Thriving Space Industry Raises Safety Issues for Low-Earth Orbit (nbcnews.com) 40
NBC News looks at the "thriving ecosystem" of space businesses "dramatically expanding access to the cosmos and fueling what is projected to grow into a trillion-dollar commercial space industry."
"Yet alongside the numerous benefits to society, increasing access to space and supporting an economy in orbit comes with its share of challenges, including how to balance a growing industry with the safe and sustainable use of outer space...." Speckled among the operational satellites in low-Earth orbit are thousands of tons of space debris, ranging from tiny flecks of paint to spent rocket parts to huge defunct spacecraft that have languished in orbital graveyards for decades. Adding more satellites to the mix not only increases the chances of a catastrophic on-orbit collision, but also pushes humanity closer to a perilous tipping point, beyond which certain parts of low-Earth orbit may become too cluttered and risky to operate in safely. "We're really on borrowed time before we have another big collision," said Charity Weeden, vice president of global space policy and government relations at Astroscale U.S., a private company that specializes in satellite servicing and orbital debris removal. "There are thousands of close calls every day in orbit...."
But placing all the blame on these megaconstellations is oversimplifying the problem, said Darren McKnight, a senior technical fellow at LeoLabs, a California-based aerospace company that operates networks of ground-based radars and tracking systems to monitor objects in low-Earth orbit and map their movements. For one, operational satellites make up only a small fraction of the total number of objects in low-Earth orbit that pose collision risks, he said. And unlike defunct spacecraft that have languished in orbit for decades, most newer satellites can be maneuvered out of harm's way, if necessary. It has also become standard practice for satellite operators to have an end-of-life plan to cut down on the accumulation of space junk. These strategies include purposefully commanding a spacecraft to "deorbit," or burn up harmlessly in Earth's atmosphere, or strand it in a higher, "graveyard" orbit away from the most congested sections around the planet.
Still, the risks are serious. And the amount of debris in space is expected to grow as launches continue. McKnight said "bad neighborhoods" have already emerged — areas in low-Earth orbit where big clouds of debris pose very real threats." There are certain places in Earth orbit where we are destined to have a major event within the next five to 10 years," he said. "We're looking at a 10 to 15 percent probability of a collision, which sounds unlikely, but by leaving these objects in orbit since the mid-'80s, we're rolling the dice a lot"
These risks were amplified by a series of recent anti-satellite missile tests — one conducted by China in 2007, one by India in 2019 and one carried out by Russia last year — and a separate accidental collision between two satellites in 2009. Each event is estimated to have produced thousands of pieces of debris larger than the size of a golf ball, and even smaller, harder-to-track objects, according to the Secure World Foundation, a nongovernmental organization that focuses on space policy...
Part of the problem is that while launches are subject to domestic regulations in individual countries, there is no international body to oversee what happens in orbit. Policies have yet to catch up with the industry's growth, and it's unclear if any binding global agreements can be achieved anytime soon.
"It's like we're building the plane as we're flying it," said Josef Koller, a systems director for the Center for Space Policy and Strategy at The Aerospace Corp.
The article also points out that companies like Astroscale are currently "developing technologies to actively remove objects from orbit."
"Yet alongside the numerous benefits to society, increasing access to space and supporting an economy in orbit comes with its share of challenges, including how to balance a growing industry with the safe and sustainable use of outer space...." Speckled among the operational satellites in low-Earth orbit are thousands of tons of space debris, ranging from tiny flecks of paint to spent rocket parts to huge defunct spacecraft that have languished in orbital graveyards for decades. Adding more satellites to the mix not only increases the chances of a catastrophic on-orbit collision, but also pushes humanity closer to a perilous tipping point, beyond which certain parts of low-Earth orbit may become too cluttered and risky to operate in safely. "We're really on borrowed time before we have another big collision," said Charity Weeden, vice president of global space policy and government relations at Astroscale U.S., a private company that specializes in satellite servicing and orbital debris removal. "There are thousands of close calls every day in orbit...."
