Starlink and the SpaceX Satellite Constellation

Starlink is a satellite internet constellation being constructed by SpaceX providing satellite Internet access.  The constellation will consist of thousands of mass-produced small satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), working in combination with ground transceivers.  SpaceX plans to sell some of the satellites for military, scientific, or exploratory purposes.  The SpaceX satellite development facility in Redmond, Washington houses the Starlink research, development, manufacturing, and orbit control. The cost of the decade-long project to design, build, and deploy the constellation was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be at least US$10 billion.

Product development began in 2015. Two prototype test-flight satellites were launched in February 2018. Additional test satellites and 60 operational satellites were deployed in May 2019.  As of September 2020, SpaceX was launching up to 60 satellites at a time, aiming to deploy 1,584 of the 260 kg (570 lb) spacecraft to provide near-global service by late 2021 or 2022.  SpaceX started a private beta service in the Northern United States in August 2020 and a public beta in October 2020, service beginning at high latitudes between 44° and 52° North.

On 15 October 2019, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) submitted filings to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) on SpaceX's behalf to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink satellites to supplement the 12,000 Starlink satellites already approved by the FCC.

Astronomers have raised concerns about the constellations’ effect on ground-based astronomy and how the satellites will add to an already jammed orbital environment. It ignited conversations about the ethics of a single company unilaterally changing the night sky’s appearance.

History of Starlink

2015–20171

The communication satellite network SpaceX envisions was publicly announced in January 2015, with bandwidth to carry up to 50% of all backhaul communications traffic, and up to 10% of local Internet traffic, in high-density cities.  CEO Elon Musk said that there is significant unmet demand for low-cost global broadband capabilities.  The opening of the SpaceX satellite development facility in Redmond was announced by SpaceX in January 2015 with partners, to develop and build out the new communication network. At the time, the Seattle-area office planned to initially hire approximately 60 engineers, and potentially 1000 people by 2018.  The company operated in 2,800 m² (30,000 sq ft) of leased space by late 2016, and by January 2017 had taken on a 2,800 m² (30,000 sq ft) second facility, both in Redmond.  In August 2018, SpaceX consolidated all their Seattle-area operations with a move to a larger three-building facility at Redmond Ridge Corporate Center to support satellite manufacturing in addition to R&D.

In July 2016, SpaceX acquired a 740 m² (8,000 sq ft) creative space in Irvine, California (Orange County).  SpaceX job listings indicated the Irvine office would include signal processing, RFIC, and ASIC development for the satellite program.

By January 2016, the company had publicly disclosed plans to have two prototype satellites flying in 2016, and to have the initial satellite constellation in orbit and operational by approximately 2020.

By October 2016, SpaceX had developed the initial satellites that they hoped to launch and test in 2017, but the satellite division was focusing on a significant business challenge of achieving a sufficiently low-cost design for the user equipment, aiming for something that ostensibly can be installed easily at end-user premises for approximately US$200. Overall, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said then that the project remained in the "design phase as the company seeks to tackle issues related to user-terminal cost".  Deployment of the constellation was not then projected until "late in this decade or early in the next".

In November 2016, SpaceX filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a "non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite system in the Fixed-Satellite Service using the Ku- and Ka- frequency bands".

In March 2017, SpaceX filed plans with the FCC to field a second orbital shell of more than 7,500 "V-band satellites in non-geosynchronous orbits to provide communications services" in an electromagnetic spectrum that has not previously been heavily employed for commercial communications services. Called the "Very-Low Earth Orbit (VLEO) constellation", it would comprise 7,518 satellites and would orbit at just 340 km (210 mi) altitude, while the smaller,  originally planned group of 4,425 satellites would operate in the K_a - and K_u-bands and orbit at 1,200 km (750 mi) altitude.

SpaceX's plans were unusual in two ways:

• the company intended to utilize the little-used V-band of the communications spectrum
• they intended to use a new orbital regime, the very-low Earth orbit regime of ~340 km (210 mi) altitude, where atmospheric drag is quite high, which normally results in short orbital lifetimes

The March 2017 plan called for SpaceX to launch test satellites of the initial Ka/Ku-bands type in both 2017 and 2018, and begin launching the operational constellation in 2019. Full build-out of the approximately 1,200 km (750 mi) constellation of around 4,440 satellites was not then expected to be completed until 2024.

The first two test satellites built were not flown but were used in ground testing. The planned launch of two revised test satellites was then moved to 2018.

Some controversy arose in 2015–2017 with regulatory authorities on licensing of the communications spectrum for these large constellations of satellites. The traditional and historical regulatory rule for the licensing spectrum has been that satellite operators could "launch a single spacecraft to meet their in-service deadline [from the regulator], a policy is seen as allowing an operator to block the use of valuable radio spectrum for years without deploying its fleet".  By 2017, the FCC had set a six-year deadline to have an entire large constellation deployed to comply with licensing terms. The international regulator, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), proposed in mid-2017 a guideline that would be considerably less restrictive.  In September 2017, both Boeing and SpaceX petitioned the United States FCC for a waiver of the six-year rule, but they were denied. By 2019, the FCC had ruled that half of the constellation must be in orbit in six years, with the full system in orbit nine years from the date of the license.

SpaceX trademarked the name Starlink for their satellite broadband network in 2017; the name was inspired by the book The Fault in Our Stars.

SpaceX filed documents in late 2017 with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to clarify their space debris mitigation plan, under which the company was to:

"...implement an operations plan for the orderly de-orbit of satellites nearing the end of their useful lives (roughly five to seven years) at a rate far faster than is required under international standards. [Satellites] will de-orbit by propulsively moving to a disposal orbit from which they will reenter the Earth's atmosphere within approximately one year after completion of their mission."

2018–2019

In March 2018, the FCC issued SpaceX approval, with some conditions. SpaceX would need to obtain a separate approval from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).  The FCC supported a NASA request to ask SpaceX to achieve an even higher level of de-orbiting reliability than the standard that NASA had previously used for itself: reliably de-orbiting 90% of the satellites after their missions are complete.

In May 2018, SpaceX expected the total cost of development and buildout of the constellation to approach US$10 billion.  In mid-2018, SpaceX reorganized the satellite development division in Redmond, and terminated several members of senior management.

In November 2018, SpaceX received U.S. regulatory approval to deploy 7,518 broadband satellites, in addition to the 4,425 approved earlier. SpaceX's initial 4,425 satellites had been requested in the 2016 regulatory filings to orbit at altitudes of 1,110 km (690 mi) to 1,325

km (823 mi), well above the International Space Station.  The new approval was for the addition of a very-low Earth orbit non-geostationary satellite orbit constellation, consisting of 7,518 satellites operating at altitudes from 335 km (208 mi) to 346 km (215 mi), below the ISS.  Also in November 2018, SpaceX made new regulatory filings with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to request the ability to alter its previously granted license in order to operate approximately 1,600 of the 4,425 Ka-/Ku-band satellites approved for operation at 1,150 km (710 mi) in a "new lower shell of the constellation" at only 550 km (340 mi) orbital altitude.  These satellites would effectively operate in a third orbital shell, a 550 km (340 mi) orbit, while the higher and lower orbits at approximately 1,200 km (750 mi) and approximately 340 km (210 mi) would be used only later, once a considerably larger deployment of satellites becomes possible in the later years of the deployment process. The FCC approved the request in April 2019, giving approval to place nearly 12,000 satellites in three orbital shells: initially approximately 1,600 in a 550 km (340 mi) – altitude shell, and subsequently placing approximately 2,800 Ku- and Ka-band spectrum satellites at 1,150 km (710 mi) and approximately 7,500 V-band satellites at 340 km (210 mi).

