Solar storms are knocking Starlink satellites out of orbit, scientists warn

[Swede]

What genius sends up 7000 satellites and doesn't account for solar storms?



NASA data shows that between 2020 and 2024, 523 Starlink satellites have re-entered Earth’s atmosphere. While some of those reentries were planned and controlled, many were not.

https://cybernews.com/tech/solar-storm-spacex-starlink-satellites/

[k_buddy762]

1. He did.

They were designed to be short-lived, disposable, and regularly replaced from day one.

[Swede]

2. I take it that you didn't read the story.

nt

[k_buddy762]

4. On Starlink design

Starlink satellites are designed to be replaced regularly as part of their operational strategy.

Here's why:

Short Lifespan:

Starlink satellites typically have an expected operational life of 5 to 7 years. This is relatively short compared to traditional geostationary satellites (which can last 15+ years), but Starlink operates in low Earth orbit (LEO), where satellites face more wear from atmospheric drag and radiation.

Rapid Technological Advancement:

SpaceX frequently updates Starlink hardware. Newer versions have better throughput, antennas, lasers for inter-satellite communication, and power efficiency. Regular replacement allows them to keep the constellation technologically up-to-date.

Intentional Deorbiting:

When a Starlink satellite nears the end of its life or malfunctions, it's intentionally deorbited to burn up in Earth's atmosphere, avoiding space debris. This is a built-in sustainability feature.

Mass Production Model:

Starlink satellites are mass-produced with cost-efficiency and frequent deployment in mind. SpaceX can launch 20–60 satellites at a time on a single Falcon 9, making regular refreshes logistically feasible.

Modular and Scalable Constellation:

The constellation is designed to be scalable and modular, so outdated or underperforming satellites can be easily replaced without impacting the overall network.

Bottom Line:

Yes, regular replacement is an intentional part of the Starlink system design, ensuring performance, reducing space junk, and staying ahead of technological improvements.

[highplainsdem]

10. Do you have a link for where you found that info? It looks as though it was copied from somewhere. A chatbot?

[k_buddy762]

12. Read the wiki

the entire design philosophy is laid out. They were never designed to be permanent -- no satellite is, all orbits degrade over time and must be boosted back into orbit, until fuel eventually runs out.

If a solar flare or space junk hits a Starlink node, its neighbors pick up the traffic. Its a genius design.

[highplainsdem]

22. What you posted in reply 4 is not from Wikipedia. It isn't your normal writing style, and googling some

of it didn't turn up any online source.

Did you get what you posted from ChatGPT or another chatbot? It's typical chatbot style.

If you have a link to a really credible source, I'd like to see it.

If you're using a chatbot to spit out answers for you, you should at the very least say so, and identify which chatbot. They are NOT reliable sources of information, though they're designed to sound persuasive.

So, again - what was your source for reply 4?

[LiberalArkie]

29. People seem to equate Musk as being a technical genius. But in reality the only thing he seems to be smart

at is deciding who and what to invest in. Otherwise he seems to be dumb as a rock.

The guys that decided to re-home rocket boosters and the re-launch them instead of just disposing them was a genius. The software designer that created that was a genius.

Starlink would have never been possible without those reusable boosters. As far as Starlink being his idea, I do not think so as I read articles back in the 70's of the concept of small, cheap satellites that transferred info between themselves via lasers. Of course this was just science fiction as comunication satellites just came online and were very expensive. Of course just thinking about it, at that time I was heavily devouring Heinlein books faster than I could buy them. Ya Grok?

[k_buddy762]

31. All of the good that was done during the last administration

does all credit go to Biden? Or his staffers who wrote the briefs and did the legwork? Or both?

[DBoon]

3. These solar storms are a completely predictable event

and have had minimal if any impact on other critical infrastructure.

[k_buddy762]

5. Neat sites

https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-flares.html

https://www.planetary.org/articles/should-you-be-worried-about-solar-storms

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Carrington. Complacency is not advised.

