[HN Gopher] SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
        
       Author : wawayanda
       Score  : 33 points
       Date   : 2023-07-28 21:50 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (spaceweatherarchive.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (spaceweatherarchive.com)
        
       | zgluck wrote:
       | So now they'll also have to deal with "preserve the ionosphere"
       | activists who have no fscking clue.
        
       | perihelions wrote:
       | Related thread,
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33762492 ( _" North Korean
       | ICBM launch detected using GPS"_)
        
       | user6723 wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | latchkey wrote:
       | I saw the launch from southern california. My first ever seeing a
       | rocket go up. It was pretty amazing to watch the thing streak
       | across the sky. Sadly, missed the red glow though.
        
       | esquivalience wrote:
       | Seems like this isn't considered to be a big issue, beyond that
       | it is a very visible thing that instinctively 'feels' like a bad
       | idea.
       | 
       | > Rocket engines spray water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) into
       | the ionosphere, quenching local ionization by as much as 70%. A
       | complicated series of charge exchange reactions between oxygen
       | ions (O+) and molecules from the rocket exhaust produce photons
       | at a wavelength of 6300 A-the same color as red auroras.
       | 
       | > Once rare, ionospheric "punch holes" are increasingly common
       | with record numbers of rocket launches led by SpaceX sending
       | Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit. Ham radio operators may
       | notice them... These effects may be troublesome, but they are
       | shortlived; re-ionization occurs as soon as the sun comes up
       | again.
        
         | KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
         | Will excess radiation leak through to Earth during re-
         | ionization?
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | dfox wrote:
           | Only insignificantly. Most of the radiation is
           | filtered/diverted by the magnetosphere. The only really
           | practical effect of the disturbance is making the already
           | hard to predict sky-wave propagation of HF even more harder
           | to predict and characterize. Which is today realistically of
           | an interest to HAMs and mostly as an fallback for
           | intelligence agencies and diplomatic services.
        
           | perihelions wrote:
           | Don't believe the ionosphere has any role in any sort of
           | radiation absorption, outside of RF?
        
           | Jeff_Brown wrote:
           | If the holes are quickly healed by sunlight, and only local
           | to where a satellite is launched, the answer would seem to be
           | no.
        
       | nbltanx wrote:
       | Starlink plans to deploy 12,000 - 42,000 satellites. What if two
       | competitors want to do the same? Can the low earth orbit handle
       | 150,000 satellites that turn into space debris at some point?
        
         | Armisael16 wrote:
         | Yes.
        
         | panick21_ wrote:
         | The waste, waste majority of sats never turn into space debris.
         | Every single sat that launches today in the West has a deorbit
         | planned. The only sat that turn into space debris will be those
         | that brake unexpectitly and totally unrecoverable.
         | 
         | And the Starlink sats are so low that they dont really turn
         | very meaningful debris ever.
         | 
         | And in general, yes LEO can handle millions of sats.
         | 
         | We have like 150k cars in a single tiny country on earth right
         | now.
        
           | wyldfire wrote:
           | Freudian slip.
        
           | 3cats-in-a-coat wrote:
           | Cars don't constantly move thousands miles an hour
           | uncontrollably
        
           | Jeff_Brown wrote:
           | Is that right? Scientific American seemed to think it could
           | be a problem in 2019[1]. Space.com says Starlink satellites
           | orbit at an altitude of about 342 miles (550 kilometers)[2].
           | And the Wikipedia article on Kessler Syndrome[3] (which is a
           | chain reaction of satellite debris) mentions an incident at
           | 555km that was problematic:
           | 
           | "In 1985, the first anti-satellite (ASAT) missile was used in
           | the destruction of a satellite. The American 1985 ASM-135
           | ASAT test was carried out, in which the Solwind P78-1
           | satellite flying at an altitude of 555 kilometres was struck
           | by the 14-kilogram payload at a velocity of 24,000 kilometres
           | per hour (15,000 mph; 6.7 km/s). When NASA learned of U.S.
           | Air Force plans for the Solwind ASAT test, they modeled the
           | effects of the test and determined that debris produced by
           | the collision would still be in orbit late into the 1990s. It
           | would force NASA to enhance debris shielding for its planned
           | space station."
           | 
           | [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-
           | starlink-...
           | 
           | [2] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
           | 
           | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-07-28 23:00 UTC)