Geomagnetic storm blamed for the loss of 40 Starlink satellites

[Marcel de Bont]

A geomagnetic storm is blamed by SpaceX for the loss of 40 (out of 49) Starlink satellites launched last Thursday. Another reminder how important space weather is now that we are sending more satellites and humans into space than ever before!

https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/news/view/457/20220209-geomagentic-storm-blamed-for-the-loss-of-40-starlink-satellites.html

[Hayday]

Weird, I didn't think Fridays storm was particularly bad. Tomorrow will be interesting.

[Sam Warfel]

1 hour ago, Hayday said:

Weird, I didn't think Fridays storm was particularly bad. Tomorrow will be interesting.

It wasn’t particularly “bad” in terms of severity, just bad timing if one is SpaceX. 

[Marcel de Bont]

1 uur geleden, Hayday zei:

Weird, I didn't think Fridays storm was particularly bad. Tomorrow will be interesting.

It wasn't a bad storm at all, just a run of the mill G1 storm. But they launched the satellites just in between two storms. Bad timing. The drag on these satellites was just too much (you seen those things, the solar panels are like giant sails!) and down they go.

[Drax Spacex]

We discussed the CME that generated these G1 storms as it was on its way to Earth and as the storm was occurring in the "CME Impact" thread.

The storms occurred later than predicted.  We explored the possible reasons why, and what was the likely driving source for the storm(s).

The time of the Falcon 9 launch with these Starlink satellites was 2022 Feb 3 1813 UTC.  There was no active Storm Watch in effect at the time of launch.  The SWPC G2/G1 Storm watch had been cancelled on 2022 Feb 02 1914 UTC.

Would Spacex have delayed their launch if an active Storm Watch been in effect at that time?

I posed the question whether behind-closed-door post mortem meetings take place when predictions do not match observations.  In this case, it would be safe to say the answer to that is a definitive "Yes."

Edited February 9, 2022 by Drax Spacex
garbled html rendering - removed thread link

[Christopher S.]

3 hours ago, Marcel de Bont said:

It wasn't a bad storm at all, just a run of the mill G1 storm. But they launched the satellites just in between two storms. Bad timing. The drag on these satellites was just too much (you seen those things, the solar panels are like giant sails!) and down they go.

They should have checked SWL. 😭 I've also been getting the feeling that the teams over at SWPC may be under the influence of Colorado's green gold lately. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but, idk. A lack of focus can be characterized from some of their small mistakes over the last couple of months. I'm not saying SWPC is to blame for this miscommunication or failed prediction, but, it kinda looks like it.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Christopher S.

[Drax Spacex]

So how many previous Falcon 9 launches of Starlink satellites occurred the day before G1 or higher geomagnetic storm conditions were observed?  And what happened to the Starlink satellites?  That would make for an interesting retrospective study, if that data is publicly available.

It may be that Spacex is now more sensitive to publicity about increasing space junk due to satellites that malfunction or cannot make it into proper orbit.  They're showing us that, being good space citizens, they are willing to "take the hit" and proactively scuttle satellites that may turn into space junk.

Another possibility:
Problem: Spacex scuttles 40 satellites due to geomagnetic storm, a loss of $50 million.
Reaction:  We need more accurate and timely space weather predictions, modeling, and alerts.
Solution:  Increase funding to public departments and private companies involved in space weather, and increase public awareness of the potential impacts and hazards of space weather.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Drax Spacex
public awareness

[Jesterface23]

A note to self, Solar Cycle 25 activity is increasing.

[Solarflaretracker200]

Like people say, This sun isn't our friend and never will be