7 ms·
Low Earth Orbit Visualization
- Dragonborn 1y ago[flagged]
- pjscott 1y agoIt may comfort you to hear that the Starlink satellites are tiny in comparison to the vastness of their orbit – the visualization makes them appear larger than they are, so you can see them clearly – and that they’re low enough that they’ll naturally de-orbit and burn up in the atmosphere after about 15 years even without using their maneuvering thrusters. They’re providing worldwide rural broadband, and according to the FAA they’re doing so in a way that’s careful and responsible about space debris and collision avoidance. Is disgust truly warranted in this case?
- adastra22 1y agoStarlink satellites are in low enough orbit to decay on very short timescales. More worrisome are Russian satellites in high / very long lived orbits that tend to spontaneously explode.
- ronsor 1y agoIs "spontaneously explode" supposed to be a joke about how Russia will use them as bombs, or are they actually poorly designed?
- adastra22 1y agoThey actually explode. https://spacenews.com/low-intensity-explosion-caused-russian-satellite-to-spew-debris/ https://spacenews.com/low-intensity-explosion-caused-russian...
- AngryData 1y agoTo be fair the article also said it could have been a collision, even if it isn't super likely.
- adastra22 1y agoIt's not the only one, just the most recent. A collision can't be ruled out, but there is a frequent tendency of old, retired Russian satellites just exploding for no reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_debris_producing_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_debris_producing...
- Rebelgecko 1y agoBefore the Chinese A-Sat weapon tests, the #1 source of space junk was radioactive coolant leaking from old Soviet nuclear reactors in space (not RTGs, literally nuclear reactors)
- Hacker_Yogi 1y agoThis is true! Had no idea! "The Soviet Union has been flying nuclear power sources in space since about 1965. For the most part these nuclear power sources have been low-power nuclear reactors using a thermoelectric conversion principle." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900051140 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900051140
- perihelions 1y agoThe thing 'rebelgecko is alluding to is specific, and fascinating! The coolant in these space reactors is a molten metal (low-melting point sodium-potassium eutectic). When they leaked in the space vacuum, the liquid dispersed into a large number of small, metal spherules, which formed rings around Earth. Because the spherules are metallic and smooth, they're (comparatively) easy to track by radar, from Earth. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190033494/downloads/20190033494.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190033494/downloads/20... (pdf) ("The NaK Population: a 2019 Status")
- Polizeiposaune 1y agoNot just Russian. There have also been a few cases recently where spent Centaur upper stages -- which were thought to have been completely passivated -- broke apart for unknown reasons. These were in a geosynchronous transfer orbit (with apogee near geosynchronous orbit, perigee down near LEO) so the debris won't decay any time soon.
- adastra22 1y agoUpper stages breaking apart is kinda expected. It's a rocket, and it has rocket fuel (explosives) on board. Derelict spy satellites, on the other hand, shouldn't be just going kaboom for no reason. But the Russian ones do. As noted by another poster, prior to the recent ASAT tests, one of the largest sources of junk was old Soviet nuclear-powered satellites leaking coolant and/or having their pressure vessels explode. Mind you these are actual nuclear reactors, not RTGs.
- Polizeiposaune 1y agoNo, all residual fuel (and anything pressurized) should have been vented after the last burn and there shouldn't be anything left on board with enough energy to cause it to break apart. It's a real mystery.
- ricksunny 1y ago(May I ask what definition of ‘passivate’ you are applying here? Even allowing for flexibility in the definition or autocorrect, and applying context, I can’t fathom what is intended to be conveyed by ‘upper stages - which were thought to have been completely passivated’)
- perihelions 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivation_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivation_(spacecraft) ("Passivation (spacecraft)") And used in context (this context), > "The incident is the fourth time a Centaur upper stage has broken up since 2018. In the earlier three cases, the breakups created hundreds of pieces of debris, but no known collisions. That has raised questions about a potential design flaw with the stage or a failure to “passivate” the stage by venting propellant tanks and draining batteries, removing energy that could cause a breakup." https://spacenews.com/faa-to-complete-orbital-debris-upper-stage-regulations-in-2025/ https://spacenews.com/faa-to-complete-orbital-debris-upper-s...
- Levitating 1y agoAside from light pollution they leak radio signals which is starting to impact our ability to make astronomical observations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Impact_on_astronomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Impact_on_astronomy
- corrino1 1y ago[flagged]
- mlindner 1y agoThat's not true. Starlink was developed for its stated purpose. It's a conspiracy pushed by Russian plants that it's for missile defense. A lot of information on that wiki page is made up. Like the constant talk of griffin.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Tepix 1y agoYou're saying he didn't accompany Musk on his trips to Russia when he wanted to buy a rocket (before founding SpaceX)?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> he didn't accompany Musk on his trips to Russia when he wanted to buy a rocket (before founding SpaceX)? Shouldn’t this disprove the hypothesis? If you wanted Musk to build you a constellation, why would you want him to buy a rocket from Russia?
