
SpaceX Refused to Move Satellite at Risk of Collision with a European Satellite - johnny313
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/02/spacex-refused-to-move-a-starlink-satellite-at-risk-of-collision-with-a-european-satellite/#43eec9541f62
======
areoform
Being a lover of Space and SpaceX, this incident highlights why a goldilocks
paradigm for regulation needs to exist for space. Not too much that it stifles
innovation. Not too little that someone ends up Kesslerizing Near-Earth space.

Current regulations are largely successful at promoting commercial space
flight, but there is a big transparency gap between civilian space flight
agencies and private entities. Transparency should be one of the cornerstones
of space regulations, but it isn’t. This incident raises multiple policy
questions. Why can’t SpaceX move their satellite? Is it a no because an ion
drive takes days to burn or is it a no because they don’t wanna? Either way,
it exposes a flaw in SpaceX’s design and raises concerns about StarLink. When
there are hundreds of StarLink satellites in the air, will SpaceX say no again
if there’s a chance for collision? Will SpaceX be a responsible steward of
Near-Earth space? If ion drives are insufficient to address this problem,
should they be required to take a small amount of monopropellant as a
precaution?

Transparency is essential for answering these questions and asking new ones.
The one I’m most concerned about is the question, what are the pollution risks
of LEO constellations? Ideally, before StarLink and other networks are up and
running, I feel there should be a study of the pollution risk StarLink poses
be it light pollution or debris. We shouldn’t repeat the failings of the 20th
century in space.

~~~
jurjenh
I'm not entirely convinced this is the argument.

From what I've read so far, it seems that ESA was uncomfortable with the
possibility of a collision to a degree that SpaceX could possibly be quite
comfortable with - ESA wants > 1km distance, whereas SpaceX might be
comfortable with much closer - they are quite different constellations.

Who has the right to dictate who has priority / which criteria is the right
one?

I'm going to assume that the cost of ESA's satellite is much greater than
SpaceX's StarLink module so obviously they have much more of an interest in
preserving full functionality - BUT avoiding collisions is in everybody's best
interests. Who is going to use their fuel? Who has right of way, and to what
terms?

~~~
stuaxo
Or just that Space doesn't care about losing 1 Satelite.

------
mLuby
>ESA noted that it performed 28 collision avoidance maneuvers in 2018, but it
was mostly to avoid dead satellites or bits of space debris. Maneuvers to
avoid active satellites were “very rare”, they said, but the arrival of mega
constellations like Starlink raises concerns that many more such maneuvers
will be needed in future.

>“What I want is an organized way of doing space traffic. It must be clear
when you have such a situation who has to react. And of course automating the
system. It cannot be when we have 10,000 satellites in space that there are
operators writing the email what to do. This is not how I imagine modern
spaceflight.”

SpaceX simply saying it would "not act" is negligent, and I _really_ hope
there was more to it that the author just wasn't privy to. If they had better
sensors and knew there'd be no collision, say so. If they couldn't maneuver,
say so. Otherwise it's just a game of space chicken, risking not only those
two sats but all of LEO.

~~~
pergadad
One is a throwaway satellite of a huge constellation - the other a unique
billion euro research satellite. Easy to see who will give in first to protect
their assets, but plainly it is equally easy to see who _should_ move first.

~~~
oh_sigh
What happens if the two groups disagree on the odds of impact? Because one has
either more precise or just different telemetry than the other?

~~~
safsafasf
There's not much to disagree on the odds. Trajectories are known,
uncertainties too and therefore probabilities of collisions can be calculated.

Any disagreement here is easy to reconcile, whose assumptions and methods are
more accurate?

The disagreement is on the importance of the odds. SpaceX might be OK with a
1:10000 (or whatever) chance of collision, the Europeans want it lower.

The Europeans could in the future force the issue. Move, or we'll fine you and
forbid you from launching off of European sites and ban EU companies from
using SpaceX.

~~~
greglindahl
Trajectories have measurement errors.

~~~
safsafasf
Indeed. we wouldn't need safety margins without errors.

------
mabbo
The ESA is sure making a huge deal out of this. I wonder if politics is
involved.

[https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1168582141128650753](https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1168582141128650753)

> Hmmm. We move our satellites on average once a week and don't put out a
> press release to say who we maneuvered around... -Matt Desch, CEO of Iridium

~~~
lukeschlather
The ESA asked SpaceX to move to avoid a collision, and they refused. What
would happen if a private airline refused the FAA telling them to redirect to
avoid a collision, forcing another aircraft to take evasive action?

