21 ms·

Low-earth orbit satellites threatened by debris from Indian anti-satellite test

155 points by ENOTTY 8y ago

mips_avatar 8y ago
Just wait until an armed conflict. China/Russia/US/India will take about 20 minutes to blast every satellite in the sky. Then space will be inaccessible for decades at least.
- kuzehanka 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome And that's how we close off our only window to expand beyond this planet as a species.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 8y ago
    From your link: >The catastrophic scenarios predict an increase in the number of collisions per year, as opposed to a physically impassable barrier to space exploration that occurs in higher orbits.
    - kuzehanka 8y ago
      That's a really good point, thanks for highlighting it.
- gpm 8y ago
  Space will be accessible, just not parking in low earth orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Implications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Implications
- herohamp 8y ago
  Oh just wait till the spaceX internet satellites are setup, and the amazon internet satellites. Low earth orbit is about to be full, debris up there is going to be super dangerous
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbro 8y ago
  Not necessarily. To a large extent, LEO aggression can be modeled even more dissuasively (collapsing into MAD) via game theory. If I blow up your satellites, and I don't know where the pieces are liable to go, then I imperil my own satellites in a similar orbit. Ergo, if I have space assets and ASAT capability, the strictly dominating strategy is to publicly declare I will only deploy my ASAT weapons in defense or if strategic red lines are breached (e.g. territorial invasion). Consequently, it's in the US's best interests for other countries with ASAT capabilities to increase their satellite capabilities.
  - mips_avatar 8y ago
    Yeah but if a country with ASAT was going to be bombed, do you think they would give the enemy the benefit of GPS or communications satellites?
    - ethbro 8y ago
      "Bombed" is rather nebulous. Are you referring to a strategic bombing campaign or a tactical strike? If the latter, then yes. I believe they, the US, and most other countries in the world would rather suffer a tactical strike than crack the lid on indiscriminate ASAT usage.
      - mips_avatar 8y ago
        If the India was expecting a bombing of Delhi from Chinese aircraft.
        ethbro 8y ago
        Then sure. But that's what game theory is about. India announces that if China bombs Delhi, all options are on the table. China mulls over the potential ASAT repercussions and decides the strike isn't worth it. That's the inherent safety of MAD. It requires no trust in your counterparty -- only convincing them that you will extract a heavy toll if (and only if!) they take a specific action.
- sys_64738 8y ago
  If a rogue nation develops such missile technology then they could cause incredible disruption to the rest of the world. E.g. think of the DPRK being able to knock out GPS satellites - this missile tech could bring is western currency for the DPRK if the like of al-Quieda or the Taleban were willing to pay millions of $$$ to them for downing US military sats.
  - Zancarius 8y ago
    GPS satellites aren't in low earth orbit, though. I'd imagine taking out something 12,000 miles up is going to remain out of reach for countries like the DPRK. There's some fear mongering over China related to this[1], but I don't think the capability has ever been demonstrated because of the implications. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-will-soon-be-able-destroy-every-satellite-space-27182 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-will-soon-be-ab... Edit: I posted incorrect information. GPS satellites orbit at ~12,000 miles, not GSO at 22,000.
- petre 8y ago
  One doesn't even need to blow them up. An EMP from a thermonuclear blast would probably fry ther circuitry anyway.
kappi 8y ago
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2019/04/ https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2019/04/ most of the debris will stay on orbit for several weeks to months: by half a year from now, most of it should be gone however, except for a few lingering pieces. Probability is very low similar to the one in the below article. Odds of hitting is 1 in 300 Trillion https://www.livescience.com/61955-chinese-space-station-reentry.html https://www.livescience.com/61955-chinese-space-station-reen...
- dosy 8y ago
  Aside: Any idea what that Latin motto is on this blog? TOTUS VESTRI ARCANA NOCTI NOBIS EST Google translate refused.
  - figgis 8y ago
    Don't know latin in any way shape or form. Just was curious and used this like a small puzzle. Added a bit more context to words that weren't very self explanatory. TOTUS - all/whole VESTRI - your ARCANA - secrets NOCTI - night? - 'used in formation of compound words' [0] NOBIS - us/we EST - to be - "can be translated as 'it is,' 'he/she is,' or simply 'is.' It is the third person singular of the present tense of the verb 'to be'" [1] Sooo my guess would be something along the lines "All the secrets of the night belong to us?" If someone knows any better I would love to be corrected. [0] - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nocti- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nocti- [1] - https://study.com/academy/answer/what-does-est-mean-in-latin.html https://study.com/academy/answer/what-does-est-mean-in-latin...
