this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
225 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

71922 readers
4269 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet constellation has lost more than two hundred satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) since July, according to data from a satellite tracking website. This is the first time that Starlink has lost a significant number of satellites in a short time period, and these losses are typically influenced by solar flares that cause changes in orbit and damage or destroy the spacecraft. The nature of the satellites, i.e. their model, is unclear, and if they are the newer Starlink satellites that SpaceX regularly launches, then the firm will have to conduct at least nine Falcon 9 launches to make up for the satellites lost.

Since it is a SpaceX subsidiary, Starlink has rapidly built the world's largest LEO satellite internet constellation and the world's largest satellite constellation by rapidly launching them through the Falcon 9 rocket. However, upgrades to the spacecraft and constraints with the Falcon 9 have reduced the number of satellites that the firm can launch, with its latest launches seeing roughly 22 satellites per launch for a nearly one-third reduction over the 60 satellites that SpaceX launched during the early days of the Starlink buildout.

The newer satellites are second-generation spacecraft that SpaceX received the launch authorization from the FCC less than a year back. They are more powerful and are thus larger and heavier than the earlier satellites, which limits the Falcon 9 ability to squeeze large numbers inside a single payload fairing.

Satellites in orbit or space have to face off against various hazards that can damage or put them out of commission. SpaceX faced one such event in February 2022, when a solar flare damaged at least 40 of the recently launched satellites. SpaceX confirmed this and shared that the heat from the solar flare increased atmospheric density and made it impossible for the satellites to maintain their trajectory.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] echo64@lemmy.world 91 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Every time I read anything about starlink, it all just seems so quintessentially American.

You've got effective monopolies of communication infrastructure, which causes everyone to be underserved, and instead of just fixing the monopoly problem, you fire off infinite rockets full of cell towers that burn up in a year

[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As much as this is true, this is also a solution that's doesn't have a lot of alternatives for very isolated areas. You can technically run undersea cables to everywhere, but it's actually faster and easier to have LEO satellites serve places like Antarctica. Some smaller island nations, the middle of Africa, etc.

There are problems with every solution, but this was always an inevitable solution for worldwide communication.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

We've had communications satellites for this function for decades without needing starlink and blotting out the sky with garbage

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Geosynchronous sats are just fine! Only 22,236 miles high vs. Starlink's 342 miles.

Want me to do the math on speed-of-light delay? .119 seconds is hella slower than .002.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 4 points 2 years ago

Yup, that's why the Antarctic Event Horizon telescope needed to wait 6 months to send its data back...

There is a reason that StarLink is better than the previous options.

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 7 points 2 years ago

I kinda wish the Capitalism dev team would patch out the ExternalitiesAreHardToTrack cheat code. It's been abused for centuries and yeah, it's hard to fix, but there are quite a lot of upvotes on its bug tracker, and only a few billionaire downvotes.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Okay, so is this actual news, or just reporting on the fact that starlink satellites have a 5 year lifespan by design? Because this reads like the numerous other articles out there that are ignoring the fact that satellites need fuel to stay in low earth orbit, and that fuel eventually runs out.

I dislike musk as much as the next guy, but let’s not pretend this is something it isn’t.

[–] geosoco@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I get your point, but I suspect there's more here than just lifespan. I don't think we know the reason but the article says this:

As a comparison, only 248 satellites had burned up at the start of this year, so the number destroyed during the last two months is higher than the figure for the first seven months of the year.

If 200 over the span of 2 months is "normal" then I have questions about the financial viability of the project.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It kinda depends on what we are considering a starlink satellite. They did launch a batch of satellites that experienced some issues, and some of them did come down. Iirc those were new models that were going up for the first time.

That said, I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. Firstly because we are talking about less than a percentage point of the total, and second because once the bugs are ironed out, a different company that isn’t run by a moron will likely step in to do a better job.

