SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#2The language in this article seems to be making more of this than it is…
For example, “forced to swerve” is very different from “adjust course to avoid collision.”
There are 4,000 starlink satellites with an eventual plan for 12-40k [0] so it seems reasonable to need to maneuver to avoid crashes. Satellites weren’t “forced to swerve” 25,000 times, they just changed their course.
It would be like me describing my morning commute as “swerving 600 times” because I had to adjust around every object in my way during my 14 mile drive.
There’s traffic in space.
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#3The language in this article seems to be making more of this than it is… For example, “forced to swerve” is very different from “adjust course to avoid collision.” There are 4,000 starlink satellites with an eventual plan for 12-40k [0] so it seems reasonable to need to maneuver to avoid crashes. Satellites weren’t “forced to swerve” 25,000 times, they just changed their course. It would be like me describing my morn…
Yes I was going say, the framing seems weird. Isn’t it great the didn’t hit anything? Also that we know this accurately where all the debris is and can avoid this issues is incredible engineering.
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#4The language in this article seems to be making more of this than it is… For example, “forced to swerve” is very different from “adjust course to avoid collision.” There are 4,000 starlink satellites with an eventual plan for 12-40k [0] so it seems reasonable to need to maneuver to avoid crashes. Satellites weren’t “forced to swerve” 25,000 times, they just changed their course. It would be like me describing my morn…
Yes. The count also does not seem to account for the steadily increasing number of Starlink satellites (although that is increasing linearly but avoidance maneuvers are increasing exponentially).
I also wonder at what altitude are most of the maneuvers. Are they during the phase between achieving orbit and boosting to their 550km final orbit altitude, or at the final altitude? I have a vague recollection of reading that the 550km altitude was selected partly due to low traffic, and is SpaceX' traffic itself causing the maneuvers?
Also, the maneuvers are based on orbital data several days in advance. How close are we to the point where multiple satellites maneuver simultaneously, but without accounting for the other satellite's maneuver, and wind up causing a crash?
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#5The language in this article seems to be making more of this than it is… For example, “forced to swerve” is very different from “adjust course to avoid collision.” There are 4,000 starlink satellites with an eventual plan for 12-40k [0] so it seems reasonable to need to maneuver to avoid crashes. Satellites weren’t “forced to swerve” 25,000 times, they just changed their course. It would be like me describing my morn…
If the were no lanes and everyone was just driving in a huge field with no brakes, your analogy would make more sense. When there's only a few cars nobody would have to touch the steering wheel, but as the number of cars increases it gets more complicated, both per car and in aggregate.
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#6More or less a repeat article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36693879
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#7> There is a concern about the conjunctions that are occurring where no maneuvers are being made," said Lewis. "You could argue that the probability [of a collision in these cases] is very low, but given the very large number of them, they represent a quite substantial risk. It's like buying a ticket in a lottery. If you buy just one, you are unlikely to win, but if you buy a million tickets, you stand a pretty good chance."
I didn't see anything in the article that implied what sort of odds we're looking at, nor what the consequences of individual collisions would be. Without anything like that, it's hard to understand why this is a bad or meaningfully risky thing. I understand Kessler syndrome is a problem, but is there really nothing less than that that can cause serious issues? The article doesn't really touch on any specific dangers.
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#8The language in this article seems to be making more of this than it is… For example, “forced to swerve” is very different from “adjust course to avoid collision.” There are 4,000 starlink satellites with an eventual plan for 12-40k [0] so it seems reasonable to need to maneuver to avoid crashes. Satellites weren’t “forced to swerve” 25,000 times, they just changed their course. It would be like me describing my morn…
If the were no lanes and everyone was just driving in a huge field with no brakes, your analogy would make more sense. When there's only a few cars nobody would have to touch the steering wheel, but as the number of cars increases it gets more complicated, both per car and in aggregate.
Satellites do travel in lanes (orbits) and do have brakes (maneuvering thrusters), so the analogy is pretty spot on. Changing your speed (the magnitude of your velocity) to avoid a collision is also a collision avoidance maneuver, functionally equivalent to changing the direction of your velocity.
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#9if they are basing avoidance on the known trajectory of other orbital objects, what happens when those object also manoeuvre?
Re: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers
#10The language in this article seems to be making more of this than it is… For example, “forced to swerve” is very different from “adjust course to avoid collision.” There are 4,000 starlink satellites with an eventual plan for 12-40k [0] so it seems reasonable to need to maneuver to avoid crashes. Satellites weren’t “forced to swerve” 25,000 times, they just changed their course. It would be like me describing my morn…
> There’s traffic in space.
Is there? I mean obviously there are other satellites, but typically the framing has been that space and LEO is so big that it doesn't matter. That even with all the other satellites you typically don't need any sort of course correction except in very rare circumstances.
Isn't the better analogy 'I used to never need to do any swerving at all on my morning commute, but now I need to do it 600 times'?