Hitting Nature now. Some of the arguments/estimates were advanced here a few months back and fiercely attacked. Note current statistics (incomplete and necessarily biased due to the small amount of time elapsed since launch) show a failure rate of v1.0 satellites at around 3%, stable around last year's estimates that were argued to be far too pessimistic. [sarc] I'm sure the impeccable peer review here will demolish this FUD. [/sarc]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7Disclaimer: I'm not one of the authors, nor know them or have contributed to the study in any way.
I have updated my calculations on Starlink failure rates. The V0.9 prototypes had a 13 percent failure rate. The first 7 V1.0 launches (420 sats) have had a 3 percent failure riate. The next 7 V1.0 launches (with visors; 413 sats) have had a 0.2 percent failure rate so far
A large fraction of the latter cohort are still undergoing orbit raising and have only been up for a couple of months, so the failure rate for that group will likely rise a bit over time. Nevertheless it does seem that the reliability of the satellites has noticeably increased.
Quote from: eeergo on 05/25/2021 01:09 pmHitting Nature now. Some of the arguments/estimates were advanced here a few months back and fiercely attacked. Note current statistics (incomplete and necessarily biased due to the small amount of time elapsed since launch) show a failure rate of v1.0 satellites at around 3%, stable around last year's estimates that were argued to be far too pessimistic. [sarc] I'm sure the impeccable peer review here will demolish this FUD. [/sarc]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7Disclaimer: I'm not one of the authors, nor know them or have contributed to the study in any way.This article doesn't belong in this thread, it has nothing to do with "Impacts of Large Satellite Constellations on Astronomy", which is why I didn't post it here. Consequentlly any attempt at "I told you so" is not going to work since the past discussion in this thread focused on astronomy, and none of the arguments/estimates in the article has anything to do with astronomy.
In case of the Starlink failure rate (which again has nothing to do with astronomy), Dr. Jonathan McDowell clearly stated there're significant improvements:QuoteI have updated my calculations on Starlink failure rates. The V0.9 prototypes had a 13 percent failure rate. The first 7 V1.0 launches (420 sats) have had a 3 percent failure riate. The next 7 V1.0 launches (with visors; 413 sats) have had a 0.2 percent failure rate so farQuoteA large fraction of the latter cohort are still undergoing orbit raising and have only been up for a couple of months, so the failure rate for that group will likely rise a bit over time. Nevertheless it does seem that the reliability of the satellites has noticeably increased.
Bottomline - even if they stop Starlink, that won’t stop China’s upcoming mega constellation. So if the mega constellation business model works, it is a given there will be tens of thousands of LEO sats in orbit eventually. The question is merely whether the most irresponsible potential operator (China) will be the only one deriving benefit from this reality, or whether the West will share in this bounty.Far better therefore to work with SpaceX to maximise mutual benefits rather than trying to prevent Starlink from happening.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/26/2021 04:26 amBottomline - even if they stop Starlink, that won’t stop China’s upcoming mega constellation. So if the mega constellation business model works, it is a given there will be tens of thousands of LEO sats in orbit eventually. The question is merely whether the most irresponsible potential operator (China) will be the only one deriving benefit from this reality, or whether the West will share in this bounty.Far better therefore to work with SpaceX to maximise mutual benefits rather than trying to prevent Starlink from happening.It's pretty clear that China wouldn't embark itself in such a constellation (what for? it wants to stifle free communication, and openly does so every day domestically!) were it not for the prior Western initiatives, especially Starlink. Likewise, the craziness was jumpstarted in Europe as a reaction to the American megaconstellations, not because it was a particularly favored idea before.Land rushes and bounty duels are never a good idea, particularly when you're not sure what you're gaining from it.
Quote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 10:07 amQuote from: M.E.T. on 05/26/2021 04:26 amBottomline - even if they stop Starlink, that won’t stop China’s upcoming mega constellation. So if the mega constellation business model works, it is a given there will be tens of thousands of LEO sats in orbit eventually. The question is merely whether the most irresponsible potential operator (China) will be the only one deriving benefit from this reality, or whether the West will share in this bounty.Far better therefore to work with SpaceX to maximise mutual benefits rather than trying to prevent Starlink from happening.It's pretty clear that China wouldn't embark itself in such a constellation (what for? it wants to stifle free communication, and openly does so every day domestically!) were it not for the prior Western initiatives, especially Starlink. Likewise, the craziness was jumpstarted in Europe as a reaction to the American megaconstellations, not because it was a particularly favored idea before.Land rushes and bounty duels are never a good idea, particularly when you're not sure what you're gaining from it.I frankly suggest you not to base your agenda on China will NOT do something they have said.It seems you clearly haven’t see reports boasting how state-owned ISP spends millions and months of work just to get 4G covers a remote village with tens of residents to complete the goal of poverty alleviation. And there are other three billions on the Belt and Road.
