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

431–440 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#431

Post by ineedasername »

laumars wrote: post #376
Dylan16807 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem with that logic is that it’s not paid across 50 months. It’s a sign up lump sum to pay for the antenna rather than a fixed monthly cost added to your contract duration. Also your post doesn’t take into account the life span of the antennae, that could be less than 5 years. It doesn’t take into account any competing services that you might want to switch to (eg some internet contracts in the U.K. typically…

I had to pay hundreds for my first cable modem, so the early stage costs are comparable.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#432

Post by iam-TJ »

suifbwish wrote: post #98
cogman10 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, spacex stuff is all LEO. Without input it all crashes into the atmosphere in a few years (3 I believe)

Would spacex be liable if one of their satellites hits your car or house?

If you can build your house, or drive your car, at that altitude I rather think you'd be the one being liable! :D

(based on the fact these satellites are designed to burn up completely upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere and so no 'chunks' reach the surface)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#433

Post by bigbizisverywyz »

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?

>Would you say your jet was lost "with" the storm, or "because of" the storm?

You would say "the low-flying jet was lost due to 6 foot swells caused by a storm"

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#434

Post by ineedasername »

Aloha wrote: post #404
theshrike79 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not convinced that starlink is cheaper or better for than ground based cellular infrastructure - its closest technical analog. Starlink is a miracle for people with shitty or no cellular infrastructure. There are places in Australia that have exactly one cell tower for signal and they get 3G speeds at best. And if that tower has a fault, they'll be out of access for days or weeks. $99 per month for Starlink is…

I don't think it can be profitable at that price is the point.

Current satellite broadband (in the US) is in that same pricing ballpark, I don't see why Starlink couldn't be profitable at that price-- or even lower-- once it scales up.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#435

Post by walterbell »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #378
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?

That's quite funny but it's clearly wasted here.

It's even more fun as a pocket universe thread.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#436

Post by vmh1928 »

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?

Yes. Of course you probably wrote this because people are saying that deaths with Covid are not the same as deaths from Covid.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#437

Post by lkbm »

laumars wrote: post #376
Dylan16807 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem with that logic is that it’s not paid across 50 months. It’s a sign up lump sum to pay for the antenna rather than a fixed monthly cost added to your contract duration. Also your post doesn’t take into account the life span of the antennae, that could be less than 5 years. It doesn’t take into account any competing services that you might want to switch to (eg some internet contracts in the U.K. typically…

If we're using price as a proxy for environmental cost, it seems irrelevant whether it's paid up front or over time.

Lifespan certainly matters, but the financial structure doesn't.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#438

Post by derekp7 »

billiam wrote: post #201
derekp7 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of an episode of Jim Henson's TV series Dinosaurs where a space rock hits the Sinclairs' house, and the insurance refuses to pay out. Because they had "meteor" insurance, so their house would only be covered if it was floating in the upper atmosphere at the time of the strike. Instead, the insurance said their house was hit with a meteorite (a meteor that reached the ground), which wasn't covered unde…

It wasn't a meteorite when it hit the house, only when it hit Earth. I know, hit me with the downvotes.

I think their house was made of earth (rock).

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#439

Post by cryptonector »

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?

You missed the joke, which was about covid.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#440

Post by hajile »

ineedasername wrote: post #428
hajile wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/01/06/spacex-deploys-49-more...

This had 48 satellites, so definitely a dedicated launch.

Post reply on HN