[HN Gopher] Starlink Satellites Tracker
___________________________________________________________________
Starlink Satellites Tracker
Author : danielsht
Score : 98 points
Date : 2021-05-07 20:26 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (findstarlink.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (findstarlink.com)
| erwinh wrote:
| For a 3d view of the satellites in orbit check out:
| https://space-search.io/?search=starlink
| callumprentice wrote:
| This is my favorite Starlink tracker - also has a nice
| integration with Google Street View and shows you exactly where
| to look. https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink
|
| EDIT: Removed "past times" parameter as suggested in comments.
| Also note you can remove also see loads of other satellites with
| an unadorned URL : https://james.darpinian.com/satellites
| modeless wrote:
| Thanks! I suggest removing the showPastTimes parameter from the
| link: https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink
| callumprentice wrote:
| I wondered about that but I wasn't able to see the Street
| View integration without it - I think you're right though -
| better without the past ones. Thank you.
| [deleted]
| bowmessage wrote:
| We are polluting our night skies and dark places.
| Kiro wrote:
| So what? What is the higher purpose of not "polluting" the
| night sky?
| anonyxyz wrote:
| It's introducing a fuck ton of low orbit debris that is
| already interfering with astronomical research. Satellites
| that fail or break are stuck up there.
| vultour wrote:
| Defunct low orbit satellites are not a giant issue as they
| deorbit relatively quickly.
| Diederich wrote:
| Go outside this evening if the sky is clear. If you're anywhere
| between 30 degrees and 60 degrees, there are multiple starlink
| satellites in your line of sight all the time.
|
| Can you point them out? No, they're invisible at their
| operational altitude.
| User23 wrote:
| That depends on how dark the area is. I heard that in a
| Bortle 5 or lower area they are naked eye visible, which
| really sucks for stargazers. Especially since some of the
| more interesting naked eye observations have to be done using
| peripheral vision.
| Diederich wrote:
| I've been unable to see them in class 2 areas.
|
| I'm a pretty ardent stargazer.
| Diederich wrote:
| I know that these sats will affect many telescopic
| observations, but that's been happening a long time.
|
| I understand that this interference will end up being
| several times more frequent. However, for many years,
| satellite streaks have been algorithmically removed from
| observations. It's possible that those algorithms will need
| to be upgraded.
|
| That's a small price to pay in exchange for robust and high
| speed Internet becoming available to huge numbers of people
| all over the world.
| User23 wrote:
| I have a Starlink deposit down and I still have my doubts
| about the merits of that trade-off. My reasoning is
| amateur astronomy is ruined anyhow so I may as well be
| able to stream Netflix on more devices and as a side
| benefit tech monopolies will be able to further extend
| their influence.
|
| Which, frankly, feels rather sordid.
|
| And in any event Starlink is nothing compared to the
| assholes planning satellite billboards.
| Causality1 wrote:
| Even if they weren't, we can't have everything. Do you know
| how crippled a huge chunk of the world's population is
| without robust internet access? I have two telescopes in my
| house and I would give up looking at the sky forever if it
| meant my cousin's kids got to attend Zoom class instead of
| having to work from take-home materials.
| Diederich wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| This is akin to people complaining about how wind mills
| ruin their views of things.
|
| I know that these sats will affect many telescopic
| observations, but that's been happening a long time. In
| most cases, satellite streaks are algorithmically removed.
| walrus01 wrote:
| I'm far more concerned about atmospheric particles (as measured
| by PM2.5, etc) and air pollution than I am about satellites.
|
| Go visit New Delhi or Lahore in mid winter and give us your
| subjective opinion of the air quality.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=delhi+air+pollution&client=u...
| reaperducer wrote:
| It's interesting to see so many of these satellites are listed as
| "Bright" in my area.
|
| Before the launches, the HN crowd promised repeatedly that nobody
| would be able to see these satellites and they would not change
| the night sky at all, and that that looking up in wonder is only
| something that old people and luddites do, because nothing is
| more important than global always-on sacred holy internet access.
| jmu1234567890 wrote:
| They are only bright for an initial period after launch.
| tectonic wrote:
| We also have a coverage map for Starlink:
| https://orbitalindex.com/feature/starlink-coverage/
| 8jy89hui wrote:
| I like this map, I just wish it didn't start with auto-rotate
| on. Auto-rotate just makes it hard to see as the satellites
| travel around the world.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Wow those are few and far between. Isn't the idea of starlink
| that you'd have internet all the time?
