[HN Gopher] US Government issues first-ever space debris penalty...
___________________________________________________________________
US Government issues first-ever space debris penalty to Dish
Network
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 243 points
Date : 2023-10-05 11:54 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| happytiger wrote:
| I feel like this is charging $50 to a billionaire for leaving
| wreckage in the middle of a public park.
|
| Like, "we're warning you!"
|
| But it's only notable as an action because they haven't done
| _any_ prior enforcement. Not because now, suddenly, they are
| signaling that they're going to address the problem.
| nicup12345689 wrote:
| It's just setting up the stage/precedent before going for
| Starling
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I'm probably the only person on HN confused by this comment,
| but I assume you mean _Starlink_ , not _Starling_ , which is a
| NASA mission involving 4 cube sats.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| None of these concerns apply to Starlink. The satellites orbit
| low enough to quickly decay if they lose power. They deploy
| even lower than operational altitude so any associated junk
| comes down even faster, and the deployment method of just
| spinning and unlatching the stack, combined with SpaceX's
| philosophy of using repeatable systems (eg mechanical
| separators instead of explosive bolts) means that Starlink
| launches produce minimal debris and any debris produced is
| short lived.
|
| The issue with the Dish satellite is that it's close to
| geostationary orbit, which is a limited resource and where the
| atmospheric drag is low enough that they are essentially up
| there forever.
| Simulacra wrote:
| With all of the rockets going into space now, when are we going
| to really make a strong effort to clean up space? Is it just
| technical, money, willingness, or...?
| ginkgotree wrote:
| Yes, the USSF has as part of it's "SpaceWerx" program a funding
| initiative called Orbital Prime, which autonomous on-orbit
| servicing and de-orbiting is a major focus. The summary
| headline is any private technologies that enable autonomous
| "RPO" Rendezvous Positioning Operations, will in turn enable
| activities such as autonomous repair and refueling (one of the
| main reasons orbital space vehicles reach end of mission is
| they run out of fuel), and in cases where refueling and repair
| aren't possible, autonomous "tugs" can dock and execute a
| deorbit burn for the decommissioned space craft. I was on one
| of the awarded teams for Orbital Prime last year, its very
| exciting technology and equally exciting to see serious amounts
| of funding materializing to tackle this problem.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| The vast majority of new satellites are being placed into low
| earth orbit, which is cleaned up fairly quick by atmospheric
| drag. You can see this on an animated Gabbard diagram:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRUaENzxH44
|
| In higher orbits, particularly GEO (like the satellite in
| question), it's much more of a problem. Laser brooms might one
| day be used to deorbit small pieces of debris, but dead
| satellites beyond LEO will need to be grabbed and tugged/thrown
| into safer orbits.
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| Instead of a knee-jerk reaction to spending money on a
| particular solution, think about the problem.
|
| Most things of significant mass are in stable orbits or they
| wouldn't be there for very long. Regional sats like the one
| from Dish are in GSO way away, so they don't really matter. The
| problem is that Dish didn't have a disposal plan for this
| satellite. It's mostly when operators create clouds of junk,
| especially fragments from unnecessary collisions that cross
| other orbits, that pose a threat to lives and property. It's
| good to require operators to have a deorbit or parking orbit
| plan.
|
| The biggest threat is LEO-crossing MMOD, which is why crewed
| craft have hundreds of Whipple shielding configurations to
| choose from for a given application.
|
| This isn't a problem in need of solving in such a deliberate,
| costly, and arbitrary manner. Instead, the solutions are
| holistic: don't create debris that poses a risk to LEO, have a
| decommissioning plan for GSO objects, and protect what needs
| protecting by defensive spacecraft design.
|
| Edit: The Kosmos 2251/Iridium 33 collision was reckless
| operation by the Russians leaving space junk in LEO.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Contrary to most of the fear mongering about space debris,
| kessler syndrome etc, the big Western satellite operators are
| generally moving in the right direction and have moved faster
| than regulators to try to set space debris management
| standards.
|
| Incidents like this one are pretty uncommon, and as space
| debris goes, this is pretty benign in the sense that it's a
| large intact satellite and can thus be tracked fairly easily
| and precisely. Once the technology matures, a cleanup vehicle
| could even be sent to move it into graveyard orbit.
