Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

[The Great Zaganza]

Source?

podcast, but here is another

https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability

Data compiled by Lewis shows that, in the first half of 2021, Starlink satellites conducted 2,219 collision-avoidance maneuvers. The number grew to 3,333 in the following six-month period ending in December 2021 and then doubled to 6,873 between December 2021 and June 2022. In the second half of 2022, SpaceX had to alter the paths of its satellites 13,612 times to avoid potential collisions. In the latest report to the FCC, the company declared 25,299 collision-avoidance maneuvers over the past six months, with every satellite having been made to move an average of 6 times.

 

[Ziggurat]

I just learned that about every 10 minutes, a Starlink satellite needs to make an evasive maneuver to avoid a collision.

In other words, Musk has a the ability to take down every satellite in an orbit similar to Starlink.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

You seem to think that these are cases where there would have been a collision but for the maneuver, and for the vast majority of cases that's simply not true. The problem is that tracking has limited accuracy and the consequences of a collision are really bad. So satellites are maneuvered if something comes even close to them, just to be safe. But what counts as "close" is pretty large. The overwhelming majority of cases wouldn't have resulted in a collision. But they're maneuvered anyways because, again, tracking has limited accuracy so you don't take a chance.

But this also means that even if you aim a satellite at another satellite with the intention of hitting, you're still probably going to miss. Actual anti-satellite missiles need terminal guidance using radar detectors on the missile in order to reliably hit the target. Ordinary satellites don't have that capability, and so aren't capable of doing that terminal guidance.

 

[lobosrul5]

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

You seem to think that these are cases where there would have been a collision but for the maneuver, and for the vast majority of cases that's simply not true. The problem is that tracking has limited accuracy and the consequences of a collision are really bad. So satellites are maneuvered if something comes even close to them, just to be safe. But what counts as "close" is pretty large. The overwhelming majority of cases wouldn't have resulted in a collision. But they're maneuvered anyways because, again, tracking has limited accuracy so you don't take a chance.

But this also means that even if you aim a satellite at another satellite with the intention of hitting, you're still probably going to miss. Actual anti-satellite missiles need terminal guidance using radar detectors on the missile in order to reliably hit the target. Ordinary satellites don't have that capability, and so aren't capable of doing that terminal guidance.

Theres also the fact that Starlink sats are very LEO. AFAIK all of the FFC approvals have been for between 500km and 600km. I don't think theres much else that low besides junk deorbiting from higher orbits. US visual spy sats are some 500km higher. The ISS is at under 500km Things like comm and weather sats are many many times higher up in geosync.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Comparison_satellite_navigation_orbits.svg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Comparison_satellite_navigation_orbits.svg

The non-click baity part of the article:

SpaceX currently conducts an avoidance maneuver every time orbital models show a probability higher than 1 in 100,000 that one of the Starlink satellites will cross another object's path. That threshold is 10 times lower than the standard upheld by NASA and other international agencies.

So, even if they did no maneuvering at all, the number of times a Starlink sat would collide with something would be very low, one a decade maybe, and almost certainly against some little unimportant satellite, or falling debris.

My opinion of Elon is pretty ******* low, but I've met a couple of engineers who work at SpaceX. My opinion of them is pretty ******* high.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That wasn't my point

 

[Roger Ramjets]

In other words, Musk has a the ability to take down every satellite in an orbit similar to Starlink.

Right. And why would 'Musk' want to do that (if it was even possible)?

 

[theprestige]

That wasn't my point

Yes, we know your point wasn't that Musk is extremely conscientious in his use of orbital tracks, and adheres to a standard of orbital caretaking ten times more responsible than NASA. That's just the point you ended up making.

 

[jadebox]

Here's a source for Starlink satellites avoiding collisions once every 10 minutes...

https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability

If you divide the number of minutes in six months by 25000 it is almost exactly 10.minites.

But ... Starlink satellites perform the maneuvers if there is better than a 1 in 100,000 chance of collision. And multiple Starlink satellites might have to avoid a single object. I don't know how you could use that info to calculate how many satellites in a similar orbit that Starlink satellites could target.

In any case, though, most of the satellites orbiting at the same altitudes as Starlink satellites are Starlink satellites. So, I guess Musk could be able to take himself out (which he seems to be good at doing).

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Right. And why would 'Musk' want to do that (if it was even possible)?

Well, we know he's not above getting involved in the war in Ukraine.
What if his pal Putin asks him to "accidentally" hit a certain satellite?

It's not like Musk thinks he will get held to account for anything he has ever done

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yes, we know your point wasn't that Musk is extremely conscientious in his use of orbital tracks, and adheres to a standard of orbital caretaking ten times more responsible than NASA. That's just the point you ended up making.

No.
It's that one man has more power over a globally important infrastructure than anyone before him, and there is no oversight whatsoever.
It's extremely risky to have that many objects in need of constant adjustments - they will run out of fuel and then might not decay quickly enough.
This is a one-point failure in the system that shouldn't be.

Already, both the Chinese Space Station and a billion dollar European satellite had to get out of Starlink's way. And Musk keeps sending more satellites.

Is anyone here willing to bet that we WON'T have starlink collisions within the next few years?

