5 ms·

Seems like a great way to test the resilience of Starlink launches during a predicted geomagnetic storm. And great PR considering how much negative press they’v

Seems like a great way to test the resilience of Starlink launches during a predicted geomagnetic storm. And great PR considering how much negative press they’ve been getting over space junk. https://www.google.com/search?q=starlink+space+junk&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS890US890&hl=en-US&prmd=nsvxi&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEuZG73PH1AhVRFTQIHdVcAV0Q_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=428&bih=751&dpr=3 https://www.google.com/search?q=starlink+space+junk&rlz=1CDG...

mlindner 5y ago
The negative press is rather interesting and I'm always wondering where it's coming from. Why generate so much negative press.
- modo_mario 5y ago
  People don't like the prospect of issues in certain orbits for the benefit of a billionaire or research satellites getting destroyed or worse if stuff does ever go wrong. If Europes ESA and china's CNSA both complain about having to do manoeuvrers it's easy to see who most will side with.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Any time Musk comes up on twitter people are quick to hate him. He is a polarizing figure and while there are reasons to criticize him, there are also a lot of people who will happily misinterpret anything so they can perceive him as failing. So any negative story about Musk, correct or not, is emotionally satisfying to those people. Basically the stories come out because the crowd eats them up.
  - mlindner 5y ago
    Which is sad because if you were to limit choices to picking individual people on the planet, I think Musk may be doing more to fix real existential problems in the world more than anyone else alive today. People are jealous creatures and like to hate on successful people.
    - erulabs 5y ago
      I think it's a bit more complex than that. If you genuinely believe that society is a zero-sum-game, where any winner comes at the expense of some loser somewhere, then ultra-successful people must make you sick. You can hear a few whispers like "Tesla factories aren't the safest places to work at" or "An Amazon worker had to pee in a bottle" and it all lines up: these are horrible people who only got ahead because they abused others. The absolute iron-jaw of that concept is that it explains ones shortcoming in life instantly. Any success you missed? Well that was just due to the lack of evil in your heart. If you were ruthless, surely you'd be just like "the rich". It's a genuinely scary line of argument, and I have yet to be able to cure anyone of it, even a little. Taken to it's ultimate logical conclusions "Eat the Rich" can be taken literally. It's terrifying. Unfortunately, history is full of grey areas. Actual evil and wealthy people - and their possibly justified consumption by the mobs do exist.
      - mlindner 5y ago
        > If you genuinely believe that society is a zero-sum-game, where any winner comes at the expense of some loser somewhere, then ultra-successful people must make you sick. Which is an unfortunate myth that needs to be better educated out of people. And thank you for the rest of your post. It puts into words thoughts I've had for a while in a constructed form better than I have done.
      - rablackburn 5y ago
        > I think it's a bit more complex than that. Because we can always go one level deeper... When I ask people why they dislike Musk, the answer I get is usually not for some bleak, reasoned belief but because of his internet persona. He makes shitty, immature jokes. People think he's a bit of a dick. Interestingly, engineers I know tend to be a bit more positive on him. I wonder if it's because they're exposed to more of his YouTube persona than his Twitter one. > If you genuinely believe that society is a zero-sum-game... The rest of this is strawman-ing pretty hard. I'm sure there are some people as described, but I think there's a larger more nuanced population who are uncomfortable with the huge growth of wealth inequality that's been going on. Some of their ire with the system is directed at those doing best under it. That's probably not entirely unjustified either, what group in human history did nothing to preserve the status quo when it worked for them? Society may not be a zero-sum game, but it's not a zero-harm game either.
visviva 5y ago
I'm very confused about this comment - how is losing 40 operational satellites a "great way to test the resilience of Starlink launches during a predicted geomagnetic storm"? And what part of this is "great PR"?
- cryptonector 5y ago
  They lost only recently launched sats that had not yet raised their orbits. They did not lose other sats. That is a test of starlink's resilience!
  - visviva 5y ago
    The OP stated this was a test of the resilience of Starlink launches, not the system itself. In either case, surely there are better ways of testing this than letting 40 brand new spacecraft burn up.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
I'm surprised they're not spinning the PR angle further - there's a lot to be contested; they could boast how they're more careful than competition, launching Starlink sats in low, very rapidly decaying orbits, and slowly boosting them to their still low orbits, taking on a weather-induced hit of ~$50M to their bottom line by limiting margins so that there's no way their satellites contribute to space junk.

