It’s like announcing you’re going to sell corn starting a year from now when your competition owns all the land corn is grown on, started selling their corn 6 years ago, and has gotten really good at making it cheaper and producing more, based on real world experience.
Interesting there is an optical networking option for end users (claims ~6TBps). Maybe a really dumb question, but how would the end user's ground station maintain connectivity during cloudy weather? Do they have cloud-penetrating lasers from the MEO satellites? Would that interfere with aircraft, astronomy tools, etc?
Some short googling says they have lasers that clear a path for a data carrying beam, but that seems wasteful/infeasible for commercial uses
"Even Earth’s atmosphere interferes with optical communications. Clouds and mist can interrupt a laser. A solution to this is building multiple ground stations, which are telescopes on Earth that receive infrared waves. If it’s cloudy at one station, the waves can be redirected to a different ground station. With more ground stations, the network can be more flexible during bad weather. SCaN is also investigating multiple approaches, like Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking and satellite arrays to help deal with challenges derived from atmospheric means."
Seems like reusing some of Star Wars research could be used as well where the beam is constantly adjusted with independent mirrors to keep the beam coherent through the atmosphere. Also learned was the beam itself starts to distort the atmosphere requiring even more adjustments.
Wouldn't the angle of the offset matter? It seems like it would make scattering worse to be off-axis by too far.
Which then also means you have to build ground stations in this range yet far enough apart that they experience different weather yet close enough that you can redundantly link all the sites.
Aside from government and massive telecommunications companies who would this serve?
It's just really cool sci-fi tech that I want to see used in something other than DLP chips!
JWST and other observatories with segmented primary mirrors kind of use the segment alignment one time to get the correct alignment once. Then there is Adaptive Optics. It's kind of the opposite direction though as they are using a laser to detect the distortion so it can be compensated in the image. From learning about SDI when I was a kid/teen, it's just always been about controlling the laser itself in my mind.
The JWST does not have to deal with atmosphere or weather and uses a giant sun shield to keep the internal temperature stable so these alignments have the longevity you need to make the platform work.
I think customer speeds is 144 and the 6Tb is their ground links to their stations. That is my take on it at least as its not super clear. I'm curious as to how it works as well.
My read was that they're going to have 144 Gbps RF for both regular users and their ground station gateways, and 6 Tbps optical for satellite-satellite back haul, but then you can also buy direct ground-MEO access to a back haul link. (Presumably MEO-only because it's hard to maintain the link to a fast-moving LEO satellite?)
They don't seem to mention using optical for their own ground stations - maybe too unreliable?
Assuming all these companies are interested in launching their own constellations of ~10K-100K satellites into L/MEO, how many companies could actually do this before cascading collisions starts becoming a real worry?
> how many companies could actually do this before cascading collisions starts becoming a real worry?
Twenty of them at 100,000 birds each to start approaching the density of planes in the sky [1]. Not around an airport. In all of the sky. Oceans and all.
Practically speaking, this is not a pressing concern for our generation.
It's interesting that people have a hard time visualizing this. The area in Earth's LEO is, definitionally, bigger than the Earth itself.
The SEA parking garage fits 12,000 cars in it. Two of those spread over the entire planet would be an imperceptible amount of space. You could drop a pin on a map your entire life and probably never hit one.
Not really. You're correct inasmuch as it increases collision energies. But it also increases momentum, which maintains orbital integrity within predictable bounds. Nobody is maneuvering around satellites, they–and their debris–stay where the math tells them to.
Thought experiment: Let's say you are simulating ten thousand satellites on your computer, and the simulation runs until there is a crash. Now let's say the simulation runs for an hour normally. If you increase the speed of the simulation, you get to a crash in a shorter time. Satellites move about 30x the speed of airliners. Hence, if everything else was similar, one would expect 30x the amount of collisions.
Orbits are predictable, but they intersect and decay [at different rates] and occasionally get perturbed by space weather. This already needs periodic conjunction avoidance manoeuvres, and whilst orbits are fast satellite manoeuvres are slow, so the notice you need to avoid a conjunction is measured in hours rather than seconds. Can't imagine a scenario in which it would be sustainable for LEO to even approach the density of commercial aviation, except perhaps for a hypothetical where a single entity actually managed all the satellites.
The other underestimated dimension is that satellite manoeuvres use up a finite supply of expensively-launched propellant. That's tolerable when Starlink is doing 50k conjunction avoidance manoeuvres in six months across its constellation, but once it becomes each satellite moving at least weekly you either need bigger satellites carrying more propellant or have to accept significantly higher collision risk than they currently do.
> whilst orbits are fast satellite manoeuvres are slow, so the notice you need to avoid a conjunction is measured in hours rather than seconds
I'm not arguing against collisions becoming more likely. I'm arguing aginst it becoming commonplace to the point that it becomes a commercial concern.
> satellite manoeuvres use up a finite supply of expensively-launched propellant
Nobody is plane changing out of a collision. And for the foreseeable future, in LEO, the birds are not propellant constrained. (And launch is getting cheaper.)
> you either need bigger satellites carrying more propellant or have to accept significantly higher collision risk than they currently do
We're decades away from this being a problem. That gives ample runtime to developing e.g. magnetic station-keeping (if we go reactionless) or more-efficient engines.
> and whilst orbits are fast satellite manoeuvres are slow
This is something people unfamiliar tend to misconceive in their limited thinking on the subject. You can't just tap the breaks to slow down. Changing altitude of satellites is done by speeding up to increase altitude and slowing down to lower altitude. Once you change the velocity and reach the desired altitude, you have to then undo that acceleration to get back to orbital velocity. Fuel is required in both directions. The less fuel used the better for the maneuver. Most satellites EoL is defined by remaining maneuvering fuel vs functionality of the hardware.
My first understanding of accelerating in space was from the old Asteroids game. To slow down, you had to rotate 180° and start accelerating in that direction. Others might learn it from Kerbal.
> This is something people unfamiliar tend to misconceive in their limited thinking on the subject
I have a background in astronautical engineering. While you can't tap the brakes to 'slow down', you can impart miniscule amounts of impulse which, over the course of hundreds of orbits, will change your plane by an imperceptible amount from a distance, but tens or hundreds of kilometers up close. OM being OM, you can predicts these collisions in advance.
I had a professor who referred to orbits not in altitude but in expected decay time. We're currently in the months to single-digit years orbits. (We will stay there for telecommunications due to latency.) If we were doing at decades or centuries what we're doing in LEO, this would be a problem. At LEO, it's a nuisance and barely more.
> you can impart miniscule amounts of impulse which, over the course of hundreds of orbits
right. this is what is counter-intuitive for those that are not familiar with space. they don't just light the burner and boost to a new altitude. the part about stopping the acceleration with an opposite burn is often not considered. most think you can fly a space ship like a jet fighter, but in space. can't blame them since that's how sci-fi portrays it. real life space flight is really boring in comparison. jumping out of FTL to land in orbit around a planet makes me laugh every. single. time.
Randomly place 50,000 shoe boxes up and down the entire eastern seaboard.
Randomly place 50,000 shoe boxes up and down the entire western seaboard.
Send them in straight lines towards the other side of the country.
See if any collide. Almost certainly none of them will. Edit: They will almost certainly
For reference, if you placed all 50k boxes next to each other on the same beach, it would be about 10 miles wide. The total shoreline on either side would be ~1800 miles wide.
By my calculations there will be an average of 500 collisions, no? Each shoebox has an effective width of 2 feet, and with 50k of them that's about 1% density. With 50k in the other direction, and about a 1% collision rate, that's 500 collisions.
If they put their sats low enough (like Starlink already mostly does) any collision debris should be quickly deorbitted by drag, before a cascade can happen.
Presumably, there would be a corridor for traveling through elevations whether that was for reaching orbit or de-orbiting. The people placing things in orbit are not doing with out coordination.
Debris moves in 3D. Debris moving up will continue moving up. There is no force acting on it to bring it back down. Your comment makes it sound like an explosion would only be in 2D along the same orbit as the original object.
> There is no force acting on it to bring it back down.
Gravity?
But also orbital dynamics (at least as I understand it) means debris that debris that is flung up is going to have a more oval orbit, so the high point (apogee) increases and the low point (perigee) decreases. And a lower perigee means more atmospheric drag, which will help deorbit the debris.
... It is a very real possibility, but less of a problem below 550km altitude because the decay time is much shorter (and why all of these mega constellations tend to stay at lower altitude, even though ~1000km is generally better for a communications satellite).
Looks like they are using lasers for backhaul down to ground stations. What happens if the beam is obstructed for a brief moment (plane, kite, ufo, etc..)?
