Historically, there hasn't been any authoritative rule from NASA or the ESA regarding "deconfliction" of satellites at risk of collision. However, the informal consensus has been that the satellite which has been on orbit longer has right of way over the newer one, for the practical reason that an older satellite will be lower on maneuvering fuel.
SpaceX's flat refusal to alter the orbit of a new Starlink satellite in order to avoid collision with the ESA's Aeolus orbital observatory breaks this informal consensus, which makes it clear that binding rules now need to be put into place. It is also rather disturbing that even with the intersection of orbits known substantially in advance, SpaceX ignored all attempts at communicating over the issue.
Source: Forbes
Edit: Given that Starlink 44 was either one of the two being intentionally deorbited or one of the three that failed, its possible that SpaceX didn't want to admit on the record that they didn't have maneuvering control of the satellite. Those Starlinks are supposed to have autonomous collision avoidance, however. . .
SpaceX's flat refusal to alter the orbit of a new Starlink satellite in order to avoid collision with the ESA's Aeolus orbital observatory breaks this informal consensus, which makes it clear that binding rules now need to be put into place. It is also rather disturbing that even with the intersection of orbits known substantially in advance, SpaceX ignored all attempts at communicating over the issue.
Source: Forbes
Edit: Given that Starlink 44 was either one of the two being intentionally deorbited or one of the three that failed, its possible that SpaceX didn't want to admit on the record that they didn't have maneuvering control of the satellite. Those Starlinks are supposed to have autonomous collision avoidance, however. . .
Last edited: