Everytime I see these kind of events I think about Kurzgesagt video [1] about how the domino effect of satellite collisions would release such a high amount space debris that would trap us all on earth forever.
SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
21–30 of 229 posts
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#22How is it the case that StarLink didn't realize they were launching into orbits that would intersect with others? I find it foreboding that the number of intersections with space debris and live constellations is to the point where ESA is moving towards non-deterministic algorithms to hopefully avoid the worst. How will Musk ever leave this planet if we make a shell of debris around ourselves? See also: the anime "pl…
I love"planetes", almost noone has heard of it!
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#23Of course, inside the article it’s explained that SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite, they were politely asked to do so and declined for reasons the author is unaware of. Possibly because they couldn’t move the satellite or had a higher collision tolerance.
The thing is that satellites are planned with a lifespan which can include a fixed amount of fuel for adjustments like this. It's not too hard to attach a dollar amount here.
I'm as big a fan of SpaceX as you'll find but considering they were the one entering an orbit they didn't previously occupy it seems like a pretty lame move on SpaceX's part.
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#24It's like when there's a crappy car refusing to give the right a way to a luxury car. The crappy car owner has little to lose compared to the luxury car owner.
Constellation owners (SpaceX here) knows that owners of big satellite will dodge them. Big satellite will have to carry more fuel, which incidentally is good news for the business of satellite launchers (SpaceX again).
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#25Why would they refuse to move the satellite? It's not like only the European satellite would be affected by a collision, both are in danger, so either they couldn't or they didn't think it was likely.
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#26Of course, inside the article it’s explained that SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite, they were politely asked to do so and declined for reasons the author is unaware of. Possibly because they couldn’t move the satellite or had a higher collision tolerance.
The thing is that satellites are planned with a lifespan which can include a fixed amount of fuel for adjustments like this. It's not too hard to attach a dollar amount here. I'm as big a fan of SpaceX as you'll find but considering they were the one entering an orbit they didn't previously occupy it seems like a pretty lame move on SpaceX's part.
I bet their actions would have been different if they'd known this article would be published.
It puts them in a bad light, and that could impact their ability to get necessary licenses to operate.
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#27Of course, inside the article it’s explained that SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite, they were politely asked to do so and declined for reasons the author is unaware of. Possibly because they couldn’t move the satellite or had a higher collision tolerance.
The thing is that satellites are planned with a lifespan which can include a fixed amount of fuel for adjustments like this. It's not too hard to attach a dollar amount here. I'm as big a fan of SpaceX as you'll find but considering they were the one entering an orbit they didn't previously occupy it seems like a pretty lame move on SpaceX's part.
I suppose that's going to be a question in the coming years - does someone get the right of way to a given orbit just because they were there first?
Sounds like a fantastic barrier to entry for newcomers who don't have billions lining their pockets.
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#28Of course, inside the article it’s explained that SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite, they were politely asked to do so and declined for reasons the author is unaware of. Possibly because they couldn’t move the satellite or had a higher collision tolerance.
> they were politely asked to do so and declined for reasons the author is unaware of.
So, they refused. That's what that word means.
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#29Of course, inside the article it’s explained that SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite, they were politely asked to do so and declined for reasons the author is unaware of. Possibly because they couldn’t move the satellite or had a higher collision tolerance.
> SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite
> they ... declined for reasons
"Declined" and "refused" are synonyms. SpaceX did refuse to move the satellite.
Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite
#30I presume there are liability rules if your satellite hits another one. What about if your satellite makes another one waste fuel on a diversion?