[HN Gopher] TeraWave Satellite Communications Network
___________________________________________________________________
TeraWave Satellite Communications Network
https://www.blueorigin.com/terawave
https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/blue-origin-we-want-to...
Author : T-A
Score : 101 points
Date : 2026-01-21 18:31 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.blueorigin.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.blueorigin.com)
| 0xbeefcab wrote:
| 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
| miyuru wrote:
| Some info from NASA optical communication page.
|
| "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...
| dboreham wrote:
| So it'll never work in Scotland.
| jacquesm wrote:
| 9600 Baud...
| themafia wrote:
| CONNECT 9600
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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.
| themafia wrote:
| 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?
| dylan604 wrote:
| ???
|
| It's just really cool sci-fi tech that I want to see used
| in something other than DLP chips!
| BrianGragg wrote:
| 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.
| daemonologist wrote:
| 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?
| everfrustrated wrote:
| Might be better to replace url with the full press release which
| has actual information
|
| 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).
| perihelions wrote:
| An even better source, imho:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/blue-origin-we-want-to...
| ( _" Another Jeff Bezos company has announced plans to develop
| a megaconstellation"_)
| dang wrote:
| I'll put that one in the toptext as well - thanks!
| dang wrote:
| OK, we've used that link instead and put the submitted URL
| (https://www.blueorigin.com/terawave) in the toptext. Thanks!
| agentifysh wrote:
| this seems rather expensive but i get that its not competing with
| spacex here for consumer market
| gmuslera wrote:
| Latency may play a factor here, I'm not sure at which height they
| plan to put them.
| everfrustrated wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| grvbck wrote:
| 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.
| grvbck wrote:
| (Also, for a frame of reference as to how large these numbers
| are: the entire gps network operates on 31 satellites.)
| direwolf20 wrote:
| How many causes Kessler syndrome?
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How many causes Kessler syndrome?_
|
| 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...
| nullhole wrote:
| You're ignoring the speed they're travelling at.
|
| For a given period of time, a single satellite will travel
| through a vastly larger volume of space than a single
| plane.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Is it a lot? It's a bit like you are telling me there are gonna
| be 250000 cars on a planet larger than Earth.
| looperhacks wrote:
| 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
| GMoromisato wrote:
| LEO Satellites are only visible after dawn and before
| sunrise. They are invisible to the eye and even large
| telescopes when they are not in sunlight.
| quaintdev wrote:
| I wonder if there's a limit to space junk beyond which leaving
| the Earth in a space shuttle becomes impossible.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _wonder if there 's a limit to space junk beyond which
| leaving the Earth in a space shuttle becomes impossible_
|
| There is. We don't have the industrial capacity, as a
| species, to do it.
| m4rtink wrote:
| 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.
| Aurornis wrote:
| These satellites are low Earth orbit (LEO)
|
| 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.
| m4rtink wrote:
| 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.
| leetharris wrote:
| "Polluting" is a very charged term. These satellites provide
| immense value. So far, there is no evidence these will stop us
| from watching the stars.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > 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?
| justin66 wrote:
| > 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.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| 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?
| m4rtink wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46711405
| manacit wrote:
| 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.
| paulb73 wrote:
| SEA parking garage? Unfamiliar with this size reference.
| mlmonkey wrote:
| Here, "SEA" = "Seattle Tacoma International Airport" in
| the state of Washington, USA.
| doublesocket wrote:
| That is ... an oddly specific reference?
| skyo wrote:
| It's one of the largest parking garages in the world
| y1n0 wrote:
| This is fair but the cars are stationary, occupying a
| parking space. Satellites occupy a ring.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Speed matters a lot. You can fit a lot more walking people
| than speeding motorcycles in the same space.
|
| Satellites need to travel at 8 km/s to not fall down.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Speed matters a lot_
|
| 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.
| notahacker wrote:
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > 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
| 180deg and start accelerating in that direction. Others
| might learn it from Kerbal.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| 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.
| suncore wrote:
| According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66ZZ05wKC0 this
| might end very badly very soon.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _According tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66ZZ05wKC0
| this might end very badly very soon_
|
| This is 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, but not in a particularly
| rigorous way.
|
| [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.09643
|
| [2] https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/pape
| r/3...
| WarmWash wrote:
| Make the US land area ~20% larger.
|
| 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.
| thomascountz wrote:
| This is funnily oddly specific.
| woah wrote:
| Spoken like someone who's never placed a shoebox on a
| seaboard
| hatthew wrote:
| 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.
| WarmWash wrote:
| Seems like you're right, I didn't actually run through the
| statistics and just went with intuition. Yikes
| wmf wrote:
| AFAIK they're in separate shells so the probability of
| collision is basically zero.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Things you put in orbit at a certain elevation don't stay at
| that elevation forever.
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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.
| chris_va wrote:
| What your describing is called Kessler Syndrome
|
| 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).
| torginus wrote:
| Even if these sats do collide and produce debris, they are in
| decaying orbits, so that stuff will eventually fall back down.
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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.
| gordonhart wrote:
| 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.
| esseph wrote:
| It's not a Leo competitor, it's a different type of service
| offering.
| gordonhart wrote:
| Fair enough, I was misremembering the higher end of Leo's
| bandwidth (1Gbps down/400Kbps up). Doesn't really intersect
| with TeraWave at all
| t1234s wrote:
| 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..)?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What happens if the beam is obstructed for a brief moment
| (plane, kite, ufo, etc..)?_
|
| Same as with any dropped packet.
| bhhaskin wrote:
| And my guess would be multiple beams for redundancy.
| hbarka wrote:
| Looking forward to TeraWave. We need a minimum of two in critical
| services. Google and Microsoft and Apple. Anthropic and OpenAI
| and Gemini.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-21 23:00 UTC)