[LINK] itN: 'Solar winds take out Starlink satellites'

[Roger Clarke]

[ This one gave me a good morning giggle. ]


Solar winds take out Starlink satellites
Geomagnetic storm hits broadband from the skies provider.
Juha Saarinen
itNews
Feb 9 2022
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/solar-winds-take-out-starlink-satellites-575813

SpaceX has lost 40 out of 49 recently deployed satellites, following
solar winds creating a geomagnetic storm in space.

The satellites were launched on February 3 from the Kennedy Space Centre
in Florida by a Falcon 9 rocket, but were hit by a geomagnetic storm the
following day.

In a geomagnetic storm, energy from the solar wind is transferred to the
Earth's surrounding space, and this can cause major disturbances in the
planet's magnetosphere.

"These storms cause the atmosphere to warm and atmospheric density at
our low deployment altitudes to increase," SpaceX wrote in an update.

"In fact, onboard GPS suggests the escalation speed and severity of the
storm caused atmospheric drag to increase up to 50 percent higher than
during previous launches."

The geomagnetic storm causing increased drag for the low-altitude
satellites which orbit the Earth at just 550 kilometres, so they were
unable to leave safe mode.

[ I wonder what SpaceX's definition of 'safe' is, and safety of what,
from whose perspective:  http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/WS-1301.html ]

As a result, up to 40 of the satellites have re-entered or will re-enter
the Earth's atmosphere.

[ I think they left out 'a great deal earlier than planned'. ]

Each Starlink satellite costs an estimated US$250,000, meaning the total
loss for SpaceX was around US$10 million.

SpaceX said the re-entering satellites pose no collision risk with other
satellites ...

[ Presumably that's because no-one else is silly enough to put lumps of
matter into temporary, very-high-speed orbit that close to Earth. ]

... and will burn up while de-orbiting.

The company said no orbital debris will be created ...

[ Um, that's definitional, because these things have to flap their wings
very hard, all the time, to stay in their unsustainable orbit-like path.

... and no satellite parts will hit the ground.

[ 550km isn't all that far to fall, and 260kg is a fair bit of material
to be vaporised.  Maybe they've accumulated a bit of experience of
de-orbital burn-up rates, particuylarly when falling from 1100m.  Do
they have empirical evidence yet from the 550km level? ]


[ It's only 10 months since FCC exercised the US's claim of jurisdiction
over space by claiming to 'authorise' the halving of the altitude of
SpaceX's satellites.

[ Have there been previous launches into the 550km level, which went as
planned?  Was the prompt loss of 40 of a batch of 49 really a once-off
bit of bad luck, or an indicator that the environment at that level is
simply too hostile for spacecraft to hang around? ]


-- 
Roger Clarke                            mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
T: +61 2 6288 6916   http://www.xamax.com.au  http://www.rogerclarke.com

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University