Senators introduce bill to thin out the 900k pieces of orbiting junk(commerce.senate.gov)
commerce.senate.gov
Senators introduce bill to thin out the 900k pieces of orbiting junk
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2022/9/cantwell-hickenlooper-lummis-wicker-introduce-bill-to-thin-out-the-900-000-pieces-of-orbiting-junk-that-endanger-the-future-of-space-exploration
27 comments
> The highest impact thing a government can do is put a price on debris removal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...
Objects in space are merticuously tracked. It would be very hard to get away with something like that, and none of the relevant fliers would dare bet their business on trying.
I meant it bit of a tongue-in-cheek way, but for the sake of argument it wouldn't be hard for a clean up mission to have an "accident" and actually generate more debris for later missions to clean up. And it might not even be malicious, just side effect of more pressure to launch something to do the clean ups.
To be clear, I'm not saying OP is wrong, it would probably work out fine. But this seems like a fun angle to consider.
To be clear, I'm not saying OP is wrong, it would probably work out fine. But this seems like a fun angle to consider.
I can't find xboneslife's comment to reply to, so replying here
> You can just put the same price on debris addition.
Indeed. A small tax that matches the cost of debris capture payment + minor administrative overhead would encourage the outcome that junk isn't thrown into unrecoverable orbit.
> You can just put the same price on debris addition.
Indeed. A small tax that matches the cost of debris capture payment + minor administrative overhead would encourage the outcome that junk isn't thrown into unrecoverable orbit.
The tax wouldn't be small. I do agree, though, the only real answer is to charge for putting things in orbit and refund it to whoever deorbits the thing.
A fee per kilogram placed in orbit, refundable if the entire mass is deorbited as a single object, seems like a reasonable starting point.
If that fee is the entire estimated near-term cost to recover the object, it would also create incentives for entities putting large amounts of mass in orbit to focus on improved strategies for removal: if removal becomes lower cost than the fee, it's worth paying someone to recover your debris if a satellite fails in order to recover the fee.
If that fee is the entire estimated near-term cost to recover the object, it would also create incentives for entities putting large amounts of mass in orbit to focus on improved strategies for removal: if removal becomes lower cost than the fee, it's worth paying someone to recover your debris if a satellite fails in order to recover the fee.
This would have to work across borders or else you'd create a downward force on the space industry in your nation. If the US had a tax to launch stuff, then suddenly Russia has a competitive advantage.
> I can't find xboneslife's comment to reply to
I can't even find their account https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xboneslife
Wonder what happened...
I can't even find their account https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xboneslife
Wonder what happened...
I can't find out what the cost to govt is in order to launch something into space, but you do need govt permission to launch since all space objects must belong to a specific country.
The govt can include the cleanup cost as part of the launch licensing cost.
The govt can include the cleanup cost as part of the launch licensing cost.
[deleted]
Mike Judge also thought it was fun to run a Simpsons episode featuring Donald Trump getting elected to the presidency. So… definitely worth thinking through.
You could always slip China a fiver to get them to blow up another satellite or five.
Pretty sure China would prefer to make rockets that don't explode at all. But if you insist, my friend Sergey knows a guy that might have an overstock of aging launchers...
The incident in question is generally believed to have been a weapons test. They deliberately hit a satellite with a rocket to see that they could.
It also created an insane amount of junk in a high orbit that won't deorbit any time soon.
It also created an insane amount of junk in a high orbit that won't deorbit any time soon.
[deleted]
I feel like the perverse incentive here (if we can call it that) might be more along the lines of all companies becoming more careless w.r.t. the creation of space debris (because it'll be cleaned up by "someone" eventually, kind of like how it's common to consume plastic with the thought that it'll get recycled), rather than any particular entity doing this with a profit motive.
You can pair that with hefty fines. The US is in a good position to place them on international players too.
Want to work with USA companies? Great, pay your fines and you can.
Want to work with USA companies? Great, pay your fines and you can.
You could potentially avoid this by paying more for older junk.
Love this reference
Or combine it with a fine for creating debris?
I think it is past time to make launchers publish their plan for lifecycle management, and perhaps post bonds against them, in case they go bankrupt.
Making sovereigns pay for trashing the commons is tricky for obvious reasons. But we don't have those problems with corporations.
Making sovereigns pay for trashing the commons is tricky for obvious reasons. But we don't have those problems with corporations.
US, through the FCC of all things, requires licensing applications (before launch) to address satellite lifetimes.
