13 ms·
We’ve Already Passed the Tipping Point for Orbital Debris
- kiba 14y agoThere was a manga that specifically involves astronauts collecting space junks and that manga is Planetes.
- johnpmayer 14y agoI think I heard about that. I think it's interesting to note that, in much of science fiction, the home planets of space-faring species are always terribly littered due to the bootstrapping process of reaching the stars, whereas the orbital debris of colony planets tends to be non-existent.
- ascuttlefish 14y agoIt's very well done, too. Great character development and a gripping story arc. From my layperson's perspective, the science of orbital debris collection is taken very seriously. The opening sequence in the first episode powerfully illustrates the speed and devastation caused by the intersection of the orbits of a simple bolt and a passenger liner.
- dalke 14y agoTwo live-action TV series from the 1970s about space garbage: "Salvage 1" (with Andy Griffith no less) and "Quark."
- shawndumas 14y agohttp://spectrum.ieee.org/img/09WOrbitalDebrisf1-1348674932421.jpg http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/09WOrbitalDebrisf1-134867493242...
- indiecore 14y agoThis is a completely accurate and to scale representation of Earth orbit.
- Tipzntrix 14y agoThe sheer sight of that simulated model makes me wonder if you're being sarcastic, but the story doesn't say whether it's a simulation or just made up.
- deelowe 14y agoHe's joking. We don't have satellites the size of entire cities. If this were to scale, it would look exactly like the pictures of earth we are used to seeing with nothing but black surrounding it. There's a lot of space debris, but there's a whole heck of a lot more "space."
- pentar 14y agohttp://www.esa.int/esaMI/ESOC/SEMN2VM5NDF_mg_3_s.html http://www.esa.int/esaMI/ESOC/SEMN2VM5NDF_mg_3_s.html The debris field shown in the image is an artist's impression based on actual data. However the image does not show debris items in their actual size or density. Note: The debris objects shown in the images are an artist's impression based on actual density data. However, the debris objects are shown at an eggagerated size to make them visible at the scale shown.
- panzagl 14y agoSpace is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. If shown to scale even the biggest satellite wouldn't take up a pixel.
- pxlpshr 14y agoWell technically it's 'infinitely' big. Most people's brains breakdown when you start trying to tell them about the idea of a 4th dimension that holds the universe. I think this is why humanity defaults to religion as explanation for the unknown; the God factor is easier to process, and there's a reward at the end for a life of good deeds.
- kamaal 14y ago>Most people's brains breakdown when you start trying to tell them about the idea of a 4th dimension that holds the universe. Sorry I could not understand a single word. Can you explain this a little bit more?
- jat850 14y agoHere's a video that really helped me grasp the higher-order dimensions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q
- oinksoft 14y agoThus continues the reddit-ization of this website. A shame. At least cite the man; "inside jokes" of this sort are tired.
- panzagl 14y agoSo are ad-hominem attacks. The first line is a quote from Douglas Adams. Well known to anyone who has tried to run a conjunction analysis and had to set the range to 50 km to get something to show up.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- washedup 14y agoAny way to develop a business model off this problem? Orbital garbage collectors. They would have to be traveling in the roughly the same orbit to collect a single piece of trash; surely a head on collision with a small piece of debris traveling at a relative speed of 10mi/sec would be devastating.
- keeperofdakeys 14y agoI don't think there would be any hope of actually collecting the bits piece by piece, the amount of fuel required to match trajectories alone makes it infeasible. The best 'solution' would be to change the trajectory of the garbage either away from the atmosphere, or into the atmosphere. Unfortunately a lot of it won't completely burn up before it hits the ground, creating a few more problems then just some broken satellites.
- maxerickson 14y agoI wonder if it would be practical to mitigate ground strikes by steering objects into collisions. I guess if you got the math right you could do the collisions at low orbits and avoid making things worse.
- washedup 14y agoGood point.. maybe there are "rings", or orbits with a high concentration of junk that justify the fuel?
- keeperofdakeys 14y agoThe real problem is the junk is travelling at high speeds, in many different directions. So the only 'safe' way to collect it is to match the speed and direction of each piece of junk, one at a time.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- berntb 14y ago
- ck2 14y agoBetween this and the great pacific garbage patch, I think the human legacy is going to be litter.
- crag 14y agoEver see the film Wall-E? Cause that's where we are headed.
