[deleted]

Comments

• Kyle@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I got a great new story once these clicks dry up: “Expensive disposable fork thrown out a little earlier than forecasted”

  I’m not a fan of Elon but low Earth orbit satellites by nature are meant to de-orbit. Yes they cause astronomy light pollution but cannot cause Kessler syndrome since their orbit is temporary from the start. Being so low there is atmospheric drag, which sometimes slows objects more than predicted.

  Making news of this is like being shocked that infrastructure undersea cables and communication lines are falling apart and being replaced. It’s a fact of life.

  source

  • saveanon12@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Incorrect this is major news. These satellites are dying at a much faster rate than their expected life cycle. His company if this pace continues will be dead in under a year. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro

    source

    • feecoomeeq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Woah, that vid has 2 minutes of initial intro/sponsor crap.

      Ltdw Besides he just reads two articles saying that the failure rate is alarming, cause unknown but also the userbase is over 2 milion people, and doubled since January 2023 where it was around 1 milion. A life expectancy of the satellites are 5 years, so the early editions launched in 2019 should still be operational.

      He also said that June magnetic storm they hit the satellites caused 100 milion loss with 40 satellites burned. As there are 5000 starlinks in orbit already, their cost estimates for 11,12 billion USD.

      source
    • Magrath@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That information wasn’t in the video. The guy was basically deepthroating Starlink the whole video.

      source
    • marsokod@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s not really major news because the report is inaccurate and they are not dying at any abnormal rate at the moment. The only news is that one website is having issues updating their data and can temporarily display misleading information.

      source
    • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro

      Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

      I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

      source
  • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I am a satellite software engineer turned program manager. This is not unexpected in this current environment, however the conditions that created the environment are abnormal.

    This solar cycle is much stronger than past cycles. I’m on mobile, so I can’t get a good screenshot, but you can go here to see this cycle and the last cycle, as well as an overlay of a normal cycle www.swpc.noaa.gov/…/solar-cycle-progression

    As solar flux increases, the atmosphere expands considerably, causing more drag than predicted. During periods of solar minimum, satellites can remain in a very low orbit with minimal station keeping. However, at normal levels of solar maximum, 5 year orbits can easily degrade to 1 year orbits. Forecasters says we are still a year away from solar maximum, and flux is already higher than last cycle’s all time high (which was also an anomalously strong cycle). So it will get worse before it gets better.

    TLDR: Satellites are falling out of the sky because the sun is angy

    source
  • sagrotan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    “I’m not a fan of Elon” understatement of the year. It’s like saying “Bill Gates Looks like a sympathetic uncle, I’d leave him alone with my family anytime” or “Vladimir Putin seems to an open and tolerant man, let’s do that LGBTQ+ event right in front of his palace” or “This Zuckerberg guy is really fair IMO, I’ve for this new business idea, let’s start it with him” . Who’s got another?

    source
• OrteilGenou@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Isn’t this their business model?

  source

  • cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Exactly. This they know. They’re low orbit. What does low orbit mean? They’re more susceptible to gravity… so obviously they’re gonna fall at some point. I get that it’s not good for them to fall but like you said": isn’t this their business model? They must have planned for this. Nobody could possibly expect low orbit satellites being pulled in by gravity to orbit for 39 years.

    source

    • Deiskos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Atmospheric drag, not gravity. ☝️🤓

      Although technically correct because gravity is stronger on lower orbit owing to being closer to the Earth.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • saveanon12@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    If satellites dying long before their 5 year life is their business model they are succeeding. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro

    source

    • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro

      Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

      I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

      source
• CameronDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Is this news? They are in low orbits and are meant to come down and burn up, what is the aignificance?

  source

  • saveanon12@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yes it is accelerating they are burning up before the end of their 5 year life cycle. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro

    source

    • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro

      Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

      I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

      source
    • deleted@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      So you’re telling me businesses sometimes lose money?

