Europe In Talks With SpaceX On Tackling Space Junk (reuters.com) 72
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The European Space Agency is in talks with SpaceX about the possibility of Elon Musk's space venture joining an international charter designed to reduce a growing swarm of debris in space, Director General Josef Aschbacher told Reuters. The 22-nation agency is spearheading one of several efforts to roll back the mass of space junk swirling round the planet from past missions that poses a risk to active satellites. Aschbacher said 110 countries or entities have joined ESA's Zero Debris charter, which aims to stop any new orbital garbage being generated by 2030.
Asked whether SpaceX, whose satellites now make up some two thirds of spacecraft active in low Earth orbit, had signed up, Aschbacher said: "Not yet, but we are in discussion with them... This is a charter that keeps evolving and... we will keep raising the topics because they are so fundamental." [...] There are currently 18,897 pieces of trackable space junk in orbit, according to Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who tracks such objects. Space debris and junk are often used interchangeably, but some consider space junk to include inactive payloads and rocket bodies as well as debris, or errant shards of broken satellites. There are no international laws on debris, but countries and space agencies have begun in recent years to devise proposals and national rules for tackling the problem.
Asked whether SpaceX, whose satellites now make up some two thirds of spacecraft active in low Earth orbit, had signed up, Aschbacher said: "Not yet, but we are in discussion with them... This is a charter that keeps evolving and... we will keep raising the topics because they are so fundamental." [...] There are currently 18,897 pieces of trackable space junk in orbit, according to Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who tracks such objects. Space debris and junk are often used interchangeably, but some consider space junk to include inactive payloads and rocket bodies as well as debris, or errant shards of broken satellites. There are no international laws on debris, but countries and space agencies have begun in recent years to devise proposals and national rules for tackling the problem.
Not sure how this would help (Score:5, Interesting)
SpaceX's Starlink satellites are in such a low orbit, they deorbit in just a few years, with five years being design time for deorbit, so they're not relevant. About the only change I can think of is that SpaceX would no longer launch satellites that participate in the scheme, and I don't see how that would make any business sense for a company that needs the explosive growth and has made a point of drawing all the international customers from Arianespace and Roskosmos.
Or is there something I'm missing that would change?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
politics. Not having anywhere near current technology launchers and failure to reach agreement to at least try to catch up, what do we do: PR. Sounds good the effort that's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but this isn't just a political project. It's in fact started in the aerospace engineering circles, and made it to political level from ground up. Because there is an actual need to reduce amount of debris around the planet to ensure that future launches remain viable and satellites can be put into needed orbits without expecting them to die to a collision within a short period of time.
Re:Not sure how this would help (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you on Starlink. The only two other options I could see make sense for negotiations are:
-SpaceX was the first company that made rocketry (almost) reusable but their rockets can still be discarded for extra boost if that's in the interest of the payload's profile, and even then, there is still second-stage debris. Also, they are developing an even larger payload capable reusable rocket with the upper stage (hopefully) re-usable as well.. Maybe the EU wants to push for even less, or preferably no rocketry-related space debris and wants SpaceX's input how it can be avoided or coorporation?
-The development of a space debris cleanup program for which it wants to use SpaceX's services because they are currently the 'cleanest' launch provider.
Re: (Score:2)
What if something goes wrong though? Say there is an on-orbit accident that creates debris. Should the creator be responsible for cleaning them up? Should there be a risk assessment before a mission starts to evaluation the potential debris that could be created and the possible methods of clean-up?
Something is going to have to change in the near future, with more mega constellations going up, satellites in general getting much cheaper, and so many commercial players getting involved. The old system of clai
Re: (Score:2)
(A ledger in the conventional sense of a written or computer record, not anything to do with crypto).
Re: (Score:3)
Should the creator be responsible for cleaning them up?
If your factory has an accident and dumps cyanide into the local water table should you be responsible for the cleanup? Of course. Why would that be any different off-planet? Orbital paths are a resource which should be available to all, if your satellite blows up like the Boeing one did the other day you've just fucked that resource up for everyone else and almost certainly spewed debris which will intersect a bunch of other orbits.
Sensors for almost everything imaginable are cheap and light now as is o
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but currently they just say "oops" and do nothing about it. Actually that's not entirely true, I recall that someone was fined in the US this year for a failed launch that became space junk.
Ideally we would develop some technology to clean up junk, and the fund operating it with mandatory insurance for people putting stuff in orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
>EU will require contractors launching satellites on behalf of member states or businesses with interests in Europe to be responsible when it comes to space junk.