Quebec learned this lesson in 1989, when a solar storm knocked out the province’s power for nine hours. The U.S. military experienced it in 1972, when solar activity triggered dozens of mines floating off the coast of Vietnam. And almost the entire world witnessed it in 1859 when, for about a day, the aurora borealis glowed so bright that it could be seen as far south as Colombia. People in the U.S. read newspapers by the light in the sky. Gold miners woke up in the middle of the night, thinking it was morning, and started making breakfast.

The 1859 geomagnetic storm, now known as the Carrington Event, was the strongest in recorded history. It was caused when a wave of magnetized plasma launched from the Sun, traveling at over 2,000 kilometers per second (about 1,500 miles per second), and then hit Earth. The wave of plasma, called a coronal mass ejection (or CME), led Earth’s magnetic field to release terawatts of power in response.

Another strong solar storm occurred in February 1872.[28] Less severe storms also occurred in 1921 (this was comparable by some measures), 1938, 1941, 1958, 1959 and 1960, when widespread radio disruption was reported. The flares and CMEs of the August 1972 solar storms were similar to the Carrington event in size and magnitude; however, unlike the 1859 storms, they did not cause an extreme geomagnetic storm. The March 1989 geomagnetic storm knocked out power across large sections of Quebec, while the 2003 Halloween solar storms registered the most powerful solar explosions ever recorded. On 23 July 2012, a "Carrington-class" solar superstorm (solar flare, CME, solar electromagnetic pulse) was observed, but its trajectory narrowly missed Earth.[5][29]

In June 2013, a joint venture from researchers at Lloyd's of London and Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) in the US used data from the Carrington Event to estimate the cost of a similar event in the present to the US alone at US$600 billion to $2.6 trillion (equivalent to $774 billion to $3.35 trillion in 2023[31]),[3] which, at the time, equated to roughly 3.6 to 15.5 percent of annual GDP. In addition to this effect on the general economy, there is also research that highlights the potential consequences of a large geomagnetic storm on agriculture. The effect here is indirect, meaning via the loss of access to agricultural inputs like fertilizer or pesticides, due to a disrupted industrial production. This has been estimated to potentially reduce yields by 38-48 % globally, with yield losses of up to 75 % in some areas like Central Europe.[32]

[DBoon]

7. solar storms much smaller are knocking Starlink out of orbit

the solar storms we are having are typical of the solar maximum. They are not the rare Carrington event storms.

Starlink does not have the resilience to operate during normal conditions, while our other systems maintain.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Sleep until you get woken up. Had any powerline wildfires in SoCal?

Regular solar storms continue to be regular-sized until one comes along that is not regular-sized.

Regular-sized earthquakes in California will continue to be a minor issue until one isn't. Or the New Madrid fault in the country's "heartland".

On 23 July 2012, a "Carrington-class" solar superstorm (solar flare, CME, solar electromagnetic pulse) was observed, but its trajectory narrowly missed Earth.[5][29]

[DBoon]

11. you miss the point

I'm not denying the possibility of a carrington size event

I'm pointing out that startlink is so fragile normal solar storms knock it out. Like if a building collapsed during a magnitude 3 quake.

"Sleep until you get woken up" shows you not only miss my point but are also being aggressively insulting.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. If you don't want a miss, write clearly

Your post seemed clear enough. It did not mention Starlink but instead pointed to "other infrastructure".

These solar storms are a completely predictable event
and have had minimal if any impact on other critical infrastructure.

[DBoon]

16. meaning starlink is less robust that anything else that could be affected by an X class solar storm

that was my point

"Normal conditions" include X class solar storms during a solar maximum.

[k_buddy762]

14. you miss the point

they're meant to be cheap and disposable and easily replaceable. if they were fully shielded against minor storms they would be heavier, more expensive, and less could be launched at a time.

they're not $1900 iPhone 15s, they're $29 burners from Wal-Mart.

[DBoon]

17. wrong

the satellites are de-orbiting due to the effects of a large solar flare on the upper atmosphere.
Shielding has absolutely nothing to do with this and would not prevent de-orbiting.

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impacts/satellite-drag

[k_buddy762]

20. the point, friend, is that

any technical difficulty suffered by these devices that results in malfunction are solved by destroying the offending satellite in the atmosphere and replacing it at some point with another.