I don't doubt they will do it now, at least if Western equivalents keep developing. It just seems the timing and "coming out of the blue" of the Chinese constellation suggests the project to be a reaction, rather than a homegrown imperative. Likewise, the European reaction has been labeled as such even by its own promoters.Expanding 4G or telecomms in general doesn't necessarily imply support for megaconstellations. Surely in this day and age, the more telecom options, the better - but the jury is still out on whether megaconstellations are worth the effort/expense/consequences.
Quote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 10:41 amI don't doubt they will do it now, at least if Western equivalents keep developing. It just seems the timing and "coming out of the blue" of the Chinese constellation suggests the project to be a reaction, rather than a homegrown imperative. Likewise, the European reaction has been labeled as such even by its own promoters.Expanding 4G or telecomms in general doesn't necessarily imply support for megaconstellations. Surely in this day and age, the more telecom options, the better - but the jury is still out on whether megaconstellations are worth the effort/expense/consequences.Guowang isn’t a crash project in response to Starlink, it is a combination of several state/private projects dating back to when Oneweb was set to launch on Falcon 9. Basically a state owned Trust.IMO given that extending backbone networks by laying fiber to remote areas are extremely costly (even for China), and no satcom other than LEO constellation (MEO constellation maybe?) can provide service with remotely similar quality and quantity. Holding the promise of extending 4G(5G now) and broadband services automatically implys implementing a constellation at least to some extent. And Guowang also incorporates Chinese own IoT and voice network like Iridium, along with Governmental/military use similar to Lightspeed or (current)Oneweb. So even if the need of using satcoms to extend network overage turned out to be little, Guowang will hardly stop before construct a thousand satellite network.
Quote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 10:07 amQuote from: M.E.T. on 05/26/2021 04:26 amBottomline - even if they stop Starlink, that won’t stop China’s upcoming mega constellation. So if the mega constellation business model works, it is a given there will be tens of thousands of LEO sats in orbit eventually. The question is merely whether the most irresponsible potential operator (China) will be the only one deriving benefit from this reality, or whether the West will share in this bounty.Far better therefore to work with SpaceX to maximise mutual benefits rather than trying to prevent Starlink from happening.It's pretty clear that China wouldn't embark itself in such a constellation (what for? it wants to stifle free communication, and openly does so every day domestically!) were it not for the prior Western initiatives, especially Starlink. Likewise, the craziness was jumpstarted in Europe as a reaction to the American megaconstellations, not because it was a particularly favored idea before.Land rushes and bounty duels are never a good idea, particularly when you're not sure what you're gaining from it.Who cares who started it? It doesn't matter one bit.The west started the semiconductor revolution, but China is also investing tens of billions to catch up, does this mean the west should just handover the lead in semiconductor industry to China? It's pretty clear the US government and congress don't think so, which is why they're introducing the CHIPS for America Act.
I don't doubt they will do it now, at least if Western equivalents keep developing. It just seems the timing and "coming out of the blue" of the Chinese constellation suggests the project to be a reaction, rather than a homegrown imperative. Likewise, the European reaction has been labeled as such even by its own promoters.
In contrast to the United States’ focus on internet freedoms, Russia and China argue for a “cyber sovereignty” model instead. Both states have the authority to control and monitor citizens’ internet data to strictly enforce national laws regulating private speech, the media, and the ability to organize politically. Russian and Chinese alignment on the concept of digital authoritarianism represents a worrying trend in internet governance.
Appreciate the comment, and I mostly agree. Not extremely informed of the particular whereabouts of when Guowang started development, but be it due to OneWeb or Starlink (the latter was undoubtedly in advanced development around the same timeframe and the Chinese would know about it), it can be seen as a reaction - not necessarily "crash project", just a fomo development like many in the space industry. I would say the bolded part is very much debatable though, considering not only the very high cost of spacecraft development, construction and deployment at such scale compared to ground fiber, but also the resiliency/low recurring maintenance costs, modularity and serviceability of ground-based extensions , as well as the relatively trivial upgrade process to (much) larger, concentrated user bases in the future if needed.
We have spoken about rates above: nobody is arguing there's only one way to look at the failure rate estimate. However, the "so far" in jcm's tweet is very relevant since the statistics are extremely biased due to the short timescale. Even the most flattering estimate is no longer 0.2%, in spite of the huge denominator increase since October last year when the tweet was published, which should help in lowering the rate - as is otherwise reasonable to expect.