|
| The kind of space debris that tends to be problematic is stuff
| that is too small to track, since then you're stuck relying
| either on pure luck or giving the area a wide berth to not have
| it hit something else.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > the big Western satellite operators are generally moving in
| the right direction and have moved faster than regulators to
| try to set space debris management standards.
|
| We'll see. Starlink/Kuiper use a low enough orbit that non-
| functional satellites will de-orbit on their own in a
| reasonable timeframe. But OneWeb, which is up at 1000km+
| already has had a satellite failure. And although they've
| vowed to remove it somehow, it's not obvious how they'll do
| so.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, OneWeb sats have the Astroscale
| grappling point on them so the vehicle Astroscale is
| developing can grab and deorbit the dead satellites. The
| most recent news on that being that an in-orbit
| demonstration is intended to launch in 2025.
|
| Edit: correction, oneweb doesn't specifically use the
| astroscale grappling fixture, instead it seems they use
| either their own design, or ones designed by Altius.
| Apparently these designs are such that they can be grappled
| either mechanically or magnetically, so presumably the
| difference is not significant enough to meaningfully limit
| which MEV can handle the job.
| ImPleadThe5th wrote:
| Economics likely. Though, I'm sure the first contractor who is
| able to do it will make a decent amount of money.
| pavon wrote:
| Timeline:
|
| 2002 - Dish Network launches EchoStar-7 with a 10 year license
| from the FCC
|
| 2004 - FCC passes new Orbital Debris Mitigation rules,
| grandfathering existing satellites[1]
|
| 2012 - Dish Network applies for a license extension, which
| includes provisions according to the new rules
|
| 2020 - FCC updates debris mitigation rules[2]
|
| 2022 - Dish Network notices unexpected fuel loss, and begins
| moving satellite to graveyard orbit, but only makes it 122km
| instead of the required 300km.
|
| 2022 - FCC updates debris mitigation rules again[3]
|
| I had remembered recent press releases about new debris
| mitigation rules and my first reaction when reading this story
| was surprise that the FCC was applying the new rules to a
| satellite launched over 20 years ago, but it appears that is not
| the case. Dish Network is being fined according to rules that
| were in place when they requested their license extensions, not
| the more recent rules.
|
| [1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/mitigration-orbital-debris
|
| [2] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-updates-orbital-debris-
| miti...
|
| [3] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-5-year-rule-
| deor...
| sschueller wrote:
| Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake by
| sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or push it
| out where it was indented to be.
|
| Additionally to prevent a company from just going bankrupt they
| should be required to pay in advance a fee to a fund (ala FDIC)
| that will deal with issues that have to be dealt with. In this
| case it may be "ok" but what if this satellite was not out of the
| active geostationary zone and posed a risk to others important
| satellites?
| mcpackieh wrote:
| > _Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake by
| sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or push it
| out where it was indented to be._
|
| Seems like a plan with a bad risk/reward ratio. Right now the
| satellite isn't where it's supposed to be, but neither is it
| directly in the way of other geostationary satellites. But if
| you send up another satellite to deliberately interface with
| this one and move both up, you risk something going wrong and
| either getting stuck with _two_ satellites in that position, or
| worse, both crashing into each other and making a huge mess. It
| 's probably better to wait until the technology for grappling
| satellites in space is mature. This is presently an active area
| of research and development (OSAM), so a bit of patience should
| pay off.
| flerchin wrote:
| > indented to be
|
| I suppose that in orbit, space has won out over tabs. :-)
|
| (sorry I couldn't help myself)
| hk1337 wrote:
| Bravo!
| staunton wrote:
| Joke quality aside, you marked something as a quote which
| isn't close to one, afaict.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > Joke quality aside, you marked something as a quote which
| isn't close to one, afaict.
|
| Maybe read the first line of the parent comment more
| carefully?
|
| > Not enough, they should be require to fix their mistake
| by sending out another Satellite to either retrieve it or
| push it out where it was INDENTED TO BE[emphasis mine].
| jiveturkey wrote:
| you are commenting on this after it was corrected. so the
| snark is a bad look.
|
| the error wasn't the typo in `indented`. it was that a
| single newline ("CR") is like an html space in HN
| formatting. it doesn't start a new paragraph. GP notes
| that he only used a single "CR" and thus his own
| commentary ran together with his intended (also indented,
| in this case) quote.
| flerchin wrote:
| You were right. I had to put double CRs for it to render
| the way I intended. Thanks.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Asking that first point of a company right now would probably
| just kill the geostationary launch industry for a few years.