 

[GlennB]

No.
It's that one man has more power over a globally important infrastructure than anyone before him, and there is no oversight whatsoever.
It's extremely risky to have that many objects in need of constant adjustments - they will run out of fuel and then might not decay quickly enough.
This is a one-point failure in the system that shouldn't be.

Already, both the Chinese Space Station and a billion dollar European satellite had to get out of Starlink's way. And Musk keeps sending more satellites.

Is anyone here willing to bet that we WON'T have starlink collisions within the next few years?

Interesting story, link here -

Forbes link

 

[Roboramma]

Well, we know he's not above getting involved in the war in Ukraine.
What if his pal Putin asks him to "accidentally" hit a certain satellite?

It's not like Musk thinks he will get held to account for anything he has ever done

For all that I disagree with the actions your describing here, you're also completely mischaracterizing them. Musks initial involvement in the war in Ukraine was to give free access to Starlink to the Ukrainians. That is something that I think was fully praiseworthy.
Later, he prevented them from using Starlink directly in military actions. I think that something worth condemning. But what the latter amounts to is exactly not "getting involved in the war in Ukraine". It's withholding involvement.
I am critical of that because he should get involved. I strongly support the Ukraine and all those who supply them with aid, and to that extent I condemn Musk's actions here.

But to characterize neutrality as "getting involved in the war in Ukraine" is completely backwards.

Or did he start supplying Russia with access to Starlink and I didn't hear about it?

 

[plague311]

Or did he start supplying Russia with access to Starlink and I didn't hear about it?

Is there anything stopping Russia from using Starlink? Legitimate question. Unless he's actively blocking Russia from using Starlink then it really doesn't make a difference, does it?

Also, how the **** does he know if Ukraine is using it for military operations? What method is he using to snuff that out? As a networking guy I'm sure there's a way, but nothing at all I can think of that would be foolproof. Sounds like bull **** bluster to me. Musk is a ******* dumb ass and nothing he says can be believed or trusted.

ETA: He also shouldn't be limiting Ukraine from doing anything with Starlink since the US government is paying him to let Ukraine use Starlink. He should shut the **** up and let them do whatever they want with it or stop taking the money.

 

[theprestige]

Is there anything stopping Russia from using Starlink?

Not being able to acquire Starlink base stations that are registered with the network seems like an obvious obstacle to using Starlink. Do you have any evidence that Musk is providing registered Starlink base stations to Moscow?

 

[Ziggurat]

Later, he prevented them from using Starlink directly in military actions.

Not quite. What happened is more specific than that, and technicalities matter in this case. See below.

Is there anything stopping Russia from using Starlink?

The lack of base stations that theprestige noted is only part of it. Starlink can also block geographic areas, so even if Russia smuggled some Starlink base stations into the country, they wouldn't work. The satellites can tell where a signal is coming from.

Also, how the **** does he know if Ukraine is using it for military operations?

He doesn't, and he didn't. That's not what happened.

Most reports don't explain this properly, giving the impression that he was somehow filtering for use, or that he specifically denied permission for something, but that's not what happened. What happened is that Starlink was disabled over Russian held territory. Ukraine wanted to send some drone boats to Crimea, which was Russian held territory, using Starlink to guide those boats. But they couldn't do it, because service in that region was disabled. There was no filtering going on based on the usage, the filtering was based on the location. There was never a specific decision to deny that operation in particular.

 

[plague311]

Not being able to acquire Starlink base stations that are registered with the network seems like an obvious obstacle to using Starlink. Do you have any evidence that Musk is providing registered Starlink base stations to Moscow?

Since I'm not making that claim, why would I go through the effort of supporting something I'm not saying? I literally said that it was a question that I didn't know the answer to. You're right though, it would be impossible to get ones hands on a base station if it's not sent from the company. It's not like one literally washed up on shore attached to a drone or anything.

I answered my own question though, they're using geofencing. Thanks for nothing.

 

[plague311]

Most reports don't explain this properly, giving the impression that he was somehow filtering for use, or that he specifically denied permission for something, but that's not what happened. What happened is that Starlink was disabled over Russian held territory. Ukraine wanted to send some drone boats to Crimea, which was Russian held territory, using Starlink to guide those boats. But they couldn't do it, because service in that region was disabled. There was no filtering going on based on the usage, the filtering was based on the location. There was never a specific decision to deny that operation in particular.

That somehow makes it actually worse. I'll read up on the details, but it's way more douchey (whether it's his call or someone else's) to say, "We'll let you use this program, but not on your land." Which Crimea is, and which Musk is defacto recognizing as Russia's instead, by making this move. Thanks for showing me that Musk somehow sucks more than I originally thought. Good stuff.

 

[Ziggurat]

That somehow makes it actually worse. I'll read up on the details, but it's way more douchey (whether it's his call or someone else's) to say, "We'll let you use this program, but not on your land." Which Crimea is, and which Musk is defacto recognizing as Russia's instead, by making this move. Thanks for showing me that Musk somehow sucks more than I originally thought. Good stuff.

