I wasn't aware how far along some of these Chinese satellite networks were. There are several, and the number of satellites planned for them is astonishing. This article seems like a good intro to them, with comparisons to Starlink: https://archive.is/zPsmq
Already it’s getting hard to avoid noticing satellite trains when stargazing with the naked eye. If mega-constellations really scale into the hundreds of thousands, it feels like we’re on track to permanently degrade the night sky, even in places without much light pollution.
With mega-constellation launches accelerating, the sci‑fi premise of imprisoning ourselves behind a debris field feels less fictional. This is essentially the collision-cascade risk described by Kessler Syndrome
Kurzgesagt has a good explainer. Hopefully we never trigger it.
I was on a trip to the mountains recently. Get out into nature, get away from it all, etc. I look up into the sky and see a satellite. I remember when this was a novelty, it was so rare to see them. But I saw at least 10 of them in the time I spent stargazing.
It's just so bleak. We did this for what? To have _more_ internet?! Is that really what we need?
For the predictable reasons, the article overemphasizes "number of satellites" and under-emphasizes "height of satellites" and "inclination of satellites."
The CTC-1 constellation proposes to be at 510 km altitude and 97.4 degrees inclination[0], which is already a heavily-populated orbit[1] due to being in a Sun-synchronous orbit. Since the collision risk scales as the object density squared, this is an especially foolhardy decision from the perspective of space debris and space sustainability.
Remember that most of the satellite collisions occur in a "halo" around the North and South poles where the SSO orbits all pile up. Avoiding these orbital slots (and in fact, removing defunct objects from these valuable orbits) is the best thing we could do for Kessler syndrome. China is doing literally the exact opposite.
It also doesn't help that China just abandons their upper stages in orbit, rather than doing proper deorbit burns.[2] Since each Chinese rocket also can only launch a handful of satellites (vs almost 50 per SpaceX launch), the number of abandoned debris upper stages is truly massive, and again they're all being carelessly discarded in pretty much the worst possible orbit.
> "The CTC-1 constellation proposes to be at 510 km altitude and 97.4 degrees inclination[0]"
That's an unrelated "CTC-1"; your reference [0] describes American CubeSats. This isn't the Chinese megaconstellation that was just announced; it's a name collision.
The CTC-1 in your link is identified as a trio of CubeSats assigned to the SpaceX rideshare mission Transporter 15. Cross-referencing, SpaceX does show of trio of small satellites by the name "CTC-1" (a,b,c) launched on Transporter 15, on Nov. 28, 2025,
Filing an ITU submission is one thing, now they need to make reliable, reusable heavy-lift spacecraft. Probably 5-10 years out tbh. They're just squatting on approvals.
> On April 18, 2000, the BeiDou and Galileo systems were simultaneously declared. According to ITU rules, navigation satellites must be launched within 7 years and the corresponding frequency signals must be successfully transmitted and received in order to obtain the orbital position and frequency resources, otherwise they cannot obtain legal status.
> At 4:11 a.m. on April 14, 2007, the BeiDou satellite, which was tasked with carrying out an important mission, took off and sent back a signal at around 8 p.m. on April 17. At this point, there were less than four hours left before the ITU's "seven-year deadline."
>Under ITU rules established in 2019, satellite systems have to be operating – or have at least one satellite launched and operated for a period of time – within seven years of initial filing, after which they have to deploy 10 per cent of their constellations within two years, half within five years and all within seven years.
1. regulatory squatting on good mega constellation orbits.
2. if i'm reading this right PRC needs to hit 9k in 9 years, 100k in 14 years. Seems doable on PRC speed. If it's half, i.e. 100k with 5 years of filing, then no way target will be hit.
Starlink was sold to investors as being politically neutral and almost immediately became a US military asset. It was just a matter of time before China wanted their own version. No doubt some other countries will want their own systems free of American or Chinese control, though obviously it's going to be more difficult for them to do something as complete. It's going to be an interesting choice for ESA/the EU to decide if they want their own thing too instead of relying on the US to be a fair broker of access.
And of those countries who would like to have a system free of influence from other countries, well, if they can't afford to build one out, they might be able to orbit a bunch of chaff to even the playing field again.
17 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 38.5 ms ] threadWith mega-constellation launches accelerating, the sci‑fi premise of imprisoning ourselves behind a debris field feels less fictional. This is essentially the collision-cascade risk described by Kessler Syndrome
Kurzgesagt has a good explainer. Hopefully we never trigger it.
https://youtu.be/yS1ibDImAYU?si=vbs-PY5VEA9xv_gS
It's just so bleak. We did this for what? To have _more_ internet?! Is that really what we need?
For the predictable reasons, the article overemphasizes "number of satellites" and under-emphasizes "height of satellites" and "inclination of satellites."
The CTC-1 constellation proposes to be at 510 km altitude and 97.4 degrees inclination[0], which is already a heavily-populated orbit[1] due to being in a Sun-synchronous orbit. Since the collision risk scales as the object density squared, this is an especially foolhardy decision from the perspective of space debris and space sustainability.
Remember that most of the satellite collisions occur in a "halo" around the North and South poles where the SSO orbits all pile up. Avoiding these orbital slots (and in fact, removing defunct objects from these valuable orbits) is the best thing we could do for Kessler syndrome. China is doing literally the exact opposite.
It also doesn't help that China just abandons their upper stages in orbit, rather than doing proper deorbit burns.[2] Since each Chinese rocket also can only launch a handful of satellites (vs almost 50 per SpaceX launch), the number of abandoned debris upper stages is truly massive, and again they're all being carelessly discarded in pretty much the worst possible orbit.
[0] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;...
[1] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44021.0
[2] https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/10/everyone-but-china-has...
> "The CTC-1 constellation proposes to be at 510 km altitude and 97.4 degrees inclination[0]"
That's an unrelated "CTC-1"; your reference [0] describes American CubeSats. This isn't the Chinese megaconstellation that was just announced; it's a name collision.
The CTC-1 in your link is identified as a trio of CubeSats assigned to the SpaceX rideshare mission Transporter 15. Cross-referencing, SpaceX does show of trio of small satellites by the name "CTC-1" (a,b,c) launched on Transporter 15, on Nov. 28, 2025,
https://www.spacex.com/launches/transporter-15 ("Transporter-15 Mission")
> At 4:11 a.m. on April 14, 2007, the BeiDou satellite, which was tasked with carrying out an important mission, took off and sent back a signal at around 8 p.m. on April 17. At this point, there were less than four hours left before the ITU's "seven-year deadline."
https://en.eeworld.com.cn/news/qrs/eic475760.html
1. regulatory squatting on good mega constellation orbits.
2. if i'm reading this right PRC needs to hit 9k in 9 years, 100k in 14 years. Seems doable on PRC speed. If it's half, i.e. 100k with 5 years of filing, then no way target will be hit.
And of those countries who would like to have a system free of influence from other countries, well, if they can't afford to build one out, they might be able to orbit a bunch of chaff to even the playing field again.
- https://press.un.org/en/2019/gadis3635.doc.htm
- https://web.archive.org/web/20201028152258/https://www.stopk...
Sure this is important but what is more important is 8 billion people having and keeping their access to space.