| Those kinds of mission rescue/extension vehicles are still
| under development. There was one such mission a few years ago,
| but it was a special case for reasons I can't recall right now.
| At the moment I think there are a handful of companies working
| on both adapters to be placed on the initial satellite and the
| MEV to go with it which would be launched in case of a problem
| with certain systems.
|
| Plus, retrieving it is almost guaranteed to be unrealistic.
| It's out near geostationary orbit. The only options are to have
| an MEV move it into normal geostationary orbit or dump it into
| a graveyard orbit.
| Kinrany wrote:
| The direction is good though. Instead of a fine they could be
| required to pay a space janitor to clean up their mess in the
| next N years. That would provide funding and motivation for
| space janitor companies to improve their technology faster.
| jancsika wrote:
| In an alternate reality there's an equal but opposite HN
| quarterback:
|
| "Too much! I get sending a message with a small initial fine
| like 150k plus requiring a compliance plan, but this high
| amount is a step too far. _Prepayment_ is just the epitome of
| regulatory capture IMO. Even for selfish reasons a satellite
| company will strive to keep their satellites minimally
| functional and safe from any systemic dangers in orbit. But I
| guess Uncle Sam always has to get his cut. "
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Realistically I almost never see upvoted comments saying a
| governmental fine was too much, even when the fine is, say,
| significantly greater than the entire companies revenue.
| bearjaws wrote:
| It's already in this comment thread lol.
|
| Space libertarianism here we go!
| Globe_Explorer wrote:
| So what happens if the satellite operator is a non us company?
| andrewguenther wrote:
| The regulatory vector for satellites in the US is the FCC. The
| FCC controls US airwaves so if you're providing services via
| satellite in the US you must have a license from the FCC.
|
| So if you're a non-US company operating services in the US,
| you'll have to have a US subsidiary anyway and that subsidiary
| would be required to get the license. If you're a non-US
| company not doing business in the US then that's outside of
| regulatory jurisdiction.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| By the outer space treaty, ultimately it's the responsibility
| of the country that the company belongs to. If it was a german
| operator, it'd be subject to German rules.
|
| Although of course since this is geostationary orbit, the point
| of putting it over a geographical area is to do business over
| that area down on Earth.
|
| So, if it was a German company, but was doing business in the
| US, the US could use access to their market as leverage for a
| fine.
| cardiffspaceman wrote:
| The geostationary satellites I'm familiar with fly directly
| over the Equator, no point on the Equator is in Germany. The
| disposal orbits are geosynchronous and have a more
| interesting ground track. I think their ground tracks are
| still equatorial countries.
|
| Geostationary satellites have antennae which are meant to
| optimize communications with ground stations in certain
| countries, but they can't fly over the USA especially.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Ah you're right, I forgot that geostationary doesn't
| actually mean sitting right over the country and instead is
| along the equator.
| bloak wrote:
| In that case presumably the other country would be responsible
| for issuing a penalty, assuming symmetry in a fair world (which
| is a fairly questionable assumption).
| JoshTko wrote:
| How about we charge how much it will cost to remove debris...
| This will kill negligent operators as well as spur investment in
| removal research.
| londons_explore wrote:
| This debris is probably actually pretty cheap to remove by
| chance.
|
| The orbit it is in is perfectly between geostationary and the
| disposal orbit. That means any other satellite who is
| travelling from one orbit to the other can stop off on-route
| for no fuel or time cost.
|
| 'grabbing' a satellite is fairly easy too. Even a fridge magnet
| would be enough to grab this satellite - since even tiny forces
| over many hours are enough in space.
|
| I therefore suspect that it would be possible to complete this
| disposal _with a satellite already on orbit_ - ie. not
| specially designed for the purpose, and using very little
| additional fuel - perhaps some operational satellites even have
| enough extra in reserve.
| creaturemachine wrote:
| Are you really suggesting some satellite drop whatever its
| doing, break its orbit to meet up with this thing and attempt
| to push it, all while risking irreparable damage? These
| things are made for a lonely existence in space, so they
| don't have bumpers or cameras or little fridge magnets for
| docking with other spacecraft.
| londons_explore wrote:
| No - I'm suggesting that a satellite already at the end of
| its life, and heading to the graveyard orbit, go push it.
|
| Damage is unlikely - collision speeds would be measured in
| millimeters per second, and forces in millinewtons.