Problem here is irrelevancy. EU already has put its entire heft behind keeping Arianespace alive, after SpaceX devoured it's foreign customer base. So any such launches would go to Arianespace anyway for geopolitical reasons.
And the rest will just have an entity outside EU deal with the issue if such a legislation arose. This isn't even particul
Re: (Score:2)
"-SpaceX was the first company that made rocketry (almost) reusable but their rockets can still be discarded for extra boost if that's in the interest of the payload's profile, and even then, there is still second-stage debris."
No, the second stage isn't reusable, but it falls back to Earth. Unless something goes wrong, there's a graveyard zone in the Pacific where anything that survives reentry is supposed to come down. I believe that's true of boosters that are expended, too. The exception would be mis
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on Starlink. The only two other options I could see make sense for negotiations are:
-SpaceX was the first company that made rocketry (almost) reusable but their rockets can still be discarded for extra boost if that's in the interest of the payload's profile, and even then, there is still second-stage debris. Also, they are developing an even larger payload capable reusable rocket with the upper stage (hopefully) re-usable as well.. Maybe the EU wants to push for even less, or preferably no rocketry-related space debris and wants SpaceX's input how it can be avoided or coorporation?
-The development of a space debris cleanup program for which it wants to use SpaceX's services because they are currently the 'cleanest' launch provider.
You're second point is the first thing that came to mind for me. SpaceX is a semi-decent resource to get input in to how to prevent more space debris, but they also have the fastest turn-around on launches, with the least amount of "dump and run" of any other launch company. It's entirely possible that the brains in the operation, the engineers, some of which are known to have some further development ideas for space exploration, may either already have, or can be encouraged to have ideas on cleanup for LEO
Re: (Score:3)
There are questions about dumping so many satellites into the upper atmosphere: https://www.theregister.com/20... [theregister.com]
SpaceX also launches other kinds of satellites, and as it expands towards the moon and Mars there will be more debris in longer lived orbits to contend with.
It's likely that at some point the EU will require contractors launching satellites on behalf of member states or businesses with interests in Europe to be responsible when it comes to space junk. It would be best for SpaceX to participate ea
Re: (Score:1)
FUD. "There are questions" about everything.
Re: (Score:1)
>EU will require contractors launching satellites on behalf of member states or businesses with interests in Europe to be responsible when it comes to space junk.
Problem here is irrelevancy. EU already has put its entire heft behind keeping Arianespace alive, after SpaceX devoured it's foreign customer base. So any such launches would go to Arianespace anyway for geopolitical reasons.
And the rest will just have an entity outside EU deal with the issue if such a legislation arose.
Re: (Score:2)
EU laws don't work like that, as many US tech companies have discovered. Bullshit shell companies and contracting others to do your dirty work doesn't get you out of your obligations.
Re: (Score:2)
EU laws do in fact work this way, as current Commission has discovered as it lost case after case after case after levying fines that are illegal. Because it hired too many activists instead of competent lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think this is an irrelevant aspirational thing. It seems to be more of a "we need to get common rules for everyone so this common resource remains functional and available to everyone. And we need to start somewhere".
So getting a deal like this with as many launch providers as possible does make sense. It's just that I don't understand what SpaceX gets out of it unless they're in talks of compensation for following some cleaner launch procedures for their higher orbits launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The company reached its 400th orbital flight with the NROL-167 mission out of Vandenberg this week. Just as impressive, SpaceX launched a Falcon vehicle for the 100th time this year on the OneWeb mission, having already broken las
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see how it makes business sense to keep in good standing with the government they want to get business from? Do you work for Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
While that is certainly the case, EU has declared itself hostile to SpaceX quite a while ago when competition from it started eating Aranespace's profits. It's now utterly devoured them regardless, and EU alongside France is holding Areanespace alive for national security and prestige reasons at this point. SpaceX is basically in the league of its own in the international launch market now due to reusable boosters, and no one else is cost competitive. Arianespace and Roskosmos have been the biggest losers,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit late to the reply, but do you have a link? This does not sound like the EU. First of all the EU isn't a monolith, it can really only make a declaration like that by unanimous decision by the European Council. Secondly EU has picked SpaceX as a launch provider and I have mostly hear EU types say positive things about SpaceX. Elon Derangement Syndrome is more of a US thing. You see some infected people in Europe but not that many.
Also obviously
Re: (Score:2)
Thing to search for: "how does EU support arianespace"
Enjoy a long list of actions taken, everything from subsidies, to speeches by officials from various branches mentioning how supporting arianespace in competition against spacex is critical to EU interests.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what I asked, I asked where the EU declared itself hostile to SpaceX? The US giving handouts to boeing does not mean they are hostile to SpaceX no?