From a technical standpoint: amazing achievement, and the tech nerd in me is in awe. But it feels like a lot of people don't understand (or care?) how much these companies are polluting the space.
Before the "new wave", in 2010-2015 or so, Earth had around 1500 active satellites in orbit, and another 2,000-2,500 defunct ones.
Starlink now has almost 9,500 satellites in orbit, has approvals for 12,000 and long-term plans for up to 42,000. Blue Origin has added 5,500 to that. Amazon plans for 3,000. China has two megaconstellations under construction, for a total of 26,000, and has filed for even larger systems, up to 200,000 satellites.
We might be the last generation that is able to watch the stars.
> We might be the last generation that is able to watch the stars.
I'm not convinced this is a major issue, but I'd like to hear arguments for why it is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't LEO satellites only going to reflect light from the sun when they're at low angles near sunrise and sunset? For night time stargazing, they're going to be in Earth's shadow, too.
The amount of light they reflect back is also small. They can be seen if you look closely at just the right time, but I don't understand how this is supposed to be so much light that it starts raising the overall background light level considerably. The satellites are small and can only reflect so much.
Is it just annoyance that they're up there and showing up in photos?
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't LEO satellites only going to reflect light from the sun when they're at low angles near sunrise and sunset? For night time stargazing, they're going to be in Earth's shadow, too.
Iridium's LEO satellites were sometimes (impressively) visible after midnight.
With the difference that cars can steer and stop to avoid collisions and aren't necessarily in your field of view every time you look at the night sky ;)
I have no idea if the number is actually a lot shrug but it's surely different than cars on a planet's surface
It is already impossible - all the remaining Space Shuttles are in a museum, not to mention all Space Shuttle missions were (and were always intended to be) to Earth orbit. No Space Shuttle ever went past 600 km hight Earth orbit.
They're extremely sparse. Imagine putting 12,000 satellites randomly over the surface of the Earth. You're just not going to bump into one, statistically. Now expand that into 3D space in an orbital zone above us.
Not to mention low orbit being self cleaning and higher orbits being exponentially more space. You can map the junk with radar & plot the launch to avoid it.
Space is huge. Try this trick: the number of satellites in orbit is about the same as the number of planes in the air at any time. (~12,000 [1].)
The volume of space from the ground to 50,000 feet is about 200x smaller than the volume from the Karman line to the top of LEO alone (~2,000 km).
Put another way, we approach the density of planes in the sky in LEO when there are milliions of satellites in that space alone. Picture what happens if every plane in the sky fell to the ground. Now understand that the same thing happening in LEO, while it occurs at higher energy, also occurs in less-occupied space and will eventually (mostly) burn up in the atmosphere.
Put another way, you could poof every Starlink simultaneously and while it would be tremendously annoying, most satellites orbiting lower would be able to get out of the way, those that couldn't wouldn't cause much more damage, the whole mess would be avoidable for most and entirely gone within a few years.
There are serious problems with space pollution. Catastrophic Kessler cascades that block humans from space, or knock out all of our satellites, aren't one of them.
At the altitudes these mega-constellations operate at, kessler syndrome is not a real threat. Even if left unpowered, everything there will naturally re-enter the atmosphere in ~5 years.
All those AI datacenters in space will need a way to get data to them.
Bezos can't even build his first constellation and already planning his second... Possibly the real play here is snapping up more frequency licenses on earth (we need them because we're launching any day now promise). They are the real constraining resource and could be used to keep others out of the market for a while.
Given that you're worried about EMFs, the amount of power from nearby WiFi routers and cell towers is orders of magnitude more than from these satellites.
Starlink etc. use directed spotlight-like beams, so if you're not near a receiver (on the road) then no signal will be present. Why would they waste energy directing the signal anywhere other than where their dishes are?
(I personally don't believe in the harms of low power non-ionising radiation sources, but this comment is written in the context of avoiding them.)
Well, this shoots down the argument that Blue Origin is just Amazon's space wing. Strange to see them launching a direct Amazon Leo competitor but now that they have reusable boosters (on paper) it does make more sense for them to control the lion's share of their launch manifest with their own megaconstellation.
Some short googling says they have lasers that clear a path for a data carrying beam, but that seems wasteful/infeasible for commercial uses
"Even Earth’s atmosphere interferes with optical communications. Clouds and mist can interrupt a laser. A solution to this is building multiple ground stations, which are telescopes on Earth that receive infrared waves. If it’s cloudy at one station, the waves can be redirected to a different ground station. With more ground stations, the network can be more flexible during bad weather. SCaN is also investigating multiple approaches, like Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking and satellite arrays to help deal with challenges derived from atmospheric means."
