Live data from Hacker News

One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

earthsky.org

221–230 of 347 posts

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deorbiting the v 1.5 has a far lower chance of anything hitting the ground than the bigger ones.

True, but their demising technology appears to be quite good too. I had an interesting discussion at the Small Satellite conference in Utah with folks about demising and they mentioned starlink. "Good" demising has the 'slipstream' layer of the satellite burn up quickly on de-orbit and then the other bits are made purposely non-aerodynamic, especially with fastners which are designed to burn quickly to rapidly disass…

Yes. The sat people that I know in NL always show that same cradle-to-the-grave kind of thinking and it really influenced me how I'm looking at how other industries are dealing with this. It's funny because externalization is the name of the game in almost every industry and the only industry that actually goes off planet takes that 'what goes up must come down' again angle into account every step of the way.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i still don’t understand why we need huge constellations of satellites at all

Because providing infrastructure to remote regions is incredibly difficult through other mechanisms. I don't believe it's hyperbole to say that -- for the goal of improving infrastructure access in some of the most remote and challenging places in the world -- Starlink in particular is one of the most successful pro-humanitarian engineering projects that I can think of in maybe the last 20 years. Starlink is easily o…

>>Starlink in particular is one of the most successful pro-humanitarian engineering projects that I can think of in maybe the last 20 years.

Better than gates' effort to eradicate malaria?

Sorry to be snarky, but to me Starlink is something rich people in rural England have, because it's slightly easier than paying OpenReach to connect them to proper network. And it's hard to imagine anyone else being their clients, at the prices that they charge.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#223
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking from a place of ignorance on my part, but does the chemical composition of the satellites versus asteroids/dust have any adverse effects?

The satellites are mostly metal and silicon I would guess, not too different from asteroids.

I guess we can just read the article:

> The researchers found particles containing the rare elements niobium and hafnium. They also found a significant number of particles contained copper, lithium and aluminum at concentrations far exceeding the abundance found in space dust.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This paper shows how in 2023 scientists were already annoyed by this, that they had to accommodate this into their observations, and adjust their measurements accordingly. Suffered (past tense) may be hyperbolic, but it isn’t untrue either. This 2023 paper is also issuing a warning, that if this continues without mitigation, ground based astronomy will be affected. They have the calculations to prove that. What they…

> They have the calculations to prove that They have calculations that show this is how our models play out. > What they are particularly concerned about is detecting faint objects inside the radio wave spectrum will be impossible because it will be lost in noise Could become. They're not talking about mitigation because we haven't observed the problem yet. > Now 2 years have passed since this paper was published, an…

You wanted to see the computations, I provided you with them and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you responded by casting doubt on their models. This doesn’t strike me as arguing in good faith. But very well, 5th on my list of the same search term gave me this:

Vera C. Rubin Observatory – Impact of Satellite Constellations

https://www.lsst.org/content/lsst-statement-regarding-increa...

The Vera Rubin Observatory came online only this June, but they were complaining about Starlink already last year, and provided preliminary observation how they affected their observations, and how they plan on mitigating it.

Both the 2023 paper and the Vera Rubin Observatory statement call for a set of policies to mitigate the effect of these satellites. However policymakers have not enacted any of these other then some NSF science grants to study potential solution (I don‘t know whether or not they were defunded by DOGE; although if they were, that would seem like a criminal conflict of interest). And I have my reservations about the willingness of governments in the world to come together and set the universal regulatory framework required to enforce these proposed mitigations.

Note that increased exposure time required because of these satellites will affect the number of available operations, which in turn will decrease the amount of astronomy done with this telescope. I want to note especially the conclusion:

> Overall, large numbers of bright satellites — and the necessary steps to avoid, identify, and otherwise mitigate them — will impact the ability of LSST to discover the unexpected.

When you are disputing this you are disputing top engineers and scientists in astronomy. You better have a good reason for that (other then protecting the wealth of billionaires).

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#225
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, those are the original / older gen sats, that have way less capacity then the newer models. They are moving away from tons of small sats and more to larger (with longer life time) sats that have multiple times the capacity, of the combined smaller sats. Quoting a older post i made on the subject: ------- Take in account, that a lot of those are replacement sats for the first generations that they are deorbiting…

But if they're adding larger capacity ones that still have the same failure mode, then the "1 to 2 a day" becomes even worse right? Or are those larger ones also ones that have a longer shelf life?