[–] serratur@lemmy.wtf 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Firstly because we are talking about less than a percentage point of the total

(200 / 5000) * 100 = 4%

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago

Ah, fair enough. Not sure why I thought there were more in total. In fact I think there may be less than 5k.

[–] Etienne_Dahu@jlai.lu 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

By the way, what happens to these satellites once they reach their planned lifespan and run out of fuel?

[–] Haquer@lemmy.today 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is sufficient drag in Low Earth Orbit for the crafts to deorbit without station keeping, meaning they burn up in the atmosphere within a few months/years depending on atmospheric conditions.

[–] Etienne_Dahu@jlai.lu 3 points 2 years ago

Thank you for the explanation!

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, if you want to avoid that, you need to go way up into more expensive and less effective orbits

[–] TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id 33 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I srsly dont want the internet infra to be controlled by the dick headed person.

[–] cricket97@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

You just don't know about the other dickheads in charge.

[–] I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Luckily he's not the majority stakeholder.

[–] TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago

I'm not touching it even with a 2ft pole. I don't want every website to be throttled except Twitter.

[–] DavidGA@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

This is a complete non story. They have a design life of only a few years. They have already been replaced in orbit with upgraded ones.

Total clickbait.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Wow, I didn't realize they're already at more than 5000 satellites. Crazy numbers.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"And this is how we trapped ourselves in our own planet"

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Well at least it's a habitable planet, right?

[–] FleetingTit@feddit.de -2 points 2 years ago

Has been, until end of last year. Now? Not so much.

The way politics are moving rn I can imagine the big funny happening soon, which could trigger a new ice age though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's ok, we were already trapped in our planet. There is no planet B..unless you don't mind living in high-tech caves :) on Earth they're called "vaults".

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do they deorbit? Or did musk just pollute our orbit for no reason whatsoever?

[–] kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They deorbit very quickly.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

That's good. Happy to hear that.

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 0 points 2 years ago

And then... just... drop somewhere?

[–] db2@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is the first time that Starlink has lost a significant number of satellites in a short time period

It's an Elon debacle, it's probably been a problem from day one that he's happily shoveled other people's money at instead of fixing it or admitting he's a moron.

[–] cricket97@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Musk is a minority stakeholder in Starlink. This place hates Musk so much that they'll criticize and actual innovative company serving the underserved.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m no expert by any means but it seems incredibly wasteful that we build satellites, then expel tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to get them into orbit, only for them to just burn up after a few years.

We can’t even reclaim the material because it literally burns and disintegrates as it’s falling out of orbit.

Seriously what the fuck are we doing???

[–] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago

Burning things creatively.

[–] Gerula@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So billionaires filling Earth 's orbit with junk ...

[–] tills13@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

luckily LEO junk will be pulled into Earth's atmosphere without propulsion

[–] cricket97@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This place hates Elon Musk so goddamn much they suddenly become experts on satellites. I bet Musk has very little to do with the day to day at Starlink.

[–] vind@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

One can hate Musk and Starlinks separately.

They ruin our night sky and make Kessler syndrome worse and worse.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

These are also mostly irrelevant to Kessler syndrome. At such low orbits, any debris is cleaned out in months or only a couple years

[–] cricket97@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The number of satellites in orbit right now should have next to 0 impact on your view of the night sky. This can be proven with some pretty simple equations. Should we get rid of GPS satellites too?

[–] rez_doggie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] cricket97@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

what is this supposed to prove. Go outside at night and look, they're not clogging up the sky. At the very worst they're a faint little line you can barely see. I think that is worth giving internet to unserved areas of the world.

[–] Jagermo@feddit.de -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Big Brainy in chief probaly thought the could cut down on latency if they move the orbits closer to the atmosphere and no one cares enough to correct him.

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This just sounds like regular LEO attrition, these satellites are small and "simple" so they were never going to last long (not trying to defend musk here, starlink is full of issues)

[–] Jagermo@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

Probably. It would be funny, though :)

load more comments
view more: next ›