7 ms·

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 a

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 atmospheric drag to increase up to 50 percent.... The Starlink team commanded the satellites into a safe-mode where they would fly edge-on (like a sheet of paper) to minimize drag... Preliminary analysis show the increased drag at the low altitudes prevented the satellites from leaving safe-mode to begin orbit raising maneuvers, and up to 40 of the satellites will reenter or already have reentered the Earth’s atmosphere. The deorbiting satellites pose zero collision risk with other satellites and by design demise upon atmospheric reentry—meaning no orbital debris is created and no satellite parts hit the ground."

blackhaz 5y ago
Except for a shower of heavy metal particles. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7.pdf
- pfdietz 5y ago
  "mostly aluminum" Aluminum is not a "heavy metal". Not only is it of low density, it's not toxic in the way actual heavy metals like lead are. Your inclusion of the adjective "heavy" was misleading as that wasn't in the source you referenced.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Maybe they meant "heavy, metal particles", as in that are both metal and "heavy" relative to other materials (so somewhat redundant adjectives); as opposed to, "heavy-metal particles".
  - adrian_b 5y ago
    What you say is correct. I just want to add that the term "heavy metal" associated with toxicity is not really a good choice, even if it has been used for a long time. The so called toxic "heavy metals" are not toxic because they are heavy. They are toxic because their ions have a large size (when compared with metals like magnesium or iron). The large size of their ions makes them interfere with the functions of the ions having a similar large size and which have important uses in all living beings, i.e. calcium or potassium or ammonium or sodium. Large ionic size is also associated with good solubility, which enhances the chances of those ions to be absorbed after ingestion and enter living cells. "Metals with large ions" is longer and more inconvenient to say than "heavy metals", but it would be much more accurate. Saying "heavy" does not make you understand why e.g. cadmium (same ionic size as calcium) is very toxic, while indium and tin, which are heavier (but which have smaller ions), have low toxicity.
- codechad 5y ago
yzydserd 5y ago
> 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?
- coffeeblack 5y ago
  The storm was the only cause, so it is in fact “of”.
  - skywal_l 5y ago
    The storm is a single event in a chain of events that caused the satellites to fail. It's not the direct nor the first cause.
    - imdsm 5y ago
      I'd probably use the term 'following' in that case. Starlink lost 40 satellites following geomagnetic storm
      - HPsquared 5y ago
        There is a causal link though: without the storm, the satellites wouldn't have been lost (in this way at least).
    - dkbrk 5y ago
      That's like saying a ship sank not because of the hurricane, but because it was flooded and ended up capsizing. Sure, it wouldn't have sunk if it had stayed in port, but we still say the hurricane was the cause.
      - skywal_l 5y ago
        I assume you are making a case in good faith. Saying the satellites were lost because of the geomagnetic storm could imply that the satellites suffered some sort of electronic damage. Which, as I understand, is not what happened. That is why the nuance here is important. In your case, there is no other reason for the boat to be lost but because of the wind and waves.
jcun4128 5y ago
I guess their hall-effect thrusters didn't have enough impulse to help or long enough fuel?
- jcun4128 5y ago
  Oh I see seems like they literally could not rotate (against atmosphere) by reaction wheels to then fire the thruster
irthomasthomas 5y ago
Given Musk's email about SpaceX being close to bankruptcy, how will this affect them financially? Can SpaceX survive without a bailout? What would a bailout look like, another Solarcity? https://spaceexplored.com/2021/11/29/spacex-raptor-crisis/ https://spaceexplored.com/2021/11/29/spacex-raptor-crisis/ "Unfortunately, the Raptor production crisis is much worse than it had seemed a few weeks ago. As we have dug into the issues following the exiting of prior senior management, they have unfortunately turned out to be far more severe than was reported. There is no way to sugarcoat this... ...we will need all hands on deck to recover from what is, quite frankly, a disaster. The consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong. In addition, we are spooling up terminal production to several million units per year, which will consume massive capital, assuming that satellite V2 will be on orbit to handle the bandwidth demand. These terminals will be useless otherwise"
- salawat 5y ago
  Then don't balls to the wall spool up terminal production, bump out your timescale, and shift your strategy to doing more launches, and hope there is enough interest to weather things. Frankly, I have issues with someone who defied every forseeable risk inherent in operating an LEO satcom network. There is a reason most long term comm infra tends to go to GEO... Replacing stuff in LEO because the atmo ate it is expensive.
  - irthomasthomas 5y ago
    Their products don't seem too popular. E.g. Falcon heavy flew 2 missions in 2019, and 0 since then.
    - humanwhosits 5y ago
      6 FH are scheduled for this year https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/launches/manifest https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/launches/manifest
reaperducer 5y ago
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.
- nightpool 5y ago
  ... 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-hazards-magnetic-storms https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-hazards-magnetic-storms
  - reaperducer 5y ago
    your prior should not be that just because you personally haven't heard of something, it must be a new discovery Sorry I asked. I'll try to be less interested in science in the future.
    - AshleyGrant 5y ago
      Don't worry about them. There's plenty of folks eager to teach folks about this stuff. Check out Scott Manley or Everyday Astronaut on YouTube. I'm sure Scott will have a video out in a day or two explaining what happened using language that most folks can understand.
  - naasking 5y ago
    A simultaneously terrible and informative response.
  - rvba 5y ago
    More interesting question is if the spacex risk management didnt hear about it or hand waved it