With plans by several providers to build commercial space-Internet mega-constellations of thousands of satellites increasingly likely to become a reality, the U.S. military began to perform test studies in 2018 to evaluate how the networks might be used. In December 2018, the U.S. Air Force issued a US$28 million contract for specific test services on Starlink.

In February 2019, a sister company of SpaceX, SpaceX Services Inc., filed a request with the FCC to receive a license for the operation of up to a million fixed satellite Earth stations that would communicate with its non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite Starlink system.

SpaceX's plans in 2019 were for the initial 12,000 satellites to orbit in three orbital shells:

• First shell: 1,440 in a 550 km (340 mi) altitude shell
• Second shell: 2,825 Ku-band and Ka-band spectrum satellites at 1,110 km (690 mi)
• Third shell: 7,500 V-band satellites at 340 km (210 mi)

In total, nearly 12,000 satellites were planned to be deployed, with (as of 2019) a possible later extension to 42,000.

By April 2019, SpaceX was transitioning their satellite efforts from research and development to manufacturing, with the planned first launch of a large group of satellites to orbit, and the clear need to achieve an average launch rate of "44 high-performance, low-cost spacecraft built and launched every month for the next 60 months" to get the 2,200 satellites launched to support their FCC spectrum allocation license assignment.  SpaceX said they will meet the deadline of having half the constellation "in orbit within six years of authorization... and the full system in nine years".

By the end of June 2019, SpaceX had communicated with all 60 satellites but lost contact with three; the remaining 57 worked as intended. Forty-five satellites had reached their final orbital altitude of 550 km (340 mi), five were still raising their orbits, and another five were undergoing systems checks before they raise their orbits. The remaining two satellites were intended to be quickly removed from orbit and reenter the atmosphere in order to test the satellite de-orbiting process; the three that lost contact were also expected to reenter, but will do so passively from atmospheric drag as SpaceX was no longer able to actively control them.

In June 2019, SpaceX applied to the FCC for a license to test up to 270 ground terminals – 70 nationwide across the United States and 200 in Washington (state) at SpaceX employee homes – and aircraft-borne antenna operation from four distributed United States airfields; as well as five ground-to-ground test locations.

By September 2019, SpaceX had gone back to the FCC to apply for more changes to the orbital constellation. SpaceX asked to triple the number of orbital planes in the 550 km (340 mi) orbital shell, from 24 to 72, arguing that they could then place satellites into multiple planes from a single launch. SpaceX argued that this change could bring coverage to the southern United States in time for the 2020 hurricane season.  The change was approved in December 2019, and will now see only 22 satellites in each plane rather than the 66 that had been a part of the original design. The total number of satellites in the 550 km shell would remain the same, at around 1,600.

In October 2019, Elon Musk publicly tested the Starlink network by using an Internet connection routed through the network to post a tweet to social media site Twitter.

2020–2021

As of 24 March 2021, SpaceX has launched 1,385 Starlink satellites (including demo satellites Tintin A and B).  They plan to launch up to 60 more per Falcon 9 flight, with launches as often as every two weeks in 2021.

In April 2020 SpaceX modified the architecture of the Starlink network. SpaceX submitted an application to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposing to operate more satellites in lower orbits in the first phase than the FCC previously authorized. The first phase will still include 1,440 satellites in the first shell orbiting at 550 km (340 mi) in planes inclined 53.0  with no change to the first shell of the constellation launched largely in 2020.

• First shell: 1,440 in a 550 km (340 mi) altitude shell at 53.0º inclination.
• Second shell: 1,440 in a 540 km (340 mi) shell at 53.2º inclination.
• Third shell: 720 in a 570 km (350 mi) shell at 70º inclination.
• Fourth shell: 336 in a 560 km (350 mi) shell at 97.6º.
• Fifth shell: 172 satellites in a 560 km (350 mi) shell at 97.6º.

SpaceX previously had regulatory approval from the FCC to operate another 2,825 satellites in higher orbits between 1,110 km (690 mi) and 1,325 km (823 mi), in orbital planes inclined at 53.8°, 70.0°, 74.0° and 81.0°. The modified plan submitted to the FCC by SpaceX foresees Ku-band and Ka-band satellites in the next phase of the Starlink network all operated at altitudes between 540 km (340 mi) and 570 km (350 mi) at inclinations of 53.2°, 70.0° and 97.6°. The application covers 4,408 Starlink satellites, one fewer than envisioned under the previous architecture.  SpaceX plans to launch another 7,500 V-band satellites into orbits around 345 km (214 mi).

In June 2020, SpaceX applied in the United States for use of the E-band in the Gen2 constellation. The generation 2 Starlink constellation is expected to include up to 30,000 satellites and provide complete global coverage.

By June 2020, SpaceX had filed with Canadian regulatory authorities for a license to offer Starlink high-speed Internet services in Canada.

By August 2020, a Falcon rocket was sent to SpaceX's Starlink Internet network with 58 more broadband relay nodes, to make the total of 653 satellites since May 2019.  SpaceX is producing approximately 120 satellites a month.

In October 2020, SpaceX stated plans to deorbit all 60 prototype v0.9 satellites for "on-orbit debris mitigation". As of October 2020, 39 of 60 have reentered the Earth atmosphere.  In October 2020, Canada granted a license to work there.

On 4 November 2020, SpaceX conducted its one millionth Starlink test and doubled the connection speed.  Starlink beta testers have been reporting speeds over 150 megabits per second, above the range announced for the public beta test.

On 6 November 2020, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada announced regulatory approval for the Starlink low Earth orbit satellite constellation.

The Federal Communications Commission awarded SpaceX with nearly US$900 million worth of federal subsidies to support rural broadband customers through the company's Starlink satellite Internet network. SpaceX won subsidies to bring service to customers in 35 U.S. states.  The Free Press advocacy group called the award to Starlink "another Hyperloop-style boondoggle", showing examples of territory awarded to Starlink in New York City, a strip mall near McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, and other urban blocks that were labeled as underserved by the FCC.  The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association also filed a complaint about the awards to Starlink.

SpaceX released a new group of 10 Starlink satellites on 24 January 2021, the first Starlink satellites in polar orbits. The launch also surpassed ISRO's record of launching the most of satellites in one mission (143), taking to 1,025 the cumulative number of satellites deployed for that telecommunications constellation so far.

In February 2021, SpaceX announced that Starlink has over 10,000 users, and opened up pre-orders to the public.

In March 2021, SpaceX put an application into FCC for mobile variations of their terminal for vehicles, vessels and aircraft.

Launches

The deployment of the first 1,440 satellites will be into 72 orbital planes of 20 satellites each, with a requested lower minimum elevation angle of beams to improve reception: 25° rather than the 40° of the other two orbital shells.  SpaceX launched the first 60 satellites of the constellation in May 2019 into a 450 km (280 mi) orbit and expected up to six launches in 2019 at that time, with 720 satellites (12 × 60) for continuous coverage in 2020.

In August 2019, SpaceX expected four more launches in 2019 and at least nine launches in 2020, but since January 2020 expectations had increased to 24 total launches in 2020.

In March 2020, SpaceX reported producing six satellites per day.

Starlink satellites are also planned to launch on Starship, an under-development rocket of SpaceX that will launch 400 satellites at a time.

