5 ms·

Also, take out SpaceX from the name and add all the competitors (potentially lower quality) that are starting or about to get into the space and you can underst

Also, take out SpaceX from the name and add all the competitors (potentially lower quality) that are starting or about to get into the space and you can understand the concern. edit: my concern is the long chain of the curve of low-orbit satellite companies as price continues to have downward pressure.

samstave 6y ago
Why not incentivize these companies with grant such that they will get the grant if their TO orbit launches _include_ the retrieval of space junk as well on the RETURN back to earth. In order to go up, you have to bring something back.
- simonh 6y ago
  Rendezvousing with, capturing and then manoeuvring with a captured object is an extremely hard and as yet unsolved problem, although there are some experiment. Also it is only feasible to rendezvous with a target on an almost identical orbit, otherwise the fuel and thrust requirements to reach it very quickly balloon to hugely prohibitive proportions.
  - ChickeNES 6y ago
    > Rendezvoing with, capturing and then manoeuvring with another object is an extremely hard and as yet unsolved problem, although there are some experiment Umm...this is utterly wrong, and has been since Gemini 10 in 1966, not to mention Skylab, Mir, ISS
    - nordsieck 6y ago
      > Umm...this is utterly wrong, and has been since Gemini 10 in 1966, not to mention Skylab, Mir, ISS There's a big difference between docking with a spacecraft that is designed to be docked with and capturing a satellite that was not designed to be captured. People are making good progress on this - Northrup Grumman just had a successful life extension satellite mission very recently. But it's far from a mature technology.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Makes no sense. Satellite retrieval is something that you definitely want to run a separate mission for - you don't want to bolt a visit to a completely separate orbit (and then transfer back to reentry) on top of a regular mission. The amount of fuel you need to launch something grows exponentially with the amount of fuel you need at the final stage. Not to mention, if you're thinking of making LEO launches do this, then they'd either have to capture other LEO junk (makes little sense, most of it will deorbit itself), or you'd have to bolt on additional stage, which may very well introduce more junk itself (are people still using explosive bolts for upper stage separation?).
  - myself248 6y ago
    So make 'em separate missions, of course. You have to run the retrieval mission and have it succeed before you're granted a launch license for the original mission of putting something up.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Mission-for-mission makes no sense, who decides what mass or orbit of junk counts for your mission? You really have to wait years and set up a whole different mission architecture before you can launch your own project? It's bananas. However a cleanup tax on satellite launches used to fund recovery efforts might work.
- sp332 6y ago
  The whole article is about how no one knows a good way to do that yet.
xoa 6y ago
>edit: my concern is the long chain of the curve of low-orbit satellite companies as price continues to have downward pressure. While this isn't entirely unreasonable, consider a few things. First, this is one case where even natural incentives line up pretty well. For the foreseeable future, no one is going to have more economic incentive to prevent the loss of usable LEO than companies that build themselves around usage of LEO. There are also virtuous spirals in the very technology that makes low cost possible, ie., the only way to reach SpaceX's targeted launch costs with Starship are to have a full reusability, and that itself cuts a ton of orbital debris (spent stages). Second, much cheaper mass and higher cadence changes everything in space engineering, and that includes giving regulators significantly more leeway in what they can reasonably require. Things like more redundant controlled deorbit systems, requirements for lower orbits by default with higher orbits reserved, requirements for materials, and so on all ultimately boil down to how much it costs to get a kg to orbit and how regularly it can be done. More leeway there makes a lot of things easier without destroying utility, which in turn raises the chances we can make solid systematic changes. Not saying there isn't plenty of room for error overall, or that regulators shouldn't be thinking about it too. But I do think the "mega constellation commercial" focus is mostly misguided. If anything the biggest risks seem to be from government actors, in terms of things like a-sat weapons and Old Space big companies not feeling the need to care.
- boringg 6y ago
  Full reusability makes sense and limits space junk - though the counter to that is they are launching more satellites into space - so probably negate each other to a certain point. I guess my concern would be who actually has regulatory authority over space and how can they ensure all actors play fairly. I would have to imagine this is a situation that is similar to the tragedy of the commons type scenario. To be clear - I really don't fall into one side of the camp or the other but I can see how a lot of the waste management side of things can fall by the wayside given our track record on waste cleanup (mines, municipal solid waste, nuclear)
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > For the foreseeable future, no one is going to have more economic incentive to prevent the loss of usable LEO than companies that build themselves around usage of LEO. This line of reasoning never seems to work out the way you are suggesting. It's more likely to wind up in a giant Mexican standoff once there a multiple entities who all have the individual ability to ruin it for everyone.

