6 ms·

What would it cost to deorbit those rogue and derelict 50 safely and with intentional consensus, maybe as a post-orbital insertion deployment secondary mission?

What would it cost to deorbit those rogue and derelict 50 safely and with intentional consensus, maybe as a post-orbital insertion deployment secondary mission? When will it be safe and cost-efficient to - instead of deorbiting toward Earth's atmosphere - Capture and Haul and Rendezvous and gently Land orbital scrap on non-earth locations like the Moon or Mars or a thrust-retrofitted asteroid for later processing? Would ISS be more useful as an oxygen tank in earth-moon orbit than in Earth's atmosphere and ocean?

totetsu 1y ago
Just get the space debris section on the case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
rlt 1y ago
If Starship achieves full and “rapid” reusability then it seems like it would be a lot more feasible to collect and deorbit space junk.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- masklinn 1y ago
  Most of the list is rocket bodies which are quite large, and rendezvous is already challenging when everybody is collaborating, rendezvous with a tumbling uncontrolled giant piece of junk is even more difficult. Astroscale is working on that in collaboration with various space agencies, they're currently planning a mission (ADRAS-J2) to connect to an uncontrolled rocket body and deorbit it circa 2027: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/astroscale-aced-the-worlds-first-rendezvous-with-a-piece-of-space-junk/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/astroscale-aced-the-wo...
  - schiffern 1y ago
    Theoretically, a cheap option is to modify Starlink with enlarged argon tanks to rendezvous and "shepherd" large debris into lower orbits. Add LiDAR (DragonEye) and "Push Me Pull You" argon thrusters and it can exert a gentle push even when the debris object is uncontrolled and tumbling. I'm somewhat surprised SpaceX hasn't tackled this problem yet. Even including just one StarCleaner every 2-3 Starlink launches could make a huge difference. SpaceX even has the perfect test satellite. RatSat was their first successful launch in 2008, and it's barely decayed despite saying it would only last five to ten years. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44753.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44753.0
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Starship lowers launch costs. One can launch more Astroscales with Starship. It’s not necessary. But it helps turn what is currently research curiosity into something someone can fund at scale.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    You can deorbit things by pushing them "up" from Earth which lowers their perigee on the other side of the orbit. A ground based high energy laser could ablate material from Earth which would provide propellant mass and incrementally knock objects into deorbiting trajectories.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      And what happens to the ablated material? One large stage that is easily tracked via radar is preferable to tens or hundreds of milimetre size chunks that could potentially flake off while ablating the surface of a rocket stage or derelict satellite.
      - mr_toad 1y ago
        Ablation turns the material into individual molecules.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        Yes, when done perfectly in a lab. Under less than ideal conditions, temperature gradients cause cracks and then flakes are released and expelled.
        RandomBacon 1y ago
        Drag brings those flakes to the ground.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        Flakes of solid material are typically far more than dense than structures made of the same material. Therefore flakes' orbital lifetimes are likely longer than structures made of the same materials.
    - mnw21cam 1y ago
      Pushing "up" on an orbiting body causes no change to the altitude at the other side of the orbit (that is, 180 degrees around the orbit). However, it does raise the orbital altitude 90 degrees ahead, and lowers it 270 degrees ahead.
  - usrusr 1y ago
