9 ms·
Every satellite orbiting earth and who owns them (2023)
- theyinwhy 1y agoUnfortunately, not relevant anymore. Some information is from before 2021 on this page.
- NoPicklez 1y agoIt's incredible how many satellites Space X have launched It's also surprising from a layman's perspective the "freedom" to launch rockets into space without necessarily needing permission, the originating country of course needs to approve it but none else
- 9dev 1y ago[flagged]
- MindSpunk 1y agoThe only countries even capable of enforcing launch bans stand to gain nothing from them because it just makes launching their own payloads more difficult. There's like ~10 or so countries who are readily launch capable and even less with the military capability to put any pressure to stop foreign launches. Who's going to regulate? Regulation only works when someone has the power to enforce them. Right now the people with that power aren't the most agreeable. And flexing it is either antagonizing western allies or a declaration of war.
- pyman 1y agoUnfortunately, there's no real way to regulate this. I used to worry about space junk and companies polluting space, but now I'm more concerned about what's inside those satellites. With no regulations in place, they can put pretty much anything up there. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of those satellites had nuclear weapons inside (or maybe that's just me being paranoid.) Still, having satellites that can take out other satellites during a conflict is definitely a possibility. Which brings me back to my original concern: space junk. The last thing we need is a graveyard of satellites floating above our heads.
- NoboruWataya 1y agoInternational cooperation can still work even though there is very rarely a realistic prospect of enforcement. No one is going to war to enforce WTO rulings or nuclear non-proliferation treaties, for example. It's true that when things get really hairy international law tends to fall by the wayside, eg countries leaving the Land Mine Ban Treaty now that it seems possible they may actually have to deal with a foreign invader on their soil. But they can still be effective at regulating states' behaviour in more peaceful times, which is still useful. But it does require the major powers to be willing (i) to talk to each other, and (ii) to think about the world beyond their own borders, which means it's unlikely to happen given the current leadership in certain of the big space-going nations.
- Tuna-Fish 1y agoA country was last bombed in an attempt to enforce the NPT less than two months ago. And of the conditions you listed, you missed the big one. The big, powerful countries must directly benefit, they have never signed up to a treaty where they don't.
- darkwater 1y ago> Regulation only works when someone has the power to enforce them. And this is why we cannot have nice things
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago> Who's going to regulate? I will; when I am elected God-Emperor, I will set up a global defense network that will shoot down any unauthorised launches. I will also build a space palace, because I can. Only half-joking; space will be regulated when one force becomes dominant and individual countries' rights are taken away, OR when the majority of countries, but specifically the biggest and most powerful ones, get to an agreement - but given the significant differences between e.g. the US, China, India and Russia, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. So at the moment, a globally dominant world power setting the rules will be the likely candidate. But first, there needs to be a tipping point of sorts, a line that is crossed. That'll either be space-based weapons or missile defense systems, or simply being out-competed. It'll be at least another decade plus billions of investments before any other nation or company can start to compete with SpaceX's launch capacity, and they haven't stopped yet; if Spaceship becomes viable they and the US will have a huge lead, and the launch capability to set up a global missile detection / defense / space offense network.
- metalman 1y agowrong. NK as an example has the capacity to design and deliver and deploy load after load after load of small rusty ball bearings into random low earth orbits, leaving existing geo syncronous satelites as the only platforms operating in earths orbit, SK, Japan, France, etc ,etc, etc,....russia, china,.......many large industrial companies(mitsu, hiundi, various name shify US companies)..... can just shut the whole thing down long before any emperor starts issueing edicts from orbit. this is the classic example of where the "defence" is orders of magnitude easier and cheaper than the "offence"
- marcosdumay 1y ago> NK as an example has the capacity to design and deliver and deploy load after load after load of small rusty ball bearings into random low earth orbits Funny that the only country that actually did that was the US...
