6 ms·

It would be silly to think this will actually come to fruition - 30k satellites would represent a 3000% increase in the number of active satellites in LEO, whic

It would be silly to think this will actually come to fruition - 30k satellites would represent a 3000% increase in the number of active satellites in LEO, which is already by far the most congested orbital altitude. That said, it would be quite exciting to see all those launches, and the end goal is a worthy one.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
LEO is not a single orbit. SpaceX is at 210, 340 & 710 miles. The space station is at 248 miles.
- Spinosaurus 7y ago
  210, 340, & 710 miles are all considered LEO.
trothamel 7y ago
LEO congestion is weird, since unlike GEO, there are lots of different orbital heights and orbital planes that still can be considered LEO.
- Spinosaurus 7y ago
  That's absolutely true. However, even then, space debris is already a major concern[0], and let's not forget the recent debacle with the ESA[1]. What happens when you pump 30,000 more satellites up there? [0]: https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ [1]: https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/ https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collis...
  - tick_tock_tick 7y ago
    Nothing at all since that's an incredibly tiny number.
loceng 7y ago
Compared to what, e.g. what's increase in purely EV sales that Tesla has caused compared to inception/previous status quo?
xyzzyz 7y ago
Imagine an area of the size of surface of the earth. Put 30k objects of the size of motorcycle on it. There are currently something like 200 million motorcycles in the world. Seems like plenty of space, doesn't it? But wait, you don't actually need to restrict yourself to one spherical surface. You can place your 30k sattelites anywhere in a Earth's-surface-sized spherical shell that's 400 miles thick. You could literally put those 30k sattelites in a single straight line above some point on the earth, and still have 350 miles of shell thickness left. Congestion on low Earth orbits is really a non issue, especially if the satellites are designed to deorbit after their useful lifetime.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Difficulty: the motorcycles are moving at 20,000 miles an hour. And if two of them ever collide, not only will the motorcycles be totaled, but so will the road.
- Spinosaurus 7y ago
  I should have been more clear. By "congestion", I was not just considering the number of satellites, but the number of artificial objects in total regardless of size, which by many estimates is in the millions.
  - gpm 7y ago
    Which makes it even clearer that this isn't an issue... we're not adding 3000%, we're adding 1% (assuming "millions" = 3 million).
- ygjb 7y ago
  Surely you have something to back this up other than a super weak analogy? Lets pick your assumption apart - there are 200 million motorcycles in the world, but there are only an esitmated 35 million km of roads. That means there are approximately 175 meters of road per motorcycle. That seems pretty reasonable, even if they were all on the road at the same time. But they aren't alone - there are also approximately a billion vehicles. That takes it down to about 35 meters per vehicle. Thats without factoring in the loss in space for intersections, the drop in capacity at each of those intersections, or addressing the fact that most of those vehicles are clustered in high density urban areas. Now we are lucky that not all of those vehicles are on all of those roads at the same time, because they can be removed and parked. It is certainly possible to overlay orbits at different altitudes, but then you have to manage spectrum congestion, because those 30k satellites in a straight line above some point on the earth are useless unless they can actually communicate with ground stations. Not all orbital slots are created equal either - some have better coverage of human habitable areas than others. Oh, and there is the small matter that each time one of those 30k satellite degrades, it becomes between two and hundreds of thousands of devastating fast moving particles that can destroy other satellites (don't believe me? look up the number of windows that have been destroyed by paint flecks in orbit). Don't take my word for it, read up on NASA's articles and quarterly publications on orbital congestion.
mdorazio 7y ago
Starlink satellites are mostly put into deliberately low orbits to guarantee they degrade over the course of a few years and burn up in the atmosphere. This is not at all the same as putting the same number of normal LEO satellites in orbit from a space junk perspective.
WesternStar 7y ago
If you remember the issue where SpaceX refused to move for the ESA sattelite. I think this a situation where space and air traffic control have to become more automated. This is like the beginning of an iteration in construction like the ones that happen in suspension bridges. The hope is that the Tacoma narrows scenario doesn't end up too costly. One of the fun things is that with this many sattelites you have a pretty good distributed orbital debris tracker.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  A pretty good distributed orbital debris generator too... Reminds me of "beer: the cause of and solution to all of life's problems!"

bryanlarsen 7y ago

LEO is not a single orbit. SpaceX is at 210, 340 & 710 miles. The space station is at 248 miles.

