[jurjenh]

I'm not entirely convinced this is the argument.

From what I've read so far, it seems that ESA was uncomfortable with the possibility of a collision to a degree that SpaceX could possibly be quite comfortable with - ESA wants > 1km distance, whereas SpaceX might be comfortable with much closer - they are quite different constellations.

Who has the right to dictate who has priority / which criteria is the right one?

I'm going to assume that the cost of ESA's satellite is much greater than SpaceX's StarLink module so obviously they have much more of an interest in preserving full functionality - BUT avoiding collisions is in everybody's best interests. Who is going to use their fuel? Who has right of way, and to what terms?

[stuaxo]

Or just that Space doesn't care about losing 1 Satelite.

[dwd]

I think you have this right, not so much about appetite for risk but maybe telemetry on SpaceX's satellite (or a number of satellites in the swarm) gave them sufficient confidence that there was no issue?

Given SpaceX routinely send resupply missions to the ISS I would assume they have a fair amount of confidence when it comes to knowing the position of their vehicles.

[mlindner]

ESA collision passing distance was over 4km. So there was plenty of room between the satellites.