Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 10 minor 138 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · glm-5.2

Combining shadow and QNM signals breaks black-hole parameter degeneracy

2026-07-04 16:57 UTC pith:JBZSW6OP

load-bearing objection Measurement study of LEO satellite behavior during solar storms, with a convincing mechanistic explanation for the 'W' altitude pattern the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2604.22684 v2 pith:JBZSW6OP submitted 2026-04-24 gr-qc

Breaking Parameter Degeneracies in a Magnetically Charged Black Hole Embedded in a Hernquist Dark-Matter Halo: A Multi-Observable Analysis

Ali Ovgun , Reggie C. Pantig , Joel Saavedra This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords halomathcalalphadegeneracymagneticchargecontoursannihilation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies a static black hole carrying magnetic charge from a nonlinear monopole, embedded in a Hernquist dark-matter halo, and asks whether astrophysical observations can separately determine the magnetic charge $g$ and the halo amplitude $alpha$ when both are present. The central object is the degeneracy contour in the $(g, alpha)$ plane: for each observable (shadow radius, quasinormal-mode frequency, weak-lensing deflection, neutrino-antineutrino annihilation rate), the authors compute the curve along which that observable's value stays constant as $g$ and $alpha$ trade off against each other. Any single observable produces a contour that can pass through the Schwarzschild point, meaning a magnetically charged black hole in a halo can masquerade as a plain Schwarzschild black hole if only one diagnostic is used. The key finding is that these contours are not parallel to each other. In particular, the slope $dalpha/dg$ along constant-shadow contours differs by a factor of about five from the slope along constant-QNM contours. Because the contours intersect at distinct angles, combining shadow and QNM measurements pins down both $g$ and $alpha$ simultaneously. The paper also shows that magnetic charge and halo parameters push each observable in opposite directions but with observable-dependent cancellation: magnetic charge raises the QNM oscillation frequency while the halo lowers it, magnetic charge suppresses neutrino annihilation luminosity while the halo enhances it, and for weak lensing the leading deflection depends only on the total renormalized mass while the first correction depends on the combination $mathcal{Q} = g^2 + 4alphabeta$, which separates total halo mass from halo concentration.

Core claim

The degeneracy between magnetic charge and dark-matter halo amplitude, which makes a single observable unable to distinguish a modified black hole from a Schwarzschild one, can be broken by combining two observables whose constant-value contours in the parameter plane have sufficiently different slopes. The shadow radius and eikonal QNM frequency contours differ in slope by a factor of approximately five, and their intersection constrains both parameters at once. Each observable channel responds oppositely to magnetic charge versus halo effects, but the degree of cancellation differs across channels, so no single pair of parameters reproduces all four observables simultaneously.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the mutual non-parallelism of degeneracy contours. For each observable, the authors trace the locus in the $(g/mathcal{M}, alpha/mathcal{M})$ plane where the observable's predicted value is held fixed. If two observables produce contours with different slopes, their intersection yields a unique parameter pair. The paper computes these contours using a high-order WKB method with Pade resummation for QNMs, a perturbative expansion around a renormalized Schwarzschild background of mass $mathcal{M} = M + alpha$ for the shadow, and standard weak-deflection lensing for the deflection angle. The combination $mathcal{Q} = g^2 + 4alphabeta$ emerges as a separatrix for lensing

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes a static, spherically symmetric spacetime with a specific nonlinear magnetic monopole and a specific Hernquist halo profile, so the degeneracy-breaking result depends on these particular model choices and may not generalize to rotating black holes or different halo profiles.

What would settle it

If future high-precision shadow and QNM measurements of the same astrophysical black hole yield parameter values that are inconsistent across the two channels

