Slashdot Mirror
Debris From India's Anti-Satellite Test Poses Threat To ISS, Says NASA (npr.org)
When India blew apart one of its satellites orbiting Earth last week, it created hundreds of pieces of orbital debris, and some of those pieces are large enough and high enough to pose a potential threat to the International Space Station, NASA says. "That is a terrible, terrible thing to create an event that sends debris in an apogee that goes above the International Space Station," NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said, referring to the debris' highest point in orbit. "And that kind of activity is not compatible with the future of human space flight that we need to see happen." NPR reports: In calculating the Indian test's potential impact last week, he said NASA determined that the risk of small debris hitting the space station was increased by 44 percent over a period of 10 days. "It's unacceptable, and NASA needs to be very clear about what its impact to us is," Bridenstine said, discussing space debris and India's anti-satellite test at a town hall event Monday.
As he spoke about the heightened risk, the NASA administrator also emphasized that both the space station and the astronauts aboard it are safe. The station can be maneuvered out of harm's way if needed, he added. But another danger, he said, is that "when one country does it, then other countries feel like they have to do it, as well." "The good thing is, it's low enough in Earth orbit that over time, this will all dissipate," Bridenstine said on Monday. Those pieces are expected to burn up as they re-enter Earth's atmosphere. India's intercept of its own satellite created 400 pieces of orbital debris, Bridenstine said. "What we are tracking right now -- objects big enough to track, we're talking about 10 centimeters [4 inches] or bigger -- about 60 pieces have been tracked," he said. "Of those 60, we know that 24 of them are going above the apogee of the International Space Station."
As he spoke about the heightened risk, the NASA administrator also emphasized that both the space station and the astronauts aboard it are safe. The station can be maneuvered out of harm's way if needed, he added. But another danger, he said, is that "when one country does it, then other countries feel like they have to do it, as well." "The good thing is, it's low enough in Earth orbit that over time, this will all dissipate," Bridenstine said on Monday. Those pieces are expected to burn up as they re-enter Earth's atmosphere. India's intercept of its own satellite created 400 pieces of orbital debris, Bridenstine said. "What we are tracking right now -- objects big enough to track, we're talking about 10 centimeters [4 inches] or bigger -- about 60 pieces have been tracked," he said. "Of those 60, we know that 24 of them are going above the apogee of the International Space Station."
Perhaps it should be made compulsory for anyone working in the space sector.
India sent a message loud and clear: we will do this, and we don't care if it causes space junk. I hope everyone got the message. The US State Department is very big on "sending messages" with its actions. Let's see how they like being on the receiving end for once. I think it'll be very educational for them to attend another country's lesson instead of being the one dishing it out.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
And does anyone have a public list of TLEs for the debris cloud? Or at least a list of apogees and perigees?
Nasa tracks space debris so they can steer clear of it; largest they can currently track is 4cm diameter objects.
Interesting post, but I think you meant smallest they can currently track is 4cm diameter objects. Your results may vary depending on who is estimating the numbers, but there are conservatively tens of thousands of objects larger than 10cm, hundreds of thousands between 1-10cm, and 100 million+ objects
Regarding India, they just want a seat at the table when the power players discuss satellite defense and weaponry. This is a classic tragedy of the commons.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Maybe I am a bit naive to even suggest this, but it seems to me that now would be an appropriate time for the nations of the world to enter into a treaty specifically designed to avoid one-or-more jackasses from ruining space access for the entire human race. I would call it the Kessler Avoidance Treaty (KAT).
It is, generally, a set of rules to avoid a tragedy of the (space) commons - a general agreement not to shit all over the near-Earth environment (100 km to, say, 600 km). Among its provisions would be:
* A blanket ban on anti-satellite missiles or other ways of destroying satellites that create debris clouds. This includes not only the deployment of such weapons, but also their development and testing.
* Require whoever launches a rocket to ensure that all orbital-velocity, non-payload masses (e.g., upper stages, payload fairings, etc.) have a built in method to guarantee de-orbiting within, say, three months. (I suppose parking in a higher orbit, like 5000 km, would also be acceptable.)
* Active payloads (i.e., satellites) must have a documented plan for end-of-life that ensures de-orbiting within, say, 1 year after end-of-service.
* A service fee attached to all orbital launches (including those that pass through near-Earth to other orbits, like geosynchronous) to fund the development and eventual deployment of measures to remove debris and other hazards from the near-Earth environment. This could be lasers, satellites that tether to and de-orbit other satellites, and who knows what else. The service fee would be based on rocket gross weight at liftoff (although probably on a logarithmic, rather than linear scale).
* The development of international design standards for satellite manufacturers and launch providers to reduce small fragmentary debris: paint chips, frangible bolts, etc.)
Yup, this will make space launches a bit more expensive: it will slightly lower the payload that a particular rocket can deliver. I call that chump change compared to the catastrophic cost of a full-blown Kessler syndrome, which would wipe out >$100B of already-launched assets, degrade the $Trillions of annual economic activity that utilizes space services, endanger the lives of humans in space, and render access-to-space difficult or impossible for a generation.
There is plenty of precedent for humans creating and enforcing treaties against generally-bad behavior. The treaties banning atmospheric nuclear weapons tests are one good example. The Montreal Protocol for eliminating CFCs is another. These are imperfect measures, certainly, and not universal ratified. But they have gotten most of the major players on the same page, and drastically reduced the harm that could otherwise have happened. It also provides a moral framework for punishing non-ratifiers.
Right now is the best time to implement this kind of treaty. (Well, really, 5-10 years ago.) Humanity is drastically lowering the barriers to accessing space, and so we're on the cusp of a huge surge of launches. We ought to agree upon the rules now before there are 100 new players. At the same time, we are ever-more dependent on using orbiting satellites for all manner of daily activities, and there are untold riches still to be reaped.
I am, however, dreadfully pessimistic about the chances of such a treaty coming about under (present) US leadership. We have the most to gain and the most to lose. It would also be a chance to reassert some global leadership against strategic rivals such as China and Russia. But our present executive demonstrates no particular strategic thinking, and I'm sure this kind of topic and its rational solution aren't on his radar.