This is unfair to SpaceX. The early sats had a much higher failure rate. A good break point is when they introduced the model with the visors. Of 818 sats of this type currently in orbit, only 1 appears to be dead in the water. Could be a couple more I haven't noticed yet.
Quote from: su27k on 05/26/2021 12:04 pmQuote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 10:07 amQuote from: M.E.T. on 05/26/2021 04:26 amBottomline - even if they stop Starlink, that won’t stop China’s upcoming mega constellation. So if the mega constellation business model works, it is a given there will be tens of thousands of LEO sats in orbit eventually. The question is merely whether the most irresponsible potential operator (China) will be the only one deriving benefit from this reality, or whether the West will share in this bounty.Far better therefore to work with SpaceX to maximise mutual benefits rather than trying to prevent Starlink from happening.It's pretty clear that China wouldn't embark itself in such a constellation (what for? it wants to stifle free communication, and openly does so every day domestically!) were it not for the prior Western initiatives, especially Starlink. Likewise, the craziness was jumpstarted in Europe as a reaction to the American megaconstellations, not because it was a particularly favored idea before.Land rushes and bounty duels are never a good idea, particularly when you're not sure what you're gaining from it.Who cares who started it? It doesn't matter one bit.The west started the semiconductor revolution, but China is also investing tens of billions to catch up, does this mean the west should just handover the lead in semiconductor industry to China? It's pretty clear the US government and congress don't think so, which is why they're introducing the CHIPS for America Act.Again, please refrain from expecting to authoritatively assert what matters and what doesn't, what is relevant and what isn't, when something should be cared about or ignored, or when to shut someone off based on manipulative or outright incorrect statements.
Semiconductors and the US Congress' rationale for protectionism *really* are off-topic here - it's the proliferation of pharaonic projects with very serious implications down the line, with major drawbacks already visible with only a few percent fraction of their publicly intended short-term size and few proven mitigations in place, what matters to astronomy and the space (or even Earth's) environment at large. Precisely what the specialist community at large is strenously trying to convey, including several Nature articles now.
Quote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 12:15 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/26/2021 12:04 pmQuote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 10:07 amQuote from: M.E.T. on 05/26/2021 04:26 amBottomline - even if they stop Starlink, that won’t stop China’s upcoming mega constellation. So if the mega constellation business model works, it is a given there will be tens of thousands of LEO sats in orbit eventually. The question is merely whether the most irresponsible potential operator (China) will be the only one deriving benefit from this reality, or whether the West will share in this bounty.Far better therefore to work with SpaceX to maximise mutual benefits rather than trying to prevent Starlink from happening.It's pretty clear that China wouldn't embark itself in such a constellation (what for? it wants to stifle free communication, and openly does so every day domestically!) were it not for the prior Western initiatives, especially Starlink. Likewise, the craziness was jumpstarted in Europe as a reaction to the American megaconstellations, not because it was a particularly favored idea before.Land rushes and bounty duels are never a good idea, particularly when you're not sure what you're gaining from it.Who cares who started it? It doesn't matter one bit.The west started the semiconductor revolution, but China is also investing tens of billions to catch up, does this mean the west should just handover the lead in semiconductor industry to China? It's pretty clear the US government and congress don't think so, which is why they're introducing the CHIPS for America Act.Again, please refrain from expecting to authoritatively assert what matters and what doesn't, what is relevant and what isn't, when something should be cared about or ignored, or when to shut someone off based on manipulative or outright incorrect statements.Really? Yet you're "authoritatively asserting" that failure rate is somehow related to astronomy, without any "well-studied and peer-reviewed evidence" as you put it.
QuoteMajor drawbacks are already visibleThat's pure BS, there is zero major drawbacks visible, even astronomers like Dr. Jonathan McDowell admits that currently Starlink is just a minor nuisance to astronomy.
