3 ms·
Refuse does imply a certain level of impoliteness or malice. The article only states that spaceX said they wouldn’t be taking any action and later states > Kra
by tempay 7y ago
Refuse does imply a certain level of impoliteness or malice. The article only states that spaceX said they wouldn’t be taking any action and later states
> Krag suspected it could be something to do with SpaceX’s electric propulsion system, which “maybe is not reacting so fast” as the chemical propulsion on board Aeolus.
Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing.
- perl4ever 7y agoWell, it counts as refusing, but it doesn't have the same connotation as when you omit context.
- ixf 7y ago"unable to avoid existing satellites in orbit being entered into" is, in my book, worse than "we just cba"
- manicdee 7y agoYou need to update your book to reflect the reality of deorbiting a dead satellite.
- a3n 7y ago> Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing. It does beg the question whether you should be there at all.
- adventured 7y agoIt doesn't beg that question at all. By that premise every space organization should shut down. Nothing should ever go up again. What if something went wrong? What if every mission wasn't perfect? What if someone lost control of a satellite or space station (eg Tiangong-1)? What if people died? (NASA, Soviet Space Program)
- greglindahl 7y agoEvery deorbiting satellite passes through lower orbits. Many of them passively.
- a3n 7y agoThey are are where they are by choice. It's a de-orbiting exercise. If they can't maneuver where they are now because of their propulsion design, they have the same problem in a normal orbit. So I wonder whether this design enables them to be a good and safe neighbor.