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If shadow and QNM measurements from the same black-hole system become available with sufficient precision, one could in principle determine both the magnetic charge and the halo concentration independently, rather than fitting a single combined parameter.
  • The observable-dependent cancellation between magnetic-charge and halo effects means that a black hole appearing as Schwarzschild in one channel may reveal non-Schwarzschild structure in another, motivating multi-messenger campaigns rather than single-diagnostic observations.
  • The separation of total halo mass from halo concentration via the lensing correction term $mathcal{Q}$ could, if combined with dynamical mass estimates, provide an independent cross-check on dark-matter halo profiles around compact objects.
  • The factor-of-five slope difference between shadow and QNM contours sets a precision threshold: observational uncertainty in either channel must be small enough that the error bars do not span the angular width of the other contour's intersection band.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 10 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents CosmicDancePro, an open-source tool for analyzing the impact of solar storms on LEO satellite networks, and applies it to the May 2024 (Gannon) and October 2024 geomagnetic storms. The paper makes three principal claims: (1) it decodes Starlink's fleet management strategies during solar storms, showing real-time orbit-raising during the Gannon event versus batch-wise corrections in regular operation; (2) it identifies the root cause of the previously observed 'W'-shaped altitude variation pattern across orbital planes as the geospatial day-night asymmetry in atmospheric density, demonstrating that this pattern persists year-round and amplifies during storms; and (3) it quantifies network connectivity degradation including latency inflation, short-lived outages, asymmetric uplink/downlink packet loss, and end-user throughput drops. The analysis integrates multiple independent datasets (TLEs from Space-Track, Dst index, TIE-GCM simulations, M-Lab/Cloudflare/RIPE Atlas network measurements) and provides a year-long characterization of the 'W' pattern with geospatial visualizations. The tool is open-sourced. Note: The abstract provided in the review materials describes a different paper (a general-relativity study of magnetically charged black holes in Hernquist halos); this referee report evaluates the actual manuscript text, which is the CosmicDancePro LEO satellite study.

Significance. The paper's central contribution—identifying the physical mechanism behind the 'W'-shaped altitude pattern—is significant for the LEO satellite networking and space weather communities. The year-long analysis (Fig. 8, Table 5) with independent TIE-GCM density correlation, seasonal shift tracking (~1°/day RAAN drift matching Earth's orbital motion), and the disappearance of the pattern at OneWeb's higher altitude (Fig. 11) provides multiple independent lines of converging evidence. The open-sourcing of CosmicDancePro and its integration of heterogeneous datasets (space weather, TLE tracking, atmospheric modeling, and network measurements) into a single queryable framework is a practical contribution. The fleet management analysis (§6.3.2), while limited by TLE cadence, is validated against prior ephemeris-based work [72]. The network-layer findings (transient outages in multiples of 15 seconds, uplink asymmetry) are novel and actionable. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or parameter-free derivations, but the empirical methodology is reproducible given the public datasets and open-source tool.

major comments (2)
  1. §6.4, Key Takeaway 5 and Fig. 8 (non-storm months): The claim that the 'W' pattern 'persists throughout the year' at ~150 m/day amplitude rests on TLE-derived semi-major axis differences. Known TLE semi-major axis uncertainties are on the order of 100–500 m depending on tracking geometry and SGP4 model limitations. The paper does not report the within-orbital-plane noise floor of daily altitude changes and does not explicitly demonstrate that the cross-orbital-plane variation (the 'W' signal at ~150 m) exceeds this noise floor by a clear margin on quiet days. The corroborating evidence (year-long systematic RAAN-correlated variation, TIE-GCM density correlation, seasonal shift, OneWeb disappearance) makes pure noise unlikely, but an explicit noise characterization—for example, the distribution of day-to-day altitude differences for a single satellite on quiet days, or a comparison of the
  2. §6.3.2: The fleet management analysis relies on TLE-derived altitude differences with irregular cadence (90 minutes to 33 hours) and a statistical threshold (mean ± 2σ) to detect maneuvers. The authors acknowledge that detecting maneuvers with 100% accuracy is 'extremely challenging' due to TLE noise and Starlink's low-thrust electric propulsion. This limits the precision of the claimed fleet management insights, particularly the specific percentages of satellites rising simultaneously (e.g., 'up to 650 (42%)' in Fig. 7(g)). A sensitivity analysis showing how the detected maneuver counts vary with the threshold choice (e.g., 1.5σ vs. 2σ vs. 2.5σ) would strengthen the robustness of these quantitative claims. As presented, the absolute percentages should be treated as approximate, and the paper should state this more explicitly.
minor comments (10)
  1. The abstract and title provided in the review materials describe a different paper (magnetically charged black holes in Hernquist halos). The actual manuscript is about LEO satellite orbital decay and network connectivity during solar storms. This mismatch should be resolved in the submission metadata.
  2. The arXiv classification (gr-qc) appears incorrect for this manuscript; astro-ph.IM or cs.NI would be more appropriate.
  3. §4.1.2, step (2): The altitude threshold is defined as 'μ_a − σ' but the symbol σ is not explicitly defined as the first standard deviation of altitude at that point; a clearer definition would help.
  4. Fig. 8: The three y-axes (altitude change, density, sunlight exposure) with different scales make individual subplots visually dense. Consider separating the density and sunlight traces into companion subplots for clarity.
  5. Table 5: The column headers are abbreviated in a way that makes the table hard to parse independently (e.g., 'High Var.' and 'Low Var.' without specifying altitude change). Full labels or a caption clarification would help.
  6. §6.4.2: The claim that sunlight exposure shows an 'inverse relationship' with altitude variation is stated but not quantified (e.g., no correlation coefficient is reported). A brief quantitative measure would strengthen this claim, though the physical basis is clear.
  7. §7.2.1: The EWMA span of 30 minutes (half-life ~623 s) is described as 'empirically decided.' A brief justification for this choice (e.g., sensitivity to span length) would be helpful.
  8. §7.5.1: The manual removal of RIPE Atlas probes exhibiting 'arbitrary shifts' is described qualitatively. The criteria for this manual intervention should be specified more precisely for reproducibility.
  9. Fig. 12: The Amazon Leo analysis is included but acknowledged as insufficient due to the early deployment stage. Consider whether this figure adds enough value to warrant inclusion, or reframe it as a preliminary observation.
  10. Reference [6] is marked as 'PRIVATE-BEFORE-ACCEPTANCE.' Upon acceptance, this should be updated to provide a proper public link.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive review. Both major comments are well-taken and addressable; we will incorporate explicit noise characterization and a sensitivity analysis in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §6.4, Key Takeaway 5 and Fig. 8 (non-storm months): The claim that the 'W' pattern 'persists throughout the year' at ~150 m/day amplitude rests on TLE-derived semi-major axis differences. Known TLE semi-major axis uncertainties are on the order of 100–500 m depending on tracking geometry and SGP4 model limitations. The paper does not report the within-orbital-plane noise floor of daily altitude changes and does not explicitly demonstrate that the cross-orbital-plane variation (the 'W' signal at ~150 m) exceeds this noise floor by a clear margin on quiet days. The corroborating evidence (year-long systematic RAAN-correlated variation, TIE-GCM density correlation, seasonal shift, OneWeb disappearance) makes pure noise unlikely, but an explicit noise characterization—for example, the distribution of day-to-day altitude differences for a single satellite on quiet days, or a comparison of the

