A Starlink satellite is roughly 6 m (20 ft) wide without its solar panels. This means a one-pixel satellite marker is shown at roughly 1,000 times its true size. So even if this image already looks extremely crowded, the dots are still massively exaggerated. Visually, there would be roughly another factor of 1,000 before the satellites themselves were shown at their true scale—although this does not mean that orbit could easily accommodate 1,000 times more satellites but I guess there is still some space in space.
Cool app though, have it on a large screen at our work to visualise the constellations we work with as a fun screensaver type thing.
But the sad reality many of the hardware is Elon Musk's ejaculation stains, polluting the skies.
How many uplinks can one satellite handle?
> The results indicate the current population of intact objects exceeds the unstable threshold at all altitudes between 400 km and 1000 km and the runaway threshold at nearly all altitudes between 520 km and 1000 km.
https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...
I wonder if there are other satellites not included in this dataset, or if I should search way further from the location on the map
Their is no communication need that is greater than our need to understand space and space weather. If the satellite operators can't stop destroying the night sky, their launch permission should be removed, so as their old satellites fall, new ones won't be allowed to launch.
Further, if the federal government won't intervene (looking at the U.S. because Starlink). Then states should make those satellite receivers illegal.
The Starlink v2 is 100ft on it's longest dimension. This means that the actual size of the satellite relative to the dot is on the same order of magnitude (.6%) as the dot is to the size of the US when it takes up my entire screen.
click on a dot and it will show up on a list to top left, click on an item in that list and you get a flyout menu to the top left with a bunch of data regarding the satellite.
This contrasts greatly with actual GNSS – the whole point of GPS and the others is that you don't need to determine those angles. The only thing you need to determine is the signal delay (i.e. distance) from a few satellites. That's a lot more convenient.
linear error≈Rtan(Δθ)≈RΔθ
Here linear error is the error in position, R is the distance from the observer to the target and θ is the angle error. You would need incredibly good optics and resolution to minimise angular error and thus linear error.
Moreover, are the satellites all moving around like that, haphazardly?
In order to cover those northern/southern extremes, more expensive high inclination orbits are required (in the US these are launched from California). They are more expensive because you’re no longer getting the rotational velocity of the earth for free in your orbital velocity.
So for a LEO constellation you want to minimize the launches to high inclinations and keep the bulk in those juicy easterly ones.
Space-based businesses are hoping to grandfather themselves in once laws are established about the use of space, and betting that by then whatever service they offer will be seen as indispensable.
There are two clearly demarcations both north and south
the anti collision manuevers are hard as well.
orbits are simpler at lower lattitudes where you run a trajectory, close to parallel to the equator.
This is literally the coolest thing we as a species achieved that doesn't serve self-preservation purposes.
This affects both commercial potential (fewer possible subscribers) and bandwidth congestion (dittos). For both you'd want fewer birds in those orbits, and orbital dynamics only strengthen the argument.
I've also seen reports that, as the satellites become overburdened, speeds are pretty variable. Again, not saying it's a net negative, but I just don't think there are "huge advantages" to Starlink.
'Secret military documents from clandestine forums between Russia and China have revealed a possible joint strategic plan to disable Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network alongside a deep weapons development partnership spanning hypersonic missile defense and autonomous drones, The Insider reported on July 9.'
https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/07/09/russia-and-china-discus...
couldn't be more wrong
I’m thinking buying a camper van, and just travel through the world. Except I need internet, everywhere.
There are no such options. Starlink is the best, but there are two main problems with it:
- In the countries where it would be the most useful, it’s not allowed to be used (Garmin has the same problem with their Fenix 8 Pro, their availability maps are a joke) - You need to go back to your “home” country every other month (there is a non legal, thus risky, option to circumvent this for now)
So, that huge advantage is not here yet at all.
1. A private company.
2. Of a single country with inconsistent leaders.
I’d be less anxious if Europe had this capability instead.
There is also the problem that as R shrinks, speed increases relative to you.
This is a civilization level defining achievement.
In the decade before that (so 2006-2015) we had four accidental collisions and two anti-satellite tests (China and US)
Those are not frequent events. And if you attribute any statistical significance to them, it seems we are getting much better at avoiding collisions
It's a civilisation that has failed to clean up its own waste and byproducts threatening its own existence.
For some, that's an outright failure, for others, less than stellar.
https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...
Germany had SES/Astra: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SES_Astra>.
The EU as a whole as the Galileo satnav / GPS project: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation_...>.
There are numerous other EU satellite comms providers, though most are aimed at commercial/broadcast services. That's a departure point for satellite-phone or satellite-internet, however.
Europe can and has developed similar and/or precursor capabilities.
There are other reasons we don’t currently experience major problems with collisions in space, and why airplanes sometimes do, but it is not this.
I'd add to your list...Or do Khan Academy, learn how to purify water, find out recent grain prices a 10 hour drive away, decide if your baby's rash needs an expensive trip in to town, and so on.
In Guam it means 10Gbps without Fiber.
- data throughput orders of magnitude higher,
- the ability to use smaller and more portable antennas (e.g. ~100 Mbps with something the size of a textbook, currently ~2 Mbps and soon ~10s Mbps with your normal mobile phone),
- order of magnitude lower latency compared to GSO satellites.
Other constellations like Iridium dedicate large portions to use by government(s?), too, but simply do not have the throughput or total bandwidth that Starlink does. Your speeds there, on the expensive business plans that offer it, are measured in the low Kbps.
Here's some math:
Average Earth diameter: 12742kms + 10km Average airplane surface area = 500m2 12752^2*pi = 510,865,389km2 Surface flight/plane = 1021730 planes
Starlink orbit height = ~500km Surface at orbit = ~551,712,377 so ~8% increase (which is non-negligible) Average Starlink satellite surface area = ~7m2 Surface LEO/satelite = 78816053 satellites (77x compared to airplanes)
Daily flights 50k-100k. Total number of satellites <20k.
And this is only for Starlink LEO. If you go for higher orbits the surface grows substantially. Also satellites have predictable paths, altitudes, airplanes maneuver and turn, gain altitude/lose altitude. They gather around points (airfields) etc...
Conversely:
> Daily flights 50k-100k. Total number of satellites <20k.
Those 20k satellites orbit roughly every 95 minutes, so they're doing ~15 orbits per day, and even the longest flights from conventional aircraft are about half that distance, so by distance each satellite in LEO is doing strictly more than the equivalent of 30 flights per day each.
Research I'm doing for a blog post has shown me that the exact position of a satellite is surprisingly variable compared to what you'd reasonably expect from a "Newtonian spherical Earth with a perfect vacuum" approximation of the orbits, enough so that it makes sense to treat 1 km as the "collision avoidance manoeuvres needed" threshold.