Question Do We Really Need 6,000 Satellites?

[Burbank Rob]

"The huge, ever-growing LEO [Starlink] constellation currently consists of 6,799 operational spacecraft," said Space.com on December 5, 2024. That seems like a lot.

 

[Classical Motion]

After 25 years of google maps, I’m hoping for a modern version. Real time, zoom-able, high resolution satellite views. With the ability to recall past views to compare with.

Daily satellite library. A catalog. In the future, herds, flocks and even schools will be tracked. Like people are now.

I’ll bet 10 years from now, 6000 will be a very low number.

 

[DanIAm]

6000 in LEO is not many.

There is a lot of space in space, e.g. the circumference of the equator is 25,000 miles/40,000km and Starlink obviously doesn't travel only around the equator but spreads across the globe - Starlink is in 24 orbital planes, so 6000 satellites in 24 planes is 250 satellites per orbital plane (or in a sense, it's 250 satellites per 40,000km line) and they will all be going in one direction on that plane at the same speed, 160km away from the next one. If there is a problem with one, they can deorbit it within weeks, even if one completely malfunctions, it will fall back to earth by itself in a few years.

Alternative constellations to Starlink won't crowd into Starlinks layer, they'll pick a different altitude and have that to themselves, so completely seperate shells/layers. So don't think in 2d terms like a map of the world, it's in 3d and consequently so much bigger. A bakers oven might fit 100 muffins on a shelf, but with 10 shelves it would have space for 1000 muffins (sorry to any and all bakers, it was for illustrative purposes, I dont know how many muffins/oven ).

 

[George²]

Space debris in orbit is around 130 millions, from it's over 40 thousands with size 10 centimetres and larger. Active satellites are over 12000. There has alternative numbers, depends what tracking site you read.