- hopelite 1y agoThe UN is fundamentally and terminally flawed and always has been from the very beginning as ruse for what has always been a facade of “America’s” control of the world. It is why the UN lair is right on the East River, a proverbial stone’s throw away from Wall Street, Madison Ave, and Broad Street in the heart of the American Empire of world domination.
- N19PEDL2 1y agoPermission granted by whom? Agencies and companies that launch satellites are subject only to the laws of the countries in which they are based. And it is not even imaginable to have a NPT-like system where a few "special" countries have the right to launch satellites while the others don't.
- mhio 1y agoThat generally falls to the International Telecommunication Union globally, as a satellite without a radio is basically junk. Then maybe the 4(+) countries that can field anti sat weapons beyond that.
- pc86 1y agoI understand you may want it to fall to the UN, but to the extent that it does it is merely a courtesy. If someone wants to launch satellites with a radio violating every ITU regulation there is, unless someone is going to knock on their door with a gun, it doesn't mean squat. The buck stops at your nation's capital - if they're okay with what you're doing, you can do it. Everything else is just diplomatic window dressing and doesn't really mean anything at the end of the day.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- KurSix 1y agoYeah, it's kind of mind-blowing how much the space game has shifted from international diplomacy to private enterprise with a launch schedule
- pyman 1y agoI agree. I wonder if handing things over to private companies is a way for governments to avoid red tape and shift accountability if something goes wrong.
- numpad0 1y agoThere are only like half a dozen countries capable of doing orbital launches. That number is smaller than those nuclear capable.
- zugi 1y agoIt's really not all that surprising that space is treated like the oceans. There certainly are rules and norms of behavior, but you don't need to ask for permission to enter it.
- DemocracyFTW2 1y agoAt this point I'd like to make the case that, shall we say, 'selfish' actors are indeed a problem on the oceans, for example in the form of fishing vessels that invade the fishing grounds of other peoples and foreign nations and are not held accountable by anyone to any kind of standard in terms of ecosystem impact, overfishing and so on. It's a genuinely international problem that can hardly be solved by throwing up one's hands and sighing that the oceans are free for everyone and ergo there's nothing that can be done. I believe one could convince a lot of people that there should be limits, I just have to scale up bad behaviors: fishing a species to extinction? pouring toxic waste into the waters? using dynamite for fishing? scraping ocean floors for minerals and turning thriving ecosystems into vast lifeless deserts? huge dragnets that catch and kill everything? Some of these things may not resonate with all people but almost everyone will answer Yes, that should not be allowed, at some point.
- radu_floricica 1y agoThat's... good? In more ways than one. The most obvious is that any international body would be easily controlled by the big players, so you'd end up with more centralized control by the same national entities, but now they'd be controlling other countries launches as well. The other problem is that lately international organizations have a pretty bad track record. Two examples, which I've chosen because they are actually both very important incidents and also squarely in the domain of the respective orgs: WHO with Covid with a mostly useless and visibly politicized reaction; and UN with Gaza, with a large block of Arab voters who are basically stuck at condemning Israel, but systematically refuse to actually step up and help with the problem. Both incidents are literally what those orgs were created to handle, and yet they don't. Also space launches have a military component, not always public. I doubt many would agree to let an international body poke their nose in that.
- Yokolos 1y agoSomebody has never heard of the tragedy of the commons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons > The tragedy of the commons is the concept that, if many people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource, such as a pasture, they will tend to overuse it and may end up destroying its value altogether. Even if some users exercised voluntary restraint, the other users would merely replace them, the predictable result being a "tragedy" for all. There is no right of absolute freedom, because at some point that freedom affects other people who also have rights. So we're always limited explicitly and implicitly in what we can do. Free, unfettered access just means taking something away from somebody else.
- tlb 1y agoSpace is the one resource that isn't finite. And even in LEO, the amount of space is huge. It's about the same surface area of the earth, but tens of kilometers thick. We used to have to leave a lot of space between satellites because their orbits varied unpredictably, but we've gotten better at packing them. Someday we'll talk about the days of 5000 satellites like we talk about when computers had 4096 bytes of RAM, and it will be fine.
