9 ms·
FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule
- T3RMINATED 4y ago
- exabrial 4y agoIt's a bit weird the FCC is ruling on this... not really a space agency... but regardless, it's a good move!
- simonh 4y agoThey have jurisdiction over any device providing telecoms service to US territory, which happens to include satellites.
- danieldbird 4y agoI know how small the debris is relative to the earth. But the sheer number. Would that have any effect on the sun reaching earth and it’s heating / cooling?
- xani_ 4y agoNope
- gpm 4y agoNo. To have an effect you need to launch multiple orders of magnitude more mass than we have, and that mass would need to be optimized towards having as large as an effect as possible by being very very thin film positioned so that it is consistently between earth and the sun (or you could add on a few more orders of magnitude). You can look at proposal for doing this intentionally to get a sense for the scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade
- ultra_nick 4y agoNo, that's like trying to cool your house with a pinch of dust. Bus = 0.0002 km² Earth = 510.1 million km² (Earth / Bus) / 100 = 25,000,000,000 bus sized satellites needed to cover 1% of the sky.
- fooker 4y agoYou're a bit off, you have to calculate the area considering the height of satellites.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Eleison23 4y agoOne day we will need to pass laws against celebratory satellite launches on holidays and the urban microphone networks will be calibrated to detect heavy-lift launches by gangstas. New nations will enshrine the right to launch satellites in their constitutions. Elementary schools will go on lockdown when a student is discovered to have built a satellite and fuelled their boosters.
- kirillzubovsky 4y agoDoes this actually have any impact on Space? In other words, FCC can regulate what American companies have to do, but Papua New Guinea would come out and launch 50k satellites tomorrow, and it would be out of FCC control. If that's the case, then space junk removal is just a financial obstacle that will make it more prohibitive to launch new sats, and cause the business to move to other counties. If anyone knows the specifics of how this would work, could you enlighten? Thanks!
- jccooper 4y agoIf you're interested in the US market you have to play by these rules. And almost everyone is. If you're willing to forgo the US market you can jurisdiction shop... though I'd expect the Europeans won't be too far behind. It's also not a really high bar. Most sats are in a regime where this happens naturally or already have propulsion. It's mostly going to bother SSO birds, and most of them are government owned anyway.
- kirillzubovsky 4y agoGot ya. I guess I was thinking of a "Delta-V" (a book) type of scenario, where space exploration becomes conducted in space, and regulation from Earth get circumvented in order to achieve a much bigger outcome in the orbit and beyond. I guess if indeed it's not a big deal though, then probably not an issue to worry about. Thank you for your answer!
- WalterBright 4y agoOne way to deorbit a satellite that doesn't require fuel is to deploy a simple sail, which could increase the drag on the satellite by 10x or more.
- simonh 4y agoA system like that has already been used.
- WalterBright 4y agoI figured someone would tell me it was a dumb idea. I'm glad to be wrong about that!
- randyrand 4y agoWould the FCC have jurisdiction over satellites or junk without radio comms?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- londons_explore 4y agoIt seems there is an easy loophole.... Just declare the satellite mission to be super long. Eg. This spacecraft will act as a Comms satellite for 10 years and will then go into a low power mode where it switches to 'gamma ray burst detection mode' which will be active for 150 years, upon which it will then deorbit within 5 years as regulated.
- tlamponi 4y agoMeh, can be blocked from starting at all due to: 1. Pretty easy to detect for most cases, especially as blunt in your (exaggerated, I know) example. Agencies should have a rough idea about realistic time frames for mission times in near earth orbits depending on what the satellite does. 2. They still need to have the propulsion unit integrated in the satellite, as otherwise they cannot guarantee the 5 years after mission time in higher orbits. They'll also need to prove that the propulsion unit used is very likely to actually work after mission time, e.g., your 160 year in radiation ridden space, which may be much more expensive than constructing one for the shorter, actual mission time.
- causi 4y agoI'd like to see a breakdown of deorbiting fuel requirements with 25 years vs 5 years vs, say, 30 days.
- rzimmerman 4y agoI'd expect the fuel required is generally the same, but this changes the altitude range for the question "do I need propulsion at all?" Satellites that would decay naturally in 6-10 years due to atmospheric drag would have satisfied the old rule. Now they need to install a propulsion system. The actual impact is probably small - there aren't that many satellites launching to those altitudes, and most of them probably have a propulsion system anyway. But for a university satellite this could be a big obstacle.
- xani_ 4y ago> Now they need to install a propulsion system. Or just add more drag. Like deploying big sail.
- jmount 4y agoThe previous "de-orbing 25 years after mission completion" sound a deliberately unenforceable rule.
- mikepurvis 4y agoI expect that's less about having to reserve fuel or have a specific plan for it, and more that to get approval, you have to be able to plausibly show a model where the device will deorbit on its own within 25 years of no maintenance burns.
- rzimmerman 4y agoIt was enforced during licensing. In order to obtain a license from the FCC (which is effectively required to launch a satellite, unless you never want to communicate with it), you had to prove it would either deorbit naturally in < 25 years or that you had a system to do so at the end of the mission. The rule was generally to have a plan and an ability to deorbit after 25 years. A lot of satellites fail in ways that prevent using a propulsion system.
- kobalsky 4y agoI'm not sure but I think has to do with parking the satellite in a lower orbit such that the atmospheric drag will force it to reenter within 25 years, not that the operator has 25 years to deorbit the satellite at some point. I think this has to do with the amount of fuel the need to save to reach the disposal orbit.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> The rule shortens the time required for satellite operators to deorbit LEO satellites to no more than 5 years after completing their mission, from 25 years. De-orbiting faster means reserving more propellant for the final de-orbit burn. Since the lifespan of satellites is already generally determined by how much propellant they have, this new rule effectively reduces the lifespan of any satellite high enough to require a de-orbit burn. Companies that use very low satellites are impacted less, since atmospheric drag does more of the work.
