>>like half of all active satellites in LEO? It's not surprising that they would be half the encounters.
Half of all sats, not objects. These close encounters are not just with other satellites but any other tracked objects in the database, of which there are many more.
Wouldn't that still be expected if they make up half the satellites? Or do these numbers also include near-misses of two non-satellite objects, in which case Starlink would do worse than non-steered space junk?
There wasn't any close miss. The "close miss" was a press blast operation by a competitor. The two companies were in coordination and because the competitor couldn't trust SpaceX to avoid their satellite spacex disabled their avoidance intentionally so that the competitor could move their satellite. Then said competitor went on a crazy press tirade about "dangerous starlink" even though SpaceX helped them out. If SpaceX had done nothing Starlink would have successfully avoided the competitor's satellite.
I've heard OneWeb's constellation ops team (the engineers in charge of coordinating maneuvers with other spacecraft for collision avoidance) threatened to walk out over the crazy press tirade. The craziness was from someone at the top, not from the folks on the ground.
Wouldn't it be ironic if, despite the high-flying idealistic rhetoric, Elon Musk ends up denying everyone access to space, for a time, due to StarLink triggering Kessler syndrome?
Kessler Syndrome isn't optimal, but it won't be the overly dramatic Earth prison we hear about in worst case scenario stories. PBS Space Time did a video on this recently...
It's also a lot less likely with ultra-LEO constellations like Starlink. Not only do the satellites naturally quickly deorbit after loss of control, they're low and cheap enough that if necessary SpaceX can easily suicide-burn them to avoid catastrophe should it come to that.
In short not only is a collision bad but it could create a chain reaction leading to billions of small objects flying around in the orbit forming a impenetrable barrier that bars further space travel and more importantly putting other (actually useful) satellites at risk
Generally speaking, the higher the orbit the higher the chances of unrecoverable Kessler syndrome. For example if something went wrong way out in geosynchronous orbit and caused a chain of collisions, there's basically nothing we could do except clean it up manually — on its own it'd remain a mess for thousands of years.
For the lowest orbits, worst case scenario is just waiting 2-5 years for it to clear itself up.
Not only is it crazy small, it's impossible. Kessler syndrome doesn't result in "space junk barrier" nonsense. That's from media and movies, not a possible reality.
I used to like Johnny Harris quite a bit, but when your research is Wikipedia deep, and your method of convincing people is to make incredulous faces I start to lose interest.
All of SpaceX's satellites are in low Earth orbit, and will deorbit themselves over time even if they die. Kessler syndrome is bad but overblown, and far more likely to occur due to antisat missiles from nation states.
There is an increased risk of collision, but the increase is marginal at best.
I like to imagine a future where space is unregulated, and some alternative LEO satellite Internet company begins to shoot down SpaceX's satellites in order to make room for their own. That in turn inspires SpaceX to deploy their own defensive drones, and technology escalates. I'm not really sure where this would all go but it would make for a great fiction.
Starlink satellites are already using ion thrusters simply to maintain orbit. Some level of active evasion seems like a viable evolution of that rather cyberpunk idea.
Assuming such a lawless state of affairs, having a large constellation of satellites in LEO already could be used to prevent competition from reaching orbit to challenge you. I am not sure many people have noticed, but in launching thousands of Starlink satellites, SpaceX has demonstrated their ability to implement the SDI/Star Wars proposal Brilliant Pebbles, which called for a thousand or more kinetic interceptors hanging out in LEO, waiting for enemy rocket launches to crash into. At the time, Brilliant Pebbles was an absurd proposal because it called for thousands of satellites, but SpaceX has already demonstrated that ability. They can already launch 60 satellites per launch, and apparently have plans to increase that several times over.
(It has occurred to me that Starlink might secretly be a Brilliant Pebbles installation already, waiting to be revealed as such if a major war were to break out. However I believe the thrusters on extant Starlink satellites are too weak for this. And they don't have the sensor suites for it either, at least officially.)
SpaceX's latest FCC filing for Gen2 Starlink states that the new Gen2 satellites have the capacity to “accommodate additional payloads in the future” [0].
It is very plausible that the US government (Space Force, NRO, NOAA, etc) might sign up to provide some of those additional payloads. Although surveillance technology is much more likely than active weapons systems. I think SpaceX will likely resist turning Starlink into a weapon, it could be bad for their corporate image and might cause political difficulty with Starlink's approval in some countries.
Surveillance technologies can always be covered up as commercial imaging, environmental/scientific imaging, military communication systems, etc.
Remember the Kzinti lesson. Anything with sufficient velocity is a weapon. Thousands of Starlink satellites is functionally equivalent to a mothballed Brilliant Pebbles fleet. Now to be fair their response time will not be ideal due to the thrusters not being optimised for rapid orbit changes. But it’s definitely a software update away from being a poor mans Brilliant Pebbles, more than capable enough to threaten anyone staying in LEO (they probably couldn’t respond fast enough to nail down a direct ascent rocket aimed at LEO or something flying right through LEO altitude on its way to say the moon.)
It’s interesting you imagine this as fiction. I have always thought it was inevitable.
It would only take one innovation in space propulsion, and I could easily see fighting over space real estate leading to the destruction of satellites.
Starlink seems particularly vulnerable, with the satellites lined up like dominoes.
I prefer imagine future where the local loop was unbundled. Rendering starlink unnecessary and giving great speed and great ISP choice.
Yes, starlink gives an additional choice, and that's great, but this approach is even harder to enter than laying down new fiber.
Actual solution is to require last mile to be leased to any competitor. This was the reason why there was so much choice with DSL in early 2000 (Title II which applied to land lines had this requirement).
That could probably be the plot of a cyberpunk RPG campaign.
"My client, who has to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, wants you to break into this facility and fire the space-laser at the targets stored in this drive."
"To deflect attention, you are to pose as cyberterrorists for the duration of the mission."
My somehow similar space predominance fiction would about one smaller country, unable to directly make use of space, but unwilling to leave it to other nations, intentionally causing the Kessler cascade by sending and detonating a few bombs in space.
I find the phrasing interesting. This is in the title and in the article itself in similar form, but:
Starlink near-misses with other spacecraft are getting 'out of control'
By the phrasing the blame is laid on Starlink, which may be the reality but collecting the numbers alone don't justify that implication, which is most of what this article provides.
As someone else pointed out, Starlink's presence in LEO has more than doubled the number of satellites so it kind of makes sense that there'd be a corresponding increase in the number of incidents, and just by the odds that Starlink would be involved in around half of them. The other claim in the article, that when Starlink's ~12k satellites are in orbit they'll be involved in 90% of these incidents also make sense. They'd make up about 90% of satellites in LEO using the present numbers.
If half the cars on the road are Fords and half the accidents reported involve Fords that doesn't mean Ford cars or drivers are somehow worse than the rest, it actually means they're average. It'd be more interesting if the number of incidents leaned toward Starlink for something other than just conventional probability calculations, that is they accounted for a larger-than-expected share of incidents.
Two stats provided, for Starlink and OneWeb. Starlink has 1700 satellites and 500 incidents/week. OneWeb has 250 satellites and 80 incidents/week. Starlink has 6.8x as many satellites. Again, by the numbers with what's reported here Starlink is no worse than other actors in this space. OneWeb has about a 32% incident rate (incidents/satellites) while Starlink has 29%. By these numbers they're actually slightly better than OneWeb here.
I imagine starlink has the advantage of being able to coordinate with 50% of satelites sharing their orbit (the starlink satelites) so they should have a lower 'incident per satellite' rate.
Per the article that 500/week is reduced to only the incidents with non-Starlink satellites. Assuming the article is presenting apples-to-apples, then the 80/week for OneWeb should correspond to that 500/week for Starlink.
Starlink's total with their own satellites as well was 1600.
It's also worth noting that Starlink/SpaceX does coordinate with other satellite operators, it's their responsibility to do so.
I was actually working on an edit when I saw your reply and decided to put it here instead.
EDIT:
Reread a section of the article:
> OneWeb, by comparison, currently has 250 satellites and passes another operators’ satellite 80 times per week.
So yes, I've made an apples-to-apples comparison here. We don't know OneWeb's total incident count from this article alone and I'm insufficiently motivated to track down that statistic.
> "This problem is really getting out of control," Siemak Hesar, CEO and co-founder of commercial autonomous space traffic management system Kayhan Space, told Space.
Well, there are certainly no obvious conflicts of interest behind this quote.
/s
I'm sick of this FUD. SpaceX is, I believe, the largest operator of satellites by count, so it makes perfect sense that they would account for the lion's share of these "close encounters". None of these articles offer a meaningful quantification of risk, or much in the way of constructive discussion; instead they shotgun-blast vague soundbites from "experts" and wave around the Kessler Syndrome boogeyman with about as much technical precision as can be found in the related joke at the beginning of WALL-E.
In the context of Starlink, the "SpaceX Bad" narrative basically boils down to saying we should not develop space further because reasons, much in the same way single-family-home NIMBYs poison urban growth now that they've got theirs. There are obviously tough problems that will need to be solved, and I agree that some distributed "traffic control" system will ultimately be necessary, especially when we start filling up higher orbits where Kessler Syndrome is actually a serious concern. But it's disappointing to see the media engage in so much of what basically amounts to concern trolling, polarizing and poisoning the public discourse.
One takeaway I'm getting - many of these other providers are perhaps not technically that competent. I mean, if you don't understand where the risks are, what are you doing with space traffic mgmt?
Reality is SpaceX I think has one of the largest operating autonomous traffic mgmt systems already. It's very fast acting.
In the fake oneweb "near miss" it just turned out that oneweb had to do manual maneuvers, SpaceX had more time because things were automated, so one web asked spaceX to turn off their systems.
Compared to other providers, the starlink constellation is actually generating some the LEAST long lasting space junk up there (which is a lot already).
I do get the impression that Starlink is extremely competent at managing their constellation.
Ultimately I think the biggest risk is going to come from poor coordination between large operators, as we already got a taste of in that ESA/Starlink snafu a few months (?) back. I'd rather see some kind of distributed consensus framework than a single corporate entity managing it all, though.
I have also carefully red entire article and only found single reason that could, well, maybe, explain the alarmistic title.
There are three possible explanations I see:
1. Either Starlink is overeoptimistic at its reliability at locating satellites and maintaining separation down to couple of meters of resoultion.
2. or the other operators don't have similar capability and are alarming they can't keep up with moving their satellites that were not designed for so many maneuvers to keep separation.
3. They just want to bad PR for Starlink because they are not happy with aggressive competition.
It seems to me that Starlink is quite precise (or optimistic, I can't tell) at locating their satellites which makes sense. When you have so many you can't be constantly moving them about to keep at least 1km separation. It would probably be cheaper if you could predict the minimum separation to much lower distances, like 50m.
But the other operators either did not anticipate this or don't want to keep investing just to keep being able maintaining their fleet.
It’s also possible that starlink are somewhat neglecting their responsibility to keep appropriate distances between satellites because they find that financial risk acceptable and want to signal to other operators that they should get out of the way. Essentially a game of chicken where Starlink has the upper hand because a loss is not such a problem for them.
It is one thing to be able to locate stationary car and another to locate satellite that moves at 8km/s and yet another to predict the minimum distance between two satellites intersecting at 12km/s.
> Well, there are certainly no obvious conflicts of interest behind this quote.
This is just an empty ad hominem.
Is the data accurate or is it inaccurate?
Is the interpretation of the data valid or is it invalid?
Either SpaceX is or it is not involved in a lot of close calls in orbit. These are not facts up for interpretation, they either are or they aren't.
Whether a given rate is alarming or not is a value judgement, certainly, but if there has been a significant increase in rate, and SpaceX has been responsible for that increase, then the facts speak for themselves.