How are you going to get e.g. the Chinese Government to pay? (1)
And if you can get them to agree to pay, who is a suitable body that they can be convinced to pay it _to_ ? I'm pretty sure that any arm of the US government, or US parastatal body, would not be acceptable. It's an international governance problem.
1) https://www.space.com/3415-china-anti-satellite-test-worriso...
And if you can get them to agree to pay, who is a suitable body that they can be convinced to pay it _to_ ? I'm pretty sure that any arm of the US government, or US parastatal body, would not be acceptable. It's an international governance problem.
1) https://www.space.com/3415-china-anti-satellite-test-worriso...
> How are you going to get e.g. the Chinese Government to pay?
Seize assets of nation-state entities (or entities controlled by the Chinese state) like airplanes and ships or bank funds, release them after payment.
Seize assets of nation-state entities (or entities controlled by the Chinese state) like airplanes and ships or bank funds, release them after payment.
But are there any serious, adult, workable proposals?
Yes of course. We did that over a decade ago in Germany - a construction company was owed 30 million euros from the government of Thailand, so our police seized the airplane of the king at the Munich airport, and in 2005 we did the same for a collection of debt against Lebanon [1].
[1] https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article13485097/Boeing-von-Th...
[1] https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article13485097/Boeing-von-Th...
So to be clear, you would say that China's standing and general compliance to perceived hostile action against it is the same as Lebanon or Thailand? IMHO, that is very naïve.
China's "standing" is being a fucking bully that doesn't care about any rules.
That opinion is consistent with the link that I posted - smashing a satellite into debris for kicks. But it does seem to be inconsistent with taking your above "seize assets" suggestions seriously.
All well and good, until someone decides to lob a missile at a satellite and make a little Kessler syndrome, or launch missions with no reentry plans from a nation that hasn't signed your treaty.
I don't think it's a bad idea to be proactive about space cleanup, rather than reactive.
I don't think it's a bad idea to be proactive about space cleanup, rather than reactive.
Throwaway LLC creates the debris and goes bankrupt from fines, main company does the cleanup.
The problem is partially legal. Many of these objects have complex ownership. The US government should have some hesitation about simply starting putting a price on the destruction of things that might be owned by particular companies or countries.
I think what the government should do is invest in better tracking primarily. Then make a stronger law requiring sat makers to have a plan to remove debris also on failure.
Then they can clean up their own old junk and put a price on that.
I think what the government should do is invest in better tracking primarily. Then make a stronger law requiring sat makers to have a plan to remove debris also on failure.
Then they can clean up their own old junk and put a price on that.
> Debris removal is less an R&D problem than a market problem.
How did you come to this conclusion? Not that I know much about it, but I'm skeptical we can actually do orbital debris removal at a scale that meets the scale of the problem. AFAIK proof od concept demonstrations so far have been rather feeble. Seems hard.
How did you come to this conclusion? Not that I know much about it, but I'm skeptical we can actually do orbital debris removal at a scale that meets the scale of the problem. AFAIK proof od concept demonstrations so far have been rather feeble. Seems hard.
The engineering challenges are hard, probably not impossible. There is already serious research in to this by Astroscale and others. What is impossible though, is to launch a constellation of things to deorbit other things without a ton of money. Someone has to be willing to provide that money.
If you want to remove a small piece of debris and you can build a fairly large sat specifically for that piece of debris, its not difficult but not crazy hard. Most of the required hardware is available.
What is really hard is making it cheap, light and versatile thing.
What is really hard is making it cheap, light and versatile thing.
Yeah of course, de-orbiting or grave yarding a single piece of debris is doable for a few million dollars right now, but we are talking about a large fraction of 900K+ pieces. That's the really hard part.
Much like surface trash cleanup, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The goal is "less junk on the streets", not necessarily "absolutely squeaky-clean streets". First get rid of that rusty fridge that someone dumped in the woods before we deal with all the cigarette butts.
Let's focus on the more problematic, larger objects first, that are at risk of creating much more debris if hit.
Let's focus on the more problematic, larger objects first, that are at risk of creating much more debris if hit.
What's the minimum size at which debris is dangerous?
Since everything is moving at orbital speeds, and generally at an angle to each other, i understood even small fragments move at a few km/sec relative to what they hit, so don't need to be particularly large.
Since everything is moving at orbital speeds, and generally at an angle to each other, i understood even small fragments move at a few km/sec relative to what they hit, so don't need to be particularly large.