In February 2021, Musk stated that the satellites are traveling on 25 orbital planes clustered between 53 degrees north and south of the equator

Services

SpaceX intends to provide satellite internet connectivity to underserved areas of the planet, as well as provide competitively priced service to urban areas. The company has stated that the positive cash flow from selling satellite internet services would be necessary to fund their Mars plans.

In early 2015, two space entrepreneurs announced satellite Internet ventures in the same week. In addition to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announcing the project that would later be named Starlink, serial entrepreneur Richard Branson announced an investment in OneWeb, a similar constellation with approximately 700 planned satellites that had already procured communication frequency licenses for their radio spectrum.

After the failures of previous satellite-to-consumer space ventures, satellite industry consultant Roger Rusch said in 2015, "It's highly unlikely that you can make a successful business out of this".  Musk publicly acknowledged that business reality, and indicated in mid-2015 that while endeavoring to develop this technically complicated space-based communication system he wanted to avoid overextending the company, and stated that they are being measured in their pace of development.  Nevertheless, internal documents leaked in February 2017 indicated that SpaceX expected more than US$30 billion in revenue by 2025 from its satellite constellation, while revenues from its launch business were expected to reach US$5 billion in the same year.

In February 2015, financial analysts questioned established geosynchronous orbit communications satellite fleet operators as to how they intended to respond to the competitive threat of SpaceX and OneWeb LEO communication satellites.  In October 2015, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell indicated that while development continues, the business case for the long-term rollout of an operational satellite network was still in an early phase.

With the initial launch of the first 60 satellites of the operational constellation in 2019, SpaceX indicated that it would require 420 satellites in the constellation to achieve minor broadband coverage of Earth, and 780 of the first circa 1,600 to provide moderate coverage.

On 17 April 2020, in documentation to the FCC, SpaceX said lower altitude will put the satellites closer to Starlink consumers and allow the network "to provide low-latency broadband to unserved and underserved Americans that is on par with service previously only available in urban areas". The change will also improve service for U.S. government users in polar regions and allow for more rapid deployment of the network, SpaceX said. The lower orbits will help ensure the satellites re-enter the atmosphere in a shorter time in case of failure and will enable them to broadcast signals at reduced power levels, because they are closer to Earth, which SpaceX said will allow the fleet to be compliant with limits to reduce radio interference with other satellite and terrestrial wireless networks.

SpaceX has long-term plans to develop and deploy a version of the satellite communication system to serve Mars.

Competition and Market Effects

In addition to the OneWeb constellation, announced nearly concurrently with the SpaceX constellation, a 2015 proposal from Samsung outlined a 4,600-satellite constellation orbiting at 1,400 km (870 mi) that could provide a zettabyte per month capacity worldwide, an equivalent of 200 gigabytes per month for 5 billion users of Internet data, but by 2020, no more public information had been released about the Samsung constellation.  Telesat announced a smaller 117 satellite constellation in 2015 with plans to deliver initial service in 2021.  Amazon announced a large broadband internet satellite constellation in April 2019, planning to launch 3,236 satellites in the next decade in what the company calls "Project Kuiper", a satellite constellation that will work in concert with Amazon's previously announced large network of twelve satellite ground station facilities (the "AWS ground station unit") announced in November 2018.

By October 2017, the expectation for large increases in satellite network capacity from emerging lower-altitude broadband constellations caused market players to cancel some planned investments in new geosynchronous orbit broadband communications satellites.

Light pollution

The planned large number of satellites has met with criticism from the astronomical community because of concerns for light pollution.  Astronomers claim that the number of visible satellites will outnumber visible stars and that their brightness in both optical and radio wavelengths will severely impact scientific observations. Because the Starlink satellites can autonomously change their orbits, observations cannot be scheduled to avoid them.  The International Astronomical Union (IAU), National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), and Square Kilometre Array Organization (SKAO) have released official statements expressing concern on the matter. On 20 November 2019, the four-meter Blanco telescope of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) recorded strong signal loss and the appearance of 19 white lines on a DECam shot (left image). This image noise was correlated to the transit of a Starlink satellite train, launched a week earlier.

SpaceX representatives and Musk have claimed that the satellites will have minimal impact, being easily mitigated by pixel masking and image stacking.  Many professional astronomers have disputed these claims based on initial observation of the Starlink v0.9 satellites on the first launch, shortly after their deployment from the launch vehicle.  In later statements on Twitter, Musk stated that SpaceX will work on reducing the albedo of the satellites and will provide on-demand orientation adjustments for astronomical experiments, if necessary.  As of March 2020, only one Starlink satellite (Starlink 1130 / DarkSat) has experimental coating to reduce its albedo. The reduction in g-band magnitude is 0.8 magnitude (55%).  Despite these measures, astronomers found that the satellites were still too bright thus making DarkSat essentially a "dead end."

On 17 April 2020, SpaceX wrote in a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filing that it would test new methods of mitigating light pollution, and also provide access to satellite tracking data for astronomers to "better coordinate their observations with our satellites".  On 27 April 2020, Musk announced that the company would introduce a new sunshade designed to reduce the brightness of Starlink satellites.  As of 15 October 2020, over 200 Starlink satellites have a sunshade. An October 2020 analysis found them to be marginally fainter than DarkSat.

Space debris

The large number of satellites employed by Starlink also creates a long-term danger of space debris resulting from placing thousands of satellites in orbit and the risk of causing a satellite collision, potentially triggering a phenomenon known as Kessler syndrome, which is like a pinball effect between all of the satellites on Earth that can cause all of the satellites to become inoperable.  SpaceX has said that most of the satellites are launched at a lower altitude, and failed satellites are expected to deorbit within five years without propulsion; however, failed satellites still pose a significant threat even if only in orbit for five years and just a small percentage fail as they can collide with other debris or defunct satellites, creating debris that lingers much longer as momentum transfers shift them into higher orbits. Early in the program, a near-miss occurred when SpaceX did not move a satellite that had a 1 in 1000 chance of colliding with a European one, ten times higher than ESA's threshold for avoidance maneuvers. SpaceX subsequently fixed an issue with its paging system that had disrupted emails between ESA and SpaceX. ESA said it plans to invest in technologies to automate satellite collision avoidance maneuvers.

Federal funding

SpaceX was challenged regarding Starlink in February 2021 when the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) pressured the U.S.Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to "actively, and aggressively, and thoughtfully vet" the subsidy applications of SpaceX and other broadband providers. SpaceX had previously been approved to receive US$886 million for a commitment to provide service to 642,925 locations in 35 states as part of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF).

The NRECA criticized the funding allocation because Starlink will include service to locations — such as Harlem and terminals at Newark Liberty International Airport and Miami International Airport — that are not rural, and because SpaceX will build the infrastructure and serve any customers who request service with or without the FCC subsidy.  Additionally, Jim Matheson, chief executive officer of the NRECA voiced his concern about technologies that have not been proven to meet the high speeds required for the award category. Starlink was specifically criticized for being still in beta testing and an unproven technology.