Spinosaurus 7y ago
210, 340, & 710 miles are all considered LEO.

trothamel 7y ago

LEO congestion is weird, since unlike GEO, there are lots of different orbital heights and orbital planes that still can be considered LEO.

Spinosaurus 7y ago
That's absolutely true. However, even then, space debris is already a major concern[0], and let's not forget the recent debacle with the ESA[1]. What happens when you pump 30,000 more satellites up there? [0]: https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ [1]: https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/ https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collis...
- tick_tock_tick 7y ago
  Nothing at all since that's an incredibly tiny number.

loceng 7y ago

Compared to what, e.g. what's increase in purely EV sales that Tesla has caused compared to inception/previous status quo?

xyzzyz 7y ago

Imagine an area of the size of surface of the earth. Put 30k objects of the size of motorcycle on it. There are currently something like 200 million motorcycles in the world. Seems like plenty of space, doesn't it? But wait, you don't actually need to restrict yourself to one spherical surface. You can place your 30k sattelites anywhere in a Earth's-surface-sized spherical shell that's 400 miles thick. You could literally put those 30k sattelites in a single straight line above some point on the earth, and still have 350 miles of shell thickness left. Congestion on low Earth orbits is really a non issue, especially if the satellites are designed to deorbit after their useful lifetime.

CamperBob2 7y ago
Difficulty: the motorcycles are moving at 20,000 miles an hour. And if two of them ever collide, not only will the motorcycles be totaled, but so will the road.
Spinosaurus 7y ago
I should have been more clear. By "congestion", I was not just considering the number of satellites, but the number of artificial objects in total regardless of size, which by many estimates is in the millions.
- gpm 7y ago
  Which makes it even clearer that this isn't an issue... we're not adding 3000%, we're adding 1% (assuming "millions" = 3 million).
ygjb 7y ago
Surely you have something to back this up other than a super weak analogy? Lets pick your assumption apart - there are 200 million motorcycles in the world, but there are only an esitmated 35 million km of roads. That means there are approximately 175 meters of road per motorcycle. That seems pretty reasonable, even if they were all on the road at the same time. But they aren't alone - there are also approximately a billion vehicles. That takes it down to about 35 meters per vehicle. Thats without factoring in the loss in space for intersections, the drop in capacity at each of those intersections, or addressing the fact that most of those vehicles are clustered in high density urban areas. Now we are lucky that not all of those vehicles are on all of those roads at the same time, because they can be removed and parked. It is certainly possible to overlay orbits at different altitudes, but then you have to manage spectrum congestion, because those 30k satellites in a straight line above some point on the earth are useless unless they can actually communicate with ground stations. Not all orbital slots are created equal either - some have better coverage of human habitable areas than others. Oh, and there is the small matter that each time one of those 30k satellite degrades, it becomes between two and hundreds of thousands of devastating fast moving particles that can destroy other satellites (don't believe me? look up the number of windows that have been destroyed by paint flecks in orbit). Don't take my word for it, read up on NASA's articles and quarterly publications on orbital congestion.

mdorazio 7y ago

Starlink satellites are mostly put into deliberately low orbits to guarantee they degrade over the course of a few years and burn up in the atmosphere. This is not at all the same as putting the same number of normal LEO satellites in orbit from a space junk perspective.

WesternStar 7y ago

If you remember the issue where SpaceX refused to move for the ESA sattelite. I think this a situation where space and air traffic control have to become more automated. This is like the beginning of an iteration in construction like the ones that happen in suspension bridges. The hope is that the Tacoma narrows scenario doesn't end up too costly. One of the fun things is that with this many sattelites you have a pretty good distributed orbital debris tracker.

perl4ever 7y ago
A pretty good distributed orbital debris generator too... Reminds me of "beer: the cause of and solution to all of life's problems!"