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

141–150 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#141

Post by Animats »

Shank wrote: post #102

So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch? There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date: Space Weather Message Code: WARK05 Serial Number: 1635 Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected Extension to Serial Number: 1634 Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0…

That was a minor event to everybody else. I checked the PJM power grid alerts, and they didn't issue a geomagnetic disturbance warning. Their last warning was on 11.04.2021, and it didn't reach a level that affected operations.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#142

Post by [deleted] »

cshimmin wrote: post #54
codeyperson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1700 - 40 = 1660. Rounded it to the nearest integer.

In scientific notation (orders of magnitude is what matters here): 1.700e3 rounded -> 2e3 1.660e3 rounded -> 2e3 Put another way: if your bill for lunch is $16.60, wouldn't you just as easily call it $17? Or even $20, if you're feeling a bit imprecise?

[deleted]

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#143

Post by notreallyserio »

nine_k wrote: post #118
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.

If you earned $100k, that would be $2000. Would you write it off as a rounding error?

Yeah. I mean, if I was doing something risky.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#144

Post by KennyBlanken »

lmm wrote: post #61
KennyBlanken wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The carbon impact of just one launch is pretty obscene. It really isn't. It's what, 15 aeroplane flights' worth? For the sake of bringing internet to hundreds of thousands of people? By letting people shop online or stream entertainment they've probably paid for themselves in reduced car journeys already.

You're citing the cost of 1% of the network against the entire network's function. It's more like 750 "flights worth." To provide internet service to ~250,000 people - about one quarter the population of a major east coast city.

Also, these are consumable - much more so than cable plants.

Starlink is horrifically bad for the environment compared to ground-based infrastructure. As witnessed by the very high cost of Starlink service, which is likely losing mountains of cash despite that.

> For the sake of bringing internet to hundreds of thousands of people? By letting people shop online or stream entertainment they've probably paid for themselves in reduced car journeys already.

That's not how that works.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#145

Post by jjtheblunt »

yabones wrote: post #18

What's crazy to me is that 50 years ago, losing 40 satellites would have been a significant portion of all satellites ever launched . Today, it's a temporary setback for a company that launched nearly one thousand satellites last year.

> 50 years ago, losing 40 satellites would have been a significant portion

made me think "100 years ago, it would have been (40/0)*0.01 = infinity percent", which probably means i need to lay off the coffee a bit.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#146

Post by vmception »

maccam94 wrote: post #104
vmception wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need third party analysis of that, personally

Analysis of what, exactly? The physics of the orbits they are in are pretty well understood. You can track the orbital altitudes (and failures/disposals) here: https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html

well, exactly that, to me that meant "any source aside from SpaceX" and you provided it so thanks.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#147

Post by wilg »

Shank wrote: post #102

So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch? There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date: Space Weather Message Code: WARK05 Serial Number: 1635 Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected Extension to Serial Number: 1634 Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0…

"Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch?" is peak Hacker News pettiness. Try not to assume the worst, especially when it's pretty silly.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#148

Post by icodestuff »

joering2 wrote: post #110

I recently started researching into Starlink as my next (cheap) internet solution and stumbled upon these 2 videos below. The worst part for me is that once this becomes more popular the bandwidth will die down to crumble. I don't buy they will be able to upkeep with bandwidth sharing it from satellite to satellite using a.. laser beam (is that even possible to sync 2 satellites and send signal thru laser beam that h…

First video, once you skip the first 17 minutes which have nothing at all to do with Starlink, is based on two premises: 1. That on-orbit and orbit-to-surface bandwidth will never increase, and 2. That the prototype receivers are the final receivers. 2 has already been proven false with the second generation receiver, and there's no reason to assume that, with so much of the fleet getting replaced every decade, that the network bandwidth will be forever so limited. I don't think laser link tracking is terribly difficult on-orbit, particularly among satellites that share one. It's also considerably slower than stated, falling at 7.2-7.9km/s, not 20,000km/s.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#149

Post by HWR_14 »

SapporoChris wrote: post #122
Shank wrote: post #102

So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch? There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date: Space Weather Message Code: WARK05 Serial Number: 1635 Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected Extension to Serial Number: 1634 Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0…

40 of 49 launched were lost, about 80% loss. Perhaps they intend to learn about geomagnetic storms and deal with them better next time.

As far as I can tell, they didn't lose 40 because of the storm directly, but because they entered safe mode before reaching their orbit, and were then unable to exit safe mode because they were too close to earth. So the data, other than "don't launch during a geomagnetic storm" is likely to be minimal.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#150

Post by shagie »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #133
myself248 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The search term "Gabbard diagram" should tell you all you need to know. Especially if you find some animated ones. Here's a particularly nice one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ijKirDjwOU The Gabbard diagram is a way of expressing the orbital locations and decay of the particles produced as a result of an orbital collision. Note how higher objects tend to stay high for a long time, but low objects (below about 600…

Even more strongly, SpaceX launches to a ~200km orbit and has the satellites raise themselves. This way any satellites without attitude control deorbit immediately. Also, the vast majority of SpaceX satellites will be at 350km.

Your numbers are a bit on the low side.

They start off at a 350 km ( https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=50803 was launched earlier this year).

They then raise them to about a 550 km orbit for its operational lifetime ( https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=45102 )

And then they lower it a bit, and it decays more rapidly ( https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=44249 )

Another one that didn't go operational - https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=44282 - you can see it go up, fail, get lowered, and decay.

Post reply on HN