3 ms·

Mitigating Orbital Debris by Shortening Time for Satellite Disposal

23 points by zdw 4y ago

geuis 4y ago
Just to clarify, if anyone is confused on this point. This proposal isn't to limit the total lifespan of a LEO satellite to 5 years. Rather, it's shortening how long a dead/post mission satellite can remain in orbit before needing to re-enter the atmosphere for disposal. Currently the rule is 25 years. This change would make significant progress in reducing future orbital junk.
alsodumb 4y ago
We should not forget that the FCC rules will only govern the satellites launched by US-based companies. In my opinion, US companies have been fairly responsible about their debris so far; I can't say the same about Chinese launches.
- rzimmerman 4y ago
  There is a call out in the proposal to apply these rules to foreign-launched spacecraft as a requirement for access to US markets. I suppose it’s the best they can do.
rzimmerman 4y ago
This would effectively lower the maximum altitude for a spacecraft without propulsion to <500km, probably lower (depending on geometry/density). It’s probably a good thing overall, but it does force a lot of small satellite makers (including students) to either restrict themselves to a small number of launch opportunities or add propulsion. It might be nice to have a more lax rule (like 10-15 years) for small non-profit launches.
- chris_va 4y ago
  Propulsion isn't as bad as it used to be, and there is a real risk >500km with the 10,000 satellites going up... I would prefer a standardized airbag (or similar) that autodeploys at EoL to increase the surface area, though.
  - marsokod 4y ago
    Part of the discussion on the drag sails was that while they are decreasing the time in orbit, they are increasing the collision area and therefore the general risk of collision remains the same. Tethers are somewhat better but hard to work with. Propulsion is the best bet at the moment. One consequence of this ruling could also be in the orbit insertion strategy. Currently agencies are not too worried about your satellite being in working condition in orbit as long as you demonstrate the risk of collision is low enough through natural means. Now that we are likely required to use active deorbiting system (and possibly active collision avoidance), the rules may be more tightened regarding testing and analysis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

23 points by zdw 4y ago

Just to clarify, if anyone is confused on this point. This proposal isn't to limit the total lifespan of a LEO satellite to 5 years. Rather, it's shortening how long a dead/post mission satellite can remain in orbit before needing to re-enter the atmosphere for disposal. Currently the rule is 25 years. This change would make significant progress in reducing future orbital junk.

alsodumb 4y ago

We should not forget that the FCC rules will only govern the satellites launched by US-based companies. In my opinion, US companies have been fairly responsible about their debris so far; I can't say the same about Chinese launches.

rzimmerman 4y ago
There is a call out in the proposal to apply these rules to foreign-launched spacecraft as a requirement for access to US markets. I suppose it’s the best they can do.

rzimmerman 4y ago

This would effectively lower the maximum altitude for a spacecraft without propulsion to <500km, probably lower (depending on geometry/density). It’s probably a good thing overall, but it does force a lot of small satellite makers (including students) to either restrict themselves to a small number of launch opportunities or add propulsion. It might be nice to have a more lax rule (like 10-15 years) for small non-profit launches.

chris_va 4y ago
Propulsion isn't as bad as it used to be, and there is a real risk >500km with the 10,000 satellites going up... I would prefer a standardized airbag (or similar) that autodeploys at EoL to increase the surface area, though.
- marsokod 4y ago
  Part of the discussion on the drag sails was that while they are decreasing the time in orbit, they are increasing the collision area and therefore the general risk of collision remains the same. Tethers are somewhat better but hard to work with. Propulsion is the best bet at the moment. One consequence of this ruling could also be in the orbit insertion strategy. Currently agencies are not too worried about your satellite being in working condition in orbit as long as you demonstrate the risk of collision is low enough through natural means. Now that we are likely required to use active deorbiting system (and possibly active collision avoidance), the rules may be more tightened regarding testing and analysis.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]