Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
[deleted]
Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
161–170 of 508 posts
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not so sure. They had the satellites in their "flat" mode and adjusted them to be edge on into the worst of the drag induced by the storm. They effectively tested that profile and have measurement data on how much drag they have to deal with under those situations. That data may allow them to limit damage to the entire fleet with larger storms, or make more informed decisions about future launches.
That data probably isn't worth the cost of the satellites they lost though...
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#163I 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…
I don't know anything about Common Sense Skeptic but Thunderf00t has a well known hate of Elon musk and tries to trash pretty much everything he does.
I watched a bit of the Common Sense Skeptic video and heard several completely incorrect claims in the first couple of minutes. It not even remotely close to an impartial look at starlink. Just for a start, they can't use the list cost for falcon 9 launches as the internal cost to SpaceX, and then add in estimated SpaceX costs such as employee salaries.
And as for laser interconnects between starlink satellites - Its already happening. The last few launches have been starlink sats that utilize these laser interconnects.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
The press release states the same safety plan SpaceX has been stating. We'll get to see if it works (which I expect it to), but shouldn't assume it already has.
The only reason they are lost is because they fell too far down. How could they possibly fail to deorbit?
I fully expect they will. But I want to actually see it happen instead of just blindly regurgitating corporate statements that it won't be a worry in the near future.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#16540 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.
I think it is worth having a conversation about the actual numbers for carbon cost for launches, vs cost of other internet deployment technologies. Starlink is really cool but I want to know if I'm a fanatic or making rational decisions.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would spacex be liable if one of their satellites hits your car or house?
Yes. But they're designed to burn up on entry. I think it's been mentioned on HN that the delay in their laser link network was due to the need to redesign the laser component to ensure it would break up.
When people say something will "burn up on reentry", a phrase that I've heard almost all of my life but never really given much thought too, how burnt are we talking? Surely it doesn't just completely atomize?
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, spacex stuff is all LEO. Without input it all crashes into the atmosphere in a few years (3 I believe)
I don’t think this is true. Looking at this: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMchk.jpg from UN, objects above 500km take ~25 years to decay from orbit. They reportedly start at 550km, so I wonder how they hope to achieve 3 years of deorbit without active control.
That infographic is a very simplified view of a complex subject. Here's a more detailed overview: https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm
Bear in mind that Starlink is much lighter and "draggier" than typical artificial satellites. Based on publicly available data, I get a ballpark figure of roughly 20 kg/m^2 for the ballistic coefficient of a tumbling Starlink satellite.
Just eyeballing the graphs in the link I provided, that corresponds to a lifetime of something like 2-9 years, depending on solar conditions.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
> Try not to assume the worst, especially when it's pretty silly. I'm just asking questions -- I would be genuinely curious if SpaceX has a system for determining and evaluating risk when it comes to a situation like this. It does seem absurd that they wouldn't review the active warnings prior to launches. What is indisputable here is that they've announced the loss of 40 satellites during an active warning. I think…
Certain people high up in the org get irritable over launch delays. Sometimes others think the risk isn't worth the yelling and go ahead in less than perfect conditions.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
An entire launch worth of satellites is not a "rounding error." The carbon impact of just one launch is pretty obscene.
These launches are getting SpaceX the money to advance to methane-powered rockets: they will literally make rocket fuel out of air and sunlight, making them absolutely carbon neutral.
Is the manufacture of biofuels actually carbon neutral?
What about the massive deforestation of Indonesia - caused by Germany's biofuel mandate?
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
> Try not to assume the worst, especially when it's pretty silly. I'm just asking questions -- I would be genuinely curious if SpaceX has a system for determining and evaluating risk when it comes to a situation like this. It does seem absurd that they wouldn't review the active warnings prior to launches. What is indisputable here is that they've announced the loss of 40 satellites during an active warning. I think…
I wonder if there was additional unannounced payload. SpaceX frequently seems to launch spy satellites. It may be that other cargo timing took a higher priority…
Also curious if atmospheric warming is a predictable side effect of one of these storms or if we’re just learning about it.