- mlindner 1y agoGriffin did not fund SpaceX. He does not have any money. And yes Griffin, among several other people, accompanied Musk to Russia as advisors for his private plan to buy rockets to send a mini-greenhouse to Mars. The failure to make a deal is what precipitated the creation of SpaceX. Elon offered Griffin the position of chief engineer at SpaceX, but Griffin refused.
- corrino1 1y ago[flagged]
- philipwhiuk 1y agoIt's more that Golden Dome is taking advantage of the architecture that Starlink has proved to be realistic. It will use separate satellites managed by the Space Development Agency (Tranche 0 consisting of proof of concept stuff launched a while ago
- dhosek 1y agoRed zones are “instruments” which isn’t defined, but is apparently surface-based observatories.
- flymasterv 1y agoStuff like Space Fence.
- hotep99 1y agoThis is great! Is there a way to set the visualization to the present moment and real-time?
- md224 1y agoIf you're looking for something real-time, I'd recommend checking out NASA's "Eyes on the Solar System" visualizer (not as comprehensive but still pretty cool): https://eyes.nasa.gov/apps/solar-system/#/earth https://eyes.nasa.gov/apps/solar-system/#/earth
- advisedwang 1y agoSet speed to "1" for realtime (I assume)
- mlindner 1y agoAny visualization representing real time and the present moment would be inaccurate. Tracking data can sometimes be several days old.
- AdammadA 1y agoNice to see United Kingdom using a predictable trajectory. Dismayed by so many other nations just crapping all over the planet without consideration though. The lack of foresight is frustrating.
- NullCascade 1y agoIt's just because a very significant amount of UK satellites are OneWeb Internet satellites.
- mlindner 1y agoThey're not really crapping all over. Orbits at different altitudes rotate around the planet from precession so any satellites spread out randomly over time.
- Rebelgecko 1y agoWhat makes a trajectory unpredictable? Noisy TLEs?
- elliottkember 1y agoObjects not to scale. Not even close, and no mention of it (that I saw). Graphing scale honestly is extremely important. A lot of people are convinced our sky is full of satellites because of visualizations like this.
- dhosek 1y agoProper scale makes the visualization impractical. I wrote about this with respect to a US map showing mountains on my mailing list: https://dahosek.substack.com/p/one-million-stories https://dahosek.substack.com/p/one-million-stories “any accurate depiction of elevation would be indistinguishable from a flat map at that scale. The coast-to-coast measure of the US is a bit under 3000 miles, while the highest elevation in the continental US is a bit under 4½ miles above sea level, so in a 1000-pixel map, that would translate to a 1–2 pixel height for Mt Whitney which is the highest point in the contiguous United States.” and also “the difference in elevation between Everest and the Marianas Trench is less than the bulging of the earth from its rotation. And that amount is less than you might guess. If we scale the earth down to a diameter of one foot (which would be bigger than my childhood globe), the bulge would be 0.04in or roughly 1mm. Good luck distinguishing your oblate spheroid from a sphere with those numbers.”
- officehero 1y agoYes and to be clear on what "practical" means here. If there's a mountain between origin-destination for a road trip it's relevant to highlight it. In the case of orbits the objects may be small but they're very fast and very dangerous.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- theideaofcoffee 1y agoIf anyone is curious, as I was, about the large red shapes on the map, those are the beams of the object tracking/measurement sites. They correlate with the maps at [0]. I was actually pretty blown away when I started reading that page. Apparently those stations can measure <10cm-sized debrisin orbit. What?! Amazing. [0] https://leolabs.space/radars/ https://leolabs.space/radars/
- dguest 1y agoThere are "beams" and "instruments". Does anyone know what the distinction is?
- tj_astro 1y agoThe instrument is the particular radar. They usually have two at each location. Each radar is essentially a linear phased array that creates multiple possible beam locations in the radar plane. They light up a beam as a satellite passes through in order to collect measurements. TLDR an instrument has multiple beams.
- dguest 1y agoOk so there should be "beams" coming from each "instrument"? I didn't see that, but some of the sites are inactive at the moment.
- dtkav 1y agoFor those who don't know, Leo Labs operates a commercial version of NORAD radar sites that track satellites and debris. If you're a satellite operator looking to avoid conjunctions, then buying additional measurements helps reduce uncertainty (which is often needed in order to decide if you should conduct a maneuver).