|
| For position accuracy, it would probably require a camera
| onboard - but most satellites already have a star tracker
| that includes a capable camera.
|
| The main risk is that the satellites touch at the 'wrong
| angle' or blocking an attitude control thruster. That would
| immobilize both of them.
| krisoft wrote:
| Your suggestion does not comport with reality.
|
| > collision speeds would be measured in millimeters per
| second, and forces in millinewtons.
|
| What satellite ending their end of life, and already in
| orbit do you suggest are capable of such delicate
| manoeuvring? This is a very delicate task you are
| describing, and most satellites are simply not designed
| for it.
|
| > The main risk is that the satellites touch at the
| 'wrong angle' or blocking an attitude control thruster.
|
| If someone tries this, the most likely outcome is that
| the satelites wizz by each other without ever touching.
| If you somehow manage to aim the "pushing" satellite
| accurately enough at the "stranded" satellite they would
| most likely collide at anything from a few hundred
| meter/s to a few of km/s depending on the orbital
| arrangements.
| msandford wrote:
| I don't think you understand what geostationary orbit is.
| They all have to be going the same direction (with the
| Earth's rotation) or else it isn't stationary (not
| moving) over the geo (earth).
|
| As a result I think you're misunderstanding what the
| orbital dynamics would be.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I don't think you understand what geostationary orbit
| is.
|
| I do understand what geostationary orbit is.
|
| The commenter I was responding to said "any other
| satellite who is travelling from one orbit to the other
| can stop off on-route for no fuel or time cost". If they
| wanted to only talk about geo sats they should have said
| that.
|
| But sure, let's think about using a geo sat to fly this
| intercept. Let's just pick Echostar-8 as a concrete
| example. It is at 6.4 degree inclination while
| Echostart-7 is at 1.5 degree. So you will at best have a
| glancing blow between these two.
| londons_explore wrote:
| This[1] is the typical satellites thruster:
|
| https://www.satnow.com/products/thrusters/space-electric-
| thr...
|
| It has a thrust of ~20 milli Newtons.
|
| Power that up for 10 seconds on a satellite weighing 500
| kg, and you will move an extra 0.4 millimeters per
| second.
|
| So how exactly is precise maneuvering hard?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| GEO satellites typically don't use hall effect thrusters
| for much. Primary propulsion for large GEO satellites is
| typically a hypergolic system. Ion thrusters, if present,
| are typically a station keeping tool.
|
| For example, the satellite bus used by EchoStar-7, which
| is the satellite in question here
| (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_A2100)
| uses Hydrazine and NTO for primary propulsion, with
| hydrazine monoprop for atittude control, and the monoprop
| thrusters and ion thrusters for station keeping.
|
| While the new version of that bus has the option for all-
| electric propulsion, it really isn't clear how popular
| that option has actually been. There aren't really many
| details about it.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > This[1] is the typical satellites thruster:
|
| Define "typical" because it's not being used on any
| geostationary satellites.
|
| > Power that up for 10 seconds on a satellite weighing
| 500 kg
|
| 500kg? Hilarious. These satellites are the size of a bus
| and their weights are measured in tons.
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| I'd say the biggest risk is that upon one of the pushes
| of one satellite toward the other, the propulsion of an
| old satellite fails, keeps accelerating and causes a
| crash.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| There are other big risks involved.
|
| For instance, if the satellite is dead or has lost
| propulsion, it will likely have started to spin and will
| have no way to stop that. Reaction wheels can only do so
| much and can get saturated, requiring other attitude
| control systems to be used to desaturate them first.
| Approaching it with an unspecialized satellite will then
| definitely generate smaller debris, which is far more
| problematic.
|
| This also amplifies the risk you mention about ending up
| immobilized for other reasons. You'd have two pieces of
| junk literally on top of each other, it would take very
| little for them to damage each other and start producing
| much smaller debris.
|
| Further, you can't just repurpose a star tracking camera
| to look at a satellite instead, they're dealing with
| completely different kinds of requirements, and it isn't
| even a given that you would have the processing
| capability on the tracker to handle the kind of computer
| vision needed. Nor is it likely that the tracking camera
| feed can be transmitted down to Earth for manual control.