      How come they get rich? /s

      Starlink technology is new. It’s a miracle that it worked as intended.

      source
  • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Idk why you’re getting downvoted for asking a question. I was under the impression that the satellites were designed to burn up like this too.

    source
  • funkajunk@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Elon = bad

    source

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I mean yeah but stating so uncritically is what is so tiring.

      source
  • sorghum@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yeah I don’t know why this topic keeps coming up. They do this by design. I swear Elon haters are just as annoying as the Elon fanboys.

    source

    • SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      These person keeps making accounts to spam their site. If it was actual news reputable sites would be picking it up because musk’s constant fuck ups are great for ad views.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Jackolantern@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I think the point is that the burn up is accelerating.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• atticus88th@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Is it a coincidence that the when Elon Musk makes a douche move, more of the satellites are lost?

  source

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It's not a coincidence that people post more about Starlink satellites burning up when Elon Musk makes a douche move, because that gets the clicks.

    source
  • saveanon12@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    No lol

    source
• funkajunk@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  First of all, I don’t give a shit about Elon, a company and what it accomplishes is more than just one person.

  I just want to highlight that the current Starlink fleet consisted of over 5000 satellites as of August, losing 300 isn’t that crazy when you actually consider the constellation itself as a whole.

  In any business involving physical hardware, there is an expected rate of failure, and from what I can tell this is completely within the foreseen range. With the plans to expand to over 40000 satellites in the future, even losing 500 units is a little over 1% of the total - that’s a 99% success rate.

  Even with the current loss, that’s only around 6% of the total - probably painful, but definitely not the massive “L” that some people are thinking it is.

  source
• marsokod@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Be careful about news on this. The data coming from satellitemap.space can be unreliable for recent data.

  If you look at he work from Marco Langbroek twitter.com/…/1705562829225410697 or Jonathan McDowell, respected figures in space object tracking, these reports are inacurate.

  source
• Korkki@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I hope they were lost in “fell in to the atmosphere and burned up” and not in “they started colliding with other space junk and accelerated the whole orbit toward a kessler syndrome” kinda way…

  source

  • Critical_Insight@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I dont think that’s an issue on low earth orbit, because of the atmospheric drag. Even the ISS needs boosting from time to time or it’ll fall back to earth.

    source
• originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  how many does he have to lose before the whole thing isnt worth it?

  source

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    More than this, because this loss rate is designed for. The constellation is at a very low altitude and is intended to be constantly replaced like this.

    source

    • Hallowed_Grave@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      How does the company stay afloat when they’re constantly replacing satellites? The money, the logistics, and most of all, the materials. What a waste.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Well it won’t work out very well when they already have less than 15% of the subscribers they thought they would have by now.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • theodewere@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    of at least equal concern is whether the business is profitable, and it is probably shedding billions.. he had forecasted revenues of around $12 billion by now, but they just reported $1.6 billion (which is up from $0.23 or so, which is horrific given the projections).. this is because that $12 billion revenue projection was also projecting costs of $7 billion.. their costs are not likely lower than projections, just because.. and their user growth is anemic.. that bump in revenue might have been a windfall from sales in Ukraine or to the US government..

    the business is a financial hole

    source

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      SpaceX had their first profitable quarter last quarter

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I can’t see how they’d even be at $1.6B. By their advertised pricing they should be averaging $200 per account per month. And they just recently got to two million customers. Even if they had two million customers for the entirety of the past three years (which not even close) that would still only be $1.2B in revenue.

      source
• HarkMahlberg@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Musk is going to single handedly give the Earth Kessler Syndrome.

  source

  • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Not from low earth orbit…

    That’s kinda the whole point of these. They’re designed to deorbit and fall back, not stay in orbit. They would need far fewer GEO sats but they have much higher latency and don’t fall back when they die.

    source
  • Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I don’t like Muskrat at all, but as far as I can tell the satellites have been in low earth orbit and burn up in the atmosphere as to not create such a situation

    source
  • Maeve@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’m having Kingsmen flashbacks

    source
• pjhenry1216@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Space forecaster? "Today there will be mostly nothing with a small chance of satellite showers in the evening. And when is the evening? I don't know. It's space."

  source

  • randon31415@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Spaaaaaace Weather!

    source
• kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  That’s not even news, stop posting this shit

  source