Just thinking out loud: given that we know positions of these satellites, is one able to use it for non-gps navigation? Either by using vision - by tracking or by using some electromagnetic specter - listening to satellites...
Not an expert but I imagine the problem with using vision is the problem of angular error propagation. That is the angle-> distance error problem:<p>linear error≈Rtan(Δθ)≈RΔθ<p>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.
Sure, if you're able to accurately determine angles between the Earth's tangent at your location and the satellites. That's how you'd navigate using the sun, moon and stars. I suspect those natural celestial bodies are much less of a hassle than man-made satellites.<p>This contrasts greatly with actual GNSS – the whole point of GPS and the others is that you <i>don't</i> 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.
I'm surprised that getting our low space to this state was even legal
There’s a lot of space in space. This is not to scale.
Why would it be illegal? There are virtually zero drawbacks and huge advantages to these satellites. They are not rendered to scale either, in reality they are minuscule compared to the amount of available space. There’s room for millions more spacecraft.
I think it's fair to classify the advantages as "modest" not "huge." Yes, it's cool that sailboats in the middle of the Pacific can get Internet, but the vast majority of Internet users are still connected via fiber or copper. And, arguably, the existence of Starlink could enable governments to cease the rollout of terrestrial Internet, which is a modest drawback to the technology.<p>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.
Huge advantages maybe in the future. Not now.<p>I’m thinking buying a camper van, and just travel through the world. Except I need internet, everywhere.<p>There are no such options. Starlink is the best, but there are two main problems with it:<p>- 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)<p>So, that huge advantage is not here yet at all.
US runs the show. Anything is possible.
Nice site but personally I like satellite.love more and satellitetracker3d.com is cool too, there's about 500 of these all with varying features.
That’s a good point. I understand why satellite.love stands out in terms of atmosphere—it’s the app I’d leave running in the background. Satellite Tracker 3D seems more straightforward when I want to take a closer look at a specific object, while satellitemap.space offers the most comprehensive features once you get used to its somewhat cluttered user interface. So I don’t think there’s a clear winner; each of these apps is optimized for atmosphere, user-friendliness, and data depth, respectively.
Which one shows the Jewish space lazers?
Just wow, I didn’t realize there’s that many star link satellites in orbit.
Half a year ago, I captured a photograph of a long train of satellites. However, when I navigate to that location using this tool, I don’t see any satellite train present at that specific timestamp.<p>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
If you zoom in you can see them moving. Click on them to see their tracks. I'm surprised how random the orbits seem. It's too cloudy at the moment but maybe on a clear night I can check the accuracy by looking up.
Why are there demarcations towards the poles where the satellite density drops off? Seems Norway, Sweden and Finland have a much lower density of satellites .
My understanding, and I’m not a rocket scientist, is that it’s easier to launch east/west and it costs a lot of delta v to move into a polar orbit.
polar orbits are hard, you have to take a big oblique track dipping into the lower lattitudes to run a trajectory that allows you to counter gravity.<p>the anti collision manuevers are hard as well.<p>orbits are simpler at lower lattitudes where you run a trajectory, close to parallel to the equator.
I wanted to ask the same thing.<p>There are two clearly demarcations both north and south
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination</a><p>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.<p>So for a LEO constellation you want to minimize the launches to high inclinations and keep the bulk in those juicy easterly ones.
Seeing them "slowly" move (but in reality incredibly quickly) reminds me of reading <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_(novel)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_(novel)</a>
That big zoom-out of Earth in the opening sequence of WALL•E comes to mind.
are their orbits and trajectories computed ahead of time to avoid collisions?
cool site! i appreciate satellite trackers and sometimes leave satellite.love up in the background in orbit mode with the music on at home.
the geosynchronous satellites fall on and bounce off earth