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

271–280 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#271

Post by mlindner »

HWR_14 wrote: post #47
GregorBrandt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The press release specifically states the satellites will de-orbit and burn up by design.

The press release states the same safety plan SpaceX has been stating. We'll get to see if it works (which I expect it to), but shouldn't assume it already has.

Physics decides that. There's no need to trust SpaceX at all. The satellites will deorbit within a few days. These things aren't magic. If a corporation says gravity pulls you toward the Earth, you shouldn't suddenly start doubting that gravity pulls you downwards until it does.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#272

Post by [deleted] »

arwineap wrote: post #214
mabbo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't hand them anything. SpaceX took the risk of being a first mover in a very difficult field and looks to have had their bet pay off. There's room for more satellites. Space is pretty big, and with some careful automated coordination we can avoid collisions. But someone else needs to first figure out how to cheaply launch a competing fleet, and I doubt anyone will come close for years.

Amazon's Project Kuiper Behind, but it's there

[deleted]

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#273

Post by mlindner »

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!

You better try and fine the universe for dumping tens of thousands of micrometeroid debris into the atmosphere every day too!

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#274

Post by mlindner »

markonen wrote: post #265
mlindner wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's what, 15 aeroplane flights' worth? Try a single aeroplane?

For just the fuel, yeah, but the expendable second stage adds a lot of impact.

How so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometeorite#Introduction

> An estimated 40,000 ± 20,000 tonnes per year (t/yr) of cosmic dust enters the upper atmosphere each year of which less than 10% (2700 ± 1400 t/yr) is estimated to reach the surface as particles.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#275

Post by yzydserd »

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…

> 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?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#276

Post by pjscott »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #4

Do we know what is the expected lifespan of a Starlink satellite? I wonder how well this event factored into their cost calculations, like is this a "once-a-decade" event that actually happens every couple years, or was it in-line with their actuaries?

This didn't affect satellites that were in their final LEO orbits; it affected part of a batch of newly launched satellites that were lower down, on their way up toward their final orbit, and therefore susceptible to the temporary thickening of the upper atmosphere. The effect on the lifespan of Starlink satellites is just to add slightly more "infant mortality" compared to a hypothetical world without geomagnetic storms -- 40 satellites is about 2% of the ones they've launched.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#277

Post by nikolay »

mlindner wrote: post #273
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!

You better try and fine the universe for dumping tens of thousands of micrometeroid debris into the atmosphere every day too!

Well, that's outside of our control - unlike Starlink's junk.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#278

Post by mlindner »

nikolay wrote: post #277
mlindner wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You better try and fine the universe for dumping tens of thousands of micrometeroid debris into the atmosphere every day too!

Well, that's outside of our control - unlike Starlink's junk.

How are you (or anyone) harmed by this junk in ways that the universe doesn't already harm you?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#279

Post by elihu »

SEJeff wrote: post #232
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.

ISRU (what you're describing) does require a large amount of energy to do at scale. Also, ISRU has never been at the scale required to fully fuel a rocket. There is a decent writeup on wikipedia[1] on how difficult this would actually be to do ISRU on mars. The TL;DNR is 56,200 meters squared of thin film solar panels. Granted, solar power is roughly half as effective on mars as it is on earth, but still. For referen…

(Note from the link: that's the requirement to provide fuel for one starship launch every 26 months.)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#280

Post by computerex »

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.

They literally lost 80% of the satellites in the last launch. Given that Elon was telling everyone to work over the holidays, this event reeks of gross incompetence.
Post reply on HN