4 ms·

> The highest impact thing a government can do is put a price on debris removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect http

> The highest impact thing a government can do is put a price on debris removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...

Veedrac 4y ago
Objects in space are merticuously tracked. It would be very hard to get away with something like that, and none of the relevant fliers would dare bet their business on trying.
- progbits 4y ago
  I meant it bit of a tongue-in-cheek way, but for the sake of argument it wouldn't be hard for a clean up mission to have an "accident" and actually generate more debris for later missions to clean up. And it might not even be malicious, just side effect of more pressure to launch something to do the clean ups. To be clear, I'm not saying OP is wrong, it would probably work out fine. But this seems like a fun angle to consider.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomrod 4y ago
    I can't find xboneslife's comment to reply to, so replying here > You can just put the same price on debris addition. Indeed. A small tax that matches the cost of debris capture payment + minor administrative overhead would encourage the outcome that junk isn't thrown into unrecoverable orbit.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > I can't find xboneslife's comment to reply to I can't even find their account https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xboneslife https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xboneslife Wonder what happened...
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Even weirder, this discussion is Google's only relevant hit for "xboneslife."
        tomrod 4y ago
        Surreal. I went to reply to the user, then got a "comment deleted" error. First time I've seen that on HN.
        serf 4y ago
        weird . I hope the deletion thing doesn't become a trend here.
    - LorenPechtel 4y ago
      The tax wouldn't be small. I do agree, though, the only real answer is to charge for putting things in orbit and refund it to whoever deorbits the thing.
      - structural 4y ago
        A fee per kilogram placed in orbit, refundable if the entire mass is deorbited as a single object, seems like a reasonable starting point. If that fee is the entire estimated near-term cost to recover the object, it would also create incentives for entities putting large amounts of mass in orbit to focus on improved strategies for removal: if removal becomes lower cost than the fee, it's worth paying someone to recover your debris if a satellite fails in order to recover the fee.
        freeqaz 4y ago
        This would have to work across borders or else you'd create a downward force on the space industry in your nation. If the US had a tax to launch stuff, then suddenly Russia has a competitive advantage.
  - killjoywashere 4y ago
    Mike Judge also thought it was fun to run a Simpsons episode featuring Donald Trump getting elected to the presidency. So… definitely worth thinking through.
  - hahajk 4y ago
    I can't find out what the cost to govt is in order to launch something into space, but you do need govt permission to launch since all space objects must belong to a specific country. The govt can include the cleanup cost as part of the launch licensing cost.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  You could always slip China a fiver to get them to blow up another satellite or five.
  - speed_spread 4y ago
    Pretty sure China would prefer to make rockets that don't explode at all. But if you insist, my friend Sergey knows a guy that might have an overstock of aging launchers...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - btilly 4y ago
      The incident in question is generally believed to have been a weapons test. They deliberately hit a satellite with a rocket to see that they could. It also created an insane amount of junk in a high orbit that won't deorbit any time soon.
dataflow 4y ago
I feel like the perverse incentive here (if we can call it that) might be more along the lines of all companies becoming more careless w.r.t. the creation of space debris (because it'll be cleaned up by "someone" eventually, kind of like how it's common to consume plastic with the thought that it'll get recycled), rather than any particular entity doing this with a profit motive.
- sbdncuvh 4y ago
  You can pair that with hefty fines. The US is in a good position to place them on international players too. Want to work with USA companies? Great, pay your fines and you can.
leoh 4y ago
Love this reference
mhh__ 4y ago
You could potentially avoid this by paying more for older junk.

Veedrac 4y ago

Objects in space are merticuously tracked. It would be very hard to get away with something like that, and none of the relevant fliers would dare bet their business on trying.

progbits 4y ago
I meant it bit of a tongue-in-cheek way, but for the sake of argument it wouldn't be hard for a clean up mission to have an "accident" and actually generate more debris for later missions to clean up. And it might not even be malicious, just side effect of more pressure to launch something to do the clean ups. To be clear, I'm not saying OP is wrong, it would probably work out fine. But this seems like a fun angle to consider.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tomrod 4y ago
  I can't find xboneslife's comment to reply to, so replying here > You can just put the same price on debris addition. Indeed. A small tax that matches the cost of debris capture payment + minor administrative overhead would encourage the outcome that junk isn't thrown into unrecoverable orbit.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > I can't find xboneslife's comment to reply to I can't even find their account https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xboneslife https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xboneslife Wonder what happened...
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Even weirder, this discussion is Google's only relevant hit for "xboneslife."
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Surreal. I went to reply to the user, then got a "comment deleted" error. First time I've seen that on HN.
      - serf 4y ago
        weird . I hope the deletion thing doesn't become a trend here.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    The tax wouldn't be small. I do agree, though, the only real answer is to charge for putting things in orbit and refund it to whoever deorbits the thing.
    - structural 4y ago
      A fee per kilogram placed in orbit, refundable if the entire mass is deorbited as a single object, seems like a reasonable starting point. If that fee is the entire estimated near-term cost to recover the object, it would also create incentives for entities putting large amounts of mass in orbit to focus on improved strategies for removal: if removal becomes lower cost than the fee, it's worth paying someone to recover your debris if a satellite fails in order to recover the fee.
      - freeqaz 4y ago
        This would have to work across borders or else you'd create a downward force on the space industry in your nation. If the US had a tax to launch stuff, then suddenly Russia has a competitive advantage.
- killjoywashere 4y ago
  Mike Judge also thought it was fun to run a Simpsons episode featuring Donald Trump getting elected to the presidency. So… definitely worth thinking through.
- hahajk 4y ago
  I can't find out what the cost to govt is in order to launch something into space, but you do need govt permission to launch since all space objects must belong to a specific country. The govt can include the cleanup cost as part of the launch licensing cost.
bpodgursky 4y ago
You could always slip China a fiver to get them to blow up another satellite or five.
- speed_spread 4y ago
  Pretty sure China would prefer to make rockets that don't explode at all. But if you insist, my friend Sergey knows a guy that might have an overstock of aging launchers...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - btilly 4y ago
    The incident in question is generally believed to have been a weapons test. They deliberately hit a satellite with a rocket to see that they could. It also created an insane amount of junk in a high orbit that won't deorbit any time soon.

dataflow 4y ago

I feel like the perverse incentive here (if we can call it that) might be more along the lines of all companies becoming more careless w.r.t. the creation of space debris (because it'll be cleaned up by "someone" eventually, kind of like how it's common to consume plastic with the thought that it'll get recycled), rather than any particular entity doing this with a profit motive.

sbdncuvh 4y ago
You can pair that with hefty fines. The US is in a good position to place them on international players too. Want to work with USA companies? Great, pay your fines and you can.

leoh 4y ago

Love this reference

mhh__ 4y ago

You could potentially avoid this by paying more for older junk.