5 ms·

I'm with FCC on this. We don't need more garbage in space. Enough of this in the oceans.

by gesman 9y ago

ovrdrv3 9y ago
As a naive bystander, can you please explain why it would be bad to "pollute" space? Do things fall back into the atmosphere and burn up and sprinkle ash back onto the earth? I thought that objects once past the gravitational pull of the earth will just continue to drift away into the nothingness of space, and no matter the volume, it would be an insignificant amount to cause any harm to our planet or view of the stars.
- evgen 9y ago
  Where do you think the "gravitational pull of the earth" ends? Hint: the moon is inside the gravitational pull of the earth... The danger is that things in orbit have velocity. A lot of velocity. Taking that nice F=mv^2 equation in mind you can imagine what would happen if a piece of space junk were to hit something we care about (or hit something we don't care about and create a lot more little pieces of junk that are now spreading out to cause more mayhem.) Space is big, and earth orbit is also a very big place, but there is still a lot of junk whizzing around up there and increasing the odds that something you forgot about will hit something you care about is counter-productive.
  - tajen 9y ago
    I wonder as well what is the zone he’s talking about, but he talked about the zone in 9m/s2, not F=mv^2. I guess the first one extends up to 100km altitude, where I think geostationary satellites are, and indeed is very closeby. Edit : Low earth orbit is 180+km, for weather satellites because they revolve in 99 minutes. Geostationary orbit seems to be around 36000km with a speed of 3000m/s. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsCatalog/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsCatalog/
  - greenhouse_gas 9y ago
    Just to emphasize: There is no limit to the earth's gravitational pull. The formula is F=G*sqrt(m1m2)/r^2. So as r (the distance between the center of the earth and your satellite) increases, F decreases. But it never hits zero. Though after a while (a Sun-Earth L point, is it?), the influence of the sun will be greater (by orders of magnitude) than the earths.
    - liuhenry 9y ago
      For most interplanetary missions, Earth's gravitational pull on spacecraft can be modeled as a sphere of influence of about 1 million km. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence_(astrodynamics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence_(astrodyna...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > can you please explain why it would be bad to "pollute" space? Do things fall back into the atmosphere and burn up and sprinkle ash back onto the earth? The risk of space junk falling on people is tiny. The chief concern is around collisions in orbit. Worst case: "collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions," which could create a "distribution of debris in orbit [that] could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges unfeasible for many generations" [1]. These regulations are about protecting affordable access to space, by managing the risk of collisions. (Eventually, yes, most things will fall down or burn up or drift away. But that process can take years if not millennia.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
- dtech 9y ago
  Objects can stay in orbit for a long time and become dangerous for other objects there. Look up Kessler Syndrome.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Swarm's Spacebees have a max orbital altitude of 360 miles, they are unlikely to remaining in orbit for more than 5 years.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- andrewaylett 9y ago
  Generally, because the debris might hit other stuff and break it. Space is big, but too much stuff goes into very similar orbits.
- awat 9y ago
  I’am positive someone expressed that exact sentiment about the ocean at some point. I had a Botany professor who always used to say “there is no such place as away”.
- shostack 9y ago
  One of my favorite "slice of life" anime series out there is PlanetES[1] It does a great job of illustrating the potential impact of this on humanity in the not too distant future, and some of the jobs it creates (space trash collectors). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
