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

221–229 of 229 posts

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

#221

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #201
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yet you are still speculating.

Ok? I never said it was wrong to speculate. That's all anyone in this thread is doing, and of course that is fine. As it happened, the real story was just that the message never got to the human Starlink operator. SpaceX didn't refuse, decline, whatever, they just didn't see the email. Just goes to show you that our assumptions about these types of things can be wrong.

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

#222

Post by dwaltrip »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #198
javagram wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

afaik thats not really long time

A lot of space debris doesn't have very much drag (imagine a small round chunk of metal) and can taken tens of years or longer to de-orbit.

So this approach won't work.

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

#223

Post by mlindner »

utopian3 wrote: post #218
mlindner wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satellites don't "move" into each other's way. Orbits naturally end up that way. There's no one "causing the risk" in the first place. SpaceX could have just as easily asked the ESA to move their satellite as it was getting in the way of their satellite.

You conveniently avoid the fact that SpaceX inserted itself into a collision course with the ESA’s orbit, long after ESA had been there. Being that ESA has a “right of way” they asked SpaceX to take the action

ESA's orbit is itself constantly changing. Orbits are not fixed. They move constantly from orbital perturbation from Earth's gravity field, the moon's gravity field and, notably at these low altitudes, atmospheric drag. Again, who moved into who's path is not something you're going to determine. Yes SpaceX was lowering its orbit, but it's crossing hundreds of satellites paths by doing that, and even the orbit SpaceX satellites are in are shared by many other satellites. LEO is crowded.

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

#224

Post by manicdee »

dahdum wrote: post #185
manicdee wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will note that the official ESA comments on the matter are that “nobody did anything wrong,” and (to paraphrase) “we need better technology to remove humans, email and phone calls from the loop”. For all you know, SpaceX did state to the ESA that their satellite was incapable of performing the required course adjustment. Something along the lines of “our satellite is incapable of adjusting its orbit to accomodate…

> As for the author publishing the story before receiving a response from SpaceX, that’s on the author not SpaceX. It’s on SpaceX, journalists can’t let companies kill their stories through silence. The story quotes Holger Krag as saying SpaceX replied “they do not plan to take action”. Quite different than “incapable”.

And yet SpaceX did reply to Loren Grush, who has published a story about this ESA announcement, but it’s quite a different story because she wasn’t setting out to smear SpaceX.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/3/20847243/spacex-starlink-s...

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

#225

Post by Doxin »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #191
manicdee wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is playing chicken here. The SpaceX satellite is for all intents and purposes inert, since it is incapable of significantly adjusting its orbit. You know the old joke about the US Navy warship giving way to the second class seaman, right?

>The SpaceX satellite is for all intents and purposes inert, since it is incapable of significantly adjusting its orbit. If SpaceX is actively deorbiting the satellite, it's not inert.

Having enough thrust for a deorbit burn doesn't mean having enough thrust to avoid a collision.

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

#226

Post by marmada »

mises wrote: post #204
jacquesm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Yes. 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?

Yes because things like European weathers satellites serve the public interesting and vital infrastructure needs (GPS, for example). Those have higher priority over a private corporation's satellites.

> If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move?

Did you read my first comment? I said that of course SpaceX would have a lower collision tolerance because there satellite is much cheaper/less investment of resources compared to the EU satellite.

Even if SpaceX's satellite was also expensive and SpaceX still had good data, we should prioritize the needs of public institutions that are launching satellites that serve the world over private corporations.

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

#227

Post by [deleted] »

marmada wrote: post #226
mises wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes. 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?

Yes because things like European weathers satellites serve the public interesting and vital infrastructure needs (GPS, for example). Those have higher priority over a private corporation's satellites. > If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move? Did you read my first comment? I said that of course SpaceX would have a lower collision tolerance because there satellite is much…

[deleted]

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

#228

Post by mises »

marmada wrote: post #226
mises wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes. 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?

Yes because things like European weathers satellites serve the public interesting and vital infrastructure needs (GPS, for example). Those have higher priority over a private corporation's satellites. > If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move? Did you read my first comment? I said that of course SpaceX would have a lower collision tolerance because there satellite is much…

> serve the public interesting

Define public interest. People pay through this through taxes; not really different than paying for spacex whatever via $$.

> less investment

So if SpaceX can do it better, maybe get the bureaucrats and the three-letter alphabet-soup agencies out of the sky, already.

> prioritize the needs of the public institutions

Public institutions have needs and wants. Why is this a need and not a want? This wasn't a military satellite. Why are bureaucrats more important? They accomplish little of significance or merit.

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

#229

Post by safsafasf »

greglindahl wrote: post #167
safsafasf wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. we wouldn't need safety margins without errors.
Post reply on HN