Live data from Hacker News

Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

spacex.com

331–340 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#331
post #322

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.

That's like saying a ship sank not because of the hurricane, but because it was flooded and ended up capsizing. Sure, it wouldn't have sunk if it had stayed in port, but we still say the hurricane was the cause.

I assume you are making a case in good faith.

Saying the satellites were lost because of the geomagnetic storm could imply that the satellites suffered some sort of electronic damage. Which, as I understand, is not what happened. That is why the nuance here is important.

In your case, there is no other reason for the boat to be lost but because of the wind and waves.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Imagine flying a fighter jet 4 feet above the ocean. Then a storm appears and causes 6 foot swells. Now your jet is on the bottom of the ocean. Would you say your jet was lost "with" the storm, or "because of" the storm?

It was lost because, during the storm, it was flying too low. If the jet had been flying at a higher altitude, the storm would have still happen and the jet would have been fine. So the storm is not the direct and only cause of the crash.

It is important here because one could assume, only reading the title, that the satellite were lost due to electronic disturbances caused by the storm. Which is not what happened (if my understanding is correct).

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Imagine flying a fighter jet 4 feet above the ocean. Then a storm appears and causes 6 foot swells. Now your jet is on the bottom of the ocean. Would you say your jet was lost "with" the storm, or "because of" the storm?

[deleted]

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Plus $500 sign up fee ;) That's going to average out to less than $10 a month pretty quickly.

Let's first see if you can even keep using the same make of antenna before replacing it with a new model for 5 years

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main takeaway here is that Elon Musk's grandson, "∑∫π²∞", decided he was tired of the escalating unicode name game and just named his kid Elon Musk IV.

It would be Elon IV Musk ... if they cared to follow the norm.

I think you misread that. Elon Musk IV is the given name. Her full name is Elon Musk IV Musk. The same way Mario's and Luigi's full names are Mario Mario and Luigi Mario.

Her friends call her IV.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How modified would a Tesla Cybertruck need to be to run on the moon?

If I had to guess, probably quite a bit. I doubt the battery cells or the electronics would hold up under hard vacuum.

I recall a story posted here that if you put an iPhone in helium it will break the MEMS components inside of it and it will fail to boot, and that's still at 1 atmosphere.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#338
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! This HN trope is so tiring. It's almost impossible to convince developers as a group, but to convince them one by one is easy.

I still believe this, but am willing to learn. Honest question: Would you mind trying to convince me?

Sure. It's a lot easier when I can swing open a Facebook/Google Ad (etc) account and show you the actual data. I have tried having this conversation online before and people literally say things like 'you're just a shill how can we trust anything you say', as if I would post this sort of thing in bad faith?

It's so weird. Anyway, let me have a go. Initial points:

- Lots of marketing is full of rubbish and smoke and mirrors. This does not mean that ALL marketing is full of rubbish and smoke and mirrors.

- Many companies have marketing 'as a function', but other companies have marketing as quite literally their only source of revenue. These companies would know that digital marketing doesn't work as they wouldn't have revenue. It is that simple.

- I have never worked for a CEO that has accepted smoke and mirrors as answers, and I would never work for a CEO like that. The CEO of my company has a Stanford PhD in Physics. He was one of those child geniuses you used to see in the newspaper, before you stopped reading newspapers. This guy is not an idiot.

Some marketing - a lot of marketing - cannot be directly attributed to revenue, but we know it works. How? Because we can, and do run isolated tests of that exact tactic and test if it works in isolation.

Take the example of banner ads. I have run them in isolation (ie - I have run campaigns where literally the ONLY way you could have known this information was to see a banner ad) and have achieved spectacular results despite noone ever clicking on the ad. (People emailed and called asking to take up the offer.)

I have also have achieved horrifically bad results. Same tactics, but everything else was different - audience, market, placement, product being sold etc.

Every product has a better or worse way of being marketed. It takes a TON of experience to learn how to adapt; many junior marketers think they're experts because they crush it in one job, and then go to the next job and have the exact same tactics fail. Why? Because business is hard. Marketing is about so much more than just running ads.

I run marketing right now for a very young startup. A year ago, we were adding around $5-15k in ARR each month (we only bill annually.) Now, we are adding around $80-100k in new ARR each month. Our marketing spend, inc salaries, is around $40k/m and our sales are growing wayy faster than our marketing spend. The results would be even better if I could convince my CEO to raise our prices.

(I can't complain - at least I got an unsolicited salary increase a few months ago.)

Marketing is the only form of lead generation for us. So much so that I had to plead with the CEO and head of sales to stop relying on my function and to go out and actually set up proper outbound sales processes.

Just because Uber's head of marketing was dropping - and wasting - hundreds of millions on programmatic advertising, doesn't make us all idiots.

/endrant.

(oh. One last thing. This is really the cherry on top: our market is devs. We're literally marketing to devs.)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#339
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying a ship sank not because of the hurricane, but because it was flooded and ended up capsizing. Sure, it wouldn't have sunk if it had stayed in port, but we still say the hurricane was the cause.

I assume you are making a case in good faith. Saying the satellites were lost because of the geomagnetic storm could imply that the satellites suffered some sort of electronic damage. Which, as I understand, is not what happened. That is why the nuance here is important. In your case, there is no other reason for the boat to be lost but because of the wind and waves.

So the difference is that the movement of water (i.e. waves) is implied in a Hurricane and that the atmosphere is expanding isn't implied in a geomagnetic storm? So your whole argument is based on our (meaning the general population) limited knowledge about the side effects of geomagnetic storms, while we do know about the side effects of hurricanes.

The nuance isn't that important. The implication that a geomagnetic storm can only cause magnetic/electric damage is just wrong. It's like implying a hurricane can only cause damage through wind and rain.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#340
post #121

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.)

Did we hand Tesla a monopoly when we allowed them to build a bunch of electric cars when no one else was willing to take them seriously?

Not but you handed them a monopoly by allowing them to install charging stations with a proprietary connector throughout the country.
Post reply on HN