So, what is your take on the facts as they've been reported?
My other comment. Summary: SpaceX seems to be no worse an actor than other operators. Doubling the number of satellites in orbit would, by the odds, result in an expected doubling of the number of incidents (if not more, actually). Owning half the satellites in orbit means they, again, by the odds should be involved in around half the incidents. These statements are in the article, but obscured because the article presents the facts but doesn't clarify that statistically this is actually close to what should be expected.
Further, they do provide enough facts to see that OneWeb is actually slightly worse than Starlink. However it's again obscured because they present a raw total without conveying how it relates to their share of satellites in orbit.
And that's on the facts. The other aspect is the tone. The way we phrase things influences interpretation, journalists (especially) are aware of this. The article's style:
> Starlink satellites come within 1km of other satellites 500 times per week.
This lays, implicitly, the blame or responsibility on Starlink. However, it could be easily turned around (both satellites in a close encounter are in motion, it's not like Starlink satellites are approaching static objects here):
> Other satellites come within 1km of Starlink satellites 500 times per week.
Here, Starlink is presented as the innocent party. The two phrases express the same idea if you read past the implication the ordering presents, but by choosing one or the other you encourage the reader to come to a conclusion that isn't justified by the rest of the article (in either manner of phrasing).
No, it's not. I'm suggesting that there is an obvious conflict of interest here, because there is.
> Is the data accurate or is it inaccurate?
I would not characterize the quantitative content of this article, such as the number of satellites Starlink currently operates, as inaccurate.
> Is the interpretation of the data valid or is it invalid?
It is my opinion that the article does not offer a cogent interpretation of any data beyond what's obvious on the face of the numbers they quote.
> Either SpaceX is or it is not involved in a lot of close calls in orbit. These are not facts up for interpretation, they either are or they aren't.
The number of "close calls" (assuming here you're taking the article's definition of such an event as being "when two craft pass within one kilometre of each other") is just a number, and I am not "interpreting" or otherwise questioning it. I'm simply questioning why it matters.
> Whether a given rate is alarming or not is a value judgement, certainly, but if there has been a significant increase in rate, and SpaceX has been responsible for that increase, then the facts speak for themselves.
And what is it that they're saying? And how does it contradict anything I said in my comment?
> So, what is your take on the facts as they've been reported?
"when someone makes an ad hominem, they are attacking the person they are arguing against, instead of what they are saying."
That's quite literally what you were doing in your first comment: attacking the person instead of engaging with their claims.
> The number of "close calls" (assuming here you're taking the article's definition of such an event as being "when two craft pass within one kilometre of each other") is just a number, and I am not "interpreting" or otherwise questioning it. I'm simply questioning why it matters.
And that is a valid conversation to have.
But just saying "bad source, biased" isn't meaningful. It adds literally nothing of value to the conversation.
So let's talk about that!
I'd say that collisions between objects in orbit does matter and an increased rate of close calls is a reasonable indication that there's likely an increased probability of a collision.
Now, SpaceX has an unusually large number of objects in LEO, so just by virtue of those numbers, they're likely to have a higher number of close calls than other operators.
The question for me, is: could SpaceX be doing something differently to reduce these incident rates?
It'd be nice to get some visibility into how SpaceX is managing their fleet, and the means by which they're coordinating with other operators. Maybe it's the case that SpaceX is doing everything they can and this is just the practical reality of operating a large fleet of satellites in LEO.
But at this point I just don't know, so it'd be good to learn more.
1. Is there or is there not a potential conflict of interest in the CEO of a "space traffic control" company being quoted as saying that "space traffic" is "out of control" and in dire need of solutions like the ones his company presumably sells or plans to sell? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe, generally, that the presence of potential conflicts of interest can be a valid and useful heuristic for evaluating the objectivity and trustworthiness of claims, especially unsubstantiated and relatively subjective claims like this one? Why or why not?
> Do you believe, generally, that the presence of potential conflicts of interest can be a valid and useful heuristic for evaluating the objectivity and trustworthiness of claims
In this particular case it simply doesn't matter.
