China Says SpaceX Satellites Nearly Collided With Its Space Station (cnbc.com) 283
Chinese citizens lashed out online against billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk on Monday after China complained that its space station was forced to take evasive action to avoid collision with satellites launched by Musk's Starlink program. CNBC reports: The satellites from Starlink Internet Services, a division of Musk's SpaceX aerospace company, had two "close encounters" with the Chinese space station on July 1 and Oct. 21, according to a document submitted by China earlier this month to the U.N.'s space agency. "For safety reasons, the China Space Station implemented preventive collision avoidance control," China said in a document published on the website of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. The complaints have not been independently verified.
In a post on China's Twitter-like Weibo microblogging platform on Monday, one user said Starlink's satellites were "just a pile of space junk," while another described them as "American space warfare weapons." SpaceX alone has deployed nearly 1,900 satellites to serve its Starlink broadband network, and is planning more. "The risks of Starlink are being gradually exposed, the whole human race will pay for their business activities," a user posting under the name Chen Haiying said on Weibo.
In a post on China's Twitter-like Weibo microblogging platform on Monday, one user said Starlink's satellites were "just a pile of space junk," while another described them as "American space warfare weapons." SpaceX alone has deployed nearly 1,900 satellites to serve its Starlink broadband network, and is planning more. "The risks of Starlink are being gradually exposed, the whole human race will pay for their business activities," a user posting under the name Chen Haiying said on Weibo.
They all orbit pretty specifically... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only do all of the SpaceX satellites orbit in a really predicable pattern, the SPaceX satellites also are at a known altitude, at which surely you would be a fool to put a space station?
Unlike all the other actual space junk, the SpaceX satellites are a very knowable quantity, it seems if the Chinese space station was anywhere near them, that's problem with China's engineers.
Re:They all orbit pretty specifically... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll notice they did not provide times and the distances of the sats in question, just a nebulous set of dates 2 and a 1/2 months later. If this had really happened, they would have been screaming about it the day after.
Yes good point (Score:4, Interesting)
You'll notice they did not provide times and the distances of the sats in question, just a nebulous set of dates 2 and a 1/2 months later.
That's a great point. Thinking further on this, how do they even know it was SpaceX satellites they nearly ran into, if they didn't have enough data to avoid them to begin with? It could have been anything if they don't know where the SpaceX satellites are, and if they did know it was their own bad calculations that let them get too close.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking further on this, how do they even know it was SpaceX satellites they nearly ran into
If you manage to get your thinking cap on, you might ask yourself: Does a communication satellite have a transponder? Or is it radio silent?
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely possible for a communications satellite to broadcast with large amounts of power, but for some other spacecraft to not detect it. A communications satellite uses directional, high-gain antennae, designed specifically to not have a lot of emissions outside of the intended direction. Any off-axis emissions are wasted power.
Contrast that with a transp
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes good point (Score:5, Informative)
The complaint in full is here: https://www.unoosa.org/res/oos... [unoosa.org]
It mentions Starlink satellites 1095 and 2305. Part of the problem is the fact that they didn't know what the satellites were doing. One seemed to be in a stable orbit, presumably parked while waiting to be raised to operating altitude. The other was actively manoeuvring, and they didn't know if it would take action to avoid a collision or if they needed to, so they did the safest thing and move their station out of its path.
Does Starlink provide real-time information on what its satellites intended flight paths are? Did they contact the Chinese to reassure them that they were aware of the possible collision and would take steps to avoid it? It appears not.
Re:They all orbit pretty specifically... (Score:4, Informative)
You'll notice they did not provide times and the distances of the sats in question
You can look this up yourself. Satellite orbits aren't actually secret and there are plenty of websites you can type the names of the two satellites into and see that they very much did in fact cross paths with each other.
Re:They all orbit pretty specifically... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike all the other actual space junk
Not to put too fine a point on it, but a good percentage of the actual space junk was caused by the CCP themselves, when they tested their anti-satellite missile in 2007. (quick google search produced multiple results from 2021 suggesting both 3000+ pieces of space junk, as well as saying the junk was still causing problems) Yes I know they're not they that wasn't the only mass hazard event that anyone ever performed, but ~15 years isn't enough to have clean hands after even one event like that.