- AJ007 14y agoI've heard the analogy that capitalism is just a clever method of converting the natural world in to garbage. I wouldn't go that far, nor is capitalism alone responsible. I think a great deal of blame lies in the methods we've developed to keep the garbage out of site. Our manufacturing pollution is outsourced to the other side of the globe, we put our trash in black bags and have someone else bury it far away from where we live. In space you can't hide. And that makes the problem, and the consequences, very evident.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoThe great pacific garbage patch is rather overhyped. From what you hear and the way some people describe it you'd think it would be like a sargasso sea of garbage, but it's actually just an increased concentration of small bits of plastic just under the surface of the ocean. If you were looking right at the water in the densest part of the garbage patch you probably wouldn't even be able to tell that the water was unusual. For example, here's a typical picture illustrating the garbage patch: http://myecoaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/great-pacific-garbage-patch.jpg http://myecoaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/great-paci... However, it's a fraud, it's actually a picture from Manila harbor. The fact that this isn't the deep ocean should be blatantly obvious by the fact that there is a person in a canoe in it, and canoes are not well known trans-pacific transportation vessels. I'm not saying that the various oceanic gyre garbage patches aren't a problem, but they certainly will not form a legacy for humanity, as they are pretty much invisible.
- ck2 14y agoThe plastic NEVER goes away and is always increasing, not decreasing http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10patch.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10patch.html
- curiouscats 14y agoMy uncle was at NASA (from very close to the beginning). One of his long term projects was dealing with orbital debris. History of Orbital Debris 1961 to 1998 http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-1999-208856.pdf http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-1999-20...
- seanalltogether 14y agoIs this something that can be solved from the ground (high powered lasers)? Or would we need mechanisms in space and up close to handle this kind of debris?
- ble 14y agoThere is the idea of a laser broom [1], a ground-based system for pushing debris into more elliptical orbits that bring them closer to Earth at perigee. It might not be feasible for political reasons; I imagine most designs would also be excellent tools for disabling satellites, thus could start a space arms race. (Both China and the US have blown up satellites, but both were done with anti-satellite missiles; lasers might be more useful for starting a disastrous space war.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom
- outworlder 14y agoThe URSS has already blinded (temporarily) US satellites with lasers. However, to permanently disable them, it seems that more power is required, compared to adding velocity to small orbital debris.
- ble 14y agoThe article specifically mentions material ablation (vaporizing part of the debris) rather than light pressure as the source of impulse. If it could vaporize debris that came off of satellites or boosters or what have you, it could vaporize parts of satellites. Possibly at the rate of the metaphorical little bird that sharpens its beak on a mountain. :)
- outworlder 14y agoThere's some research on that (lasers), according to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom
- DanBC 14y agoHere's NASA's webpage for orbital debris. (http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/) It's fascinating. It has better graphics than the linked article. (The linked article does have a link to this site, but not the front page and it's buried down the article.)
- ChuckMcM 14y agoAwesomest link from that refereence: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNv16i1.pdf http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNv16i1.... The current newsletter on debris. Excellent data in there.
- hermannj314 14y agoIdentify the externalities that aren't being paid and make them get paid. And if this means that we all end up paying more for services we use today that create space debris, then fine. The next generation is being fleeced by those with the means of production. They extract as much profit as they can and ignore the damage left in their wake. Added to that they fight tooth and nail at any government policy that tries to make them pay for externalities they should rightfully assume. Of course, the traditional capitalist model says suck what you can today and then expect the spillover to get paid by the taxpayer tomorrow. What a world we have left for all of humankind's children merely for the benefit of the contemporary capitalist and consumer.
- btilly 14y agoOK, who will make China pay a fee for junk they deliberately created in space for military purposes? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mis... before complaining that I'm unfairly singling out China.
- InclinedPlane 14y agohttp://blogs.nature.com/news/files/debris.JPG http://blogs.nature.com/news/files/debris.JPG
- Tipzntrix 14y agoThis graph seems to indicate that the Chinese anti-satellite test moved the number of objects from ~10700 to ~13900, or about 3200 objects released. Now that we are at about 16000 objects, 3200 is closer to 20% (in fact is is exactly 20%) than 10% of all objects.
- btilly 14y agoDifferent sources will quote different numbers of objects. The reason is that there were millions of debris particles. So you find counts of different sizes. I got 10% by comparing the number in the Wikipedia article over a certain size with the number of objects that NASA is actively tracking. If NASA is actively tracking at a different size threshold, that would explain the discrepancy. Regardless of the exact numbers, this Chinese test is clearly a significant part of the problem by itself. And the altitude chosen means that it will continue to be a problem for a very, very long time.
- swang 14y agoMy science teacher back in 1996 told the class about the immense amount of garbage piling around orbit and told us that when we were older it would become a serious problem and that whoever figured out how to be "space garbagemen/women" would be very rich. The class kinda laughed, space is so vast and who wants to be known as garbage men? Should have gotten my degree as a Space Debris Collector.