  - ahmedalsudani 8y ago
    [Edited with another mistake] I suspect it uses the wrong case (declension) for some of those words and I'm not sure if arcana can be used as a noun--I've forgotten some of my Latin. My best guesses: What was intended: "all the secrets of your night are ours" It actually says something closer to: "all the secrets of your night are to us" It should use noster, as opposed to nos (nobis in the dative case), if I understand the intended meaning correctly. The reason I suspect wrong case is that nobis is in the dative case whereas I think it should be a nominative in order to agree with the subject (so "noster" in order to agree with totus).
r3bl 8y ago
Worth noting: India is the fourth(!) country that destroyed a satellite in orbit. While I would love nothing more but for it be the last country to do so, the precedent was set some time ago. The one that China destroyed in 2007 (or 2008?) was by far the biggest, creating thousands of pieces of debris bigger than a golf ball. 270 pieces (detected so far after India destroyed a satellite) seems pretty insignificant in comparison.
- yumraj 8y ago
  According to Wikipedia, regarding the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test [0]: This event was the largest recorded creation of space debris in history with more than 2,000 pieces of trackable size (golf ball size and larger) officially cataloged in the immediate aftermath, and an estimated 150,000 debris particles. As of October 2016, a total of 3,438 pieces of debris had been detected, with 571 decayed and 2,867 still in orbit nine years after the incident. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test#Space_debris_tracking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
- tomrod 8y ago
  This smacks of a justification through tu quoque fallacy. Just because other nations destroyed satellites doesn't mean this type of weapons testing should continue. We should criticize nations that did this before AND India. Polluting LEO to the point where we endanger our ability to get off the earth is extremely myopic.
  - r3bl 8y ago
    I'd call this anything but whataboutism. The China's example is there because it puts the threat mentioned in the title into a perspective. We definitely shouldn't destroy any satellites, but we already did. I don't see a reason not to compare them when we discuss how big is the threat. EDIT: to those who downvote this comment, I'd love an explanation why you think I shouldn't make this comparison. As far as I know, no country destroyed more than one, so how else am I supposed to compare them?
jalajc 8y ago
Good attempt for discrediting a successful mission. The agressive title couldn't be substantiated in entire article, ...and what about those 3 nations that caused debris before, if so!
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  "and what about those 3 nations that caused debris before, if so!" They get no respect here for that either.
Abishek_Muthian 8y ago
Blind nationalism would deter our progress as a species. Ever since NASA chief's comment, the arguments have been very polarised. What NASA said is scientifically accurate & being one of the major stake holder in ISS it has a duty to tell its opinion. There are people in International Space Station, don't forget that their family on earth would want an answer from NASA for such incidents. The issue in the country seems to be, not what NASA said; but why did it say that! Yes, US has conducted similar tests & its debris went further in apogee as well & since it didn't change orbit[second application of delta-v is required to do that]; it decayed eventually. Same will happen with the debris we caused as there is not much change in perigee. If ASATs renew new arms race across the planet & everyone starts blowing satellites, it's not good for the humanity. If Israel can enforce deterrence as a nuclear power without conducting or acknowledging major nuclear tests, India can project space warfare ready without indulging in such activities; after all there was no doubt about our rocket engineering capabilities to start with. Edit : Typo
- yumraj 8y ago
  Blind idealism/pacifism will wipe out countries/races/societies. India didn't choose it's neighbors, but it is what it is. On one side is a country whose identity is defined by anti-India-nism. On the other side is China, need I say more. Moreover, both these neighbors are ganged up by their mutual animosity of India. India doesn't have any options but to make sure there are deterrents in place. It's a necessity.
  - Abishek_Muthian 8y ago
    >Blind idealism/pacifism will wipe out countries/races/societies. I'm sure Mahatma Gandhi & Co had to listen to such statements as well, glad that they didn't listen; Republic of India might not have been even formed otherwise.