    That tumbling should be conveniently predictable in absence of aerodynamics, but then even the best prediction would leave you with a tough nut to crack. I guess trying to solve that problem could be very helpful as a reality check to reign in any space mining fantasies?
  - dmurray 1y ago
    And to answer the cost question, Astroscale is charging $8-100 million [0] per LEO junk removal mission (small numbers for small failed comms sats, big numbers for a spent upper stage). The objects in the article are all at the bigger end. Presumably Aeroscale have started with a technically easier mission than some of the 50 in the article, but they will also eventually benefit from economies of scale. So you can estimate the cost to remove the 50 bodies in the single digit billions. [0] https://www.kratosspace.com/constellations/articles/astroscale-poised-for-450m-revenue-with-satellite-debris-removal-and-life-extension-services https://www.kratosspace.com/constellations/articles/astrosca...
    - ggm 1y ago
      "Is charging" for an activity which is wreathed in hypotheticals. Surely it's "proposes charging"?
      - dmurray 1y ago
        No, it's signed two contracts already according to the link. I'm sure the contracts are more complicated than "this amount of money for this job" but the price, at least, is not hypothetical.
    - mr_toad 1y ago
      Starship launch costs are hypothetical, but pundits are estimating one to two hundred dollars per kg, or about ten million per launch. This would shave a significant amount off the cost of launching something big enough to de-orbit a large target, like an upper stage. Still, even if you spitball a figure like 20 million for each removal that’s still a billion dollars in total.
Mistletoe 1y ago
Do we really want to start junking up the moon?
- adrianN 1y ago
  Having a pile of junk ready when you want to start a permanent base sounds like it could be useful.
  - gregoriol 1y ago
    The amount of tools needed to process that junk and make newly usable stuff would be huge and not worth it. Not even talking about the energy needed to take the junk there and land it safely. The article is talking about rocket bodies mostly: they don't have that much useful material.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    Please explain that to my wife in reference to my collections in the garage.
    - grues-dinner 1y ago
      "It might be useful some day" If it's iron or aluminium, someone probably will pay silly (Earth) money for it on the Moon during early colonisation, but maybe not right at the start when there's no bandwidth it facilities for recycling scrap. Right up until the bigger regolith smelters come online. The box of pre-loved Beanie Babies, perhaps also quite valuable: who knows how much hydrocarbons will be worth in early lunar colonies. Carbon isn't especially abundant in regolith (compared to silicon, aluminium, iron, etc) and has to be baked out as gases. Though I still doubt you'd have takers if the shipping isn't included...
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        Thank you for inspiring my next project. I shall do all in my power to relocate the contents of my garage to the lunar surface. Does anybody have Tom Mueller's phone number?
hinkley 1y ago
Tethers.inc thought they had a plan but their test tether cooked itself considerably faster than they expected and they sort of fell off the media radar after that.
notahacker 1y ago
It's not going to be cost-efficient to move to the moon unless and until there is commercial demand for scrap material on the moon and equipment to process it. A lot of delta-v is needed to transport stuff to the moon. On the other hand stuff in LEO naturally deorbits with a certain timeframe and can be accelerated with a small nudge, a dragsail or possibly even laser ablation, and it's really not very far to go if you decide to actively deorbit it. You'll likely get recycling in orbit (where the spacecraft are) before the moon (which has abundant aluminium anyway) first, so the compromise would be shifting debris in LEO to storage orbits with longer decay times
veunes 1y ago
Maybe once in-space manufacturing and refueling become reality, scrap recycling will make more sense beyond Earth

