> they ... declined for reasons
"Declined" and "refused" are synonyms. SpaceX did refuse to move the satellite.
> Krag suspected it could be something to do with SpaceX’s electric propulsion system, which “maybe is not reacting so fast” as the chemical propulsion on board Aeolus.
Not acting because you don’t have choice doesn’t count as refusing.
It does beg the question whether you should be there at all.
By that premise every space organization should shut down. Nothing should ever go up again. What if something went wrong? What if every mission wasn't perfect? What if someone lost control of a satellite or space station (eg Tiangong-1)? What if people died? (NASA, Soviet Space Program)
I'm as big a fan of SpaceX as you'll find but considering they were the one entering an orbit they didn't previously occupy it seems like a pretty lame move on SpaceX's part.
Sounds like a fantastic barrier to entry for newcomers who don't have billions lining their pockets.
It puts them in a bad light, and that could impact their ability to get necessary licenses to operate.
This ESA satellite is in VLEO by design, which means every piece of space junk is going to present a threat to it.
Once ESA has secured funding for their navigation automation project (funding to be decided in November), we should hear nothing more about potential collisions with the endless rain of space junk from megaconstellations.
So, they refused. That's what that word means.
“we informed SpaceX” They where informed of a 1/1,000 risk and declined to take action. Refused implies someone was telling them to do something rather than notifying them of the situation.
Either way this is sensationalist and worth a flag.
Well, somebody seems to have needed to maneuver.
This is such an incomplete report, it reminds me of the old adage "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can put it's pants on."
A proper, less sensational reporter would have waited until they knew why they declined to move the satellite before writing the piece.
SpaceX is a company with enough money from grants and a grandiose mission “to save the planet” and they can’t afford a PR release at the right time of the week?
You could publish that I'm not telling you, but you don't know 'why' I'm not telling you, so that makes you irresponsible too.
So this brings up the question - if the value of your satellite is lower do you burn up precious fuel to manueveur around potential collisions? Or do you play space chicken and let the others maneuver around you?
With their electrically propelled Tesla.
SpaceX has a higher collision tolerance because their satellite is cheap compared to the expensive weather satellite.
Are we really going to allow private companies to bully public institutions?
But on the other hand, should bureaucrats get some sort of celestial "dibs" on certain orbits? In the absence of some other kind of governing body, this is pretty much governed by the law of the jungle. Would you have the same objection if SpaceX had this issue with another company, or are you granting europe some kind of deference because of government?
Yes.
> In the absence of some other kind of governing body, this is pretty much governed by the law of the jungle.
No, we have space treaties.
> Would you have the same objection if SpaceX had this issue with another company, or are you granting europe some kind of deference because of government?
Obviously, that is not in question, it just happens to be ESA this time, it could be NASA then next, or the ISS. Stuff that was already there was not put there with the likes of SpaceX in mind and therefore it is up to the newcomer to accommodate the incumbents. Satellite reaction mass is a severely limited resource.
Why?
> space treaties
Which cover some public entities and no private ones.
> there first
But SpaceX was in a different orbit, and felt fine. If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move?
> If it's the europeans had a lesser tolerance for close passes, why should SpaceX move?
Did you read my first comment? I said that of course SpaceX would have a lower collision tolerance because there satellite is much cheaper/less investment of resources compared to the EU satellite.
Even if SpaceX's satellite was also expensive and SpaceX still had good data, we should prioritize the needs of public institutions that are launching satellites that serve the world over private corporations.
Define public interest. People pay through this through taxes; not really different than paying for spacex whatever via $$.
> less investment
So if SpaceX can do it better, maybe get the bureaucrats and the three-letter alphabet-soup agencies out of the sky, already.
> prioritize the needs of the public institutions
Public institutions have needs and wants. Why is this a need and not a want? This wasn't a military satellite. Why are bureaucrats more important? They accomplish little of significance or merit.
Either way, if they throw thousands of satellites into space they can't just say "sorry, tragedy of the commons, everyone else should shoulder the risk we created (& the costs to avoid risk)".
Will SpaceX wilfully endanger other satellites (most of which are of higher cost & societal value than an individual SpaceX constellation satellite)? If so, maybe NASA should stop allowing their launches until they offer a better answer.
This is a lot different than rolling dice or betting on black. Likely there was or was not going to be a collision; run it 1 million times and the results would always be the same. Perhaps Space-X had more optimistic odds.
> the satellites, each weighing 227 kilograms, are “capable of tracking on-orbit debris and autonomously avoiding collision.” But for this incident, this system does not seem to have been used for some reason
"does not seem to have been used" - if SpaceX made no statement we can't really tell? Maybe they were confident that their collision avoidance would simply work.
> Maybe they were confident that their collision avoidance would simply work.
Just like Tesla's? If your satellite is worth $100K and the other one is worth $2.3B, perhaps you have a little less to lose.