3 ms·

Not quite your main point (which I agree with) but comparing surface area of orbits to the surface of the earth doesn't really help understand the carrying capa

by Cogito 3y ago

Not quite your main point (which I agree with) but comparing surface area of orbits to the surface of the earth doesn't really help understand the carrying capacity of orbits. There are so many constraints on objects in orbit, the degrees of freedom so limited, that carrying capacity is much smaller than you might suspect (though probably larger than our earth-bound intuition). Just for starters, each item in orbit traces out a path (an orbit!) that can not intersect with the path of any other object, without carefully considering phasing to make sure there are no collisions. We keep items separated by kms (hopefully!) because there is too much variation and uncertainty in orbits. You can use different altitude shells to fit more items in, but they take longer to orbit and increase latency, so you have to be able to deal with that. Based on degrees of freedom, orbits are far closer to 2 dimensional than 3 dimensional.

mlindner 3y ago
I was aware of all the points you made here before writing your post but hopefully I can help allay your concerns. The Starlink constellation has already been described as being passively de-conflicted, meaning that, as designed, no Starlink satellite had to maneuver around any other Starlink satellite. The positional accuracy of the Starlink satellites is known by SpaceX to the precision of meters rather than kilometers. I’d need to dig it up the source again but Starlink satellites pass within kilometers of each other daily. Starlink already has over 1000 satellites at several of its altitudes. While yes it’s true they have to avoid space debris with a wide berth I don’t really include that in the argument as that is a true statement no matter how many or how few satellites are in any given orbit. It’s more a matter of poor control and poor altitude maintenance of other satellites. That’s a matter of regulation rather than a matter of an actually limited resource. For example Starlink currently uses 10km or 7km gaps between its shells but they vary in altitude significantly less than that and could be closer if allowed to be.
- Cogito 3y ago
  I agreee that SpaceX is unlikely to run into any issues with the number of satellites they are putting up, or coordinating those satellites. However! It's disengenous to say land is 2d and orbits are 3d so there is more space in space. That > space is even less of a “limited resource” than completely unpopulated areas of the Earth Consider: how many Starlink constellations could reasonably be deployed in low earth orbit? Probably less than 1000, but maybe 10000-100000 (that would be a lot of satellites, but let's be generous). Now how many Starlink constellations could be deployed in unpopulated areas of the Earth? Putting aside that they'd be useless, you could fit literally millions of constellations next to each other. Space is big, but heavily constrained. One of the reasons something like an orbital ring would be so cool if we could get it to work - tons of space that is not constrained by orbital mechanics the same way free flying stations would be.

by Cogito 3y ago

mlindner 3y ago

I was aware of all the points you made here before writing your post but hopefully I can help allay your concerns. The Starlink constellation has already been described as being passively de-conflicted, meaning that, as designed, no Starlink satellite had to maneuver around any other Starlink satellite. The positional accuracy of the Starlink satellites is known by SpaceX to the precision of meters rather than kilometers. I’d need to dig it up the source again but Starlink satellites pass within kilometers of each other daily. Starlink already has over 1000 satellites at several of its altitudes. While yes it’s true they have to avoid space debris with a wide berth I don’t really include that in the argument as that is a true statement no matter how many or how few satellites are in any given orbit. It’s more a matter of poor control and poor altitude maintenance of other satellites. That’s a matter of regulation rather than a matter of an actually limited resource. For example Starlink currently uses 10km or 7km gaps between its shells but they vary in altitude significantly less than that and could be closer if allowed to be.

Cogito 3y ago
I agreee that SpaceX is unlikely to run into any issues with the number of satellites they are putting up, or coordinating those satellites. However! It's disengenous to say land is 2d and orbits are 3d so there is more space in space. That > space is even less of a “limited resource” than completely unpopulated areas of the Earth Consider: how many Starlink constellations could reasonably be deployed in low earth orbit? Probably less than 1000, but maybe 10000-100000 (that would be a lot of satellites, but let's be generous). Now how many Starlink constellations could be deployed in unpopulated areas of the Earth? Putting aside that they'd be useless, you could fit literally millions of constellations next to each other. Space is big, but heavily constrained. One of the reasons something like an orbital ring would be so cool if we could get it to work - tons of space that is not constrained by orbital mechanics the same way free flying stations would be.