This is an interesting topic and one that isn't confined to just LEO. GEO is another busy area that has this issue... there seems to be something already in place because there is talk of who has what "slot".Ideally this will be worked out by the first few parties setting up a coordination board or something similar. I can think of a number of schemes to decide "who should move"... it may be that unique science satellites get precedence. It may be that the satellite with less fuel remaining gets precedence... who knows. (Could the Space Data Association evolve into such a coordination facility? http://www.space-data.org/sda/ Will it fall to CSpOC to do this? Note: the "executive members" are some old line satellite companies, and SpaceX doesn't seem to be listed as a member at all...http://www.space-data.org/sda/participants/ If that's not just an omission it's quite surprising)
Fwiw the situation is symmetrical. Don't demand that the other guy move - move your own damn bird.If you can't (say low on fuel) ask nicely and hope.Also, an oz of early maneuver is worth a pound of late maneuver.
Quote from: meekGee on 09/03/2019 10:51 amFwiw the situation is symmetrical. Don't demand that the other guy move - move your own damn bird.If you can't (say low on fuel) ask nicely and hope.Also, an oz of early maneuver is worth a pound of late maneuver.That represent a big problem too...is you bird cost 1000 millions $, and the cost of move in propellant is a lot more expensive that a simple small sat, you expect that the cheaper and smaller bird, move first...The real questions, is all this will need regulations, and somebody for do this job internationally...If tomorrow, X company, or a country not very friendly... put a femto satellite, in the orbit of one of the starlink satellite, and refuse to move, they don't will be happy either...
If tomorrow, X company, or a country not very friendly... put a femto satellite, in the orbit of one of the starlink satellite, and refuse to move, they don't will be happy either...
For sure, just like in the water - motor yields to sail, right? So chem prop yields to electric
For sure, just like in the water - motor yields to sail, right? So chem prop yields to electric.Also, by sheer necessity, expensive birds yield since that's what's going to happen anyway since the cheap bird is willing to take more risk, that's just a fact even if it's unfair.
As we talk about outer space...we need an international organism for control this...What about Unoosa for this job?http://www.unoosa.org/
Quote from: meekGee on 09/03/2019 03:08 pmFor sure, just like in the water - motor yields to sail, right? So chem prop yields to electricElectric propulsion should be fine for avoiding these situations. I think having deorbiting sats that are still under control steer around active and stable operational sats would be more fair.
Quote from: gongora on 09/03/2019 04:14 pmQuote from: meekGee on 09/03/2019 03:08 pmFor sure, just like in the water - motor yields to sail, right? So chem prop yields to electricElectric propulsion should be fine for avoiding these situations. I think having deorbiting sats that are still under control steer around active and stable operational sats would be more fair.That right there is the one no-brainer rule. If you're at end-of-life, might as well off yourself. Works for ppl too As for electric propulsion in general, not sure what the thrust is. If they want to scootch a few km over a period of hours, that's not trivial. Over days, probably more feasible.Not sure if it was even an option here, but the most important thing is - there is no agreed upon obligation, and ESA can't (or rather shouldn't) run around insinuating SpaceX broke some rule or understanding.
Quote from: gongora on 09/03/2019 04:14 pmQuote from: meekGee on 09/03/2019 03:08 pmFor sure, just like in the water - motor yields to sail, right? So chem prop yields to electricElectric propulsion should be fine for avoiding these situations. I think having deorbiting sats that are still under control steer around active and stable operational sats would be more fair.I agree. I think you could build up a whole set of precedence rules and weights- who can do it more easily should do it - who is closer to end of life should do it- who has better margins remaining should do it- science trumps commercial- first in orbit has right of way- When moving, ascending node moves out, descending node moves inalong with some rules about which rules take precedence over which other ones(those are just ideas for possible rules, not my actual feelings)
Quote from: Tywin on 09/03/2019 04:09 pmAs we talk about outer space...we need an international organism for control this...What about Unoosa for this job?http://www.unoosa.org/It is not at all clear that a regulatory body is needed, or feasible... What is needed is a coordination body. The SDA might be ideal for that. (regulation is not the only way to solve disputes, voluntary cooperation is often more efficient, and for regulation to work at all, the regulatory authority needs to have enforcement authority. What enforcement authority would any UN body have?)
