not be the launch size, but they will have these dimensions while in operation. [1] http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1159449 http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1...
nkoren 9y ago
Yes, space is, like, infinitely bigger than people imagine it to be. However your analogy is incomplete unless those 4500 ovens are wandering the surface of the Earth at mach 25.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Well, we do have thousands of airplane-sizes airplanes wandering the atmosphere at mach speeds. And we wouldn’t consider the airspace "full".
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    It's full enough that it requires continuous guidance and collision avoidance measures. And the majority of those planes are not going even close to as fast as satellites in LEO/MEO move.
    - 9y ago

rtkwe 9y ago

Depends on what you mean by "doing this." Having them in a lower orbit means smaller equipment required to connect, lower latency compared to connecting to satellites in GEO, and smaller lower power satellites. To get those benefits they have to be close which means more satellites for full coverage. Also it's not like even this particular orbit will be full when SpaceX is done at 1150 km orbit the 4425 satellites would each have a bit over 80,000 km^2 to themselves on average if they're spread out evenly.

gizmo385 9y ago

How are SpaceX going to monitor and maintain TT&C on 3x the number of satellites that are currently orbiting the planet? That seems like a bigger question in my mind.

pascalxus 9y ago

There's only ~1459 satellites in orbit and already someone wants to prevent more building. What's the reason for this? Preserve neighborhood character? too much noise? are you worried about the traffic? If you arbitrarily regulate everything before you even begin to innovate, you'll never know what inventions could have been created: that's why there hasn't been hardly any innovation in housing construction over the last 20 years.

lopmotr 9y ago
In New Zealand, if you installed certain new fangled plastic plumbing a few decades ago, you house may now be unmortgagable for a new buyer because it's been silently spraying water inside your walls for years. 20 years ago there was also a rush of monolithic cladding, now many of those houses are silently rotting due to invisible leaks into the walls. Fun new construction does reduce costs but can ruin people many years later if it's too wild west.
- nickik 9y ago
  For this to be a good argument you have to assume that the regulater understands all of these things and makes systematically better choices then the people who build the houses. Or it would require qualifing all materials before being uses. That would increase time before deployment massivly, making new devlopment less attractive. Economist talk about 'permissionless innovation' being incredible important for progress.