←back to thread

93 points cratermoon | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mapt ◴[] No.42198516[source]
The current trajectory is that SpaceX proved the commercial and military viability of an LEO megaconstellation, repeatedly lowering their target altitudes and raising their satellite count because of debris and cell size concerns...

And now the rest of the world is trying to catch up in a sort of arms race, and not taking any care about debris concerns. The most tempting orbits are the ones in upper LEO that permit them to launch fewer satellites.

SpaceX are going to end up well under 500km (orbital lifespan: a decade) before things are finished, and they switched to very low orbit staging with SEP spiral out to reach final orbit a ways back.

China's newest constellation Thousand Sails is at an altitude of 800km (orbital lifespan: thousands of years), with a thousand satellites in the works over the next year or so and 14,000 planned, and they're launching them using chemical upper stages designed to explode into a thousand pieces at the target altitude. This is sufficient for Kessler Syndrome all on its own, without counting interactions with anything else up there. A catastropic debris cascade at 800km percolates down to lower altitudes over time and impacts.

We need viable treaties limiting development beyond 400 or 500km and we need them ten years ago.

I don't know how to sell the urgency of this predicament. You can have as many satellites as you want, a million uncoordinated bodies, at 400km because direct collision potential scales with (satellite count / orbital lifespan) ^2 . At 1000km, satellites decay so slowly we are already too crowded; we have already overused the space. We are speed-running the end of the space age and we are doing it to save a small number of dollars and to avoid a small amount of diplomacy.

This is not something we get a do-over on. There is no practical way to collect ton-scale debris at present, no way to track kilogram-scale debris, no practical way to shield pressure vessels against gram-scale debris, and even milligram-scale debris can hit with the force of a bullet. After collisions start occurring at a rapid clip, the mass of potential impactors quickly forms a long tailed lognormal distribution that denies us space for centuries.

replies(10): >>42198566 #>>42198775 #>>42198922 #>>42199151 #>>42199177 #>>42199520 #>>42201406 #>>42201836 #>>42201926 #>>42201995 #
leptons ◴[] No.42198922[source]
>I don't know how to sell the urgency of this predicament. You can have as many satellites as you want, a million uncoordinated bodies, at 400km because direct collision potential scales with (satellite count / orbital lifespan) ^2 . At 1000km, satellites decay so slowly we are already too crowded; we have already overused the space. We are speed-running the end of the space age and we are doing it to save a small number of dollars and to avoid a small amount of diplomacy.

This sounds like the most first-world-problem ever. It realistically affects practically nobody alive, nor would it ever. Most people will live and die on the planet's surface and never visit space, nor do they need to. There aren't too many space-based services that are really necessary to life on earth. Nobody really needs internet in the middle of nowhere. Sure, it's nice to have, but that's a first world problem that few people have.

replies(2): >>42198982 #>>42199578 #
1. chrisnight ◴[] No.42199578[source]
Having satellites orbiting the planet is more beneficial than just solving the first-world problem of “knowing where you are” or “having Internet”.

NASA has done a large amount of work to use satellite data to forecast and then work to improve agricultural yields covering the entire planet. It definitely isn’t necessary, but to dismiss the improvement that has been made is crazy, and I’d hardly call “feeding people around the world” a first-world luxury given by space travel.

replies(1): >>42201514 #
2. hakfoo ◴[] No.42201514[source]
We can and should have satellites, but we can certainly be thrifty with how we use them.

The megaconstellation concept isn't necessary for most of the "cool stuff you can do with satellites." You might need a handful of weather or GPS satellites, and you can be more selective for orbits and lifecycle management if you're a responsible government operator.

The Starlink fiasco (and its clones) solely exists because we're abysmal at getting telecom projects built. If 80% of the country had the network connection you'd expect by 2024-- something like symmetric 10Gbps FTTH for $150 per month, and the other 20% was on a "real soon now" waiting list, there's precious little business case for Starlink.

Think about it: It was easier to plan out and deliver DOZENS OF ROCKET LAUNCHES AND A GALAXY OF SATELLITES than to tie down our existing telecom firms until they actually built a decent network, using technology like "backhoes" and "fibre-optic cables" that have existed for decades, cost next to nothing, and don't require literal rocket scientists to deploy.

The American telephone network under Ma Bell was almost a Wonder of the World for its scale, resilience, and universal accessibility-- and in barely one generation we ripped it out and failed to replace it with anything comparable.

I would argue the case there's a marginal case for one modest capacity public data constellation. The business case is basically Iridium warmed over-- for the places where there is no other practical option (ships at sea, completely undeveloped territories)-- you can pay $10 per gigabyte for 128k down, or to support some form of 911 outside of cell ranges. Arguably, we already had the infrastructure for that with the pre-Starlink satellite products (Viasat/Hughesnet)

But we hardly need every major power (and probably a bunch of private competitive duplication) blasting crap into space to make the deluxe version that's still not as good as a fibre running to your home.