5 ms·

> Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's not clear to me. I'm actually quite worried about SpaceX's increasing presence in space put simply because Musk

> Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's not clear to me. I'm actually quite worried about SpaceX's increasing presence in space put simply because Musk has shown very little care for risk - especially if it's to someone other than him (e.g. testing "self-driving" on public roads, showing exceedingly lack of QA and attention to detail in most products, and generally bringing the "move fast and break things" mantra into applications that are life and death). For example, SpaceX Starlink satelites (just Starlink) account for over half of close encounters and are expected to account for 90% of close encounters in the future. [1] It only takes one major screw up there to completely ground the human race for the foreseeable future. So how much do you trust SpaceX to not screw over humanity by setting of a Kessler effect? I don't at all, so in that regard I'm all for SpaceX facing the highest level of scrutiny in all things because I do not consider them a trustworthy enterprise. --- [1] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-collision-alerts-on-the-rise https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-collision-al...

dd36 5y ago
All of his companies are about reducing risk to humanity.
Dylan16807 5y ago
They're too low for debris to stay up.
- al3xandre 5y ago
  This. A thousand time. People need to understand this.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    People see ISS staying up in similar height for decades and do not realize that it actually needs engines to pull itself back up after it inevitably loses altitude to atmospheric drag.
inglor_cz 5y ago
SpaceX as a company definitely cares for risk. I think you are falling for Musk's media braggadoccio, but if you look at safety record of real world SpaceX operations, it is excellent. They had no human fatalities ever, which is remarkable for a 19 year old aerospace company (obviously there weren't many launches with people, but accidents happen on surface, too; this is heavy industry after all). And they haven't lost even a dead payload in what, last 100 launches? And if you happen to watch the launches from time to time, you will know why: they do not hesitate to scrub if they do not like something. This is the opposite of the mentality that brought us the Challenger and Columbia disasters and I am happy that someone can actually square this level of prudency with rapid technical development. As for Kessler syndrome, orbital decay is very strong at Starlink heights. Even if the entire fleet were abandoned, the orbits would be clear within 3-5 years. Nothing stays long at this height without active help of engines. The thin wisps of atmosphere still present will slow it down and drag it back to burn.
- gonesilent 5y ago
  Both Tesla and SpaceX have lost employees in small aircraft accidents. While not industrial in nature the push to rush and be places at times should be counted.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    You are being downvoted, but the core idea isn't entirely wrong, it is only too crude and needs some further analysis. (E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides) To actually start blaming the employers with some level of plausibility, I think you would have to show that rate of small aircraft accidents for their employees is significantly higher than average for similar unaffiliated group of youngish men who like to fly small aircraft. There is some background nonzero level of death in flying small aircraft (or suicide, alcoholism or other common ills). Unless it can be shown that the levels of such ills among employees of some Acme.com is significantly higher than background noise, it is not fair to assign blame to Acme.com. Even then there can be confounding factors, but that is a different story.
n8ta 5y ago
Near half of satellites are SpaceX satellites mate. Ofc they are half of close encounters. This isn't a good argument.

dd36 5y ago

All of his companies are about reducing risk to humanity.

Dylan16807 5y ago

They're too low for debris to stay up.

al3xandre 5y ago
This. A thousand time. People need to understand this.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  People see ISS staying up in similar height for decades and do not realize that it actually needs engines to pull itself back up after it inevitably loses altitude to atmospheric drag.

inglor_cz 5y ago

SpaceX as a company definitely cares for risk. I think you are falling for Musk's media braggadoccio, but if you look at safety record of real world SpaceX operations, it is excellent. They had no human fatalities ever, which is remarkable for a 19 year old aerospace company (obviously there weren't many launches with people, but accidents happen on surface, too; this is heavy industry after all). And they haven't lost even a dead payload in what, last 100 launches? And if you happen to watch the launches from time to time, you will know why: they do not hesitate to scrub if they do not like something. This is the opposite of the mentality that brought us the Challenger and Columbia disasters and I am happy that someone can actually square this level of prudency with rapid technical development. As for Kessler syndrome, orbital decay is very strong at Starlink heights. Even if the entire fleet were abandoned, the orbits would be clear within 3-5 years. Nothing stays long at this height without active help of engines. The thin wisps of atmosphere still present will slow it down and drag it back to burn.

gonesilent 5y ago
Both Tesla and SpaceX have lost employees in small aircraft accidents. While not industrial in nature the push to rush and be places at times should be counted.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  You are being downvoted, but the core idea isn't entirely wrong, it is only too crude and needs some further analysis. (E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides) To actually start blaming the employers with some level of plausibility, I think you would have to show that rate of small aircraft accidents for their employees is significantly higher than average for similar unaffiliated group of youngish men who like to fly small aircraft. There is some background nonzero level of death in flying small aircraft (or suicide, alcoholism or other common ills). Unless it can be shown that the levels of such ills among employees of some Acme.com is significantly higher than background noise, it is not fair to assign blame to Acme.com. Even then there can be confounding factors, but that is a different story.

n8ta 5y ago

Near half of satellites are SpaceX satellites mate. Ofc they are half of close encounters. This isn't a good argument.