Say what you want about Elon Musk but SpaceX is one of the most inspiring thing in the world to me. I recently drove down to Boca Chica beach to see the spaceships in person: you can get really close to them it's pretty wild, and honestly I think it was the most amazing man-made thing I've ever seen in my life
Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
31–40 of 508 posts
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#32I have to wonder if anybody else lost satellites. Starlink is at an especially low orbit, so either they were really unlucky, or they have poor radiation shielding. [EDIT] OK I made the wrong assumption that this was due to radiation, but it was due to the atmosphere being 50% more dense than usual due to the storm, which led to failure of the satellites. This makes good sense. Next time I'll read TFA before I commen…
It was due to increased atmospheric drag, not a direction result of radiation.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#33Atomos space tugs can’t happen soon enough! https://www.atomosspace.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhO3rvMTx9QIV8...
Doubtful SpaceX would ever use that for starlink, they are not attached at deployment so you’d need one for each sat.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#34I have to wonder if anybody else lost satellites. Starlink is at an especially low orbit, so either they were really unlucky, or they have poor radiation shielding. [EDIT] OK I made the wrong assumption that this was due to radiation, but it was due to the atmosphere being 50% more dense than usual due to the storm, which led to failure of the satellites. This makes good sense. Next time I'll read TFA before I commen…
The Starlink satellites are launched into a very low orbit, and raise to their final orbit.
These satellites had just launched, and had not yet raised their orbit, so they were lower than the rest of the constellation.
> SpaceX deploys its satellites into these lower obits so that in the very rare case any satellite does not pass initial system checkouts it will quickly be deorbited by atmospheric drag. ...
> Unfortunately, the satellites deployed on Thursday were significantly impacted by a geomagnetic storm on Friday.
So, while Starlink's final orbit is lower than (almost?) all other satellites, these satellites were even lower than that. I would be very surprised if any other satellites were effected.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#35I have to wonder if anybody else lost satellites. Starlink is at an especially low orbit, so either they were really unlucky, or they have poor radiation shielding. [EDIT] OK I made the wrong assumption that this was due to radiation, but it was due to the atmosphere being 50% more dense than usual due to the storm, which led to failure of the satellites. This makes good sense. Next time I'll read TFA before I commen…
The page says that they are deployed out of the ship at very low altitudes before they climb to their final orbit. So I think this only applies very early on in the deployment process and wouldn’t impact anyone else, or even existing deployed starlink satellites. They even describe why they start lower than normal in the article ;)
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Falcon 9 should be pro-rated since some of the mission payload survived. 40 x $250k = $10m 1 falcon9 launch * (40 / 49) = $24.5m ------------------------------------- $34.5m
Isn’t that retail cost of launch? Since they own the spaceships it should be 1/2 or less of the retail price.
There might be the opportunity cost of a doing a retail launch instead, but I would guess for the Starlink launches, if they weren't launching them they wouldn't be launching anything at all, so you're probably right.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#37I have to wonder if anybody else lost satellites. Starlink is at an especially low orbit, so either they were really unlucky, or they have poor radiation shielding. [EDIT] OK I made the wrong assumption that this was due to radiation, but it was due to the atmosphere being 50% more dense than usual due to the storm, which led to failure of the satellites. This makes good sense. Next time I'll read TFA before I commen…
Out of curiosity, I found this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USA_satellites
Quite a number of satellites listed as "failed."
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that retail cost of launch? Since they own the spaceships it should be 1/2 or less of the retail price.
That's the money they would have made and since I assume they don't any marketing that'd be the total realized cost.
That would work if they had sold all of their capacity, but I think there's plenty of unfilled Falcon 9 capacity.
I don't think every Starlink launch could be replaced by a paying customer.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#39Both apparently good for the future of space debris, and a publicity opportunity... Despite losing probably millions of dollars... Good job SpaceX.
The press release specifically states the satellites will de-orbit and burn up by design.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#40Of all press releases in recent memory, this is the one that reads the most like hard science fiction.
I think the press release is lacking in detail. For example, they completely fail to disclose whether recovery was attempted by rerouting power from life support to the structural integrity field.