- energy123 1y ago> "freedom" to launch rockets into space without necessarily needing permission Space is another public commons. I will assume it will follow the same trajectory as other public commons. A few decades of abuse, leading to consequences, leading to regulations. But the regulations won't happen until the consequences happens. - The electromagnetic spectrum - https://www.britannica.com/topic/radio/The-Golden-Age-of-American-radio https://www.britannica.com/topic/radio/The-Golden-Age-of-Ame... - Low altitude airspace - Part 107 Rule - Fisheries - UNCLOS
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- DemocracyFTW2 1y agoWhat would be needed is an international organization formed by at least all nations that have orbital launch capabilities to act as an FAA of sorts for rocket launches in general and putting things into orbit in particular. Earth orbit, and Low Earth Orbit especially so, is a limited resource and the outlook of permanently ruining dark skies globally or turning the skies into a big garbage patch that could make space travel impossible for centuries to come (aka Kessler syndrome) is just too bleak to not do it carefully with sustainability in mind.
- pc86 1y agoWho else would approve it? The country is the atomic unit of global governance. Everything else is just hand-shake deals and "promises." If your country says you can do something, you can do it.
- marcosdumay 1y agoThe more crowded orbits aren't free. You can't just put a geostationary satellite anywhere you want. Only the orbits that are more plentiful are free.
- pulvinar 1y agoDewesoft is only ranking the top 50 owners, so their stats may be wrong or misleading for the others. Austria, for example, is listed as having only 1 satellite, but they have at least 4 according to the UCS Satellite Database.
- perihelions 1y agoHere's a related long-form article with more recent figures (and narratives), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/07/23/world/asia/starlink-spacex-musk-china-satellites.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/07/23/world/asia/st... ("This Was Supposed to Be the Year China Started Catching Up With SpaceX")
- the_arun 1y agoIf you want to avoid paywall - https://archive.ph/95S2U https://archive.ph/95S2U
- keyle 1y agoThe article may be from 2023, but the data is for 2021. At the rate of Space X littering the sky with them, the 2021 statistics are somewhat irrelevant.
- setnone 1y agoSo about 11000 units in the low orbit in 2025 and thats a mix of commercial and state satellites. I wonder how the traffic and distribution being governed
- ethan_smith 1y agoLEO traffic is primarily coordinated through the ITU for frequency allocation and conjunction alerts from the US Space Force's 18th Space Defense Squadron, though there's no binding international framework for orbital slot management.
- elephant81 1y agoI would have to suspect there are more US NRO ones that aren't listed. Misty and her descendants would like a word.
- fireflymetavrse 1y agoStats that are based only on the number of satellites can be very misleading as they don't differentiate between a 5 ton comm sat and an 1 kg cubesat.
- nandomrumber 1y agoHow relevant is that for orbit occupancy? A 1 unit CubeSat is 10cm³ and max 2kg / unit, occupying a particular location in an LEO orbit at 28,000 km/h / 17,000 mph doesn’t want to be bumping in to anything either.
- kortilla 1y agoWeight is irrelevant. They will all tear through anything like butter and break apart into thousands of pieces in a conjunction.
- froglets 1y agoThe amount of aluminum in a satellite matters because of the effect it has on the atmosphere when it burns up during reentry.
- marcosdumay 1y agoJust to point that we don't actually know how important it is. It can be completely irrelevant, or it can be something that must be regulated ASAP. Nobody has any idea. (Well, we have an upper bond in that current numbers are still not an immediate problem.)
- carlsborg 1y ago> "Earth has 4550 satellites in orbit" Rapidly obsoleted information. SpaceX alone has > 7500 satellites in orbit. It added 2,300+ satellites in the one year period ending Jun 2025.
- stinkbeetle 1y agoThe next line after the text you quote reads "(as of 9/1/2021)".
