What is this statement based on? You are saying yourself that there's no information available to the public about this due to lack of transparency, yet in the next sentence you are making a bold statement about design flaws.
To me it sounds like there should be clear regulation about right of way in space. I haven't seen any information pertaining to SpaceX design so far.
Common courtesy worldwide would be for the person causing the risk to move aside first. Worse still it was a private company working on a for-profit product forcing a public weather satellite to divert.
There's no need for regulation until bad actors show up.
That said, this was in my opinion very bad form for SpaceX, to the point I wonder if, as hinted in the article, they simply can’t do collision avoidance properly.
The fundamental question is whether you have the right to the exclusive use of an orbital path just because you were there first. This is unresolved but I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
Assigning value (public/private, research/commercial, etc.) to each parties use just muddies the waters. There needs to be an established resolution process and AFAIK there isn't one.
Assigning value is also necessary. We reserve spectrum for public safety and eventually may need to reserve orbital paths in the same way. Seems like we are pretty far from filling up the sky even with current avoidance tech though.
What a ridiculous statement. I suppose you'd also suggest no need for traffic laws until there's a 50 car pileup?
Bad actors are sometimes involuntarily so.
Don’t we know what needs doing? Why do we have to reinvent the wheel?