It definitely is political, and it's going to become a bigger problem if
SpaceX's approach to potential collisions is just to play chicken.

~~~
manicdee
The bigger issue is that ESA is coming up to an important administrative date
in November where their future budget will be determined, and they want money
for their automation program. So they have to portray space as dangerous, ESA
processes as desperately in need of improvement, and this specific example of
a super expensive research satellite coming close to part of a future
megaconstellation makes for great attention-grabbing headlines.

That it was SpaceX that ESA got to throw under the bus was the cherry on the
cake.

~~~
dahdum
SpaceX playing chicken with cheap disposable Starlinks against multibillion
euro public satellites _does_ make space dangerous.

~~~
manicdee
Nobody is playing chicken here.

The SpaceX satellite is for all intents and purposes inert, since it is
incapable of significantly adjusting its orbit.

You know the old joke about the US Navy warship giving way to the second class
seaman, right?

~~~
Rebelgecko
>The SpaceX satellite is for all intents and purposes inert, since it is
incapable of significantly adjusting its orbit.

If SpaceX is actively deorbiting the satellite, it's not inert.

~~~
Doxin
Having enough thrust for a deorbit burn doesn't mean having enough thrust to
avoid a collision.

------
zaroth
NORAD 44278 is a Starlink satellite presently being de-orbited by SpaceX in a
controlled fashion to simulate end-of-life disposal. [1]

The current altitude (~330km) [2] puts it well below the operation envelope
and it’s currently the lowest sat of the Starlink constellation at this point.

It appears SpaceX does continue to have some level of control of the craft.
[3] Some speculation I’ve read is that the much higher impulse of the ESA
thrusters would make the ESA craft a better candidate to execute the maneuver.

These adjustments are not rare - they happen approximately every other week
for this particular craft, and as Iridium says, they do this weekly. [4]

A video of the conjecture [5] shows an approach of “less than 10km”. The ESA
craft apparently passed much closer to several other craft over the last week,
so there may be more to it in this case, or there may be a bone to pick with
Starlink.

Lastly, ESA has a particular interest in raising this issue now as much as
possible, as these “mega-constellations” launched by US companies are coming
closer to reality and the current processes (picking up the phone) don’t scale
well to tens of thousands of satellites.

[1] -
[https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/11446893347775242...](https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1144689334777524226?s=21)

[2] -
[https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=44278](https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=44278)

[3] -
[https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=...](https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1168637324592328705?s=21)

[4] -
[https://twitter.com/iridiumboss/status/1168582141128650753?s...](https://twitter.com/iridiumboss/status/1168582141128650753?s=21)

[5] -
[https://twitter.com/m_r_thomp/status/1168583891726344193?s=2...](https://twitter.com/m_r_thomp/status/1168583891726344193?s=21)

~~~
manicdee
The “more to it” is that ESA is gearing up to request funding for their AI
project, billed as an automated tracking and avoidance manoeuvre planning
system capable of handling the vast numbers of objects and debris expected to
be in orbit in the near future.

This was not about “SpaceX refused to move” but “we need money to build this
automated system so we don’t have to do it all by hand,” and an additional
level which is, how should the various satellite operators make their orbital
parameters available to interested parties?

The situation is that ESA didn’t even know what kind of object the track
represented, and they had to contact SpaceX to ask about it in the first
place. Their job would have been easier (whether manual or automated) if
SpaceX made the orbital parameters available for automated queries.

The last thing this is about is SpaceX being “arrogant” or “refusing to move a
satellite.”

~~~
dahdum
> The last thing this is about is SpaceX being “arrogant” or “refusing to move
> a satellite.”

SpaceX entering ESA’s orbit and arrogantly refusing to move _is_ an excellent
showcase of the need for better avoidance systems, especially since they plan
to launch 12k of them.

It’s also an excellent warning of SpaceX’s ethical framework.

~~~
manicdee
It’s more likely to be an excellent example of why we should always wait two
days to find out the real story.

