Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
1–10 of 508 posts
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#2Rough luck. Sounds like no real risk or huge loss though.
Imagine any other company on earth losing 40 satellites at a time and shrugging it off. That would bankrupt most space companies (except for maybe Planet).
SpaceX is really working at different orders of magnitude here.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#3Both apparently good for the future of space debris, and a publicity opportunity... Despite losing probably millions of dollars... Good job SpaceX.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#4Do we know what is the expected lifespan of a Starlink satellite? I wonder how well this event factored into their cost calculations, like is this a "once-a-decade" event that actually happens every couple years, or was it in-line with their actuaries?
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#5Of all press releases in recent memory, this is the one that reads the most like hard science fiction.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#6Link to anchor: https://www.spacex.com/updates/index.html#sl-geostrom (sic)
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#740 satellites out of 49 launched by the rocket. Pretty heavy losses, but it's interesting that nearly 20% were spared, even though, or because, they fly in formation.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#8The cost breakdown:
40 x $250k = $10m
1 falcon9 launch = $30m
------------------------
$40m
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#9Do we know what is the expected lifespan of a Starlink satellite? I wonder how well this event factored into their cost calculations, like is this a "once-a-decade" event that actually happens every couple years, or was it in-line with their actuaries?
Five years design lifespan before deorbit.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#10Do we know what is the expected lifespan of a Starlink satellite? I wonder how well this event factored into their cost calculations, like is this a "once-a-decade" event that actually happens every couple years, or was it in-line with their actuaries?
The current generation has a 5-7 year lifespan and after that they are to either naturally decay or manually deorbit. The next gen that is supposed to be deployed with starship provided things get off the ground is intended to stay in orbit for a decent bit longer since they are larger, more expensive satellites.
In the grand scheme of things, this initial set is more a prototype than anything else so I doubt the loss will have any serious permanence. Now getting starship to production on the other hand will really be what makes or breaks the starlink program (as it won't even be possible to deploy v2 if they were to dedicate every possible falcon 9 launch towards just deploying sats).