4 ms·
Thinking ahead, we’ve learned from projects like skyscrapers to engineer destructability into projects, and from abandoned infrastructure like windmills to requ
by efitz 4y ago
Thinking ahead, we’ve learned from projects like skyscrapers to engineer destructability into projects, and from abandoned infrastructure like windmills to require the builder to post bonds to pay for abatement and removal. Why aren’t we doing this in space?
We regulate the heck out of launches; why not require orbital devices to have a built in deorbit mechanism (or “move to a parking orbit mechanism” for non-LEO), and/or require posting a bond to pay for someone to go clean up your mess?
- oyashirochama 4y agoThe speeds involved make ever piece a bullet and it is impossible to fully plan for that contingency. The best option is to aim it to the atmosphere or a debris zone. Especially when something unexpected happens. They already do most of this for US and space partners, but it also adds significantly to weight to do it for every single small piece and parts naturally fall off.
- gizmo686 4y agoWe do require sattalites to have an end of life plan, that either safely deorbits, or moves to a graveyard orbit. The Outer Space Treaty is a bit vague on this point, but in practice space fairing nations do require that their own launches gave an EOL plan. Most space junk is not a full device, but debris from one, which is much harder to clean up and impossible to completely prevent. This is also why there is an occasional international incident when a country decides to test out its ability to destroy sattalite.
- edrxty 4y agoMuch of the debris is stuff from before we knew what we were doing or from ill advised weapons tests. Lots of old rocket bodies and random shrapnel.