But placing all the blame on these megaconstellations is oversimplifying the problem, said Darren McKnight, a senior technical fellow at LeoLabs, a California-based aerospace company that operates networks of ground-based radars and tracking systems to monitor objects in low-Earth orbit and map their movements. For one, operational satellites make up only a small fraction of the total number of objects in low-Earth orbit that pose collision risks, he said. And unlike defunct spacecraft that have languished in orbit for decades, most newer satellites can be maneuvered out of harm's way, if necessary. It has also become standard practice for satellite operators to have an end-of-life plan to cut down on the accumulation of space junk. These strategies include purposefully commanding a spacecraft to "deorbit," or burn up harmlessly in Earth's atmosphere, or strand it in a higher, "graveyard" orbit away from the most congested sections around the planet.
Still, the risks are serious. And the amount of debris in space is expected to grow as launches continue. McKnight said "bad neighborhoods" have already emerged — areas in low-Earth orbit where big clouds of debris pose very real threats." There are certain places in Earth orbit where we are destined to have a major event within the next five to 10 years," he said. "We're looking at a 10 to 15 percent probability of a collision, which sounds unlikely, but by leaving these objects in orbit since the mid-'80s, we're rolling the dice a lot"
These risks were amplified by a series of recent anti-satellite missile tests — one conducted by China in 2007, one by India in 2019 and one carried out by Russia last year — and a separate accidental collision between two satellites in 2009. Each event is estimated to have produced thousands of pieces of debris larger than the size of a golf ball, and even smaller, harder-to-track objects, according to the Secure World Foundation, a nongovernmental organization that focuses on space policy...
Part of the problem is that while launches are subject to domestic regulations in individual countries, there is no international body to oversee what happens in orbit. Policies have yet to catch up with the industry's growth, and it's unclear if any binding global agreements can be achieved anytime soon.
"It's like we're building the plane as we're flying it," said Josef Koller, a systems director for the Center for Space Policy and Strategy at The Aerospace Corp.
The article also points out that companies like Astroscale are currently "developing technologies to actively remove objects from orbit."
Do we really need that lengthy introduction? (Score:2)
Has anyone not seen Wall-E [wikipedia.org] yet?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that love-story with robots? Was there anything about trash in there?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that love-story with robots? Was there anything about trash in there?
Not sure if sarcastic or not...
Wall-E was literally a garbage compacting robot who (up to the beginning of the movie) spent his life compressing garbage into cubes and stacking it into huge mountains.
Re: (Score:2)
Relax. I know and like Wall-E and I understand what the actual story is. But for many people the "garbage"-angle will likely be unimportant.
Low space orbit is a non-renewable resource (Score:3)
So of course we let people exploit it for profit and power while leaving the mess for others to clean up. It's the standard plan whenever we find something new we can fuck up. Now we get to suffer the consequences of that short sighted plan.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Low space orbit is a non-renewable resource (Score:5, Interesting)
Beyond that, we need a way to quickly deorbit debris field. I wonder if flying counter-orbit and venting atmosphere to slow down objects is a viable way of removing a debris field. As long as the venting gas is released at slightly sub-orbital velocities, it should slowly fall back to the atmosphere, and if the cloud is large enough, a lot of debris will come into contact with said cloud and slow down to re-entry. Obviously functioning satellites will need to maneuver away from such a cloud or fire an OMS to gain the lost speed back. But, things like paint chips and trash would fall out of the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the venting, you had a collection of trackable debris to be avoided. After it, you have a untrackable debris heading down through the space where most of our satellites are with no way for those satellites to know how to evade it since you've introduced all these unpredictable movements. Doesn't deorbiting the debris field create a bigger problem than leaving it alone?