    - yumraj 8y ago
      I'm sorry, I'll have to respectfully but strongly disagree if you're going to simplify India's attainment of Independence and grant entire credit to Gandhi & Co. There were many others who contributed, some more than others, some peacefully some not so. And, let's not forget the WW-2 after which the British were not in a strong enough position to hold on to colonies. Also, you should ask Dalai Lama how the pacifism worked out for the Tibetans when their country was occupied by China. I surely don't want that for any country, and definitely not for India.
LargoLasskhyfv 8y ago
Let's all reminisce about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford @ http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1963-014AA&search=westford http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1963-014AA&search=westford and hope for some really magic fairy dust sprinkling brighter through the light shine of our frozen cityscape hells.
ronsor 8y ago
It was obvious that blowing up things in orbit is a bad idea.
- petre 8y ago
  The military abounds with bad ideas.
CodeSheikh 8y ago
After conducting such tests what was India’s plan to remove such debris? Just because “they did it why can’t we do it?” rationale is not to support this act. They should be hold accountable.
- mritun 8y ago
  “They should be held accountable “. Yeah, India should be held accountable to the same degree that others 3 were held to.
faiz7412 8y ago
Be cautious of the stupid. That's all. http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/ http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/
cm2187 8y ago
What I don't get is that not only the surface in question is enormous (even more vast than the oceans), but also in 3d (think tens of thousands of layers of ocean surface). How can a few dozen 10cm debris be such a big deal? They may be deadly if a collision occur but how likely is such a collision?
- knolan 8y ago
  So a volume? These are several hundred objects travelling with enough momentum to do catastrophic damage to launch vehicles and other orbiting equipment. They’re not icebergs floating on the ocean, they’re bullets whizzing through that volume at incredible velocities. Would you get on a plane if every airport runway doubled as an active shooting range?
  - cm2187 8y ago
    A runway is a tiny place. My point is that we are talking about an immense amount of space.
    - knolan 8y ago
      Through which we have to send all our launches. The debris field is growing and this and other tests are contributing to it. The debris isn’t likely to be homogeneous over this volume either. Our launch sites are tiny spaces designed to reduce launch cost by getting a boost from the earths rotation or to select particular orbits. That these narrow corridors may be polluted with debris from satellites launched into very similar orbits is frightening in the extreme.
- drewrobb 8y ago
  One aspect you miss in your analogy is that when you include the time dimension, the probability of a collision is proportional to swept volume (and thus speed), rather than static volume. So while the space is really large, really fast objects can have substantially large swept volumes.
glax 8y ago
Pentagon says debris from India’s ASAT expected to burn up in atmosphere [0]: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/mission-shakti-pentagon-asat-space-debris-nasa-india-1494540-2019-04-05 https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/mission-shakti-pentago...
everyone 8y ago
Anyone who works in space here have any ideas on how feasible they reckon this Raytheon Space Debris Elimination (SpaDE) technique is? https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_2011_phasei_gregory_spade_tagged.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_20...
angel_j 8y ago
This is plastic in the ocean for earth's orbit. We'll never be able to remove the debris. It's only a small amount now, but give it a few hundred years...
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  > but give it a few hundred years... A few hundred years is how long things stay on those orbits.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Replace 'years' with 'days' for this one.
    - marcosdumay 8y ago
      Well, replace on a orbit with on any orbit on my comment, that's closer to what I meant. I was also talking about normal orbits, not the highly excentric stuff you get after an explosion. Since the GP was about long term concerns, that's more fitting. Yes, the debris of this one explosion will be almost all (or maybe literally all) gone in a month. And yes, hundreds of years is still an overstatement. But decades would be an understatement for many of the objects we put into LEO. From severity to probability, nearly everything on news or discussion sites about Kessler Syndrome seems to be a severe misconception.
brij0102 8y ago
Maybe the illustrious members of HN should stick to their strengths and come up with a technological solution to the following two: - how can a nation achieve equivalent ability as this without actually destroying a satellite - how can such debris be rendered harmless