totetsu 1y ago

Just get the space debris section on the case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

rlt 1y ago

If Starship achieves full and “rapid” reusability then it seems like it would be a lot more feasible to collect and deorbit space junk.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 1y ago
Most of the list is rocket bodies which are quite large, and rendezvous is already challenging when everybody is collaborating, rendezvous with a tumbling uncontrolled giant piece of junk is even more difficult. Astroscale is working on that in collaboration with various space agencies, they're currently planning a mission (ADRAS-J2) to connect to an uncontrolled rocket body and deorbit it circa 2027: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/astroscale-aced-the-worlds-first-rendezvous-with-a-piece-of-space-junk/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/astroscale-aced-the-wo...
- schiffern 1y ago
  Theoretically, a cheap option is to modify Starlink with enlarged argon tanks to rendezvous and "shepherd" large debris into lower orbits. Add LiDAR (DragonEye) and "Push Me Pull You" argon thrusters and it can exert a gentle push even when the debris object is uncontrolled and tumbling. I'm somewhat surprised SpaceX hasn't tackled this problem yet. Even including just one StarCleaner every 2-3 Starlink launches could make a huge difference. SpaceX even has the perfect test satellite. RatSat was their first successful launch in 2008, and it's barely decayed despite saying it would only last five to ten years. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44753.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44753.0
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Starship lowers launch costs. One can launch more Astroscales with Starship. It’s not necessary. But it helps turn what is currently research curiosity into something someone can fund at scale.
- XorNot 1y ago
  You can deorbit things by pushing them "up" from Earth which lowers their perigee on the other side of the orbit. A ground based high energy laser could ablate material from Earth which would provide propellant mass and incrementally knock objects into deorbiting trajectories.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    And what happens to the ablated material? One large stage that is easily tracked via radar is preferable to tens or hundreds of milimetre size chunks that could potentially flake off while ablating the surface of a rocket stage or derelict satellite.
    - mr_toad 1y ago
      Ablation turns the material into individual molecules.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        Yes, when done perfectly in a lab. Under less than ideal conditions, temperature gradients cause cracks and then flakes are released and expelled.
        RandomBacon 1y ago
        Drag brings those flakes to the ground.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        Flakes of solid material are typically far more than dense than structures made of the same material. Therefore flakes' orbital lifetimes are likely longer than structures made of the same materials.
  - mnw21cam 1y ago
    Pushing "up" on an orbiting body causes no change to the altitude at the other side of the orbit (that is, 180 degrees around the orbit). However, it does raise the orbital altitude 90 degrees ahead, and lowers it 270 degrees ahead.
- usrusr 1y ago
  That tumbling should be conveniently predictable in absence of aerodynamics, but then even the best prediction would leave you with a tough nut to crack. I guess trying to solve that problem could be very helpful as a reality check to reign in any space mining fantasies?
- dmurray 1y ago
  And to answer the cost question, Astroscale is charging $8-100 million [0] per LEO junk removal mission (small numbers for small failed comms sats, big numbers for a spent upper stage). The objects in the article are all at the bigger end. Presumably Aeroscale have started with a technically easier mission than some of the 50 in the article, but they will also eventually benefit from economies of scale. So you can estimate the cost to remove the 50 bodies in the single digit billions. [0] https://www.kratosspace.com/constellations/articles/astroscale-poised-for-450m-revenue-with-satellite-debris-removal-and-life-extension-services https://www.kratosspace.com/constellations/articles/astrosca...
  - ggm 1y ago
    "Is charging" for an activity which is wreathed in hypotheticals. Surely it's "proposes charging"?
    - dmurray 1y ago
      No, it's signed two contracts already according to the link. I'm sure the contracts are more complicated than "this amount of money for this job" but the price, at least, is not hypothetical.
  - mr_toad 1y ago
    Starship launch costs are hypothetical, but pundits are estimating one to two hundred dollars per kg, or about ten million per launch. This would shave a significant amount off the cost of launching something big enough to de-orbit a large target, like an upper stage. Still, even if you spitball a figure like 20 million for each removal that’s still a billion dollars in total.

Mistletoe 1y ago

Do we really want to start junking up the moon?

adrianN 1y ago
Having a pile of junk ready when you want to start a permanent base sounds like it could be useful.
- gregoriol 1y ago
  The amount of tools needed to process that junk and make newly usable stuff would be huge and not worth it. Not even talking about the energy needed to take the junk there and land it safely. The article is talking about rocket bodies mostly: they don't have that much useful material.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  Please explain that to my wife in reference to my collections in the garage.
  - grues-dinner 1y ago
    "It might be useful some day" If it's iron or aluminium, someone probably will pay silly (Earth) money for it on the Moon during early colonisation, but maybe not right at the start when there's no bandwidth it facilities for recycling scrap. Right up until the bigger regolith smelters come online. The box of pre-loved Beanie Babies, perhaps also quite valuable: who knows how much hydrocarbons will be worth in early lunar colonies. Carbon isn't especially abundant in regolith (compared to silicon, aluminium, iron, etc) and has to be baked out as gases. Though I still doubt you'd have takers if the shipping isn't included...
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      Thank you for inspiring my next project. I shall do all in my power to relocate the contents of my garage to the lunar surface. Does anybody have Tom Mueller's phone number?

hinkley 1y ago

Tethers.inc thought they had a plan but their test tether cooked itself considerably faster than they expected and they sort of fell off the media radar after that.

notahacker 1y ago

It's not going to be cost-efficient to move to the moon unless and until there is commercial demand for scrap material on the moon and equipment to process it. A lot of delta-v is needed to transport stuff to the moon. On the other hand stuff in LEO naturally deorbits with a certain timeframe and can be accelerated with a small nudge, a dragsail or possibly even laser ablation, and it's really not very far to go if you decide to actively deorbit it. You'll likely get recycling in orbit (where the spacecraft are) before the moon (which has abundant aluminium anyway) first, so the compromise would be shifting debris in LEO to storage orbits with longer decay times

veunes 1y ago

Maybe once in-space manufacturing and refueling become reality, scrap recycling will make more sense beyond Earth