|
| The only cases we have of a satellite contacting another
| satellite when it wasn't initially designed with that in
| mind, involved dedicated extension vehicles designed and
| launched to dock to the engine nozzle of satellites which
| were still fully functional and without the extension
| would've still been able to move themselves into a
| graveyard orbit.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| Even assuming that it would be practical to match the
| inoperative's satellite orbit to the required precision
| to have "collision speeds measured in mm/s", the contact
| interface would need to be perfectly on the center of
| mass - otherwise any further propulsive maneuvers would
| cause it to tip to one side. The exterior faces of
| satellites are really unsuitable for this unless they are
| specifically designed for this.
|
| > satellites already have a star tracker that includes a
| capable camera
|
| Which is focused at infinity. Neither the hardware nor
| the software is capable of tracking a big object nearby
| and providing feedback to align itself how you're
| proposing, without _significant_ changes.
|
| Edit: just to give an idea of how difficult docking in
| space is in general, take a look at the International
| Docking System Standard (used on the ISS):
| https://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/
|
| Table 3.3.1.1-2 tells you the conditions for docking;
| velocities of 50-100mm/s are expected. And look at how
| much hardware is needed to dampen the energy. It has 6
| DoF actuators, hydraulic components, etc. etc. And that's
| for the ISS - all spacecraft going there are
| _specifically designed_ to be able to accurately approach
| and dock with the ISS. There 's just no way you can get
| that level of precision with a satellite bus designed for
| communications and station keeping.
| bagels wrote:
| They don't have that much precision in controlling
| velocity. Solar panels are fragile. It's a recipe for
| getting two broken apart satellites in that orbit.
| rdtsc wrote:
| $150k sounds like a rounding error for a satellite operator. Is
| there a rapidly increasing fee schedule or other penalties, such
| us restricted future launches? Otherwise it would be folded into
| the regular operating expenses.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| It's a novel enforcement action. The point isn't to bankrupt
| the American satellite industry, it's to gently encourage
| better behaviour.
| jerf wrote:
| In general, a lot of government fees and penalties are not just
| about that penalty, it's about the fact that if you do it
| _again_ , the next one will be much, much bigger. Read the
| $150K as a warning shot across the bow.
|
| There are some places where this doesn't seem to operate very
| well, particularly in the financial world, but in general, this
| is often the idea behind these penalties. Especially for the
| first time a law is getting enforced; it isn't really very just
| to ignore a law for years/decades and then one day out of the
| blue slam someone with multi-million dollar judgments. There
| are even some Common Law doctrines that the targets could use
| to argue against such penalties holding up in court, though, as
| always, trying to counter a written law with common law general
| doctrines is tricky. But I'd say there's at least a good chance
| you could get a sudden, huge initial penalty argued way down in
| a lawsuit.
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| Yes. And also, it's bad PR for the team responsible. Managers
| don't want to have trouble hiring people. After the first
| fine, the message can be "we're modernizing to stop this from
| happening!" But getting multiple fines over years is going to
| make the best of the talent poor essentially unavailable to
| hire.
| slingnow wrote:
| You really think their hiring pool is going to shrink
| because they got fined for $150,000? The person they are
| hiring is likely going to cost more than the whole fine.
|
| And OK, let's say they keep getting fined. Seems like a
| badge of honor these days. Move fast and break things,
| right? The government just doesn't like, get us, man. We're
| the good guys here and they're trying to slow us down with
| red tape and bureaucracy.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I think the point you're responding to is saying it isn't
| about the money, it's the reputation hit.
|
| If you have several choices and one is getting sanctioned
| for shitty practices, maybe you'll look elsewhere.
|
| Saying you're a rocket engineer sounds pretty neat, but
| the shine wears off a bit if people recognise your
| employer for negative reasons.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Saying you're a rocket engineer sounds pretty neat, but
| the shine wears off a bit if people recognise your
| employer for negative reasons.
|
| Which is what Tesla is experiencing at the moment in
| their facility Grunheide [1]... a toxic mixture of low
| wages, bad employment conditions, and reports about
| unsafe practices.
|
| [1] https://t3n.de/news/tesla-gruenheide-personalmangel-
| und-ange...
| parl_match wrote:
| I don't know why this is getting downvoted? Tesla is a
| perfect example of the "shine wearing off".
| gorjusborg wrote:
| That has more to do with Musk 'doing a Yeezy' than
| anything the company did.
|
| I agree with the sentiment that the reputation hit is
| imaginary, and really only serves to prevent stiffer
| fines.