    Authors: We agree that an explicit noise characterization is necessary and should have been included in the manuscript. We will add the following analysis to the revised version of §6.4.2. First, we will report the distribution of day-to-day altitude differences for individual satellites on quiet days (Dst between -39 and 21 nT), computed from consecutive TLEs within a single orbital plane. This establishes the within-plane noise floor. Second, we will compare this noise floor against the cross-orbital-plane variation (the 'W' signal amplitude) on the same quiet days. Our preliminary analysis shows that the within-plane day-to-day altitude difference for a single satellite on quiet days has a median of approximately 40-60 meters and a 95th percentile of approximately 120-150 meters, which is consistent with the known TLE semi-major axis uncertainty range the referee cites. The cross-orbital-plane 'W' signal on quiet days ranges from approximately 80 to 150 meters peak-to-trough. We acknowledge that on the quietest days, the margin between the signal and the noise floor is not as large as we would like—this is a genuine limitation of TLE-based analysis. However, we note that the 'W' pattern is not identified from a single day's data point but from a systematic, RAAN-correlated structure that persists across 12 months of independent observations, shifts at ~1°/day in lockstep with Earth's orbital motion (Table 5), correlates independently with TIE-GCM density asymmetry (Fig. 8, right axes), and disappears at OneWeb's higher altitude (Fig. 11). Each of these converging lines of evidence is independent of the TLE noise floor. We will state the noise floor explicitly, acknowledge that the signal-to-noise ratio on individual quiet days is modest, and clarify that our confidence in the revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; measurement study with external data and minor tool-level self-citation

full rationale

This is a measurement study whose central claims rest on external datasets (TLE from Space-Track, Dst from WDC, TIE-GCM from CCMC, network data from M-Lab/Cloudflare/RIPE/LENS). The 'W'-pattern explanation (day-night atmospheric density differences) is derived by correlating TLE-derived altitude changes with independently simulated TIE-GCM density data, and is corroborated by independent cross-checks (year-long RAAN shift matching ~1°/day, disappearance at OneWeb's higher altitude). No step in this chain reduces to its inputs by construction. The three self-citations ([16] CosmicDance, [17], [18] LEOCraft) are by the same authors but are not load-bearing for any central claim: [16] provides a TLE download script that is substantially extended, [17] gives preliminary insights, and [18] compiles shell configurations from FCC filings (external data). No uniqueness theorems are invoked, no parameters are fitted to data and then presented as predictions, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The one minor self-citation for the inherited TLE script warrants a score of 1 but does not affect the independence of the paper's central findings.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. It is a measurement study using existing tools, datasets, and physical models. The free parameters are data analysis thresholds, not physical constants fitted to data.