So even if what they say is completely true (see above comments questioning that), it's pretty ballsy (read: hypocritical) of them to complain about orbital traffic. Sort of like a rubbish truck with an unsecured load dropping thousands of road hazards out the back, endangering other cars and risking dozens of pileups, and then complaining that a particular fleet of company cars that is making the highways somewhat crowded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thought that was Russian junk?
Re: They all orbit pretty specifically... (Score:2)
Well, according to another poster, they're using ion drives to go from well below the space station altitude to well above it. So at some point they are at the same altitude.
That doesn't mean the Chinese were honest, or even correct in identifying what any objects were, but it does mean that during the migration (to save on fuel costs, apparently) they are not a known quantity.
We really need proper space traffic control.
Re: (Score:2)
And it looks like the station isn't in a fixed orbit. Apparently it ranges from just past the ISS to 450km. Now, they know where Starlink goes, they know when the launches are, and Starlink knows where the station is expected to be. So, what happened and why?
Re:They all orbit pretty specifically... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only do all of the SpaceX satellites orbit in a really predicable pattern, the SPaceX satellites also are at a known altitude, at which surely you would be a fool to put a space station?
StarLink sats are released below Tiangong, and boost themselves above it.
During their transition, they do cross orbital planes with Tiangong.
Unlike all the other actual space junk, the SpaceX satellites are a very knowable quantity, it seems if the Chinese space station was anywhere near them, that's problem with China's engineers.
To the contrary, Tiangong is in a static orbit, it is the StarLink sats that are moving (until they reach their final orbit)
Note, I'm not saying this actually happened. It's really hard to tell who's more full of shit, people like you, or the Chinese government. But the fact is, it could have happened, it if it did, it's flatly StarLink's fault.
The risks of Starlink? (Score:4, Insightful)
The risks of China are being gradually exposed, the whole human race will pay for their business activities... in wet markets
Re: (Score:2)
Sad that the first post is just whataboutism. There is an important issue here.
Re: (Score:2)
The risks of China are being gradually exposed, the whole human race will pay for their business activities... in wet markets
Why would we go to a wet market to pay for China's business activities? That makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I can never tell if people like you are advanced progressive trolls or just paranoid nutters.
Just in case you are still capable of operating in reality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
http://www.microbiology.hku.hk... [microbiology.hku.hk]
There's no great mystery. Anyone with a clue knew that SARS would come back. Did anyone listen? Of course not.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Where are your SARS and MERS today?
There's a reason that the COVID virus is called SARS-Cov-2. It's closely related to SARS.
The reason COVID spread far more aggressively than SARS is because it's far less lethal and has far more asymptomatic carriers. SARS burned out because it was easier to quarantine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have we already forgotten H1N1, which infected/killed more people than COVID has?
Where did that start? Let me see ... oh, yes, in California, USA.
H1N1 did indeed kill more people - in 1918-1920. You may have heard of that? It preceded the 2009 California case just a little bit.
What a fucking moron :-(
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that America has plenty of "wet markets" too.
(as you rightly say, I'm disagreeing with grandpa, not you)
You sounded like you are in denial of Covid, or trying to trivialise it. The 2009 outbreak was a fizzer - the mortality rate was initially high, but dropped very quickly.
It led to a bad flu season, but nothing like what we currently face with Covid. And sure, the 1918 H1N1 outbreak was worse. But we still have probably millions dead already, and it would be far worse without the mitigations. Why play it down?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The H1N1 that killed fucktons of people did not start in California, and the H1N1 that did killed less than a single month of COVID.
Also, I'm not sure 1918/19 can really be compared to COVID.
It's hard to judge the comparative virulence of a disease where people were treated with 100 year old medical technology.
sheeps parrots government propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And we have a winner. If Musk is smart he will automate the system so it does not report internally any returns in China, instead punting their reported to human eyes coordinates to a random country near China. So long as the account the unit smuggled into China is being paid for, service continues to it.
