It's a bit weird the FCC is ruling on this... not really a space agency... but regardless, it's a good move!
FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
51–60 of 119 posts
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#52I 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.
The new rule is 5 years after mission completion, so this already allows for a 25-year orbit (as long as you're still operating).
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#53> 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…
I'm no rocket scientist, but could there be a service which knocks satellites out of orbit for people? I wonder how cost effective such a service could get. Could one mission knock 10 satellites out of orbit?
Woz seems to think so.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/01/tech/space-junk-steve-wozniak...
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The rule is 5 years. You've given 2 examples under 5 years. If everything is going to re-enter within 5 years without boosting then your point is moot, because even in your "massively more collision risky" example, it still abides by the rules.
If something was going to deorbit within 1 minute, or was going to deorbit within 4 years, 6 months... It doesn't matter to the creator, because they don't have to change their design at all to meet the rules.
If something was going to deorbit within 8 years (because they previously had a 25 year allowed limit), they now have to rework the design.
There's plenty of room for debate about if 5 years is adequate, but as it stands, _most_ things (under 500km) will naturally deorbit within the legal time frame anyway even without special consideration.
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#55> 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…
> De-orbiting faster means reserving more propellant for the final de-orbit burn.
One new technology is releasing a sail to increase drag.
Example: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/08/23/millennium-space-syst...
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The FCC’s jurisdiction only applies to satellites communicating with US based ground stations.
The FCC derives its powers from the Communications Act of 1934 (before Sputnik) and a few Supreme Court cases, none of which have to do with satellite communication. That the FCC has jurisdiction over terrestrial radio spectra does not give it the right to create additional requirements for communication with orbital satellites even if there are US-based ground stations involved.
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no rocket scientist, but could there be a service which knocks satellites out of orbit for people? I wonder how cost effective such a service could get. Could one mission knock 10 satellites out of orbit?
Woz seems to think so. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/01/tech/space-junk-steve-wozniak...
Given Woz's post-Apple track record, that's not a good sign..
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no rocket scientist, but could there be a service which knocks satellites out of orbit for people? I wonder how cost effective such a service could get. Could one mission knock 10 satellites out of orbit?
With a vehicle, probably not. Moving form one satellite's orbit to another is extremely fuel-intensive (you'd typically need ~thousands of km/h of velocity change to do it), so it's not really practical to have a single vehicle up there moving from satellite to satellite. But maybe there'd be some other way to do it? There have been proposals for de-orbiting little pieces of debris from the ground with lasers, and I…
In the far future, perhaps orbit-cleaners could eat dead satellites and space debris, atomizing the debris and turning it into reaction mass.
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#59Earlier 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.
Huge constellations with stable orbits under active control are irrelevant. It’s really the a pair of uncontrolled satellites colliding that’s a meaningful risk, and that risk grows exponentially with age. To the point where the difference between 1 day and 1 year is effectively meaningless while the difference between 5 years and 50 years is huge.
Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FCC’s jurisdiction only applies to satellites communicating with US based ground stations.
The FCC derives its powers from the Communications Act of 1934 (before Sputnik) and a few Supreme Court cases, none of which have to do with satellite communication. That the FCC has jurisdiction over terrestrial radio spectra does not give it the right to create additional requirements for communication with orbital satellites even if there are US-based ground stations involved.
> The FCC derives its powers from the Communications Act of 1934 (before Sputnik)
...which has many post-Sputnik amebdments, but specifically the FCC role regarding policy for communication satellites comes from the Communication Satellites Act of 1962.