4 ms·

From a technical standpoint: amazing achievement, and the tech nerd in me is in awe. But it feels like a lot of people don't understand (or care?) how much thes

by grvbck 9mo ago

From a technical standpoint: amazing achievement, and the tech nerd in me is in awe. But it feels like a lot of people don't understand (or care?) how much these companies are polluting the space. Before the "new wave", in 2010-2015 or so, Earth had around 1500 active satellites in orbit, and another 2,000-2,500 defunct ones. Starlink now has almost 9,500 satellites in orbit, has approvals for 12,000 and long-term plans for up to 42,000. Blue Origin has added 5,500 to that. Amazon plans for 3,000. China has two megaconstellations under construction, for a total of 26,000, and has filed for even larger systems, up to 200,000 satellites. We might be the last generation that is able to watch the stars.

grvbck 9mo ago
(Also, for a frame of reference as to how large these numbers are: the entire gps network operates on 31 satellites.)
direwolf20 9mo ago
How many causes Kessler syndrome?
- NitpickLawyer 9mo ago
  At the altitudes these mega-constellations operate at, kessler syndrome is not a real threat. Even if left unpowered, everything there will naturally re-enter the atmosphere in ~5 years.
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    5 years of no Starlink is a serious threat, especially to SpaceX.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > How many causes Kessler syndrome? Space is huge. Try this trick: the number of satellites in orbit is about the same as the number of planes in the air at any time. (~12,000 [1].) The volume of space from the ground to 50,000 feet is about 200x smaller than the volume from the Karman line to the top of LEO alone (~2,000 km). Put another way, we approach the density of planes in the sky in LEO when there are milliions of satellites in that space alone. Picture what happens if every plane in the sky fell to the ground. Now understand that the same thing happening in LEO, while it occurs at higher energy, also occurs in less-occupied space and will eventually (mostly) burn up in the atmosphere. Put another way, you could poof every Starlink simultaneously and while it would be tremendously annoying, most satellites orbiting lower would be able to get out of the way, those that couldn't wouldn't cause much more damage, the whole mess would be avoidable for most and entirely gone within a few years. There are serious problems with space pollution. Catastrophic Kessler cascades that block humans from space, or knock out all of our satellites, aren't one of them. [1] https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of-planes-in-air https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of...
  - nullhole 9mo ago
    You're ignoring the speed they're travelling at. For a given period of time, a single satellite will travel through a vastly larger volume of space than a single plane.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > You're ignoring the speed Nope. > a single satellite will travel through a vastly larger volume of space than a single plane Linearly (with a cap). Volume grows faster.
stefan_ 9mo ago
Is it a lot? It's a bit like you are telling me there are gonna be 250000 cars on a planet larger than Earth.
- looperhacks 9mo ago
  With the difference that cars can steer and stop to avoid collisions and aren't necessarily in your field of view every time you look at the night sky ;) I have no idea if the number is actually a lot shrug but it's surely different than cars on a planet's surface
  - GMoromisato 9mo ago
    LEO Satellites are only visible after dawn and before sunrise. They are invisible to the eye and even large telescopes when they are not in sunlight.
gogasca 9mo ago
[dead]
quaintdev 9mo ago
I wonder if there's a limit to space junk beyond which leaving the Earth in a space shuttle becomes impossible.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > wonder if there's a limit to space junk beyond which leaving the Earth in a space shuttle becomes impossible There is. We don't have the industrial capacity, as a species, to do it.
  - m4rtink 9mo ago
    Not to mention low orbit being self cleaning and higher orbits being exponentially more space. You can map the junk with radar & plot the launch to avoid it.
- Aurornis 9mo ago
  These satellites are low Earth orbit (LEO) They're extremely sparse. Imagine putting 12,000 satellites randomly over the surface of the Earth. You're just not going to bump into one, statistically. Now expand that into 3D space in an orbital zone above us. It's not a collision risk.
- m4rtink 9mo ago
  It is already impossible - all the remaining Space Shuttles are in a museum, not to mention all Space Shuttle missions were (and were always intended to be) to Earth orbit. No Space Shuttle ever went past 600 km hight Earth orbit.
leetharris 9mo ago
"Polluting" is a very charged term. These satellites provide immense value. So far, there is no evidence these will stop us from watching the stars.
- GuinansEyebrows 9mo ago
  "value" is also a very charged term, and pollution is nearly purely a byproduct of the pursuit of value.
Aurornis 9mo ago
> We might be the last generation that is able to watch the stars. I'm not convinced this is a major issue, but I'd like to hear arguments for why it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't LEO satellites only going to reflect light from the sun when they're at low angles near sunrise and sunset? For night time stargazing, they're going to be in Earth's shadow, too. The amount of light they reflect back is also small. They can be seen if you look closely at just the right time, but I don't understand how this is supposed to be so much light that it starts raising the overall background light level considerably. The satellites are small and can only reflect so much. Is it just annoyance that they're up there and showing up in photos?
- justin66 9mo ago
  > Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't LEO satellites only going to reflect light from the sun when they're at low angles near sunrise and sunset? For night time stargazing, they're going to be in Earth's shadow, too. Iridium's LEO satellites were sometimes (impressively) visible after midnight.

by grvbck 9mo ago

grvbck 9mo ago

(Also, for a frame of reference as to how large these numbers are: the entire gps network operates on 31 satellites.)

direwolf20 9mo ago

How many causes Kessler syndrome?