Similar or competitive systems

Main articles: Satellite internet constellation and Satellite constellation § Two-way communication

• Globalstar – an operational low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellation for satellite phone and low-speed data communications
• Iridium satellite constellation – an operational constellation of LEO satellites for global satellite phone service
• Kuiper Systems – a planned 3236 LEO satellite Internet constellation being built by an Amazon subsidiary
• O3b MEO – Medium Earth orbit constellation that covers the equatorial region
• OneWeb satellite constellation – a competitor for a low Earth orbit internet constellation
• Orbcomm – an operational constellation used to provide global asset monitoring and messaging services from its constellation of 29 LEO communications satellites orbiting at 775 km
• Project Loon – former concept to provide internet access via balloons in the stratosphere

                                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink

American Deaths Rose 23% in 2020

U.S. deaths normally change less than 2% each year  Black Americans experienced highest per capita excess death rates, while regional surges contributed to higher excess death rates from COVID-19 and other causes, a VCU-led JAMA study finds.

ByMary Kate Brogan, Virginia Commonwealth University

April 2, 2021 -- Extended surges in the South and West in the summer and early winter of 2020 resulted in regional increases in excess death rates, both from COVID-19 and from other causes, a 50-state analysis of excess death trends has found. Virginia Commonwealth University researchers’ latest study notes that Black Americans had the highest excess death rates per capita of any racial or ethnic group in 2020.

The research, published Friday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, offers new data from the last 10 months of 2020 on how many Americans died during 2020 as a result of the effects of the pandemic — beyond the number of COVID-19 deaths alone — and which states and racial groups were hit hardest.

The rate of excess deaths — or deaths above the number that would be expected based on averages from the previous five years — is usually consistent, fluctuating 1% to 2% from year to year, said Steven Woolf, M.D., the study’s lead author and director emeritus of VCU’s Center on Society and Health. From March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, excess deaths rose a staggering 22.9% nationally, fueled by COVID-19 and deaths from other causes, with regions experiencing surges at different times.

“COVID-19 accounted for roughly 72% of the excess deaths we’re calculating, and that’s similar to what our earlier studies showed. There is a sizable gap between the number of publicly reported COVID-19 deaths and the sum total of excess deaths the country has actually experienced,” Woolf said.

For the other 28% of the nation’s 522,368 excess deaths during that period, some may actually have been from COVID-19, even if the virus was not listed on the death certificates due to reporting issues.

But Woolf said disruptions caused by the pandemic were another cause of the 28% of excess deaths not attributed to COVID-19. Examples might include deaths resulting from not seeking or finding adequate care in an emergency such as a heart attack, experiencing fatal complications from a chronic disease such as diabetes, or facing a behavioral health crisis that led to suicide or drug overdose.

“All three of those categories could have contributed to an increase in deaths among people who did not have COVID-19 but whose lives were essentially taken by the pandemic,” said Woolf, a professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the VCU School of Medicine.

The percentage of excess deaths among non-Hispanic Black individuals (16.9%) exceeded their share of the U.S. population (12.5%), reflecting racial disparities in mortality due to COVID-19 and other causes of death in the pandemic, Woolf and his co-authors write in the paper. The excess death rate among Black Americans was higher than rates of excess deaths among non-Hispanic white or Hispanic populations.

Woolf said his team was motivated to break down this information by race and ethnicity due to mounting evidence that people of color have experienced an increased risk of death from COVID-19.

“We found a disproportionate number of excess deaths among the Black population in the United States,” said Woolf, VCU’s C. Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Population Health and Health Equity. “This, of course, is consistent with the evidence about COVID-19 but also indicates that excess deaths from some conditions other than COVID-19 are also occurring at higher rates in the African American population.”

Surges in excess deaths varied across regions of the United States. Northeastern states, such as New York and New Jersey, were among the first hit by the pandemic. Their pandemic curves looked like a capital “A,” Woolf said, peaking in April and returning rapidly to baseline within eight weeks because strict restrictions were put in place. But the increase in excess deaths lasted much longer in other states that lifted restrictions early and were hit hard later in the year. Woolf cited economic or political reasons for decisions by some governors to weakly embrace, or discourage, pandemic control measures such as wearing masks.

“They said they were opening early to rescue the economy. The tragedy is that policy not only cost more lives, but actually hurt their economy by extending the length of the pandemic,” Woolf said. “One of the big lessons our nation must learn from COVID-19 is that our health and our economy are tied together. You can’t really rescue one without the other.”

According to the study’s data, the 10 states with the highest per capita rate of excess deaths were Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana, South Dakota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Ohio.

Nationally, Woolf expects the U.S. will see consequences of the pandemic long after this year. For example, cancer mortality rates may increase in the coming years if the pandemic forced people to delay screening or chemotherapy.

Woolf said future illness and deaths from the downstream consequences of the devastated economy could be addressed now by “bringing help to families, expanding access to health care, improving behavioral health services and trying to bring economic stability to a large part of the population that was already living on the edge before the pandemic.” Among other research, his team’s 2019 JAMA study of working-age mortality underscores the importance of prioritizing public health measures like these, he said.

“American workers are sicker and dying earlier than workers in businesses in other countries that are competing against America,” Woolf said. “So investments to help with health are important for the U.S. economy in that context just as they are with COVID-19.”

Derek Chapman, Ph.D., Roy Sabo, Ph.D., and Emily Zimmerman, Ph.D., of VCU’s Center on Society and Health and the School of Medicine joined Woolf as co-authors on the paper published Friday, “Excess Deaths From COVID-19 and Other Causes in the United States, March 1, 2020, to January 2, 2021.”

Their study also confirms a trend Woolf’s team noted in an earlier 2020 study: Death rates from several non-COVID-19 conditions, such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes, increased during surges.

“This country has experienced profound loss of life due to the pandemic and its consequences, especially in communities of color,” said Peter Buckley, M.D., dean of the VCU School of Medicine. “While we must remain vigilant with social distancing and mask-wearing behaviors for the duration of this pandemic, we must also make efforts to ensure the equitable distribution of care if we are to reduce the likelihood of further loss of life.”

Based on current trends, Woolf said the surges the U.S. has seen might not be over, even with vaccinations underway.

“We’re not out of the woods yet because we’re in a race with the COVID-19 variants. If we let up too soon and don’t maintain public health restrictions, the vaccine may not win out over the variants,” Woolf said. “Unfortunately, what we’re seeing is that many states have not learned the lesson of 2020. Once again, they are lifting restrictions, opening businesses back up, and now seeing the COVID-19 variants spread through their population.

“To prevent more excess deaths, we need to hold our horses and maintain the public health restrictions that we have in place so the vaccine can do its work and get the case numbers under control.”

https://news.vcu.edu/article/US_deaths_normally_change_less_than_2_each_year_In_2020_they

The Chicago Board Options Exchange’s Volatility Index – “Vix”

VIX is the ticker symbol and the popular name for the Chicago Board Options Exchange's CBOE Volatility Index, a popular measure of the stock market's expectation of volatility based on S&P 500 index options.  It is calculated and disseminated on a real-time basis by the CBOE, and is often referred to as the fear index or fear gauge.

The VIX traces its origin to the financial economics research of Menachem Brenner and Dan Galai. In a series of papers beginning in 1989, Brenner and Galai proposed the creation of a series of volatility indices, beginning with an index on stock market volatility, and moving to interest rate and foreign exchange rate volatility.

In their papers, Brenner and Galai proposed, "[the] volatility index, to be named 'Sigma Index', would be updated frequently and used as the underlying asset for futures and options. ... A volatility index would play the same role as the market index play for options and futures on the index."  In 1992, the CBOE hired consultant Bob Whaley to calculate values for stock market volatility based on this theoretical work.  Whaley utilized data series in the index options market, and provided the CBOE with computations for daily VIX levels from January 1986 to May 1992.

