Do we really need so many satellites?

In the age of satellite-powered communication, low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites have rapidly grown into a crucial backbone for global internet access and communication networks. Companies like SpaceX and Amazon are racing to launch satellite constellations to bring high-speed connectivity to millions of people across the world, particularly in remote regions. However, as the number of satellites in orbit rises, a pressing question emerges: do we really need so many?

Low-orbit satellites offer remarkable potential. Positioned just 100 to 1,200 miles above the Earth, these satellites can deliver fast, reliable communications by bouncing data from space to ground, circumventing the limitations of traditional infrastructure like cell towers. SpaceX’s Starlink, for example, currently operates more than 6,000 LEO satellites, with plans to add tens of thousands more.

But why so many? The answer lies in a fundamental technological limitation: each satellite's antenna can only handle signals from one user at a time. To serve millions of users worldwide, companies like SpaceX have had to launch entire constellations of satellites, constantly orbiting the planet to provide continuous coverage. Each satellite is responsible for just a small patch of Earth, handing off signals from user to user, like a relay race across the skies.

The result is a crowded, expensive race to space as constellations are technically complex, costly to launch and maintain and increasingly contribute to the risk of overcrowded orbits and space debris.

Overcrowded orbits

Space, despite its vastness, is becoming a bit cramped — at least in the low-orbit band where these satellites reside. As companies deploy hundreds or even thousands of satellites, the risk of collisions grows. When satellites crash, they can break apart, generating debris that orbits the Earth at high speeds, threatening other satellites or spacecraft.

The implications for future space travel, satellite operations, and even human exploration are serious. Each piece of debris could trigger a cascade of collisions, further cluttering space with hazardous fragments. While the possibility of debris crashing down to Earth remains slim, the growing risks in space have sparked discussions about the long-term sustainability of the satellite boom.

A breakthrough: Fewer satellites, more efficiency

But what if we didn't need so many satellites? A recent breakthrough in satellite technology could dramatically reduce the number of satellites required to provide global coverage. Researchers at Princeton University and Yang Ming Chiao Tung University in Taiwan have developed a technique that allows a single satellite antenna to manage signals for multiple users simultaneously — something previously thought impossible for fast-moving, low-orbit satellites.

Their method, described in a paper titled "Physical Beam Sharing for Communications with Multiple Low Earth Orbit Satellites," allows satellite antennas to split their signal beams without requiring additional hardware. This could mean fewer satellites are necessary to provide the same level of coverage, leading to smaller constellations and less crowded orbits.

In practical terms, a conventional LEO satellite network may require around 70 to 80 satellites just to cover the United States. With this new technique, that number could drop to as few as 16, greatly reducing costs, complexity, and the likelihood of space debris.

The future of space

While the technology is still in its early stages, the potential is clear: fewer satellites, fewer risks, and less debris cluttering our atmosphere. This development doesn’t just offer cost savings — it also provides a more sustainable approach to the rapidly expanding satellite industry.

Instead of the current approach, where the more satellites launched, the better, we might be entering a new era where the goal is to make satellite technology smarter and more efficient. By designing satellites capable of handling more tasks with less hardware, companies could still provide the coverage and connectivity the world needs, without overwhelming low-Earth orbit with debris.

The answer to whether we do need these many satellites, thanks to new research, may soon be no. As satellite technology evolves, we could see the need for massive constellations decrease, ensuring a future where global communication needs are met without overcrowding the sky.

As the world increasingly relies on space for essential services, from internet access to GPS navigation, finding a balance between technological innovation and environmental stewardship will be critical. We may not need more satellites — just better ones.