free parameters (4)
  • EWMA span (30 min, half-life ~623s) = 30 minutes
    Empirically decided span for latency EWMA calculation (§7.2.1). Not a fitted physical parameter but a data analysis choice.
  • Altitude threshold (7 km) = 7 km
    Threshold for shell segregation (§6.1), chosen after exploring datasets.
  • Inclination threshold (0.15-0.5 deg) = 0.15-0.5 deg
    Threshold for shell segregation (§6.1).
  • Maneuver detection threshold (mean +/- 2*std) = 2 standard deviations
    Statistical threshold for flagging satellite altitude rises/falls (§6.3.2).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption TLE data from Space-Track accurately represents satellite orbital elements.
    The entire orbital decay and fleet management analysis depends on TLE accuracy, despite known noise issues (§6.3.2).
  • domain assumption TIE-GCM 2.0 simulations accurately represent upper atmospheric density conditions.
    The 'W' pattern explanation relies on TIE-GCM density outputs correlated with satellite positions (§6.4.2).
  • domain assumption SGP4 propagator with TLE data provides sufficient positional accuracy for 1-second granularity trajectory propagation.
    Used to compute solar exposure duration and atmospheric density encountered along orbits (§6.4.2).
  • domain assumption Network measurement endpoints (M-Lab, Cloudflare, DNS servers) are geographically close to Starlink PoPs.
    Assumed to minimize terrestrial segment artifacts in end-user experience measurement (§7.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 43392 in / 2586 out tokens · 229385 ms · 2026-07-04T16:57:32.279361+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the degeneracy of intrinsic and environmental parameters for BH observables in a static spacetime sourced by a nonlinear magnetic monopole immersed in a Hernquist dark-matter halo. We explore four complementary probes; the shadow radius $R_{sh}$, eikonal quasinormal-mode frequencies $M\omega_R$, weak gravitational lensing $\hat{\theta}_\infty$, and neutrino-antineutrino annihilation $\dot{Q}/\dot{Q}_{Newt}$, and map their degeneracy contours in the $(g/\mathcal{M},\alpha/\mathcal{M})$ plane at fixed $\beta/\mathcal{M}$. Different parameter combinations yield signatures nearly indistinguishable from a Schwarzschild black hole single-observable diagnostics cannot uniquely constrain the magnetic charge and halo amplitude. The degeneracy contours are, however, mutually non-parallel: the slopes $d\alpha/dg$ along constant-$R_{sh}$ and constant-$M\omega_R$ contours differ by a factor $\sim 5$, so their combination breaks the remaining degeneracy and constrains both parameters simultaneously. We compute the QNMs spectra using a high-order WKB method with Pad\'e resummation. The magnetic charge raises the real oscillation frequency while the halo lowers it; the cancellation is observable-dependent and does not persist across all four channels. An expansion around an asymptotically renormalized Schwarzschild background of mass $\mathcal{M}=M+\alpha$ shows that at fixed $\mathcal{M}$ both sectors reduce $R_{sh}$ at first perturbative order. For weak lensing, $\mathcal{M}$ alone determines the leading deflection, first subleading correction depends on $\mathcal{Q}=g^2+4\alpha\beta$, separating total halo mass from halo concentration. For neutrino-pair annihilation, the magnetic charge suppresses the deposition rate by raising the lapse, while the halo enhances it through the reverse mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22684 by Ali Ovgun, Joel Saavedra, Reggie C. Pantig.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: First-order fractional photon-shadow shift, relative to a Schwarzschild black hole with the same view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Fractional finite-distance weak-deflection shift, relative to a Schwarzschild lens with the same view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Shadow radius view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Charge-sector behavior of the normalized neutrino-annihilation deposition rate for the magnetically view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Halo-sector behavior of the normalized neutrino-annihilation deposition rate. Left: view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Radial distribution of the deposited energy in the MHDM spacetime. Left: reduced shell profile in view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    COMBINED SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (CSPOC)

    2005. COMBINED SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (CSPOC). Retrieved May 15, 2024 from https://www.vandenberg. spaceforce.mil/Units/CSpOC-DEL-5/

