4 ms·

Satellite Drag Analysis During the May 2024 Geomagnetic Storm

70 points by croes 2y ago

perihelions 2y ago
If their altitude is low enough to begin with, this atmospheric expansion can drag satellites all the way into reentry. https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-lost-geomagnetic-storm https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-lost-geomag... ("SpaceX says a geomagnetic storm just doomed 40 Starlink internet satellites" (2022)) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30267587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30267587 ("Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm") In the OP paper, the 486 km satellite (fig. 5) dropped down about 300 meters. The Starlink satellites that were lost were at 210 km. (For mass optimization, they're released at below operational altitude, and use slow, electric propulsion to get to their nominal orbits).
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> mass optimization, they're released at below operational altitude Literally everything to do with spaceflight is connected to mass optimization. The more practical reason is to better separate the sats within the orbital plane. They sit in the lower/faster orbit until in position and the last in trail boosts into the higher/slower orbit. Put them all into the final orbit and they would all be bunched up. Put them too high and you are just wasting fuel springing them back down.
lifeisstillgood 2y ago
Sometimes I despair of humans, sticking all our eggs into a Crowdstrike basket, or billions of people condemned to wars and poverty, and then, we go and do things like “hey we can measure the freaking Sun’s solar storms from actual space vehicles we have put into orbit around this planet” We have come a long way from James Watt thinking “you know we could keep some of that hot gas” - it’s not all to do with the free energy boost we have been digging out of the ground. We do have our moments. Just less wars and more co-operation please.
- kidme5 2y ago
  the sad thing is Starlink satellites have a significant impact on one of the scariest human threats-- nuclear war. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8tgf79/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8...
  - lifeisstillgood 2y ago
    So that link seems to be suggesting that US funding for space exploration and NASA has a significant nuclear weapons component. I mean my kids are covering this in their History GCSEs. It’s not a secret. And if you believe in / agree with escalation management strategy it’s a good thing (unless you think humans should all unite together and turn swords into ploughshares which I do agree with, just hard to get from Here to there, but would love to see it)
    - wongarsu 2y ago
      I think the core is how we stand towards missile defense. During the Cold War the prevailing opinion was that mutually assured destruction was the best strategy. Missile defense undermines that strategy and was thus treated as a worse offense than building first-strike weapons. Now the threat landscape has shifted. There is a closing window of opportunity where the US is the sole superpower and could get away with deploying such a system without much pushback. Whether it's a good idea is debatable.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    We already have the X37 for unconventional nuke delivery. There is no need for a conspiracy with SpaceX for existing capabilities.

70 points by croes 2y ago

If their altitude is low enough to begin with, this atmospheric expansion can drag satellites all the way into reentry. https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-lost-geomagnetic-storm https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-lost-geomag... ("SpaceX says a geomagnetic storm just doomed 40 Starlink internet satellites" (2022)) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30267587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30267587 ("Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm") In the OP paper, the 486 km satellite (fig. 5) dropped down about 300 meters. The Starlink satellites that were lost were at 210 km. (For mass optimization, they're released at below operational altitude, and use slow, electric propulsion to get to their nominal orbits).

sandworm101 2y ago
>> mass optimization, they're released at below operational altitude Literally everything to do with spaceflight is connected to mass optimization. The more practical reason is to better separate the sats within the orbital plane. They sit in the lower/faster orbit until in position and the last in trail boosts into the higher/slower orbit. Put them all into the final orbit and they would all be bunched up. Put them too high and you are just wasting fuel springing them back down.

lifeisstillgood 2y ago

Sometimes I despair of humans, sticking all our eggs into a Crowdstrike basket, or billions of people condemned to wars and poverty, and then, we go and do things like “hey we can measure the freaking Sun’s solar storms from actual space vehicles we have put into orbit around this planet” We have come a long way from James Watt thinking “you know we could keep some of that hot gas” - it’s not all to do with the free energy boost we have been digging out of the ground. We do have our moments. Just less wars and more co-operation please.

kidme5 2y ago
the sad thing is Starlink satellites have a significant impact on one of the scariest human threats-- nuclear war. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8tgf79/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8...
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  So that link seems to be suggesting that US funding for space exploration and NASA has a significant nuclear weapons component. I mean my kids are covering this in their History GCSEs. It’s not a secret. And if you believe in / agree with escalation management strategy it’s a good thing (unless you think humans should all unite together and turn swords into ploughshares which I do agree with, just hard to get from Here to there, but would love to see it)
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    I think the core is how we stand towards missile defense. During the Cold War the prevailing opinion was that mutually assured destruction was the best strategy. Missile defense undermines that strategy and was thus treated as a worse offense than building first-strike weapons. Now the threat landscape has shifted. There is a closing window of opportunity where the US is the sole superpower and could get away with deploying such a system without much pushback. Whether it's a good idea is debatable.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  We already have the X37 for unconventional nuke delivery. There is no need for a conspiracy with SpaceX for existing capabilities.