Re: Low space orbit is a non-renewable resource (Score:2)
Re: Low space orbit is a non-renewable resource (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because you are deorbitting a small field at a time and allowing that field to clear to below it. So, you would clear the space below it. You would not be able to bring enough atmosphere anyway to deorbit whole rings around the planet. After so many hours/days, the field and the gas would have all entered the atmosphere.
Chemically speaking, what becomes of the dozens of metals, plastics, and foams when a machine "burns up in the atmosphere"? Does each substance simply combust into the exact same gas/heat byproducts as if you burned it in a terrestrial lab? Do the subsequent molecules diffuse into that upper layer and stay there, or do denser cloud-pockets of molecules make their way downward over time like dead plankton slowly sinking to the ocean floor?
Re: Low space orbit is a non-renewable resource (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? It doesnt pose a threat to spacecraft, which is the objective here. There isnt enough mass of those things to significantly warm up the atmosphere.
Someone with simple curiosity about science cares.
It wasn't some stealthy Gotcha trap question to score points for one side of a yay/nay binary with regard to a policy argument. It was a simple question, asked on a discussion forum, in a subthread that appeared to include people who have some education/training in the subject matter and might be able to offer insight on the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the venting, you had a collection of trackable debris to be avoided. After it, you have a untrackable debris heading down through the space where most of our satellites are with no way for those satellites to know how to evade it since you've introduced all these unpredictable movements. Doesn't deorbiting the debris field create a bigger problem than leaving it alone?
No, because space is quite big.
The short-term risk of deorbit is tiny compared to the long term risk of leaving it up there.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the venting, you had a collection of trackable debris to be avoided. After it, you have a untrackable debris
there is already untrackable debris zipping around enough to cause catastrophic damage, that's the whole the point of the article and why clean up strategies like a gas cloud make a lot of sense, and are actually a necessity. because we already failed when it really mattered to consider the risk you are pointing out now. you would assume that these strategies would be deployed only if and in a way in which those risks can be diminished.
Re: (Score:2)
That's already being done.
- stages must be passivated after use, etc. to reduce the risk of explosions of defunct objects
- objects in LEO must show a deorbit plan (the timescale is a lot longer though, at 25 years)
Re: (Score:2)
So of course we let people exploit it for profit and power while leaving the mess for others to clean up. It's the standard plan whenever we find something new we can fuck up. Now we get to suffer the consequences of that short sighted plan.
That, unfortunately, sums it up nicely. The root-cause seems to be that only about 20% of all humans are accessible to rational argument. Those that make the decisions typically seem to be selected from the rest.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We have truckers blocking highways because of vaccine mandates. You think we're going to find any political will to impose a unified front on space junk?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
s and the provisions for the massive support of all humans to even live a basic functional minimum existence has obviously not been attained and the result is that we are all headed for total disaster.
What is the definition of "Basic functional minimum existence", when was that definition chosen, and what metrics will let us know we've successfully completed it?
The possums camping in your backyards and sewers and digging in your waste bin are living at close to a functional maximum existence, way above the scant nutrient/shelter availability and ample hunting-predator threat they would have faced in the wild.
Thing is, 1000 years ago we would have been competing with them (along with dozens of other anima
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Low space orbit is a non-renewable resource (Score:4, Informative)
False. Orbits below a certain altitude clean themselves up by virtue of the residual atmosphere up there providing a natural de-orbit service.
The higher the altitude, the longer it lasts, but at, for instance, the altitude of the International Space Station, stuff lasts no more than about a year or less without being actively reboosted.
All the StarLink satellites orbit at about 50 km below where the Space Station is, and they deorbit soon enough on their own to not be a problem after a while.
The very definition of a renewable resource.
Higher altitude stuff like OneWeb does last longer (decades?) but the rub of it is that a satellite orbitting at a higher altitude sees more of the earth at one time, meaning fewer of them are necessary to deliver whatever service they're up there to deliver.
