3 ms·

With all of the rockets going into space now, when are we going to really make a strong effort to clean up space? Is it just technical, money, willingness, or..

With all of the rockets going into space now, when are we going to really make a strong effort to clean up space? Is it just technical, money, willingness, or...?

dotnet00 3y ago
Contrary to most of the fear mongering about space debris, kessler syndrome etc, the big Western satellite operators are generally moving in the right direction and have moved faster than regulators to try to set space debris management standards. Incidents like this one are pretty uncommon, and as space debris goes, this is pretty benign in the sense that it's a large intact satellite and can thus be tracked fairly easily and precisely. Once the technology matures, a cleanup vehicle could even be sent to move it into graveyard orbit. The kind of space debris that tends to be problematic is stuff that is too small to track, since then you're stuck relying either on pure luck or giving the area a wide berth to not have it hit something else.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > the big Western satellite operators are generally moving in the right direction and have moved faster than regulators to try to set space debris management standards. We'll see. Starlink/Kuiper use a low enough orbit that non-functional satellites will de-orbit on their own in a reasonable timeframe. But OneWeb, which is up at 1000km+ already has had a satellite failure. And although they've vowed to remove it somehow, it's not obvious how they'll do so.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    As far as I'm aware, OneWeb sats have the Astroscale grappling point on them so the vehicle Astroscale is developing can grab and deorbit the dead satellites. The most recent news on that being that an in-orbit demonstration is intended to launch in 2025. Edit: correction, oneweb doesn't specifically use the astroscale grappling fixture, instead it seems they use either their own design, or ones designed by Altius. Apparently these designs are such that they can be grappled either mechanically or magnetically, so presumably the difference is not significant enough to meaningfully limit which MEV can handle the job.
ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
Economics likely. Though, I'm sure the first contractor who is able to do it will make a decent amount of money.
mcpackieh 3y ago
The vast majority of new satellites are being placed into low earth orbit, which is cleaned up fairly quick by atmospheric drag. You can see this on an animated Gabbard diagram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRUaENzxH44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRUaENzxH44 In higher orbits, particularly GEO (like the satellite in question), it's much more of a problem. Laser brooms might one day be used to deorbit small pieces of debris, but dead satellites beyond LEO will need to be grabbed and tugged/thrown into safer orbits.
ginkgotree 3y ago
Yes, the USSF has as part of it's "SpaceWerx" program a funding initiative called Orbital Prime, which autonomous on-orbit servicing and de-orbiting is a major focus. The summary headline is any private technologies that enable autonomous "RPO" Rendezvous Positioning Operations, will in turn enable activities such as autonomous repair and refueling (one of the main reasons orbital space vehicles reach end of mission is they run out of fuel), and in cases where refueling and repair aren't possible, autonomous "tugs" can dock and execute a deorbit burn for the decommissioned space craft. I was on one of the awarded teams for Orbital Prime last year, its very exciting technology and equally exciting to see serious amounts of funding materializing to tackle this problem.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
Instead of a knee-jerk reaction to spending money on a particular solution, think about the problem. Most things of significant mass are in stable orbits or they wouldn't be there for very long. Regional sats like the one from Dish are in GSO way away, so they don't really matter. The problem is that Dish didn't have a disposal plan for this satellite. It's mostly when operators create clouds of junk, especially fragments from unnecessary collisions that cross other orbits, that pose a threat to lives and property. It's good to require operators to have a deorbit or parking orbit plan. The biggest threat is LEO-crossing MMOD, which is why crewed craft have hundreds of Whipple shielding configurations to choose from for a given application. This isn't a problem in need of solving in such a deliberate, costly, and arbitrary manner. Instead, the solutions are holistic: don't create debris that poses a risk to LEO, have a decommissioning plan for GSO objects, and protect what needs protecting by defensive spacecraft design. Edit: The Kosmos 2251/Iridium 33 collision was reckless operation by the Russians leaving space junk in LEO.