|
| Actually, they shouldn't be charged a fine, instead, they
| should have to go and get it back.
| PawgerZ wrote:
| I think the shine has legitimately worn off on Tesla,
| though. I mean, how many times can you lie [1] about FSD
| before everyone writes you off as the boy who cried wolf.
|
| [1] https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/#bottom
| [deleted]
| willcipriano wrote:
| From the outside how would you tell the difference between
| this and a back door agreement between regulators to offer a
| low fine in exchange for favors down the line?
| mrWiz wrote:
| If the second fine is also low that would indicate the
| first was not a shot across the bow.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Banks keep getting hit with (compared to revenue) low
| fines over and over again. This explanation is always
| given. Also the people who decide what the fine is going
| to be keep getting jobs at banks.
|
| Curious. Willing to bet some of these regulators kids end
| up at Dish over the next few years.
| jerf wrote:
| Yes. I cited the financial industry for a reason.
|
| In reference to your previous question, along with the
| obvious brute fact of the fines not escalating for the
| same infraction over time, I would take a first stab at
| an answer being that the stronger the "revolving door"
| the less likely the fines are to be serious.
|
| Note that just a one way industry -> regulator won't
| necessarily produce this effect, because in that
| situation a regulator can still want to flex by producing
| meaningful fines. But the more the cycle is industry ->
| regulator -> and _back_ to industry, the more the
| regulator is going to be thinking in terms of what will
| come around when they 're in the industry again.
| ohthatsnotright wrote:
| I'm not really sure anybody wants to end up at Dish,
| their reputation is well deserved.
| willcipriano wrote:
| You seem unfamiliar with how this works:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-show_job
| epivosism wrote:
| [flagged]
| sparrowInHand wrote:
| The government can not do a unity..
| krisoft wrote:
| > Imagine in your daily life, suddenly a new government
| entity announces you owe it money.
|
| I understand the impetus to make the story about liberty, but
| this is not a "new government entity" "suddenly" appearing.
| Dish is in the business of satellite communications. That
| field is strictly regulated by the FCC. The company applied
| for permission before launch, then later applied permission
| to modify their authorisation, and they themselves reported
| the discrepancy at the end of mission.
|
| There is nothing "sudden" about this.
|
| > Was there even a trial?
|
| No. There wasn't. To quote from the consent decree: "The
| Company and the Bureau subsequently engaged in settlement
| negotiations. To resolve this matter, the Company and the
| Bureau enter into this Consent Decree and agree to the
| following terms and conditions." That is to say this is a
| settlement.
|
| > Or did some guys get together in a room and decide you
| should just pay them,
|
| Yes. Some "guys" from the bureau and some from the company
| got together in a room.
|
| > without any consultation?
|
| No. The representatives of the company were in the room. The
| general counsel of the company signed the consent decree.
| epivosism wrote:
| Thanks, I appreciate you putting that together. So this
| could be a good result - the regulator confirming it has
| power to fine, and will be aggressive about it, and the
| company's signoff proves they agree and will implement
| fixes. We'll know how well it works based on if there's a
| repeat in the next few years.
| UseStrict wrote:
| Ah yes, the true day-to-day life we all experience launching
| multi-million dollar satellites by a multi-billion dollar
| company, endangering the safe launch and operation of other
| satellites not just domestic but globally.
|
| If they couldn't be bothered to put enough fuel in the
| cannister to deorbit, they get fined. I don't see why that
| requires a full trial.
| epivosism wrote:
| I just find it strange that in this and the other story,
| everyone is saying that the initial fine should have been
| larger.
|
| Is the theory that the company is going to ignore this?
| That seems implausible; I'm guessing that they're
| scrambling to avoid further problems and make sure the
| relationship with their regulator is good. From the
| regulator's perspetive, what benefit would it do to
| actually put them out of business, or to seriously wound
| them, or scare them more? Or, are we trying to establish a
| precedent that "you may be seriously damaged even upon
| first infraction"? Is that the behavior we want companies
| to anticipate - that the government will attack super hard
| upon first infraction? If that's what we want, okay. But to
| me that seems too strong, since there are tons of laws and
| rules with arbitrary enforcement; given that it makes sense
| that when agencies get involved, they initially fire
| warning shots like this so companies know someone is paying
| attention. Then in a month, if the company hasn't taken
| serious steps to solve this, the regulators can start
| nuking companies who don't comply. I'm definitely pro
| regulation, but there's a trade-off because companies need
| to know the rules so they can plan, budget, consult, etc.
