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.
its not the most intuitive setup but theres a lot of info available.
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.
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.
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.
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)
There are huge military advantages right now. The US military will not willingly give up starlink, and they can use it in every country without permission.
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.
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
A lot of the trackers miss the trains because trains occur within the first few orbits after a launch. So if they don’t start recording data until some delayed event, they miss it. I had this problem a lot with live night sky trackers not showing the trains despite me seeing them quite clearly.
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 .
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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:
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.
mrspacejam | 6 hours ago
Eduard | 6 hours ago
delichon | 6 hours ago
killjoywashere | 6 hours ago
Quiza12 | 5 hours ago
ultimoo | 4 hours ago
bagels | 4 hours ago
[OP] rolph | 3 hours ago
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.
ikari_pl | 4 hours ago
vachina | 4 hours ago
signatoremo | an hour ago
iknowstuff | 2 hours ago
krige | an hour ago
lnenad | 40 minutes ago
pgalvin | 21 minutes ago
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.
csomar | 30 minutes ago
Dig1t | an hour ago
sfblah | an hour ago
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.
ruszki | an hour ago
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.
spacebanana7 | an hour ago
ruszki | an hour ago
hn111 | 3 hours ago
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
kortilla | 3 hours ago
scrollop | 3 hours ago
gbalduzzi | 3 hours ago
There are two clearly demarcations both north and south
[OP] rolph | 3 hours ago
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.
peddling-brink | 3 hours ago
kortilla | 3 hours ago
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.
namuol | 3 hours ago
figgy99 | 2 hours ago
Cider9986 | 2 hours ago
saastester | an hour ago
kklisura | an hour ago
gspr | an hour ago
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.
zipy124 | 17 minutes ago
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.
petarb | an hour ago