Major drawbacks are already visible
Quote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 10:41 amI don't doubt they will do it now, at least if Western equivalents keep developing. It just seems the timing and "coming out of the blue" of the Chinese constellation suggests the project to be a reaction, rather than a homegrown imperative. Likewise, the European reaction has been labeled as such even by its own promoters.Just because it is a reaction to Western megaconstellations doesn't mean the constellation wouldn't be useful to the PRC. The PRC uses their soverign internet to monitor and control their populace, and reaching areas currently without access to said internet will only strengthen these efforts:QuoteIn contrast to the United States’ focus on internet freedoms, Russia and China argue for a “cyber sovereignty” model instead. Both states have the authority to control and monitor citizens’ internet data to strictly enforce national laws regulating private speech, the media, and the ability to organize politically. Russian and Chinese alignment on the concept of digital authoritarianism represents a worrying trend in internet governance. https://www.ypfp.org/the-rise-of-cyber-sovereignty-russia-china-and-the-future-of-internet-governance/
Quote from: su27k on 05/26/2021 12:34 pmQuote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 12:15 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/26/2021 12:04 pmQuote from: eeergo on 05/26/2021 10:07 amQuote from: M.E.T. on 05/26/2021 04:26 amBottomline - even if they stop Starlink, that won’t stop China’s upcoming mega constellation. So if the mega constellation business model works, it is a given there will be tens of thousands of LEO sats in orbit eventually. The question is merely whether the most irresponsible potential operator (China) will be the only one deriving benefit from this reality, or whether the West will share in this bounty.Far better therefore to work with SpaceX to maximise mutual benefits rather than trying to prevent Starlink from happening.It's pretty clear that China wouldn't embark itself in such a constellation (what for? it wants to stifle free communication, and openly does so every day domestically!) were it not for the prior Western initiatives, especially Starlink. Likewise, the craziness was jumpstarted in Europe as a reaction to the American megaconstellations, not because it was a particularly favored idea before.Land rushes and bounty duels are never a good idea, particularly when you're not sure what you're gaining from it.Who cares who started it? It doesn't matter one bit.The west started the semiconductor revolution, but China is also investing tens of billions to catch up, does this mean the west should just handover the lead in semiconductor industry to China? It's pretty clear the US government and congress don't think so, which is why they're introducing the CHIPS for America Act.Again, please refrain from expecting to authoritatively assert what matters and what doesn't, what is relevant and what isn't, when something should be cared about or ignored, or when to shut someone off based on manipulative or outright incorrect statements.Really? Yet you're "authoritatively asserting" that failure rate is somehow related to astronomy, without any "well-studied and peer-reviewed evidence" as you put it.Have you missed the preceding Nature articles and references therein, which are a minor subset of the available literature on the topic? FYI they're a few posts upthread, and you even replied to my linking them. If you're implying they don't specifically address failed satellites when a functioning bird is a best-case scenario regarding impacts to astronomy, that doesn't even merit a response.QuoteQuoteMajor drawbacks are already visibleThat's pure BS, there is zero major drawbacks visible, even astronomers like Dr. Jonathan McDowell admits that currently Starlink is just a minor nuisance to astronomy. I rarely directly misquote people to make a point, especially if said people's messages are generally 180 degrees from my point, and especially if I have the nerve to call said point Incorrect (just spell it out, if you're using the term: an acronym doesn't dilute its ofenssiveness).But I can quote too:https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1380731574665285635https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1367501909356085257https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1349942266224324609https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1390762776000356355https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1396203141134274560Feel free to continue your distorting, I'm done with dragging others into these asinine denials of evidence.
Quote from: su27k on 05/26/2021 12:34 pmReally? Yet you're "authoritatively asserting" that failure rate is somehow related to astronomy, without any "well-studied and peer-reviewed evidence" as you put it.Have you missed the preceding Nature articles and references therein, which are a minor subset of the available literature on the topic? FYI they're a few posts upthread, and you even replied to my linking them. If you're implying they don't specifically address failed satellites when a functioning bird is a best-case scenario regarding impacts to astronomy, that doesn't even merit a response.
Really? Yet you're "authoritatively asserting" that failure rate is somehow related to astronomy, without any "well-studied and peer-reviewed evidence" as you put it.
Quote from: su27kQuote from: eeergoMajor drawbacks are already visibleThat's pure BS, there is zero major drawbacks visible, even astronomers like Dr. Jonathan McDowell admits that currently Starlink is just a minor nuisance to astronomy. I rarely directly misquote people to make a point, especially if said people's messages are generally 180 degrees from my point, and especially if I have the nerve to call said point Incorrect (just spell it out, if you're using the term: an acronym doesn't dilute its ofenssiveness).But I can quote too:https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1380731574665285635https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1367501909356085257https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1349942266224324609https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1390762776000356355https://mobile.twitter.com/planet4589/status/1396203141134274560Feel free to continue your distorting, I'm done with dragging others into these asinine denials of evidence.
Quote from: eeergoMajor drawbacks are already visibleThat's pure BS, there is zero major drawbacks visible, even astronomers like Dr. Jonathan McDowell admits that currently Starlink is just a minor nuisance to astronomy.
