Quote from: Rondaz on 04/11/2021 10:22 am"SpaceX disabled its automated AI-powered collision avoidance system to allow OneWeb to steer its satellite out of the way... "“What is the point of having it if you have to turn it off when there’s going to be a potential collision?” Victoria Samson of SWFhttps://twitter.com/VSamson_DC/status/1381017659865698309Fine example of someone not understanding that in space, there are no traffic rules (yet). The AI-powered collision avoidance system on Starlink operates on the assumption that the other involved orbiting object remains passive. In other words: the other involved object stays its course and ONLY the Starlink sat steers out of the way.However, in this case OneWeb itself wanted to actively move their satellite. But given that there is no standard rule with regards to collision avoidance - who moves in what direction - having both objects actively moving might actually result in the objects inadvertantly turning into each other's direction.So, when it became clear that OneWeb was moving their sat SpaceX disabled the AI collision avoidance system on their sat to prevent an inadvertant collision: by having their Starlink sat 'stay the course'.As long as binding 'traffic rules' for all participants in (B)LEO spaceflight do not see the light of day, incidents like these will continue to happen.
"SpaceX disabled its automated AI-powered collision avoidance system to allow OneWeb to steer its satellite out of the way... "“What is the point of having it if you have to turn it off when there’s going to be a potential collision?” Victoria Samson of SWFhttps://twitter.com/VSamson_DC/status/1381017659865698309
With OneWeb terminating the JV with Gonets, what is the status of Gonets offering service via OneWeb satellites? Will they be expected to buy access or are they SOL?
Is it possible to put in one message all patches pictures from F1 to F6?Like upper one?= = =I have found only these like below:f6: https://twitter.com/OneWeb/status/1381974500435181570f5: (better one?)https://twitter.com/OneWeb/status/1372580874831691778f4: (twitter link?)f3: https://twitter.com/OneWeb/status/1239848815231893505f2: https://twitter.com/UKspace/status/1225764980676579328f1: (twitter link?)= = =Can someone complete missing link or picture, please? Thanks all who helped to complete!
Well, the recent encounter between Starlink and OneWeb satellites just got more interesting.Basically, the two companies had a conference call where they discussed the physical coordination of the satellites which was successful and there was never a risk of collision. SpaceX also states that OneWeb explicitly requested SpaceX to turn off their autonomous collision avoidance system.Additionally, the document states that even if there had not been any maneuver conducted, the satellites would have not collided. In the rest of the document, SpaceX trashes OneWeb.https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=6212177
From recent FCC document about recent SpaceX and OneWeb collision mitigation:https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=6212177QuoteSpaceX presented the attached fact sheet with an accurate chronology of events that demonstrates the coordination was successful and there was never a risk of a collision. Despite recent reports to the contrary, the parties made clear that there was no "close call" or "near miss." SpaceX and OneWeb agreed that they had conducted a successful coordination, resulting in a positive outcome. The probability of collision never exceeded the threshold for a maneuver, and the satellites would not have collided even if no maneuver had been conducted. As further detailed in the attached fact sheet, and despite OneWeb's previous public claims, SpaceX's autonomous collision avoidance system was and remains fully functional at all times. SpaceX only turned off the capability at OneWeb's explicit request after OneWeb decided to conduct a maneuver. . QuoteOneWeb 's misleading public statements coincide with OneWeb's intensified efforts to prevent SpaceX from completing a safety upgrade to its system. For instance, immediately after the first inaccurate quotes came out in media accounts, OneWeb met with Commission staff and Commissioners demanding unilateral conditions placed on SpaceX’s operations. Ironically, the conditions demanded by OneWeb would make it more difficult to successfully coordinate operations going forward, demonstrating more of a concern with limiting competitors than with a genuine concern for space safety. .Quote• the maneuver threshold for Starlink satellites is 1e-5 and that maneuvers occur approximately 12 hours before the predicted closest approach of the satellites• if a maneuver was needed, typically a single in-track burn would be conducted to reduce collision probability.• OneWeb acknowledged that the covariance (i.e., accuracy) in its propagated ephemerides (i.e., predicted location of satellites) are biased low and this bias is a known issue. . Quote• SpaceX reiterated its recommendation to wait for another CDM from 18 SPCS before planning a maneuver because SpaceX systems indicated this was the least risky approach. • OneWeb satellites need more time to coordinate and plan their maneuvers than Starlink satellites require, so OneWeb did not want to wait and chose instead to maneuver OneWeb-0178.• Because OneWeb decided to plan a maneuver, it asked SpaceX to turn off Starlink-1546’s autonomous conjunction avoidance system. SpaceX obliged this request and confirmed to OneWebthat the system had been turned off. .Quote• 18 SPCS reported actual miss distance as 1,120 m.• LeoLabs reported actual miss distance as 1,072 m.• Both 18 SPCS and LeoLabs reported final Pc below 1e-20—one in one hundred million million million—this was not a close call or a near miss
SpaceX presented the attached fact sheet with an accurate chronology of events that demonstrates the coordination was successful and there was never a risk of a collision. Despite recent reports to the contrary, the parties made clear that there was no "close call" or "near miss." SpaceX and OneWeb agreed that they had conducted a successful coordination, resulting in a positive outcome. The probability of collision never exceeded the threshold for a maneuver, and the satellites would not have collided even if no maneuver had been conducted. As further detailed in the attached fact sheet, and despite OneWeb's previous public claims, SpaceX's autonomous collision avoidance system was and remains fully functional at all times. SpaceX only turned off the capability at OneWeb's explicit request after OneWeb decided to conduct a maneuver.
OneWeb 's misleading public statements coincide with OneWeb's intensified efforts to prevent SpaceX from completing a safety upgrade to its system. For instance, immediately after the first inaccurate quotes came out in media accounts, OneWeb met with Commission staff and Commissioners demanding unilateral conditions placed on SpaceX’s operations. Ironically, the conditions demanded by OneWeb would make it more difficult to successfully coordinate operations going forward, demonstrating more of a concern with limiting competitors than with a genuine concern for space safety.
• the maneuver threshold for Starlink satellites is 1e-5 and that maneuvers occur approximately 12 hours before the predicted closest approach of the satellites• if a maneuver was needed, typically a single in-track burn would be conducted to reduce collision probability.• OneWeb acknowledged that the covariance (i.e., accuracy) in its propagated ephemerides (i.e., predicted location of satellites) are biased low and this bias is a known issue.
• SpaceX reiterated its recommendation to wait for another CDM from 18 SPCS before planning a maneuver because SpaceX systems indicated this was the least risky approach. • OneWeb satellites need more time to coordinate and plan their maneuvers than Starlink satellites require, so OneWeb did not want to wait and chose instead to maneuver OneWeb-0178.• Because OneWeb decided to plan a maneuver, it asked SpaceX to turn off Starlink-1546’s autonomous conjunction avoidance system. SpaceX obliged this request and confirmed to OneWebthat the system had been turned off.
• 18 SPCS reported actual miss distance as 1,120 m.• LeoLabs reported actual miss distance as 1,072 m.• Both 18 SPCS and LeoLabs reported final Pc below 1e-20—one in one hundred million million million—this was not a close call or a near miss