The data exists. Engage with that, as have many other comments in this thread.
An ad hominem, in this case, is just a mental shortcut to get to the answer you've already picked (i.e., that SpaceX is faultless).
> An ad hominem, in this case, is just a mental shortcut to get to the answer you've already picked (i.e., that SpaceX is faultless).
After so much complaining about my "empty" ad hominem "attacks", it's quite ironic to see you putting words in my mouth (thoughts in my head?) that do not fairly or accurately represent anything I've said here.
I am not interested in putting words in your mouth, nor in responding to low quality arguments driven by misrepresentations, rationalizations, and personal attacks. I asked you some simple questions in an attempt to find common ground on the existence of conflicts of interest and their general relevance, and if you can't or won't answer them straightforwardly, there is nothing left for me to say. It's up to you.
> ...Starlink satellites are responsible for over half of all near-collisions in space, according to...
- and yet -
> ...there are approximately 228 million pieces of space debris...
So - either the mere ~1,700 Starlink satellites are ~100,000X hyper-achievers when it comes to near-collisions...or else the The Independent is yearning to win a "Lies...Damn Lies...Statistics" hype-achiever award.
The whole thrust of the article is the satellites are hyperachievers at this, and there's tons more variables than that, path, velocity, acceleration, relative height ... – I don't have the energy to make a tortured analogy slamming you for lazy thinking, so I'll leave you with a lame one: you're hyperachieving at insulting after hyperachieving at false dichotomies.
It could be a discrepancy is orbit. Most space debris is not on circular low earth orbit. In fact, that is not a stable orbit because of atmospheric drag.
And circular LEO is where most satelites are. So satelites in that same class of orbits would indeed be 'hyper achievers'.
From NASA graphics (1 Jan. 2019 data) - https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photo-gallery/# - it looks like a great deal of the debris is in low or low-perigee orbits. (The latter still have plenty of opportunity to hit low-circular-orbit objects.)
I might accept Starlink satellites being 10X or even 100X performers, based on arguments about orbits, cross-sectional area, etc. But ~100,000X? No.
Question: Do the satellites fully disintegrate? What is the approximate maximum particle size of any leftovers? e.g. Will remnants ever not fully disintegrate and land on earth (people, buildings etc)?
100% of the Starlink satellites burn up during re-entry. End-of-life satellites are intentionally deorbited. Failed satellites are in such a low orbit that they will self-deorbit after 5 years due to atmospheric drag without their orbit being boosted.
There was concern at one point that the laser component of Starlink woulldn't burn up during atmospheric reentry. I don't think many (if any) satellites currently in orbit have that laser module (which will be used for satellite-to-satellite communication, and IIRC better latency by removing a necessary ground round-trip when the satellite leaves radio "line of sight" with your antenna; I don't have the correct terminology). I don't know either if that's been fixed
78 comments
[ 250 ms ] story [ 2667 ms ] threadAren't Starlink satellites now something like half of all active satellites in LEO? It's not surprising that they would be half the encounters.
Even then, there's only been one encounter that anyone considered a close miss.
Half of all sats, not objects. These close encounters are not just with other satellites but any other tracked objects in the database, of which there are many more.
[1] https://xkcd.com/2476/
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Space...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
"The (Slow) Crisis Of Space Junk": https://youtu.be/LkeTk-Fi_c8
https://www.slashgear.com/five-spacex-starlink-satellites-ar...
Can you expand on that if you have a moment? Thanks.
The person who runs the quake server can shoot you 5 times before your shot hits the server. Mostly mitigated by what, quake 3 era?
In short not only is a collision bad but it could create a chain reaction leading to billions of small objects flying around in the orbit forming a impenetrable barrier that bars further space travel and more importantly putting other (actually useful) satellites at risk
The probability of cascade-crash space-junk barrier is crazy small? Right?
For the lowest orbits, worst case scenario is just waiting 2-5 years for it to clear itself up.
