Slashdot Mirror


Report Warns of Space Junk Reaching a Tipping Point

intellitech sends this excerpt from a Reuters report: "The amount of debris orbiting the Earth has reached a tipping point for collisions, which would in turn generate more of the debris that threatens astronauts and satellites, according to a U.S. study released on Thursday (PDF). ... The amount of orbital debris tracked by the U.S. Space Surveillance Network jumped from 9,949 cataloged objects in December 2006 to 16,094 in July 2011, with nearly 20 percent of the objects stemming from the destruction of the Chinese FENGYUN 1-C satellite, the National Research Council said. ... the panel made two dozen recommendations for NASA to mitigate and improve the orbital debris environment, including collaborating with the State Department to develop the legal and regulatory framework for removing junk from space. The study, 'Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs,' was sponsored by NASA."

14 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. EDDE by anti11es · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It looks like they've worked out a possible solution to clearing out debris in LEO.

    A small fleet of net-flinging spacecraft could clear every big piece of space junk out of low-Earth orbit within a dozen years, according to a researcher working on the concept. Each spacecraft, known as an ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE), would capture orbital debris in a net, then drag the junk down out of harm's way. The EDDEs would draw their power from the sun and from Earth's magnetic field rather than rely on costly chemical propellants, helping keep costs down, said Jerome Pearson, president of Star Technology and Research, Inc.

    1. Re:EDDE by anti11es · · Score: 3, Informative

      What magic material will they make this net out of?

      This PDF slide deck has some additional details. It describes them as "50-g mesh nets", I couldn't tell you how they are supposed to work.

    2. Re:EDDE by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Which means you need tons of fuel or way to generate power. So either hellishly expensive to build or hellishly expensive to fuel and launch.

    3. Re:EDDE by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Funny

      AS long as the net is moving at the same velocity as the debris it's trying to capture.

      Fixed that for you ;)

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  2. Kessler Syndrome by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There's an idea dating back to the late 1970s of "Kessler Syndrome" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome in which repeated collisions of objects in orbit will result in so many debris objects that they will become a self-reinforcing problem (since when debris collides with other bits of debris the result is a lot more smaller pieces now in different orbits from the original large pieces). The level at which things become inconvenient is well before where we hit full on Kessler syndrome, but it may well be that one won't get much warning before Kessler syndrome starts to take hold.

    There's a very real danger at this point that we will soon run into a real Kessler syndrome situation in low-Earth orbit. This would be really bad since this is both a really useful area to have satellites and the area where it is cheapest to put them in orbit. We have taken a few steps to help matters. For example, it became apparent that the Delta rockets were causing a lot of space debris and the more recent versions have been redesigned to minimize those issues. Unfortunately, many rockets from other countries and some other US rockets still have serious problems. There's no indication that China is taking any serious steps to minimize space debris. There have been some attempts to require people who put up satellites to have plans for either deorbiting them or parking them in graveyard orbits. That's now being done for most civilian satellites, but we don't know what if anything is being done for military satellites. This is in some sense one massive tragedy-of-the-commons type situation.

    The current engineering solutions for removing space debris are also lacking. There's a proposal to use lasers to ablate small bits of debris but this is politically not great since lasers powerful enough to do that could be used as weapons. Most of the other proposals have other problems or have the same problem: essentially any method of easily deorbiting objects is going to be a threat to satellites, and so for obvious reasons governments don't want other governments to have that sort of capability.

    One point which this new study makes that I had not seen before is the point that the calculated cost of satellite collisions is underestimated because not only do satellites collisions destroy satellites but they also create more debris which can then endanger other satellites and requires further tracking.

    1. Re:Kessler Syndrome by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I also disagree that lasers aren't "politically not great" for the exact OPPOSITE reasons as you. When has getting funding for a weapons system ever been a difficult political proposition? Sure, everybody else might not like the fact that you can now shoot down their satellites, but they're not going to complain too loudly about it since:

      1. Some day they might want to ask you nicely to shoot down somebody else's satellites for them.
      2. They don't want you to shoot down their satellites.
      3. They're going to be busy working on their own fancy lasers.

      This is why I chuckle every time I see one of those "Boy, the Europeans will stick it to the US with Galileo" threads. Under just about any circumstance where the US would actually deploy selective availability, the EU would be pretty likely to freely do the same thing with their own satellite network. About the only case where that wouldn't be likely to happen would be an all-out US vs EU war, which of course would never happen, and in any case would just result in a bazillion ASAT weapons turning LEO into a cloud of buckshot. While it seems that everybody loves a good US vs EU thread, the reality is that on most issues the US and EU have far more in common than they have in opposition, and most of the political theater is to keep the various fringes in the political parties happy and focused on something other than the fact that just about everybody in office everywhere is corrupt.

  3. Re:I find it funny... by geekoid · · Score: 2

    That's true with every living thing.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. Re:Nobody will take it seriously by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They'll start taking it seriously when multi-million dollar satellites start being obliterated.

    In the US, money is a far more serious matter than human life.

  5. Re:Despinning the press release... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    Zero to space junk denialism in less than half an hour :-(

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  6. Re:what a coincidence by geekoid · · Score: 2

    The ones you list where in decaying orbits, and just about to reenter.

    China's satellite wasn't re-entering, it was in a pretty stable orbit and as such the debris will be there for a very long time.

    You are not stupid, stop acting like it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  7. Re:I find it funny... by Belial6 · · Score: 2

    I don't study whales professionally, but I would wager that whales shit where they eat. It is only their low numbers that make them look like they are not fouling their living space.

  8. Re:Nobody will take it seriously by Brobock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    until somebody die from it. sorry, but it's been that way for centuries.

    Nobody will take it seriously until an entertainment satellite gets taken out.

  9. Re:I find it funny... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the veritable holocaust that occurred when the first green plants started their uncontrolled emissions of powerful oxidizing agents into the atmosphere, annihilating the previously anaerobic biosphere count?

    Humans probably win on points because of the sheer creativity of their pollution, and the fact that they do it despite having brains large enough to predict that they will suffer for it; but they aren't exactly the first organism to synthesize something that didn't (yet) have anything evolved to break it down.

  10. Dust vs dust by jwdb · · Score: 2

    There was a presentation a few weeks ago by G. Ganguli from Naval Research Laboratory where he suggested placing a layer of very fine dust in an LEO band. The dust should be too fine to cause any impact damage but thick enough that it increases drag, decaying the orbit of debris. A satellite would be unharmed, although its orbit would also decay slightly. You can even tune the dust's own decay rate to match that of the debris size you're targeting.

    Couldn't find that original paper online, but here's another: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1401