51–60 of 229 posts
The US military tracking isn't very accurate. Errors of hundreds of meters are common. I bet spacex themselves know the location of their satellites to within a few meters. With more accurate data, you can come up with a far more accurate collision risk estimate.
Ok, so by which physical method do they have better telemetry?
Controlling the target makes some problems a lot easier.
I presume there are liability rules if your satellite hits another one. What about if your satellite makes another one waste fuel on a diversion?
Would ESA satellite hit Space X or the other way around? How do they determine it?
The US military tracking isn't very accurate. Errors of hundreds of meters are common. I bet spacex themselves know the location of their satellites to within a few meters. With more accurate data, you can come up with a far more accurate collision risk estimate.
Ok, so by which physical method do they have better telemetry?
Of 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.
This is such an incomplete report, it reminds me of the old adage "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can put it's pants on."
A proper, less sensational reporter would have waited until they knew why they declined to move the satellite before writing the piece.
I wonder if AI is really the right tool to automate the process. Couldn’t it be done more robustly with a simple algorithm that takes todays collision probability models as input?
- there are also uncontrolled debris, non-tracked objects, military satellites with unpublished orbits etc
- just like with automating road vehicle traffic, it would require very high degree of centralization, which is never going to happen due to various reasons
- the propellant is limited so you also want to reduce the amount of avoidance maneuvers to a minimum
So no, statistical models (which you probably mean by AI) won't improve the situation much. What matters is:
- increasing the orbit determination accuracy and coverage with better instruments and commercial tracking networks; NORAD TLEs alone are not precise enough for reliable collision prediction
- better space weather prediction
- improving the coordination between the operators
- deployable decelerators for dead satellites in lower orbits, also possibly debris removal if the problem becomes really serious
i.e. stuff most operators already do, except for the debris removal
The US military tracking isn't very accurate. Errors of hundreds of meters are common. I bet spacex themselves know the location of their satellites to within a few meters. With more accurate data, you can come up with a far more accurate collision risk estimate.
Ok, so by which physical method do they have better telemetry?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite > they ... declined for reasons "Declined" and "refused" are synonyms. SpaceX did refuse to move the satellite.
Refuse does imply a certain level of impoliteness or malice. The article only states that spaceX said they wouldn’t be taking any action and later states > Krag suspected it could be something to do with SpaceX’s electric propulsion system, which “maybe is not reacting so fast” as the chemical propulsion on board Aeolus. Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing.
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. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite > they ... declined for reasons "Declined" and "refused" are synonyms. SpaceX did refuse to move the satellite.
Refuse does imply a certain level of impoliteness or malice. The article only states that spaceX said they wouldn’t be taking any action and later states > Krag suspected it could be something to do with SpaceX’s electric propulsion system, which “maybe is not reacting so fast” as the chemical propulsion on board Aeolus. Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so by which physical method do they have better telemetry?
Active transponders on the satellite itself. GPS fixes. Other observations from the satellite. Controlling the target makes some problems a lot easier.
Do they have really good star trackers on their sats?
[1]: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/563/in-leo-what-is...