So I'm not sure you could really even trigger Kessler syndrome there & it would likely be quite easy to avoid that debris belt if you did.
Yes
All of SpaceX's satellites are in low Earth orbit, and will deorbit themselves over time even if they die. Kessler syndrome is bad but overblown, and far more likely to occur due to antisat missiles from nation states.
There is an increased risk of collision, but the increase is marginal at best.
(It has occurred to me that Starlink might secretly be a Brilliant Pebbles installation already, waiting to be revealed as such if a major war were to break out. However I believe the thrusters on extant Starlink satellites are too weak for this. And they don't have the sensor suites for it either, at least officially.)
It is very plausible that the US government (Space Force, NRO, NOAA, etc) might sign up to provide some of those additional payloads. Although surveillance technology is much more likely than active weapons systems. I think SpaceX will likely resist turning Starlink into a weapon, it could be bad for their corporate image and might cause political difficulty with Starlink's approval in some countries.
Surveillance technologies can always be covered up as commercial imaging, environmental/scientific imaging, military communication systems, etc.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/19/spacex-starlink-satellite-in...
It would only take one innovation in space propulsion, and I could easily see fighting over space real estate leading to the destruction of satellites.
Starlink seems particularly vulnerable, with the satellites lined up like dominoes.
Yes, starlink gives an additional choice, and that's great, but this approach is even harder to enter than laying down new fiber.
Actual solution is to require last mile to be leased to any competitor. This was the reason why there was so much choice with DSL in early 2000 (Title II which applied to land lines had this requirement).
"My client, who has to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, wants you to break into this facility and fire the space-laser at the targets stored in this drive."
"To deflect attention, you are to pose as cyberterrorists for the duration of the mission."
As someone else pointed out, Starlink's presence in LEO has more than doubled the number of satellites so it kind of makes sense that there'd be a corresponding increase in the number of incidents, and just by the odds that Starlink would be involved in around half of them. The other claim in the article, that when Starlink's ~12k satellites are in orbit they'll be involved in 90% of these incidents also make sense. They'd make up about 90% of satellites in LEO using the present numbers.
If half the cars on the road are Fords and half the accidents reported involve Fords that doesn't mean Ford cars or drivers are somehow worse than the rest, it actually means they're average. It'd be more interesting if the number of incidents leaned toward Starlink for something other than just conventional probability calculations, that is they accounted for a larger-than-expected share of incidents.
Two stats provided, for Starlink and OneWeb. Starlink has 1700 satellites and 500 incidents/week. OneWeb has 250 satellites and 80 incidents/week. Starlink has 6.8x as many satellites. Again, by the numbers with what's reported here Starlink is no worse than other actors in this space. OneWeb has about a 32% incident rate (incidents/satellites) while Starlink has 29%. By these numbers they're actually slightly better than OneWeb here.
Starlink's total with their own satellites as well was 1600.
It's also worth noting that Starlink/SpaceX does coordinate with other satellite operators, it's their responsibility to do so.
I was actually working on an edit when I saw your reply and decided to put it here instead.
EDIT:
Reread a section of the article:
> OneWeb, by comparison, currently has 250 satellites and passes another operators’ satellite 80 times per week.
So yes, I've made an apples-to-apples comparison here. We don't know OneWeb's total incident count from this article alone and I'm insufficiently motivated to track down that statistic.
The world must cooperate to avoid colliding satellites and space debris - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28231581 - Aug 2021 (181 comments)
A YC startup in the current batch is working on this:
Launch HN: Turion Space (YC S21) – Space debris removal and satellite servicing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28061725 - Aug 2021 (111 comments)
Well, there are certainly no obvious conflicts of interest behind this quote.
/s
I'm sick of this FUD. SpaceX is, I believe, the largest operator of satellites by count, so it makes perfect sense that they would account for the lion's share of these "close encounters". None of these articles offer a meaningful quantification of risk, or much in the way of constructive discussion; instead they shotgun-blast vague soundbites from "experts" and wave around the Kessler Syndrome boogeyman with about as much technical precision as can be found in the related joke at the beginning of WALL-E.