samstave 6y ago

Why not incentivize these companies with grant such that they will get the grant if their TO orbit launches _include_ the retrieval of space junk as well on the RETURN back to earth. In order to go up, you have to bring something back.

simonh 6y ago
Rendezvousing with, capturing and then manoeuvring with a captured object is an extremely hard and as yet unsolved problem, although there are some experiment. Also it is only feasible to rendezvous with a target on an almost identical orbit, otherwise the fuel and thrust requirements to reach it very quickly balloon to hugely prohibitive proportions.
- ChickeNES 6y ago
  > Rendezvoing with, capturing and then manoeuvring with another object is an extremely hard and as yet unsolved problem, although there are some experiment Umm...this is utterly wrong, and has been since Gemini 10 in 1966, not to mention Skylab, Mir, ISS
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > Umm...this is utterly wrong, and has been since Gemini 10 in 1966, not to mention Skylab, Mir, ISS There's a big difference between docking with a spacecraft that is designed to be docked with and capturing a satellite that was not designed to be captured. People are making good progress on this - Northrup Grumman just had a successful life extension satellite mission very recently. But it's far from a mature technology.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Makes no sense. Satellite retrieval is something that you definitely want to run a separate mission for - you don't want to bolt a visit to a completely separate orbit (and then transfer back to reentry) on top of a regular mission. The amount of fuel you need to launch something grows exponentially with the amount of fuel you need at the final stage. Not to mention, if you're thinking of making LEO launches do this, then they'd either have to capture other LEO junk (makes little sense, most of it will deorbit itself), or you'd have to bolt on additional stage, which may very well introduce more junk itself (are people still using explosive bolts for upper stage separation?).
- myself248 6y ago
  So make 'em separate missions, of course. You have to run the retrieval mission and have it succeed before you're granted a launch license for the original mission of putting something up.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Mission-for-mission makes no sense, who decides what mass or orbit of junk counts for your mission? You really have to wait years and set up a whole different mission architecture before you can launch your own project? It's bananas. However a cleanup tax on satellite launches used to fund recovery efforts might work.
sp332 6y ago
The whole article is about how no one knows a good way to do that yet.

xoa 6y ago

>edit: my concern is the long chain of the curve of low-orbit satellite companies as price continues to have downward pressure. While this isn't entirely unreasonable, consider a few things. First, this is one case where even natural incentives line up pretty well. For the foreseeable future, no one is going to have more economic incentive to prevent the loss of usable LEO than companies that build themselves around usage of LEO. There are also virtuous spirals in the very technology that makes low cost possible, ie., the only way to reach SpaceX's targeted launch costs with Starship are to have a full reusability, and that itself cuts a ton of orbital debris (spent stages). Second, much cheaper mass and higher cadence changes everything in space engineering, and that includes giving regulators significantly more leeway in what they can reasonably require. Things like more redundant controlled deorbit systems, requirements for lower orbits by default with higher orbits reserved, requirements for materials, and so on all ultimately boil down to how much it costs to get a kg to orbit and how regularly it can be done. More leeway there makes a lot of things easier without destroying utility, which in turn raises the chances we can make solid systematic changes. Not saying there isn't plenty of room for error overall, or that regulators shouldn't be thinking about it too. But I do think the "mega constellation commercial" focus is mostly misguided. If anything the biggest risks seem to be from government actors, in terms of things like a-sat weapons and Old Space big companies not feeling the need to care.

boringg 6y ago
Full reusability makes sense and limits space junk - though the counter to that is they are launching more satellites into space - so probably negate each other to a certain point. I guess my concern would be who actually has regulatory authority over space and how can they ensure all actors play fairly. I would have to imagine this is a situation that is similar to the tragedy of the commons type scenario. To be clear - I really don't fall into one side of the camp or the other but I can see how a lot of the waste management side of things can fall by the wayside given our track record on waste cleanup (mines, municipal solid waste, nuclear)
arrosenberg 6y ago
> For the foreseeable future, no one is going to have more economic incentive to prevent the loss of usable LEO than companies that build themselves around usage of LEO. This line of reasoning never seems to work out the way you are suggesting. It's more likely to wind up in a giant Mexican standoff once there a multiple entities who all have the individual ability to ruin it for everyone.