Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

Can you imagine the awesome shit some script kiddie could spell out with 10k dots in the sky On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:51 PM castarritt . wrote: > I suppose the most interesting failure mode would be a vulnerability that > allows a hacker to make all the birds maneuver and crash into each other.

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

Even better, make them use up all their fuel boosting into a more stable orbit where they can crank the transmitters up to eleven and shit out maximum noise for the next hundred years. Now that I think about it, a constellation of 10k "starlink" birds that just by pure coincidence happen to have D

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

I suppose the most interesting failure mode would be a vulnerability that allows a hacker to make all the birds maneuver and crash into each other. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:46 PM Bill Prince wrote: > Combine with the probability that collisions are going to be with birds > with 90-180 degree re

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

Combine with the probability that collisions are going to be with birds with 90-180 degree relative vectors. Sats going in the same relative direction should "never" collide (he says optimistically). That means the combined velocities are going to go down pretty q

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

A low orbit bird isn't going to get smacked from behind, so it would be reasonable to assume that the vast majority if not all of the debris will lose velocity instead of gaining it. Also, small chunks of satellite should have a lower ballistic coefficient than an intact satellite (mass reduced by

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

When things collide they will go many different directions and velocities, there is no calculation for when that will be cleared, or even where the debris even is On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:36 PM Robert Andrews wrote: > So was my thoughts about debris correct. If it becomes a shitshow does > it

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

So was my thoughts about debris correct. If it becomes a shitshow does it clear itself out in 5 years? On 06/15/2020 12:13 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: A generic calculation for a 500km orbit gives you around 10 years. The design of the starlink satellite is somewhat optimized for this in that w

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

A generic calculation for a 500km orbit gives you around 10 years. The design of the starlink satellite is somewhat optimized for this in that when it is controllable it presents a knife edge to atmospheric drag but uncontrolled it will slowly start to tumble and degrade much faster. ~5 years at

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

SpaceX states that at the current service altitude, the satellites will be-orbit in ~~ 5 years. That's one of the reasons they went with the lower service altitude. The original was up substantially; perhaps where the 10 year number came from. bp On 6/15/2020 11:44 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

& I believe debris at that altitude deorbits even faster.. On 06/15/2020 10:51 AM, castarritt . wrote: with a ~500km altitude, they deorbit naturally after ~10years from drag. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:36 PM Adam Moffett > wrote: Theoretically a Ubiquiti Nanos

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

you can call it a rocket, pickle hammer space boat, whatever. anything with some folks inside will always answer as a shuttle On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:51 PM Bill Prince wrote: > Shuttles stopped flying in 2011. > > > bp > > > > On 6/15/2020 10:48 AM, Steve Jones wrote: > > they already had a

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

with a ~500km altitude, they deorbit naturally after ~10years from drag. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:36 PM Adam Moffett wrote: > Theoretically a Ubiquiti Nanostation was carrier grade and would do > 150Mbps. It said so on the datasheet. > > Just saying maybe the small, cheap satellite will work

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

Shuttles stopped flying in 2011. bp On 6/15/2020 10:48 AM, Steve Jones wrote: they already had a near miss once. I cant image if a shuttle hit one of these, the debris spread we would see

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

they already had a near miss once. I cant image if a shuttle hit one of these, the debris spread we would see On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:36 PM Adam Moffett wrote: > Theoretically a Ubiquiti Nanostation was carrier grade and would do > 150Mbps. It said so on the datasheet. > > Just saying maybe

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

Each of those sats has > 60 Linux processors on board. That's a lot of "nodes" to deal with, and way more than a single firmware load. I'm sure the number is some level of built-in redundancy, but that level of detail is current;y lacking, and is probably propriet

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

Theoretically a Ubiquiti Nanostation was carrier grade and would do 150Mbps.  It said so on the datasheet. Just saying maybe the small, cheap satellite will work exactly as intended and maybe it'll have a firmware crash during a sunspot and just become a piece of high velocity garbage.  Even a

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

WRT orbiting debris; it's all good until the first "accident". Then we will see how this all shakes out. If it's bad enough, it could cause SpaceX (and all its brethren) to relinquish all the orbital space unless/until they provide a mitigation plan. To some exten

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

That explains what this whole CHAZ thing is, they wanted first chance at some space x bandwidth. Im not a fan of star link, i think its going to cause some major debris field issues in space for future generations. But nobody can argue with the fact that it is really cool that a guy like musk exis

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

They are already peering in Seattle, and will only be northern latitudes for a year according to a "insider" ( there are hundreds if not thousands of them ) On 6/14/20 1:16 PM, Bill Prince wrote: In case anyone was watching SpaceX put up another 58 Starlink sats on Saturday. That puts t

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)   In case anyone was watching SpaceX put up another 58 Starlink sats on Saturday. That puts them at almost double the number they claimed to

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

I don’t think it is OT now. I wonder if they have a rocket engine on them to deorbit? From: Bill Prince Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 2:16 PM To: AFMUG Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx) In case anyone was watching SpaceX put up another 58 Starlink sats on Saturday. That puts

[AFMUG] OT: Now there are ~~ 538 (approx)

In case anyone was watching SpaceX put up another 58 Starlink sats on Saturday. That puts them at almost double the number they claimed to need to enable their "private beta". I'm sure it's underway, plus they're running some kind of test  with the US military.