3 ms·

Your link describes a failure of SpaceX's internal ticketing system which resulted in ESA thinking that SpaceX were ignoring them. It seems unfair to paint Spa

Your link describes a failure of SpaceX's internal ticketing system which resulted in ESA thinking that SpaceX were ignoring them. It seems unfair to paint SpaceX as anti-space telescope on that basis.

jsiepkes 6y ago
> Your link describes a failure of SpaceX's internal ticketing system which resulted in ESA thinking that SpaceX were ignoring them. I'm not saying they are anti-space telescope. I'm saying I'm seeing little evidence they want to play nice with other people who have a stake in space. I have seen mostly evidence to the contrary. Regarding that particular incident; ESA's (way larger) satellite had that orbit / trajectory for quite a while before SpaceX decided to enter it's path. SpaceX should never have created that situation to begin with. And when the situation was created (for whatever reason) SpaceX should have manoeuvred their satellite out of the way without requiring ESA intervention to begin with. And then when ESA had to ask they should have responded. That can't all be blamed on a faulty ticket system...
- valuearb 6y ago
  Satellites naturally cross paths over time, there is no “ESA” path. This is standards and expected, SpaceX is only guilty of a support failure, which has been corrected. And SpaceX has designed and is implementing shade visors on all new Starlink satellites at their own expense, for the sole reason of reducing their reflection and brightness for astronomers. No one made Elon do that, he chose to significantly increase the cost and complexity of his satellites to help astronomers.
  - altacc 6y ago
    As you say, there are standards and expectations that SpaceX failed to uphold. They shouldn’t be praised or thanked for doing what they should have done in the first place and only corrected after been called out.
    - gpm 6y ago
      You are confusing two seperate things. The ESA thing, and the standards based thing, is a communication failure, where SpaceX failed to promptly reply to an email by accident. The reflectivity based thing is something without standards more stringent than what SpaceX was already complying with, which they voluntarily chose to improve to be a good citizen, and in which they are going above and beyond the existing standards.

jsiepkes 6y ago

> Your link describes a failure of SpaceX's internal ticketing system which resulted in ESA thinking that SpaceX were ignoring them. I'm not saying they are anti-space telescope. I'm saying I'm seeing little evidence they want to play nice with other people who have a stake in space. I have seen mostly evidence to the contrary. Regarding that particular incident; ESA's (way larger) satellite had that orbit / trajectory for quite a while before SpaceX decided to enter it's path. SpaceX should never have created that situation to begin with. And when the situation was created (for whatever reason) SpaceX should have manoeuvred their satellite out of the way without requiring ESA intervention to begin with. And then when ESA had to ask they should have responded. That can't all be blamed on a faulty ticket system...

valuearb 6y ago
Satellites naturally cross paths over time, there is no “ESA” path. This is standards and expected, SpaceX is only guilty of a support failure, which has been corrected. And SpaceX has designed and is implementing shade visors on all new Starlink satellites at their own expense, for the sole reason of reducing their reflection and brightness for astronomers. No one made Elon do that, he chose to significantly increase the cost and complexity of his satellites to help astronomers.
- altacc 6y ago
  As you say, there are standards and expectations that SpaceX failed to uphold. They shouldn’t be praised or thanked for doing what they should have done in the first place and only corrected after been called out.
  - gpm 6y ago
    You are confusing two seperate things. The ESA thing, and the standards based thing, is a communication failure, where SpaceX failed to promptly reply to an email by accident. The reflectivity based thing is something without standards more stringent than what SpaceX was already complying with, which they voluntarily chose to improve to be a good citizen, and in which they are going above and beyond the existing standards.