A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#2I'm not sure that SpaceX's excuse that it wasn't deliberate really helps their image here. Deliberately ignoring it, for whatever reason, could be fixed with a firm "you really can't do that", backed by lawsuits or complaints to the US government (FCC? Airforce?) etc.
On the other hand, a culture of oversight that fails to adequately test its emergency response procedures seems a more systemic problem.
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#3Original source of information: https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1168917747109191681?s=...
My theory: someone must've turned off their pagerduty and didn't hear the alarm.
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#4I'm not sure that SpaceX's excuse that it wasn't deliberate really helps their image here. Deliberately ignoring it, for whatever reason, could be fixed with a firm "you really can't do that", backed by lawsuits or complaints to the US government (FCC? Airforce?) etc. On the other hand, a culture of oversight that fails to adequately test its emergency response procedures seems a more systemic problem.
You could argue the same underling problem could be concluded from "won't fix" as "cant fix". Equally problematic too.
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#5Just a few months ago SpaceX fanboys were telling us those satellites were no problem, because "space is so large". The problem is, they’re operated by overworked, delusional people.
People are going to die, because hype is more fun than security.
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#6Just a few months ago SpaceX fanboys were telling us those satellites were no problem, because "space is so large". The problem is, they’re operated by overworked, delusional people. People are going to die, because hype is more fun than security.
Yes, but it won't be rich people, and if they're not rich, are they even really people? It makes you think.
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#7Just a few months ago SpaceX fanboys were telling us those satellites were no problem, because "space is so large". The problem is, they’re operated by overworked, delusional people. People are going to die, because hype is more fun than security.
People are going to die from satellite collisions?
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#8I'm not sure that SpaceX's excuse that it wasn't deliberate really helps their image here. Deliberately ignoring it, for whatever reason, could be fixed with a firm "you really can't do that", backed by lawsuits or complaints to the US government (FCC? Airforce?) etc. On the other hand, a culture of oversight that fails to adequately test its emergency response procedures seems a more systemic problem.
The article mentions that at the time they said that, the probability of collision wasn't that high. So, it looks totally OK to say they didn't have plans to move it, then, since it means they didn't believe there really was any risk of collision if they both stayed in their current paths. At that time, ESA's query was probably to ensure they didn't have any plans for maneuvers that would raise the probability.
> “They said at that point in time they had no plans,” says Merz. SpaceX confirmed that it exchanged the initial email with ESA. At that time, the probability of collision was about 1 in 50,000, according to SpaceX, which is too low to require any preventive action.
SpaceX might have even interpreted it as ESA asking because they might have their own plans for maneuvers and they just wanted to make sure that SpaceX's movements stayed predictable.
It doesn't need to be that SpaceX was being negligent here.
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#9Just a few months ago SpaceX fanboys were telling us those satellites were no problem, because "space is so large". The problem is, they’re operated by overworked, delusional people. People are going to die, because hype is more fun than security.
People are going to die from satellite collisions?
Probably because the created debris would be practically impossible to clean up later, and if we ever have consumer space travel, that debris might pose a significant risk.
Re: A bug in SpaceX’s communication system hid ESA's messages
#10I'm not sure that SpaceX's excuse that it wasn't deliberate really helps their image here. Deliberately ignoring it, for whatever reason, could be fixed with a firm "you really can't do that", backed by lawsuits or complaints to the US government (FCC? Airforce?) etc. On the other hand, a culture of oversight that fails to adequately test its emergency response procedures seems a more systemic problem.
The article mentions that at the time they said that, the probability of collision wasn't that high. So, it looks totally OK to say they didn't have plans to move it, then, since it means they didn't believe there really was any risk of collision if they both stayed in their current paths. At that time, ESA's query was probably to ensure they didn't have any plans for maneuvers that would raise the probability. > “Th…
At the time they said that, yes, probability of impact was low. But then the probability got much, much, much higher. 10x the probability at which maneuvers are typically made. And we can't chalk it up to what or how SpaceX might have interpreted it. We know interpretation was not the problem. They freely admit that they never saw further messages because of a bug in their process, so we don't need to imagine their interpretation. The simply never knew the risk was there. Even if we were going to that extent though, clearly such an interpretation doesn't comport itself to how these things are resolved within the community of satellite operators. Which, if SpaceX made a misinterpretation, also shows a negligent disregard for how emergency resolution functions here.
I hope their ubiquitous constellation of broadband-providing satellites works well. I couldn't care less about the negligible impact it might have on visual observations of the sky-- the society enriching effects of cheap ubiquitous networks outweigh it. But they have to get basic things like safety protocols right, not iterating without such things from a minimum viable product.