- wongarsu 1y agoWhich was a very outdated number even back when this article was published two years ago I'm not sure what the exact number was in 2023, but according to [1] it was 6718 at the end of 2022. With that kind of growth, quoting two year old numbers isn't all that helpful 1: https://blog.ucs.org/syoung/how-many-satellites-are-in-space-the-spike-in-numbers-continues/ https://blog.ucs.org/syoung/how-many-satellites-are-in-space...
- southernplaces7 1y agoThis really isn't all that much if you pause to consider it. For example. Lets take the larger possible number of 7500 plus 2,300 plus the 4,550 satellites noted up to 2021. That's a total of just under 15,000 satellites. Most of those are fairly small objects, at the most about the size of a typical mini-van, with most being quite a bit smaller than that. Now, all of this is spread over a three-dimensional topography that's much larger than the total surface area of the Earth, and because their orbits are, as mentioned, three-dimensionally occupying various altitudes, the size of the total topography they move through is enormously larger than just one single surface area in square kilometers of a single hypothetical sphere X km above the Earth's surface. In the least case, even if all existing orbital satellites were stationed at the lowest possible orbital altitude, that's still quite a bit bigger than the 509 600 000 square km of the Earth's total surface. (too lazy to calculate the specific increment in this moment) Across all of that, just 15,000 objects that are individually smaller than your average family sedan. For comparison, the island of Manhattan has approximately 116,000 buildings crammed into it. If you spread those more or less equi-distantly from each other across the whole of the Earth's surface, water or air, there'd still be a tremendous amount of empty space between them. That's nearly 10 times as many objects individually much larger than any human satellite, across a much smaller surface area than what's occupied by our orbital satellites. (Yes, I know we also have a shit-load of other inert junk zipping around up there at tens of thousands of KM per hour, but even if that stuff, most of which is very tiny, were included, we're still talking about an enormous amount of empty space between objects)
- evrennetwork 1y ago[dead]
- storgaard 1y agoIt's interesting that the "E" in GEO, LEO, MEO, HEO is short for three different things: https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Types_of_orbits https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ty...
- foota 1y agoIt is the most common letter, but I agree that is funny.
- perihelions 1y agoIt looks like (if I've parsed right) every one of them stands for "Earth", except that HEO alone can also be overloaded three ways (high-earth, highly-elliptical, and highly-eccentric). This is unimportant, but: a site:nasa.gov search shows all three "HEO" acronyms in common use, there; and even Wikipedia abbreviates it inconsistently across entries[0-2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Earth_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Earth_orbit ("A medium Earth orbit (MEO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an altitude above a low Earth orbit (LEO) and below a high Earth orbit (HEO)") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_elliptical_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_elliptical_orbit ("A highly elliptical orbit (HEO) is") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Earth_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Earth_orbit ("In this article, the non-standard abbreviation of HEO is used for high Earth orbit[2]") [edit]: I overlooked the abbreviation of "geostationary equatorial orbit" for GEO, which brings it up to four different "E's"!
- N19PEDL2 1y ago> geostationary equatorial orbit I thought GEO stood for Geostationary Earth Orbit, since a geostationary orbit must be equatorial anyway. But actually "Earth" would also be redundant, since "Geo-" already stands for Earth.
- perihelions 1y agoI understand it's both, but "equatorial" is more precise to distinguish it from GSO, a non-equatorial [g]eo[s]ynchronous [o]rbit. Otherwise, they would both be "GEO".
- yapyap 1y ago[flagged]
- k4rli 1y agoMadman seems better than a con-man. All those satellites for an unnecessary service that could never become profitable... Is this the node_modules/js ecosystem for space? 7k+ satellites for a service that Viasat and others can do with ~10. Supposedly Starlink has better ping, but as it's still unusable for gaming, it doesn't appear nearly as beneficial.
