A 34,000 Orbiting Satellites Problem

 

A “34,000 Orbiting Satellites” Problem

It’s the stuff of science fiction films. Satellites collide, decay in orbit and crash to Earth or drift dead and inert in space where they constantly create dangerous orbital space litter. Space may seem to be the final frontier, but it is also a battleground for competing commercial interests, GPS and telecommunications mainstays, information-gathering spying systems, weapons platforms (defensive and offensive), space stations, weather and climate change trackers, etc., etc. The modern world is addicted to the benefits of connected satellites; the Internet, our global financial system, telecommunications, navigation and location technologies would collapse without those little orbiting communicators above.

When Iran shut down its internal Internet during the recent violent upheavals, intending to stop communications among and between protesters, preventing smartphone transmissions of their massacres on the ground from being shared with the outside world and purportedly limiting intelligence gathering from countries with a strong interest in what the theocracy was perpetrating against its own people – hiding, they hoped, the slaughter of an estimated 20,000 protesters. Elon Musk’s SpaceX/Starlink satellite array found ways to distribute ground-based transmitters/receivers to restore the protesters’ connection to the rest of the world and each other. That effort and some minor diplomatic pressures were pretty much the extent of Trump’s promised support for the protesters.

So far, Starlink has defined the primary global orbital connective tissue enabling the Internet to function. SpaceX’ ability to launch satellites into low Earth orbit for a price has been at the core of Starlink’s business plan, which, to date, has been wildly successful. But success invites competition, and with America’s growing unpopularity, many nations would prefer not to have to rely on a US-controlled satellite system for their Internet and telecommunications needs. Furthermore, the very technology that lies at the core of Starlink’s system is disturbing, and with technology offering alternatives, competition is ramping up, unsurprisingly especially from China, capitalizing on a general global aversion to all things American.

Writing for the January 16th, FastCompany.com, Jesus Diaz addresses Elon Musk’s upcoming satellite challenges: “The fiercest space race is not about getting back to the moon—it’s about allowing you to post a TikTok or watch Netflix on your phone anywhere around the globe, from the Atacama Salt Flats to the Khongor sand dunes in the Gobi Desert. To make this happen, two distinct design philosophies are at war, as companies build out the infrastructure needed to ensure every phone on the planet is permanently connected to the internet.

“On one side is Elon Musk’s SpaceX/Starlink and the copycat companies that have followed in Starlink’s wake. Their approach is to invade space with tens of thousands of small satellites, creating a network of objects that blanket low Earth orbit. On the other side is a small Texas-based company called AST SpaceMobile, which believes it can provide better service with fewer than 100 gigantic satellites in space.

“Both companies—along with Amazon and a handful of Chinese organizations—want to dominate worldwide wireless communications. The satellite constellation with the fastest service, widest coverage, best compatibility with 5G cellphones, and lowest operational costs will own how we communicate for years to come. Which approach prevails will have serious impact not only on the future of the internet but also the health of our planet…

“Musk set off a new space race with his desire to rule low Earth orbit. SpaceX, which owns Starlink, launched its first satellite in 2019, providing broadband internet access to anyone with a large Starlink antenna and modem on the ground. Since then, it has put more than 9,000 satellites into orbit. The company projects it will eventually have a constellation of 34,000 satellites. After Starlink’s initial launch, competitors followed suit, including Jeff Bezos and his Project Kuiper—now called Amazon Leo—and the Chinese, whose plans include two large satellite constellations.

“But there’s a fundamental problem with this mega-constellation design: Musk’s plan for space internet is a flawed, wasteful, and dangerous game of orbital Russian roulette… Scientists worry that Starlink’s projected 34,000-satellite constellation will cause irreparable damage to the atmosphere. A large-scale constellation also dramatically increases the possibility of a space collision that could start a catastrophic chain reaction, destroying orbital networks that are crucial for our survival as a species.

“Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist and spaceflight historian at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been documenting satellite launches in his newsletter, Jonathan’s Space Report. He believes there may be other, better ways to achieve global coverage via satellites—if we need to be doing it at all… ‘I do personally have a preference for smaller numbers of larger satellites,’ he tells Fast Company. ‘One of the reasons is the risk of space collisions. If you have 10 times as many satellites, you have 100 times as many close misses. So from that point of view alone, consolidating on a smaller number of satellites seems wiser.’

“That’s where Musk’s biggest competitor comes into play. AST SpaceMobile has developed a direct-to-cell technology that utilizes large satellites called BlueBirds. These machines use thousands of antennas to deliver broadband coverage directly to standard mobile phones, says the company’s president, Scott Wisniewski.” Larger, more powerful satellites in higher geosynchronous orbit make Musk’s approach seem obsolete. So much for the first mover, competitive advantage. Not that Mr Musk is particularly popular… er… anywhere.

I’m Peter Dekom, and as the United States roils in major and disruptive global controversy, if there is a more efficient Internet linking technology to replace a Musk-driven product, I suspect Starlink is must face the global reputational damage that Elon Musk and the United States itself have wrought.