5 ms·
Are we then saying there's an equivalent of domain squatting in space? Cause I could see all types of problems showing up if we call that common courtesy.
by optimiz3 7y ago
Are we then saying there's an equivalent of domain squatting in space? Cause I could see all types of problems showing up if we call that common courtesy.
- dahdum 7y agoDomain squatting is on unused domains while this was an active public weather satellite already on an established orbit. Not at all comparable.
- Swenrekcah 7y agoBut the implication is then someone will launch a million tiny satellites doing nothing and occupy a million orbits. That said, this was in my opinion very bad form for SpaceX, to the point I wonder if, as hinted in the article, they simply can’t do collision avoidance properly.
- optimiz3 7y agoI don't follow - domain squatting takes a domain and makes it unusable for others, orbit squatting would take an unused orbit and make it unusable for others. The fundamental question is whether you have the right to the exclusive use of an orbital path just because you were there first. This is unresolved but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Assigning value (public/private, research/commercial, etc.) to each parties use just muddies the waters. There needs to be an established resolution process and AFAIK there isn't one.
- dahdum 7y agoDomain squatting is taking an unused domain and leaving it unused. Google isn’t domain squatting google.com, just like ESA wasn’t orbit squatting. Assigning value is also necessary. We reserve spectrum for public safety and eventually may need to reserve orbital paths in the same way. Seems like we are pretty far from filling up the sky even with current avoidance tech though.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mlindner 7y agoNo, because satellite orbits aren't owned or held by anyone. Not to mention all low orbits have decent amount of junk that's in the process of deorbiting.