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

161–170 of 229 posts

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

#161

Post by a3n »

tempay wrote: post #40
rrss wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

> Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing.

It does beg the question whether you should be there at all.

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

#162

Post by a3n »

Rapzid wrote: post #103
sanguy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> with their Kia.

With their electrically propelled Tesla.

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

#163

Post by dahdum »

manicdee wrote: post #145
zaroth wrote: post #130

NORAD 44278 is a Starlink satellite presently being de-orbited by SpaceX in a controlled fashion to simulate end-of-life disposal. [1] 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…

The “more to it” is that ESA is gearing up to request funding for their AI project, billed as an automated tracking and avoidance manoeuvre planning system capable of handling the vast numbers of objects and debris expected to be in orbit in the near future. This was not about “SpaceX refused to move” but “we need money to build this automated system so we don’t have to do it all by hand,” and an additional level whi…

> The last thing this is about is SpaceX being “arrogant” or “refusing to move a satellite.”

SpaceX entering ESA’s orbit and arrogantly refusing to move is an excellent showcase of the need for better avoidance systems, especially since they plan to launch 12k of them.

It’s also an excellent warning of SpaceX’s ethical framework.

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

#164

Post by dahdum »

manicdee wrote: post #147
lukeschlather wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ESA asked SpaceX to move to avoid a collision, and they refused. What would happen if a private airline refused the FAA telling them to redirect to avoid a collision, forcing another aircraft to take evasive action? It definitely is political, and it's going to become a bigger problem if SpaceX's approach to potential collisions is just to play chicken.

The bigger issue is that ESA is coming up to an important administrative date in November where their future budget will be determined, and they want money for their automation program. So they have to portray space as dangerous, ESA processes as desperately in need of improvement, and this specific example of a super expensive research satellite coming close to part of a future megaconstellation makes for great atte…

SpaceX playing chicken with cheap disposable Starlinks against multibillion euro public satellites does make space dangerous.

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

#165

Post by dahdum »

throw0101a wrote: post #97
mikeash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ESA isnt a governing authority here. The proper analogy would be two planes in uncontrolled airspace on course to come uncomfortably close. One asks the other to change course, and the other refuses. No FAA involved. This sort of thing actually happens with some regularity. Airliners and other fancy planes carry TCAS systems which can detect other planes and tell the pilot to maneuver to avoid a collision. If the…

> The ESA isnt a governing authority here. You're not wrong, but annoying the folks that may be involved in regulatory approval for your venture to get commercially licensed is not prudent.

It’s Musk, playing stupid games for stupid prizes seems to be his favorite hobby.

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

#166

Post by adventured »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #157
manicdee wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Space isn't the place to push technical boundaries

Fortunately space, for over half a century, has routinely been the place to push all manner of technical boundaries.

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

#167

Post by greglindahl »

safsafasf wrote: post #153
oh_sigh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Trajectories have measurement errors.

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

#168

Post by adventured »

a3n wrote: post #161
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.

> Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing. It does beg the question whether you should be there at all.

It doesn't beg that question at all.

By that premise every space organization should shut down. Nothing should ever go up again. What if something went wrong? What if every mission wasn't perfect? What if someone lost control of a satellite or space station (eg Tiangong-1)? What if people died? (NASA, Soviet Space Program)

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

#169

Post by greglindahl »

a3n wrote: post #161
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.

> Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing. It does beg the question whether you should be there at all.

Every deorbiting satellite passes through lower orbits. Many of them passively.

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

#170

Post by greglindahl »

marmada wrote: post #122
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.

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…

There are a lot of dead satellites passing through that altitude on their way to a fiery death.
Post reply on HN