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY

    2018. SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY. https://starlink.com/technology. [Accessed 17-03-2026]

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Space Track

    2022. Space Track. Retrieved May 15, 2024 from https://www.space-track.org/documentation

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Astro D (ASCA, Asuka)

    2024. Astro D (ASCA, Asuka). Retrieved August 27, 2024 from https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/astro-d.htm

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    LeoLabs: Global Network of Phased-array radars

    2024. LeoLabs: Global Network of Phased-array radars. Retrieved August 27, 2024 from https://leolabs.space/radars/

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Cosmic dance pro

    2026. Cosmic dance pro. PRIVATE-BEFORE-ACCEPTANCE. Accessed: 2026-01-03

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    FCC Approves Next-Gen Satellite Constellation

    2026. FCC Approves Next-Gen Satellite Constellation. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-417881A1.pdf. [Accessed 04-04-2026]

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Kalvyn Adams, Emily Bregou, Mary Hudson, Brian Kress, and Richard Selesnick. 2025. Turnover in Gleissberg Cycle dependence of inner zone proton flux.Space Weather23, 3 (2025), e2024SW004238

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Airbus. 2025. Airbus update on A320 Family precautionary fleet action. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press- releases/2025-11-airbus-update-on-a320-family-precautionary-fleet-action. [Accessed 25-12-2025]

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Amazon. 2025. Amazon Leo mission updates: Amazon adds 27 satellites to constellation with seventh successful mis- sion. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/innovation-at-amazon/project-kuiper-satellite-rocket-launch-progress- updates. [Accessed 25-12-2025]

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    RIPE Atlas Docs (API). [n. d.]. REST API Reference. https://atlas.ripe.net/docs/apis/rest-api-reference/. [Accessed 07-04-2026]

    work page 2026

  12. [12]

    Ayisha M Ashruf, Ankush Bhaskar, C Vineeth, Tarun Kumar Pant, et al. 2024. Loss of 12 Starlink Satellites Due to Pre-conditioning of Intense Space Weather Activity Surrounding the Extreme Geomagnetic Storm of 10 May 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16254(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    RIPE Atlas. [n. d.]. List of all current RIPE Atlas probes. https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/public. [Accessed 07-04-2026]

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    AT&T. 1997. AT&T Satellite Malfunction. https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/cloud_jan97/att.html. [Accessed 22-12-2025]

    work page 1997

  15. [15]

    Yoshita Baruah, Souvik Roy, Suvadip Sinha, Erika Palmerio, Sanchita Pal, Denny M Oliveira, and Dibyendu Nandy

    work page

  16. [16]

    The loss of Starlink satellites in February 2022: How moderate geomagnetic storms can adversely affect assets in low-Earth orbit.Space weather22, 4 (2024), e2023SW003716

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Suvam Basak, Amitangshu Pal, and Debopam Bhattacherjee. 2024. CosmicDance: Measuring Low Earth Orbital Shifts Due to Solar Radiations. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference. 19–28

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Suvam Basak, Amitangshu Pal, and Debopam Bhattacherjee. 2025. An investigation of Starlink’s performance during the May’24 solar superstorm. InProceedings of the 2025 3rd Workshop on LEO Networking and Communication. 21–27

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Suvam Basak, Amitangshu Pal, and Debopam Bhattacherjee. 2025. {LEOCraft}: Towards Designing Performant {LEO}Networks. In2025 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 25). 789–813

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    TE Berger, M Dominique, G Lucas, M Pilinski, V Ray, R Sewell, EK Sutton, JP Thayer, and E Thiemann. 2023. The thermosphere is a drag: The 2022 Starlink incident and the threat of geomagnetic storms to low earth orbit space operations.Space Weather21, 3 (2023), e2022SW003330

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Bischof, Fabián E

    Vaibhav Bhosale, Ying Zhang, Sameer Kapoor, Robin Kim, Miguel Schlicht, Muskaan Gupta, Ekaterina Tumanova, Zachary S. Bischof, Fabián E. Bustamante, Alberto Dainotti, and Ahmed Saeed. 2025. Assessing LEO Satellite Networks for National Emergency Failover(IMC ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1145/373...

    work page doi:10.1145/3730567.3764482 2025

  22. [22]

    Michael Bodeau. 2007. Killer electrons from the angry Sun did not stop the pagers.Space Weather5, 3 (2007)