Clickbait headlines are poison, as are hearsay and anonymous sources using
emotive language like “SpaceX refused” to move their satellite.

------
saagarjha
Of course, inside the article it’s explained that SpaceX didn’t “refuse” to
move the satellite, they were politely asked to do so and declined for reasons
the author is unaware of. Possibly because they couldn’t move the satellite or
had a higher collision tolerance.

~~~
vvanders
The thing is that satellites are planned with a lifespan which can include a
fixed amount of fuel for adjustments like this. It's not too hard to attach a
dollar amount here.

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.

~~~
grecy
I suppose that's going to be a question in the coming years - does someone get
the right of way to a given orbit just because they were there first?

Sounds like a fantastic barrier to entry for newcomers who don't have billions
lining their pockets.

~~~
phkahler
That is true of all finite resources, from orbits to spectrum to real estate.

~~~
tomjakubowski
Maybe the United Nations (or future world government) could levy an Earth-
orbital value tax to ensure orbits are used efficiently.

~~~
mises
This implies that un has jurisdiction over all orbits, which it can't really
enforce. Also, good luck getting any kind of int'l tax passed; no one wants to
give up that kind of sovereignty. Were I a company, I'd just wait until office
changed and whatever treaty this was got torn up to put up my satellites. How
could the un enforce this? At the end of the day, policies are enforced with
the threat of force in response to non-compliance; fact is, un has precious
little of that. The only viable enforcement mechanism would be enforcement by
other nations; again, sovereignty issue. Also, what if a nation decides she
does not agree to such an agreement?

------
syx
Everytime I see these kind of events I think about Kurzgesagt video [1] about
how the domino effect of satellite collisions would release such a high amount
space debris that would trap us all on earth forever.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU)

~~~
oh_sigh
Starlink satellites are only approximately 350 miles up, which means any
debris gets brought down by atmospheric drag very quickly. A million
satellites in that orbit could not cause kessler syndrome.

~~~
ClumsyPilot
That's not quite accurate. Firstly,the debris will destroy everything in LEO,
maybe including ISS, then debit in a few months.

Secondly, some of the debris will probably end up in higher orbit and stay
there for a long time, just like was the case with India and China ASAT tests.
Then they can pose a risk for centuries

~~~
Rebelgecko
> Secondly, some of the debris will probably end up in higher orbit and stay
> there for a long time

The average height of the orbit may go up, but depending on the direction of
the collision the perigee will decrease by some amount, so there will still be
a considerable amount of atmospheric drag. The Chinese ASAT test was in a much
higher orbit, which is why so much of the debris is still troublesome. Most of
the debris from the Indian ASAT test is gone, and the rest will probably be
gone in a year or two.

------
DreamSpinner
What's interesting is that there's already a similar internationally agreed
framework for how to approach this - shipping -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea)
\- These would probably be a good place to start considering a framework for
satellite orbit adjustments. However, despite this framework, it still happens
- and I can see the issue of risk evaluation being a big one - what if one
entity thinks a 1/1000 risk is acceptable for their cheap satellite vs the
other satellite wanting 1/1000000?

~~~
frankharv
I agree with this. Rules of the seas are not laws but more like a code for
mariners to follow. Too bad we see such ignorance in space. Think of the ESA
bird as a "boat in anchor". Lit up with the proper anchorage lights. Now some
jackass with a jetski is blasting right twords you.

------
konschubert
I wonder if AI is really the right tool to automate the process. Couldn’t it
be done more robustly with a simple algorithm that takes todays collision
probability models as input?

~~~
Paul-ish
Reading the Wikipedia page for a 2009 satelite collision[1]:

> Calculations made by CelesTrak had expected these two satellites to miss by
> 584 meters (1,916 ft)

Perhaps the calculations aren't straightforward Newtonian mechanics?

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision)

~~~
orbital-decay
Predictions based on TLEs aren't precise enough for satellite collisions. TLE
is a solution compiled from many measurements, and what one wants for very
close passes are raw measurements. It's a bit like JPEG vs RAW in photography.

Regarding that particular collision, IIRC human factor was involved a lot.
Iridium has been warned well in advance, but hesitated to make the decision
since their models gave lower probabilities.

------
ricardobeat
Judging by the comments here, this piece has succeeded in planting the idea
that StarLink is dangerous using incredibly little detail.