A sound policy would require de-orbit capabilities and plans for higher altitude mega constellations but would declare anything under a certain altitude a free-for-all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The people worry about things for a few reasons:
1)Satellite launches are expensive, so even a low probability of a problem is worrisome. (Basically the probability of problem multiplied by the cost if there is a problem get pretty high, not because of the probability but because of the cost)
2) As said, objects in higher orbits do not decay the same way as low earth orbit, so things like geostationary satellites have a real problem.
3)Many pieces of debris have elliptical orbits so that they spend only small
Re: (Score:2)
I can certainly see ... (Score:2)
Space Mining (Score:3, Interesting)
Those old satellites probably have a lot of gold in them. Time to go and pull them down!
Re: (Score:3)
Those old satellites probably have a lot of gold in them. Time to go and pull them down!
Not sure the amount of gold would come anywhere close to offsetting the launch, operation, and controlled-reentry costs needed to recover said gold. Maybe if you were up there for a while manually dismantling the defunct satellites and extracting just the gold for a single bulk return to Earth, but even then I doubt the ROI would be net positive and/or worth the effort.
Re: (Score:3)
JWST, which famously has its mirrors covered in gold, contains about $3000 worth in gold. Recovering gold isn't going to pay for any recovery missions.
Time to deorbit (Score:4, Insightful)
The question for the megaconstellations is how long the satellites will take to deorbit if they have a complete failure and are unable to do a controlled deorbit. My understanding is that in the really low orbits that Starlink uses, we're looking at something like five years, give or take a few. The problem with space debris is in much higher orbits (though still considered "low earth orbits"). Also, geosynchronous orbit is a particularly limited space.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as falling launch costs made Starlink possible, so will falling launch costs make orbital cleanup efforts possible.
With affordable launch costs we can send up gadgets to deal with space junk. Some experiments have already been sent up and tried.
The Angry Astronaut covers space debris a lot. Here's a good video from two months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YHLFCBu_yE [youtube.com]
P.S. Angry Astronaut references the "Kessler Syndrome". This is the idea that once debris in LEO reaches a certain threshold, it
Re:Time to deorbit (Score:4, Informative)
The real problem with space debris are the tiny pieces from things that have exploded: stuff that is too small to track, but still lethal to astronauts or able to damage or destroy spacecraft. If we can't track it, we can't avoid it, and we can't clean it up.
The approach going forward should be two-fold: Avoid creating new micro debris, and improve our tracking ability to find and avoid increasingly small junk. Cleaning out known junk should be limited to stuff that is in orbits known to be problematic. An example might be two large dead satellites that might collide and create all sorts of junk; a mission to deorbit one of them could prevent lots of future untrackable pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that in the really low orbits that Starlink uses, we're looking at something like five years, give or take a few.
Or a few months with some solar storms: Solar Storm Knocks 40 SpaceX Satellites Out of Orbit [smithsonianmag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No. Not a few months.
The satellites are deployed in an extremely low orbit. This orbit will decay in a few months. That way if any satellite is dead on delivery, it doesn't matter. The satellites then use ion thrusters to raise their orbits to their operational orbits that are much higher. This also saves fuel on the second stage (allowing for more satellites to be deployed per launch). The downside is that the ion thrusters take months to reach the final orbit. Something like four to six months, but
Re: (Score:2)
5 years is still a long time to be waiting, especially if they break up. It also depends on the failure rate, at some point a bunch of uncontrolled satellites slowly falling into the atmosphere becomes a significant hazard for others trying to launch or manoeuvre.
Simple (Score:2)
Same as the air industry, there needs to be a universalized (and I don't mean universally controlled, simply 'with the same set of rules') Space Traffic Control.
Of course, the first step would be to get the Chinese to simply stop lying about launch details and trajectories. Once we can do that, we have have a safe(r) near-earth orbit. Beyond that, we probably require some sort of high-orbit station that can monitor and serve the same function.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the first step would be to get the Chinese to simply stop lying....
Yeah, good luck with that.