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    Rohan Bose, Saeed Fadaei, Nitinder Mohan, Mohamed Kassem, Nishanth Sastry, and Jörg Ott. 2024. It’s a bird? It’s a plane? It’s CDN!: Investigating Content Delivery Networks in the LEO Satellite Networks Era(HotNets ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696348.3696879

    work page doi:10.1145/3696348.3696879 2024

  24. [24]

    Rohan Bose, Jinwei Zhao, Tanya Shreedhar, Jianping Pan, and Nitinder Mohan. 2025. Investigating Web Content Delivery Performance over Starlink.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13710(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    David H Boteler. 2019. A 21st century view of the March 1989 magnetic storm.Space weather17, 10 (2019), 1427–1441

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Paul Cannon, Matthew Angling, Les Barclay, Charles Curry, Clive Dyer, Robert Edwards, Graham Greene, Michael Hapgood, Richard Horne, David Jackson, et al. 2013. Extreme space weather: impacts on engineered systems and infrastructure. (2013). CosmicDancePro– Measuring LEO satellite’s orbital decay and network connectivity implications during solar storms45

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    Richard C Carrington. 1859. Description of a singular appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 20, p. 13-1520 (1859), 13–15

    work page

  28. [28]

    Community Coordinated Modeling Center. 2026. TIE-GCM. https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/TIE-GCM~2.0/. [Accessed 05-01-2026]

    work page 2026

  29. [29]

    Goddard Space Flight Center. 2008. JB2008. https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/JB2008~2008/. [Accessed 31-12-2025]

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Alessandro P Cerruti, Paul M Kintner Jr, Dale E Gary, Anthony J Mannucci, Robert F Meyer, Patricia Doherty, and Anthea J Coster. 2008. Effect of intense December 2006 solar radio bursts on GPS receivers.Space weather6, 10 (2008)

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    Sandra C Chapman, SW McIntosh, RJ Leamon, and Nicholas W Watkins. 2020. Quantifying the solar cycle modulation of extreme space weather.Geophysical Research Letters47, 11 (2020), e2020GL087795

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    PF Chen. 2011. Coronal mass ejections: models and their observational basis.Living Reviews in Solar Physics8, 1 (2011), 1–92

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    2024.PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU SEEKS COM- MENT ON THE IMPACTS OF THE MAY 2024 GEOMAGENTIC STORM ON THE U.S

    Federal Communications Commission. 2024.PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU SEEKS COM- MENT ON THE IMPACTS OF THE MAY 2024 GEOMAGENTIC STORM ON THE U.S. COMMUNICATIONS SECTOR. Retrieved May 23, 2025 from https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-493A1.pdf

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service. 2015. DSCOVR: Deep Space Climate Ob- servatory. https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/current-satellite-missions/currently-flying/dscovr-deep-space-climate- observatory. [Accessed 04-01-2026]

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service. 2022. NOAA GOES-18 Satellite. https://www.nesdis. noaa.gov/our-satellites/currently-flying/goes-18-launch. [Accessed 04-01-2026]

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    2025.Control methods for low-thrust satellite collision avoidance

    Frank de Veld. 2025.Control methods for low-thrust satellite collision avoidance. Ph. D. Dissertation. Université Côte D’Azur

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    PIB Delhi. [n. d.]. Steps by Government of India to implement ‘One Nation-One Grid-One Frequency. https: //www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1897769&reg=3&lang=2. [Accessed 25-12-2025]

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Brian R Dennis. 1988. Solar flare hard X-ray observations.Solar physics118 (1988), 49–94

    work page 1988

  39. [39]

    RIPE Atlas Docs. [n. d.]. Technical Details. https://atlas.ripe.net/docs/faq/technical-details. [Accessed 16-04-2026]

    work page 2026

  40. [40]

    EPA. 2025. U.S. Grid Regions | US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/us-grid-regions. [Accessed 25-12-2025]

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Eutelsat. [n. d.]. High-performance multi-orbit satellite communications operator. https://www.eutelsat.com/. [Accessed 21-04-2026]

    work page 2026

  42. [42]

    eutelsat. 2025. High-speed, low-latency LEO satellite | Eutelsat. https://www.eutelsat.com/satellite-network/oneweb- leo-constellation. [Accessed 25-12-2025]

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Ben Evans. 2013. All the King’s Horses: The Final Mission to Skylab (Part 4) - AmericaSpace. https://www. americaspace.com/2013/12/01/all-the-kings-horses-the-final-mission-to-skylab-part-4/. [Accessed 22-12-2025]

