top | item 44544997

(no title)

ccorcos | 7 months ago

Why isn’t the free market capable of doing this? Seems odd to spend money just to spend money. There’s plenty of incentive for other people to be doing this already…

discuss

order

duxup|7 months ago

I feel like this is like "free market should build roads thing" we fund roads so everyone has access and goods can move freely / more economic activity can take place without problems.

What would the free market solution be here? Someone builds all the infrastructure to track all the satellites, and maybe more than one (if not you have a monopoly) person does it. Then they charge for it?

But someone doesn't use it an now we have more space junk ...

If anything a government organizing this and everyone utilizing it seems like it makes for more efficient / lower risk situation with satellites. Everyone just gets on with more important business.

OtherShrezzing|7 months ago

Usually I’d agree with you on this type of thing, but in this case I think the insurance industry could and should be picking this up.

They’re the bag holder here, and this system could be built for a marginal hit to their bottom line in exchange for a huge amount of de-risking across their entire supply chain.

michael1999|7 months ago

The free market is famously unable to solve problems of diffuse risk and responsibility: air pollution, sea piracy, and in this case -- satellite collision avoidance.

marcusverus|7 months ago

This is a good argument for passing a one-page bill which clarifies "if your sat leaves its assigned orbit, you're responsible for the resulting damages". It's a poor argument for spending $50 million dollars per year.

EasyMark|7 months ago

Handing a natural monopoly to corporate America is a very extremely bad idea. Allowing bean counters to control what could eventually disrupt global communications and a huge military advantage is as bad an idea as allowing an unstable billionaire to control a significant portion of your future space program.