Live data from Hacker News

FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

payloadspace.com

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#81
post #4

I'd like to see a breakdown of deorbiting fuel requirements with 25 years vs 5 years vs, say, 30 days.

I'd expect the fuel required is generally the same, but this changes the altitude range for the question "do I need propulsion at all?" Satellites that would decay naturally in 6-10 years due to atmospheric drag would have satisfied the old rule. Now they need to install a propulsion system. The actual impact is probably small - there aren't that many satellites launching to those altitudes, and most of them probably…

> Now they need to install a propulsion system.

Or just add more drag. Like deploying big sail.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#82

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.

The EU is talking about imposing much the same rule, if they haven't already (link is from 2019): https://spacenews.com/eu-space-envoy-calls-for-satellites-to...

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#83
Does this actually have any impact on Space? In other words, FCC can regulate what American companies have to do, but Papua New Guinea would come out and launch 50k satellites tomorrow, and it would be out of FCC control.

If that's the case, then space junk removal is just a financial obstacle that will make it more prohibitive to launch new sats, and cause the business to move to other counties.

If anyone knows the specifics of how this would work, could you enlighten? Thanks!

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#84

Earlier 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.

Right. The text of the report literally states that the guideline isn't legally binding. They condition their approval of radio operations (Which they do have power over) on planned compliance with the guideline.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-74A1.pdf

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#86

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.

Search for terms like "satellite" and "space" in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended:

https://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#87
post #65

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…

How high can the debris loft after a particularly nasty collision? Two satellites hitting at an acute angle should produce a cone of debris in front of them, of which about a third deorbits and a third goes up into a higher orbit that's an average of the two. Two satellites that hit at an obtuse angle, well, they pancake and produce a donut of debris. The stuff headed straight up is on a parabolic orbit that will hit…

After a collision, the periapsis is at most as high as the point of collision, and the apoapsis is at least as high as the point of collision. In plain English, if two satellites collide with each other at an altitude of 450km, it doesn't matter what the original orbits were; 100% of the debris will have a low point in their orbit at or below 450km, and 100% of the debris will have a high point in their orbit at or above 450km.

One of the quirks of debris deorbiting is that drag is exponentially higher the lower you are in orbit, and any drag that the debris experiences at any point along its orbit will manifest in a reduction of altitude 180 degrees along is orbit on the other side. So if you have a piece of debris with an eccentric orbit, let's say 300km at periapsis and 1,000km at apoapsis, after a fairly brief amount of time you'd expect the debris to have a periapsis of 299.9km and an apoapsis of 500km. Then perhaps 299km periapsis and a 350km apoapsis. etc. I'm making these numbers up but you get the idea: the high point in an orbit is the part that drops the quickest.

Even if you were to launch 100,000,000 full sized satellites into orbit at 400km altitude and deliberately orchestrated Kessler syndrome, space would be unusable for a few years, but would be 100% back to normal after 5 years.

The dangerous orbits are those in the 500-2,000km range. Satellites whose orbits never bring them low enough to experience significant atmospheric drag. Those are the satellites this new rule is targeting.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#88
post #59

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.

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.

The risk grows quadratically in decay time, not exponentially.

Actually less than that, as orbits with more decay time have more vertical space.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#89

I know how small the debris is relative to the earth. But the sheer number. Would that have any effect on the sun reaching earth and it’s heating / cooling?

No, that's like trying to cool your house with a pinch of dust. Bus = 0.0002 km² Earth = 510.1 million km² (Earth / Bus) / 100 = 25,000,000,000 bus sized satellites needed to cover 1% of the sky.

You're a bit off, you have to calculate the area considering the height of satellites.
Post reply on HN