[GoCubsGo]

9. The entire Universe hates Eloon.

I just hope the damn things that re-enter the Earth's atmosphere burn up before they hit the ground and kill innocent people.

[k_buddy762]

15. they're tiny

and made of stuff that will burn up. you can relax, a starlink satellite will not hit you.

this technology has brought the internet (and, for better or worse, the world) to the poorest places and people on earth.

[GoCubsGo]

24. The issue most of us here have isn't about the "technology."

We just don't like the shitty guy who is one of its providers--at least until he decides to cut off some of those poor people on a whim. Or, because he just fucking hates those poor, brown people. Or, he cuts off a country that was using it to fight a war to help out the scumbag who invaded them. Sheesh.

[Jit423]

18. Wait until they clobber bitcoins and other cyber coins. nt

[hunter]

19. Starlink will not be sustainable without massive government subsidies.

The sooner it goes bankrupt the better.

It's bad for the natural environment and it's a threat to the national security of any nation that buys into it.

[k_buddy762]

21. there are impoverished people

around the world whose nations have minimal or expensive infrastructure, sailors, and research stations at the farthest reaches of the globe that use starlink for communication and access to the global internet. you want that access disappeared?

[hunter]

25. Oh for fucks sake.

Yeah, it's for the impoverished people.



What impoverished people need are safe comfortable homes, indoor plumbing, and modern water and sewage systems.

Even before that, clean water and healthy food and water for all would be a good start.

Cell phone and fixed wireless systems can serve all established population centers, including small towns and villages, just as they do in the "developed" world.

All the people who are trashing what's left of the natural world -- destroying it with mining, fossil fuel extraction, cattle ranching, etc. -- can go fuck themselves. Yes, I do want that internet access "disappeared."

There are solutions to the world's critical communication infrastructure needs that have much smaller environmental impacts and are less costly than Starlink.

[Melon]

30. This isn't true.....and we know that from the US..

There are many rural areas in the US that have electricity and water…but horrible internet. Connection speeds that we saw in the late 90’s at low dial up speeds. These satellites have been a game changer. Not to mention the global difference it’s made….especially..for Ukraine. Hate the player but the technology was never implemented before.

[hunter]

32. Somehow these rural areas managed to get electricity and phone service...

... a much more ambitious and expensive undertaking than high speed internet service, the installation of which is almost trivial in comparison. Hanging fiber optic cable from existing poles and building fixed wireless networks isn't rocket science and these have a much smaller environmental footprint than frequent filthy rocket launches for all eternity.

Starlink can go to hell.

My great grandma's ranch, which is still about as far away from any populated place as you can be in the 48 states got both phone and electric service as part of FDR's new deal.

What the fuck happened to the U.S.A.? When did we fall flat on our face and become a "can't do" nation?

I figure our great decline began with Ronald Reagan and all the simpletons who voted for him. That guy always made my skin crawl. I couldn't listen to him, just as I can't listen to Trump. The ignorance oozes out of them.

[Melon]

33. Who said anything about Trump?

Some rural areas were and are still getting internet speeds slower than our dial up in 1999. There is no other option. Living without internet puts those families far behind and their children. The satellite tr enology is a game changer. You can even get fast internet at sea. You are blinded by the man versus what he accomplished globally for the internet. It has been a game changer. You can still not worship the man and appreciate the technology.

[hunter]

34. I made myself clear in my other posts.

Starlink is an environmental catastrophe.

Reaganism, Trump, Musk, and so many schemes promoted by tech-bro billionaires are environmental catastrophes too.

Let's allow earth's few remaining wild places to remain wild. We don't have to saturate the entire surface of the planet with high speed internet access.

If you simply must have high speed internet access move to a place that has it (my children did that...) or DEMAND your local, state, or federal government provide it by the most environmentally responsible and efficient means possible. In all cases that will NOT be satellite service provided by short-lived disposable satellites.

If some catastrophe takes out Starlink -- a solar flare, Kessler syndrome, North Korean hackers, an angry Putin, bankruptcy, etc. -- I won't be sad. It should never have been built.

[Melon]

35. Do YOU have high speed internet?

Did YOU have to request your government provide it?