155 points by ENOTTY 8y ago

Just wait until an armed conflict. China/Russia/US/India will take about 20 minutes to blast every satellite in the sky. Then space will be inaccessible for decades at least.

kuzehanka 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome And that's how we close off our only window to expand beyond this planet as a species.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 8y ago
  From your link: >The catastrophic scenarios predict an increase in the number of collisions per year, as opposed to a physically impassable barrier to space exploration that occurs in higher orbits.
  - kuzehanka 8y ago
    That's a really good point, thanks for highlighting it.
gpm 8y ago
Space will be accessible, just not parking in low earth orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Implications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Implications
herohamp 8y ago
Oh just wait till the spaceX internet satellites are setup, and the amazon internet satellites. Low earth orbit is about to be full, debris up there is going to be super dangerous
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ethbro 8y ago
Not necessarily. To a large extent, LEO aggression can be modeled even more dissuasively (collapsing into MAD) via game theory. If I blow up your satellites, and I don't know where the pieces are liable to go, then I imperil my own satellites in a similar orbit. Ergo, if I have space assets and ASAT capability, the strictly dominating strategy is to publicly declare I will only deploy my ASAT weapons in defense or if strategic red lines are breached (e.g. territorial invasion). Consequently, it's in the US's best interests for other countries with ASAT capabilities to increase their satellite capabilities.
- mips_avatar 8y ago
  Yeah but if a country with ASAT was going to be bombed, do you think they would give the enemy the benefit of GPS or communications satellites?
  - ethbro 8y ago
    "Bombed" is rather nebulous. Are you referring to a strategic bombing campaign or a tactical strike? If the latter, then yes. I believe they, the US, and most other countries in the world would rather suffer a tactical strike than crack the lid on indiscriminate ASAT usage.
    - mips_avatar 8y ago
      If the India was expecting a bombing of Delhi from Chinese aircraft.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        Then sure. But that's what game theory is about. India announces that if China bombs Delhi, all options are on the table. China mulls over the potential ASAT repercussions and decides the strike isn't worth it. That's the inherent safety of MAD. It requires no trust in your counterparty -- only convincing them that you will extract a heavy toll if (and only if!) they take a specific action.
sys_64738 8y ago
If a rogue nation develops such missile technology then they could cause incredible disruption to the rest of the world. E.g. think of the DPRK being able to knock out GPS satellites - this missile tech could bring is western currency for the DPRK if the like of al-Quieda or the Taleban were willing to pay millions of $$$ to them for downing US military sats.
- Zancarius 8y ago
  GPS satellites aren't in low earth orbit, though. I'd imagine taking out something 12,000 miles up is going to remain out of reach for countries like the DPRK. There's some fear mongering over China related to this[1], but I don't think the capability has ever been demonstrated because of the implications. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-will-soon-be-able-destroy-every-satellite-space-27182 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-will-soon-be-ab... Edit: I posted incorrect information. GPS satellites orbit at ~12,000 miles, not GSO at 22,000.
petre 8y ago
One doesn't even need to blow them up. An EMP from a thermonuclear blast would probably fry ther circuitry anyway.

kappi 8y ago

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2019/04/ https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2019/04/ most of the debris will stay on orbit for several weeks to months: by half a year from now, most of it should be gone however, except for a few lingering pieces. Probability is very low similar to the one in the below article. Odds of hitting is 1 in 300 Trillion https://www.livescience.com/61955-chinese-space-station-reentry.html https://www.livescience.com/61955-chinese-space-station-reen...

