Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

earthsky.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 347 posts

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

#291

Post by inemesitaffia »

Fischgericht wrote: post #281
inemesitaffia wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've pointed out where you can get the data from a professor. You can also fly to one of the many Islands (or Iqaluit) I've mentioned and do your testing. https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlinks-laser-system-is-beaming... It's quite fascinating, there's people who's only (or first) experience with Starlink is via lasers and there's people on the Internet who'll tell you it doesn't work (I forgot to mention Georgia and K…

You are aware that you are giving more weight to photos done of a powerpoint presentation over actual data points? Sorry, that's not a path I am willing to follow. Religion is not my cup of tea.

please talk to "panuvic". pan &a@t& uvic.ca he's a networking prof.

Here's the data you've been asking for and dodging like I didn't post.

https://old.reddit.com/user/panuvic/submitted/

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

#292

Post by inemesitaffia »

adastra22 wrote: post #40
ActorNightly wrote: post #4

At this point, Im just waiting to find out that Falcon launches aren't actually that much cheaper in reality, and are just heavily subsidized.

You'll be waiting a long time, because that is simply not true.

And is literally Russian propaganda older than the 2022 Ukraine invasion.

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

#293

Post by inemesitaffia »

Fischgericht wrote: post #196
wmf wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sat-to-sat laser links are used to provide connectivity on the open ocean and in remote parts of Australia and Argentina that are beyond the range of any ground station. They're definitely working but AFAIK they are only used when necessary so if you're within range of a ground station your traffic will never use laser links.

Oops, forgot one important thing: Sure, why do additional hops if you can see the base station. But what about shared state? Why do you definitely still get a completely new session when moving to the next sat? If the laser links are working, that state should be shared between neighboring sats.

Starlink switches beams every 15 seconds and satellites every 120 seconds.

You keep your sessions through both. Lasers or no lasers

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

#294

Post by JumpCrisscross »

skatingaway wrote: post #271
perihelions wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "SpaceX does not really need Starship, that is more or less a bonus at this point." Starship is the moat SpaceX needs to be developing today to stay ahead of where the Chinese competition will be in 5-10 years.

Moats are for direct competition. China is not a competitor to spacex because the US government is spacex’s largest subsidy/customer. Put another way: nasa won’t be using Chinese rockets. Unless they bribe trump. Which could happen.

> China is not a competitor to spacex because the US government is spacex’s largest subsidy/customer

SpaceX has loads of international launch and connectivity customers. China undercutting SpaceX would significantly compromise its prospects.

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

#295

Post by inemesitaffia »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #200
Fischgericht wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oops, forgot one important thing: Sure, why do additional hops if you can see the base station. But what about shared state? Why do you definitely still get a completely new session when moving to the next sat? If the laser links are working, that state should be shared between neighboring sats.

> Why do you definitely still get a completely new session when moving to the next sat? If the laser links are working Imagine Amazon 10x'd its ingress/egress fees between regions.

You're not getting new sessions period.

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

#296

Post by a_bonobo »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #240
ecommerceguy wrote: post #231

"What’s not usual is the atmospheric fallout. The fiery re-entry of even one Gen1 Starlink satellite produces about 30 kilograms of aluminum oxide vapor, a compound that erodes the ozone layer. A new study finds these oxides have increased 8-fold between 2016 and 2022, and the Great Re-entry Event increases this pollution even more. To put this into perspective: Before the first Starlink launches began in 2019, only…

Earth receives ~50,000 kg/day of cosmic dust (our mid-range assumption), 30 kg is 0.06% of that daily amount.

This is kind of that 'climate change skeptic' argument that CO2 is only a tiny percentage in the atmosphere, 0.04%, so anything humans have done to that tiny percentage is therefore negligible. But we've had a massive impact by increasing that tiny percentage by 50% causing climate change.

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

#297

Post by SecretDreams »

ogig wrote: post #116
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

> Soon, McDowell told us, there will be up to 5 satellite reentries per day Starlink’s next-generation V3s, which will require Starship to launch, weigh in around 2 metric tonnes [1]. (They’re currently “around 260 and 310 kilograms” [2].) “Every day, Earth is bombarded with more than 100 tons [91 metric tons] of dust and sand-sized particles” [3]. So we’re talking about a 2 to 10% increase in burn-up by mass. (Not a…

I hear 10% increase on a global constant and that doesn't sound like peanuts. If we increase 10% each few years that might be a problem? I don't know anything about whatever field studies this but given that LEO constellations born yesterday even that 2% increase in stuff coming from the skyes sounds significant to me.

The same could have been said about pollution from the industrial revolution compounding and hurting the atmosphere, but that never played out, right???

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

#298

Post by JumpCrisscross »

runarberg wrote: post #224
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Observ…

> You wanted to see the computations, I provided you with them

No, you didn’t. I asked for evidence this had happened. I read the ‘23 paper two years ago. It’s neat. But it’s a model. We don’t have great model parameters for high-atmosphere nanoparticles. We also have great surveillance of the ozone layer, and aren’t seeing damage.

> other then some NSF science grants to study potential solution

Yeah, I agree with this. (It may have been DOGE’d.)

We need to know what we’re up against. We need to know if it’s a problem that call for a pause, or a mandate that aluminum structures to transitioned to steel and carbon, or if the problem goes away as satellites get bigger and burn up less.

> When you are disputing this you are disputing top engineers and scientists in astronomy

I really am not. I’m taking them at their word that this is a potential problem. Again, if you have evidence this is currently a problem, the language I originally objected to, I’d love to see it.

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

#299

Post by [deleted] »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #290
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe because v1 and v2 did not even have working lasers on the hardware level...? Did those islands have Starlink until lasers?

He's pretending not to understand geography or distances. I'm very fascinated especially given the existence of community gateways on several islands that can only be served by lasers regardless of the presence of ground stations.

[deleted]

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

#300

Post by nurettin »

quotemstr wrote: post #254
ecommerceguy wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll refrain my usual snark and just link the same link from the linked article you apparently read. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD04...

So you're doing the same thing? Either make a meaningful argument or stop insinuating through omission that there's a real problem here. You're not only insulting the intelligence of your readers but also, thereby, undermining your cause. The article you linked is garbage. Its authors find (of course not controlling for multiple comparisons) an effect that looks statistically significant if you p-hack it just right,…

A lot of people including you were oblivious to this significant re-entry event until it appeared in the news.

So off-hand dismissals and taking this personal will not help your case.

Also, since you brought him up, where are the studies of the environmental impact of satellite launches and space debris funded by Elon Musk?

Is the argument "planet big satellite small defund NASA"? In that case I'm going with the article.

Post reply on HN