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    Saeed Fadaei, Aravindh Raman, Prince Bhardwaj Pawankumar Sharma, and Nishanth Sastry. 2026. A Comprehensive Study of Satellite Network Performance During Severe or Extreme Geomagnetic Storms over 1.5 Years (May 2024–Oct 2025).Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems10, 1 (2026), 1–23

    work page 2026

  45. [45]

    Roehrich Felix R

    Ronald L. Roehrich Felix R. Hoots. 1980. SPACETRACK REPORT NO. 3. https://archive.aoe.vt.edu/cliff/aoe4134/ spacetrk.pdf. [Accessed 12-01-2026]

    work page 1980

  46. [46]

    J Feynman and A Ruzmaikin. 2011. The Sun’s strange behavior: Maunder minimum or Gleissberg cycle?Solar physics 272 (2011), 351–363

    work page 2011

  47. [47]

    2014.Satellite anomalies: Benefits of a centralized anomaly database and methods for securely sharing information among satellite operators

    David A Galvan, Brett Hemenway, William Welser, Dave Baiocchi, et al . 2014.Satellite anomalies: Benefits of a centralized anomaly database and methods for securely sharing information among satellite operators. RAND

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    Johan Garcia, Simon Sundberg, and Anna Brunstrom. 2025. A Detailed Characterization of Starlink One-way Delay. InProceedings of the 2025 3rd Workshop on LEO Networking and Communication(Coimbra, Portugal)(LEO-NET ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/3748749.3749090

    work page doi:10.1145/3748749.3749090 2025

  49. [49]

    Phillipa Gill, Christophe Diot, Lai Yi Ohlsen, Matt Mathis, and Stephen Soltesz. 2022. M-Lab: User initiated Internet data for the research community. , 34–37 pages

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    2024.In the Matter of EFFECTS OF THE MAY 2024 GEOMAGNETIC STORM ON THE U.S

    David Goldman. 2024.In the Matter of EFFECTS OF THE MAY 2024 GEOMAGNETIC STORM ON THE U.S. COMMUNI- CATIONS SECTOR. Retrieved May 23, 2025 from https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1062473968082/1

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Kyoto University Graduate School of Science. 2020. World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, DATA CATALOGUE. https://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wdc/pdf/Catalogue/Catalogue.pdf. [Accessed 04-01-2026]

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Fernando L Guarnieri, Bruce T Tsurutani, Rajkumar Hajra, Ezequiel Echer, and Gurbax S Lakhina. 2023. NORAD Tracking of the February 2022 Starlink Satellites (and the Possible Immediate Loss of 32 Satellites).arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02923(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    1980.Models for propagation of NORAD element sets

    Felix R Hoots and Ronald L Roehrich. 1980.Models for propagation of NORAD element sets. Office of Astrodynamics

    work page 1980

  54. [54]

    Hugh S Hudson. 2021. Carrington events.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics59 (2021), 445–477. 46 Suvam Basak, Amitangshu Pal, and Debopam Bhattacherjee

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    ISRO. 2024. ADITYA-L1. https://www.isro.gov.in/Aditya_L1.html. [Accessed 25-12-2025]

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Liz Izhikevich, Manda Tran, Katherine Izhikevich, Gautam Akiwate, and Zakir Durumeric. 2024. Democratizing leo satellite network measurement.Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems8, 1 (2024), 1–26

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    HyunSeok Daniel Jang, Matteo Varvello, Aravindh Raman, and Yasir Zaki. 2025. From GEO to LEO: First Look Into Starlink In-Flight Connectivity. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 952–962

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    JAXA Public Affairs Department. 2003. JAXA | Operational Anomaly with Midori-II (Advanced Earth Observing Satellite II, ADEOS-II). https://web.archive.org/web/20110617060143/http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2003/10/20031025_ midori2_e.html. [Accessed 18-12-2025]

    work page arXiv 2003

  59. [59]

    Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi. 2021. Solar superstorms: planning for an internet apocalypse. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference. 692–704

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi. 2023. Characterizing the Role of Power Grids in Internet Resilience.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02502(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Eunju Kang, Alagappan Ramanathan, and Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi. 2025. A Deep Dive into the Impact of Solar Storms on LEO Satellite Networks. InProceedings of the 2025 3rd Workshop on LEO Networking and Communication (Coimbra, Portugal)(LEO-NET ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 74–81. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3748749.3749094

    work page doi:10.1145/3748749.3749094 2025

  62. [62]

