21–30 of 83 posts
Tangentially related: Could this be weaponized? What's stopping a malicious actor from purposely creating a lot of debris in orbital space for the purposes of knocking communications down? Is there a plan in place?
But grounding humanity is bad for everybody. GPS and weather satellites are nice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this the agency that landed on a comet? That seems pretty innovative.
Yes, a decade ago, a lot has changed since then.
If a brief moratorium (brief in geological time, like 25-50 years) was imposed, would this clear up? Or, does it descend into grey goo in space because at a threshold size, the debris can "float" on the exosphere? Not a suggestion we call a halt on sat launches for 50 years. I'm asking if the remediation of time would work.
According to NASA: If the debris is 800k can take centuries and geostationary objects on the high end (~36000km) can take thousands of years. Most of the debris is in LEO so it could take decades to centuries for the debris to clear out
Take command of the high space and make the low ground indefensible.
Active debris removal (harpoon satellites, magnet arms, whatever) are not a solution to this problem and are a huge waste of money. These missions answer the question "could one dock with debris and deorbit it?" To which the answer is "obviously yes, but at enormous cost" and you don't need to spend 50M euros to prove it. The answer is exactly what governments and industry have been doing for at least two decades now…
You can deorbit debris without physical contact, but you could argue the method results in a weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom
Active debris removal (harpoon satellites, magnet arms, whatever) are not a solution to this problem and are a huge waste of money. These missions answer the question "could one dock with debris and deorbit it?" To which the answer is "obviously yes, but at enormous cost" and you don't need to spend 50M euros to prove it. The answer is exactly what governments and industry have been doing for at least two decades now…
To a degree. It helps to not blow shit up, in weapons tests or otherwise. These tests arise due to the weaponization of orbit (specifically), so the goal is really to not weaponize orbit - which governments have been doing the exact opposite of. All nations are deciding to tear Solomon's baby to shreds, instead of having shared custody.
If people want to weaponize space then, sure, go right ahead.
Unless the status quo drastically changes, i.e. bickering old fools being voted out (or removed via other means where voting is not possible/fair) throughout the world, Kessler syndrome is inevitable. I'd wager it happens sooner than runaway global warming.
A rule they just violated on the return-to-flight of Ariane 6.
I also hate the cover photo. That's not the actual size of the debris.
> The agency has already set debris mitigation rules for its partners on ESA missions A rule they just violated on the return-to-flight of Ariane 6. I also hate the cover photo. That's not the actual size of the debris.
So... Complaining about a caricature when the real solution isn't possible seems silly.
Active debris removal (harpoon satellites, magnet arms, whatever) are not a solution to this problem and are a huge waste of money. These missions answer the question "could one dock with debris and deorbit it?" To which the answer is "obviously yes, but at enormous cost" and you don't need to spend 50M euros to prove it. The answer is exactly what governments and industry have been doing for at least two decades now…
And make sure that even in the most unhappy cases, you vent your tanks! Vent vent vent vent! Tank explosions are where the really nasty debris numbers come from.
Active debris removal (harpoon satellites, magnet arms, whatever) are not a solution to this problem and are a huge waste of money. These missions answer the question "could one dock with debris and deorbit it?" To which the answer is "obviously yes, but at enormous cost" and you don't need to spend 50M euros to prove it. The answer is exactly what governments and industry have been doing for at least two decades now…