dosy 8y ago
Aside: Any idea what that Latin motto is on this blog? TOTUS VESTRI ARCANA NOCTI NOBIS EST Google translate refused.
- figgis 8y ago
  Don't know latin in any way shape or form. Just was curious and used this like a small puzzle. Added a bit more context to words that weren't very self explanatory. TOTUS - all/whole VESTRI - your ARCANA - secrets NOCTI - night? - 'used in formation of compound words' [0] NOBIS - us/we EST - to be - "can be translated as 'it is,' 'he/she is,' or simply 'is.' It is the third person singular of the present tense of the verb 'to be'" [1] Sooo my guess would be something along the lines "All the secrets of the night belong to us?" If someone knows any better I would love to be corrected. [0] - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nocti- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nocti- [1] - https://study.com/academy/answer/what-does-est-mean-in-latin.html https://study.com/academy/answer/what-does-est-mean-in-latin...
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  [Edited with another mistake] I suspect it uses the wrong case (declension) for some of those words and I'm not sure if arcana can be used as a noun--I've forgotten some of my Latin. My best guesses: What was intended: "all the secrets of your night are ours" It actually says something closer to: "all the secrets of your night are to us" It should use noster, as opposed to nos (nobis in the dative case), if I understand the intended meaning correctly. The reason I suspect wrong case is that nobis is in the dative case whereas I think it should be a nominative in order to agree with the subject (so "noster" in order to agree with totus).

r3bl 8y ago

Worth noting: India is the fourth(!) country that destroyed a satellite in orbit. While I would love nothing more but for it be the last country to do so, the precedent was set some time ago. The one that China destroyed in 2007 (or 2008?) was by far the biggest, creating thousands of pieces of debris bigger than a golf ball. 270 pieces (detected so far after India destroyed a satellite) seems pretty insignificant in comparison.

yumraj 8y ago
According to Wikipedia, regarding the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test [0]: This event was the largest recorded creation of space debris in history with more than 2,000 pieces of trackable size (golf ball size and larger) officially cataloged in the immediate aftermath, and an estimated 150,000 debris particles. As of October 2016, a total of 3,438 pieces of debris had been detected, with 571 decayed and 2,867 still in orbit nine years after the incident. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test#Space_debris_tracking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
tomrod 8y ago
This smacks of a justification through tu quoque fallacy. Just because other nations destroyed satellites doesn't mean this type of weapons testing should continue. We should criticize nations that did this before AND India. Polluting LEO to the point where we endanger our ability to get off the earth is extremely myopic.
- r3bl 8y ago
  I'd call this anything but whataboutism. The China's example is there because it puts the threat mentioned in the title into a perspective. We definitely shouldn't destroy any satellites, but we already did. I don't see a reason not to compare them when we discuss how big is the threat. EDIT: to those who downvote this comment, I'd love an explanation why you think I shouldn't make this comparison. As far as I know, no country destroyed more than one, so how else am I supposed to compare them?

jalajc 8y ago

Good attempt for discrediting a successful mission. The agressive title couldn't be substantiated in entire article, ...and what about those 3 nations that caused debris before, if so!

hutzlibu 8y ago
"and what about those 3 nations that caused debris before, if so!" They get no respect here for that either.

Abishek_Muthian 8y ago

Blind nationalism would deter our progress as a species. Ever since NASA chief's comment, the arguments have been very polarised. What NASA said is scientifically accurate & being one of the major stake holder in ISS it has a duty to tell its opinion. There are people in International Space Station, don't forget that their family on earth would want an answer from NASA for such incidents. The issue in the country seems to be, not what NASA said; but why did it say that! Yes, US has conducted similar tests & its debris went further in apogee as well & since it didn't change orbit[second application of delta-v is required to do that]; it decayed eventually. Same will happen with the debris we caused as there is not much change in perigee. If ASATs renew new arms race across the planet & everyone starts blowing satellites, it's not good for the humanity. If Israel can enforce deterrence as a nuclear power without conducting or acknowledging major nuclear tests, India can project space warfare ready without indulging in such activities; after all there was no doubt about our rocket engineering capabilities to start with. Edit : Typo

yumraj 8y ago
Blind idealism/pacifism will wipe out countries/races/societies. India didn't choose it's neighbors, but it is what it is. On one side is a country whose identity is defined by anti-India-nism. On the other side is China, need I say more. Moreover, both these neighbors are ganged up by their mutual animosity of India. India doesn't have any options but to make sure there are deterrents in place. It's a necessity.
- Abishek_Muthian 8y ago
  >Blind idealism/pacifism will wipe out countries/races/societies. I'm sure Mahatma Gandhi & Co had to listen to such statements as well, glad that they didn't listen; Republic of India might not have been even formed otherwise.
  - yumraj 8y ago
    I'm sorry, I'll have to respectfully but strongly disagree if you're going to simplify India's attainment of Independence and grant entire credit to Gandhi & Co. There were many others who contributed, some more than others, some peacefully some not so. And, let's not forget the WW-2 after which the British were not in a strong enough position to hold on to colonies. Also, you should ask Dalai Lama how the pacifism worked out for the Tibetans when their country was occupied by China. I surely don't want that for any country, and definitely not for India.