- philipwhiuk 1y agoIn other words this deliberate deception is a sales pitch
- dluan 1y agoInstinctively I know the scale is off and changes the perception of this as a visualization, but this is still terribly depressing.
- hersko 1y agoThis is the opposite of depressing. Look what we've been able to do! Each of those have/had a purpose and reason for being there and we've gotten tremendous benefit from satellites in space.
- laxisOp 1y agoHow accurate is this . And where is our space station
- neitsa 1y agoIn the search box, input "ISS" and filter by perigee (min: 380; max: 500). You should see the name of one of the modules of the ISS, such as "ISS (Zarya)" [0] or "ISS (Nauka)" [1]. If you can't find it on the visualisation at first, you can get its current location at https://isstracker.pl/en https://isstracker.pl/en . [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarya_(ISS_module) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarya_(ISS_module) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauka_(ISS_module) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauka_(ISS_module)
- dguest 1y agoWe have a few [0]. Some others have pointed out ISS, but there's also Tiangong which you can filter for [1] by looking for 48274 (the NORAD ID). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_stations#Operational_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_stations#Operati... [1]: https://platform.leolabs.space/visualizations/leo#search=48274;view=inclination;originCountry=CN https://platform.leolabs.space/visualizations/leo#search=482...
- dostick 1y agoIf you zoom in, about one in 20 is tumbling around path randomly, and its description is “Rocket body”. But it’s not on “Debris” layer. I wonder why it doesn’t qualify for debris if it looks likely uncontrollable.
- dotancohen 1y agoAlmost every single active satellite that I click is a Starlink satellite. Amazing how much SpaceX has gotten up there. And all those were launched on Falcon 9 rockets, with I think only two launch failures ever.
- Tuna-Fish 1y agoThree now, Starlink Group 9-3 launch failed in July last year. After the failure, the launch hold was cleared in 13 days, which has to be a record of some sort.
- boutell 1y agoDon't miss out on zooming in, each one is visualized so you can tell the non Starlink ones apart.
- FugeDaws 1y agoScale is important here. On this example you see satellites coming in close to each other and even clipping. In reality theyre so small that it makes this look 100x worse than it actually is
- gotts 1y ago> The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country.
- mapt 1y agoJust a reminder to everybody that we are competitively sprinting towards the brick wall of Kessler Syndrome by building out mega-constellations between about 600km and 1600km, sacrificing humanity's future in order to save a small amount of money right now using lower altitude orbits. Even Starlink is arguably flying too high, but the attempt to compete with them at 1000km where satellites will be causing secondary and tertiary debris events for literally millennia, makes that look sensible.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> sacrificing humanity's future in order to save a small amount of money right now using lower altitude orbits Kessler is more analogous to pollution than a brick wall. Specific orbits get trashed by a cascade, not the entire sky.
- mapt 1y agoSpecific orbits (732km with a 28 degree inclination and 130 degree longitude of the ascending node), but impacts also instantaneously spread debris out over anything close to any of those numbers (700-760, 27-29, 125-135); most debris get spread not in a normal distribution but in a bimodal distribution between the orbital elements of the two impactors, with an additional perimeter of debris kicked out with some random modest dV in every direction from the explosion according to how much impact energy they absorbed. To start with. But then, debris start to decay, and they decay unevenly, polluting all orbits lower than that. As this debris spreads to a crowded lower orbit it generates additional collisions. Orbits are cleared to lower orbits according to mass cross section at roughly 10x the rate for every 100km altitude drop. So everything that decays from an accumulation of higher orbits has to eventually pass through a 300km circular orbit, but it's relatively safe because it spends so little time there. Going full exponential cascade at 1000km might increase the number of impactors by a millionfold, though, which then proceed to rain down over the years on lower orbits.
- widowlark 1y agoHow is Starlink flying too high? Their orbital decay is something like 5 years right?
- orbisvicis 1y agoThis reminds me - I've been looking for an app, website or tool that can predict or visualize the location of any satellite up to a week out. Most softwares show only the intersection times of predicted orbits with fixed locations on earth, i.e. for telescope visibility.
- flerchin 1y agoThe visualisation is cool. I've never seen the debris fields visualized before. They look like scars. Might be neat to see a viz including the geo synchronous and sun synchronous orbits. Should show up as seemingly dense, but far away.
- thw_9a83c 1y agoThis is really nice! I wish there was a Starlink on/off layer switch, though. Since there are so many Starlink satellites.
- rclkrtrzckr 1y agoThat's the debris toggle, I guess SCNR
- thw_9a83c 1y ago> That's the debris toggle, I guess No, unfortunately I don't think so. Startlinks are there even when you "disable debris".