With all of the rockets going into space now, when are we going to really make a strong effort to clean up space? Is it just technical, money, willingness, or...?

dotnet00 3y ago

Contrary to most of the fear mongering about space debris, kessler syndrome etc, the big Western satellite operators are generally moving in the right direction and have moved faster than regulators to try to set space debris management standards. Incidents like this one are pretty uncommon, and as space debris goes, this is pretty benign in the sense that it's a large intact satellite and can thus be tracked fairly easily and precisely. Once the technology matures, a cleanup vehicle could even be sent to move it into graveyard orbit. The kind of space debris that tends to be problematic is stuff that is too small to track, since then you're stuck relying either on pure luck or giving the area a wide berth to not have it hit something else.

nordsieck 3y ago
> the big Western satellite operators are generally moving in the right direction and have moved faster than regulators to try to set space debris management standards. We'll see. Starlink/Kuiper use a low enough orbit that non-functional satellites will de-orbit on their own in a reasonable timeframe. But OneWeb, which is up at 1000km+ already has had a satellite failure. And although they've vowed to remove it somehow, it's not obvious how they'll do so.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  As far as I'm aware, OneWeb sats have the Astroscale grappling point on them so the vehicle Astroscale is developing can grab and deorbit the dead satellites. The most recent news on that being that an in-orbit demonstration is intended to launch in 2025. Edit: correction, oneweb doesn't specifically use the astroscale grappling fixture, instead it seems they use either their own design, or ones designed by Altius. Apparently these designs are such that they can be grappled either mechanically or magnetically, so presumably the difference is not significant enough to meaningfully limit which MEV can handle the job.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago

Economics likely. Though, I'm sure the first contractor who is able to do it will make a decent amount of money.

mcpackieh 3y ago

The vast majority of new satellites are being placed into low earth orbit, which is cleaned up fairly quick by atmospheric drag. You can see this on an animated Gabbard diagram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRUaENzxH44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRUaENzxH44 In higher orbits, particularly GEO (like the satellite in question), it's much more of a problem. Laser brooms might one day be used to deorbit small pieces of debris, but dead satellites beyond LEO will need to be grabbed and tugged/thrown into safer orbits.

ginkgotree 3y ago

Yes, the USSF has as part of it's "SpaceWerx" program a funding initiative called Orbital Prime, which autonomous on-orbit servicing and de-orbiting is a major focus. The summary headline is any private technologies that enable autonomous "RPO" Rendezvous Positioning Operations, will in turn enable activities such as autonomous repair and refueling (one of the main reasons orbital space vehicles reach end of mission is they run out of fuel), and in cases where refueling and repair aren't possible, autonomous "tugs" can dock and execute a deorbit burn for the decommissioned space craft. I was on one of the awarded teams for Orbital Prime last year, its very exciting technology and equally exciting to see serious amounts of funding materializing to tackle this problem.

sacnoradhq 3y ago

Instead of a knee-jerk reaction to spending money on a particular solution, think about the problem. Most things of significant mass are in stable orbits or they wouldn't be there for very long. Regional sats like the one from Dish are in GSO way away, so they don't really matter. The problem is that Dish didn't have a disposal plan for this satellite. It's mostly when operators create clouds of junk, especially fragments from unnecessary collisions that cross other orbits, that pose a threat to lives and property. It's good to require operators to have a deorbit or parking orbit plan. The biggest threat is LEO-crossing MMOD, which is why crewed craft have hundreds of Whipple shielding configurations to choose from for a given application. This isn't a problem in need of solving in such a deliberate, costly, and arbitrary manner. Instead, the solutions are holistic: don't create debris that poses a risk to LEO, have a decommissioning plan for GSO objects, and protect what needs protecting by defensive spacecraft design. Edit: The Kosmos 2251/Iridium 33 collision was reckless operation by the Russians leaving space junk in LEO.