China's Long March 6A Rocket Is Making a Mess In Low-Earth Orbit. (arstechnica.com) 34
Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from Ars Technica: The upper stage from a Chinese rocket that launched a batch of Internet satellites Tuesday has broken apart in space, creating a debris field of at least 700 objects in one of the most heavily-trafficked zones in low-Earth orbit. US Space Command, which tracks objects in orbit with a network of radars and optical sensors, confirmed the rocket breakup Thursday. Space Command initially said the event created more than 300 pieces of trackable debris. The military's ground-based radars are capable of tracking objects larger than 10 centimeters (4 inches). Later Thursday, LeoLabs, a commercial space situational awareness company, said its radars detected at least 700 objects attributed to the Chinese rocket. The number of debris fragments could rise to more than 900, LeoLabs said. The culprit is the second stage of China's Long March 6A rocket, which lifted off Tuesday with the first batch of 18 satellites for a planned Chinese megaconstellation that could eventually number thousands of spacecraft. The Long March 6A's second stage apparently disintegrated after placing its payload of 18 satellites into a polar orbit.
Space Command said in a statement it has "observed no immediate threats" and "continues to conduct routine conjunction assessments to support the safety and sustainability of the space domain." According to LeoLabs, radar data indicated the rocket broke apart at an altitude of 503 miles (810 kilometers) at approximately 4:10 pm EDT (20:10 UTC) on Tuesday, around 13-and-a-half hours after it lifted off from northern China. At this altitude, it will take decades or centuries for the wispy effect of aerodynamic drag to pull the debris back into the atmosphere. As the objects drift lower, their orbits will cross paths with SpaceX's Starlink Internet satellites, the International Space Station and other crew spacecraft, and thousands more pieces of orbital debris, putting commercial and government satellites at risk of collision.
Space Command said in a statement it has "observed no immediate threats" and "continues to conduct routine conjunction assessments to support the safety and sustainability of the space domain." According to LeoLabs, radar data indicated the rocket broke apart at an altitude of 503 miles (810 kilometers) at approximately 4:10 pm EDT (20:10 UTC) on Tuesday, around 13-and-a-half hours after it lifted off from northern China. At this altitude, it will take decades or centuries for the wispy effect of aerodynamic drag to pull the debris back into the atmosphere. As the objects drift lower, their orbits will cross paths with SpaceX's Starlink Internet satellites, the International Space Station and other crew spacecraft, and thousands more pieces of orbital debris, putting commercial and government satellites at risk of collision.
We shouldn't be worried... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We are all going to be long dead before realistic viable interstellar space travel is a thing and this becomes a actual hazard.
The Singularity is near.
Re: (Score:2)
The Singularity is near.
With mayonaise!
Re: (Score:2)
We are all going to be long dead before realistic viable interstellar space travel is a thing and this becomes a actual hazard. Though it might cause issues for anyone silly enough to come visit earth.
What does this have to do with interstellar space travel?
And it already is a hazard, for earth-orbit spacecraft, those things we launch into space pretty much every day now.
Re:We shouldn't be worried... (Score:5, Interesting)
...Kessler syndrome isn't a problem [slashdot.org] for LEO objects!
When Kessler theorized, he wasn’t exactly worried about pretty space pictures getting ruined. He was more concerned with every object in orbit getting ruined. I know we brush off LEO almost like it’s nothing, but ten thousand from here, ten thousand from there..pretty soon we’re talking about real volume and using terms like “blanket” and “impossible”.
If you really want to know how to start a world war, just tell the other country their satellite addiction is a huge problem, but yours isn’t.
Re: (Score:3)
I know we brush off LEO almost like it’s nothing
We certainly do brush it off, and it certainly isn't "nothing". My guess or prediction is like everything else, we're going to load up LEO until we get what Kessler warned us about, and then most people are going to whine "Why didn't anyone warn us?"
Re: (Score:2)
But it is for anything that goes above LEO e.g. geosync orbit oder the moon or any other exploration within the solar system.
And also, that stuff still endangers satellites and (the international) space station(s).
Going to get much worse? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It was an anomaly. These things happen, SpaceX had a less severe one recently. Because it's LEO the debris will de-orbit in the near future, which is how all second stages are disposed of.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it's said that Kessler syndrome isn't a big concern for Starlink is the altitude.
This Long March rocket broke apart at approximately 800km. Starlink orbits, mostly, at 550km.
Per the summary, this Long March of debris will take multiple decades to deorbit. Starlink satellites, with their ion-engines to help with station-keeping, will deorbit after 5 years. If they don't run out_of fuel first, they can be intentionally deorbited in about 6 months. [spacenews.com]
Re: Won't someone think of the Chinese? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Negative press for every Chinese launch these days. How about worrying about some immediate issue like the astronauts getting stuck in space first?
We are [slashdot.org] worrying [slashdot.org] about it [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Negative press for every Chinese launch these days.
Are you saying that someone letting their launch vehicle disintegrate dangerously is a responsible policy that should be welcomed?
How about no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well...when other countries start dropping first stages on villages, having uncontrolled reentry of rocket stages, and exploding rockets stages in orbits where it'll be a lasting issue then they'll get that negative press too.
RUD (Score:2)
RUD is considered a feature, not a bug, in communist China.
Re: (Score:2)
RUD is considered a feature, not a bug, in communist China.
I'm searching for a Russian Reversal here, but I'm missing a transitive verb.
"In Soviet Russia, rocket RUDs you!"
Well, it kind of works.
Loctite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like China should use more Loctite and less chewing gum in their rockets.
What China needs to do is re-think their disposal protocol for the Long March 6A rocket. Like, oh say, de-orbit the stage intact soon after launch (and let it break up on re-entry.)
Per TFA, Long March 6A has an unfortunate reputation for being a litterbug. Shame, China.
Reaching for the stars, we blind the sky (Score:2)
If the US actually thinks it's a major problem... (Score:1)
then maybe they should try working with China rather than some bullshit law that forbids it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are many major problems that can arise when countries share space in earth orbit. All countries recognize these problems, not just the US. Countries try to solve these problems with international treaties. That's rational and diplomatic, not "bullshit law."
Re: (Score:2)
It's bullshit law if the law specifically states that US cannot work at all with the Chinese in anyway or fashion in terms of space, and have made a local law specifically stating that they can not work with China in any fashion. This isn't a treaty of any sort but simply a domestic law. Therefore a BULLSHIT LAW.
I'm not aware of the "bullshit law" you reference. Please enlighten us with references. In any case, you're talking apples and oranges.
Treaties represent agreements between countries that supersede their sovereign laws in order to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. Avoiding the creation of space junk is such a mutually beneficial outcome, and it is best addressed with treaties.
But the US passing a law prohibiting joint projects with China does not violate, and is not superseded by, any treaties. It's ju
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to assume you're the same AC in all of this thread.
You are confused. You are the one claiming that this "bullshit law" exists. You are the one who needs to provide evidence that it exists. Don't shift the burden of proof.
You expected anything else? (Score:2)
Considering China's tofu-dregs housing units, tofu-dregs high-rises, tofu-dregs EVs, tofu-dregs highway bridges, heck tofu-dregs everything only a fool would expect China to launch anything other than a tofu-dregs spacecraft except by accident.
{O.O}
China doesn't do community cleanup (Score:2)