- ggreer 1y agoLeaked internal documents show that last year, Starlink made $72M net income on $2.7B in revenue.[1] Their revenue growth rate is ≈90% year over year. They're spending most of that on expansion (paying SpaceX for more launches, manufacturing more/better satellites, and manufacturing terminals). If they wanted to, they could scale back these expenditures and rake in the money. But long-term, they stand to gain more if they spend their revenues on ways to grow their business. Their customer base has increased by 30% since those financial statements came out, so their finances are most likely in even better shape now. For comparison, last year Viasat had $4.3B in revenue and lost $1B. This year their revenue has been flat. They lost revenue in communication services (probably from Starlink) and gained revenue in military contracts.[2] 1. https://www.scribd.com/document/886692980/GI-2139325374 https://www.scribd.com/document/886692980/GI-2139325374 2. https://investors.viasat.com/static-files/c89c3424-4ad3-4fe2-b064-72fa222990c9 https://investors.viasat.com/static-files/c89c3424-4ad3-4fe2...
- mhio 1y agoFor anyone interested in current data like this, Jonathan McDowell maintains GCAT which is a General Catalog of Artificial Space Objects (and does so fastidiously). https://www.planet4589.org/space/gcat/index.html https://www.planet4589.org/space/gcat/index.html Be warned if you planning to ingest this dataset, the dates are fun =)
- KurSix 1y agoPretty wild to think that over a third of all the satellites orbiting Earth belong to one private company. Space used to feel like the domain of governments and sci-fi
- Tuna-Fish 1y agoThat was a few years ago. More like two thirds today.
- voigt 1y agoIs there something like https://www.flightradar24.com https://www.flightradar24.com for satellites? Would be kind of interesting to build a “live” visualization of objects in earths orbit. But this would require accurate live data of those objects. Probably nothing that companies would publish. On the other hand side: once the object and its orbit is identified, positions could be calculated… Does anyone know more?
- dobladov 1y agohttps://satellitemap.space/ https://satellitemap.space/
- dobladov 1y agoAnother interesting site already featured on Hacker News. https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/ https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/
- croisillon 1y agoi didn't know that one and now i'm forwarding it to everybody, love the streetview thing
- ulrikrasmussen 1y agohttps://stuffin.space https://stuffin.space also shows debree, and will show orbits when you click on objects.
- HPsquared 1y agoUnlike aircraft, satellites have VERY predictable movements, with the occasional small maneuver.
- numpad0 1y agohttps://www.heavens-above.com/ https://www.heavens-above.com/ https://www.space-track.org/ https://www.space-track.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Designator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Designator
- 1y ago
- account-5 1y ago> Did you know that we provide flexible and robust data acquisition hardware and software that can be used for testing satellites, rockets, airplanes, or helicopters in the air, in space, or on the ground? Our solutions are used and trusted by leading aerospace companies. Contact us to learn more. Interesting article for a sales pitch. Nicely done.
- AndroTux 1y agoDoes that mean that the entire EU has no military satellites at all? (Or maybe like 10 from France's CNES, and that's it?)
- mrweasel 1y agoThose Swedish military satellites are just kept extremely secret. Countries like Germany, Spain, France and Italy does have a number of satellites and it doesn't seem to be specified what they are doing. It would be weird if none of those where not military.
- Hilift 1y agoEurope is a more finite geospatial target. Fewer resources required. France has already stated they have the capability to fill the gap for Ukraine for up-to-date movements along the 1,000+ km line. They are currently working on the next generation program, IRIS, with a target date of 2027. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS%C2%B2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS%C2%B2 https://europeanspaceflight.com/ariane-6-successfully-delivers-french-spy-satellite-to-orbit/ https://europeanspaceflight.com/ariane-6-successfully-delive...
- nixass 1y ago*that we know of
- pedromilcent 1y agoIt would also be interesting to learn more about launch locations and how countries near the equator can benefit from this booming sector.
- mojuba 1y agoOff-topic but wow, what a nice, concise and no-bullshit cookie banner. I wish everyone's cookie banner was like this, the web would have been a better place! Seriously.
- Western0 1y agoPoland have 10-20 satelites 2 army and many optical satelites , bocian, heveliusz, etc.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]