The resulting VIX index formulation provides a measure of market volatility on which expectations of further stock market volatility in the near future might be based. The current VIX index value quotes the expected annualized change in the S&P 500 index over the following 30 days, as computed from options-based theory and current options-market data.

To summarize, VIX is a volatility index derived from S&P 500 options for the 30 days following the measurement date, with the price of each option representing the market's expectation of 30-day forward-looking volatility.  The resulting VIX index formulation provides a measure of expected market volatility on which expectations of further stock market volatility in the near future might be based.

Like conventional indexes, the VIX Index calculation employs rules for selecting component options and a formula to calculate index values.  Unlike other market products, VIX cannot be bought or sold directly.  Instead, VIX is traded and exchanged via derivative  contract, derived ETFs, and ETNs which most commonly track VIX futures indexes.

In addition to VIX, CBOE uses the same methodology to compute the following related products:

• Cboe ShortTerm Volatility Index (VIX9DSM), which reflects 9-day expected volatility of the S&P 500 Index,
• Cboe S&P 500® 3-Month Volatility Index (VIX3MSM),
• Cboe S&P 500® 6-Month Volatility Index (VIX6MSM)
• Cboe S&P 500 1-Year Volatility Index (VIX1YSM).

Cboe also calculates the Nasdaq-100® Volatility Index (VXNSM), Cboe DJIA® Volatility Index (VXDSM) and the Cboe Russell 2000® Volatility Index (RVXSM).^[5] There is even a VIX on VIX (VVIX) which is a volatility of volatility measure in that it represents the expected volatility of the 30-day forward price of the CBOE Volatility Index (the VIX®).

The concept of computing implied volatility or an implied volatility index dates back to the publication of the Black and Scholes' 1973 paper, "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities," published in the Journal of Political Economy, which introduced the seminal Black–Scholes model for valuing options.  Just as a bond's implied yield to maturity can be computed by equating a bond's market price to its valuation formula, an option-implied volatility of a financial or physical asset can be computed by equating the asset option's market price to its valuation formula.  In the case of VIX, the option prices used are the S&P 500 index option prices.

The VIX takes as inputs the market prices of the call and put options on the S&P 500 index for near-term options with more than 23 days until expiration, next-term options with less than 37 days until expiration, and risk-free U.S. treasury bill interest rates. Options are ignored if their bid prices are zero or where their strike prices are outside the level where two consecutive bid prices are zero.  The goal is to estimate the implied volatility of S&P 500 index options at an average expiration of 30 days.

The VIX is the volatility of a variance swap and not that of a volatility swap, volatility being the square root of variance, or standard deviation.  A variance swap can be perfectly statically replicated through vanilla puts and calls, whereas a volatility swap requires dynamic hedging.  The VIX is the square root of the risk-neutral expectation of the S&P 500 variance over the next 30 calendar days and is quoted as an annualized standard deviation.

The VIX is calculated and disseminated in real-time by the Chicago Board Options Exchange.  On March 26, 2004, trading in futures on the VIX began on CBOE Futures Exchange   (CFE).

On February 24, 2006, it became possible to trade options on the VIX.   Several exchange-traded funds hold mixtures of VIX futures that attempt to enable stock-like trading in those futures. The correlation between these ETFs and the actual VIX index is very poor, especially when the VIX is moving.

History of the VIX Index

The following is a timeline of key events in the history of the VIX Index:

• 1987 - The Sigma Index was introduced in an academic paper by Brenner and Galai, published in Financial Analysts Journal, July/August 1989. Brenner and Galai wrote, "Our volatility index, to be named Sigma Index, would be updated frequently and used as the underlying asset for futures and options... A volatility index would play the same role as the market index play for options and futures on the index."
• 1989 - Brenner and Galai's paper is published in Financial Analysts Journal.  Brenner and Galai develop their research further in graduate symposia at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at the Leonard M. Stern School of Business at New York University.
• 1992 - The American Stock Exchange announced it is conducting a feasibility study on a volatility index, proposed as the "Sigma Index."
• 1993 - On January 19, 1993, the Chicago Board Options Exchange held a press conference to announce the launch of real-time reporting of the CBOE Market Volatility Index or VIX. The formula that determines the VIX is tailored to the CBOE S&P 100 Index (OEX) option prices, and was developed by Professor Robert E. Whaley of Duke University (now at Vanderbilt University), whom the CBOE had commissioned.  This index, now known as the VXO, is a measure of implied volatility calculated using 30-day S&P 100 index at-the-money options.
• 1993 - Professors Brenner and Galai develop their 1989 proposal for a series of volatility index in their paper, "Hedging Volatility in Foreign Currencies," published in The Journal of Derivatives in the fall of 1993.
• 2003 - The CBOE introduces a new methodology for the VIX. Working with Goldman Sachs, the CBOE developed further computational methodologies, and changed the underlying index the CBOE S&P 100 Index (OEX) to the CBOE S&P 500 Index (SPX). The old methodology was renamed the VXO.
• 2004 - On March 26, 2004, the first-ever trading in futures on the VIX Index began on the CBOE Futures Exchange (CFE).  VIX is now proposed on different trading platforms, like XTB.
• 2006 - VIX options were launched in February of this year.
• 2008 - On October 24, 2008, the VIX reached an intraday high of 89.53.
• 2008 - On November 21, 2008, the VIX closed at a record 80.74.
• 2018 - On February 5, 2018, the VIX closed 37.32 (up 103.99% from previous close).
• 2020 - On March 9, 2020, the VIX hit 62.12, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis due to a combination of the 2020 Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war and the COVID-19 pandemic.
• 2020 - During the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 12, 2020, the VIX hit and closed at 75.47, exceeding the previous Black Monday value, as a travel ban to the US from Europe was announced by President Trump.
• 2020 - On March 16, the VIX closed at 82.69, the highest level since its inception in 1990.

Criticism of the Vix

VIX is sometimes criticized as a prediction of future volatility. Instead it is described as a measure of the current price of index options.

Critics claim that, despite a sophisticated formulation, the predictive power of most volatility forecasting models is similar to that of plain-vanilla measures, such as simple past volatility.  However, other works have countered that these critiques failed to correctly implement the more complicated models.

Some practitioners and portfolio managers have questioned the depth of our understanding of the fundamental concept of volatility, itself.  For example, Daniel Goldstein and Nassim Taleb  famously titled one of their research articles, We Don't Quite Know What We are Talking About When We Talk About Volatility.  Relatedly, Emanuel Derman has expressed disillusion with empirical models that are unsupported by theory.  He argues that, while "theories are attempts to uncover the hidden principles underpinning the world around us... [we should remember that] models are metaphors—analogies that describe one thing relative to another."

Michael Harris, the trader, programmer, price pattern theorist, and author, has argued that VIX just tracks the inverse of price and has no predictive power.

According to some, VIX should have predictive power as long as the prices computed by the Black-Scholes equation are valid assumptions about the volatility predicted for the future lead time (the remaining time to maturity).  Robert J. Shiller has argued that it would be circular reasoning to consider VIX to be proof of Black-Scholes, because they both express the same implied volatility, and has found that calculating VIX retrospectively in 1929 did not predict the surpassing volatility of the Great Depression—suggesting that in the case of anomalous conditions, VIX cannot even weakly predict future severe events.

An academic study from the University of Texas at Austin and Ohio State University examined potential methods of VIX manipulation.  On February 12, 2018, a letter was sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission by a law firm representing an anonymous whistleblower alleging manipulation of the VIX.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIX

Definitions of Being American “Upper Class”

It Is Based On Income and Certain Other Factors

Updated: January 22, 2021 by Financial Samurai

We’ve got the poor, the middle class, the upper class, and the rich. This article looks at the definition of upper class based on income and several other factors.

