6 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

> 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.
      - ascar 5y ago
        So the difference is that the movement of water (i.e. waves) is implied in a Hurricane and that the atmosphere is expanding isn't implied in a geomagnetic storm? So your whole argument is based on our (meaning the general population) limited knowledge about the side effects of geomagnetic storms, while we do know about the side effects of hurricanes. The nuance isn't that important. The implication that a geomagnetic storm can only cause magnetic/electric damage is just wrong. It's like implying a hurricane can only cause damage through wind and rain.
- saint-loup 5y ago
  Useful terms and distinction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causati...
Fatnino 5y ago
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?
- skywal_l 5y ago
  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 (if my understanding is correct).
  - nefitty 5y ago
    Right. I imagined some solar flare or something. From my understanding, they are the biggest existential risk to modern humanity, slightly ahead of rogue AI. From that context, whether misguided or otherwise, you can imagine that my heart skipped a beat when I read the link title.
    - IngoBlechschmid 5y ago
      Out of curiosity, where would you rank the climate crisis on this list? It has already irrevocably caused the extinction of lots of species, and while certainly humans will continue to live, "modern humanity" will be replaced by something else.
      - nefitty 5y ago
        My list: 1. Solar flares 2. Rogue AI 3. World war 3. Water scarcity (tied to war above) 5. Pandemic 6. Climate disasters My naive perception heavily weighs future possible technological progress. Solar flare collapse is basically unmitigable due to a combination of unpredictability and deep systemic interdependence and dependence on susceptible technologies. Some governments paid lip service to this risk in the past, allegedly pushing to plan for this risk. Ultimately, only some organizations will have the resources to sustain the acute impact of a solar flare, but what good is Google if they're the only ones with working computers? With climate, I'm very optimistic about the innovation that will result from economic and social pressures. I think 10 years ago I would have rated it at #2. Edit: What are the chances. As I wrote this, JET started live-streaming an announcement about fusion energy...
dr_dshiv 5y ago
They perished in a storm. You could call it a “geomagnetically induced atmospheric storm”, but I like the cognitive dissonance of space satellites getting hit by poor atmospheric weather.
baxtr 5y ago
Semantics…
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
That's quite funny but it's clearly wasted here.
- walterbell 5y ago
  It's even more fun as a pocket universe thread.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  Humor can sometimes get through.
tshaddox 5y ago
I don't think that's the distinction being made. It sounds like the commenter is making the distinction that the satellites' electronics were not damaged by magnetic fields (which is what a reader might assume from the headline).

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.
    - ascar 5y ago
      So the difference is that the movement of water (i.e. waves) is implied in a Hurricane and that the atmosphere is expanding isn't implied in a geomagnetic storm? So your whole argument is based on our (meaning the general population) limited knowledge about the side effects of geomagnetic storms, while we do know about the side effects of hurricanes. The nuance isn't that important. The implication that a geomagnetic storm can only cause magnetic/electric damage is just wrong. It's like implying a hurricane can only cause damage through wind and rain.
saint-loup 5y ago
Useful terms and distinction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causati...

Fatnino 5y ago

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?

skywal_l 5y ago
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 (if my understanding is correct).
- nefitty 5y ago
  Right. I imagined some solar flare or something. From my understanding, they are the biggest existential risk to modern humanity, slightly ahead of rogue AI. From that context, whether misguided or otherwise, you can imagine that my heart skipped a beat when I read the link title.
  - IngoBlechschmid 5y ago
    Out of curiosity, where would you rank the climate crisis on this list? It has already irrevocably caused the extinction of lots of species, and while certainly humans will continue to live, "modern humanity" will be replaced by something else.
    - nefitty 5y ago
      My list: 1. Solar flares 2. Rogue AI 3. World war 3. Water scarcity (tied to war above) 5. Pandemic 6. Climate disasters My naive perception heavily weighs future possible technological progress. Solar flare collapse is basically unmitigable due to a combination of unpredictability and deep systemic interdependence and dependence on susceptible technologies. Some governments paid lip service to this risk in the past, allegedly pushing to plan for this risk. Ultimately, only some organizations will have the resources to sustain the acute impact of a solar flare, but what good is Google if they're the only ones with working computers? With climate, I'm very optimistic about the innovation that will result from economic and social pressures. I think 10 years ago I would have rated it at #2. Edit: What are the chances. As I wrote this, JET started live-streaming an announcement about fusion energy...

dr_dshiv 5y ago

They perished in a storm. You could call it a “geomagnetically induced atmospheric storm”, but I like the cognitive dissonance of space satellites getting hit by poor atmospheric weather.

baxtr 5y ago

Semantics…

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

That's quite funny but it's clearly wasted here.

walterbell 5y ago
It's even more fun as a pocket universe thread.
cryptonector 5y ago
Humor can sometimes get through.

tshaddox 5y ago

I don't think that's the distinction being made. It sounds like the commenter is making the distinction that the satellites' electronics were not damaged by magnetic fields (which is what a reader might assume from the headline).