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

421–430 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#421

Post by ricktdotorg »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #403
nefitty wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My list: 1. Solar flares 2. Rogue AI 3. World war 3. Water scarcity (tied to war above) 5. Pandemic 6. Climate disasters My naive perception heavily weighs future possible technological progress. Solar flare collapse is basically unmitigable due to a combination of unpredictability and deep systemic interdependence and dependence on susceptible technologies. Some governments paid lip service to this risk in the past,…

IMO, climate change needs to be higher on the list since it is a major cause of water scarcity (and hence war).

this is it! water scarcity --> war will surely become a very large component of inter-country diplomacy in the near-ish future.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#422

Post by ineedasername »

Victerius wrote: post #46
geocrasher wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder who'll write their orbituary.

New York Times Capital City, Earth – Satellite Starlink XB-4590 has shut down yesterday, February 8, 2132, following a geomagnetic storm that irreparably crippled its circuits. XB-4590 was 5 months old. It is survived by the 32,008 other active Starlink satellites orbiting the Earth. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk IV declined to comment for this article.

A high altitude aircraft will take a sample of the atmosphere where XB-4590 burned up on reentry so that it's remains may be interred at the local e-waste processing facility.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#423

Post by ineedasername »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #396
Kye wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only an issue here because the satellites fly so low that they could be closer than the equivalent node in a land-based link and they're designed to sacrifice themselves rather than risk causing problems. They can replace all of these with one launch. The science fiction you're thinking of assumes satellites are difficult to make, expensive to replace, and create a hazard when they fail. That will become less of…

I think the science fiction stuff I'm thinking of assumes the audience just wants to see a story about one broken family succeeding against personal and scientific odds to save the solar system with one small device that has been stored in a shed somewhere on a ranch in Oregon by a scientist who continued to do his work after his project was hijacked by the military. ;-)

I think I've seen that movie at least a dozen times. Strange thing though, they keep changing the name.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#424

Post by ineedasername »

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?

Depends on the order of magnitude you're working with.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#425

Post by JaimeThompson »

hajile wrote: post #405
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.

2% of a big number is still a big number. 62M to launch. 250-500k per satellite. That's $72M to $82M down the toilet. Given median per-person income is around $36k, that represents over 2,000 man-years of loss. There are less than 30,000 people out of 7,900,000,000 in the entire world worth more than 100M. You could buy around 20 windmills and power 15,000 entire homes per year with that money (or around 40,000 homes…

What Bezos is paying for his boat could pay for all of that 6 times over.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#426

Post by newaccount2021 »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #393
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…

Given Musk's email about SpaceX being close to bankruptcy, how will this affect them financially? Can SpaceX survive without a bailout? What would a bailout look like, another Solarcity? https://spaceexplored.com/2021/11/29/spacex-raptor-crisis/ "Unfortunately, the Raptor production crisis is much worse than it had seemed a few weeks ago. As we have dug into the issues following the exiting of prior senior management…

No post body was provided.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#427

Post by ineedasername »

snovv_crash wrote: post #409
tim333 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess also pedantic but say 50.4 rounding to 50 is a 2% change hence it can be a rounding error.

Wouldn't 51 rounded to 50 be a 2% change?

No, that would be a 1.96% change.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#428

Post by ineedasername »

hajile wrote: post #405
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.

2% of a big number is still a big number. 62M to launch. 250-500k per satellite. That's $72M to $82M down the toilet. Given median per-person income is around $36k, that represents over 2,000 man-years of loss. There are less than 30,000 people out of 7,900,000,000 in the entire world worth more than 100M. You could buy around 20 windmills and power 15,000 entire homes per year with that money (or around 40,000 homes…

It might not be the full $62M though. SpaceX often launches other payloads at the same time. I recall one that sent off a couple of BlackSky says at the same time. I don't know what % of the payload that constitutes though, and as I write this out I realize that I'm probably splitting hairs...

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#429

Post by reaperducer »

nightpool wrote: post #420
reaperducer wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The storm warmed the atmosphere which caused it to expand, leading to additional drag Was this an expected condition, or a new discovery? I only have a layman's understanding of space, but like the idea that we (as a species) just learned something new.

... We have been launching satellites for a long, long time. The process is very well understood, scientifically. Also, your prior should not be that just because you personally haven't heard of something, it must be a new discovery. In fact, in this case it appears to be literally the second bullet point on the first page I could find talking about the risks of geomagnetic storms: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-…

your prior should not be that just because you personally haven't heard of something, it must be a new discovery

Sorry I asked. I'll try to be less interested in science in the future.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#430

Post by ineedasername »

modeless wrote: post #293
laumars wrote: post #289

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.

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.

I think when I got my first cable broadband the modem cost ~$300, probably more than $500 now after inflation.
Post reply on HN