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/space-comms/optical-communic...
Some more info on Optical Communications for Satellites: https://www.kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/optcomm/presentations...
Which then also means you have to build ground stations in this range yet far enough apart that they experience different weather yet close enough that you can redundantly link all the sites.
Aside from government and massive telecommunications companies who would this serve?
It's just really cool sci-fi tech that I want to see used in something other than DLP chips!
JWST and other observatories with segmented primary mirrors kind of use the segment alignment one time to get the correct alignment once. Then there is Adaptive Optics. It's kind of the opposite direction though as they are using a laser to detect the distortion so it can be compensated in the image. From learning about SDI when I was a kid/teen, it's just always been about controlling the laser itself in my mind.
They don't seem to mention using optical for their own ground stations - maybe too unreliable?
Twenty of them at 100,000 birds each to start approaching the density of planes in the sky [1]. Not around an airport. In all of the sky. Oceans and all.
Practically speaking, this is not a pressing concern for our generation.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46711405
The SEA parking garage fits 12,000 cars in it. Two of those spread over the entire planet would be an imperceptible amount of space. You could drop a pin on a map your entire life and probably never hit one.
Satellites need to travel at 8 km/s to not fall down.
Not really. You're correct inasmuch as it increases collision energies. But it also increases momentum, which maintains orbital integrity within predictable bounds. Nobody is maneuvering around satellites, they–and their debris–stay where the math tells them to.
Not how orbital mechanics work.
The other underestimated dimension is that satellite manoeuvres use up a finite supply of expensively-launched propellant. That's tolerable when Starlink is doing 50k conjunction avoidance manoeuvres in six months across its constellation, but once it becomes each satellite moving at least weekly you either need bigger satellites carrying more propellant or have to accept significantly higher collision risk than they currently do.
I'm not arguing against collisions becoming more likely. I'm arguing aginst it becoming commonplace to the point that it becomes a commercial concern.
> satellite manoeuvres use up a finite supply of expensively-launched propellant
Nobody is plane changing out of a collision. And for the foreseeable future, in LEO, the birds are not propellant constrained. (And launch is getting cheaper.)
> you either need bigger satellites carrying more propellant or have to accept significantly higher collision risk than they currently do
We're decades away from this being a problem. That gives ample runtime to developing e.g. magnetic station-keeping (if we go reactionless) or more-efficient engines.
I've not kept up for decades now .. what's the state of solar powered magnetorquers these days? I'd quietly assumed it would be more commonplace.
I dimly recall a couple of small satellites magnetically locking fifteen or so years past?
This is something people unfamiliar tend to misconceive in their limited thinking on the subject. You can't just tap the breaks to slow down. Changing altitude of satellites is done by speeding up to increase altitude and slowing down to lower altitude. Once you change the velocity and reach the desired altitude, you have to then undo that acceleration to get back to orbital velocity. Fuel is required in both directions. The less fuel used the better for the maneuver. Most satellites EoL is defined by remaining maneuvering fuel vs functionality of the hardware.
My first understanding of accelerating in space was from the old Asteroids game. To slow down, you had to rotate 180° and start accelerating in that direction. Others might learn it from Kerbal.
I have a background in astronautical engineering. While you can't tap the brakes to 'slow down', you can impart miniscule amounts of impulse which, over the course of hundreds of orbits, will change your plane by an imperceptible amount from a distance, but tens or hundreds of kilometers up close. OM being OM, you can predicts these collisions in advance.
I had a professor who referred to orbits not in altitude but in expected decay time. We're currently in the months to single-digit years orbits. (We will stay there for telecommunications due to latency.) If we were doing at decades or centuries what we're doing in LEO, this would be a problem. At LEO, it's a nuisance and barely more.
right. this is what is counter-intuitive for those that are not familiar with space. they don't just light the burner and boost to a new altitude. the part about stopping the acceleration with an opposite burn is often not considered. most think you can fly a space ship like a jet fighter, but in space. can't blame them since that's how sci-fi portrays it. real life space flight is really boring in comparison. jumping out of FTL to land in orbit around a planet makes me laugh every. single. time.