~~~
asdff
More like "Musk company does something arrogant again"

------
mLuby
"SpaceX, in a new statement, says they were aware of the potential
Aeolus/Starlink collision, but at first the probability was low. When the
probability increased, “a bug in our on-call paging system prevented the
Starlink operator from seeing the follow on correspondence.”"
[https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1168919094265044996](https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1168919094265044996)

------
cameronbrown
Why would they refuse to move the satellite? It's not like only the European
satellite would be affected by a collision, both are in danger, so either they
couldn't or they didn't think it was likely.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
The likely answer is that the satellite in question was out of control and
they couldn't move it.

I don't know which Starlink sat this was, but the the other satellite that did
dodge seems to be flying at ~300km. This is much lower than what the
functional Starlink constellation is. Some of the initial launch failed to
unfold their solar panels, and the batteries would have ran down by now, so
they are rapidly decaying space trash.

Others are being deorbited under power but SpaceX would have no reason not to
do dodge with those.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Why are they deorbiting? Didn't they just launch these?

~~~
duskwuff
To test their ability to perform a controlled deorbit.

~~~
fwip
Sounds like the test didn't work, if they can't avoid hitting other
satellites.

------
weinzierl
For anyone not familiar with aerospace terminology: LEO is not the name of the
satellite but just means that it is a low flying satellite. It stands for Low
Earth Orbit.

------
mlindner
This is a false article. There is no evidence SpaceX refused to move and ESA
calling out the fact that they moved for a SpaceX satellite is ESA playing
politics. LEO is full of space debris and satellite owners move satellites for
space junk all the time. This is called political grandstanding.

------
floatingatoll
> In 2018, ESA performed 28 #collisionavoidance manoeuvres across its fleet.

~~~
edoceo
One every two weeks (about) don't seem "rare" to me.

~~~
throwaway2048
Its rare to have to avoid an active satellite, rather than random orbiting
garbage.

------
Steel_Phoenix
I was under the impression that most of the constellation would be at such an
unusually low orbit that there wouldn't be much to collide with. How crowded
are the planned orbit shells?

------
WalterBright
The long term solution would be to establish some form of property rights over
particular orbits. Then, to use a particular orbit, one must pay the market
rate for it.

~~~
greglindahl
Deorbiting satellites make that a hilarious proposal.

~~~
WalterBright
Certainly property rights to orbits will have special characteristics. We've
already accumulated much experience with property rights for things that are
different from physical property - I'm sure spending more than 30 seconds
thinking about it can come up with solutions.

------
newnewpdro
I guess when you have your own launch capabilities you can treat your internet
satellites as easily replaced.

Adding more junk up there only serves to create more launches as the
inevitable collisions occur. It arguably makes good business sense for SpaceX
to add as much as possible and be quite fast and loose with their management
of it, at least as long as it's the wild west up there.

------
dmix
> ESA is preparing to automate this process using #AI

Sounds like something SpaceX and other constellation satellite companies
should do as part of these widescale deployment. Or at least lower the
threshold of moving out of the way so they don't get tons of push back from
existing space power players who’ve got more influence than they do.

------
londons_explore
The US military tracking isn't very accurate. Errors of hundreds of meters are
common.

I bet spacex themselves know the location of their satellites to within a few
meters. With more accurate data, you can come up with a far more accurate
collision risk estimate.

~~~
mLuby
That's fine, but then share that data and there'd be no need to waste delta-v
for either satellite.

Also these aren't military assets, their specs and locations aren't secret, so
if they have better tracking, they should be sharing that.

~~~
debatem1
My suspicion is that SpaceX and the ESA disagreed either on:

1/ the position of the SpaceX vehicle (ESA may not trust the SpaceX position
data)

2/ that they disagreed on the probability of a collision (ESA thinks it's 5%,
SpaceX thinks it's 0.005%) or

3/ they disagreed on whether the probability of a collision was worth moving
for (eg, ESA thinks you should move for a one-in-a-million shot, SpaceX
disagrees).

I recall someone saying that SpaceX did share ephemeris, but I can't find a
reference. Maybe I dreamed it.