Obviously Arianespace is supported by the government, just like very single other rocket maker including SpaceX. In fact these days SpaceX is supported by the EU government too. It makes total sense for the EU to want their own launch capability, just like it made sense that the US wanted the capability to put astronauts in orbit without Russian help.
Re: (Score:2)
You:
>That's not what I asked, I asked where the EU declared itself hostile to SpaceX?
Me:
>speeches by officials from various branches mentioning how supporting arianespace in competition against spacex is critical to EU interests.
Kindly explain how you directly support one of the two parties engaged in competition without becoming hostile to the other?
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that before, but I don't think it's true. It may be true that it would de-orbit within 5 years if the thrusters aren't fired. Starlink satellites have ion thrusters. It takes very little thrust to stay in low orbit. Like, even a CO2 cartridge (it would freeze though) has enough thrust to keep a satellite of any non-ridiculous mass in LEO for a while. Look at how long Hubble has been hanging out in LEO for without any refueling. In fact the EU has designed (onboard) propellant-less electric thrust
Re: (Score:2)
You got it opposite of reality. Low orbit is the one that takes significant amounts of energy to maintain. This is because of remnants of upper atmosphere causing drag on objects in LEO, resulting to their orbital decay and eventual destruction.
Hubble is there because it was constantly serviced and pushed into higher orbit as its orbit decayed. It was constantly being pushed into higher orbit by the service vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the link? When was the last time Hubble was pushed into a higher orbit? Its orbit is not even that much higher than many, if not a majority, of Musk's satellites. And again. The Starlink satellites have thrusters, unlike Hubble.
Re: (Score:2)
I did. Then I went and actually read up on the Hubble to refresh my memory. You don't need to go far, Hubble's wikipedia page has a decent summary, and you can use references from wikipedia to confirm the points made and find material to look further.
Hubble was pushed to the upper limits of LEO on the last supply mission because it was in fact expected to never receive another one. So NASA wanted to keep it alive as long as possible. It's predicted to go down still, around 10 years from now (plus minus five
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that low orbit decays more. I never disputed that. What I am disputing is that Starlink satellites de-orbit in 5 years. They have THRUSTERS that can maintain orbit. Your brain is just ignoring the fact that Starlink satellites have thrusters, or, you're magnifying the decay force such that you think a thruster can't keep the satellite in low earth orbit. In fact, the EU has tested thrusters that use atmospheric ions to maintain a LEO orbit forever. That's how little fuel is required.
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot your initial argument. Slashdot didn't.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
See post in link, my initial reply contesting a specific aspect of it, and your initial reply to my reply arguing about that specific point.
Your final point is a misrepresentation. Starlink satellites don't "de-orbit in five years" (while in active use, as you note with "usage of thrusters" qualifier). They "de-orbit within approximately five years of being decommissioned". I.e. after they no longer maneuver.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have reading comprehension issues? My initial reply said "It may be true that it would de-orbit within 5 years if the thrusters aren't fired.". Your original comment made it seem like the Starlink satellite maximum lifetime (in presumably the lowest constellation shell) was 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it's not in the same orbit. Hubble has been pushed to the upper reaches of what is defined as LEO during last resupply mission, while starlink is pretty close to the lowest edges LEO. Difference in the two in decay speed between lowest and highest is massive, because of how atmospheric density is distributed in relation to distance from the surface.
Starlink is intentionally close to the bottom of LEO to lower latency. Hubble was intentionally pushed to the upper limits, because it wasn't going
Re: (Score:2)
Mass is important in the amount of energy needed to keep in that orbit. I never said it impacts decay speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Key word: "current". Still well above starlink notably.
Now apply concept of linearity of time to this and comprehend why you just confirmed my point
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mea culpa. I forgot americans give distance in miles rather than kilometers. Orbit of starlink is 342 miles, or 550 kilometers. You are correct on this specific point.
The rest of my point stands. Linearity of time is a thing, and Hubble's orbit has been decaying for 15 years now. It was pushed to a much higher orbit originally, from which it decayed to its current one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're getting your numbers from openGPT poisoned statement that got mirrored in NASA and ESA articles at least if not more.
Original definition was below 1000km.
You can see this poisoning in action from this ESA article for example, which features both automatically generated/copypasted text and the image with the original definition:
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_S... [esa.int]
Compare the accompanying image with text.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you want to define the upper limits of LEO at 1000 km, than I still submit that Hubble was never anywhere near it, nor can you then argue that Starlink is close to the botto
Re: (Score:2)
And we have an offering of a wikipedia as a "reliable source" and statement that to change this, I should rewrite the said wikipedia article.
