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

61–70 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#61

Post by lmm »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #45
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.

An entire launch worth of satellites is not a "rounding error." The carbon impact of just one launch is pretty obscene.

> The carbon impact of just one launch is pretty obscene.

It really isn't. It's what, 15 aeroplane flights' worth? For the sake of bringing internet to hundreds of thousands of people? By letting people shop online or stream entertainment they've probably paid for themselves in reduced car journeys already.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#62

Post by cogman10 »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #57
MegaButts wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's part of the reason there's just so much junk flying around in orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

If you read the article, SpaceX specifically designed the process to avoid orbiting junk.

Yup, spacex stuff is all LEO. Without input it all crashes into the atmosphere in a few years (3 I believe)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#65

Post by Symmetry »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #45
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.

An entire launch worth of satellites is not a "rounding error." The carbon impact of just one launch is pretty obscene.

A Falcon 9 caries just a bit more fuel than a fully loaded 777. Which is big, to be sure, but still a drop in the bucket just in terms of transportation.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#66

Post by Dylan16807 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #2

Rough luck. Sounds like no real risk or huge loss though. Imagine any other company on earth losing 40 satellites at a time and shrugging it off. That would bankrupt most space companies (except for maybe Planet). SpaceX is really working at different orders of magnitude here.

I think the correct comparison is losing one launch.

Most companies could handle that fine. That's what insurance is for.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#67

Post by GekkePrutser »

the_arun wrote: post #59
platistocrates wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's cool is, it doesn't even feel futuristic anymore.

Someday potentially we could buy/lease/rent our own satelites over satelites.com use it for personal research, photography etc.,

You can already make your own and get it launched if you have enough money. Cubesat components are pretty much off the shelf except the payload. And launch costs are to the tune of 30k per kg or so. I'm sure a lot of overhead / integration is added but it's financially possible for the well-off :)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#68

Post by oxplot »

cshimmin wrote: post #54
codeyperson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1700 - 40 = 1660. Rounded it to the nearest integer.

In scientific notation (orders of magnitude is what matters here): 1.700e3 rounded -> 2e3 1.660e3 rounded -> 2e3 Put another way: if your bill for lunch is $16.60, wouldn't you just as easily call it $17? Or even $20, if you're feeling a bit imprecise?

Yes, where I live, a lot of businesses charge you credit card surcharge of 2-3%. That’s $17 for a $16.60 priced item.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#69

Post by root_axis »

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.

I guess I'm being pedantic, but as a percentage of a whole, isn't 2% not a rounding error by definition?

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#70

Post by bee_rider »

pixelpoet wrote: post #16

Very interesting development, mainly that it posed no threat of causing a cascade of space debris since it's in such a low orbit. That feels like an important aspect for considering the acceptability of so many objects from one company/entity in orbit, especially considering the existing cost to astronomy. So we've heard from SpaceX about their LEO sats, but what about other ones further out?

I believe the faster orbital decay was part of the reason for putting them so low (on top of the obvious latency advantages).
Post reply on HN