4 ms·

Their satellites are mostly in low orbits that deorbit naturally after a few years. That doesn’t reduce the risk of collisions, but it does reduce the risk of b

by Joeri 6y ago

Their satellites are mostly in low orbits that deorbit naturally after a few years. That doesn’t reduce the risk of collisions, but it does reduce the risk of being locked out of space for a long time. Still, I find it troubling that a single private US company is basically “using up” a particular orbital elevation without other countries getting a say in it.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Still, I find it troubling that a single private US company is basically “using up” a particular orbital elevation without other countries getting a say in it. Space is big enough. They aren't using it up. They create some minor burden for space objects tracking and mission planning, but you could still fit the same orbital band with many more constellations, and other nations/companies will be able to do so if they so choose.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  They create a minor burden currently, thus distributing that burden without paying for it themselves, at what point does that burden get to be bad enough we can say they are using it up.
  - Diggsey 6y ago
    AIUI there are already regulations requiring that satellites be able to de-orbit themselves at EOL, and have some maneuvering capability in order to actively avoid collisions. This is directly paid for by the owners of these satellites as part of the development cost. Most of the objects at high risk of collision are either very old satellites, or debris from collisions of old satellites, from before these requirements existed. Tracking space debris and other objects in orbit of the earth is something we'd probably want to do anyway, and it makes no sense to duplicate that effort, so of course that burden will be distributed. If that burden becomes too high I'm sure some tax or licensing fee will be introduced to pay for it (assuming such a thing doesn't already exist) but in the grand scheme of things those costs are irrelevant compared to the cost of launching something into space to begin with... Especially when the satellite is still functioning, and generally aware of its own position anyway.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by Joeri 6y ago

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> Still, I find it troubling that a single private US company is basically “using up” a particular orbital elevation without other countries getting a say in it. Space is big enough. They aren't using it up. They create some minor burden for space objects tracking and mission planning, but you could still fit the same orbital band with many more constellations, and other nations/companies will be able to do so if they so choose.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
They create a minor burden currently, thus distributing that burden without paying for it themselves, at what point does that burden get to be bad enough we can say they are using it up.
- Diggsey 6y ago
  AIUI there are already regulations requiring that satellites be able to de-orbit themselves at EOL, and have some maneuvering capability in order to actively avoid collisions. This is directly paid for by the owners of these satellites as part of the development cost. Most of the objects at high risk of collision are either very old satellites, or debris from collisions of old satellites, from before these requirements existed. Tracking space debris and other objects in orbit of the earth is something we'd probably want to do anyway, and it makes no sense to duplicate that effort, so of course that burden will be distributed. If that burden becomes too high I'm sure some tax or licensing fee will be introduced to pay for it (assuming such a thing doesn't already exist) but in the grand scheme of things those costs are irrelevant compared to the cost of launching something into space to begin with... Especially when the satellite is still functioning, and generally aware of its own position anyway.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]