Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#81

Post by jay_kyburz »

I have a genuine question, are we handing SpaceX a monopoly by allowing them to launch these satellites, or will competing companies be able to launch similar services?

Will space be too cluttered for competition? (I'm guessing space is really big and that we can have _a lot_ of small satellites up there.)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#82

Post by dymk »

pishpash wrote: post #77
cogman10 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, spacex stuff is all LEO. Without input it all crashes into the atmosphere in a few years (3 I believe)

And we inhale it all. (Yes, I know it's insignificant; all things start insignificantly.)

Just wait until you learn just how much random space stuff enters Earth’s atmosphere in any 24 hour period

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#83

Post by jlmorton »

pishpash wrote: post #77
cogman10 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, spacex stuff is all LEO. Without input it all crashes into the atmosphere in a few years (3 I believe)

And we inhale it all. (Yes, I know it's insignificant; all things start insignificantly.)

When you consider the century-long global effort burning 2-3 billion gallons of oil every day to raise CO2 from 320ppm to 420ppm, you get a sense of the scale involved.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#85

Post by mypalmike »

cogman10 wrote: post #62
bufferoverflow wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the article, SpaceX specifically designed the process to avoid orbiting junk.

Yup, spacex stuff is all LEO. Without input it all crashes into the atmosphere in a few years (3 I believe)

If you read the article, it's not just that they operate at LEO, but the launch process begins at even lower altitudes so that they can quickly deorbit any problem satellites.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#87

Post by vmception »

root_axis wrote: post #69
oxplot wrote: post #20

40 sats makes up about 2% of the current fleet - so a rounding error in cost and time. The important part of this news is how those 40 sats deorbit and leave no junk either in orbit or on earth.

I guess I'm being pedantic, but as a percentage of a whole, isn't 2% not a rounding error by definition?

it’s a fraction …. as long as we are using whole numbers

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#88

Post by bagels »

nikolay wrote: post #78

Who's gonna clean after SpaceX' now? It's amazing that I'll get a $1,000 fine if I drop a small piece of garbage here in Irvine, but SpaceX can go away polluting the sky indefinitely without any responsibilities!

The constellation is self cleaning to some large degree because of their relatively low orbits. Satellites that die on final orbit have ~5 years before they've reentered on their own, and before they orbit raise right after launch, it can be as low as a couple weeks.

These orbits were an intentional choice by SpaceX. One of intentional effects benefits is to not contribute to space junk concerns.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#89

Post by fastball »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #66
bpodgursky wrote: post #2

Rough 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.

I think the correct comparison is losing one launch. Most companies could handle that fine. That's what insurance is for.

Huh, I've never thought about insurance for stuff like this.

Do you think this was covered?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#90

Post by [deleted] »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #45
oxplot wrote: post #20

40 sats makes up about 2% of the current fleet - so a rounding error in cost and time. The important part of this news is how those 40 sats deorbit and leave no junk either in orbit or on earth.

An entire launch worth of satellites is not a "rounding error." The carbon impact of just one launch is pretty obscene.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN