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

481–490 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#481

Post by lstodd »

simion314 wrote: post #296
lmm wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do this people landed in this place without a road and electricity? Rural homes must have roads to reach the city to buy fuel and food. They might rely on generators for electricity, and access might involve a boat, or a quad bike trail that would need enlarging before you could bring construction equipment in and run a cable along it. > There are also wireless terrestrial ways to transmit internet too. I mean…

>They might rely on generators for electricity, and access might involve a boat, or a quad bike trail that would need enlarging before you could bring construction equipment in and run a cable along it. Who are this people? ARe they poor farmers or rich dudes on islands? >I mean ultimately the proof is in the pudding; if it were practical to run internet some other way they would already get it that way. It might be…

> Who are this people? ARe they poor farmers or rich dudes on islands?

You know, there are poor dudes that live on islands too.

Like one of my friends. It's a river island, it's only about five kilometers to the nearest cellular tower, and as you might guess running fiber across a major waterway is out of question.

So we built a 20-meter tower with a 1.5-meter parabolic dish on top just to get 3G-ish speeds on the site.

Quit the condescension, please.

There are a LOT of people living in such environments. Hell, when we were doing rural cellular in Africa, it was like three days over non-existing roads to get to the installation site. No electricity, only satcom, and that with 1-second rtt. Starlink is the best thing that could've ever happened for those applications.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#482

Post by 01acheru »

Seb-C wrote: post #358
01acheru wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent username is verytrivial, so I think we can accept the humour and let it go without splitting, don't you agree?

What makes you think that my comment wasn't humorous?

I was just pushing the pedantry forward ;)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#483

Post by lstodd »

zakwear wrote: post #449
jay_kyburz wrote: post #81

I have a genuine question, are we handing SpaceX a monopoly by allowing them to launch these satellites, or will competing companies be able to launch similar services? Will space be too cluttered for competition? (I'm guessing space is really big and that we can have _a lot_ of small satellites up there.)

StarLink is probably a failed financial model before it is even completed. They aren't the first-mover, either. HughesNet provides better service at a lower price, and they only have to keep 3 satellites operating at outer orbit. StarLink is trying to reduce ping by flying thousands of satellites at low orbit. The problem? No matter what you do, the ping will be worse, and cost more money, than broadband. The develop…

You obviously never ever seen rtt graphs for low-orbit and GSO satcom links.

Also, the current prices of either.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#484

Post by bcrl »

Fatnino wrote: post #471
toss1 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THIS!! Having a full set of spares requires zero re-engineering of the existing grid, and will turn a multi-year grid failure catastrophe into a few days to restore critical components and some weeks of restoring full function. Since our solid solar observation capabilities now give several days notice before arrival of such storms, some could even be pre-positioned at critical substations. And you are absolutely cor…

Why not just disconnect the working ones at the same time and then they don't get fried

Part of the challenge is that transformers for individual homes are at risk. Throw a significant DC voltage across a transformer designed to handle 60 Hz AC, and the results are not going to be pretty.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#485

Post by jcun4128 »

jcun4128 wrote: post #318
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…

I guess their hall-effect thrusters didn't have enough impulse to help or long enough fuel?

Oh I see seems like they literally could not rotate (against atmosphere) by reaction wheels to then fire the thruster

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#486

Post by laumars »

lkbm wrote: post #437
laumars wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that logic is that it’s not paid across 50 months. It’s a sign up lump sum to pay for the antenna rather than a fixed monthly cost added to your contract duration. Also your post doesn’t take into account the life span of the antennae, that could be less than 5 years. It doesn’t take into account any competing services that you might want to switch to (eg some internet contracts in the U.K. typically…

If we're using price as a proxy for environmental cost, it seems irrelevant whether it's paid up front or over time. Lifespan certainly matters, but the financial structure doesn't.

You do realise not everyone has $500 to spare? For some people the distinction matters a lot.

It’s the same reason some people with high end phones pay a larger monthly phone bill. They want a phone they cannot afford to buy so they pay in instalments as part of their mobile contract.

So yes, it absolutely does matter to a lot of people.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#487

Post by oxplot »

slingnow wrote: post #460
oxplot wrote: post #20

40 sats makes up about 2% of the current fleet - so a rounding error in cost and time. The important part of this news is how those 40 sats deorbit and leave no junk either in orbit or on earth.

If we end up losing 2% of the population due to covid, I look forward to the news briefing that this loss is just a rounding error.

Global death is 1% in a year. And you won’t hear about it, because it’s rounding error.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#488

Post by laumars »

ineedasername wrote: post #431
laumars wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that logic is that it’s not paid across 50 months. It’s a sign up lump sum to pay for the antenna rather than a fixed monthly cost added to your contract duration. Also your post doesn’t take into account the life span of the antennae, that could be less than 5 years. It doesn’t take into account any competing services that you might want to switch to (eg some internet contracts in the U.K. typically…

I had to pay hundreds for my first cable modem, so the early stage costs are comparable.

My point wasn’t whether the cost is reasonable. My point was just that the first month is a $600 bill rather than $100 like the GP suggested.

For some that cost is still reasonable for what they’re getting. And that’s fine. But from a purely mathematical standpoint the GP was significantly off in terms of the price they quoted.

You can all argue about whether that matters or not but that’s really just a subjective matter. Some folk cannot afford a $500 sign up cost. Whereas for others it will be an absolute bargain for what they need. It really depends on their income/savings, what other internet providers are available to them and how dependent they are on the internet. So the answer to the point you’re discussing is going to vary depending on the individual.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#489

Post by Dylan16807 »

laumars wrote: post #486
lkbm wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're using price as a proxy for environmental cost, it seems irrelevant whether it's paid up front or over time. Lifespan certainly matters, but the financial structure doesn't.

You do realise not everyone has $500 to spare? For some people the distinction matters a lot. It’s the same reason some people with high end phones pay a larger monthly phone bill. They want a phone they cannot afford to buy so they pay in instalments as part of their mobile contract. So yes, it absolutely does matter to a lot of people.

This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested.

So you're worrying about that way too early.

You'll be able to get starlink without a big upfront fee later, I assure you.

It's an issue but it's a separate issue from "high cost of service".

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#490

Post by ineedasername »

laumars wrote: post #488
ineedasername wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to pay hundreds for my first cable modem, so the early stage costs are comparable.

My point wasn’t whether the cost is reasonable. My point was just that the first month is a $600 bill rather than $100 like the GP suggested. For some that cost is still reasonable for what they’re getting. And that’s fine. But from a purely mathematical standpoint the GP was significantly off in terms of the price they quoted. You can all argue about whether that matters or not but that’s really just a subjective ma…

Thanks for clarifying, it's a fair point. Especially since lots of folks who don't have the upfront costs will finance it on a credit card and end up paying even more in the long run. (Hoping they wouldn't also do that for the monthly charge too, but lots of people finance normal living expenses every month, beyond their monthly income, until their credit breaks under the load)
Post reply on HN