I thought that it was due to some kind of interference from the title but it is interesting that it turns out to be increased friction from the atmosphere.
Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
71–80 of 508 posts
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
The press release specifically states the satellites will de-orbit and burn up by design.
The press release states the same safety plan SpaceX has been stating. We'll get to see if it works (which I expect it to), but shouldn't assume it already has.
The only reason they are lost is because they fell too far down. How could they possibly fail to deorbit?
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#73What's crazy to me is that 50 years ago, losing 40 satellites would have been a significant portion of all satellites ever launched . Today, it's a temporary setback for a company that launched nearly one thousand satellites last year.
That's part of the reason there's just so much junk flying around in orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
TFA says space junk shouldn't be a problem with the launch method they used
>SpaceX deploys its satellites into these lower obits so that in the very rare case any satellite does not pass initial system checkouts it will quickly be deorbited by atmospheric drag. While the low deployment altitude requires more capable satellites at a considerable cost to us, it’s the right thing to do to maintain a sustainable space environment.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#74Woah, I wonder how much atmospheric heating of earth these storms are causing. (A quick google of NASA suggests: it can be several gigawatt-hours of power from one event, even accounting for the bulk of it being radiated back into space.)
Wonder if there's any way to capture that power?
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#75Earlier 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.,
Launching a satellite is already sub $100k. Technology both miniaturizes and industrializes at an exponential rate. Think about how small and cheap computers have become in the span of a hundred years, from "occupies a building and costs a fortune" to "fits in your pocket and everyone can afford one". Sputnik 1, the first satellite ever launched cost 33 billion 1985 US dollars. 45 years later, you can get a cubesat into orbit for $100k.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#76I love how they have turned a failure into a success! So cool!
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
And we inhale it all. (Yes, I know it's insignificant; all things start insignificantly.)
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#78Who's gonna clean after SpaceX' now? It's amazing that I'll get a $1,000 fine if I drop a small piece of garbage here in Irvine, but SpaceX can go away polluting the sky indefinitely without any responsibilities!
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#7940 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?
It is if you're rounding to the nearest 5%.
Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm
#80Earlier 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
TFA says space junk shouldn't be a problem with the launch method they used >SpaceX deploys its satellites into these lower obits so that in the very rare case any satellite does not pass initial system checkouts it will quickly be deorbited by atmospheric drag. While the low deployment altitude requires more capable satellites at a considerable cost to us, it’s the right thing to do to maintain a sustainable space e…
Need third party analysis of that, personally