The scale of the Starlink constellation is really not what people expect when they think of satellites. To get a sense for just how many of these have already been launched, check out this interactive map.

https://satellitemap.space/

(~8,500 actively in orbit)

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#226
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Handover downtimes" for stationary or mobile users? If they're stationary, that's not something inter-satellite links are needed for or would help with.

You are very wrong here: Right now Starlink claims to be operating a mesh, but they are not. If they would want to build a mesh, Inter-sat links for NOT be used used to pipe through bandwidth to the "best" base station. It would be used for shared state to be able to prepare a handover. Synching state obviously is much easier and more stable if the neighboring sats can talk directly, instead of sharing it over their…

Can not reply to your anymore, guess we are nested too deep now?

I think we are simply talking about two different things here.

I mentioned 802.11r not due to the key exchange implementation details, but to point to the general point: Seamless handover requires shared state between cells.

This is not about static vs dynamic routing, you are thinking on the wrong layer here. We are in L1+L2 land.

On Starlink, the last time I tested a handover between two Sats in 2025 still involves a downtime of at least 5 seconds, and both L2 info and NAT state being lost.

In regards of axes: I am not much into emotions. Of course the data says that Elon Musk is the cancel cell that will play a huge part in destroying the western civilization. But as I do not like the western civilization and humans in general much, this does not trigger much emotions.

And even if I hated Elon Musk: We are talking about technology, R&D and implementation details here (which I enjoy!). I do not have emotions on IP protocols and such :)

No, in reality it's really very simple: My data says that Starlink just is not worth it. It is not commercially feasible. It pollutes the space with tons of trash that will harm productive future space missions and projects. It's highly overrated and overhyped. It's very hard to find positive reviews that haven't been paid for.

Or, executive summary: Starlink is a dead end, and without the Elon cult nobody after looking at a hypothetical business plan would invest.

And finally: Anecdotical evidence collected from my own tests and those of friends all says: It's just shitty. However: That of course depends on your use case. For some an 8 seconds drop-out might mean "patient dead". For others it might be "I will retry loading this after grabbing a cup of coffee". My peer group might have higher standards than others.

Of course Sat internet has its place as a niche business. But as you surely are aware in the US it was and is tried to steal tax money meant to build fiber by claiming Starlink would be equivalent. And you might also remember that if someone would not have pulled the emergency break, you know would have air traffic controllers seeing planes with 100ms+ of latency AND every now and then losing contact to all airplanes for 8 seconds.

And all of this has been tried before. Over in Europe, we 10 years ago had those fights where Viasat & co claimed to be an alternative when we got the "basic human right to broadband".

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#227
post #130

This article has a somewhat alarmist tone, but isn't this just Starlink working as intended? It seems much better for an old non-functional Starlink satellite to burn up in the atmosphere instead of continuing in an uncontrolled orbit. I believe most burn-ups are controlled intentional deorbits.

Are there not concerns with burning up multiple agglomerations of metal, plastics, and ceramics the size of a small car in the upper atmosphere every day?

Wonder how it compares to the volume and elements of the meteorites we’re constantly hitting?

ChatGPT says we get between 50 and 100 metric tons of material a day, mostly silicates and iron/nickel metals.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#228
post #130

This article has a somewhat alarmist tone, but isn't this just Starlink working as intended? It seems much better for an old non-functional Starlink satellite to burn up in the atmosphere instead of continuing in an uncontrolled orbit. I believe most burn-ups are controlled intentional deorbits.

The reentry thing is more or less intentional.

There's this meme about how only recently launched starlink satellites are problematic for astronomy, but when people bring it up they usually don't mention that by virtue of the constellation's size and reentry frequency there's always going to be a bunch of recently launched satellites.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#229

Can this become dangerous for airplanes? Or are they fully burned up before reaching that low altitude?

There's typically only a small amount of matter that makes it down intact, and they usually aim to deorbit in the middle of nowhere (eg Point Nemo)

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#230
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gimme your source URL, please. As others have pointed out already in this thread: No serious analyst and not even Starlink themselves have claimed to be profitable. They have claimed to be operationally profitable. This means that the cost of operating the sats is lower than the revenue they make. It does leave out all other cost. Yes, if they could build and launch the Sats for free instead of ~$2 million per piece,…

>> Also, have you actually used Starlink? Yes, for example, via a battery-operated "Mini" terminal a month or so ago in extreme rural Finland, ~1km from the Russian border, while photographing wolves & bears. It worked great.

Mad respect!
Post reply on HN