Re:sheeps parrots government propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
Starlink provides nothing of the sort.
To be able to operate in a country, Starlink will need to have a license, then to sell, install and operate hardware and collect fees, and none of this will happen in China without a permission from their government.
Not to mention that even if Musk drops from space free "connect to starlink" kits all over the place, the antennas will be in plain sight, and a dead giveaway.
You're trying too hard.
Re: (Score:3)
The antennas are relatively small flat planes easily moveable(moreover, there are now rectangular ones even smaller than the round ones) or coverable by a tarp when not in use and easy to create fakes as well from an overhead perspective. So just scatter a bunch of roof decorations around and the false positives will completely screw up any surveillance efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you really think that a police state that has probably a quarter of the population enlisted as informers will be thrown off your scent by the cute placement of 10 more antenna-like objects on the roof of the apartment building you live in?
You must not be of this Earth.
Quite easily (Score:5, Interesting)
10 more antenna-like objects on every apartment building? Yes, that would throw people off. And when that quarter of the population finds that they too can have unfettered internet access? Sure, they'll report everything (/sarcasm). Any kind of free communication is a threat to dictatorships.
Mr. Dollar Ton, I am pretty sure that you are part of the Chinese government's propaganda arm based on all your posting here.
Re: (Score:3)
China could and would outlaw "fake" antennas as well and threaten to arrest anyone who has something that looks like an antenna. And the Starlink users would need whoever owns every building to participate. And, and, to use this system you will be transmitting signals steadily which make finding you pretty easy unless you only want to use it for a few minutes a month.
It's not THAT easy to get around a government.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides which the bands which Starlink uses are relatively easy to jam. The signals are quite weak.
That said, China will probably allow at least some tech companies to have connections, in order to develop products. The firewall is much less restrictive down in Shenzhen, not least so that companies can develop Android phones for export. Google services are blocked in most of China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Signals from orbit are ridiculously easy to jam, without even interfering with local communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink is really a great threat to CCP as it provides a mean to directly contravene their Great Firewall. CCP does not want it sheeps to know what runs contrary to its party line. Capitalism vs CCP authoritarianism, the Star Wars edition.
I'm not sure which form of capitalism you think is anti-authoritarianism. Is it the form that relies on the authoritarian governments for cheap labour with no worker protections?
Re: (Score:3)
Shoot 'em down (Score:2)
We don't need any more private space junk to make a tragedy out of the galactic commons!
Yours, William-Adam Forster Lloyd Smith
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need any more private space junk to make a tragedy out of the galactic commons!
StarLink satellites orbit at an altitude low enough to experience atmosphere drag. They use periodic ion boosters to maintain orbit (using cheaper krypton rather than the usual xenon).
Any debris from a collision will slow down and deorbit. Paint chips and metal shavings will deorbit and burn up in a few days. A screw or bolt will be gone in a few weeks.
If a satellite fails, it will no longer be boosted and will deorbit in a few years.
SpaceX is being a responsible space citizen. This is partly self-inter
Re: (Score:2)
You sure? Promises are cheap, and you aren't showing me any math. IIRC, Musk's car company received a hefty amount of billions on the promise of swappable batteries and we haven't heard about this feature since. Who knows what features are actually deployed on satellites that are being sent out without any international control whatsoever?
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impa... [noaa.gov]
Starlink operates in LEO, like many other satellites. These aren't just marketing claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me your deorbiting time calculations, not some random website that discusses the problem in general. Last time I tried to calculate deorbit time for a typical starlink satellite based on what's actually known about them I got anywhere between a few years to a few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is if a satellite fails at 550km, the altitude Starlink is designed to work at, it has to descend through all the lower orbits before burning up. In the lower orbits are other satellites and two space stations.
In this case though the Chinese are complaining about not being given information about the movements of Starlink satellites that have yet to reach their operating orbits, which posed potential hazards as they occupied temporary orbits and raised themselves up.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is if a satellite fails at 550km, the altitude Starlink is designed to work at, it has to descend through all the lower orbits before burning up.
