121–130 of 229 posts
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
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 has a higher collision tolerance because their satellite is cheap compared to the expensive weather satellite.
Are we really going to allow private companies to bully public institutions?
>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.
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?
Where would have jurisdiction?
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…
* europe mad at America b/c trade
* europe mad at American companies beating european ones to space and getting more of the limited orbit spots first
* europe mad she wasn't really asked before SpaceX put up satellites
* europe has a principal objection to the idea of private companies playing on the same level as the bureaucrats or an issue with corps occupying space at all
Most likely, it's a combination of all of the above. Regardless, people will start getting awfully catty about this, and it's possible knocking some one else's satellite out of the sky could be a serious issue.
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.
Either possiblity is bad. If the satellite couldn't move, then we are now putting expensive weather satellites at risk because SpaceX has put fixed obstacles into orbit. Furthermore, other organizations have to shoulder fuel costs disproportionately since only they are moving the satellites. SpaceX doesn't have to do anything. SpaceX has a higher collision tolerance because their satellite is cheap compared to the ex…
But on the other hand, should bureaucrats get some sort of celestial "dibs" on certain orbits? In the absence of some other kind of governing body, this is pretty much governed by the law of the jungle. Would you have the same objection if SpaceX had this issue with another company, or are you granting europe some kind of deference because of government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is true of all finite resources, from orbits to spectrum to real estate.
Maybe the United Nations (or future world government) could levy an Earth-orbital value tax to ensure orbits are used efficiently.
The current altitude (~330km) [2] puts it well below the operation envelope and it’s currently the lowest sat of the Starlink constellation at this point.
It appears SpaceX does continue to have some level of control of the craft. [3] Some speculation I’ve read is that the much higher impulse of the ESA thrusters would make the ESA craft a better candidate to execute the maneuver.
These adjustments are not rare - they happen approximately every other week for this particular craft, and as Iridium says, they do this weekly. [4]
A video of the conjecture [5] shows an approach of “less than 10km”. The ESA craft apparently passed much closer to several other craft over the last week, so there may be more to it in this case, or there may be a bone to pick with Starlink.
Lastly, ESA has a particular interest in raising this issue now as much as possible, as these “mega-constellations” launched by US companies are coming closer to reality and the current processes (picking up the phone) don’t scale well to tens of thousands of satellites.
[1] - https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/11446893347775242...
[2] - https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=44278
[3] - https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=...
[4] - https://twitter.com/iridiumboss/status/1168582141128650753?s...
[5] - https://twitter.com/m_r_thomp/status/1168583891726344193?s=2...