2 ms·

> 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

• 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.