4 ms·

> Are we really going to allow private companies to bully public institutions? But on the other hand, should bureaucrats get some sort of celestial "dibs" on c

by mises 7y ago

> Are we really going to allow private companies to bully public institutions? But on the other hand, should bureaucrats get some sort of celestial "dibs" on certain orbits? In the absence of some other kind of governing body, this is pretty much governed by the law of the jungle. Would you have the same objection if SpaceX had this issue with another company, or are you granting europe some kind of deference because of government?

jacquesm 7y ago
> But on the other hand, should bureaucrats get some sort of celestial "dibs" on certain orbits? Yes. > In the absence of some other kind of governing body, this is pretty much governed by the law of the jungle. No, we have space treaties. > Would you have the same objection if SpaceX had this issue with another company, or are you granting europe some kind of deference because of government? Obviously, that is not in question, it just happens to be ESA this time, it could be NASA then next, or the ISS. Stuff that was already there was not put there with the likes of SpaceX in mind and therefore it is up to the newcomer to accommodate the incumbents. Satellite reaction mass is a severely limited resource.
- mises 7y ago
  > Yes. Why? > space treaties Which cover some public entities and no private ones. > there first But SpaceX was in a different orbit, and felt fine. If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move?
  - marmada 7y ago
    Yes because things like European weathers satellites serve the public interesting and vital infrastructure needs (GPS, for example). Those have higher priority over a private corporation's satellites. > If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move? Did you read my first comment? I said that of course SpaceX would have a lower collision tolerance because there satellite is much cheaper/less investment of resources compared to the EU satellite. Even if SpaceX's satellite was also expensive and SpaceX still had good data, we should prioritize the needs of public institutions that are launching satellites that serve the world over private corporations.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - mises 7y ago
      > serve the public interesting Define public interest. People pay through this through taxes; not really different than paying for spacex whatever via $$. > less investment So if SpaceX can do it better, maybe get the bureaucrats and the three-letter alphabet-soup agencies out of the sky, already. > prioritize the needs of the public institutions Public institutions have needs and wants. Why is this a need and not a want? This wasn't a military satellite. Why are bureaucrats more important? They accomplish little of significance or merit.

by mises 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

> But on the other hand, should bureaucrats get some sort of celestial "dibs" on certain orbits? Yes. > In the absence of some other kind of governing body, this is pretty much governed by the law of the jungle. No, we have space treaties. > Would you have the same objection if SpaceX had this issue with another company, or are you granting europe some kind of deference because of government? Obviously, that is not in question, it just happens to be ESA this time, it could be NASA then next, or the ISS. Stuff that was already there was not put there with the likes of SpaceX in mind and therefore it is up to the newcomer to accommodate the incumbents. Satellite reaction mass is a severely limited resource.

mises 7y ago
> Yes. Why? > space treaties Which cover some public entities and no private ones. > there first But SpaceX was in a different orbit, and felt fine. If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move?
- marmada 7y ago
  Yes because things like European weathers satellites serve the public interesting and vital infrastructure needs (GPS, for example). Those have higher priority over a private corporation's satellites. > If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move? Did you read my first comment? I said that of course SpaceX would have a lower collision tolerance because there satellite is much cheaper/less investment of resources compared to the EU satellite. Even if SpaceX's satellite was also expensive and SpaceX still had good data, we should prioritize the needs of public institutions that are launching satellites that serve the world over private corporations.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mises 7y ago
    > serve the public interesting Define public interest. People pay through this through taxes; not really different than paying for spacex whatever via $$. > less investment So if SpaceX can do it better, maybe get the bureaucrats and the three-letter alphabet-soup agencies out of the sky, already. > prioritize the needs of the public institutions Public institutions have needs and wants. Why is this a need and not a want? This wasn't a military satellite. Why are bureaucrats more important? They accomplish little of significance or merit.