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

131–140 of 229 posts

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

#131

Post by HarryHirsch »

sdinsn wrote: post #109
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.

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

On one side is a multimillion-dollar weather satellite, on the other side 1536 throwaway satellites, 5 % of which failed during commissioning (the track record of the initial batch gives you an idea what to expect for the future). It's easy to see who will move their asset out of the way and also easy to see who has no business being up there.

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

#132

Post by saagarjha »

rrss wrote: post #29
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 didn’t “refuse” to move the satellite > they ... declined for reasons "Declined" and "refused" are synonyms. SpaceX did refuse to move the satellite.

They are synonyms with different connotations behind them.

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

#133

Post by newnewpdro »

I guess when you have your own launch capabilities you can treat your internet satellites as easily replaced.

Adding more junk up there only serves to create more launches as the inevitable collisions occur. It arguably makes good business sense for SpaceX to add as much as possible and be quite fast and loose with their management of it, at least as long as it's the wild west up there.

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

#134

Post by jacquesm »

Invictus0 wrote: post #92
dahdum wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There's no need for regulation until bad actors show up. What a ridiculous statement. I suppose you'd also suggest no need for traffic laws until there's a 50 car pileup?

Historically, that is exactly how we arrived at traffic laws.

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

#135

Post by javagram »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #120
dahdum wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A collision would result in 1000s of pieces of debris that would affect everyone’s satellites. Repeated collision would make these orbits unusable until gravity and atmospheric drag naturally deorbit the fragments.

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

#136

Post by pmyteh »

DreamSpinner wrote: post #102

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 en…

You're liable for damage to the other party if you're at fault for a maritime collision, so there's at least some countervailing economic pressure against taking the risk. Your insurers will not be happy with you if you negligently sink someone else's oil tanker.

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

#137

Post by jacquesm »

mises wrote: post #128
marmada wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Are we really going to allow private companies to bully public institutions? 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…

> But on the other hand, should bureaucrats get some sort of celestial "dibs" on certain orbits?

Yes.

> In the absence of some other kind of governing body, this is pretty much governed by the law of the jungle.

No, we have space treaties.

> 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?

Obviously, that is not in question, it just happens to be ESA this time, it could be NASA then next, or the ISS. Stuff that was already there was not put there with the likes of SpaceX in mind and therefore it is up to the newcomer to accommodate the incumbents. Satellite reaction mass is a severely limited resource.

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

#138

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #115
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm just explaining some additional datapoints might cast SpaceX's actions in a less sinister light.

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

#139

Post by javagram »

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

The article explains the ESA is raising this issue because there is no such mechanism to perform “every 5 minutes” avoidance maneuvers right now.

The current process is manual and slow. 22,000 satellites in that orbit mean that picking up the telephone to call each other to say “hey are you going to move your satellite to avoid X possible collision on Y date?” isn’t going to scale, so they’re saying that a better system needs to be put in place.

We’ve seen just recently with multiple US Navy collisions causing loss of life that using “common sense” to avoid collisions instead of being prepared and planning doesn’t always work out well..

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

#140

Post by frankharv »

DreamSpinner wrote: post #102

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 en…

I agree with this. Rules of the seas are not laws but more like a code for mariners to follow. Too bad we see such ignorance in space. Think of the ESA bird as a "boat in anchor". Lit up with the proper anchorage lights. Now some jackass with a jetski is blasting right twords you.
Post reply on HN