- thejteam 14y agoDARPA is currently working on this now. http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Phoenix.aspx http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Phoenix.aspx Specifically, they are looking into ways to remotely salvage parts from existing satellite and presumably remove the satellites from orbit.
- rbellio 14y agoTractor beam? If someone could come up with one of those, that would work. No huge energy loss due to traveling into the atmosphere. No worries about refueling in orbit or potential collisions loss of life. Seems to me like that could be a thing.
- rbellio 14y agoOr how about a small propulsion system with a tether that can be carried to LEO with a weather balloon and then propelled further if needed. You'd just need like a 100 mile long wire cable to use with it. I'm sure that's doable, right? :)
- joshuahedlund 14y agoI remember hearing about the growing orbital debris problem awhile back and thinking, Well, we've covered the surface area of the earth with a whole ton of stuff, but when you fly in an airplane and look out, most of the surface still looks almost completely untouched. Now the "surface area" of the orbit is way bigger than the earth's surface area, and we don't have nearly as much stuff up there yet, either. So shouldn't it be a long time before we start having problems like this? I suppose the big issue is that most of that stuff is moving. If everything on the surface of the earth was constantly trying to circumscribe it, we'd have a lot more stuff colliding than we already do...
- mikeash 14y agoDon't look at the surface, look at the sky. You hardly ever see another airplane except occasionally when near an airport. And yet, mid-air collisions do happen, despite the systems in place to prevent them. The fact that all of this stuff is moving makes it a completely different proposition. The fact that a collision just makes more junk to go out and collide with other stuff results in a potentially disastrous feedback loop.
- awj 14y agoAlso, very few things up there are made to be durable in the face of collisions. That adds weight for, until recently, no apparent value. So even small pieces of debris are very dangerous to useful equipment.
- rbanffy 14y ago> mid-air collisions do happen, Airplanes are not evenly distributed. They follow well defined routes and flight levels.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoI've been reading about space junk for a while, if we are in fact 'past the tipping point' (as opposed to journalistic hyperbole) then you should be planning how your App will work in a post-GPS world. Seriously. While certain bands of orbit are currently more crowded than others, as the Chinese satellite attack [1] demonstrated, the debris from collisions will be wide and multiband. Further once it reaches that point the density is predicted to prevent additional satellites from reaching useful orbit trying to get through it (so more replacement Geo-sync satellites). Perhaps it will be the 21st century's equivalent of land mines in terms of resource denial to unintended victims. Would make a great conference topic too, given SpaceX has a launch vehicle that can get your idea to pretty much all of the orbital bands for $150M, what might you do with a couple of tons of payload which would mitigate this problem, and how can we compensate it? What if the US/China/USSRS/EU funded a 'bounty' that for every ton of junk de-orbited the person who de-orbited it would get $1M. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mis...
- btilly 14y agoThe Kessler effect is supposed to take decades to make near Earth orbit unusable. If your app survives that long, changing operating systems is a more pressing problem than the immanent destruction of GPS.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoAt a NASA talk on space debris (part of the Space Technology Grand Challenge program at NASA [1]) the presenter mentioned that so called 'structured orbit' systems (like Iridium and GPS) were particularly vulnerable because their service depended on where they were in orbit and they had finite maneuvering capability. So GPS destruction is a combination of satellites which run out of gas swerving and jinking to avoid junk, and losing individual satellites due to forced (de-orbit) or worse actual destruction. It was by that reasoning that this presenter was describing the space junk disaster as a sort of slow motion thing but the first indicator that you and I would notice would be that GPS service goes away. Its also exponential in that actual collisions threaten on 1 or 2 additional satellites but dozens in orbits above and below. Then he finished with current NASA timelines (about 25 years before a system might be tested) and funding (0). Granted he may have just been trying to rustle up funding for his pet project but I found his reasoning pretty compelling. [1] http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/503466main_space_tech_grand_challenges_12_02_10.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/503466main_space_tech_grand_challeng...
- ArbitraryLimits 14y agoI always thought this was the strongest technical argument against Star Wars back in the 80s - all you have to do to defeat a sattelite-based system of any kind is launch a load of gravel into orbit and wait a few days.
- dkokelley 14y agoDon't the LEO objects have a natural loss rate (I.E., so many objects will soon be vaporized as they fall back into the atmosphere)? Those objects are designed to have a shorter lifespan (typically, ignoring the ISS). As for the GEO objects, given their fixed station over earth, I imagine there is less path-crossing, which would reduce the probability of an impact. Assuming the LEO objects are a major danger to something critical like the ISS, what would be the added cost of shielding? How much impact should the material be able to absorb, and what would that weigh? As for the economics of satellites, shielding seems like the next-best option to expensive tracking and safe decommissioning of all objects, provided the shielding material isn't too heavy as to be cost-prohibitive.