In the context of Starlink, the "SpaceX Bad" narrative basically boils down to saying we should not develop space further because reasons, much in the same way single-family-home NIMBYs poison urban growth now that they've got theirs. There are obviously tough problems that will need to be solved, and I agree that some distributed "traffic control" system will ultimately be necessary, especially when we start filling up higher orbits where Kessler Syndrome is actually a serious concern. But it's disappointing to see the media engage in so much of what basically amounts to concern trolling, polarizing and poisoning the public discourse.
One takeaway I'm getting - many of these other providers are perhaps not technically that competent. I mean, if you don't understand where the risks are, what are you doing with space traffic mgmt?
Reality is SpaceX I think has one of the largest operating autonomous traffic mgmt systems already. It's very fast acting.
In the fake oneweb "near miss" it just turned out that oneweb had to do manual maneuvers, SpaceX had more time because things were automated, so one web asked spaceX to turn off their systems.
Compared to other providers, the starlink constellation is actually generating some the LEAST long lasting space junk up there (which is a lot already).
Ultimately I think the biggest risk is going to come from poor coordination between large operators, as we already got a taste of in that ESA/Starlink snafu a few months (?) back. I'd rather see some kind of distributed consensus framework than a single corporate entity managing it all, though.
There are three possible explanations I see:
1. Either Starlink is overeoptimistic at its reliability at locating satellites and maintaining separation down to couple of meters of resoultion.
2. or the other operators don't have similar capability and are alarming they can't keep up with moving their satellites that were not designed for so many maneuvers to keep separation.
3. They just want to bad PR for Starlink because they are not happy with aggressive competition.
It seems to me that Starlink is quite precise (or optimistic, I can't tell) at locating their satellites which makes sense. When you have so many you can't be constantly moving them about to keep at least 1km separation. It would probably be cheaper if you could predict the minimum separation to much lower distances, like 50m.
But the other operators either did not anticipate this or don't want to keep investing just to keep being able maintaining their fleet.
The satellites have GPS on board. If your car can be placed to a resolution of meters, so can satellites. That is true of most satellites as well.
How much of that is linked to people hating the founder?
This is just an empty ad hominem.
Is the data accurate or is it inaccurate?
Is the interpretation of the data valid or is it invalid?
Either SpaceX is or it is not involved in a lot of close calls in orbit. These are not facts up for interpretation, they either are or they aren't.
Whether a given rate is alarming or not is a value judgement, certainly, but if there has been a significant increase in rate, and SpaceX has been responsible for that increase, then the facts speak for themselves.
So, what is your take on the facts as they've been reported?
My other comment. Summary: SpaceX seems to be no worse an actor than other operators. Doubling the number of satellites in orbit would, by the odds, result in an expected doubling of the number of incidents (if not more, actually). Owning half the satellites in orbit means they, again, by the odds should be involved in around half the incidents. These statements are in the article, but obscured because the article presents the facts but doesn't clarify that statistically this is actually close to what should be expected.
Further, they do provide enough facts to see that OneWeb is actually slightly worse than Starlink. However it's again obscured because they present a raw total without conveying how it relates to their share of satellites in orbit.
And that's on the facts. The other aspect is the tone. The way we phrase things influences interpretation, journalists (especially) are aware of this. The article's style:
> Starlink satellites come within 1km of other satellites 500 times per week.
This lays, implicitly, the blame or responsibility on Starlink. However, it could be easily turned around (both satellites in a close encounter are in motion, it's not like Starlink satellites are approaching static objects here):
> Other satellites come within 1km of Starlink satellites 500 times per week.
Here, Starlink is presented as the innocent party. The two phrases express the same idea if you read past the implication the ordering presents, but by choosing one or the other you encourage the reader to come to a conclusion that isn't justified by the rest of the article (in either manner of phrasing).
No, it's not. I'm suggesting that there is an obvious conflict of interest here, because there is.
> Is the data accurate or is it inaccurate?
