> ... the risk of collision between the two satellites was 1 in 1,000--ten times higher than the threshold that requires a collision avoidance maneuver. ....<p>> As to why SpaceX refused to move their satellite and has avoided comment since, is not entirely clear, the report said.<p>I'll go out on a limb and say that SpaceX refused to move their satellite because it wouldn't be cost effective to perform avoidance procedures at those odds when you have thousands of micro-satellites. SpaceX understands that everybody's risk tolerance will need go up considerably.<p>That's self-serving, but it's the direction things will need to go for <i>any</i> large deployments. At least SpaceX would be able to send up your replacement satellite, and do it for free if necessary.<p>I imagine you do perform avoidance maneuvers at 1:10000 odds because the err bars are so large. If so, it might be more cost effective long-term to improve detection and prediction. By being the obnoxious guy who refuses to budge, SpaceX can induce demand for better technology.