4 ms·

I wonder if AI is really the right tool to automate the process. Couldn’t it be done more robustly with a simple algorithm that takes todays collision probabili

I wonder if AI is really the right tool to automate the process. Couldn’t it be done more robustly with a simple algorithm that takes todays collision probability models as input?

carlosdp 7y ago
I imagine we might be missing some details, but I agree. Seems like business logic would be sufficient if the collision prediction can be piped in.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pergadad 7y ago
How much thrust? How high should it go? And on what information? Data sources will become more complex, risks need to be weighed. I'm not sure 'AI' is the right answer as most (all?) of AI is probably today just ML or more often simple BS - but certainly what ESA & co need won't be a simple one-variable algorithm. I'm actually wondering if there's not a need to communicate more between all the bodies having satellites in space - just like autonomous cars, if both make an evasive maneuver they might cancel each other out. So there needs to be some kind of communication to avoid this.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "just like autonomous cars, if both make an evasive maneuver they might cancel each other out" I think that's a phenomenon much older than autonomous car theory. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hallway%20dance https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hallway%20da...
orbital-decay 7y ago
- most popular orbits are also most crowded and dangerous ones, there's only so much you can do to reduce the probability of collision - there are also uncontrolled debris, non-tracked objects, military satellites with unpublished orbits etc - just like with automating road vehicle traffic, it would require very high degree of centralization, which is never going to happen due to various reasons - the propellant is limited so you also want to reduce the amount of avoidance maneuvers to a minimum So no, statistical models (which you probably mean by AI) won't improve the situation much. What matters is: - increasing the orbit determination accuracy and coverage with better instruments and commercial tracking networks; NORAD TLEs alone are not precise enough for reliable collision prediction - better space weather prediction - improving the coordination between the operators - deployable decelerators for dead satellites in lower orbits, also possibly debris removal if the problem becomes really serious i.e. stuff most operators already do, except for the debris removal
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  "It would require centralization" Did someone say blockchain?! Orbital smart contracts!
Paul-ish 7y ago
Reading the Wikipedia page for a 2009 satelite collision[1]: > Calculations made by CelesTrak had expected these two satellites to miss by 584 meters (1,916 ft) Perhaps the calculations aren't straightforward Newtonian mechanics? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision
- konschubert 7y ago
  You’re misunderstanding my comment. I wasn’t suggesting to not use AI algorithm for computing the collision probabilities. For this, they will obv use whatever tools they already have. The whole discussion is around how to react automatically to a likely collision.
- orbital-decay 7y ago
  Predictions based on TLEs aren't precise enough for satellite collisions. TLE is a solution compiled from many measurements, and what one wants for very close passes are raw measurements. It's a bit like JPEG vs RAW in photography. Regarding that particular collision, IIRC human factor was involved a lot. Iridium has been warned well in advance, but hesitated to make the decision since their models gave lower probabilities.
sdinsn 7y ago
I mean, technically that's AI.

I wonder if AI is really the right tool to automate the process. Couldn’t it be done more robustly with a simple algorithm that takes todays collision probability models as input?

carlosdp 7y ago

I imagine we might be missing some details, but I agree. Seems like business logic would be sufficient if the collision prediction can be piped in.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pergadad 7y ago

How much thrust? How high should it go? And on what information? Data sources will become more complex, risks need to be weighed. I'm not sure 'AI' is the right answer as most (all?) of AI is probably today just ML or more often simple BS - but certainly what ESA & co need won't be a simple one-variable algorithm. I'm actually wondering if there's not a need to communicate more between all the bodies having satellites in space - just like autonomous cars, if both make an evasive maneuver they might cancel each other out. So there needs to be some kind of communication to avoid this.

perl4ever 7y ago
"just like autonomous cars, if both make an evasive maneuver they might cancel each other out" I think that's a phenomenon much older than autonomous car theory. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hallway%20dance https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hallway%20da...

orbital-decay 7y ago

- most popular orbits are also most crowded and dangerous ones, there's only so much you can do to reduce the probability of collision - there are also uncontrolled debris, non-tracked objects, military satellites with unpublished orbits etc - just like with automating road vehicle traffic, it would require very high degree of centralization, which is never going to happen due to various reasons - the propellant is limited so you also want to reduce the amount of avoidance maneuvers to a minimum So no, statistical models (which you probably mean by AI) won't improve the situation much. What matters is: - increasing the orbit determination accuracy and coverage with better instruments and commercial tracking networks; NORAD TLEs alone are not precise enough for reliable collision prediction - better space weather prediction - improving the coordination between the operators - deployable decelerators for dead satellites in lower orbits, also possibly debris removal if the problem becomes really serious i.e. stuff most operators already do, except for the debris removal

ClumsyPilot 7y ago
"It would require centralization" Did someone say blockchain?! Orbital smart contracts!

Paul-ish 7y ago

Reading the Wikipedia page for a 2009 satelite collision[1]: > Calculations made by CelesTrak had expected these two satellites to miss by 584 meters (1,916 ft) Perhaps the calculations aren't straightforward Newtonian mechanics? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

konschubert 7y ago
You’re misunderstanding my comment. I wasn’t suggesting to not use AI algorithm for computing the collision probabilities. For this, they will obv use whatever tools they already have. The whole discussion is around how to react automatically to a likely collision.
orbital-decay 7y ago
Predictions based on TLEs aren't precise enough for satellite collisions. TLE is a solution compiled from many measurements, and what one wants for very close passes are raw measurements. It's a bit like JPEG vs RAW in photography. Regarding that particular collision, IIRC human factor was involved a lot. Iridium has been warned well in advance, but hesitated to make the decision since their models gave lower probabilities.

sdinsn 7y ago

I mean, technically that's AI.