49 ms·

> "This problem is really getting out of control," Siemak Hesar, CEO and co-founder of commercial autonomous space traffic management system Kayhan Space, told

> "This problem is really getting out of control," Siemak Hesar, CEO and co-founder of commercial autonomous space traffic management system Kayhan Space, told Space. Well, there are certainly no obvious conflicts of interest behind this quote. /s I'm sick of this FUD. SpaceX is, I believe, the largest operator of satellites by count, so it makes perfect sense that they would account for the lion's share of these "close encounters". None of these articles offer a meaningful quantification of risk, or much in the way of constructive discussion; instead they shotgun-blast vague soundbites from "experts" and wave around the Kessler Syndrome boogeyman with about as much technical precision as can be found in the related joke at the beginning of WALL-E. In the context of Starlink, the "SpaceX Bad" narrative basically boils down to saying we should not develop space further because reasons, much in the same way single-family-home NIMBYs poison urban growth now that they've got theirs. There are obviously tough problems that will need to be solved, and I agree that some distributed "traffic control" system will ultimately be necessary, especially when we start filling up higher orbits where Kessler Syndrome is actually a serious concern. But it's disappointing to see the media engage in so much of what basically amounts to concern trolling, polarizing and poisoning the public discourse.

slownews45 5y ago
Thanks. Couldn't agree more. One takeaway I'm getting - many of these other providers are perhaps not technically that competent. I mean, if you don't understand where the risks are, what are you doing with space traffic mgmt? Reality is SpaceX I think has one of the largest operating autonomous traffic mgmt systems already. It's very fast acting. In the fake oneweb "near miss" it just turned out that oneweb had to do manual maneuvers, SpaceX had more time because things were automated, so one web asked spaceX to turn off their systems. Compared to other providers, the starlink constellation is actually generating some the LEAST long lasting space junk up there (which is a lot already).
- caconym_ 5y ago
  I do get the impression that Starlink is extremely competent at managing their constellation. Ultimately I think the biggest risk is going to come from poor coordination between large operators, as we already got a taste of in that ESA/Starlink snafu a few months (?) back. I'd rather see some kind of distributed consensus framework than a single corporate entity managing it all, though.
lmilcin 5y ago
I have also carefully red entire article and only found single reason that could, well, maybe, explain the alarmistic title. There are three possible explanations I see: 1. Either Starlink is overeoptimistic at its reliability at locating satellites and maintaining separation down to couple of meters of resoultion. 2. or the other operators don't have similar capability and are alarming they can't keep up with moving their satellites that were not designed for so many maneuvers to keep separation. 3. They just want to bad PR for Starlink because they are not happy with aggressive competition. It seems to me that Starlink is quite precise (or optimistic, I can't tell) at locating their satellites which makes sense. When you have so many you can't be constantly moving them about to keep at least 1km separation. It would probably be cheaper if you could predict the minimum separation to much lower distances, like 50m. But the other operators either did not anticipate this or don't want to keep investing just to keep being able maintaining their fleet.
- zadler 5y ago
  It’s also possible that starlink are somewhat neglecting their responsibility to keep appropriate distances between satellites because they find that financial risk acceptable and want to signal to other operators that they should get out of the way. Essentially a game of chicken where Starlink has the upper hand because a loss is not such a problem for them.
- mlindner 5y ago
  > It seems to me that Starlink is quite precise (or optimistic, I can't tell) at locating their satellites which makes sense. The satellites have GPS on board. If your car can be placed to a resolution of meters, so can satellites. That is true of most satellites as well.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    It is one thing to be able to locate stationary car and another to locate satellite that moves at 8km/s and yet another to predict the minimum distance between two satellites intersecting at 12km/s.
908B64B197 5y ago
> the "SpaceX Bad" narrative basically boils down to saying we should not develop space further because reasons How much of that is linked to people hating the founder?
CarelessExpert 5y ago
> Well, there are certainly no obvious conflicts of interest behind this quote. This is just an empty ad hominem. Is the data accurate or is it inaccurate? Is the interpretation of the data valid or is it invalid? Either SpaceX is or it is not involved in a lot of close calls in orbit. These are not facts up for interpretation, they either are or they aren't. Whether a given rate is alarming or not is a value judgement, certainly, but if there has been a significant increase in rate, and SpaceX has been responsible for that increase, then the facts speak for themselves. So, what is your take on the facts as they've been reported?
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28250125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28250125 My other comment. Summary: SpaceX seems to be no worse an actor than other operators. Doubling the number of satellites in orbit would, by the odds, result in an expected doubling of the number of incidents (if not more, actually). Owning half the satellites in orbit means they, again, by the odds should be involved in around half the incidents. These statements are in the article, but obscured because the article presents the facts but doesn't clarify that statistically this is actually close to what should be expected. Further, they do provide enough facts to see that OneWeb is actually slightly worse than Starlink. However it's again obscured because they present a raw total without conveying how it relates to their share of satellites in orbit. And that's on the facts. The other aspect is the tone. The way we phrase things influences interpretation, journalists (especially) are aware of this. The article's style: > Starlink satellites come within 1km of other satellites 500 times per week. This lays, implicitly, the blame or responsibility on Starlink. However, it could be easily turned around (both satellites in a close encounter are in motion, it's not like Starlink satellites are approaching static objects here): > Other satellites come within 1km of Starlink satellites 500 times per week. Here, Starlink is presented as the innocent party. The two phrases express the same idea if you read past the implication the ordering presents, but by choosing one or the other you encourage the reader to come to a conclusion that isn't justified by the rest of the article (in either manner of phrasing).
  - CarelessExpert 5y ago

