-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yeah, only an issue when they are in the thicker (yet still thin) atmospheric layer. Maybe a software update results to allow exit from safe mode on these conditions (or it could be the main thruster can't overcome the level of drag encountered).
Launched on Thursday, storm on Friday resulting in 50% higher atmospheric density than previous launches.
I don't see anything major in the space weather forecast/ reporting around that time: StackPath
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
They were warned
english.alarabiya.net
Solar storm knocks out 40 newly launched SpaceX satellites, the largest such incident
A geomagnetic storm triggered by a large burst of radiation from the sun has disabled at least 40 of the 49 satellites newly launched by SpaceX as part of
So, I’m in the fortunate position of receiving a StarLink Gen 2 system in an area that doesn’t absolutely need it. I’ve already tested it. My options:
1) Continue with Comcast 200-300 Mbs for $140/mo (we don’t need the included TV options)
2) Downgrade to Comcast <100 Mbps for ~$80/mo.
3) Install StarLink Gen 2, demonstrated 200-300 Mbs for $99/mo plus $500 system cost. In testing, StarLink feeds our existing wireless base station + 3 extenders flawlessly in bypass mode.
4K streaming is our stress case.
My main motivation was my anger at losing our Comcast after about 24 hours during the 3-day Texas blackout a year ago. We have independent home power, but obviously Comcast didn’t.
1) Continue with Comcast 200-300 Mbs for $140/mo (we don’t need the included TV options)
2) Downgrade to Comcast <100 Mbps for ~$80/mo.
3) Install StarLink Gen 2, demonstrated 200-300 Mbs for $99/mo plus $500 system cost. In testing, StarLink feeds our existing wireless base station + 3 extenders flawlessly in bypass mode.
4K streaming is our stress case.
My main motivation was my anger at losing our Comcast after about 24 hours during the 3-day Texas blackout a year ago. We have independent home power, but obviously Comcast didn’t.
I would give my eye tooth for it. Hmm...I can't even run our GIS mapping applications my data is so bad.So, I’m in the fortunate position of receiving a StarLink Gen 2 system in an area that doesn’t absolutely need it. I’ve already tested it. My options:
1) Continue with Comcast 200-300 Mbs for $140/mo (we don’t need the included TV options)
2) Downgrade to Comcast <100 Mbps for ~$80/mo.
3) Install StarLink Gen 2, demonstrated 200-300 Mbs for $99/mo plus $500 system cost. In testing, StarLink feeds our existing wireless base station + 3 extenders flawlessly in bypass mode.
4K streaming is our stress case.
My main motivation was my anger at losing our Comcast after about 24 hours during the 3-day Texas blackout a year ago. We have independent home power, but obviously Comcast didn’t.
Tonga's international cable is fixed, Starlink is providing connectivity to the other islands as that fix could be 9 months out.
h/t @Nocturnal
Musk's Starlink connects remote Tonga villages still cut off after tsunami
h/t @Nocturnal
Musk's Starlink connects remote Tonga villages still cut off after tsunami
I'm trying to understand the geomagnetic storm risks to Starlink. Does anyone know if Starlink satellites in normal orbit are at increased risk or have any been damaged by such?
Apparently the current solar cycle started in 2019 and will peak in 2025 so there are expected to be many more severe geomagnetic storms in the next few years.
Apparently the current solar cycle started in 2019 and will peak in 2025 so there are expected to be many more severe geomagnetic storms in the next few years.
The issue was the upper atmosphere was heated and expanded, causing higher density/ drag at the low inital orbit Starlink starts at. This effect is not a problem at the operational orbit.
I ecpect Starlink had similar exposure to direct solar radiation events as other LEO satellites. (The lower the better, I think?)
Apparently, once in their target orbits, they are relatively safe. The lower drop off orbit can be affected by geo storms since the atmosphere can have up to 50% more drag at those lower altitudes during a storm. But not so at target altitude once the satellites have raised their orbits. The operational orbits are also well within the magnetic protection zone of the earth, so they shouldn’t be directly affected by ordinary geo storms (Geo sats are more vulnerable since they are a lot higher).
However if we get a direct hit from a large stellar mass ejection, all bets are off, but those events only happen on the order of centuries.
Its an interesting time for sure. MEO/GEO sats by design have to be way more robust than LEOs to survive outside the van allen belts, but as a result they generally end up less vulnerable to the space environment than LEO sats [in the LEO environment]. That MEO/GEO resiliency comes at a cost though--those high orbit sats have redundancy everywhere and basically 100% space-grade parts. Traditional LEOs often leverage a lot of those legacy architectures and parts (especially if its a gub'ment mission that doesn't care about money), but for high volume mega-constellations that design logic is pretty cost prohibitive.
To varying degrees all of the mega constellations are trying to leverage as much as possible things like single-string architectures, non-space grade (automotive/consumer electronics) and non-rad-hard parts, etc., and with most of them trying to launch more or less around the solar peak, they all have heightened awareness to finding the right balance between resiliency and a business model. The big issue is that there's not a lot of heritage with the downgraded parts--notably critical/expensive parts--so the choice is basically:
1) Build an affordable satellite with a higher potential for widespread service drops due to a bunch of resets/bitflips/SEEs/SEUs--which is compounded by the general timeline for most of them that overlays the infant mortality and solar peak curves more than not
2) Build a satellite with more traditional architectures/parts that necessarily will either a) have lower performance for an equivalent cost, since 'traditional' generally means things like 'heavier' or 'less power efficient' or b) be more expensive for equivalent performance. While this results in a more robust vehicle that will statistically weather the...uhh..weather better than #1, neither option is really aligned with providing service in what is inevitably going to be a very competitive market.
3) Hyper-engineer a solution on the spectrum between #1 and #2 (FTR this is where most mega-constellations are right now), which both a) runs up pre-revenue costs and b) generally results in pushing back the first revenue dollar.
Intelsat rolls out network service that integrates Starlink and geostationary satellites
Intelsat rolls out network service that integrates Starlink and geostationary satellites
spacenews.com
Intelsat rolls out network service that integrates Starlink and geostationary satellites
Intelsat rolls out network service that integrates Starlink and geostationary satellites
Makes sense for certain kinds of users. Like high availability military.
Intelsat rolls out network service that integrates Starlink and geostationary satellites
Intelsat rolls out network service that integrates Starlink and geostationary satellites
This will be a good case study on the hybrid solution. Intelsat has some decent GEO sats that can actually pump useful amounts of data, and starting with The Man as the customer takes the edge off worrying about competitive pricing. It also makes SpaceX's part a lot easier, as they don't have to deal with The Man.
In general the bundling is a natural evolution too. I'm not sure this particular mix is the right answer at the consumer level, but as the world marches on ubiquitous, device agnostic connectivity will become increasingly more attainable. Bundling was an obvious, if not barely incremental step forward back in the day when people still watched cable TV but also wanted internet access...MNOs kinda approach the problem from the other direction with hotspots (does anyone actually use their ATT or T-mobile or Verizon hotspots?). Moving forward it seems to make sense that established players start to find dates to the prom--you've got established terrestrial solutions, MNO's, emerging/legacy fixed satellite solutions, and--at least if you believe AST and a few other startups--a future where off-grid connectivity is plausible. Nobody wants to pay for all of that separately, nobody wants to pay different people for their computer vs their phone, etc.
Similar threads
