zlacker

And what the goal of that maneuver was.

>>jacque+(OP)
Cause problems and deny it

>>jacque+(OP)
It seems like it deliberately came close to the Starlink sat, but the "why" is still a good question.

>>phkahl+ps
A test of SpaceX's awareness & response would be ample reason.

>>phkahl+ps
Weapons test springs to mind, or as a sibling comment suggested a test of Starlink response capabilities.

How confident are we the intent was nefarious? Do you ever see accidental near-misses with this type of flight profile?

>>bell-c+ku
If so, SpaceX's longer term response being "here's our SSA data for everyone and here's how we source it" is a good one for all parties involved (even more so for SpaceX and govt customers they share it with if they have other capabilities...)

>>notaha+hV
Speculation:

SpaceX has considerably better data than what they disclose, and offer free of charge.

The USSF enjoys full access to that better data, for $[TOP_SECRET]/month.

>>rkager+vS
The system exists- ergo, people in the know are concerned about accidental collisions.

>>bell-c+ok1
Well we already know Starshield (the military version) has specialist space domain awareness capabilities that aren't being shared, and it's entirely plausible that data from regular Starlink sensors/receivers (other than the disclosed star trackers) can be fused into something useful by SpaceX and/or the Space Force.

>>butvac+kp1
Alternative: the system exists, so people in the know may well have done proper risk assessment and may have identified multiple reasons that could result in a collision. Some of those reasons are accidental, some are not.