![Starlink Customers in Antarctica. Hmmmmm. [2658x702 - 130KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/KuaK3s.png){kind=link}
Satellites in low-Earth orbit which are designed for coverage of the entire Earth are put intentionally into a polar orbit path, such that the Earth rotation under the satellite causes the satellite to sweep vertically at all different longitudes.
This is mostly for the purpose of imaging the Earth though, whereas it would be conceivable for a network links to have 50%+ shallow orbits like the ISS does, as long as the operators are okay with missing both poles (can't skip one pole and not also skip the other without getting into eccentric orbits, not cost-effective).
Personally I would just go 100% polar and be done with it, it's simpler and it avoids an embarrassing future scenario where polar Internet demand rises and I can't provide it.
Satellites in low-Earth orbit which are designed for coverage of the entire Earth are put intentionally into a polar orbit path, such that the Earth rotation under the satellite causes the satellite to sweep vertically at all different longitudes.
This is mostly for the purpose of imaging the Earth though, whereas it would be conceivable for a network links to have 50%+ shallow orbits like the ISS does, as long as the operators are okay with missing both poles (can't skip one pole and not also skip the other without getting into eccentric orbits, not cost-effective).
Personally I would just go 100% polar and be done with it, it's simpler and it avoids an embarrassing future scenario where polar Internet demand rises and I can't provide it.
(post is archived)