5 ms·

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 150

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.
    - orky56 9y ago
      That has a lot to do with human lives being within those objects and gravity pulling them down to earth potentially being a danger to more human lives. All that versus floating space junk and dollars down the drain for the engineering, development, launch, and ongoing functionality of those satellites.
    - komali2 9y ago
      There is a team at NASA tracking all that stuff though >NASA and the DoD cooperate and share responsibilities for characterizing the satellite (including orbital debris) environment. DoD’s Space Surveillance Network tracks discrete objects as small as 2 inches (5 centimeters) in diameter in low Earth orbit and about 1 yard (1 meter) in geosynchronous orbit. Currently, about 15,000 officially cataloged objects are still in orbit. The total number of tracked objects exceeds 21,000. Using special ground-based sensors and inspections of returned satellite surfaces, NASA statistically determines the extent of the population for objects less than 4 inches (10 centimeters) in diameter. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debr...
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Sure, that's pretty common knowledge isn't it? GGP was trying to make the point that airplanes don't collide and that they travel fast but that's not the whole story, there are a lot of people working hard to keep it that way. Also, even though NASA is tracking stuff there isn't much they can do about it, it's mostly to help determine new orbits and to make sure that launches do not accidentally intersect with some chunk of space debris.
        kuschku 9y ago
        My point was that we can apply the same technological solutions we’ve found for aerospace also to spaceflight. We can use tracking and modern software solutions to plan where to put new satellites. 4500 is far from the maximum possible.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    I would not describe any commercial aviation operation as "wandering". The rules are very clearly defined and very strict about where and when a plane is allowed to be. It's very much actively managed. Take a look at the airspace around a major airport when a storm system moves in. Airspace is absolutely congested.
- mattkevan 9y ago
  “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”
  - saganus 9y ago
    This quote sounds familiar, but can't pinpoint who said it. It almost feels like I should know even... Any pointers? :)
    - Theodores 9y ago
      Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy, Douglas Adams. Everyone here knows that but the real world is different.
    - murrayb 9y ago
      Douglas Adams
rory096 9y ago
This is a great analogy! To add a little color, all of those satellites that are geostationary (most of them used for communications to date, with the exceptions of Iridium and o3b) are like vans laid out along the equator. Starlink's satellites (in addition to being at a much, much lower altitude) are in different planes - for even more separation from existing satellites.
- readams 9y ago
  The available volume out at geostationary orbit absolutely dwarfs low earth orbit or the Earth's surface.
  - neuronexmachina 9y ago
    Unless I'm mistaken, isn't geostationary orbit essentially a single circle? So it technically has zero volume. Individual satellites are assigned constant locations in longitude. https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=10 https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=10
    - tlrobinson 9y ago
      I think that's correct, but since they're stationary (relative to each other) perhaps they can be packed more densely without risk of collision?
    - readams 9y ago
      Geostationary orbit is just really really far away.
craftyguy 9y ago
Before they push that much extra stuff into orbit, they really should be required to demonstrate a working way to clean up space junk. If they aren't required to, then these 4500 ovens will be left for a very long time after they are no longer in use, until their orbits decay...
- benjaminl 9y ago
  The plan submitted to the FCC includes descriptions of the plans for deorbiting the satellites when they have completed their useful life. SpaceX proposes to deorbiting the satellites much faster then international regulations require.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

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.
  - orky56 9y ago
    That has a lot to do with human lives being within those objects and gravity pulling them down to earth potentially being a danger to more human lives. All that versus floating space junk and dollars down the drain for the engineering, development, launch, and ongoing functionality of those satellites.
  - komali2 9y ago
    There is a team at NASA tracking all that stuff though >NASA and the DoD cooperate and share responsibilities for characterizing the satellite (including orbital debris) environment. DoD’s Space Surveillance Network tracks discrete objects as small as 2 inches (5 centimeters) in diameter in low Earth orbit and about 1 yard (1 meter) in geosynchronous orbit. Currently, about 15,000 officially cataloged objects are still in orbit. The total number of tracked objects exceeds 21,000. Using special ground-based sensors and inspections of returned satellite surfaces, NASA statistically determines the extent of the population for objects less than 4 inches (10 centimeters) in diameter. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debr...
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Sure, that's pretty common knowledge isn't it? GGP was trying to make the point that airplanes don't collide and that they travel fast but that's not the whole story, there are a lot of people working hard to keep it that way. Also, even though NASA is tracking stuff there isn't much they can do about it, it's mostly to help determine new orbits and to make sure that launches do not accidentally intersect with some chunk of space debris.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        My point was that we can apply the same technological solutions we’ve found for aerospace also to spaceflight. We can use tracking and modern software solutions to plan where to put new satellites. 4500 is far from the maximum possible.
- mulmen 9y ago
  I would not describe any commercial aviation operation as "wandering". The rules are very clearly defined and very strict about where and when a plane is allowed to be. It's very much actively managed. Take a look at the airspace around a major airport when a storm system moves in. Airspace is absolutely congested.
mattkevan 9y ago
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”
- saganus 9y ago
  This quote sounds familiar, but can't pinpoint who said it. It almost feels like I should know even... Any pointers? :)
  - Theodores 9y ago
    Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy, Douglas Adams. Everyone here knows that but the real world is different.
  - murrayb 9y ago
    Douglas Adams

rory096 9y ago

This is a great analogy! To add a little color, all of those satellites that are geostationary (most of them used for communications to date, with the exceptions of Iridium and o3b) are like vans laid out along the equator. Starlink's satellites (in addition to being at a much, much lower altitude) are in different planes - for even more separation from existing satellites.

readams 9y ago
The available volume out at geostationary orbit absolutely dwarfs low earth orbit or the Earth's surface.
- neuronexmachina 9y ago
  Unless I'm mistaken, isn't geostationary orbit essentially a single circle? So it technically has zero volume. Individual satellites are assigned constant locations in longitude. https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=10 https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=10
  - tlrobinson 9y ago
    I think that's correct, but since they're stationary (relative to each other) perhaps they can be packed more densely without risk of collision?
  - readams 9y ago
    Geostationary orbit is just really really far away.

craftyguy 9y ago

Before they push that much extra stuff into orbit, they really should be required to demonstrate a working way to clean up space junk. If they aren't required to, then these 4500 ovens will be left for a very long time after they are no longer in use, until their orbits decay...

benjaminl 9y ago
The plan submitted to the FCC includes descriptions of the plans for deorbiting the satellites when they have completed their useful life. SpaceX proposes to deorbiting the satellites much faster then international regulations require.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]