Space is big and a Starlink satellite is very easy to track. As it descends, the friction increases quickly so it will not be in the low orbit for long.
The problem with "space junk" is loose bolts and paint chips too small to track.
Re: (Score:2)
Insert scene with Ron Perlman shooting at the sky, here.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong scene (and a dumb movie), you want the space war from Iron Sky here.
How close? (Score:2)
My guess is they were probably many miles from each other in 3D. Do they even share the same orbital plane?
Editors, could you please edit ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, these are 2 separate stories, the one about the near collision, and the one about the chinese astroturfing propaganda effort, both are interesting, for totally separate reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the Chinese space station had to make a collision avoidance maneuver to avoid Starlink satellites is interesting news. What random people say on Weibo about this event is arguably not interesting.
/. is founded on the idea that what random people say about tech news is interesting.
"Shake their fist at the sky" (Score:5, Informative)
...don't like it, when their citizens have communication options outside of government control.
Someone asked Musk what governments should do, if they didn't want their citizens to have access to Starlink. He said "they can shake their fist at the sky".
That goes both for governments seeking to block access entirely, and also for all those governments wanting to charge fees and impose local regulations. They can control ground equipment, obviously, but (afaik) there is no international framework providing individual patches of dirt with control over orbital activities. Perhaps there should be such a framework, but that's a different discussion.
China is the worst offender (Score:5, Interesting)
China probably lied about their orbital parameters (Score:5, Interesting)
My theory:
* SpaceX asked China for their station's orbital parameters (so they could calculate its path, and calculate their own to avoid it by a safe margin).
* Chinese officials deliberately gave SpaceX slightly inaccurate info, on the theory that being vague somehow helps Chinese national security (the same way they require online maps to be slightly inaccurate in their correlation of latitude and longitude to aerial imagery and infrastructure).
* SpaceX took China's word for it... but also knew China probably lied, so they sent China a memo to the effect of, "FYI, here's the exact path OUR satellites will be taking. If the information you gave us about your station's location wasn't 100% forthright and accurate, we advise you to do your own math, and GTF out of our way if your station isn't exactly where you said it was going to be."
* China, caught in its lie, doubled down, and tried to spin it as being somehow SpaceX's fault when really, it was their own lie that put them in danger to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting tweets of random citizens is insufficient (Score:2, Insightful)
In a post on China's Twitter-like Weibo microblogging platform on Monday, one user said Starlink's satellites were "just a pile of space junk," while another described them as "American space warfare weapons."
Slightly off-topic, but I'm not impressed by this trend for journalists to incorporate tweets (or other social posts) from random citizens of the world as supporting evidence for the claims of their articles. China has 1.4 billion citizens, so quoting two random tweets is insufficient evidence to support the summary's implied claim -- that many Chinese citizens are irate.
I think it's an attempt to humanize the article and make it more impactful... but you can find a couple of comments to support nearly any
Re: (Score:2)
What if... (Score:2)
Chinese Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very unlikely there is any truth in any of this. This is just posturing as a precursor to try to create an international regulatory body that decides who gets to access low Earth orbit. The rest of the world realizes that Starlink is how Starship is going to get financed. And Starship will enable the US to become a much more dominant presence in space than it already is. Europe seems pretty on board with trying to create legal hurdles to protect their inferior aerospace industry as well. Its all incredibly petty when you consider the new possibilities that Starship will open for mankind.
Also why are we suddenly seeing PRC (mainland China) propaganda on /.? Between this article's summary [slashdot.org] calling into question the very real plight of the Uyghurs and now this article... what the hell is going on? The worst thing we can do is give the PRC a platform. They are fighting for relevancy on the global stage, the best thing we can do is ignore them and continue to operate without giving them any concessions. Look what happened when the UK gave them concessions on Hong Kong... we cannot afford another mistake like that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may recall that the ISS recently had to dodge debris from a Russian anti-satellite weapon test. There needs to be more regulation.
Also keen in mind that Starlink has less than 2000 satellites up there right now. They are talking about 10s of thousands total. We need to keep a close eye on this as the numbers increase.