| so having this initial trigger that working to figure out
| what is allowed/forbidden/etc is good. Companies pre-
| emptively being extremely scared will have huge costs
| (money/environmental/speed), too, especially when it's for
| things which don't matter or which agencies don't actually
| care about.
| some_random wrote:
| From everything I've seen the tech nerd world basically
| sees fines as existing on one of two extremes, either
| they're a cost of doing business or they're company
| destroying. The idea that there can be fines or penalty
| schemes of any other effect is largely ignored. Since
| 150k is pretty small, everyone is of course advocating
| for a 150 million fine because that's the only other kind
| of fine that exists in their minds.
| epivosism wrote:
| Yes. As pointed out to me above, this was actually the
| result of a consultation; so they've already met and
| worked together to come to this conclusion - possibly the
| fine is a symbol of "we're serious and have the right to
| fine", but just puts a stamp on the relationship they
| have now on how to go forward. It's also a message to the
| industry about what expectations will be in the future.
|
| Companies do have a choice in many cases, so being super
| aggro against them isn't really beneficial. If they can
| be reined in by threats+negotiation, while still doing
| business here (within our oversight) it seems ideal.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| I think its a combination of pitiful fines aganst large
| tech companies in the past which actually have been
| ignored, and the concern over having so much debris in
| orbit that space travel becomes difficult or impossible.
| We could literally ground ourselves - its important to
| remember that things up there won't come down.
|
| While I agree at you that this isnt the adtech buisness
| staffed by ghouls that see fines as a cost of doing
| buisness, the idea of adding to space debris is
| rightfully met with horror, so any amount of money short
| of compoany-ending will be seen as people getting off
| lightly
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| "Don't ruin space for everyone" is like, the most clear cut
| possible example of a state responsibility I've ever seen.
| What do you think government is for? What do you want it to
| be for, if not this?
| epivosism wrote:
| > I'm not saying anything about this specific case
|
| Please don't assume that by discussing the appropriate
| level of initial fine in an interaction between a company
| and a regulatory agency, that I'm saying government doesn't
| have a role here. That does not follow at all.
|
| I'm more questioning the presumption in this comment
| section that the regulator should have been harsher to
| start with.
|
| To me it seems natural that a referee in an interaction
| will start off gently saying "hey, I'm paying attention to
| this issue now, here's a minor fine, but watch out" so the
| players know to care. If they continue misbehaving, they'll
| start being thrown out of the game.
|
| But saying that the ref should start off his first
| enforcement with seriously damaging penalties doesn't seem
| reasonable. Nearly every sport in practice involves a gap
| between the rules "as written" and the rules as "as
| enforced" - i.e. fouling, traveling in the NBA, strike zone
| in MLB. In all of these cases, players need 1) knowledge of
| what's going on in _this_ game and 2) consistency from the
| ref so they can adjust and not be outplayed.
|
| Why don't refs _always_ enforce rules to the max? To me
| this is a key aspect of human systems, the human freedom of
| refs as people to adjust to make things work well,
| especially when the rules as written are insane or
| incorrect, and are extremely hard to change upstream (due
| to government /publicity/etc) problems, in addition to just
| plain incompetence in congress.
|
| i.e. "The NBA won't redefine the traveling rule to reflect
| reality, but refs enforce the 'real' rule which is used on
| playgrounds, and everyone knows the level of enforcement
| that will be used in each situation, even though refs never
| actually write it down."
|
| You may want an exact match between rules/laws &
| enforcement, but it doesn't work that way with human
| referees. Same thing here. Enforcement is a kind of
| communication and negotiation between parties; starting off
| by nuking the company will scare them so badly, others will
| abandon the space or the US due to the harshness. Also, the
| discussions that come out of this will be things like
| "what's an efficient way for the company to do what the
| agency wants? Keep in mind our restrictions here (e.g.
| every rocket launch also has some harm/risk to your
| priorities; is there a way we can help all of our concerns
| from within the multiple ways to solve this issue?)"