- wumpus 4y ago> De-orbiting faster means reserving more propellant for the final de-orbit burn. One new technology is releasing a sail to increase drag. Example: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/08/23/millennium-space-systems-demonstrates-deployable-tape-technology-to-deorbit-satellite/ http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/08/23/millennium-space-syst...
- pessimizer 4y agoIf rules didn't cause inconvenience to someone, they wouldn't have to be written.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoI was thinking more along the line of the new rule giving another commercial advantage to SpaceX. Starlink will be effected, their satellites already deorbit faster than 5 years. But many other satellite operators will have to launch more frequently, and SpaceX is positioned to meet that growing demand.
- xani_ 4y ago> But many other satellite operators will have to launch more frequently, and SpaceX is positioned to meet that growing demand. Read the article. It's about deorbiting after mission is finished. If you have enough fuel on board you're free to keep your satellite for 50 years on the orbit. You just have to deorbit it within 5 after you stopped using it.
- kortex 4y agoI wanted to know if this affects "graveyard orbits". Seems like this applies only to satellites in LEO, while MEO/GEO are exempt. > The Report and Order adopted today requires satellites ending their mission in or passing through the low-Earth orbit region (below 2,000 kilometers altitude) to deorbit as soon as practicable but no later than five years after mission completion.
- rzimmerman 4y agoI think this is generally a good thing to do, with some caveats that I hope the FCC considers. For most satellites below ~450km, this is really a non-issue. Atmospheric drag will generally be sufficient to deorbit the satellite in a few years. For big Earth-observing constellations, Starlink and friends, and many small missions, this doesn't change anything. Debris don't really accumulate dangerously in this zone and collision avoidance is a well-studied problem with a lot of people doing great work. The 18th SDS with the US Space Force, LeoLabs, Starlink/SpaceX, and a lot of other constellation operators take this very seriously and do a good job. For satellites in the 800km+ range, this is also not a meaningful change. The 25-year rule meant that these satellites needed a deorbit plan anyway. 800km is a rough estimate, in real life it depends on the satellite mass + geometry and the solar cycle. For satellites in the 450-800km range (again - hand waving here) this is actually a big deal. Satellites that would decay naturally between 5 and 25 years now need an active deorbit plan or need to launch lower and keep themselves up with propellant. Small satellite propulsion is becoming cheaper and more available, so this isn't that onerous for commercial operators. But I do worry a little about educational and non-profit launchers of satellites. They'd be excluded from using launches to this orbital range unless the FCC allows waivers (which I'm hopeful they will). Overall I don't think this has a particularly big impact. It's a sensible revision of an old rule that was a little too lax. But there aren't that many satellites launching at the high end of the 450-800km range without propulsion. The 1000km-2000km area is a more important area for debris mitigation and that was really already covered. As for the FCC having this jurisdiction vs. the FAA or the USSF, as Spock would say - "it is not logical, but it is true."
- hinkley 4y agoHow high can the debris loft after a particularly nasty collision? Two satellites hitting at an acute angle should produce a cone of debris in front of them, of which about a third deorbits and a third goes up into a higher orbit that's an average of the two. Two satellites that hit at an obtuse angle, well, they pancake and produce a donut of debris. The stuff headed straight up is on a parabolic orbit that will hit the atmosphere on the way back down, but in the meantime any other satellite that crosses paths with it is effectively hitting a wall of stationary debris, creating a new cone that ladders up higher. Is there enough space that the ladder stops, or does it just keep building?
- nonethewiser 4y agoGood improvement. What is China's rules for de-orbiting?
- Someone1234 4y agoIt wouldn't surprise me if they wound up just copying this, making it a de-facto international standard. Space junk is an international problem, nobody wins by it continuously becoming worse. De-orbiting requirements add costs, but space junk damage and or avoidance systems are even more expensive, so this is the cheap solution in the medium to long term.
- bluGill 4y agoI would expect that they put their own rules in places that are different enough to be annoying if you need to permission from both countries, but for practical purposes the end result is the same. It may or may not be possible to satisfy the letter of both countries rules though.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoWhen exactly did the FCC's jurisdiction extend to the heavens? There should be a lot more concern than there currently is over an agency granting itself powers over private property in space.
- enraged_camel 4y agoWell, various government agencies have jurisdiction over, say, private cars that drive on public roads, so why couldn't you apply similar logic to the FCC with regards to satellite regulation?
- Dracophoenix 4y agoNo country has any recognized territorial claims to space. Roads are built within and between territories. I don't know of a road built on unclaimed territory that grants a far away government jurisdiction over every car traveling through the said territory, even if these cars used other paths or went off-trail.
- l33t233372 4y agoThe FCC’s jurisdiction only applies to satellites communicating with US based ground stations.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoThe FCC derives its powers from the Communications Act of 1934 (before Sputnik) and a few Supreme Court cases, none of which have to do with satellite communication. That the FCC has jurisdiction over terrestrial radio spectra does not give it the right to create additional requirements for communication with orbital satellites even if there are US-based ground stations involved.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> The FCC derives its powers from the Communications Act of 1934 (before Sputnik) ...which has many post-Sputnik amebdments, but specifically the FCC role regarding policy for communication satellites comes from the Communication Satellites Act of 1962.
- karaterobot 4y agoI wonder if they could do a "debris offset credits" type thing, where you could extend the life of your satellite by clearing out existing debris. So if you wanted a 25-year orbit, you could clear out maybe 5-10x the cross-sectional area, or mass, or whatever the relevant number is.
- itp 4y agoThe new rule is 5 years after mission completion, so this already allows for a 25-year orbit (as long as you're still operating).