3 ms·
Satellites don't "move" into each other's way. Orbits naturally end up that way. There's no one "causing the risk" in the first place. SpaceX could have just as
by mlindner 7y ago
Satellites don't "move" into each other's way. Orbits naturally end up that way. There's no one "causing the risk" in the first place. SpaceX could have just as easily asked the ESA to move their satellite as it was getting in the way of their satellite.
- utopian3 7y agoYou conveniently avoid the fact that SpaceX inserted itself into a collision course with the ESA’s orbit, long after ESA had been there. Being that ESA has a “right of way” they asked SpaceX to take the action
- Excel_Wizard 7y agoThe risk of a crash was 1 in 1,000. This is 10 times the threshold of 1 in 10,000 that requires a maneuver. Both of these satellites have been in orbit long enough for accumulated error to cause the satellite to drift from its predicted path. There are many satellite orbit-crossing events every day, and the accumulated drift is the primary cause of their orbits becoming close enough to require action. An anticipated collision that requires course correction is as close to a no-fault scenario as there can be.
- mlindner 7y agoESA's orbit is itself constantly changing. Orbits are not fixed. They move constantly from orbital perturbation from Earth's gravity field, the moon's gravity field and, notably at these low altitudes, atmospheric drag. Again, who moved into who's path is not something you're going to determine. Yes SpaceX was lowering its orbit, but it's crossing hundreds of satellites paths by doing that, and even the orbit SpaceX satellites are in are shared by many other satellites. LEO is crowded.