blackhaz 5y ago

Except for a shower of heavy metal particles. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7.pdf

pfdietz 5y ago
"mostly aluminum" Aluminum is not a "heavy metal". Not only is it of low density, it's not toxic in the way actual heavy metals like lead are. Your inclusion of the adjective "heavy" was misleading as that wasn't in the source you referenced.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Maybe they meant "heavy, metal particles", as in that are both metal and "heavy" relative to other materials (so somewhat redundant adjectives); as opposed to, "heavy-metal particles".
- adrian_b 5y ago
  What you say is correct. I just want to add that the term "heavy metal" associated with toxicity is not really a good choice, even if it has been used for a long time. The so called toxic "heavy metals" are not toxic because they are heavy. They are toxic because their ions have a large size (when compared with metals like magnesium or iron). The large size of their ions makes them interfere with the functions of the ions having a similar large size and which have important uses in all living beings, i.e. calcium or potassium or ammonium or sodium. Large ionic size is also associated with good solubility, which enhances the chances of those ions to be absorbed after ingestion and enter living cells. "Metals with large ions" is longer and more inconvenient to say than "heavy metals", but it would be much more accurate. Saying "heavy" does not make you understand why e.g. cadmium (same ionic size as calcium) is very toxic, while indium and tin, which are heavier (but which have smaller ions), have low toxicity.
codechad 5y ago

yzydserd 5y ago

> 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?

coffeeblack 5y ago
The storm was the only cause, so it is in fact “of”.
- skywal_l 5y ago
  The storm is a single event in a chain of events that caused the satellites to fail. It's not the direct nor the first cause.
  - imdsm 5y ago
    I'd probably use the term 'following' in that case. Starlink lost 40 satellites following geomagnetic storm
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      There is a causal link though: without the storm, the satellites wouldn't have been lost (in this way at least).
  - dkbrk 5y ago
    That's like saying a ship sank not because of the hurricane, but because it was flooded and ended up capsizing. Sure, it wouldn't have sunk if it had stayed in port, but we still say the hurricane was the cause.
    - skywal_l 5y ago
      I assume you are making a case in good faith. Saying the satellites were lost because of the geomagnetic storm could imply that the satellites suffered some sort of electronic damage. Which, as I understand, is not what happened. That is why the nuance here is important. In your case, there is no other reason for the boat to be lost but because of the wind and waves.

jcun4128 5y ago

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

jcun4128 5y ago
Oh I see seems like they literally could not rotate (against atmosphere) by reaction wheels to then fire the thruster

irthomasthomas 5y ago

Given Musk's email about SpaceX being close to bankruptcy, how will this affect them financially? Can SpaceX survive without a bailout? What would a bailout look like, another Solarcity? https://spaceexplored.com/2021/11/29/spacex-raptor-crisis/ https://spaceexplored.com/2021/11/29/spacex-raptor-crisis/ "Unfortunately, the Raptor production crisis is much worse than it had seemed a few weeks ago. As we have dug into the issues following the exiting of prior senior management, they have unfortunately turned out to be far more severe than was reported. There is no way to sugarcoat this... ...we will need all hands on deck to recover from what is, quite frankly, a disaster. The consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong. In addition, we are spooling up terminal production to several million units per year, which will consume massive capital, assuming that satellite V2 will be on orbit to handle the bandwidth demand. These terminals will be useless otherwise"

salawat 5y ago
Then don't balls to the wall spool up terminal production, bump out your timescale, and shift your strategy to doing more launches, and hope there is enough interest to weather things. Frankly, I have issues with someone who defied every forseeable risk inherent in operating an LEO satcom network. There is a reason most long term comm infra tends to go to GEO... Replacing stuff in LEO because the atmo ate it is expensive.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  Their products don't seem too popular. E.g. Falcon heavy flew 2 missions in 2019, and 0 since then.
  - humanwhosits 5y ago
    6 FH are scheduled for this year https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/launches/manifest https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/launches/manifest

reaperducer 5y ago

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.

nightpool 5y ago
... 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-hazards-magnetic-storms https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-hazards-magnetic-storms
- reaperducer 5y ago
  your prior should not be that just because you personally haven't heard of something, it must be a new discovery Sorry I asked. I'll try to be less interested in science in the future.
  - AshleyGrant 5y ago
    Don't worry about them. There's plenty of folks eager to teach folks about this stuff. Check out Scott Manley or Everyday Astronaut on YouTube. I'm sure Scott will have a video out in a day or two explaining what happened using language that most folks can understand.
- naasking 5y ago
  A simultaneously terrible and informative response.
- rvba 5y ago
  More interesting question is if the spacex risk management didnt hear about it or hand waved it