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

151–160 of 229 posts

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

#151

Post by elkos »

dahdum wrote: post #146
manicdee wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you describe what action SpaceX should have taken to prevent their inert space debris from potentially colliding with someone else’s active satellite?

Have they stated anywhere they lost control of their satellite, that it was inert? It was under power and reportedly performing a test maneuver. If they didn’t have control over it they could have easily stated as such to ESA and avoided any bad PR at all, or even just in response to this story.

That wasn't inert on the contrary. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=...

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

#152

Post by manicdee »

ixf wrote: post #59
tempay wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refuse does imply a certain level of impoliteness or malice. The article only states that spaceX said they wouldn’t be taking any action and later states > Krag suspected it could be something to do with SpaceX’s electric propulsion system, which “maybe is not reacting so fast” as the chemical propulsion on board Aeolus. Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing.

"unable to avoid existing satellites in orbit being entered into" is, in my book, worse than "we just cba"

You need to update your book to reflect the reality of deorbiting a dead satellite.

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

#153

Post by safsafasf »

oh_sigh wrote: post #123
pergadad wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What happens if the two groups disagree on the odds of impact? Because one has either more precise or just different telemetry than the other?

There's not much to disagree on the odds. Trajectories are known, uncertainties too and therefore probabilities of collisions can be calculated.

Any disagreement here is easy to reconcile, whose assumptions and methods are more accurate?

The disagreement is on the importance of the odds. SpaceX might be OK with a 1:10000 (or whatever) chance of collision, the Europeans want it lower.

The Europeans could in the future force the issue. Move, or we'll fine you and forbid you from launching off of European sites and ban EU companies from using SpaceX.

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

#154

Post by [deleted] »

optimiz3 wrote: post #83
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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by ClumsyPilot »

cdash wrote: post #84
mcguire wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" ...they explained it wasn't needed. " Well, somebody seems to have needed to maneuver.

So? They have that right, what they don't have a right is to demand someone else take action. Just because one party believes something to be necessary does not actually make it so.

So they endanger billion dollar satellites and the space station, and not care cause their stuff is cheap?

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

#156

Post by manicdee »

vvanders wrote: post #23
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 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.

Everyone intentionally placing their satellites in VLEO is going to be spending more fuel simply staying in orbit against atmospheric drag than they they will spend on avoidance manoeuvres.

This ESA satellite is in VLEO by design, which means every piece of space junk is going to present a threat to it.

Once ESA has secured funding for their navigation automation project (funding to be decided in November), we should hear nothing more about potential collisions with the endless rain of space junk from megaconstellations.

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

#157

Post by HarryHirsch »

manicdee wrote: post #148
HarryHirsch wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

The track record of experimental designs deliberately intended to push the boundaries of reliability really does not give us any idea of what to expect for the future.

Spacecraft engineering is inherently conservative because of reliability concerns, you can't take a tow truck and mechanic in orbit to fix things when it turns out that you didn't understand the latest technology quite as well as you thought.

Space isn't the place to push technical boundaries, also because of orbital littering.

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

#158

Post by ClumsyPilot »

oh_sigh wrote: post #79
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.

That's not quite accurate. Firstly,the debris will destroy everything in LEO, maybe including ISS, then debit in a few months.

Secondly, some of the debris will probably end up in higher orbit and stay there for a long time, just like was the case with India and China ASAT tests. Then they can pose a risk for centuries

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

#160

Post by ClumsyPilot »

orbital-decay wrote: post #55
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?

- most popular orbits are also most crowded and dangerous ones, there's only so much you can do to reduce the probability of collision - there are also uncontrolled debris, non-tracked objects, military satellites with unpublished orbits etc - just like with automating road vehicle traffic, it would require very high degree of centralization, which is never going to happen due to various reasons - the propellant is l…

"It would require centralization" Did someone say blockchain?! Orbital smart contracts!
Post reply on HN