If Starlink puts up 30k satellites, other networks will also want to put up 30k satellites to get similar coverage. This is how you get Kessler syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, intentionally generating space debris like what the Russians did should probably not be allowed. But it is completely inappropriate to compare that with Starlink. Starlink satellites are designed to de-orbit themselves after they have reached the end of their operational life. Moreover, they are specifically set to a low enough altitude that even if one of them lost control atmospheric drag would de-orbit it after a few years. Its not like Starlink is completely unregulated, the FCC and FAA did extens
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As an engineer, I have some questions.
What is the failure rate of Starlink satellites? SpaceX has floated numbers between 12,000 and 42,000 for the total number of in-orbit satellites they want to put up, so even a small percentage failing is a lot of uncontrolled de-orbits through parts of LEO that include space stations and many other satellites.
Why were the Chinese not given data about the movements of the two satellites they identified, to reassure them that a collision was not possible? Did SpaceX noti
Re: (Score:2)
We manage to fly across the globe despite there being almost 200 national flight control agencies, is there some reason we can't coordinate between a far smaller number of agencies and flights without anyone surrendering their sovereignty?
Re: (Score:3)
Also why are we suddenly seeing PRC (mainland China) propaganda on /.?
Yeah, it's a real mystery, what with /.'s unwavering devotion to freedom and free speech and all ...
Rolls on the Kessler effect (Score:3)
Western astronomers have already called out SpaceX.
"Aggressive space activities without adequate safeguards could significantly shorten the time between collisions and produce an intolerable hazard to future spacecraft. Some of the most environmentally dangerous activities in space include large constellations such as those initially proposed by the Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-1980s, large structures such as those considered in the late-1970s for building solar power stations in Earth orbit, and anti-satellite warfare using systems tested by the USSR, the US, and China over the past 30 years. Such aggressive activities could set up a situation where a single satellite failure could lead to cascading failures of many satellites in a period much shorter than years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Diss all you want, but there's open data (Score:5, Informative)
Satellites and stations in orbit (Score:2)
Are supposed to have known ranges and trajectories.
They HAVE to, to avoid collisions.
This includes StarLink, and China.
So, either StarLink's assets were operating in the wrong orbits, or China's were...
Tesla China getting Nationalized? (Score:2)
It sounds to me like Tesla China might be getting nationalized soon.
Sigh (Score:2)
Well ... (Score:3)
100 km of altitude separation (Score:5, Informative)
According to Wikipedia, StarLink satellites orbit at 550km.
China's Taingong space station orbits between 340 and 450 km.
That is 100 km of separation.
So what is going on?
Either a StarLink satellite is way out of its orbit or false information is being spread. TFA has no useful information.
Re:100 km of altitude separation (Score:5, Informative)
Starlink satellites take months to get to their position, and are released at around 200 km I believe.
Re:100 km of altitude separation (Score:5, Informative)
Starlink satellites take months to get to their position, and are released at around 200 km I believe.
Interesting. That makes much more sense.
According to this article [discovermagazine.com] they launch to an orbit of 440 km, then use solar panels to power the krypton ion boosters to slowly move to up to 550 km. That saves a lot of fuel.
Re: 100 km of altitude separation (Score:3)
If one of the ion engines malfunctioned (and we know they have problems, deep space 1 had a seriously hard time starting its) or those directing the satellites didn't bother looking (which isn't impossible), then it's plausible that there was a risk.
That does not mean there was, but it does mean we need some sort of centralized space traffic control that can minimise risks and also identify frivolous claims by any party.
It also means we really should avoid crowding space around Earth so much. Not just becau
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Considering that China blew up one of their own space toys in 2007 and doesn't take any responsibility for that mess. They are not blameless for spacejunk.
Re: vandalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks you seriously overestimate the desire of Mr. Musk to provide free hardware or services to the Chinese population, or the desire of the Chinese population to shell out hundreds a month for the dubious advantage of an "unfiltered internet".
Re: vandalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody argues that there will be a few places that will use Starlink services in China to avoid conforming to the Chinese laws.
