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

291–300 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#291

Post by coffeeblack »

yzydserd wrote: post #275
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #152

It must be noted that the satellites were not directly damaged by the geomagnetic storm. The storm warmed the atmosphere which caused it to expand, leading to additional drag that prohibited the satellites from leaving their low "safe mode" orbit. Shortened excerpt: "These storms cause the atmosphere to warm and atmospheric density at our low deployment altitudes to increase.... speed and severity of the storm caused…

> It must be noted that the satellites were not directly damaged by the geomagnetic storm. The storm warmed the atmosphere which caused it to expand, leading to additional drag that prohibited the satellites from leaving their low "safe mode" orbit. So they perished “with” geomagnetic storm, not “of” geomagnetic storm?

The storm was the only cause, so it is in fact “of”.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#292

Post by paranoidrobot »

mlindner wrote: post #274
markonen wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For just the fuel, yeah, but the expendable second stage adds a lot of impact.

How so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometeorite#Introduction > An estimated 40,000 ± 20,000 tonnes per year (t/yr) of cosmic dust enters the upper atmosphere each year of which less than 10% (2700 ± 1400 t/yr) is estimated to reach the surface as particles.

The thread is about CO2 emissions.

The entire total carbon emissions of producing and flying the second stage is non-trivial.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#293

Post by modeless »

laumars wrote: post #289
modeless wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the very high cost of Starlink service It's $99/mo for 100+ megabit service. Sure, it's moderately expensive if you're comparing to cable service in cities . It's downright cheap compared to the cost of connecting the extremely rural customers Starlink targets with physical cables. You don't think running a new set of physical cables to every rural residence in the world (or even cell towers to cover the same) woul…

Plus $500 sign up fee ;) This might all seem reasonable in rural America but it’s hugely expensive for internet in Europe.

That pays for the antenna. The antennas are expensive now because they are new technology, never manufactured on this scale before, but that is changing fast. The fee will get smaller soon enough. Ground-based infrastructure will not be experiencing any analogous rapid cost reduction. And in rural areas it costs a lot more than $500 per residence already. What infrastructure exists is heavily subsidized.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#295

Post by samwillis »

I wander if Starlink launches are more susceptible to this than a normal launch with a single satellite?

With there being a higher ratio of launched objects surface area to kinetic energy, I would assume they experience a higher effect of drag. It’s a bit like the difference between a shot gun and a rifle, both release a similar amount of energy but the shotgun shot has a much higher surface area and experiences more drag.

(Not a physicist, probably missing something)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#296

Post by simion314 »

lmm wrote: post #287
simion314 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the contrary, running cable to many of these places would be overwhelmingly environmentally damaging (in many cases you'd have to build a road through a forest or blast through a mountain) How so? How do this people landed in this place without a road and electricity? Rural homes must have roads to reach the city to buy fuel and food. There are also wireless terrestrial ways to transmit internet too.

> How do this people landed in this place without a road and electricity? Rural homes must have roads to reach the city to buy fuel and food. They might rely on generators for electricity, and access might involve a boat, or a quad bike trail that would need enlarging before you could bring construction equipment in and run a cable along it. > There are also wireless terrestrial ways to transmit internet too. I mean…

>They might rely on generators for electricity, and access might involve a boat, or a quad bike trail that would need enlarging before you could bring construction equipment in and run a cable along it.

Who are this people? ARe they poor farmers or rich dudes on islands?

>I mean ultimately the proof is in the pudding; if it were practical to run internet some other way they would already get it that way.

It might be practical but not obscenely profitable. I double that Elon sells his stuff only to the above people, the people living in isolated environments with no roads and electricity are too few. In many places it is legal to put cables on the electricity polls and connect a village 25Km away in 1 single day, from what I read this is not allowed in US so you have no internet or a monopoly.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#297

Post by LeoPanthera »

McHankHenry wrote: post #294

Will they reenter the atmosphere and burn up, or remain as space-debris? Some are even saying they were space-debris the moment they were launched, due to SpaceX's lack of concern for other satellites up there.

They have already burned up. The storm caused increased drag on the satellites before they could boost their orbit. This is by design, specifically to avoid space debris.

It does explain all this in the article.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#298

Post by Aretas77 »

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.

I agree that space can accommodate these satellites, but what about the used up resources required to build the satellites? The shortage of natural resources, as of now, will only worsen and the losses are more costly than the price - its always possible to print more money but its not possible to print more resources.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#299

Post by skohan »

root_axis wrote: post #69
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.

I guess I'm being pedantic, but as a percentage of a whole, isn't 2% not a rounding error by definition?

This level of pedantry is one of the things I appreciate about HN

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#300

Post by mlindner »

nikolay wrote: post #283
mlindner wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you (or anyone) harmed by this junk in ways that the universe doesn't already harm you?

Asteroids enrich our planet with elements and the satellites are already made from existing ones. I'm never gonna use Starlink and not only because it's super pricey, but because the idea is just stupid.

> Asteroids enrich our planet with elements and the satellites are already made from existing ones.

Well the elements from both arrive the same way.

> I'm never gonna use Starlink and not only because it's super pricey, but because the idea is just stupid.

It's cheaper and better than the competitors. If HughesNet and Viasat can serve customers, why can't Starlink and do it better and cheaper than either.

Post reply on HN