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

211–220 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#211

Post by garyfirestorm »

wilg wrote: post #147
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.

Ummm…this is quite possible.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#212

Post by ABeeSea »

Diesel555 wrote: post #207
hyperhopper wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like you ask this poster to assume the best of the company, I think you should assume the best of the poster. In my opinion it's pretty clear the jist of his message is "how did this happen when there was a freely available warning"

"Be Curious, Not Judgmental" - Ted Lasso, and (not?) Walt Whitman. To ask why "Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch?" instead of asking "why did Space-X choose to launch when there was a warning" are two drastically different questions. The first has an assumption that checking for the warning is the problem while the second does not make an assumption of the problem. I think it's a pretty poor as…

Based on Tesla’s history with FSD, I don’t think giving any Musk company the benefit of the doubt is warranted.

There are two options:

1) They don’t monitor the warnings.

2) The warning doesn’t matter. Move fast and breaking things.

Both options are bad.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#213

Post by MPSimmons »

barbecue_sauce wrote: post #166
wahern wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you remember, back when SpaceX used aluminum grid fins, when you'd see a Stage 1 re-entering, and you could watch the grid fins erode away in realtime video?

Think of that, but for, well, everything.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#214

Post by arwineap »

mabbo wrote: post #101
jay_kyburz wrote: post #81

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.)

We didn't hand them anything. SpaceX took the risk of being a first mover in a very difficult field and looks to have had their bet pay off. There's room for more satellites. Space is pretty big, and with some careful automated coordination we can avoid collisions. But someone else needs to first figure out how to cheaply launch a competing fleet, and I doubt anyone will come close for years.

Amazon's Project Kuiper

Behind, but it's there

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#215

Post by philosopher1234 »

pugworthy wrote: post #197
pigscantfly wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're putting an emotional ("get irritated") label on it, but there are no doubt risk vs return evaluations made for these situations. They go beyond just raw "irritation" I'm sure.

I think you’re unduly discounting the influence of emotions on leaders. IMO there are many executives who are for more driven by their personal feelings than we would like to believe.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#216

Post by philosopher1234 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #156
wilg wrote: post #147

Earlier 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.

It is really up there with the HN classic "Does anyone else think the entire multi billion dollar targeted advertising industry is a scam that doesn't work?"

There have been more expensive scams.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#217

Post by kstenerud »

Shank wrote: post #151
wilg wrote: post #147

Earlier 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…

"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?" is not just asking questions; it's full-on passive-aggressive.

Being pseudo-anonymous and safely behind a screen depersonalizes the experience enough that we get tempted to take swipes for some reason (I do too), and it diminishes the experience on places like HN especially where we aspire to do better than reddit or /.

The best test for this kind of thing is "If I were speaking to the responsible person face-to-face, would I say it this way?" Because then the question becomes "Do I want to hurt this person?"

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#218

Post by MPSimmons »

kant_adorn_arts wrote: post #169
ctdonath wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Does shipping a rocket to Mars with enough propellant to make the trip and land when it gets there affect the balance?

Every rocket to Mars carries hydrocarbon that will never come back.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#219

Post by haliskerbas »

pugworthy wrote: post #197
pigscantfly wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're putting an emotional ("get irritated") label on it, but there are no doubt risk vs return evaluations made for these situations. They go beyond just raw "irritation" I'm sure.

Presumably you haven’t seen any of the “exited” emails. Or seen some of the petty reasons people get fired for at that company.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#220

Post by macintux »

ABeeSea wrote: post #212
Diesel555 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Be Curious, Not Judgmental" - Ted Lasso, and (not?) Walt Whitman. To ask why "Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch?" instead of asking "why did Space-X choose to launch when there was a warning" are two drastically different questions. The first has an assumption that checking for the warning is the problem while the second does not make an assumption of the problem. I think it's a pretty poor as…

Based on Tesla’s history with FSD, I don’t think giving any Musk company the benefit of the doubt is warranted. There are two options: 1) They don’t monitor the warnings. 2) The warning doesn’t matter. Move fast and breaking things. Both options are bad.

3) The warning was missed due to

4) The severity of the situation was misjudged

5) They decided to try a real-world experiment to determine whether their expectations were correct

Post reply on HN