|
| Edit: Aahhh I see now, it's meant for stargazers (well,
| starlinkgazers) and it only shows the visible passes. Got it. I'm
| used to using sat trackers for ham radio purposes and they show
| all passes, that's why I was confused.
| [deleted]
| olex wrote:
| It also shows a single "pass event" for a launch of 60
| satellites, the pass alone takes minutes as a long visible
| chain of sats goes overhead. Really damn cool to see.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Indeed those are super cool! I might go out to see one of
| those once the curfew is lifted here.
| ortusdux wrote:
| For the record, these satellites are inserted in groups of 60 at
| half their orbital height. They have onboard thrusters to boost
| up to the final operational orbit. There is high atmospheric drag
| at lower altitudes, so they deploy their solar panels
| horizontally during this boost period, which usually lasts less
| than a month. These horizontal panels reflect the sun just after
| sunset and just before dawn. Once they are at their final height
| they rotate the panels so they are much less reflective.
| Basically, the constellation's effect on the night sky is
| proportional to the number of launches in the last month, not the
| total number in orbit.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| >Basically, the constellation's effect on the night sky is
| proportional to the number of launches in the last month, not
| the total number in orbit.
|
| For what it's worth, in order for the constellation to reach
| steady state the number of launches in the last month will need
| to be proportional to the total # of orbit. So if the
| constellation has 42,000 satellites and the satellites last 10
| years on average (IMO that's an optimistic lifespan), you need
| to launch around 350/month just to maintain the size of the
| constellation.
| amackera wrote:
| Thanks for the info!
| ortusdux wrote:
| Absolutely! Things will be really interesting when they can
| use Starships to launch batches. I've seen estimates that
| they could launch 600 starlink satellites at a time. They
| could theatrically also launch fewer, but put them all the
| way into their final orbit, skipping the few weeks of light
| pollution.
| grecy wrote:
| > _They could theatrically also launch fewer, but put them
| all the way into their final orbit_
|
| I wonder if they might choose to do this so the sats keep
| more of their onboard fuel, and will be able to keep
| themselves in orbit a bit longer before the inevitable re-
| entry burn up.
| trothamel wrote:
| Re-entry is a bit of a feature, though - should a
| satellite be DOA, it will be in a low orbit and burn up
| faster.
| thereisnospork wrote:
| I'd _guess_ it is more efficient to have them boost
| themselves, so that they act as an additional rocket
| stage. (and so not need the delta V to elevate and then
| de-elevate starship 's orbit.)
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That's a tradeoff that could be made, but the onboard ion
| thrusters are about 5x as efficient as the rocket. They'd
| probably be much better off making the onboard tanks a
| bit larger and launching to the same low orbit.
| cryptoz wrote:
| > Basically, the constellation's effect on the night sky is
| proportional to the number of launches in the last month, not
| the total number in orbit.
|
| For the major brightness issues sure, but they are not
| invisible or undetectable while in operation. Surely the
| effects are proportional to both the recent launches and the
| whole size.
|
| I think it's a bit early to dismiss the whole sky effect of
| multiple Starlink-style constellations in operation.
|
| Also isn't Starlink intending to do launches for the rest of
| time? There is always a value for the last month of launches-
| they'll never stop launching right?
|
| Just thinking out loud.
| ortusdux wrote:
| The current satellite version (VisorSat) has a magnitude of
| about 6, which is generally considered to be the limit of
| what is visible with the naked eye in a light-pollution free
| area.
|
| Once you start using any optics they will be visible.
|
| https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2101/2101.00374.pdf#:~:te.
| ...
|
| https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-stellar-
| ma...
|
| I might sit down and do the math to see how 1500 satellites
| at mag 6 compares to 60 at mag 2.
|
| > I think it's a bit early to dismiss the whole sky effect of
| multiple Starlink-style constellations in operation.
|
| I wasn't trying to dismiss their effect, just address the
| people who say "you think those 60 are bad, imagine when
| there are 20,000", or "there go the Americans, ruining the
| night sky for the whole world".
|
| I have no idea how oneweb or blue origin will handle this
| issue.
|
| > Also isn't Starlink intending to do launches for the rest
| of time?
|
| Their satellites are designed for a 5 year lifespan. Without
| constant boosts, they will deorbit and burn up fully in the
| atmosphere. This is great, because they will not become space
| junk, and they can't cause the dreaded kessler syndrome. The
| downside is that they will need to be constantly replenished.
| Hopefully this will be streamlined when they can launch 600
| at a time, reducing the number of launches by a factor of 10.