------
rocqua
I presume there are liability rules if your satellite hits another one. What
about if your satellite makes another one waste fuel on a diversion?

~~~
avocado4
Would ESA satellite hit Space X or the other way around? How do they determine
it?

~~~
jsiepkes
The ESA satellite had been on that orbit 9 months before the Spacelink
satellite.

------
Jyaif
It's like when there's a crappy car refusing to give the right a way to a
luxury car. The crappy car owner has little to lose compared to the luxury car
owner.

Constellation owners (SpaceX here) knows that owners of big satellite will
dodge them. Big satellite will have to carry more fuel, which incidentally is
good news for the business of satellite launchers (SpaceX again).

------
dzhiurgis
Is there any right of way rules similar to how marine traffic works?

------
everyone
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)
Yay!!

~~~
guerrilla
Animated version:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU)

------
jazzyjackson
How is it the case that StarLink didn't realize they were launching into
orbits that would intersect with others?

I find it foreboding that the number of intersections with space debris and
live constellations is to the point where ESA is moving towards non-
deterministic algorithms to hopefully avoid the worst. How will Musk ever
leave this planet if we make a shell of debris around ourselves?

See also: the anime "planetes"

~~~
inamberclad
They don't plan like that at all.

Since all these orbital parameters change over time due to atmospheric drag,
solar pressure, gravity irregularities, etc, organizations like NORAD
constantly monitor and determine the orbital parameters of every object they
can find circling the Earth.

So, they watch for when the likelihood that one satellite will come within
some small distance (say, 5km) of another is high. For example, if the odds
that they come that close are say, 75% in the next 5 orbits, the operators are
notified and alter their courses slightly to maintain separation.

Even manned spacecraft such as the ISS will perform separation maneuvers to
keep themselves clear of objects that may come too close.

~~~
perl4ever
I think the issue is that people have some vague affinity for the way space
travel was depicted in old science fiction, where you could blast off and
manually control everything with possibly the assistance of a slide rule.

And it's slightly discomfiting to realize that just traffic control is so
complex that it needs modern computers to track and react. Space is supposed
to be vast and empty! And it is, but not in LEO.

------
mises
This is gonna get ugly pretty soon. I'm pretty convinced it's less an issue of
moving (which esa itself stated it does once every week to two weeks) and more
of politics. A couple possibilities:

* europe mad at America b/c trade

* europe mad at American companies beating european ones to space and getting more of the limited orbit spots first

* europe mad she wasn't really asked before SpaceX put up satellites

* europe has a principal objection to the idea of private companies playing on the same level as the bureaucrats or an issue with corps occupying space at all

Most likely, it's a combination of all of the above. Regardless, people will
start getting awfully catty about this, and it's possible knocking some one
else's satellite out of the sky could be a serious issue.

------
throwaway2048
From the twitter thread:

    
    
        It is very rare to 
        perform collision 
        avoidance manoeuvres 
        with active 
        satellites. The vast 
        majority of ESA 
        avoidance manoeuvres 
        are the result of 
        dead satellites or 
        fragments from 
        previous collisions. 
        [ ... ]
        
        As the number of 
        satellites in orbit 
        increases, due to 
        'mega constellations' 
        such as #Starlink 
        comprising hundreds 
        or even thousands of 
        satellites, today's 
        'manual' collision 
        avoidance process 
        will become 
        impossible...

~~~
floatingatoll
This is unreadable on mobile due to the use of code formatting.
[https://i.imgur.com/562ORgL.png](https://i.imgur.com/562ORgL.png)

EDIT: Said comment is now one full screen tall due to manual insertion of
linewraps, and is very wasteful of space on desktop and landscape layouts:
[https://i.imgur.com/H15eCXo.png](https://i.imgur.com/H15eCXo.png)

~~~
pxtail
It so weird that there is no incentive to fix many usability shortcomings like
this one and too tiny UI elements on mobile etc. - all of that despite
multiple complaints over years..

~~~
floatingatoll
Mobile works fine for me and the UI elements as shown honor my text size
setting accurately. Using code formatting for non-code results in broken
formatting for non-code. This should come as no surprise to anyone. Indents
aren’t worth a semantic violation. Use “> ” prefixes like classic email, and
optionally _italic_ asterisks if that’s desirable.