I would not characterize the quantitative content of this article, such as the number of satellites Starlink currently operates, as inaccurate.
> Is the interpretation of the data valid or is it invalid?
It is my opinion that the article does not offer a cogent interpretation of any data beyond what's obvious on the face of the numbers they quote.
> Either SpaceX is or it is not involved in a lot of close calls in orbit. These are not facts up for interpretation, they either are or they aren't.
The number of "close calls" (assuming here you're taking the article's definition of such an event as being "when two craft pass within one kilometre of each other") is just a number, and I am not "interpreting" or otherwise questioning it. I'm simply questioning why it matters.
> Whether a given rate is alarming or not is a value judgement, certainly, but if there has been a significant increase in rate, and SpaceX has been responsible for that increase, then the facts speak for themselves.
And what is it that they're saying? And how does it contradict anything I said in my comment?
> So, what is your take on the facts as they've been reported?
See above.
Actually, it literally is. From https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"when someone makes an ad hominem, they are attacking the person they are arguing against, instead of what they are saying."
That's quite literally what you were doing in your first comment: attacking the person instead of engaging with their claims.
> The number of "close calls" (assuming here you're taking the article's definition of such an event as being "when two craft pass within one kilometre of each other") is just a number, and I am not "interpreting" or otherwise questioning it. I'm simply questioning why it matters.
And that is a valid conversation to have.
But just saying "bad source, biased" isn't meaningful. It adds literally nothing of value to the conversation.
So let's talk about that!
I'd say that collisions between objects in orbit does matter and an increased rate of close calls is a reasonable indication that there's likely an increased probability of a collision.
Now, SpaceX has an unusually large number of objects in LEO, so just by virtue of those numbers, they're likely to have a higher number of close calls than other operators.
The question for me, is: could SpaceX be doing something differently to reduce these incident rates?
It'd be nice to get some visibility into how SpaceX is managing their fleet, and the means by which they're coordinating with other operators. Maybe it's the case that SpaceX is doing everything they can and this is just the practical reality of operating a large fleet of satellites in LEO.
But at this point I just don't know, so it'd be good to learn more.
1. Is there or is there not a potential conflict of interest in the CEO of a "space traffic control" company being quoted as saying that "space traffic" is "out of control" and in dire need of solutions like the ones his company presumably sells or plans to sell? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe, generally, that the presence of potential conflicts of interest can be a valid and useful heuristic for evaluating the objectivity and trustworthiness of claims, especially unsubstantiated and relatively subjective claims like this one? Why or why not?
3. If yes, why not in this case?
In this particular case it simply doesn't matter.
The data exists. Engage with that, as have many other comments in this thread.
An ad hominem, in this case, is just a mental shortcut to get to the answer you've already picked (i.e., that SpaceX is faultless).
After so much complaining about my "empty" ad hominem "attacks", it's quite ironic to see you putting words in my mouth (thoughts in my head?) that do not fairly or accurately represent anything I've said here.
I am not interested in putting words in your mouth, nor in responding to low quality arguments driven by misrepresentations, rationalizations, and personal attacks. I asked you some simple questions in an attempt to find common ground on the existence of conflicts of interest and their general relevance, and if you can't or won't answer them straightforwardly, there is nothing left for me to say. It's up to you.
Bayes' Rule strikes again!
- and yet -
> ...there are approximately 228 million pieces of space debris...
So - either the mere ~1,700 Starlink satellites are ~100,000X hyper-achievers when it comes to near-collisions...or else the The Independent is yearning to win a "Lies...Damn Lies...Statistics" hype-achiever award.
And circular LEO is where most satelites are. So satelites in that same class of orbits would indeed be 'hyper achievers'.
I might accept Starlink satellites being 10X or even 100X performers, based on arguments about orbits, cross-sectional area, etc. But ~100,000X? No.
And how many collisions each week? Didn't see mentioning any, so none.
So this "close encounters" seem as dangerous as the close encounters anytime I drive on highway, or even less.
Pure FUD