Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that would be a 1.96% change.
Sounds like a rounding error.
Well done Jerry, well done.
Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
491–500 of 508 posts
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
The storm warmed the atmosphere which caused it to expand, leading to additional drag Was this an expected condition, or a new discovery? I only have a layman's understanding of space, but like the idea that we (as a species) just learned something new.
... We have been launching satellites for a long, long time. The process is very well understood, scientifically. Also, your prior should not be that just because you personally haven't heard of something, it must be a new discovery. In fact, in this case it appears to be literally the second bullet point on the first page I could find talking about the risks of geomagnetic storms: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-…
More interesting question is if the spacex risk management didnt hear about it or hand waved it
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
Burned up on entry, rendered down to heat, gas, and ash. Debris would usually be considered chunks of the original, so ash doesn't count. In this context it also means none of that is left in orbit either, which may be the more significant advantage of their procedures.
That makes sense. The forces involved are just mindblowing that it would be sufficient to make this happen.
Yes, agreed. Getting off the planet is easy. Staying off the planet is harder. As long as you're in the gravity well you are going to crash back down. The trick is to move so fast horizontally that you overshoot your target and keep missing the ground. (I'm pretty sure "miss the ground" is the scientifically accurate term here)
Anyway, those speeds are so fast that once you get on course to finally not miss, the friction from even the extremely thin atmosphere, at those speeds, is incredible.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still believe this, but am willing to learn. Honest question: Would you mind trying to convince me?
Sure. It's a lot easier when I can swing open a Facebook/Google Ad (etc) account and show you the actual data. I have tried having this conversation online before and people literally say things like 'you're just a shill how can we trust anything you say', as if I would post this sort of thing in bad faith? It's so weird. Anyway, let me have a go. Initial points: - Lots of marketing is full of rubbish and smoke and m…
Thank you for taking the time and attention to write this up. I find your insights valuable, and I tend to agree.
I think my hesitance towards the ad world is coming from my personal experience. I’ve worked at marketing agencies and as digital strategist for a company, so I saw both sides of the chain. My guess is there are a lot of companies that don’t know how to get the highest value out of online ads, and these can be fooled easily by marketing agencies or ad sellers (that a lot of time also don’t really know how to optimize).
I guess as always: don’t blame the tool.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#495I 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…
> HughesNet provides better service at a lower price
You're either a troll or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As a former Hughesnet customer, now on Starlink I can tell you first hand that literal 56k dialup would have been better than Hughes on many days. Starlink on the other hand is basically indistinguishable from the cable internet I had when I lived in what might be called civilization.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#496Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's kind of crazy is the expected lifespan of an individual satellite in the 'full' 12k constellation is supposed to be 5 years so 6-7 satellites a day will reenter or just go offline and need to be replaced. Unless that 12000 number includes some in longer parking orbits they bring down into the ELEO service orbit that's a dedicated Starlink launch about once every week.
Yeah, it is crazy! Crazy more expensive and wasteful than installing land lines. People in the developing world are not going to pay a high enough price to float this business. The vast majority of people in rich countries have cheaper and better internet already installed.
There are some things where satellite internet makes sense but I don't think Starlink [0] makes sense for a lot of home users. Industry and transportation it might make a good case for but it'll have to prop any consumer market up on the prices charged to business users.
[0] at the stated numbers at least, the final constellation will likely be much smaller than originally quoted Musk is familiar with embellishing and overpromising timelines.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
well, at the end of the day they deorbitted because they ran out of fuel.
I know Elon is screaming at his engineers right now to increase the amount of krypton in each and if this happens again, they're fired.
- i used to work at tesla.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the money they would have made and since I assume they don't any marketing that'd be the total realized cost.
That would work if they had sold all of their capacity, but I think there's plenty of unfilled Falcon 9 capacity. I don't think every Starlink launch could be replaced by a paying customer.
I don't think any would, it's all spare capacity.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#499Earlier 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.
It makes a huge difference to whether people buy it. It does not make a difference as a measure of "how much carbon does it release when they buy it", which is the question being debated in this thread.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. It's a lot easier when I can swing open a Facebook/Google Ad (etc) account and show you the actual data. I have tried having this conversation online before and people literally say things like 'you're just a shill how can we trust anything you say', as if I would post this sort of thing in bad faith? It's so weird. Anyway, let me have a go. Initial points: - Lots of marketing is full of rubbish and smoke and m…
Thank you for taking the time and attention to write this up. I find your insights valuable, and I tend to agree. I think my hesitance towards the ad world is coming from my personal experience. I’ve worked at marketing agencies and as digital strategist for a company, so I saw both sides of the chain. My guess is there are a lot of companies that don’t know how to get the highest value out of online ads, and these c…
Yep. Exactly. Thanks.