NitpickLawyer 9mo ago
At the altitudes these mega-constellations operate at, kessler syndrome is not a real threat. Even if left unpowered, everything there will naturally re-enter the atmosphere in ~5 years.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  5 years of no Starlink is a serious threat, especially to SpaceX.
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> How many causes Kessler syndrome? Space is huge. Try this trick: the number of satellites in orbit is about the same as the number of planes in the air at any time. (~12,000 [1].) The volume of space from the ground to 50,000 feet is about 200x smaller than the volume from the Karman line to the top of LEO alone (~2,000 km). Put another way, we approach the density of planes in the sky in LEO when there are milliions of satellites in that space alone. Picture what happens if every plane in the sky fell to the ground. Now understand that the same thing happening in LEO, while it occurs at higher energy, also occurs in less-occupied space and will eventually (mostly) burn up in the atmosphere. Put another way, you could poof every Starlink simultaneously and while it would be tremendously annoying, most satellites orbiting lower would be able to get out of the way, those that couldn't wouldn't cause much more damage, the whole mess would be avoidable for most and entirely gone within a few years. There are serious problems with space pollution. Catastrophic Kessler cascades that block humans from space, or knock out all of our satellites, aren't one of them. [1] https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of-planes-in-air https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of...
- nullhole 9mo ago
  You're ignoring the speed they're travelling at. For a given period of time, a single satellite will travel through a vastly larger volume of space than a single plane.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > You're ignoring the speed Nope. > a single satellite will travel through a vastly larger volume of space than a single plane Linearly (with a cap). Volume grows faster.

stefan_ 9mo ago

Is it a lot? It's a bit like you are telling me there are gonna be 250000 cars on a planet larger than Earth.

looperhacks 9mo ago
With the difference that cars can steer and stop to avoid collisions and aren't necessarily in your field of view every time you look at the night sky ;) I have no idea if the number is actually a lot shrug but it's surely different than cars on a planet's surface
- GMoromisato 9mo ago
  LEO Satellites are only visible after dawn and before sunrise. They are invisible to the eye and even large telescopes when they are not in sunlight.

gogasca 9mo ago

[dead]

quaintdev 9mo ago

I wonder if there's a limit to space junk beyond which leaving the Earth in a space shuttle becomes impossible.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> wonder if there's a limit to space junk beyond which leaving the Earth in a space shuttle becomes impossible There is. We don't have the industrial capacity, as a species, to do it.
- m4rtink 9mo ago
  Not to mention low orbit being self cleaning and higher orbits being exponentially more space. You can map the junk with radar & plot the launch to avoid it.
Aurornis 9mo ago
These satellites are low Earth orbit (LEO) They're extremely sparse. Imagine putting 12,000 satellites randomly over the surface of the Earth. You're just not going to bump into one, statistically. Now expand that into 3D space in an orbital zone above us. It's not a collision risk.
m4rtink 9mo ago
It is already impossible - all the remaining Space Shuttles are in a museum, not to mention all Space Shuttle missions were (and were always intended to be) to Earth orbit. No Space Shuttle ever went past 600 km hight Earth orbit.

leetharris 9mo ago

"Polluting" is a very charged term. These satellites provide immense value. So far, there is no evidence these will stop us from watching the stars.

GuinansEyebrows 9mo ago
"value" is also a very charged term, and pollution is nearly purely a byproduct of the pursuit of value.

Aurornis 9mo ago

> We might be the last generation that is able to watch the stars. I'm not convinced this is a major issue, but I'd like to hear arguments for why it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't LEO satellites only going to reflect light from the sun when they're at low angles near sunrise and sunset? For night time stargazing, they're going to be in Earth's shadow, too. The amount of light they reflect back is also small. They can be seen if you look closely at just the right time, but I don't understand how this is supposed to be so much light that it starts raising the overall background light level considerably. The satellites are small and can only reflect so much. Is it just annoyance that they're up there and showing up in photos?

justin66 9mo ago
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't LEO satellites only going to reflect light from the sun when they're at low angles near sunrise and sunset? For night time stargazing, they're going to be in Earth's shadow, too. Iridium's LEO satellites were sometimes (impressively) visible after midnight.