LargoLasskhyfv 8y ago

Let's all reminisce about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford @ http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1963-014AA&search=westford http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1963-014AA&search=westford and hope for some really magic fairy dust sprinkling brighter through the light shine of our frozen cityscape hells.

ronsor 8y ago

It was obvious that blowing up things in orbit is a bad idea.

petre 8y ago
The military abounds with bad ideas.

CodeSheikh 8y ago

After conducting such tests what was India’s plan to remove such debris? Just because “they did it why can’t we do it?” rationale is not to support this act. They should be hold accountable.

mritun 8y ago
“They should be held accountable “. Yeah, India should be held accountable to the same degree that others 3 were held to.

faiz7412 8y ago

Be cautious of the stupid. That's all. http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/ http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/

cm2187 8y ago

What I don't get is that not only the surface in question is enormous (even more vast than the oceans), but also in 3d (think tens of thousands of layers of ocean surface). How can a few dozen 10cm debris be such a big deal? They may be deadly if a collision occur but how likely is such a collision?

knolan 8y ago
So a volume? These are several hundred objects travelling with enough momentum to do catastrophic damage to launch vehicles and other orbiting equipment. They’re not icebergs floating on the ocean, they’re bullets whizzing through that volume at incredible velocities. Would you get on a plane if every airport runway doubled as an active shooting range?
- cm2187 8y ago
  A runway is a tiny place. My point is that we are talking about an immense amount of space.
  - knolan 8y ago
    Through which we have to send all our launches. The debris field is growing and this and other tests are contributing to it. The debris isn’t likely to be homogeneous over this volume either. Our launch sites are tiny spaces designed to reduce launch cost by getting a boost from the earths rotation or to select particular orbits. That these narrow corridors may be polluted with debris from satellites launched into very similar orbits is frightening in the extreme.
drewrobb 8y ago
One aspect you miss in your analogy is that when you include the time dimension, the probability of a collision is proportional to swept volume (and thus speed), rather than static volume. So while the space is really large, really fast objects can have substantially large swept volumes.

glax 8y ago

Pentagon says debris from India’s ASAT expected to burn up in atmosphere [0]: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/mission-shakti-pentagon-asat-space-debris-nasa-india-1494540-2019-04-05 https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/mission-shakti-pentago...

everyone 8y ago

Anyone who works in space here have any ideas on how feasible they reckon this Raytheon Space Debris Elimination (SpaDE) technique is? https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_2011_phasei_gregory_spade_tagged.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_20...

angel_j 8y ago

This is plastic in the ocean for earth's orbit. We'll never be able to remove the debris. It's only a small amount now, but give it a few hundred years...

marcosdumay 8y ago
> but give it a few hundred years... A few hundred years is how long things stay on those orbits.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Replace 'years' with 'days' for this one.
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    Well, replace on a orbit with on any orbit on my comment, that's closer to what I meant. I was also talking about normal orbits, not the highly excentric stuff you get after an explosion. Since the GP was about long term concerns, that's more fitting. Yes, the debris of this one explosion will be almost all (or maybe literally all) gone in a month. And yes, hundreds of years is still an overstatement. But decades would be an understatement for many of the objects we put into LEO. From severity to probability, nearly everything on news or discussion sites about Kessler Syndrome seems to be a severe misconception.

brij0102 8y ago

Maybe the illustrious members of HN should stick to their strengths and come up with a technological solution to the following two: - how can a nation achieve equivalent ability as this without actually destroying a satellite - how can such debris be rendered harmless