Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#71

Post by pergadad »

mLuby wrote: post #37

>ESA noted that it performed 28 collision avoidance maneuvers in 2018, but it was mostly to avoid dead satellites or bits of space debris. Maneuvers to avoid active satellites were “very rare”, they said, but the arrival of mega constellations like Starlink raises concerns that many more such maneuvers will be needed in future. >“What I want is an organized way of doing space traffic. It must be clear when you have s…

One is a throwaway satellite of a huge constellation - the other a unique billion euro research satellite. Easy to see who will give in first to protect their assets, but plainly it is equally easy to see who should move first.

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#72

Post by phkahler »

grecy wrote: post #27
vvanders wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is true of all finite resources, from orbits to spectrum to real estate.

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#73

Post by dtkav »

debatem1 wrote: post #56
SiempreViernes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so by which physical method do they have better telemetry?

Definitely GPS, probably star trackers too. Not a good idea to have a single point of failure on position knowledge when your whole scheme depends on putting small beams in the right places.

star trackers are not used for orbit determination (position). They are used to determine the attitude (orientation).

GPS works extremely well in low earth orbit.

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#74

Post by mcguire »

BurningFrog wrote: post #68
sgift wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not if they declined because (1) it was impossible for them to do it or (2) they explained it wasn't needed.

"...they explained it wasn't needed."

Well, somebody seems to have needed to maneuver.

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#75

Post by dahdum »

avocado4 wrote: post #67
areoform wrote: post #32

Being a lover of Space and SpaceX, this incident highlights why a goldilocks paradigm for regulation needs to exist for space. Not too much that it stifles innovation. Not too little that someone ends up Kesslerizing Near-Earth space. Current regulations are largely successful at promoting commercial space flight, but there is a big transparency gap between civilian space flight agencies and private entities. Transpa…

> Either way, it exposes a flaw in SpaceX’s design What is this statement based on? You are saying yourself that there's no information available to the public about this due to lack of transparency, yet in the next sentence you are making a bold statement about design flaws. To me it sounds like there should be clear regulation about right of way in space. I haven't seen any information pertaining to SpaceX design s…

> To me it sounds like there should be clear regulation about right of way in space

Common courtesy worldwide would be for the person causing the risk to move aside first. Worse still it was a private company working on a for-profit product forcing a public weather satellite to divert.

There's no need for regulation until bad actors show up.

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#77

Post by pergadad »

aperrien wrote: post #54
saagarjha wrote: post #20

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.

> and declined for reasons the author is unaware of. 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.

The reason the author is unaware of the reason is because SpaceX refused to give a reason. Impotence? Incompetence? Malice? Different risk calculation? Game of chicken? Either way if they throw thousands of satellites into space they can't just say "sorry, tragedy of the commons, everyone else should shoulder the risk we created (& the costs to avoid risk)"

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#78

Post by pergadad »

saagarjha wrote: post #20

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.

SpaceX refused to give a reason. So you can guess: Impotence? Incompetence? Malice? Different risk calculation? Game of chicken?

Either way, if they throw thousands of satellites into space they can't just say "sorry, tragedy of the commons, everyone else should shoulder the risk we created (& the costs to avoid risk)".

Will SpaceX wilfully endanger other satellites (most of which are of higher cost & societal value than an individual SpaceX constellation satellite)? If so, maybe NASA should stop allowing their launches until they offer a better answer.

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#79

Post by oh_sigh »

syx wrote: post #21

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

Starlink satellites are only approximately 350 miles up, which means any debris gets brought down by atmospheric drag very quickly. A million satellites in that orbit could not cause kessler syndrome.

Re: SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite

#80

Post by debatem1 »

mLuby wrote: post #46
londons_explore wrote: post #31

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.

That's fine, but then share that data and there'd be no need to waste delta-v for either satellite. Also these aren't military assets, their specs and locations aren't secret, so if they have better tracking, they should be sharing that.

My suspicion is that SpaceX and the ESA disagreed either on:

1/ the position of the SpaceX vehicle (ESA may not trust the SpaceX position data)

2/ that they disagreed on the probability of a collision (ESA thinks it's 5%, SpaceX thinks it's 0.005%) or

3/ they disagreed on whether the probability of a collision was worth moving for (eg, ESA thinks you should move for a one-in-a-million shot, SpaceX disagrees).

I recall someone saying that SpaceX did share ephemeris, but I can't find a reference. Maybe I dreamed it.

Post reply on HN