- baobrien 9y ago
  Things don't really leave the gravitational pull of the earth -- it's still on the order of 9m/s^2 in low earth orbit. In order for things to stay up, they've got to be moving around 9 km/s sideways -- essentially constantly falling towards earth, but going fast enough sideways to miss. The issue is that at those speeds, anything bigger than a fleck of paint hitting anything else will turn both things into a bunch of tiny chunks. See [1] for an example of two satellites colliding. The big fear is that if you get enough stuff up there, even if you control most of it, one collision would be enough to trigger a chain reaction. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
  - ovrdrv3 9y ago
    Thanks for the reply, I definitely didn't think of this point.
jklinger410 9y ago
Space and oceans are not at all similar.
- nikofeyn 9y ago
  okay, but what is your point?
  - jklinger410 9y ago
    The comment I was replying to said: We don't need more garbage in space. Enough of this in the oceans. Implying that garbage in space is similar to garbage in the ocean. It is not similar to garbage in the ocean.
    - projectileboy 9y ago
      No, it’s possibly much worse. Not everything in life is better with “disruption”.
    - urda 9y ago
      > It is not similar to garbage in the ocean. No, it's much much worse [1]. Startups need to start following regulations. This "move fast and break things" mentality when it comes to our environment is irresponsible and childish. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
      - jklinger410 9y ago
        I'm not sure how >the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges unfeasible for many generations. Is worse than the collapse of the entire ecosystem. Care to elaborate?
        dvtv75 9y ago
        You're the one who introduced "collapse of the entire ecosystem," nobody that you've replied mentioned it. We would lose a lot if denied access to orbit. For example, satellite communications, intel satellites would be gone, as well as weather satellites. Imagine the impact that would have on weather models and forecasting, and by extension farm productivity. Google Maps and the like would rapidly become out of date, and satellite phones would no longer work. It'd be a disaster and while I'm sure we'd find ways to mitigate many aspects of it, there would still be a serious impact on our entire civilization.
outworlder 9y ago
These are tiny 10cm nanosattelites. In a low earth orbit they will be slowed down by drag and reenter quickly. What is the concern?
- api 9y ago
  The concern is the precedent. If we let people just put up anything we could end up with (worst case) Kessler syndrome.
  - PHGamer 9y ago
    preventive measures are nice but pointless. we should develop technology such that whatever is floating above cant interfere with the object we put up regardless of it getting hit. More stuff going into space is going to be an inevitability and the US won't be able to stop other countries space programs from doing and launching what we dont like.
    - dmoy 9y ago
      > regardless of it getting hit. How is that possible? I mean that sounds like a problem that is physically impossible. We can't prevent problems when collisions occur at 100km/hr, let alone 10000+km/hr. Unless I'm misunderstanding your proposal....
- tezzer 9y ago
  The concern, as expressed by the FCC, is that the satellites are so small they are hard for U.S. Space Command to track them. Which means we could approve a rocket launch where one of these rapid little beasties knocks out a window or causes other catastrophic damage because we didn't know where it was precisely. And you could argue it's too small to do damage (not true) or to low to be a real concern (maybe true), but the precedent is dangerous to allow.
- saalweachter 9y ago
  The great thing about small satellites is that they are light and cheap and easy to launch. However, once they get to space, they take up just as much room as everything else: one orbit. Space isn’t a parking lot where you can park the smaller things closer together, and not being able to track the small satellites just makes that problem worse.