But GP is selling this possible insignificant usage as "the people in China getting access to unfiltered internet", and Starlink isn't going to make this happen.
Assuming, of course, that Musk's Starlink company will even contemplate taking the risk of getting its other Chinese-based ventures hit because of this "black market", which it will, of course, not do.
Expect Musk to follow C
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think Musk will be able to stop people from buying receivers in other countries and smuggling them into China. Musk doesn't have to lift a finger for Starlink to be used in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: vandalism (Score:4, Insightful)
"That is technically correct. The best kind of correct." You are correct that SpaceX and Tesla are legally separate entities. They are, however, very clearly bonded at the top. There is no International Supreme Law of Playing Fair On the McPlayground that says China can't sanction whomever it pleases, for whatever reason it pleases. Or send in actual soldiers and take over factories on their sovereign territory. In fact there is no reason to restrict this to Tesla, even - if Starlink became an existential threat to the government, they could and would sanction any foreign entity they felt like, definitely including Tesla. So if Starlink service is even offered in China, it would be on condition that it goes through the Great Firewall just like any other domestic ISP. Nothing unusual about this - sign up for an iCloud account in China and the rules are different about where data is stored and who can access it, than if you sign up in the US.
Tesla != SpaceX...So? (Score:2)
Tesla != SpaceX. Musk is CEO of both, but not a sole owner of both. They are separate legal entities which only happen to share their CEO positions, and not much more.
Ha ha ha
You try explaining that to the CCP when they want you to stop doing something.
You can't punish my right hand. My left hand did it. Isn't going to fly.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you point me to that "get your Starlink connectivity kit for free in China and sign up for a free service" link, I'll still be of opinion that at $500 a pop for the hardware and $100 for the connection Starlink isn't a huge threat to the Internet access control system of the Chinese government even based on the price.
oh... (Score:2)
You don't think it will be subsidized by the US of A just like the VoA? I have my bets that it will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting tens of thousands of satellites in everyone's way without a very clear reason why is madness, yes.
Re: vandalism (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain, oh smart one, with your deep understanding of space hugeness and great eloquence, how come in this very "big space" that particular space station had to take evasive action not once, but twice in the course of 4 months.
Obviously the problem here isn't the rapidly narrowing gap between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Very strange propaganda mode, which was quietly submits a report to a UN committee and it becomes a thing only because some media are covering the reactions of internet trolls and idiots to it. There are better ways to do propaganda than this.
Re: vandalism (Score:5, Informative)
You can easily verify the claims for yourself. The complaint is here: https://www.unoosa.org/res/oos... [unoosa.org]
Starlink satellites 1095 and 2305. Use your favourite satellite tracking tool to examine their orbits and that of the Chinese Space Station. You can see that they do in fact cross paths and an avoidance manoeuvre was advisable.
Re: vandalism (Score:5, Informative)
NASA's rules for taking evasive action are:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_p... [nasa.gov]
These guidelines essentially draw an imaginary box, known as the “pizza box" because of its flat, rectangular shape, around the space vehicle. This box is about 2.5 miles deep by 30 miles across by 30 miles long (4 x 50 x 50 kilometers), with the International Space Station in the center. When predictions indicate that any tracked object will pass close enough for concern and the quality of the tracking data is deemed sufficiently accurate, Mission Control centers in Houston and Moscow work together to develop a prudent course of action.
And
Debris avoidance maneuvers are planned when the probability of collision from a conjunction reaches limits set in the flight rules used to operate the space station and the spacecraft used to transport humans and cargo to and from the station. For the space station, if the probability of collision is greater than 1 in 100,000, a maneuver will be conducted if it will not result in significant impact to mission objectives. If it is greater than 1 in 10,000, a maneuver will be conducted unless it will result in additional risk to the crew.
No idea what rules CCP has in place for their space-station, but they usually apply their rules in favor of making themselves look good.