I am honestly flabbergasted at the lack of internal self awareness within that very statement. So let's just ignore it as an accidental brain fart and return to the main point.
Hubble was pushed to a significantly higher orbit on its last mission, specifically because it would be the last servicing mission and NASA wanted to maximally extent it's life span. It was all o
Re: (Score:2)
And we have an offering of a wikipedia as a "reliable source"
I am pointing to the sources quoted in the wikipedia article (and the talk page). But I see you are too short-sighted to see beyond the W once there is ikipedia behind it. No, all Wikipedia is is lies and openGPT, is that what you are saying? Or is it only by chance this article?
Hubble was pushed to a significantly higher orbit on its last mission
Please, once, give something more than "significantly higher orbit", and preferably something that contradicts my assertion that Hubble never was in a (significantly) higher orbit than 621 km.
Re: (Score:2)
Copy/paste of dead internet is a norm. As for wikipedia and it's magnificent sources, I just recently looked at how political correctness caused English language page on Supporters of Allah to... omit organisation's name from first paragraph, and shove it all the way down into "notes".
It was hilarious and glorious example of wikipedia and its quality, including its sourcing nowadays. Dead internet with braindead editors who only know political correctness.
And yet, here you are claiming that I should edit th
Re: (Score:2)
I think Space Junk is the new Amazon Prime series based on Space Balls
Don't even joke about that. After what they've done to Tolkien they have no right to touch something as holy as Brooks' brilliant take-down of sci-fi. Some things should still be sacred.
Isn't Josh Gadd involved in the sequel right now? Or did that get shit-canned?
So much lift. (Score:2)
With the obscene amount of life that Starship can provide, I ponder if just a HUGE mass in a decaying orbit might do the trick. I mean, sure people might complain that it's clearing everything out of orbit but those people are just being too picky. ;)
On a serious note, there are debris clouds that need to be cleaned up for which we don't have anything developed. A lot of focus has been on lightweight solutions due to the lift cost but that it's come down so much, there may be a budget to send something suit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the debris is all in different orbits, so you'll be lucky to be able to get more than one piece per mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a lot of sats explode into debris clouds, so maybe that's a fair trade.
Re: (Score:2)
"Blob of gel" to clean up space junk runs into the same issue as "nets": relative velocities. You'd pretty much have to match orbit with the debris before approaching it or else the stuff is just going to blast right through your catcher at several hundred kilometers per hour (and now you've got nasty blobs of gel zooming around in random directions...) If you're going to match orbits anyway a claw or scoop is probably adequate for small objects, and the ability to attach a tether to passively accelerate
Re: (Score:2)
You'd pretty much have to match orbit with the debris before approaching it or else the stuff is just going to blast right through your catcher at several hundred kilometers per hour
However, if it's massive enough then the exit velocity will be a quickly decaying orbit which is the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're left with nasty blobs of shrapnel goo floating around, not sure how much of an improvement that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of "quickly decaying orbit" was unclear?
Re: (Score:2)
Voluntary self-regulation (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:2)
Develop a system for removing debris. Prioritize the debris that is up there. All new space missions must pay into a fund to remove debris, based on the level of risk of creating new debris. So not much for very low orbits, but a lot for high orbits. Then start removing debris. If the problem keeps getting worse, increase the required contributions.
Never going to happen (Score:2)
As long as the EU keeps threatening Musk with SpaceX fines over their opinions on the X platform, there is zero chance he does any kind of EU appeasement at all. Why would he when all it would lead to is more fines?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
At this point it is looking increasingly likely the EU is going to have to seek out alternative, more expensive and less reliable, launch partners to get any of their stuff into orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Ariane Space only came about after United States Department of Defense vetoed some of European's military satellite launch in the 70s. They decided they needed their own sovereign launch capability without needing to get permission from another entity. Sovereign launch capability has NEVER been cheaper than the cheapest alternative. Ariane was able to catch a wave of GEO satellite replacement and during the downtime for Space Shuttle during the heyday of Ariane 5.
Even if SpaceX can drop the launch price
Not removing existing junk (Score:2)
" ESA's Zero Debris charter, which aims to stop any new orbital garbage being generated by 2030". I assume this means that the charter members would incorporate an onboard de-orbit mechanism with anything they launch. No talk there of cleaning up existing orbital debris, which seems like a very hard problem.