I’d love to see an international orbit allocation similar to how the fcc regulates spectrum. Also with the cost of sending a satellite to space about to potentially plummet (starship?), wouldn’t it just make sense to make a lot of cheap satellites that you throw up in a low enough orbit that a collision would only require a few years til the shattered pieces de orbit and burn up? We may be on the cusp of a revolution…
The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
11–20 of 47 posts
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#12The question isn't "Will there eventually be some sort of incentive to clean up space junk?" (which would lead to some sort of free-market amelioration if not solution), it's "Can this be prevented?" Free market solutions to cleaning up commons often come too late and are imperfect.
The one saving grace here is that other living things won't be harmed; so there will potentially be less ripple effects.
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#13In the past it was not practical to put satellites in low orbit for several reasons. One, because the same atmospheric drag that cleans up debris would pull the satellites out of orbit too, severely limiting their useful life. Two, because a satellite in low orbit can only see a small part of the Earth's surface at once and passes over it very quickly. You can't use stationary satellite dishes to communicate with such satellites, and establishing continuous coverage over any part of the Earth's surface would require hundreds or thousands of satellites.
Two things have happened that changed the game. One, phased array antennas are now cheap enough for consumer applications and they are able to communicate with multiple fast-moving satellites at once without physically pointing at them. Two, SpaceX has decreased launch costs to the point where it is now feasible to launch thousands of cheap satellites instead of dozens of expensive satellites, and replace them all within a few years instead of expecting them to last for decades. Starlink satellites orbit at 550km where debris lasts only a few years before automatically being cleaned up by the atmosphere. Future generations may orbit even lower where debris is cleaned up even quicker.
The non-SpaceX proposals for large constellations mostly chose higher orbits. I think it's time to prohibit this. Starlink competitor OneWeb just had a satellite failure at 1200km and that dead satellite will pollute orbit for centuries if it is not retrieved (and there is no realistic plan to do so, nor proper incentives to ensure that it happens). Heaven forbid that it collide with something and produce an ever-expanding debris cloud that can never be fully cleaned up in our lifetimes. Meanwhile, Starlink has had tens of failed satellites and they are all deorbited already or well on their way.
It just doesn't make sense to do things the "old space" way with a small number of expensive high orbit satellites. Low orbit cheap satellites are the future.
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#14I’d love to see an international orbit allocation similar to how the fcc regulates spectrum. Also with the cost of sending a satellite to space about to potentially plummet (starship?), wouldn’t it just make sense to make a lot of cheap satellites that you throw up in a low enough orbit that a collision would only require a few years til the shattered pieces de orbit and burn up? We may be on the cusp of a revolution…
That's essentially Starlink, though for other reasons. But lower orbits see much less of the earth. Earth has a radius of about 6000km, at a low-earth orbit of around 600km you are way too close to have a good view, so you need a lot of satellites to cover the globe. There are also useful special orbits like geostationary orbits (where the satellite is always in the same spot relative to earth's surface) or sun-synchronous orbit (the shadows always look the same because you are in the same spot relative to the sun) that are much higher up.
However with cheaper satellites, cleaning up dead satellites or larger chunks of debris also becomes cheaper, we just need to figure out who has to pay for it. Right now we are kind of stuck with everyone being affected but no one feeling responsible.
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#15I’d love to see an international orbit allocation similar to how the fcc regulates spectrum. Also with the cost of sending a satellite to space about to potentially plummet (starship?), wouldn’t it just make sense to make a lot of cheap satellites that you throw up in a low enough orbit that a collision would only require a few years til the shattered pieces de orbit and burn up? We may be on the cusp of a revolution…
Geosynchronous orbits are allocated to countries by the ITU, and other orbits are checked via national space agencies. The problem isn’t quite as simple as dividing up frequency usage, but there is an established framework for holding companies and nations liable if they do stupid things.
International space law, like most other international regulations, is only for the small fries. Any country capable of inserting into geosynchronous orbit with a domestic manufactured launch vehicle is usually also nuclear armed, hold a permanent seat on the Security Council or allied with a holder, and is immune to most low level sanctions. No real space power can be truly bound by treaty if things heat up because they are usually the enforcers.
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#16So where's the "ecological" part? There is no ecology to wreck. There are concerns about the metallic dust from burning up on reentry, but no mention of it in this article.
Humans are organisms. Humans go to space, and will go there more with it getting cheaper. Orbital space is an environment. Debris collisions are an ecological concern for spacefaring organisms.
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#17It's a problem, but I don't think it's that intractable of a problem, since any company launching products into space has an incentive not to have them destroyed by a ring of planetary trash. Cool essay by the way. Learned something new.
I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#18So where's the "ecological" part? There is no ecology to wreck. There are concerns about the metallic dust from burning up on reentry, but no mention of it in this article.
Not to mention all the communications systems we have in orbit that we rely on for our economy which would result in significant loss of logistics / economic efficiencies and straining growing social political issues. All of which means higher likelihood of damage to local and regional ecologies
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#19Isn't part of the beauty of low earth orbit the fact that it is less susceptible to this, as free flying debris in LEO tends to encounter drag and get caught by the atmosphere? Because of this I'm not sure recent and upcoming LEO satellite deployments really factor into Kessler Syndrome that much, despite how numerous they will be. So, it seems a bit disingenuous for the article to make a big deal of LEO satellites.
Re: The Kessler Syndrome: Space junk in orbit
#20It's a problem, but I don't think it's that intractable of a problem, since any company launching products into space has an incentive not to have them destroyed by a ring of planetary trash. Cool essay by the way. Learned something new.
Perhaps that would take thousands of years....