Randomly place 50,000 shoe boxes up and down the entire eastern seaboard.
Randomly place 50,000 shoe boxes up and down the entire western seaboard.
Send them in straight lines towards the other side of the country.
See if any collide. Almost certainly none of them will. Edit: They will almost certainly
For reference, if you placed all 50k boxes next to each other on the same beach, it would be about 10 miles wide. The total shoreline on either side would be ~1800 miles wide.
And that's only 2D.
Gravity?
But also orbital dynamics (at least as I understand it) means debris that debris that is flung up is going to have a more oval orbit, so the high point (apogee) increases and the low point (perigee) decreases. And a lower perigee means more atmospheric drag, which will help deorbit the debris.
The paper they cite [1] estimates "the no-manoeuvre collision time" for various orbits. It has no alarming results.
That paper cites another paper [2], which raises the possibility of runaway conditions. It, in turn, runs a model developed in this paper [3].
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.09643
[2] https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234449150_Critical_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
... It is a very real possibility, but less of a problem below 550km altitude because the decay time is much shorter (and why all of these mega constellations tend to stay at lower altitude, even though ~1000km is generally better for a communications satellite).
https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-introduces-teraw...
>The TeraWave architecture consists of 5,408 optically interconnected satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) and medium Earth orbit (MEO).
https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/blue-origin-we-want-to... ("Another Jeff Bezos company has announced plans to develop a megaconstellation")
Same as with any dropped packet.
Before the "new wave", in 2010-2015 or so, Earth had around 1500 active satellites in orbit, and another 2,000-2,500 defunct ones.
Starlink now has almost 9,500 satellites in orbit, has approvals for 12,000 and long-term plans for up to 42,000. Blue Origin has added 5,500 to that. Amazon plans for 3,000. China has two megaconstellations under construction, for a total of 26,000, and has filed for even larger systems, up to 200,000 satellites.
We might be the last generation that is able to watch the stars.
I'm not convinced this is a major issue, but I'd like to hear arguments for why it is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't LEO satellites only going to reflect light from the sun when they're at low angles near sunrise and sunset? For night time stargazing, they're going to be in Earth's shadow, too.
The amount of light they reflect back is also small. They can be seen if you look closely at just the right time, but I don't understand how this is supposed to be so much light that it starts raising the overall background light level considerably. The satellites are small and can only reflect so much.
Is it just annoyance that they're up there and showing up in photos?
Iridium's LEO satellites were sometimes (impressively) visible after midnight.
I have no idea if the number is actually a lot shrug but it's surely different than cars on a planet's surface
They're extremely sparse. Imagine putting 12,000 satellites randomly over the surface of the Earth. You're just not going to bump into one, statistically. Now expand that into 3D space in an orbital zone above us.
It's not a collision risk.
There is. We don't have the industrial capacity, as a species, to do it.
Space is huge. Try this trick: the number of satellites in orbit is about the same as the number of planes in the air at any time. (~12,000 [1].)
The volume of space from the ground to 50,000 feet is about 200x smaller than the volume from the Karman line to the top of LEO alone (~2,000 km).
Put another way, we approach the density of planes in the sky in LEO when there are milliions of satellites in that space alone. Picture what happens if every plane in the sky fell to the ground. Now understand that the same thing happening in LEO, while it occurs at higher energy, also occurs in less-occupied space and will eventually (mostly) burn up in the atmosphere.
Put another way, you could poof every Starlink simultaneously and while it would be tremendously annoying, most satellites orbiting lower would be able to get out of the way, those that couldn't wouldn't cause much more damage, the whole mess would be avoidable for most and entirely gone within a few years.
There are serious problems with space pollution. Catastrophic Kessler cascades that block humans from space, or knock out all of our satellites, aren't one of them.
[1] https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of...
For a given period of time, a single satellite will travel through a vastly larger volume of space than a single plane.
Bezos can't even build his first constellation and already planning his second... Possibly the real play here is snapping up more frequency licenses on earth (we need them because we're launching any day now promise). They are the real constraining resource and could be used to keep others out of the market for a while.
I'd love to see a betting market on a unified, global licensing regime lasting for another ten years.
Starlink etc. use directed spotlight-like beams, so if you're not near a receiver (on the road) then no signal will be present. Why would they waste energy directing the signal anywhere other than where their dishes are?
(I personally don't believe in the harms of low power non-ionising radiation sources, but this comment is written in the context of avoiding them.)