Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

payloadspace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#31

Post by rzimmerman »

elliekelly wrote: post #16
rzimmerman wrote: post #12

I think this is generally a good thing to do, with some caveats that I hope the FCC considers. For most satellites below ~450km, this is really a non-issue. Atmospheric drag will generally be sufficient to deorbit the satellite in a few years. For big Earth-observing constellations, Starlink and friends, and many small missions, this doesn't change anything. Debris don't really accumulate dangerously in this zone and…

> Debris don't really accumulate dangerously in this zone and collision avoidance is a well-studied problem with a lot of people doing great work. I think this line of thinking is dangerously incorrect. Sure it’s not a problem right now but we’re poised to have a lot more stuff in orbit than we’ve ever had before. Plastic waste didn’t initially “accumulate dangerously” either but once it became more widely used (and…

I didn't mean to imply orbit debris isn't a real problem. But for the low end of LEO:

- Most debris deorbits naturally in a few years. Any debris causing events or accumulation naturally clears out in a reasonable time frame. It's not like debris at 800-2000km which is the real "Kessler Syndrome" concern where it takes decades or centuries.

- Debris mitigation efforts that are already in place are effective. Limiting debris release during launch and deployments has had a huge positive impact over the last few decades.

- "Traffic control" is a lot easier at these altitudes and debris in this range is well tracked. Obviously this doesn't extend to small stuff (<5cm), but due to active mitigation and natural decay this is less of an issue. Also ground radars are getting better and can actually see a lot of these objects now.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#32

Post by s1artibartfast »

mikeyouse wrote: post #26
bryanlarsen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debris does not accumulate in LEO, it reenters naturally. This isn't like plastic waste, it's more like organic waste that naturally decays. Sometimes the law says you have to clean up organic waste, but sometimes it's better to let it rot on its own.

The timeframe varies widely based on the shape of the object and the altitude. There are something like 5 orders of magnitude pressure difference between an object at 100km and one at 500km which is the difference between deorbiting in days vs years.

yes, but if deorbiting in years is sufficient, the difference in time is not relevant.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#33

Post by Me1000 »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #2

> The rule shortens the time required for satellite operators to deorbit LEO satellites to no more than 5 years after completing their mission, from 25 years. De-orbiting faster means reserving more propellant for the final de-orbit burn. Since the lifespan of satellites is already generally determined by how much propellant they have, this new rule effectively reduces the lifespan of any satellite high enough to req…

To be honest, this seems quite reasonable. Space is obviously a unique environment, but to use an imperfect analogy: we don't let cars that break down just sit in the middle of the road, and we don't let dilapidated buildings sit unattended until they collapse.

There's an externality to leaving a EOL'd satellite in LEO, now these new rules require that externality be priced in. Either through the cost of reserving enough propellant for a de-orbit burn, or perhaps, one day, for more expensive satellites, a new industry could emerge for refueling/boosting/servicing to extend the sat's life.

This regulation seems like a good sign that the commercial space industry is starting to mature in a healthy way.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#34

Post by Someone1234 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #19

Good improvement. What is China's rules for de-orbiting?

It wouldn't surprise me if they wound up just copying this, making it a de-facto international standard. Space junk is an international problem, nobody wins by it continuously becoming worse.

De-orbiting requirements add costs, but space junk damage and or avoidance systems are even more expensive, so this is the cheap solution in the medium to long term.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#35

Post by MichaelCollins »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #23
MichaelCollins wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies launching satellites with foreign launch providers still need to get a license from the FCC if their satellite uses radio communications.

How about foreign satellites on foreign launch systems that wish to communicate with ground stations in the US? I assume they also need an FCC license.

Yes, satellites communicating with ground stations in the US need licenses from the FCC, regardless of where they're launched or where the owner is based. US satellites that exclusively communicate with ground stations outside of the US might not, but I'm not sure about that. Satellites launched by other US government agencies (NRO, etc) might also be exempt.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#36

Post by karaterobot »

I wonder if they could do a "debris offset credits" type thing, where you could extend the life of your satellite by clearing out existing debris. So if you wanted a 25-year orbit, you could clear out maybe 5-10x the cross-sectional area, or mass, or whatever the relevant number is.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#37

Post by bryanlarsen »

mikeyouse wrote: post #26
bryanlarsen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debris does not accumulate in LEO, it reenters naturally. This isn't like plastic waste, it's more like organic waste that naturally decays. Sometimes the law says you have to clean up organic waste, but sometimes it's better to let it rot on its own.

The timeframe varies widely based on the shape of the object and the altitude. There are something like 5 orders of magnitude pressure difference between an object at 100km and one at 500km which is the difference between deorbiting in days vs years.

There's probably more than 5 orders of magnitude difference between throwing an apple core into the woods and a city's worth of sewage, but both are organic waste. I think the analogy is fairly sound.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#38

Post by Dracophoenix »

enraged_camel wrote: post #29
Dracophoenix wrote: post #24

When exactly did the FCC's jurisdiction extend to the heavens? There should be a lot more concern than there currently is over an agency granting itself powers over private property in space.

Well, various government agencies have jurisdiction over, say, private cars that drive on public roads, so why couldn't you apply similar logic to the FCC with regards to satellite regulation?

No country has any recognized territorial claims to space. Roads are built within and between territories. I don't know of a road built on unclaimed territory that grants a far away government jurisdiction over every car traveling through the said territory, even if these cars used other paths or went off-trail.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#39

Post by mikeyouse »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #32
mikeyouse wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The timeframe varies widely based on the shape of the object and the altitude. There are something like 5 orders of magnitude pressure difference between an object at 100km and one at 500km which is the difference between deorbiting in days vs years.

yes, but if deorbiting in years is sufficient, the difference in time is not relevant.

What? Starlink eventually wants 40,000 satellites - with 5 year lifetimes that'll be 8,000 per year... there are numerous other planned constellations, so figure something like 15,000 LEO per year within a few decades.

15k satellites per year with a 5 year lifespan and a 1-year decay means you'll be stable at 75k satellites. 5 year lifespan with a 3-year decay means you'll eventually be stable at over 100k satellites in orbit with 30,000 of them 'dead' and decaying. That's a massive difference in collision risk.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#40

Post by chousuke »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #7
pessimizer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If rules didn't cause inconvenience to someone, they wouldn't have to be written.

I was thinking more along the line of the new rule giving another commercial advantage to SpaceX. Starlink will be effected, their satellites already deorbit faster than 5 years. But many other satellite operators will have to launch more frequently, and SpaceX is positioned to meet that growing demand.

I don't really see it as "giving" a commercial advantage to anyone if the new rule's purpose is to prevent something harmful and someone happens to benefit because they're already not doing that harmful thing.

In my view it's really a separate issue if SpaceX has too many advantages and that levelling the playing field somehow would be useful; allowing companies to grow too powerful does cause problems, and I don't think there's a moral requirement for regulators to be "fair" when dealing with corporations. They are not humans.

The need for that sort of intervention should not keep us from instating otherwise beneficial rules, though.

Post reply on HN