Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

Post by HeavyStorm » Wed, Feb 09, 2022, 11:08 AM UTC

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?

Post by Thlom » Wed, Feb 09, 2022, 11:15 AM UTC

modeless wrote: post #257

KennyBlanken wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the very high cost of Starlink service It's $99/mo for 100+ megabit service. Sure, it's moderately expensive if you're comparing to cable service in cities . It's downright cheap compared to the cost of connecting the extremely rural customers Starlink targets with physical cables. You don't think running a new set of physical cables to every rural residence in the world (or even cell towers to cover the same) woul…

Post by jessriedel » Wed, Feb 09, 2022, 11:25 AM UTC

spuz wrote: post #282

jessriedel wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of room for additional constellations. The fact that "near misses" are too frequent is largely a result of inaccurate tracking and poor communication. (Next gen space traffic control will allow vastly higher densities.) And the fact that actual collisions are occuring too frequently is due to old uncontrolled junk, not a literal lack of room or inability to maneuver by modern sats.

> Next gen space traffic control Do you have more info on that? What can the people who track satellites do that they aren't already doing?

Post by IngoBlechschmid » Wed, Feb 09, 2022, 11:35 AM UTC

nefitty wrote: post #356

skywal_l wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was lost because, during the storm, it was flying too low. If the jet had been flying at a higher altitude, the storm would have still happen and the jet would have been fine. So the storm is not the direct and only cause of the crash. It is important here because one could assume, only reading the title, that the satellite were lost due to electronic disturbances caused by the storm. Which is not what happened (i…

Right. I imagined some solar flare or something. From my understanding, they are the biggest existential risk to modern humanity, slightly ahead of rogue AI. From that context, whether misguided or otherwise, you can imagine that my heart skipped a beat when I read the link title.

Post by rklaehn » Wed, Feb 09, 2022, 11:42 AM UTC

samwillis wrote: post #347

rklaehn wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. SpaceX intentionally launches the sats into an extremely low orbit. That way, sats that can not be controlled due to a manufacturing defect or whatever will immediately reenter, and pose no threat to other spacecraft. Normal satellites are directly launched into much higher orbits, so if there is an issue they will be space debris for decades.

Yes, I understand they are injected to a particularly low orbit. My question is, if you launched a single larger satellite into the same orbit would it be less susceptible to aerodynamic drag due to the effects of a similar geomagnetic storm?