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

101–110 of 229 posts

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

#101

Post by Rapzid »

mabbo wrote: post #33

The ESA is sure making a huge deal out of this. I wonder if politics is involved. https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1168582141128650753 > Hmmm. We move our satellites on average once a week and don't put out a press release to say who we maneuvered around... -Matt Desch, CEO of Iridium

It reads almost like the Musk hit pieces typically delivered under the cover of op-eds..

"Blue, we are uncomfortable with the possibility of collision on our current courses, requesting you adjust course 5 degrees starboard."

"Nah Red, looking all good here."

"Okay, we will move." - Every 5 minutes on the water probably

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

#102

Post by DreamSpinner »

What's interesting is that there's already a similar internationally agreed framework for how to approach this - shipping - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_... - These would probably be a good place to start considering a framework for satellite orbit adjustments. However, despite this framework, it still happens - and I can see the issue of risk evaluation being a big one - what if one entity thinks a 1/1000 risk is acceptable for their cheap satellite vs the other satellite wanting 1/1000000?

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

#103

Post by Rapzid »

sanguy wrote: post #89
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.

The issue is constellations like StarLink are setup to tolerate some % of failures and still function. They launch in bulk as part of the overall plan. So this brings up the question - if the value of your satellite is lower do you burn up precious fuel to manueveur around potential collisions? Or do you play space chicken and let the others maneuver around you?

Maybe their insurance covers them hitting a satellite Ferrari with their Kia.

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

#104

Post by _visgean »

Rapzid wrote: post #101
mabbo wrote: post #33

The ESA is sure making a huge deal out of this. I wonder if politics is involved. https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1168582141128650753 > Hmmm. We move our satellites on average once a week and don't put out a press release to say who we maneuvered around... -Matt Desch, CEO of Iridium

It reads almost like the Musk hit pieces typically delivered under the cover of op-eds.. "Blue, we are uncomfortable with the possibility of collision on our current courses, requesting you adjust course 5 degrees starboard." "Nah Red, looking all good here." "Okay, we will move." - Every 5 minutes on the water probably

> "Nah Red, looking all good here."

more like "nah." spacex did not inform ESA that the risk is lower or anything like that.

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

#105

Post by dmix »

> ESA is preparing to automate this process using #AI

Sounds like something SpaceX and other constellation satellite companies should do as part of these widescale deployment. Or at least lower the threshold of moving out of the way so they don't get tons of push back from existing space power players who’ve got more influence than they do.

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

#106

Post by orbital-decay »

Paul-ish wrote: post #69
konschubert wrote: post #9

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?

Reading the Wikipedia page for a 2009 satelite collision[1]: > Calculations made by CelesTrak had expected these two satellites to miss by 584 meters (1,916 ft) Perhaps the calculations aren't straightforward Newtonian mechanics? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

Predictions based on TLEs aren't precise enough for satellite collisions. TLE is a solution compiled from many measurements, and what one wants for very close passes are raw measurements. It's a bit like JPEG vs RAW in photography.

Regarding that particular collision, IIRC human factor was involved a lot. Iridium has been warned well in advance, but hesitated to make the decision since their models gave lower probabilities.

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

#108

Post by optimiz3 »

dahdum wrote: post #88
optimiz3 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we then saying there's an equivalent of domain squatting in space? Cause I could see all types of problems showing up if we call that common courtesy.

Domain squatting is on unused domains while this was an active public weather satellite already on an established orbit. Not at all comparable.

I don't follow - domain squatting takes a domain and makes it unusable for others, orbit squatting would take an unused orbit and make it unusable for others.

The fundamental question is whether you have the right to the exclusive use of an orbital path just because you were there first. This is unresolved but I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

Assigning value (public/private, research/commercial, etc.) to each parties use just muddies the waters. There needs to be an established resolution process and AFAIK there isn't one.

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

#109

Post by sdinsn »

mabbo wrote: post #33

The ESA is sure making a huge deal out of this. I wonder if politics is involved. https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1168582141128650753 > Hmmm. We move our satellites on average once a week and don't put out a press release to say who we maneuvered around... -Matt Desch, CEO of Iridium

> ESA noted that it performed 28 collision avoidance maneuvers in 2018, but it was mostly to avoid dead satellites or bits of space debris.

The reason why it's a big deal is that SpaceX is planning on putting up a LOT more.

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

#110

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

_visgean wrote: post #104
Rapzid wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reads almost like the Musk hit pieces typically delivered under the cover of op-eds.. "Blue, we are uncomfortable with the possibility of collision on our current courses, requesting you adjust course 5 degrees starboard." "Nah Red, looking all good here." "Okay, we will move." - Every 5 minutes on the water probably

> "Nah Red, looking all good here." more like "nah." spacex did not inform ESA that the risk is lower or anything like that.

I don't see where it positively states that SpaceX provided no reasoning. In my reading of the article, Krag did not speak directly with SpaceX. SpaceX were alerted to the possibility of collision by the U.S. military, and nobody who was party to that conversation is quoted in the article. All we know for sure is that SpaceX did not proactively reach out to the Space Debris Office at the ESA about this issue, at least as of the time the interview with Krag occurred (which would not have been more than a few hours after the incident to get this blog post written and published by 4PM ET given the incident occurred at 7AM ET).
Post reply on HN