It’s a crazy notion that you are owed internet from the government. This is why America works better. We have entrepreneurs who develop technology that fills the gaps our government leaves. In your world, some areas don’t deserve high speed internet because you deem your world as full of convenience while others get to live in backwards areas that are there for you to enjoy in picture. Everyone deserves the ability to access the internet…at usable speeds. The internet has made it possible for people to earn their livelihood from remote areas and not just be dependent on the land.

You are dictating the technology that others have access too. You are also trying to slow progress, which is always doomed to failure.

[hunter]

36. Yeah, there's some guy driving a bulldozer through the rain forest all day...

... who needs his Only Fans or TV Religion fix when he returns to camp at night. Maybe both.

What do you think those people who "earn their livelihood from remote areas" are doing? Most of it ain't good.

We don't have to become the Borg. We don't have to convert the entirety of earth's biosphere to human purposes.

Resistance is not futile.

If you want to talk economics Starlink is simply not sustainable in the long run without massive government subsidies and protections. If these massive government subsidies and protections are a given, then why not subsidize and protect internet service providers that have much smaller environmental footprints?

I've been on the internet since the late 'seventies. I used to log in from home on a 300 baud modem. When I first signed on to DU I was lucky to get 24k from my phone lines so I got a high speed "alarm line" connection to a local ISP. This was before PacBell or Comcast even offered internet service to residential users in our area.

I won't do business with Comcast if I can help it. It seems AT&T is only supporting wired infrastructure in our area because the state is forcing them too. I think AT&T fully intends to abandon the crappy "contractor grade" direct-bury wired infrastructure in our neighborhood and switch remaining landline users to wireless as soon as they are allowed to. They recently stopped supporting the wired connection to my ISP and have sent me a ton of mail trying to convince me to sign on to their wireless phone and internet service for "free."

I did go wireless, but not with them. I'm getting 30Mbps reliably which is perfectly adequate for me.

My sister, my father-in-law, and my kids all have 500 Mbps or better. As I've said, my sister and my father-in-law live in very rural U.S.A. and their internet comes from fiber optic cables strung on existing power poles, electric power systems that were part of FDR's "New Deal."

Political pressure brought the "for profit" internet infrastructure to these rural areas.

My kids moved to big cities and have fiber optic cable running directly into their homes. We don't have fiber here and I can't imagine we ever will. They'd have to dig up the streets for that and only get a few customers in return. I'm guessing about a third of my neighbors use Comcast for their internet, a third use AT&T DSL, and the rest are fully wireless.

Starlink is literally garbage raining down on the earth. We can do better.

[Melon]

37. All arguments are lost on you because you want

Others to live as you live or see fit for them to live. News break…people don’t want to live with 1980’s internet speed. I’ve worked remote, I wasn’t up to no good.

This technology is sustainable, it’s being sustained now, and will expand its service.

Enjoys your 1980’s internet and vhs tapes.

[Mosby]

23. I use and maintain a starlink system at work.

Very impressed so far.

The ownership group originally wanted Cox cable, but they said it would cost $14,000 to run new lines to the building.

This is in North Scottsdale, near Grayhawk.

[k_buddy762]

26. Many in the "van life" nomad community

rely on is exclusively, and to great effect. The new (small) system is pretty impressive. Its been fantastic for emergency communication too.

[hunter]

28. Playing one corrupt institution against another...

My sister and my father-in-law live in different regions of rural U.S.A. yet they both have better internet service than most residential users can get in my medium sized city. My sister is truly out in the middle of nowhere, along miles of dirt road.

In both cases very wealthy people had bought hobby ranches at the end of the roads they live on and these wealthy people got their county government to pressure local communications service providers into upgrading their 1960s and 1970s era infrastructure.

Spectrum brought about four hundred feet of coax cable from their new fiber optic line to my father-in-law's house for "free" when he signed up for one year internet service. Previously the only communication service to the area were phone lines that had only been upgraded once since FDR's New Deal and a single AT&T cell tower on a nearby mountain.

Apparently Cox has a comfortable monopoly in your area, protected by local or state government. They don't need your business.

In effect these artificial monopolies support Starlink too.

[sheshe2]

27. Just goes ta show ya...

Elon just can’t keep it up.