4 ms·

Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake by sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or push it out where it was indented to be. Addi

Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake by sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or push it out where it was indented to be. Additionally to prevent a company from just going bankrupt they should be required to pay in advance a fee to a fund (ala FDIC) that will deal with issues that have to be dealt with. In this case it may be "ok" but what if this satellite was not out of the active geostationary zone and posed a risk to others important satellites?

mcpackieh 3y ago
> Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake by sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or push it out where it was indented to be. Seems like a plan with a bad risk/reward ratio. Right now the satellite isn't where it's supposed to be, but neither is it directly in the way of other geostationary satellites. But if you send up another satellite to deliberately interface with this one and move both up, you risk something going wrong and either getting stuck with two satellites in that position, or worse, both crashing into each other and making a huge mess. It's probably better to wait until the technology for grappling satellites in space is mature. This is presently an active area of research and development (OSAM), so a bit of patience should pay off.
flerchin 3y ago
> indented to be I suppose that in orbit, space has won out over tabs. :-) (sorry I couldn't help myself)
- staunton 3y ago
  Joke quality aside, you marked something as a quote which isn't close to one, afaict.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > Joke quality aside, you marked something as a quote which isn't close to one, afaict. Maybe read the first line of the parent comment more carefully? > Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake by sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or push it out where it was INDENTED TO BE[emphasis mine].
    - jiveturkey 3y ago
      you are commenting on this after it was corrected. so the snark is a bad look. the error wasn't the typo in `indented`. it was that a single newline ("CR") is like an html space in HN formatting. it doesn't start a new paragraph. GP notes that he only used a single "CR" and thus his own commentary ran together with his intended (also indented, in this case) quote.
  - flerchin 3y ago
    You were right. I had to put double CRs for it to render the way I intended. Thanks.
- hk1337 3y ago
  Bravo!
dotnet00 3y ago
Asking that first point of a company right now would probably just kill the geostationary launch industry for a few years. Those kinds of mission rescue/extension vehicles are still under development. There was one such mission a few years ago, but it was a special case for reasons I can't recall right now. At the moment I think there are a handful of companies working on both adapters to be placed on the initial satellite and the MEV to go with it which would be launched in case of a problem with certain systems. Plus, retrieving it is almost guaranteed to be unrealistic. It's out near geostationary orbit. The only options are to have an MEV move it into normal geostationary orbit or dump it into a graveyard orbit.
- Kinrany 3y ago
  The direction is good though. Instead of a fine they could be required to pay a space janitor to clean up their mess in the next N years. That would provide funding and motivation for space janitor companies to improve their technology faster.
jancsika 3y ago
In an alternate reality there's an equal but opposite HN quarterback: "Too much! I get sending a message with a small initial fine like 150k plus requiring a compliance plan, but this high amount is a step too far. Prepayment is just the epitome of regulatory capture IMO. Even for selfish reasons a satellite company will strive to keep their satellites minimally functional and safe from any systemic dangers in orbit. But I guess Uncle Sam always has to get his cut."
- bearjaws 3y ago
  It's already in this comment thread lol. Space libertarianism here we go!
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Realistically I almost never see upvoted comments saying a governmental fine was too much, even when the fine is, say, significantly greater than the entire companies revenue.

mcpackieh 3y ago

> Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake by sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or push it out where it was indented to be. Seems like a plan with a bad risk/reward ratio. Right now the satellite isn't where it's supposed to be, but neither is it directly in the way of other geostationary satellites. But if you send up another satellite to deliberately interface with this one and move both up, you risk something going wrong and either getting stuck with two satellites in that position, or worse, both crashing into each other and making a huge mess. It's probably better to wait until the technology for grappling satellites in space is mature. This is presently an active area of research and development (OSAM), so a bit of patience should pay off.

flerchin 3y ago

> indented to be I suppose that in orbit, space has won out over tabs. :-) (sorry I couldn't help myself)

staunton 3y ago
Joke quality aside, you marked something as a quote which isn't close to one, afaict.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > Joke quality aside, you marked something as a quote which isn't close to one, afaict. Maybe read the first line of the parent comment more carefully? > Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake by sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or push it out where it was INDENTED TO BE[emphasis mine].
  - jiveturkey 3y ago
    you are commenting on this after it was corrected. so the snark is a bad look. the error wasn't the typo in `indented`. it was that a single newline ("CR") is like an html space in HN formatting. it doesn't start a new paragraph. GP notes that he only used a single "CR" and thus his own commentary ran together with his intended (also indented, in this case) quote.
- flerchin 3y ago
  You were right. I had to put double CRs for it to render the way I intended. Thanks.
hk1337 3y ago
Bravo!

dotnet00 3y ago

Asking that first point of a company right now would probably just kill the geostationary launch industry for a few years. Those kinds of mission rescue/extension vehicles are still under development. There was one such mission a few years ago, but it was a special case for reasons I can't recall right now. At the moment I think there are a handful of companies working on both adapters to be placed on the initial satellite and the MEV to go with it which would be launched in case of a problem with certain systems. Plus, retrieving it is almost guaranteed to be unrealistic. It's out near geostationary orbit. The only options are to have an MEV move it into normal geostationary orbit or dump it into a graveyard orbit.

Kinrany 3y ago
The direction is good though. Instead of a fine they could be required to pay a space janitor to clean up their mess in the next N years. That would provide funding and motivation for space janitor companies to improve their technology faster.

jancsika 3y ago

In an alternate reality there's an equal but opposite HN quarterback: "Too much! I get sending a message with a small initial fine like 150k plus requiring a compliance plan, but this high amount is a step too far. Prepayment is just the epitome of regulatory capture IMO. Even for selfish reasons a satellite company will strive to keep their satellites minimally functional and safe from any systemic dangers in orbit. But I guess Uncle Sam always has to get his cut."

bearjaws 3y ago
It's already in this comment thread lol. Space libertarianism here we go!
whimsicalism 3y ago
Realistically I almost never see upvoted comments saying a governmental fine was too much, even when the fine is, say, significantly greater than the entire companies revenue.