6 ms·
>ESA noted that it performed 28 collision avoidance maneuvers in 2018, but it was mostly to avoid dead satellites or bits of space debris. Maneuvers to avoid ac
by mLuby 7y ago
>ESA noted that it performed 28 collision avoidance maneuvers in 2018, but it was mostly to avoid dead satellites or bits of space debris. Maneuvers to avoid active satellites were “very rare”, they said, but the arrival of mega constellations like Starlink raises concerns that many more such maneuvers will be needed in future.
>“What I want is an organized way of doing space traffic. It must be clear when you have such a situation who has to react. And of course automating the system. It cannot be when we have 10,000 satellites in space that there are operators writing the email what to do. This is not how I imagine modern spaceflight.”
SpaceX simply saying it would "not act" is negligent, and I really hope there was more to it that the author just wasn't privy to. If they had better sensors and knew there'd be no collision, say so. If they couldn't maneuver, say so. Otherwise it's just a game of space chicken, risking not only those two sats but all of LEO.
- pergadad 7y agoOne 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.
- oh_sigh 7y agoWhat happens if the two groups disagree on the odds of impact? Because one has either more precise or just different telemetry than the other?
- safsafasf 7y agoThere'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 force the issue. Move, or we'll fine you and forbid you from launching off of European sites and ban EU companies from using SpaceX.
- greglindahl 7y agoTrajectories have measurement errors.
- safsafasf 7y agoIndeed. we wouldn't need safety margins without errors.
- hgoel 7y agoConsidering the cost of launching on Ariane compared to Falcon 9, especially with rideshare upcoming, I don't think EU could ban companies from flying with SpaceX without hurting their own commercial satellite market to an extent.
- DoctorOetker 7y agoif there's disagreement on the odds, the entity on the confident side should bet the total value of the other satellite + usage delay costs, in escrow. safe? let Musk put his money where his mouth is.
- elkos 7y agoBut it was actively changing orbits https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=19 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=...
- youeseh 7y agoThis is not how right-of-way rules are designed for traffic in other environments.
- manicdee 7y agoCan you describe what action SpaceX should have taken to prevent their inert space debris from potentially colliding with someone else’s active satellite?
- dahdum 7y agoHave they stated anywhere they lost control of their satellite, that it was inert? It was under power and reportedly performing a test maneuver. If they didn’t have control over it they could have easily stated as such to ESA and avoided any bad PR at all, or even just in response to this story.
- elkos 7y agoThat wasn't inert on the contrary. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=19 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=...
- manicdee 7y agoI apologise for using the word inert when the satellite was merely incapable of manoeuvring as required in the timeframe allowed.
- elkos 7y agoNo need to apologize. I'm not familiar with the Starlink-44's structural design and profile but from promo images that I have seen it would make sense to still consider turning around on xyz axis to reduce impact risk a bit.
- manicdee 7y agoYou 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 your request.” As for the author publishing the story before receiving a response from SpaceX, that’s on the author not SpaceX.