When you think of the words “upper class,” what do you imagine? I often conjure some passengers sitting on a British Airways flight. They are literally sitting in a section of the plane called Upper Class. Weird.

Let’s be frank. Upper class has a somewhat arrogant tone to it. I don’t know anybody in America who uses the term upper class when speaking. I don’t know any socially normal person who calls himself upper class either. Perhaps it’s a European thing.

In America, we use the term “mass affluent” or “aspirational class” instead of upper class. Nobody in America would ever publicly say they are upper class unless they want to get beat over the head. Instead, people would much prefer to say they are middle class.

Middle Class Is The Best Class, Not Upper Class

The best class is the middle class because you can blend in. Nobody attacks the middle class for making too much money or being a burden on society. The majority is the middle class, which also provides comfort in numbers.

As a middle class citizen, you also don’t get taxed as much. You generally also get more government support. The middle class earns somewhere between +/- 25% of the median household income in your city. Nationwide, the median household income is roughly $65,000. Therefore, the middle class earns somewhere between $48,000 – $81,000 a year.

Now that we’ve defined poor and middle class, let’s look at the definition of upper class.

Definition Of Upper Class Based On Income

In a 2018 report, the Pew Research Center found that upper class Americans grew their income faster between 2010 and 2016 ($172,152 to $187,872) versus middle-income Americans ($74,015 to $78,442).

The report states, “the wealth gaps between upper-income families and lower- and middle-income families in 2016 were at the highest levels recorded.”

This is obviously true since we’ve had a massive bull market since 2009. It is especially true the upper class has gotten even wealthier post pandemic. Upper-income families likely worked at faster-growing, more profitable companies that pay higher salaries.

Further, people who have been regularly investing since 2009 have seen their wealth soar. The S&P 500 and real estate are both up tremendously.

Those who hoarded cash or simply spent all their money did not see their wealth grow nearly as much. Only recently, has median household income reached new highs. It went nowhere between 2000 – 2016. In 2021, the median household income is roughly $68,000.

An upper class income is usually considered at least 50% higher than the median household income. Therefore, an upper class income in America is $100,000 and higher.

Income By Household Needed To Be Upper Class

According to the Pew Research Center, below is the income by household necessary to be upper class. The greater your household size, the greater the income needed.

• $78,281 for a household of one
• $110,706 for a household of two
• $135,586 for a household of three
• $156,561 for a household of four
• $175,041 for a household of five

In other words, to be upper class, you need to make at least $75,000, the threshold where researchers have discovered making more does not necessarily increase happiness.

To play it safe, to be considered upper class, your household should make at least a six-figure household income. Inflation really has a sneaky way of catching up to all of us. I believe most Americans can make a six-figure income at almost any age.

Of course, making six-figures in Des Moines is going to go a lot farther than making six figures in New York City. I’ve written extensively about how households may need to make $300,000 to live a middle-class lifestyle in big cities today.

Therefore, it’s up to you to adjust your household income figure accordingly. If you can make a similar amount of income and relocate to a lower cost area of the country, then this is something to consider as well.

Upper Class Is Relative To The Median

Everything is relative when it comes to finances. Pew defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median. In 2021, the national median household income is around $68,000.

Therefore, as a whole, the typical upper-class household in the new decade has a median household income of over $130,000. $130,000 is a good household income amount. However, it’s not a high enough income to be considered rich.

To be rich, a household will likely have to make multiple six-figures a year. After all, the next level above Upper Class on a British Airways flight is Rich Class! No, I’m just kidding. British Airways also calls First Class, First Class.

Other Definitions Of Upper Class

It would be a shame to only define upper class based on income. We can also define upper class based on behavior, background, and status. However, people who view upper class mostly based on status are likely just snooty people just looking to protect their own status.

Besides defining upper class by income, we can also define upper class by:

• Net Worth
• Education
• Occupation
• Culture
• Travel
• Language
• Fitness

If you have a master’s degree or higher, you may be considered upper class. Around 13% of Americans have master’s degrees and only around 2% of Americans have doctorate degrees. In comparison, roughly 35% of Americans have undergraduate college degrees. All societies tend to respect scholars.

If you have a net worth 50% higher than the average American, you can be considered upper class. After all, it’s not so much how much you earn but how much you keep.

If you know two or more languages fluently and have traveled to at least five countries, you may be considered upper class. Roughly 60% of Americans do not own a passport.

If you are in good shape, perhaps you can be considered upper class since 60%+ of Americans are overweight. Living longer is generally an attribute of the upper class. Although, extremely wealthy people die young as well e.g. Steve Jobs at age 56.

Finally, if you are a very thoughtful person who is always looking out for others, I say you should be considered upper class. The average person is too selfish or too busy to help other people. Being a kind person who also stands up against injustices is my favorite definition of being upper class.

Upper Class Is A State Of Mind

The definition of upper class can, therefore, be a combination of income, net worth, occupation, education, behavior and a variety of other factors. Everything is relative to the average or median.

I believe a big part of being upper class is having more freedom and happiness than the average person. At the end of the day, your goal is to have enough money to be happy. If you have enough money that’s generating some passive income to allow you to take weekday siestas or do as you please, you are probably upper class.

But if you proceed to combine your elevated happiness and freedom and mistreat other people, you immediately get downgraded to low class.

I’d love to retire the definition of upper class from now on and just use the term “mass affluent.” Mass affluent sounds so much better in this uncertain world. To say or think you are upper class is a surefire way to a demotion.

Readers, what is your definition of upper class / mass affluent? Is upper class more of a European term than an American term? Do you consider yourself upper class? Would you ever describe yourself as upper class in public?

Suggestions For Getting To Upper Class

Start Your Own Business. To build great wealth, you should build equity. Recessions are a perfect time to try and start a business and do something new. Here is my step-by-step guide to starting an online business. It takes less than $3/month and 45 minutes to set up. Not a day goes by where I’m not thankful for starting this sit in 2009.

Invest In Real Estate. Every affluent I know has invested in real estate in some form or another. With the migration to lower cost areas of the country thanks to the rise of work from home, real estate in the heartland looks attractive. Check out Fundrise and CrowdStreet, two of my favorite real estate crowdfunding platforms that enable you to invest in real estate across the country. Both are free to sign up and explore.

Stay On Top Of Your Money. Sign up for Personal Capital, the web’s #1 free wealth management tool to get a better handle on your finances. Remember, it’s not so much how much you make, but how much you keep. Run your investments through their award-winning Investment Checkup tool to see exactly how much you are paying in fees.

Then make sure you run your financials through its Retirement Planner to make sure your financial future is on track. There’s no rewind button on the road to financial freedom. Best get it right the first time!

Subscribe to the Financial Samurai newsletter here. The upper class love to educate themselves as much as possible about life and their finances.

https://www.financialsamurai.com/upper-class-definition/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20national%20median%20household%20income%20is,a%20high%20enough%20income%20to%20be%20considered%20rich.

A New Physical State of Light

A single "super photon" made up of many thousands of individual light particles

From: University of Bonn

April 1, 2021 -- About ten years ago, researchers at the University of Bonn produced such an extreme aggregate state for the first time and presented a completely new light source. The state is called optical Bose-Einstein condensate and has captivated many physicists ever since, because this exotic world of light particles is home to its very own physical phenomena. Researchers led by Prof. Dr. Martin Weitz, who discovered the super photon, and theoretical physicist Prof. Dr. Johann Kroha have returned from their latest "expedition" into the quantum world with a very special observation. They report of a new, previously unknown phase transition in the optical Bose-Einstein condensate. This is a so-called overdamped phase. The results may in the long term be relevant for encrypted quantum communication. The study has been published in the journal Science.

