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

231–240 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#231

Post by croes »

Symmetry wrote: post #65
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.

A Falcon 9 caries just a bit more fuel than a fully loaded 777. Which is big, to be sure, but still a drop in the bucket just in terms of transportation.

First of all, the last straw that breaks the camel's back. These flights are additional and more are coming.

Second rockets reach higher parts of the atmosphere and the impact is higher compared to the lower flying planes.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#232

Post by SEJeff »

ctdonath wrote: post #99
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.

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.

ISRU (what you're describing) does require a large amount of energy to do at scale. Also, ISRU has never been at the scale required to fully fuel a rocket.

There is a decent writeup on wikipedia[1] on how difficult this would actually be to do ISRU on mars. The TL;DNR is 56,200 meters squared of thin film solar panels. Granted, solar power is roughly half as effective on mars as it is on earth, but still. For reference, an American Football field is 7,140 meters squared.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_program#Mars_prope...

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#233

Post by mlindner »

mmaunder wrote: post #153

Seems like a great way to test the resilience of Starlink launches during a predicted geomagnetic storm. And great PR considering how much negative press they’ve been getting over space junk. https://www.google.com/search?q=starlink+space+junk&rlz=1CDG...

The negative press is rather interesting and I'm always wondering where it's coming from. Why generate so much negative press.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#234

Post by [deleted] »

Armisael16 wrote: post #209
leoh wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any way they are being held accountable/is there open data to support assertions of the article in question?

This is also fairly well-known physics. We know what the atmosphere is like at those altitudes and we know what a starlink satellite looks like. Anything that sits around there is going to fall out of orbit pretty fast unless it has active thrust. Several governments have space-object tracking systems that work on stuff far smaller than starlink satellites - the US, the EU, Russia, probably China. I doubt that’s open…

[deleted]

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#235

Post by gpm »

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…

Let me refer you to the rational wiki on the phrase "just asking questions" https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

The way you framed your question comes off, to paraphrase the wiki, as an attempt to make a wild accusation socially acceptable. Given your response here, I don't get the impression that this was intentional, but given just your original post I absolutely did get the impression that it was intended as an accusation.

---

To attempt to answer the question, the launch weather report [1] does take into account solar activity, and rated it as a low risk. SpaceX takes a more detailed look at the weather than what's in the public report too. However that report almost certainly only counted solar weather during the launch itself - I don't know of public documentation either way towards them looking at post-launch weather as a launch criteria.

[1] https://www.patrick.spaceforce.mil/Portals/14/Weather/Falcon...

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#236

Post by mlindner »

wahern wrote: post #130
dharmab wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small satellites like Starlink burn up in athmosphere. But if you're curious about liability laws for falling satellites, here's the relevant UN convention: http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf

That convention makes states (i.e. national governments) liable, but doesn't by itself make SpaceX liable. I assume SpaceX would be liable under ordinary tort law in the U.S., irrespective of the convention. At least for claims against U.S. nationals, the convention is probably mostly irrelevant; it's purpose is to act as a backstop in case compensation can't be found using normal legal procedures--e.g. courts won't…

> That convention makes states (i.e. national governments) liable, but doesn't by itself make SpaceX liable.

The US is liable for any damage from space SpaceX causes in a different country. If it hits a house in the US, that's a completely different question.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#238

Post by kstenerud »

ouid wrote: post #221
kstenerud wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

(facepalm)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#239

Post by leoh »

Armisael16 wrote: post #209
leoh wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any way they are being held accountable/is there open data to support assertions of the article in question?

This is also fairly well-known physics. We know what the atmosphere is like at those altitudes and we know what a starlink satellite looks like. Anything that sits around there is going to fall out of orbit pretty fast unless it has active thrust. Several governments have space-object tracking systems that work on stuff far smaller than starlink satellites - the US, the EU, Russia, probably China. I doubt that’s open…

> This is pretty read TFA stuff.

> Several governments have space-object tracking systems that work on stuff far smaller than starlink satellites - the US, the EU, Russia, probably China. I doubt that’s open enough for you, though.

I think it’s entirely reasonable to ask for data to back up SpaceX’s assertions and to feel concerned about it not being furnished. This is how proper science and engineering works. We don’t merely take press releases at face value.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#240

Post by bryanlarsen »

shagie wrote: post #196
bryanlarsen wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The VLEO orbit for Gen2 is 340km, and will comprise the bulk of the satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#cite_note-sn20170917-...

> SpaceX has two constellation applications pending FCC approval — one for a 4,425 satellite constellation operating in Ka- and Ku-band from around 1,200 kilometers, and another for 7,518 V-band satellites flying between 335 and 345 kilometers. I am not aware of any Starlink satellites currently in either of those two orbits.

Yes, I used future tense in my comments.
Post reply on HN