201–210 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
>Normal part of flying satellites (or should be). Does BA announce every time one of its airplanes steers around a Ryanair aircraft?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
afaik thats not really long time
"Not a very long time" is pretty vague. Also, even if the impact is limited in term of long lasting debris, losing several satellites, and as a consequence losing the services they provide plus having to replace them is definitely a large impact which will last years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 i…
Why?
> space treaties
Which cover some public entities and no private ones.
> there first
But SpaceX was in a different orbit, and felt fine. If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move?
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
He also continues >Normal part of flying satellites (or should be). Does BA announce every time one of its airplanes steers around a Ryanair aircraft?
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?
safe? let Musk put his money where his mouth is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That wasn't inert on the contrary. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=...
I apologise for using the word inert when the satellite was merely incapable of manoeuvring as required in the timeframe allowed.
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
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.
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.