The Bose-Einstein condensate is an extreme physical state that usually only occurs at very low temperatures. What’s special: The particles in this system are no longer distinguishable and are predominantly in the same quantum mechanical state, in other words they behave like a single giant "superparticle". The state can therefore be described by a single wave function.

In 2010, researchers led by Martin Weitz succeeded for the first time in creating a Bose-Einstein condensate from light particles (photons). Their special system is still in use today: Physicists trap light particles in a resonator made of two curved mirrors spaced just over a micrometer apart that reflect a rapidly reciprocating beam of light. The space is filled with a liquid dye solution, which serves to cool down the photons. This is done by the dye molecules "swallowing" the photons and then spitting them out again, which brings the light particles to the temperature of the dye solution - equivalent to room temperature. Background: The system makes it possible to cool light particles in the first place, because their natural characteristic is to dissolve when cooled.

Clear separation of two phases

Phase transition is what physicists call the transition between water and ice during freezing. But how does the particular phase transition occur within the system of trapped light particles? The scientists explain it this way: The somewhat translucent mirrors cause photons to be lost and replaced, creating a non-equilibrium that results in the system not assuming a definite temperature and being set into oscillation. This creates a transition between this oscillating phase and a damped phase. Damped means that the amplitude of the vibration decreases.

"The overdamped phase we observed corresponds to a new state of the light field, so to speak," says lead author Fahri Emre Öztürk, a doctoral student at the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn. The special characteristic is that the effect of the laser is usually not separated from that of Bose-Einstein condensate by a phase transition, and there is no sharply defined boundary between the two states. This means that physicists can continually move back and forth between effects.

"However, in our experiment, the overdamped state of the optical Bose-Einstein condensate is separated by a phase transition from both the oscillating state and a standard laser," says study leader Prof. Dr. Martin Weitz. "This shows that there is a Bose-Einstein condensate, which is really a different state than the standard laser. "In other words, we are dealing with two separate phases of the optical Bose-Einstein condensate," he emphasizes.

The researchers plan to use their findings as a basis for further studies to search for new states of the light field in multiple coupled light condensates, which can also occur in the system. "If suitable quantum mechanically entangled states occur in coupled light condensates, this may be interesting for transmitting quantum-encrypted messages between multiple participants," says Fahri Emre Öztürk.

                                  https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/074-2021

2021 Suez Canal Obstruction

The Suez Canal was blocked for six days in March 2021 after the accidental grounding of Ever Given, a Golden-class container ship.  On the morning of 23 March, the 400-metre-long (1,300 ft) vessel (sailing from Malaysia to the Netherlands) was buffeted by strong winds that caused it to collide with the canal bank and become wedged sideways across the waterway.  Egyptian authorities said "there may have been technical or human errors" also involved. The obstruction was south of the section of the canal that has two channels, so there was no way for other ships to bypass Ever Given.  The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) engaged Boskalis through its subsidiary SMIT Salvage to manage marine salvage operations.

The canal is one of the world's busiest trade routes, and the obstruction had a significant impact on trade between Europe and Asia and the Middle East. On 28 March, at least 369 ships were queuing to pass through the canal. This prevented $9.6 billion worth of trade.  On 29 March, Ever Given was partially re-floated and moved by about 80 per cent in the correct direction, although the "bow remained stuck".  The ship was finally freed at 15:05 EGY (13:05 UTC), and started moving, under tow, towards the Great Bitter Lake, for technical inspection.  The canal was checked for damage, and the SCA allowed shipping to resume from 19:00 EGY (17:00 UTC).

Background of the Incident

The Suez Canal, one of the world's most important trading routes, was opened in 1869.  By 2021 approximately fifty ships per day travelled through the canal, about 12% of total global trade at the time.  For much of its length, however, the canal is not wide enough to allow traffic to travel in both directions at once; convoys of ships must take turns transiting these segments of the waterway. An expansion project is underway, but significant portions of the canal remain single-lane.

Ever Given was laid down on 25 December 2015, launched 9 May 2018, and completed 25 September 2018, replacing an earlier ship of the same name.  Shoei Kisen Kaisha, a subsidiary of Japan's Imabari Shipbuilding, owns the ship. The operator is the Taiwan-based company Evergreen Marine and the vessel is managed by Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement.  The vessel is registered in Panama.  The ship's owners, Shoei Kisen Kaisha, have liability coverage for $3.1 billion.  Evergreen's Protection and Indemnity (third party) liabilities insurance coverage is provided by mutual UK P&I Club.  The ship is insured in the Japanese market.  Insurance industry sources say the ship's owners could be facing insurance claims from the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) for loss of revenue and other ships whose passage has been impeded. Container ships of this size are typically insured for hull and machinery damage to an amount totalling between $100 and $140 million.

Bill Kavanagh, a National Maritime College of Ireland lecturer and former captain, has described sailing through the Suez Canal as "a very complex and high risk operation". Wind gusts will cause the container areas of vessels to "act like a sail" and thus affect the course of the ship. The momentum of a heavy ship, such as Ever Given, is difficult to counteract if blown off course.

The government of Egypt requires ships traversing the canal to be boarded by an Egyptian "Suez crew", including one or more official maritime pilots from Egypt's SCA who command the ship, taking over from the regular crew and the captain. There were two Egyptian SCA pilots on board at the time of the accident.

March 23, 2021 Grounding

On 23 March 2021, at 07:40 EGY (05:40 UTC), Ever Given was travelling through the Suez Canal, when it was caught in a sandstorm. The strong winds, which reached 40 kn (74 km/h; 46 mph), resulted in the "loss of the ability to steer the ship," causing the hull to deviate.  The ship then ran aground at the 151 km (82 nmi) mark (measured from Port Said on the Mediterranean Sea; 10 km (5.4 nmi) from Suez Port on the Gulf of Suez), and turned sideways, unable to free itself, blocking the canal on both sides.  The crew consisting entirely of Indian nationals was accounted for and no injuries were reported.  At the time of the incident, the ship was travelling from Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia, to the Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands.  It was fifth in a northbound convoy, with fifteen vessels behind it when it ran aground near the village of Manshiyet Rugola.

According to an analysis of data from ship tracking websites by Evert Lataire, head of maritime technology division at the University of Ghent, the bank effect, which may cause the stern of a ship to swing toward the near bank when operating in constricted waterway, may have contributed to the grounding, along with the lateral forces of westerly winds pushing sideways against the northbound ship. Since most of the focus of modern ship design is directed towards efficiency and stability at sea, the effects of hydrodynamics in shallow waters, especially in light of the rapidly growing size of ships in the past decade, remain somewhat obscure and in need of further study.

Over 300 vessels at both ends of the canal were obstructed by Ever Given, including five other container ships of similar size.  These included 41 bulk carriers and 24 crude oil tankers.  The affected vessels represented roughly 16.9 million tonnes (37 billion pounds) of deadweight.  Some docked at ports and anchorages in the area, while many remained in place. The Ever Given's sister ship, Ever Greet, was affected by the disruption, as were two Russian Navy vessels: Steregushchiy-class corvette Stoikiy and Altay-class oiler Kola. These two vessels, believed to have been the only military vessels affected by the blockage, were conducting naval exercises in the area at the time. Kola had been involved in a minor collision with bulk carrier Ark Royal earlier that day; the two were anchored roughly 11 km (5.9 nmi) away from each other for the duration of the incident.