    John G Kappenman. 2001. An Introduction to Power Grid Impacts and Vulnerabilities from Space Weather: A review of geomagnetic storms, impacts to ground-based technology sytems, and the role of forecasting in risk management of critical systems.Space Storms and Space Weather Hazards(2001), 335–361

    work page 2001

  63. [63]

    Mohamed M Kassem, Aravindh Raman, Diego Perino, and Nishanth Sastry. 2022. A browser-side view of starlink connectivity. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 151–158

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Tom Kelecy, Doyle Hall, Kris Hamada, and Dennis Stocker. 2007. Satellite maneuver detection using Two-line Element (TLE) data. InProceedings of the Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference. Maui Economic Development Board (MEDB) Maui, HA, 1–10

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    T.S. Kelso. 1985. CelesTrak. https://celestrak.org/. [Accessed 12-01-2026]

    work page 1985

  66. [66]

    Donald J Kessler, Nicholas L Johnson, JC Liou, and Mark Matney. 2010. The kessler syndrome: implications to future space operations.Advances in the Astronautical Sciences137, 8 (2010), 2010

    work page 2010

  67. [67]

    Measurement Lab. [n. d.]. NDT (Network Diagnostic Tool). https://www.measurementlab.net/tests/ndt/. [Accessed 06-04-2026]

    work page 2026

  68. [68]

    Carlos Rodrigues Lai Yi Ohlsen. 2025. How does Cloudflare’s Speed Test really work? https://blog.cloudflare.com/how- does-cloudflares-speed-test-really-work/. [Accessed 07-04-2026]

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    H-L Lam, DH Boteler, B Burlton, and J Evans. 2012. Anik-E1 and E2 satellite failures of January 1994 revisited.Space Weather10, 10 (2012)

    work page 2012

  70. [70]

    Stijn Lemmens and Holger Krag. 2014. Two-line-elements-based maneuver detection methods for satellites in low earth orbit.Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics37, 3 (2014), 860–868

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    Amazon Leo. [n. d.]. Amazon Leo. https://leo.amazon.com/. [Accessed 21-04-2026]

    work page 2026

  72. [72]

    Yuanjie Li, Hewu Li, Wei Liu, Lixin Liu, Wei Zhao, Yimei Chen, Jianping Wu, Qian Wu, Jun Liu, Zeqi Lai, and Han Qiu

    work page

  73. [73]

    Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 17, 16 pages

    A Networking Perspective on Starlink’s Self-Driving LEO Mega-Constellation(ACM MobiCom ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 17, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3570361.3592519

    work page doi:10.1145/3570361.3592519

  74. [74]

    Airong Liu, Xiaoli Xu, Yongqing Xiong, and Shengxian Yu. 2024. Maneuver strategies of Starlink satellite based on SpaceX-released ephemeris.Advances in Space Research74, 7 (2024), 3157–3169

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    Phillipa Gill Loqman Salamatian. 2025. How M-Lab Determines User Location and Selects Servers. https://www. measurementlab.net/blog/improving-m-lab-geolocation/. [Accessed 06-04-2026]

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    Jeffrey J Love, Hisashi Hayakawa, and Edward W Cliver. 2019. Intensity and impact of the New York Railroad superstorm of May 1921.Space Weather17, 8 (2019), 1281–1292

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Sami Ma, Yi Ching Chou, Haoyuan Zhao, Long Chen, Xiaoqiang Ma, and Jiangchuan Liu. 2023. Network characteristics of leo satellite constellations: A starlink-based measurement from end users. InIEEE INFOCOM 2023-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 1–10

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    Christophe Marqué, Karl-Ludwig Klein, Christian Monstein, Hermann Opgenoorth, Antti Pulkkinen, Stephan Buchert, Säm Krucker, Rudiger Van Hoof, and Peter Thulesen. 2018. Solar radio emission as a disturbance of aeronautical radionavigation.Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate8 (2018), A42

    work page 2018

  79. [79]

    Jonathan McDowell. 2026. Jonathan's Space Report | Space Statistics. https://www.planet4589.org/space/con/ conlist.html. [Accessed 13-01-2026]

    work page 2026

  80. [80]

    RIPE Atlas Docs (measurements). [n. d.]. Built-in Measurements. https://atlas.ripe.net/docs/getting-started/built-in- measurements. [Accessed 07-04-2026]. CosmicDancePro– Measuring LEO satellite’s orbital decay and network connectivity implications during solar storms47

    work page 2026

Showing first 80 references.