mlindner 5y ago

The negative press is rather interesting and I'm always wondering where it's coming from. Why generate so much negative press.

modo_mario 5y ago
People don't like the prospect of issues in certain orbits for the benefit of a billionaire or research satellites getting destroyed or worse if stuff does ever go wrong. If Europes ESA and china's CNSA both complain about having to do manoeuvrers it's easy to see who most will side with.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Any time Musk comes up on twitter people are quick to hate him. He is a polarizing figure and while there are reasons to criticize him, there are also a lot of people who will happily misinterpret anything so they can perceive him as failing. So any negative story about Musk, correct or not, is emotionally satisfying to those people. Basically the stories come out because the crowd eats them up.
- mlindner 5y ago
  Which is sad because if you were to limit choices to picking individual people on the planet, I think Musk may be doing more to fix real existential problems in the world more than anyone else alive today. People are jealous creatures and like to hate on successful people.
  - erulabs 5y ago
    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If you genuinely believe that society is a zero-sum-game, where any winner comes at the expense of some loser somewhere, then ultra-successful people must make you sick. You can hear a few whispers like "Tesla factories aren't the safest places to work at" or "An Amazon worker had to pee in a bottle" and it all lines up: these are horrible people who only got ahead because they abused others. The absolute iron-jaw of that concept is that it explains ones shortcoming in life instantly. Any success you missed? Well that was just due to the lack of evil in your heart. If you were ruthless, surely you'd be just like "the rich". It's a genuinely scary line of argument, and I have yet to be able to cure anyone of it, even a little. Taken to it's ultimate logical conclusions "Eat the Rich" can be taken literally. It's terrifying. Unfortunately, history is full of grey areas. Actual evil and wealthy people - and their possibly justified consumption by the mobs do exist.
    - mlindner 5y ago
      > If you genuinely believe that society is a zero-sum-game, where any winner comes at the expense of some loser somewhere, then ultra-successful people must make you sick. Which is an unfortunate myth that needs to be better educated out of people. And thank you for the rest of your post. It puts into words thoughts I've had for a while in a constructed form better than I have done.
    - rablackburn 5y ago
      > I think it's a bit more complex than that. Because we can always go one level deeper... When I ask people why they dislike Musk, the answer I get is usually not for some bleak, reasoned belief but because of his internet persona. He makes shitty, immature jokes. People think he's a bit of a dick. Interestingly, engineers I know tend to be a bit more positive on him. I wonder if it's because they're exposed to more of his YouTube persona than his Twitter one. > If you genuinely believe that society is a zero-sum-game... The rest of this is strawman-ing pretty hard. I'm sure there are some people as described, but I think there's a larger more nuanced population who are uncomfortable with the huge growth of wealth inequality that's been going on. Some of their ire with the system is directed at those doing best under it. That's probably not entirely unjustified either, what group in human history did nothing to preserve the status quo when it worked for them? Society may not be a zero-sum game, but it's not a zero-harm game either.

visviva 5y ago

I'm very confused about this comment - how is losing 40 operational satellites a "great way to test the resilience of Starlink launches during a predicted geomagnetic storm"? And what part of this is "great PR"?

cryptonector 5y ago
They lost only recently launched sats that had not yet raised their orbits. They did not lose other sats. That is a test of starlink's resilience!
- visviva 5y ago
  The OP stated this was a test of the resilience of Starlink launches, not the system itself. In either case, surely there are better ways of testing this than letting 40 brand new spacecraft burn up.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

I'm surprised they're not spinning the PR angle further - there's a lot to be contested; they could boast how they're more careful than competition, launching Starlink sats in low, very rapidly decaying orbits, and slowly boosting them to their still low orbits, taking on a weather-induced hit of ~$50M to their bottom line by limiting margins so that there's no way their satellites contribute to space junk.