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

111–120 of 229 posts

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

#111

Post by FireBeyond »

avocado4 wrote: post #43
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

> In 2018, ESA performed 28 #collisionavoidance manoeuvres across its fleet.

... typically of dead satellites or debris that is unable to move itself.

ESA had a weather satellite in orbit, SpaceX actively moved an active satellite _into_ the same orbit as ESA's satellite (to practice maneuvers) and then said "no, we won't move it back out the way".

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

#112

Post by sdinsn »

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?

I mean, technically that's AI.

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

#113

Post by Rapzid »

_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.

We don't know the extent of the communication from this article.

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

#114

Post by lightedman »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #22
jazzyjackson wrote: post #4

How 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!

It seriously needed a good 4 or 5 year run.

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

#115

Post by heavenlyblue »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #81
pergadad wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)"

SpaceX might not bother giving comment to random bloggers. Especially on Labor day and regarding what they probably regard as a non-incident. There are probably a lot of such individuals asking for comment on any of thousands of different subjects.

You are blaming someone for speculating by speculating about it yourself.

SpaceX is a company with enough money from grants and a grandiose mission “to save the planet” and they can’t afford a PR release at the right time of the week?

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

#116

Post by FireBeyond »

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.

If 1, they should be absolutely liable for any damages, considering they actively moved INTO the orbit of the ESA weather satellite in the first place (for their own "testing").

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

#117

Post by FireBeyond »

Rapzid wrote: post #98
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.

I think a major topic missed is this 1 in 1000. I think the only chance involved in this, practically speaking, is that the ESAs data about the orbits had enough error in it to not be sure there would be no collision. This is a lot different than rolling dice or betting on black. Likely there was or was not going to be a collision; run it 1 million times and the results would always be the same. Perhaps Space-X had m…

And yet ESA's risk model said "Move the satellite if the odds are less than 1:10,000". Easy enough for you to say when it isn't your $2.3B satellite, I suppose.

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

#118

Post by FireBeyond »

ricardobeat wrote: post #39
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.

In addition: > the satellites, each weighing 227 kilograms, are “capable of tracking on-orbit debris and autonomously avoiding collision.” But for this incident, this system does not seem to have been used for some reason "does not seem to have been used" - if SpaceX made no statement we can't really tell? Maybe they were confident that their collision avoidance would simply work.

They were testing their "deorbiting maneuvers". Probably got annoyed that they'd have to restart testing.

> Maybe they were confident that their collision avoidance would simply work.

Just like Tesla's? If your satellite is worth $100K and the other one is worth $2.3B, perhaps you have a little less to lose.

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

#120

Post by dzhiurgis »

dahdum wrote: post #62
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

SpaceX is planning to put 12,000 more satellites up, so their refusal to move to avoid a possible collision they caused is notable. They've also refused to comment, and Musk's reputation doesn't engender faith in their reasons.

Perhaps not a bad plan if you want to destroy everyone elses but USA’s sats
Post reply on HN