Response by the Suez Canal Authority

In the immediate aftermath of the grounding, the Suez Canal Authority engaged the Dutch company Royal Boskalis Westminster through its subsidiary SMIT Salvage to manage marine salvage operations. Their team of experts worked in close collaboration with the Canal Authority, calculating the timing and direction of efforts, and coordinating a team of Egyptian, Dutch, and Japanese workers.  Tugs were needed to apply force to move the ship, by towing or pushing, and suction dredgers to remove sand and silt from under the bow and stern of the ship. High capacity pumps were to reduce or redistribute the weight of fuel oil and water ballast on the ship. If this was insufficient to refloat the ship, large floating cranes could be brought in to remove containers, but this would be a slow and difficult operation, with care needed to maintain the stability of the ship and avoid it breaking up.  Some officials suggested the possibility of using heavy lift helicopters, but none are capable of lifting a fully laden 40-foot container.

As a first step, vessels were moved from behind Ever Given to make room for the refloating operation. Fuel and nine thousand tonnes of ballast water were removed from the ship to help lighten it as heavy machinery, including an excavator, began work to dig the bow out.  By 25 March, eight tugboats were assisting in the attempt to pull it free.  Peter Berdowski, Chief Executive of Boskalis, stated on 25 March that such an operation "can take days to weeks".

On 25 March, the SCA suspended navigation through the Suez Canal until Ever Given could be refloated.  The same day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's advisor on seaports stated that he expected the canal to be cleared in "48–72 hours, maximum".  The following day, the Suez Canal Authority said that its dredging operations were about 87 per cent complete.

On 26 March, the SCA accepted an offer made by a United States Navy assessment team of dredging experts to assist in efforts to remove the ship.

On 27 March, the SCA said that 14 tugboats were trying to take advantage of that day's high tide and that more would arrive the following day if the latest attempt failed. Yukito Higaki, president of Shoei Kisen Kaisha, reported that the ship did not appear to be damaged, saying "The ship is not taking water. Once it refloats, it should be able to operate."  There was no timeline of when the canal might be reopened. However, by 5:00 pm GMT, according to Egypt Today, the ship had moved by 30 meters (100 feet) towards the north. Delays in shipping could persist after Ever Given is freed from its current predicament, as vessels may face busy ports and additional delays before offloading. As of 27 March, more than 300 ships were delayed at both ends and in the middle of the canal, with others still approaching and others having altered their paths.

Addressing a press conference, Osama Rabie, SCA chairman, said that weather conditions were "not the main reasons" for the ship's grounding, adding that "there may have been technical or human errors," and that all factors would be looked into in the investigation on the incident.

On 28 March, efforts to dislodge the ship allowed for some movement of the ship's stern and its rudder at high tide, and SCA chairman Rabie said that water has been running under the ship again, and that "at any time the ship could slide and move from the spot it is in", additionally noting he hoped it would not be necessary to remove some of the 18,300 containers on board the ship, despite strong tides and winds complicating recovery efforts.  This came as the Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, ordered preliminary preparations be made for lightening the ship's cargo.  The seagoing tug Alp Guard, with a bollard pull of 285 tonnes, arrived that morning, almost doubling the towing capacity of the tugs.

The "complete disconnect of ship size development from developments in the actual economy" (OECD report, 2015), and the corresponding limitations of existing infrastructure to handle them – a process evident in the Suez, where expansion work on the northern end of the canal has been ongoing – led to the incident being described by Michael Safi in The Guardian as a "worst-case scenario that many saw coming".  Events during the several days the canal was blocked highlighted the difficulties of saving larger ships, which requires more time and more equipment. If Ever Given had required intervention of floating cranes to remove some containers (assuming crane ships of sufficient capacity would have been available within any realistic time-frame), the process would have required larger equipment working for longer, and would have been likely to prolong the blockage by "days, even weeks".

On 29 March, the stern of Ever Given was refloated at 04.30 local time (02:30 UTC), and the seagoing tug Carlo Magno arrived, giving a further large increase in towing capacity. Ballast was adjusted, and towing timed to make maximum use of the ebbing tidal flow. At 15:05 local time (13:05 UTC) the ship was pulled free, following the king tide of a supermoon.  It took 14 tug boats at high tide to dislodge the 224,000-ton vessel.

Satellite data showed that the ship's bow had been partly moved from the shore, although it remained stuck at the edge of the canal. The ship's stern had swung around and was in the middle of the waterway.  The vessel was finally freed and moving again as of 15:05 local time, and was towed to the Great Bitter Lake for inspection.  The canal authority informed shipping agencies that the canal was to reopen for shipping from 19:00 local time (17:00 UTC), after a search of the bottom and soil of the Suez Canal had found it was sound and had no issues.  By the time traffic through the Suez Canal resumed, more than 400 ships were waiting: approximately 200 in the Red Sea, under 200 in the Mediterranean Sea; and around 50 in the Bitter Lakes.

Global Economic Impact

Maritime and logistics experts warned that the incident will likely result in shipping delays of everyday items for customers around the world.  Maritime historian Sal Mercogliano told the Associated Press: "Every day the canal is closed… container ships and tankers are not delivering food, fuel and manufactured goods to Europe and goods are not being exported from Europe to the Far East."  Lloyd's List estimates the value of the goods delayed each hour at US$ 400 million, and that every day it takes to clear the obstruction will disrupt an additional US$9 billion worth of goods.  Rabie estimated that Egypt loses $12–14 million per day due to the closure.

Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, attributed a rise in oil prices to "people buying in after recent declines in oil prices, with the Suez closing the trigger factor." James Williams, energy economist at WTRG Economics, said that in light of existing stocks "a few days of slowdown in [oil] delivery is not critical to the market."  On the contrary, the oil prices had plummeted after the Suez Canal became unblocked on 29 March 2021, as a result of delayed supply of oil from other cargo ships.

The event had delayed goods, which only impacted industries with existing shortages, such as with semiconductors, thereby influencing markets already at risk of collapsing. To mitigate shortages of goods in the long term, future shipments could be ordered earlier than normal until the difference has been made up.  However, a consultant at another firm noted that even a short-term disruption at the Suez Canal would have a domino effect for several months along the supply chain.  Some freight forwarders noted that demand for alternative means of transportation was expected to rise within the next few weeks on Europe to Asia routes, as a consequence of shippers seeking to avoid the disruption and uncertainty caused by the blockage of the canal.

Concern was raised about livestock transported through the route, with 130,000 sheep being transported to Romania alone; Gabi Paun of Animals International stated "Every hour counts for the sheep and the fatality rate will only grow ... even if the law was respected and the ships were carrying 25% more food ... it would nonetheless have been finished by now". The European Commission has previously discovered many ships used for transporting animals are not fit for that purpose, as well as a lack of oversight on the transport of animals among several member states.  As a response to the concerns surrounding live exports from said incident, Romania had temporarily suspended all live exports.

The default alternative route for maritime traffic between Asia and Europe is to go around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope, a trip which can add up to two weeks to journey time, with this alternative having already been taken by some ships as of 26 March.  Russia has used this incident to promote its Arctic shipping routes as a shorter alternative to carrying goods around Africa.

                              2021 Suez Canal obstruction - Wikipedia