| smeyer wrote:
| >I might sit down and do the math to see how 1500
| satellites at mag 6 compares to 60 at mag 2.
|
| Every 5 astronomical magnitudes corresponds to a factor of
| 100 difference in brightness, so magnitude 2 is (100^0.2)^4
| or about 40 times brighter than magnitude 6. So they're
| pretty similar, 1500 satellites at magnitude 6 are about
| 2/3 as bright as 60 satellites at magnitude 2.
| sneak wrote:
| There is also the (no help at the moment) fact that the more
| money that Starlink's parent company makes, the more likely
| we are to get the world's cheapest heavy lift orbital booster
| soon, and the more likely we are to soon have multiple large
| orbital telescopes that far exceed ground-based capabilities.
|
| Basically, if SpaceX makes it, we'll probably have a
| Starship-launched lunar observatory quite soon, in the grand
| scheme of things.
|
| This doesn't help the situation now, although there is so
| much screaming from the anti-Musk people as well as the pro-
| Musk people that it's hard to tell what the actual impact of
| the now-somewhat-albedo-mitigated starlink v.whatever
| satellites are. All of the coverage is breathless sky-is-
| falling stuff.
|
| In any case, the situation is temporary. Either SpaceX makes
| it and we get a far side of Luna observatory and LEO/MEO
| telescopes besides, or they don't and in a few years Starlink
| all falls down and burns.
| mfer wrote:
| I'm reminded of Earth orbit from the film Wall-E for some
| reason.
| mlindner wrote:
| That's distinctly completely impossible in this case.
| marmot777 wrote:
| Some friends said they saw it go over my town last night but I
| missed it. I'm stoked there's a tool to track it.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| There are over a thousand up there. You can see individual
| satellites now just by looking at the clear sky at night for a
| while, you'll find some. I see a couple of them almost every
| night.
|
| Someone told me there was a line of them last night, probably
| from the most recent launch, but I couldn't find them.
| colordrops wrote:
| Why is there a need for a starlink-specific tracker when there
| are plenty of general satellite trackers that also include all
| the starlink satellites?
| sand500 wrote:
| I personally like https://www.heavens-above.com/
|
| Give it a location and it will tell you all the bright objects
| that should be visible
| antonzabirko wrote:
| Soon only the super rich will have sunlight, with satellite
| networks blocking out the sky in other areas.
| gavin_gee wrote:
| text output? where's the AR viewer of starlink overlayed on the
| sky!?
| virtuallynathan wrote:
| One of the coolest starlink specific trackers is starlink.sx.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| I was just outside randomly when I saw the train of lights. It
| was honestly one of the most impressive things I've ever seen.
| spaceywilly wrote:
| Same here! Randomly got out of the car last night at saw a
| string of them cruising through the sky. It's really impressive
| to see, I'll encourage my friends to use this site to find out
| when they can see them
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I couldn't sleep two nights ago, and went outside at around 5
| am. I looked up, and was astonished. It was a full moon I
| think, and the satellights looked magnificent. Those satellites
| will steer a lot of young kids into science. I was to young to
| fully appreciate us going to the moon, but seeing a perfectly
| spaced row of "stars" above my home while the neighborhood was
| dead silent was something I will always remember.
|
| This was in the Bay Area. I'm living in Fairfax now.
|
| I have been following Starlink since. I haven't had much luck.
| I thought their telemetry could be configured within seconds,
| but I guess their are other variables according to Startlink?
| Oh yea---there is part of me hoping man doesn't overdo it
| though. This was great, but thousands would be another story.
| carabiner wrote:
| Heat sinks are holding steady!
| DataJunkie wrote:
| While I won't subscribe (I have fiber), I am excited about what
| this might mean for the future. It would amazing to improve the
| technology enough to replace 4G/5G dongles. It sounds like the
| technology relies on being in a somewhat fixed position though.
| gambiting wrote:
| I honestly can't believe Starlink is allowed to do this. It's an
| absolute travesty, polluting the view of the sky for ALL people
| on Earth to an absolutely unprecedented degree, for profit of an
| American corporation. Absolutely despise it, wish all countries
| of the world came together and demanded the deployments to stop.
| herewulf wrote:
| I'm curious if you say the same thing about airplanes (which
| aren't exclusively American either). They are also quite noisy.
| gambiting wrote:
| Think about it - when Starlink is fully operational there
| won't be a single place left on earth without several of
| their satellites always in view. The same definitely cannot
| be said about planes. Also countries retain full sovereignty
| to decide whether to allow planes flying above them - same
| cannot be said about satellites. Countries which cannot even
| use Starlink are having their night sky polluted by it.
