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

191–200 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#191

Post by nikolay »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #94
nikolay wrote: post #78

Who's gonna clean after SpaceX' now? It's amazing that I'll get a $1,000 fine if I drop a small piece of garbage here in Irvine, but SpaceX can go away polluting the sky indefinitely without any responsibilities!

SpaceX is using their satellites to accomplish useful things for a lot of stakeholders. They also get special permission to allow their satellites to descend to the earth at EOL. These satellites stop orbiting quite quickly after they're no longer functional - they don't orbit indefinitely. Your litter in comparison would be a totally different kind of problem, and evidently, it is a problem at human scale. That's wh…

By the way, regarding the littering - I've been doing something I call "distributed composting." For example, if I eat an apple outside of my home, I just throw the remains somewhere it won't be an eyesore, but where it will decompose in no time or better yet - feed some animals or insects. But if a city employees catches me throwing "the litter" into the bushes, they will give me a fine for "littering".

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#192

Post by leoh »

Armisael16 wrote: post #184
leoh wrote: post #158

Is anyone else concerned by their statement? i.e. in spite serious engineering efforts to ensure satellites function+orbit or nonfunction+deorbit, they don’t assert or furnish a way of understanding (today or at some future date), that of the 49 satellites: * how many are functional+orbiting * how many are nonfunctional+orbiting (i.e. space junk) * how many are nonfunctional+deorbit(ing|ed)

No. None are space junk and none were made nonfunctional by the storm. 1. The storm caused the atmosphere to expand 2. which increases drag on satellites. 3. The satellites were in safe mode because of the storm, so… 4. some satellites fell out of orbit because they couldn’t produce enough thrust to recover after the storm No satellite was ever even at risk of becoming space junk. This is pretty read TFA stuff.

Is there any way they are being held accountable/is there open data to support assertions of the article in question?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#193

Post by [deleted] »

wilg wrote: post #147
Shank wrote: post #102

So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch? There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date: Space Weather Message Code: WARK05 Serial Number: 1635 Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected Extension to Serial Number: 1634 Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0…

"Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch?" is peak Hacker News pettiness. Try not to assume the worst, especially when it's pretty silly.

[deleted]

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#194

Post by kant_adorn_arts »

kant_adorn_arts wrote: post #169
ctdonath wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These launches are getting SpaceX the money to advance to methane-powered rockets: they will literally make rocket fuel out of air and sunlight, making them absolutely carbon neutral.

Is the manufacture of biofuels actually carbon neutral? What about the massive deforestation of Indonesia - caused by Germany's biofuel mandate?

or is it not a biofuel? are they using the Sabatier reaction so they just need energy input (could be solar)?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#195

Post by potamic »

wilg wrote: post #147
Shank wrote: post #102

So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch? There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date: Space Weather Message Code: WARK05 Serial Number: 1635 Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected Extension to Serial Number: 1634 Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0…

"Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch?" is peak Hacker News pettiness. Try not to assume the worst, especially when it's pretty silly.

Your comment qualifies as a thought terminating cliche! At least I come to this forum wanting to think about the kind of questions OP has asked.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#196

Post by shagie »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #188
shagie wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your numbers are a bit on the low side. They start off at a 350 km ( https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=50803 was launched earlier this year). They then raise them to about a 550 km orbit for its operational lifetime ( https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=45102 ) And then they lower it a bit, and it decays more rapidly ( https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=44249 ) Another one that didn't go operational…

The VLEO orbit for Gen2 is 340km, and will comprise the bulk of the satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#cite_note-sn20170917-...

> SpaceX has two constellation applications pending FCC approval — one for a 4,425 satellite constellation operating in Ka- and Ku-band from around 1,200 kilometers, and another for 7,518 V-band satellites flying between 335 and 345 kilometers.

I am not aware of any Starlink satellites currently in either of those two orbits.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#197

Post by pugworthy »

pigscantfly wrote: post #168
Shank wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try not to assume the worst, especially when it's pretty silly. I'm just asking questions -- I would be genuinely curious if SpaceX has a system for determining and evaluating risk when it comes to a situation like this. It does seem absurd that they wouldn't review the active warnings prior to launches. What is indisputable here is that they've announced the loss of 40 satellites during an active warning. I think…

Certain people high up in the org get irritable over launch delays. Sometimes others think the risk isn't worth the yelling and go ahead in less than perfect conditions.

You're putting an emotional ("get irritated") label on it, but there are no doubt risk vs return evaluations made for these situations. They go beyond just raw "irritation" I'm sure.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#198

Post by colordrops »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #144
lmm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The carbon impact of just one launch is pretty obscene. It really isn't. It's what, 15 aeroplane flights' worth? For the sake of bringing internet to hundreds of thousands of people? By letting people shop online or stream entertainment they've probably paid for themselves in reduced car journeys already.

You're citing the cost of 1% of the network against the entire network's function. It's more like 750 "flights worth." To provide internet service to ~250,000 people - about one quarter the population of a major east coast city. Also, these are consumable - much more so than cable plants. Starlink is horrifically bad for the environment compared to ground-based infrastructure. As witnessed by the very high cost of St…

Individual consumers aren't the only customers of Starlink. It also will bring high-bandwidth low-latency connectivity to the entire globe once enough laser-linked satellites are up. Industry and militaries will be using it. Whether this is a net positive for the environment or otherwise remains to be seen.

Also, the point of Starlink is to fund SpaceX's goal of a methane rocket. Methane was chosen because it can be generated from atmospheric gases and solar power. The logistics around scaling it up remain to be solved, but once it is solved, rocket launches will be basically zero carbon.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#199

Post by ethbr0 »

derekp7 wrote: post #177
sp332 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I mean to be specific your homeowners' insurance would pay you directly for "falling debris", but then they would go sue SpaceX to get their money back.

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…

They should have argued that it hadn't yet hit the ground when it hit their house.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#200

Post by pmcp »

matthewsmith1 wrote: post #190
bpodgursky wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really up there with the HN classic "Does anyone else think the entire multi billion dollar targeted advertising industry is a scam that doesn't work?"

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?
Post reply on HN