321–330 of 508 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would spacex be liable if one of their satellites hits your car or house?
If there’s so little atmosphere that a Starlink doesn’t burn up before it hits your car, the ICE engine would have trouble running anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The storm was the only cause, so it is in fact “of”.
The storm is a single event in a chain of events that caused the satellites to fail. It's not the direct nor the first cause.
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?
Would you say your jet was lost "with" the storm, or "because of" the storm?
Do we know what is the expected lifespan of a Starlink satellite? I wonder how well this event factored into their cost calculations, like is this a "once-a-decade" event that actually happens every couple years, or was it in-line with their actuaries?
The current generation has a 5-7 year lifespan and after that they are to either naturally decay or manually deorbit. The next gen that is supposed to be deployed with starship provided things get off the ground is intended to stay in orbit for a decent bit longer since they are larger, more expensive satellites. In the grand scheme of things, this initial set is more a prototype than anything else so I doubt the los…
What would be the physical mechanisms that would increase density / drag with an increase in the temperature ?
> SpaceX deploys its satellites into these lower obits Unintentional pun on "orbits", perhaps? It's incredible to me that launching satellites is so easy now that a failure of 40 satellites can be tolerated. On the bright side, I guess this gave SpaceX a chance to talk about their debris-limiting strategy!
So the loss of a batch of starlink or GPS or glonass is not a tragedy like the loss of Webb would have been.
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?
What would be the physical mechanisms that would increase density / drag with an increase in the temperature ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The storm is a single event in a chain of events that caused the satellites to fail. It's not the direct nor the first cause.
I'd probably use the term 'following' in that case. Starlink lost 40 satellites following geomagnetic storm