I'm with FCC on this. We don't need more garbage in space. Enough of this in the oceans.

by gesman 9y ago

I'm with FCC on this. We don't need more garbage in space. Enough of this in the oceans.

As a naive bystander, can you please explain why it would be bad to "pollute" space? Do things fall back into the atmosphere and burn up and sprinkle ash back onto the earth? I thought that objects once past the gravitational pull of the earth will just continue to drift away into the nothingness of space, and no matter the volume, it would be an insignificant amount to cause any harm to our planet or view of the stars.

evgen 9y ago
Where do you think the "gravitational pull of the earth" ends? Hint: the moon is inside the gravitational pull of the earth... The danger is that things in orbit have velocity. A lot of velocity. Taking that nice F=mv^2 equation in mind you can imagine what would happen if a piece of space junk were to hit something we care about (or hit something we don't care about and create a lot more little pieces of junk that are now spreading out to cause more mayhem.) Space is big, and earth orbit is also a very big place, but there is still a lot of junk whizzing around up there and increasing the odds that something you forgot about will hit something you care about is counter-productive.
- tajen 9y ago
  I wonder as well what is the zone he’s talking about, but he talked about the zone in 9m/s2, not F=mv^2. I guess the first one extends up to 100km altitude, where I think geostationary satellites are, and indeed is very closeby. Edit : Low earth orbit is 180+km, for weather satellites because they revolve in 99 minutes. Geostationary orbit seems to be around 36000km with a speed of 3000m/s. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsCatalog/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsCatalog/
- greenhouse_gas 9y ago
  Just to emphasize: There is no limit to the earth's gravitational pull. The formula is F=G*sqrt(m1m2)/r^2. So as r (the distance between the center of the earth and your satellite) increases, F decreases. But it never hits zero. Though after a while (a Sun-Earth L point, is it?), the influence of the sun will be greater (by orders of magnitude) than the earths.
  - liuhenry 9y ago
    For most interplanetary missions, Earth's gravitational pull on spacecraft can be modeled as a sphere of influence of about 1 million km. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence_(astrodynamics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence_(astrodyna...
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> can you please explain why it would be bad to "pollute" space? Do things fall back into the atmosphere and burn up and sprinkle ash back onto the earth? The risk of space junk falling on people is tiny. The chief concern is around collisions in orbit. Worst case: "collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions," which could create a "distribution of debris in orbit [that] could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges unfeasible for many generations" [1]. These regulations are about protecting affordable access to space, by managing the risk of collisions. (Eventually, yes, most things will fall down or burn up or drift away. But that process can take years if not millennia.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
dtech 9y ago
Objects can stay in orbit for a long time and become dangerous for other objects there. Look up Kessler Syndrome.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Swarm's Spacebees have a max orbital altitude of 360 miles, they are unlikely to remaining in orbit for more than 5 years.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
andrewaylett 9y ago
Generally, because the debris might hit other stuff and break it. Space is big, but too much stuff goes into very similar orbits.
awat 9y ago
I’am positive someone expressed that exact sentiment about the ocean at some point. I had a Botany professor who always used to say “there is no such place as away”.
shostack 9y ago
One of my favorite "slice of life" anime series out there is PlanetES[1] It does a great job of illustrating the potential impact of this on humanity in the not too distant future, and some of the jobs it creates (space trash collectors). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
baobrien 9y ago
Things don't really leave the gravitational pull of the earth -- it's still on the order of 9m/s^2 in low earth orbit. In order for things to stay up, they've got to be moving around 9 km/s sideways -- essentially constantly falling towards earth, but going fast enough sideways to miss. The issue is that at those speeds, anything bigger than a fleck of paint hitting anything else will turn both things into a bunch of tiny chunks. See [1] for an example of two satellites colliding. The big fear is that if you get enough stuff up there, even if you control most of it, one collision would be enough to trigger a chain reaction. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
- ovrdrv3 9y ago
  Thanks for the reply, I definitely didn't think of this point.

jklinger410 9y ago

Space and oceans are not at all similar.

nikofeyn 9y ago
okay, but what is your point?
- jklinger410 9y ago
  The comment I was replying to said: We don't need more garbage in space. Enough of this in the oceans. Implying that garbage in space is similar to garbage in the ocean. It is not similar to garbage in the ocean.
  - projectileboy 9y ago
    No, it’s possibly much worse. Not everything in life is better with “disruption”.
  - urda 9y ago
    > It is not similar to garbage in the ocean. No, it's much much worse [1]. Startups need to start following regulations. This "move fast and break things" mentality when it comes to our environment is irresponsible and childish. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
    - jklinger410 9y ago
      I'm not sure how >the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges unfeasible for many generations. Is worse than the collapse of the entire ecosystem. Care to elaborate?
      - dvtv75 9y ago
        You're the one who introduced "collapse of the entire ecosystem," nobody that you've replied mentioned it. We would lose a lot if denied access to orbit. For example, satellite communications, intel satellites would be gone, as well as weather satellites. Imagine the impact that would have on weather models and forecasting, and by extension farm productivity. Google Maps and the like would rapidly become out of date, and satellite phones would no longer work. It'd be a disaster and while I'm sure we'd find ways to mitigate many aspects of it, there would still be a serious impact on our entire civilization.

outworlder 9y ago

These are tiny 10cm nanosattelites. In a low earth orbit they will be slowed down by drag and reenter quickly. What is the concern?

api 9y ago
The concern is the precedent. If we let people just put up anything we could end up with (worst case) Kessler syndrome.
- PHGamer 9y ago
  preventive measures are nice but pointless. we should develop technology such that whatever is floating above cant interfere with the object we put up regardless of it getting hit. More stuff going into space is going to be an inevitability and the US won't be able to stop other countries space programs from doing and launching what we dont like.
  - dmoy 9y ago
    > regardless of it getting hit. How is that possible? I mean that sounds like a problem that is physically impossible. We can't prevent problems when collisions occur at 100km/hr, let alone 10000+km/hr. Unless I'm misunderstanding your proposal....
tezzer 9y ago
The concern, as expressed by the FCC, is that the satellites are so small they are hard for U.S. Space Command to track them. Which means we could approve a rocket launch where one of these rapid little beasties knocks out a window or causes other catastrophic damage because we didn't know where it was precisely. And you could argue it's too small to do damage (not true) or to low to be a real concern (maybe true), but the precedent is dangerous to allow.
saalweachter 9y ago
The great thing about small satellites is that they are light and cheap and easy to launch. However, once they get to space, they take up just as much room as everything else: one orbit. Space isn’t a parking lot where you can park the smaller things closer together, and not being able to track the small satellites just makes that problem worse.