3
$\begingroup$

So I'm not a mathematician but a writer. I'd like to know if there's a formula that could solve the following problem for a sci-fi book I'm writing:

How many satellites would it take to surround a sphere of diameter $x$, where the satellites are $y$ miles apart from each other, and $z$ miles above the sphere?

e.g. $x = 8,000$ miles, $y = 1$ mile, $z = 100$ miles.

$\endgroup$
2

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

Your satellites occupy a sphere of diameter $x+2z$. That sphere has a surface area of $4\pi(x/2+z)^2$. If each satellite is a distance about $y$ from its neighbors, we can assume that for each satellite, there is a circle of diameter $y$ centered on that satellite with no other satellites in it. That circle has area approximately equal to $\pi (y/2)^2$ (this is approximate since we are talking about a circle on the larger sphere of diameter $x+2z$, and areas on a sphere are different from areas in the plane, but since $x+2z$ is much bigger than $y$, the difference is negligible). It is not possible to perfectly cover a sphere in circles, but it is possible to cover about $$\frac{\pi\sqrt{3}}{6}\approx 91\%$$ of a sphere in circles. Therefore, to get the number of satellites, we divide the area of the sphere they occupy (adjusted to $91\%$) by the area of the circle for each individual satellite: $$\text{number of satellites}=\frac{\pi\sqrt{3}}{6}\frac{4\pi (x/2+z)^2}{\pi (y/2)^2}=\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{2(x+2z)^2}{y^2}.$$ Plugging in $x=8000$, $y=1$, and $z=100$, we get $243,919,738$ satellites.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You should probably divide by $\pi \sqrt{3}/6$ to account for the fact that this is the best circle packing density. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 5, 2022 at 14:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 To be specific, this estimate assumes $y$ is small relative to $x+2z,$ so that the spherical circles are close to real planar circles. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 5, 2022 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasLenz I was just making this improvement, thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Plutoro
    Commented Aug 5, 2022 at 14:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You seem to be assuming that the satellites stay magically suspended without having to orbit. Which changes everything. $\endgroup$
    – TonyK
    Commented Aug 5, 2022 at 15:07
  • $\begingroup$ @TonyK If we make the reasonable assumption that the collective motion of the satellites is an ergodic process, then it does not really matter whether that they are moving. On average, each satellite will be a distance $y$ from its neighbors. $\endgroup$
    – Plutoro
    Commented Aug 5, 2022 at 16:59
0
$\begingroup$

To estimate the humongous number $N$ of satellites to be seeded in a cloud on area basis.. we can assume hexagonal packing of nodes in the geodesic dome of Buckminster Fuller's designation $np,$ the number of subdivisions of a spherical triangle side of the basis icosahedron.

enter image description here

$y= 1$ is the blue satellite separation distance between the centers of equilateral triangles in a hexagonal close-packed triangular array of each side red length $a=\sqrt3 y $. With sphere radius $R= x/2+z = 8000/2+100 =4100 $ miles, and assuming uniform distribution valid,

$$ N= \frac{4\pi R^2}{\sqrt{3}a^2/4}=\frac{16 \pi}{3\sqrt3}(R/y)^2 \approx 9.674 (R/y)^2 \approx 1.626\; 10^8 $$

Square root of this is around $12,750$ satellites spread over so many miles occupying almost a hemisphere cloud shell.

But they won't stay put at one place even if injected at same escape velocity in different directions, rather they may swarm around a bright street lamp ( the Earth) like so many insects in low earth orbits. They may need to have omni-directional antenna receiver-transmitters to avoid collisions in a sort of Brownanian motion.. better to address a Physics website about what might possibly happen.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .