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

221–230 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#221

Post by ouid »

kstenerud wrote: post #217
Shank wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 H…

spacex isn't a person.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#222

Post by kortex »

KiwiJohnno wrote: post #163
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…

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 inte…

Thunderf00t is such a strange fellow. He's clearly quite bright and has some fantastic takedowns of pseudoscience and scammy things, and even disproves a claim about dipoles from a Veritasium video.

But then he goes off with these screeds like the Starlink one as if like they are going to scale up v0.5 without any revision or cost improvement. In the name of "skepticism" or "rationality". But a real rational look at the situation would maybe give the ops and biz folks at SpaceX a bit more benefit of the doubt that they can project out profit/loss over multiyear timeframes.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#223

Post by sennight »

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?

You know how racecars spectacularly fly to pieces when they crash? That is by design - as it rapidly sheds energy. Same thing applies to things that "burn up on reentry", so long as you prevent the thing from coming down as one solid lump of glowing hot metal - the surface area to mass ratio renders the fragments harmless.

I wonder if anyone has ever tested the whole thing about field mice surviving a drop from any height due to their low terminal velocity... those bat bombs in WWII don't count.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#224

Post by elisharobinson »

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#225

Post by mlindner »

The title misrepresents things (people are posting this everywhere with this wrong title). The satellites were not lost to the geomagnetic storm. They were lost to the atmosphere expanding from the geomagnetic storm. The title implies some kind of electronic damage from the geomagnetic storm when in fact there has been none.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#226

Post by gpm »

kant_adorn_arts wrote: post #194
kant_adorn_arts wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the manufacture of biofuels actually carbon neutral? What about the massive deforestation of Indonesia - caused by Germany's biofuel mandate?

or is it not a biofuel? are they using the Sabatier reaction so they just need energy input (could be solar)?

Yes, the stated goal is the sabatier reaction from solar energy.

The apparent purpose of this is pretty much a tech-demo for mars. In terms of minimizing environmental impact on earth it would pretty clearly be better just to send the solar energy to the grid and divert natural gas that would have gone to generating electricity to launching rockets.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#227

Post by mlindner »

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…

It was a minor storm. For some reason the atmosphere puffed up more than expected or with a bad timing.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#228

Post by function_seven »

willcipriano wrote: post #30
mortenjorck wrote: post #5

Of all press releases in recent memory, this is the one that reads the most like hard science fiction.

Somewhere there is a scientist trying to convince his peers this wasn't a geomagnetic storm but instead a alien spacecraft but they don't believe him.

Oh my god I think you're right.

Somewhere this morning a low-level SpaceX engineer was apologetically skipping out of the house. A full breakfast—uneaten, except for the toast he grabbed—laid out on the kitchen table and now the focal point of his wife's muttering. In the background a TV has the morning news on, briefly mentioning the geomagnetic storm. "I promise I'll be back in time for Kaitlyn's play. ...Yes I know how much this means to her."

But he won't be, will he? Because by the end of the day, the entire world will have been transformed in ways nobody could have seen that morning. Except for the perennially-ignored news anchor on in the background.

EDIT: Yeah, https://xkcd.com/1387/

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#229

Post by lostlogin »

mlindner wrote: post #225

The title misrepresents things (people are posting this everywhere with this wrong title). The satellites were not lost to the geomagnetic storm. They were lost to the atmosphere expanding from the geomagnetic storm. The title implies some kind of electronic damage from the geomagnetic storm when in fact there has been none.

When my garage flooded during a storm, can I blame the storm?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#230

Post by johnwalkr »

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.

I have a big collection of “why don’t they just” comments from HN. It’s pretty amusing to look at them in aggregate.
Post reply on HN