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.
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?
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.
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).
How much of that is linked to people hating the founder?
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.