Slashdot Mirror

World space agencies have studied the issues and have written "guidelines" (see sect. 4) and self-policing policies, which tend to trickle down to the commercial sector. With government approvals in mind, there seems to be the equivalent of a "land rush" of commercial providers securing orbital real estate.

Constellations from SpaceX (Starlink), OneWeb, O3b, Facebook (Athena), and Samsung are well into the planning phases and some have already launched prototypes to test their systems. SES/O3b, perhaps the smallest, is operational on a small scale.

These large-scale launches of medium-sized satellites (100-500 kg) don't fit into the old regulatory scheme of 1 or 2 payloads per launch vehicle per year. Post-mission disposal reliability of 90% still leaves the possibility of hundreds of dead satellites cluttering operational orbits. The world's space agencies (which drive policy but typically are not regulatory) are trying to get a grasp of the issues on the horizon.

Constellations from SpaceX (Starlink), OneWeb, O3b, Facebook (Athena), and Samsung are well into the planning phases and some have already launched prototypes to test their systems. SES/O3b, perhaps the smallest, is operational on a small scale.

These large-scale launches of medium-sized satellites (100-500 kg) don't fit into the old regulatory scheme of 1 or 2 payloads per launch vehicle per year. Post-mission disposal reliability of 90% still leaves the possibility of hundreds of dead satellites cluttering operational orbits. The world's space agencies (which drive policy but typically are not regulatory) are trying to get a grasp of the issues on the horizon.

The IADC and its member space agencies (which I think includes the work of Drs. Lewis and Krag) are all studying the effects these large constellations will have on the space debris environment. Here's the IADC statement from last year. The ESA conference this week and IADC next week are starting to show the results.

One issue is that the existing debris-reduction standards allow a certain small probability of payload/mission failure per payload. When a single "mission" launches hundreds or thousands of (possibly identical) payloads, even those small failure rates practically guarantee an increase in failed and abandoned satellites.

The new work will help determine if the regulations should be applied per-satellite (no change), per-constellation (expensive), or something else.

The IADC and its member space agencies (which I think includes the work of Drs. Lewis and Krag) are all studying the effects these large constellations will have on the space debris environment. Here's the IADC statement from last year. The ESA conference this week and IADC next week are starting to show the results.

One issue is that the existing debris-reduction standards allow a certain small probability of payload/mission failure per payload. When a single "mission" launches hundreds or thousands of (possibly identical) payloads, even those small failure rates practically guarantee an increase in failed and abandoned satellites.

The new work will help determine if the regulations should be applied per-satellite (no change), per-constellation (expensive), or something else.

You mean some sort of Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee? They could meet every year to discuss topics and hand out assignments for the next year, and they could make reports to the UN, and stuff. Trouble is, no one else would ever know they existed.

At 850km, the "lighter" objects (high area-to-mass ratio, e.g. insulation, thin plates) will decay within 30 to 60 years. A 1cm steel sphere at that altitude, for example, will only drop about 80km over the next 100 years.

NASA's Orbital Debris Quarterly News has general articles, and always ends with a launch table and "box score". We'll have to wait for the next issue, but China has more than tripled its cataloged debris. With this one event, it's now got about a quarter of what the US and Russia each have, pulling well ahead of France and locking in its position in 3rd place.

I'm really curious about what's going on behind the Chinese wall. I know that NASA in no way controls what the US DoD does in space, and can only nag the administration to keep its promises. NASA scrambles the same way no matter who does the test. Does the Chinese Minsistry of Science (or whatever) butt heads with the Ministry of Defense? I look forward to reading the history, many years from now.

It's sort of like the difference between underground and atmospheric nuke tests. The US anti-missile tests are (so far) relatively low altitude, and usually on descending tracks. That's not exactly ASAT, I know, but it's an effort to minimize orbital debris.

I wonder if there's push and pull within the Chinese space community? China is a member of the IADC, which has one goal of reducing junk. NASA and the DoD sometimes argue over debris-producing "events", though I think the DoD wins those matches. Debris threats to the Shuttle, ISS, and commercial space are a big deal, and the DoD doesn't want its junk to punch a hole through someone's crew module.