Remix.run Logo
TeraWave Satellite Communications Network(blueorigin.com)
98 points by T-A 4 hours ago | 63 comments

https://www.blueorigin.com/terawave

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/blue-origin-we-want-to...

0xbeefcab 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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...

dylan604 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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.

dboreham an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

So it'll never work in Scotland.

jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-]

9600 Baud...

BrianGragg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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?

embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

y1n0 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is fair but the cars are stationary, occupying a parking space. Satellites occupy a ring.

paulb73 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

SEA parking garage? Unfamiliar with this size reference.

mlmonkey an hour ago | parent [-]

Here, "SEA" = "Seattle Tacoma International Airport" in the state of Washington, USA.

doublesocket an hour ago | parent [-]

That is ... an oddly specific reference?

skyo 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's one of the largest parking garages in the world

Gravityloss an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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 an hour ago | parent [-]

> 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 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

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 4 minutes ago | parent [-]

> 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 180° and start accelerating in that direction. Others might learn it from Kerbal.

WarmWash an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

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.

hatthew an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

thomascountz an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is funnily oddly specific.

woah an hour ago | parent [-]

Spoken like someone who's never placed a shoebox on a seaboard

m4rtink 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

torginus 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even if these sats do collide and produce debris, they are in decaying orbits, so that stuff will eventually fall back down.

dylan604 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

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.

wmf an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AFAIK they're in separate shells so the probability of collision is basically zero.

idiotsecant an hour ago | parent [-]

Things you put in orbit at a certain elevation don't stay at that elevation forever.

chris_va 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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).

suncore 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66ZZ05wKC0 this might end very badly very soon.

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> According to https://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/paper/3...

gordonhart 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not a Leo competitor, it's a different type of service offering.

gordonhart an hour ago | parent [-]

Fair enough, I was misremembering the higher end of Leo's bandwidth (1Gbps down/400Kbps up). Doesn't really intersect with TeraWave at all

hbarka 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Looking forward to TeraWave. We need a minimum of two in critical services. Google and Microsoft and Apple. Anthropic and OpenAI and Gemini.

t1234s 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> What happens if the beam is obstructed for a brief moment (plane, kite, ufo, etc..)?

Same as with any dropped packet.

bhhaskin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And my guess would be multiple beams for redundancy.

everfrustrated 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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).

dang 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

OK, we've used that link instead and put the submitted URL (https://www.blueorigin.com/terawave) in the toptext. Thanks!

perihelions 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'll put that one in the toptext as well - thanks!

grvbck 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 an hour ago | parent [-]

> 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.

leetharris 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"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.

grvbck 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

(Also, for a frame of reference as to how large these numbers are: the entire gps network operates on 31 satellites.)

stefan_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder if there's a limit to space junk beyond which leaving the Earth in a space shuttle becomes impossible.

m4rtink 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How many causes Kessler syndrome?

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

NitpickLawyer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

everfrustrated 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

gmuslera 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Latency may play a factor here, I'm not sure at which height they plan to put them.

agentifysh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

this seems rather expensive but i get that its not competing with spacex here for consumer market