slownews45 5y ago

Thanks. Couldn't agree more. One takeaway I'm getting - many of these other providers are perhaps not technically that competent. I mean, if you don't understand where the risks are, what are you doing with space traffic mgmt? Reality is SpaceX I think has one of the largest operating autonomous traffic mgmt systems already. It's very fast acting. In the fake oneweb "near miss" it just turned out that oneweb had to do manual maneuvers, SpaceX had more time because things were automated, so one web asked spaceX to turn off their systems. Compared to other providers, the starlink constellation is actually generating some the LEAST long lasting space junk up there (which is a lot already).

caconym_ 5y ago
I do get the impression that Starlink is extremely competent at managing their constellation. Ultimately I think the biggest risk is going to come from poor coordination between large operators, as we already got a taste of in that ESA/Starlink snafu a few months (?) back. I'd rather see some kind of distributed consensus framework than a single corporate entity managing it all, though.

lmilcin 5y ago

I have also carefully red entire article and only found single reason that could, well, maybe, explain the alarmistic title. There are three possible explanations I see: 1. Either Starlink is overeoptimistic at its reliability at locating satellites and maintaining separation down to couple of meters of resoultion. 2. or the other operators don't have similar capability and are alarming they can't keep up with moving their satellites that were not designed for so many maneuvers to keep separation. 3. They just want to bad PR for Starlink because they are not happy with aggressive competition. It seems to me that Starlink is quite precise (or optimistic, I can't tell) at locating their satellites which makes sense. When you have so many you can't be constantly moving them about to keep at least 1km separation. It would probably be cheaper if you could predict the minimum separation to much lower distances, like 50m. But the other operators either did not anticipate this or don't want to keep investing just to keep being able maintaining their fleet.

zadler 5y ago
It’s also possible that starlink are somewhat neglecting their responsibility to keep appropriate distances between satellites because they find that financial risk acceptable and want to signal to other operators that they should get out of the way. Essentially a game of chicken where Starlink has the upper hand because a loss is not such a problem for them.
mlindner 5y ago
> It seems to me that Starlink is quite precise (or optimistic, I can't tell) at locating their satellites which makes sense. The satellites have GPS on board. If your car can be placed to a resolution of meters, so can satellites. That is true of most satellites as well.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  It is one thing to be able to locate stationary car and another to locate satellite that moves at 8km/s and yet another to predict the minimum distance between two satellites intersecting at 12km/s.

908B64B197 5y ago

> the "SpaceX Bad" narrative basically boils down to saying we should not develop space further because reasons How much of that is linked to people hating the founder?

CarelessExpert 5y ago

> Well, there are certainly no obvious conflicts of interest behind this quote. This is just an empty ad hominem. Is the data accurate or is it inaccurate? Is the interpretation of the data valid or is it invalid? Either SpaceX is or it is not involved in a lot of close calls in orbit. These are not facts up for interpretation, they either are or they aren't. Whether a given rate is alarming or not is a value judgement, certainly, but if there has been a significant increase in rate, and SpaceX has been responsible for that increase, then the facts speak for themselves. So, what is your take on the facts as they've been reported?

Jtsummers 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28250125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28250125 My other comment. Summary: SpaceX seems to be no worse an actor than other operators. Doubling the number of satellites in orbit would, by the odds, result in an expected doubling of the number of incidents (if not more, actually). Owning half the satellites in orbit means they, again, by the odds should be involved in around half the incidents. These statements are in the article, but obscured because the article presents the facts but doesn't clarify that statistically this is actually close to what should be expected. Further, they do provide enough facts to see that OneWeb is actually slightly worse than Starlink. However it's again obscured because they present a raw total without conveying how it relates to their share of satellites in orbit. And that's on the facts. The other aspect is the tone. The way we phrase things influences interpretation, journalists (especially) are aware of this. The article's style: > Starlink satellites come within 1km of other satellites 500 times per week. This lays, implicitly, the blame or responsibility on Starlink. However, it could be easily turned around (both satellites in a close encounter are in motion, it's not like Starlink satellites are approaching static objects here): > Other satellites come within 1km of Starlink satellites 500 times per week. Here, Starlink is presented as the innocent party. The two phrases express the same idea if you read past the implication the ordering presents, but by choosing one or the other you encourage the reader to come to a conclusion that isn't justified by the rest of the article (in either manner of phrasing).
- CarelessExpert 5y ago