China have also done some pretty dangerous stuff like blowing up satellites in space causing dangers for others:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/202... [gizmodo.com.au]
Or maybe any of their rockets they allow to re-enter uncontrolled.
https://www.space.com/chinese-... [space.com]
Or maybe when they lost control of Tiangong-1
https://fortune.com/2017/10/23... [fortune.com]
Or maybe China allowing booster-rockets to crash on populated areas:
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
Re: vandalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Explain, oh smart one, with your deep understanding of space hugeness and great eloquence, how come in this very "big space" that particular space station had to take evasive action not once, but twice in the course of 4 months.
I've always loved the folk who claim "Space is so BIG!"
The low earth orbital shells are extremely finite. And they are actually pretty crowded.
The shell itself is more important than where any given satellite or piece of space junk is at any given time. It's the whole orbital path. The spacex satellites simply do approximate space junk because they are launching them at a very rapid pace. and filling many orbital shells. In addition, given the environment, some of these sats will inevitably create problems.
I have no reason to believe that the Chinese Government is lying or has some convoluted anti-free internet conspiracy going on.
Re: vandalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone in this thread already found which satellites have been reported and confirmed that their orbits were, indeed, crossing the orbit of the space station with a third-party satellite tracking software.
So while we trust nothing put out by the Chinese government without a check, this time their story checks out pretty solidly.
Also, you don't know international space regulations if you believe there are "fishing rights" that exist "in the vicinity" of anything there.
At least you tried :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Putting satellites into space is madness?
Well, if you consider that orbital collisions create space junk which we're not really sure how to remediate at our present level of technological advancement - maybe.
I know some people probably think it's great that Musk is ostensibly bringing broadband to the sticks, but all it really does is establish Starlink as a de facto monopoly for all the places that aren't served by the location-specific monopolies of Cox/Comcast/Charter/AT&T/etc. Starlink's $100/mo service fee is twice what I presently pay f
Re:vandalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you consider that orbital collisions create space junk which we're not really sure how to remediate at our present level of technological advancement - maybe.
Starlink is in very low orbit, to the level that their current satellites lifetime is determined by the amount of fuel they can carry to keep them up and they would fall back down in a few months without fuel. Space junk isn't the main worry here - even with the random distribution after a collision it's almost all going to fall to earth quickly. The effect on astronomy is a bit more of a pain since there are so many of them so close that they spoil earth based photos.
I know some people probably think it's great that Musk is ostensibly bringing broadband to the sticks, but all it really does is establish Starlink as a de facto monopoly for all the places that aren't served by the location-specific monopolies of Cox/Comcast/Charter/AT&T/etc. Starlink's $100/mo service fee is twice what I presently pay for broadband service through Spectrum, so that's not exactly what I'd call competitive.
Different service / different price. Can't see the problem. At least it provides an upper bound on what the other services can charge for delivering to far away places and an incentive for them to build infrastructure before the alternative gets established.
Re: (Score:2)
all it really does is establish Starlink as a de facto monopoly for all the places that aren't served by the location-specific monopolies of Cox/Comcast/Charter/AT&T/etc
"Musk is the only one willing/able to deliver service to these locations, so we shouldn't recognize the achievement of doing so."?
On the subject of price - If you're already getting $50/mo broadband, you aren't the target market. There are still places in the US where you're lucky to get ADSL speeds of a few Mbps at that price.
Re: (Score:3)
Today we have Iridium and a couple of others that allow speeds of up to 9600bps for ~$100/mo where 120 minutes of internet access is quite common. Speeds usually stays around 4800bps on average. (basically just a dial-up over radio)
This oligopoly is currently being challenged by SpaceX in the short term.
To my knowledge there are at least two large competitors to SpaceX.
Samsung has it's own project where they will have an estimated ~4600 low-orbit satellites
Amazon, with it's project Kupier, that Facebook als
Re: vandalism (Score:2)
Far too many satellites, in far too uncontrolled a manner. Ground-based astronomy is increasingly difficult, we know that for a fact.
Worse, the level of space junk is endangering future deep space missions.
Compared to a bundle of fibres, radio is also very very slow.
I don't know if the Chinese claim is true, but yes it's madness to disconnect us from space in order to get an inferior Internet.
Re: vandalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely there are far fewer satellites than pieces of trash from the recent satellite explosion [bbc.com].