| mlindner wrote:
| Poland ceded that sovereignty when they signed the Outer
| Space Treaty. Poland CAN use Starlink, SpaceX just hasn't
| offered service there yet (they only recently translated
| their documentation into French and support is still only
| in English). The service is still in beta as things are
| still in development. Service is available in the United
| States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Canada,
| and Germany.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I'm be more upset about light pollution than tiny satellites.
| jp42 wrote:
| yet another comment without actually putting effort to
| understand spacex's reply to "polluting" night sky argument.
| Isinlor wrote:
| You would have to convince UK that owns 42% equity of the
| OneWeb company that plans to launch initially 648-satellite
| constellation.
|
| You will probably sooner see EU, Russia and China decide that
| it is their strategic interest to have their own
| constellations. As it was with GPS. Currently we have the
| United States' Global Positioning System (GPS), Russia's Global
| Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), China's BeiDou
| Navigation Satellite System (BDS) and the European Union's
| Galileo.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation
| ChrisClark wrote:
| Oh, just wait a week or so, then they'll be higher and not
| visible like this. Just like every other launch.
|
| Your 'absolute travesty' is only temporary.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| Easy to say when you're probably sitting in a rich city
| somewhere with a perfectly good internet connection
| gambiting wrote:
| Starlink is polluting the sky for people who cannot buy its
| services, and who don't appreciate yet another American
| corporation invading into their lives, this time taking the
| very view of the night sky.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| Then tax SpaceX for the light-pollution externality until
| they fix it (which they say they're going to do). I don't
| think depriving rural communities and poor countries of
| access to the internet is really the best solution to such
| a non-problem.
| gambiting wrote:
| What are you talking about?? Here in Poland(which isn't a
| poor country!) You can't even buy Starlink here, our
| astronomical organisations are already complaining about
| the pollution of the sky, but how can Poland tax an
| American corporation polluting our sky????
|
| So the question should be - how can an American
| corporation deprive other countries of accessible view of
| the sky for profit and get away with it? Because it
| _might_ be accessible by everyone eventually? That 's
| frankly not good enough. Elon Musk isn't doing this as a
| charity, but even if it was it still wouldn't be
| acceptable.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| It's the same argument as for a carbon tax. It's
| imperfect, because the benefit only flows to the local
| government (when the commons is globally shared, as you
| point out), but it's the best _practical_ solution since
| it broadly aligns incentives with that of the commons.
|
| Your solution to simply deprive rural communities/poor
| countries of internet access is a _non-starter_. What you
| 're ignoring is that the positive externalities of the
| tech _vastly, vastly outweigh_ the negative (and
| supposedly fixable) externalities. Not to mention it 's a
| take that's rather selfish since you're not the one that
| pays the price of banning this tech.
| gambiting wrote:
| But Starlink isn't, wasn't, and never will be "for
| providing internet to poorer countries". It's always
| going to be first and foremost about selling internet to
| people in wealthy countries in areas without good local
| internet options. Are we really pretending that people in
| "poor countries" can afford the cost of the equipment and
| the subscription? Or that Elon Musk is doing this as some
| kind of charity?
|
| The main problem that I have here is that the uniformity
| of a full Starlink setup means the entire earth is
| covered in it, and literally no one else except for
| Americans has any say in it. That's what's absolutely not
| cool in my opinion.
| drusepth wrote:
| >It's always going to be first and foremost about selling
| internet to people in wealthy countries in areas without
| good local internet options.
|
| [citation needed]
| fighterpilot wrote:
| > selling internet to people in wealthy countries in
| areas without good local internet options
|
| Even if I grant you that it's not going to be about
| supplying internet to poorer countries, this reason alone
| is sufficient. Depriving rural communities of internet
| over such a small negative externality is a non-starter.
|
| > literally no one else except for Americans has any say
| in it
|
| Poland emits significant amounts of carbon pollution,
| which impacts me, and I have no say in it.
|
| _Some_ negative externalities in the global commons is
| inevitable. You, personally, are contributing to that.
| Your weather and GPS satellites are contributing to it.
|
| The solution therefore can't be a puritanical "I will not
| allow _any_ global externalities whatsoever. ". It's an
| impractical non-starter and a rule that nobody anywhere
| follows nor should they try to follow it.
| SquibblesRedux wrote:
| Every now and then I need to compile lists of locations for this
| or that application. The drop-down of locations in this tracker
| is very interesting. Does anyone know how the list was compiled?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-07 23:00 UTC)