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| How are they not doing exactly what you're asking for
| though? The fine is tiny.
| iosono88 wrote:
| [dead]
| krisoft wrote:
| > Otherwise it would be folded into the regular operating
| expenses.
|
| If you read the consent decree[1] you can see that the monetary
| fee is not the only thing DISH agreed to.
|
| In section 18 you can see they agreed to implement a compliance
| plan. Basically they improve on their fuel tracking, and end of
| mission planning. This makes it more likely that this thing
| won't happen again, and also makes it easier to argue if it
| still happens that it happened wilfully.
|
| 1: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-888A2.pdf
| willcipriano wrote:
| Wouldn't they have also implemented a compliance program if
| they were fined 10% of revenue, you know to avoid future
| fines?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/85j254/til_
| o...
|
| > Wouldn't they have also implemented a compliance program
| if they were fined 10% of revenue, you know to avoid future
| fines?
|
| They would have spent up to 10% of revenue on lawyers and
| lobbying to get out of the fine entirely and thereby have
| no fear of another one.
| willcipriano wrote:
| So they are too big to regulate? Great let's split them
| up.
| cryptonector wrote:
| This is like getting a traffic infraction warning ticket
| from a police officer instead of an actual summons. If it
| has the desired effect then it's better than the
| alternative.
| idontpost wrote:
| [dead]
| rdtsc wrote:
| Well of course it won't look like a traffic ticket, when they
| just pay with a credit card online and call it done. There is
| paperwork and "promises" and agreements. They have to have a
| compliance "officer" now and they have to report that
| propellant tracking has been implemented. That's still a drop
| in the bucket to have to shorten the life of their
| satellites. The fuel alone probably costs more than $150k.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > other penalties, such us restricted future launches?
|
| This. There are other compliance conditions, and failure to
| comply means no more launch licenses.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| It establishes a level of liability and bad behaviour which
| means if it collides with something they'll probably have an
| easy time suing dish for the cost of the satellite (millions).
| Zachsa999 wrote:
| When are we going to quit calling space operations "missions"?
| asicsp wrote:
| Was discussed 2 days back as well:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-02/dish-deal...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37744077
| sholladay wrote:
| This is of course a good thing but should the US have the legal
| authority to do so? If so, on what grounds? US companies litter
| all over the place on Earth and don't get fined. Cruise ships,
| for example, dump their waste just outside of territorial waters.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| It's a violation of the license they got from the US government
|
| In at least 1 case, they also issued fines to a US company that
| tried to use an international launch to circumvent US rules
| spandextwins wrote:
| I don't understand how a fine fixes the problem. Especially since
| you don't know where the money goes. I guess it does make a good
| story though.
| jacksnipe wrote:
| They put DISH under a consent decree. Despite the low size of the
| fine, I expect the long term cost to DISH will be enormous.
| Consent decrees are no joke.
| rzimmerman wrote:
| Honestly this is mostly fair. The fine is small but non-
| negligible. The infraction here is really the poor propellant
| tracking which is a mistake, not some nefarious plot or gross
| negligence. The satellite didn't quite make the graveyard orbit
| but it's out of the way. Tracking in GEO is only getting better,
| so it's not really a debris risk. But you do have to issue fines
| to signal to the industry that getting deorbit plans wrong has a
| consequence.
| vlod wrote:
| I guess this is great reason to modernize/reboot the SDI [0]
| initiative (nicknamed Star Wars program from President Reagan
| days) to clear out bad/rusty/leaky satellites (translate: and
| anything else they want to take a shot at, in the interests of US
| national security of course) /s
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
| complianceowl wrote:
| "Why does everyone think we should dish out more money?"
| - DISH
| ginkgotree wrote:
| LOL, NICE
| Xorakios wrote:
| A lot of comments are focusing on penalties.
|
| Just asking this tech focused community, but shouldn't the
| correct action be for a UN level entity charge an automatic de-
| orbiting fee.
|
| Even thinking it as a bottle deposit return if the launching
| company succeeds in its de-orbit burnup for ongoing
| constellations.
| joncp wrote:
| Exactly. Some sort of escrow to guarantee that what goes up
| will eventually come down. Without that satellite operators
| could go out of business and dissolve without cleaning up their
| messes, much like mining companies have historically done.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| While still being important, I'd like to draw people's attention
| to the fact that this is a satellite a _long_ way away from
| Earth, and is not in any significant danger of causing low Earth
| orbit to become a no-go area. It 's remotely possible that it
| might cause a problem out at geostationary orbit, but that's very
| unlikely. There's a lot more space out there and most satellites
| are all moving in the same direction and at the same speed,
| making it a lot safer than low Earth orbit.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-05 23:01 UTC)