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

351–360 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#351

Post by noitpmeder »

samwillis wrote: post #347
rklaehn wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. SpaceX intentionally launches the sats into an extremely low orbit. That way, sats that can not be controlled due to a manufacturing defect or whatever will immediately reenter, and pose no threat to other spacecraft. Normal satellites are directly launched into much higher orbits, so if there is an issue they will be space debris for decades.

Yes, I understand they are injected to a particularly low orbit. My question is, if you launched a single larger satellite into the same orbit would it be less susceptible to aerodynamic drag due to the effects of a similar geomagnetic storm?

If by "larger" you mean larger surface area (and therefore more drag) then I'd think yes. But not necessarily "larger" in terms of mass, if only because it could still have a fairly good aerodynamic profile.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#353

Post by Havoc »

rmbyrro wrote: post #349

Now do the Russians and Chinese mitigate space debries in a similar fashion? I have the impression they don't care much (might be wrong?), and if not, why so? Not technically capable (I don't buy it)?

The "mitigation" in this case largely comes down to it being a low orbit, rather than spacex doing something special. So yeah if other countries build low orbit networks the same will apply.

...the higher up orbits are more problematic

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#355

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

Fatnino wrote: post #324
yzydserd wrote: post #275

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?

That’s also the issue with those ground-effect vehicles, like the Ekranoplan.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#356

Post by nefitty »

skywal_l wrote: post #332
Fatnino wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (i…

Right. I imagined some solar flare or something.

From my understanding, they are the biggest existential risk to modern humanity, slightly ahead of rogue AI. From that context, whether misguided or otherwise, you can imagine that my heart skipped a beat when I read the link title.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#357

Post by brazzledazzle »

skywal_l wrote: post #332
Fatnino wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (i…

The difference is also important because if it’s an issue with altitude under certain conditions they may be able to take preventive measures with future storms. Whereas torm-related electronic disturbances could lead to satellite design changes.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#358

Post by Seb-C »

01acheru wrote: post #345
Seb-C wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"very trivial"

The parent username is verytrivial, so I think we can accept the humour and let it go without splitting, don't you agree?

What makes you think that my comment wasn't humorous?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#359

Post by berkes »

z3t4 wrote: post #266
root_axis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With the same logic you could say that covid was a rounding error. Human lives are more valuable then satellites though

Lets at least try to keep this offtopic, inflamatory subject at bay. Please?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#360

Post by ncmncm »

z3t4 wrote: post #266
root_axis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With the same logic you could say that covid was a rounding error. Human lives are more valuable then satellites though

Depends who you ask. The insurance company would reimburse your family, for your death, for rather less than the replacement cost of the bird.
Post reply on HN