Deorbiting is exactly the process I was describing. SpaceX did not deliberately move their craft to interfere with Aeolus. Aeolus is deliberately placed where

Deorbiting is exactly the process I was describing. SpaceX did not deliberately move their craft to interfere with Aeolus. Aeolus is deliberately placed where every deorbiting craft will interfere with it. It’s like someone setting up an office in the foyer of an apartment complex. Everyone entering or leaving the complex is going to walk through the office. They aren’t deliberately walking through the office, it’s just that your office is where everyone is walking to get to where they are going. In addition, SpaceX is testing deorbiting satellites with Hall effect thrusters that are barely powerful enough to raise orbit from higher in the atmosphere. At this altitude the thrusters would have little or no effect, so the craft is more or less an inert piece of space junk which SpaceX can possibly rotate using reaction wheels and magnetic torquers. Words have meanings, and there is a vast semantic gulf between “SpaceX refused to take action” and “SpaceX were incapable of taking action”. The author used “refused” but published the article before investigating further. Expect a better story to come from the likes of Loren Grush in a couple of days once people have had time to get a response from SpaceX and digest just what is going on here (NB: ESA budget under review in November, as per ESA’s entire tweet thread of which this social media shitstorm is only responding to the first because it mentions SpaceX) This is really just a semantic argument so I will leave it here. Reread the article but completely ignore the inflammatory clickbait title and any of the author’s own (emotive, inflammatory) words on the matter, stick to only the quotes from named sources and you should be golden.