SpaceX was providing their service for free. You're complaining that they didn't provide more free service than they did. They never had any obligation to provide any free service at all. What have you done to aid Ukraine's war efforts? Far less than SpaceX.

ETA: I think there's also some confusion about how Starlink's coverage works. Starlink has never been available globally, even now. They didn't allow access everywhere and then selectively turn it off. The default was no service for any location until that location is specifically enabled. You can see the rollouts for coverage here:
https://ts2.space/en/starlink-coverage-map/
Commercial coverage only started in 2021, and only for a few areas. Neither Russia nor Ukraine were included. Most of Ukraine was enabled in 2022 as an emergency response to the invasion, but that wasn't part of the original deployment plan. A lot of countries without any conflicts at all didn't have coverage enabled until well after Feb. 2022 or even into 2023. SpaceX went out of their way to provide coverage for Ukraine, for free. You're upset that they didn't do more, but you're not grateful for how much they did, which was a lot. You haven't actually seized the high ground.

 

[Aridas]

Musks initial involvement in the war in Ukraine was to give free access to Starlink to the Ukrainians. That is something that I think was fully praiseworthy.

Useful and praiseworthy as it may be, it's probably worth noting that it was likely done for PR purposes more than anything else.

Or did he start supplying Russia with access to Starlink and I didn't hear about it?

When I checked a while ago, Starlink's description of their relationship with Russia basically came down to "We'd love to operate there, but the Russia government is preventing us from legally providing service."

What happened is that Starlink was disabled over Russian held territory. Ukraine wanted to send some drone boats to Crimea, which was Russian held territory, using Starlink to guide those boats. But they couldn't do it, because service in that region was disabled. There was no filtering going on based on the usage, the filtering was based on the location. There was never a specific decision to deny that operation in particular.

IIRC, rather than disabled, it's more accurate to say that it was never enabled.

With that said, I have less issue with the never being enabled compared to the part where Musk was apparently never clear about where the boundaries of service to Ukraine actually were, which ended up costing Ukrainian lives and military opportunity because Ukraine was never informed properly.

Musk supposedly not wanting to get involved in war after having very publicly gotten involved for PR purposes is one thing. Musk denying accurate information about the service being provided is getting into the realm of business fraud, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

Useful and praiseworthy as it may be, it's probably worth noting that it was likely done for PR purposes more than anything else.

Maybe, maybe not. You still reward people for behavior you want to encourage. If they're doing it for the reward, that doesn't change anything.

With that said, I have less issue with the never being enabled compared to the part where Musk was apparently never clear about where the boundaries of service to Ukraine actually were, which ended up costing Ukrainian lives and military opportunity because Ukraine was never informed properly.

Says who?

Ukraine has never made that claim publicly. According to Musk, they made a request to extend service, which SpaceX did not agree to, but there's no indication from Musk or Ukraine that this was made after a failed operation rather than before. The only source claiming that Ukraine actually attempted a mission which failed due to a lack of coverage comes from a third party reporter, and I wouldn't assume it's correct.

 

[plague311]

SpaceX was providing their service for free.

Ok, neat.

You're complaining that they didn't provide more free service than they did.

No, I'm ******* not and that fact you couldn't dig that out from my statement is absolutely hilarious, but consistent for you. I'm pointing out that by not letting them utilize starlink in Crimea is defacto saying Crimea is Russian. Which it's not, it's Ukrainian. Any other way I can possibly clear that up for you let me know. I don't know how I can, but I'll certainly try.

They never had any obligation to provide any free service at all.

I don't give a **** at all.

What have you done to aid Ukraine's war efforts?

Donated to various charities that support the causes of the Ukrainian people. You?

Far less than SpaceX.

Oooohhh ******* good one Zigg. You really got me there. I'm not a multi-billionaire that's receiving massive funding from the ******* government for a bunch of different projects. How much do you think taxpayers have given to SpaceX, or even that dumb **** Musk, over the years? It's the least he can do, and even now he isn't doing it for free. He has a contract with the US to provide the service. Jesus Christ, lick the other boot too since you're down there.

Commercial coverage only started in 2021, and only for a few areas. Neither Russia nor Ukraine were included. Most of Ukraine was enabled in 2022 as an emergency response to the invasion, but that wasn't part of the original deployment plan. A lot of countries without any conflicts at all didn't have coverage enabled until well after Feb. 2022 or even into 2023. SpaceX went out of their way to provide coverage for Ukraine, for free. You're upset that they didn't do more, but you're not grateful for how much they did, which was a lot. You haven't actually seized the high ground.

It's not my job to be thankful to Starlink, nor should I be. They haven't done anything for me and I'll never, in my life, use their service. I have no want or need. I think them providing service to Ukraine was great, good for them. I'm sure it'll be followed up by a huge tax write off, and it seemed to segue into a lucrative contract for him.

That being said, I wasn't referring to the commercial side of Starlink, I'm talking about them providing service to the army of Ukraine in parts that are Ukrainian, but that Starlink doesn't provide service because they apparently believe it's Russian. The Ukrainian government is very thankful and have heaped praises on Starlink for doing it. Why is it so important to you that I get on my knees too? I guess I'm super impressed that a company with the means, and massive government funds, did the right thing?