True, but I imagine that, the smaller the object, the smaller the chance that it will be hit/it will hit something, and a smaller amount of fragments that the hit can generate.
If you ask the person who put the satellite up to pay, you have a problem that that company might be bankrupt/gone in 50 years when their satellite becomes junk.
If you make them put up insurance or a bond, it's a massive cash cost to have a $1B bond for 50 years...
And you would be needing $1B or more, because the worse case is a satellite gets smashed into 100,000 pieces, and you're going to need a lot of debris collection missions to get rid of them all...
If you make them put up insurance or a bond, it's a massive cash cost to have a $1B bond for 50 years...
And you would be needing $1B or more, because the worse case is a satellite gets smashed into 100,000 pieces, and you're going to need a lot of debris collection missions to get rid of them all...
> you would be needing $1B or more, because the worse case is a satellite gets smashed into 100,000 pieces
You bond for the average cost and then use liability for edge cases. We don’t require every consumer product to be bonded for the edge case that it’s cancerous.
You bond for the average cost and then use liability for edge cases. We don’t require every consumer product to be bonded for the edge case that it’s cancerous.
Thinking ahead, we’ve learned from projects like skyscrapers to engineer destructability into projects, and from abandoned infrastructure like windmills to require the builder to post bonds to pay for abatement and removal. Why aren’t we doing this in space?
We regulate the heck out of launches; why not require orbital devices to have a built in deorbit mechanism (or “move to a parking orbit mechanism” for non-LEO), and/or require posting a bond to pay for someone to go clean up your mess?
We regulate the heck out of launches; why not require orbital devices to have a built in deorbit mechanism (or “move to a parking orbit mechanism” for non-LEO), and/or require posting a bond to pay for someone to go clean up your mess?
We do require sattalites to have an end of life plan, that either safely deorbits, or moves to a graveyard orbit. The Outer Space Treaty is a bit vague on this point, but in practice space fairing nations do require that their own launches gave an EOL plan.
Most space junk is not a full device, but debris from one, which is much harder to clean up and impossible to completely prevent.
This is also why there is an occasional international incident when a country decides to test out its ability to destroy sattalite.
Most space junk is not a full device, but debris from one, which is much harder to clean up and impossible to completely prevent.
This is also why there is an occasional international incident when a country decides to test out its ability to destroy sattalite.
The speeds involved make ever piece a bullet and it is impossible to fully plan for that contingency. The best option is to aim it to the atmosphere or a debris zone. Especially when something unexpected happens.
They already do most of this for US and space partners, but it also adds significantly to weight to do it for every single small piece and parts naturally fall off.
They already do most of this for US and space partners, but it also adds significantly to weight to do it for every single small piece and parts naturally fall off.
Much of the debris is stuff from before we knew what we were doing or from ill advised weapons tests. Lots of old rocket bodies and random shrapnel.
This seems like a good time to remind people that in 1961, the US through Project West Ford, launched billions of small copper wires into orbit in an effort to provide global radio communications [1].
For what it's worth, it actually kind of worked.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/2013/08/project-west-ford/
For what it's worth, it actually kind of worked.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/2013/08/project-west-ford/
I guess I'll take this time to shill for the mid-'00s TV show Planetes, which is basically about exactly this; cleaning up orbital debris in order to maintain safe space travel.
Space junk cleanup and goofy-coworker-slice-of-life antics is what gets you in the door, but there's much, much more going on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes#Themes
I'd say it is something of a response to doe-eyed futurism over space exploration that was so prevalent in the 80's and 90's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes#Themes
I'd say it is something of a response to doe-eyed futurism over space exploration that was so prevalent in the 80's and 90's
My local library has the original (translated) manga, it's by the same author who makes Vinland Saga.
I've been meaning to watch Planetes, because Vinland Saga is honestly mind-blowing. One of the best storytelling in Anime of all time, second only to Cowboy Bebop of course.
The story is slightly different in the Planetes anime but reputedly good, I've only read the manga for that one. The manga collection for Planetes is relatively short, only a single large book versus the many volumes of Vinland Saga.
This Korean movie on the topic was pretty good too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Sweepers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Sweepers
Or 1977-78's Quark
There’s also an interesting kurzgesagt video that says that if we reach some threshold we’ll never be able to launch anything in space anymore. Quite depressing :(
You're thinking of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
""" The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading, or ablation cascade), proposed by NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) due to space pollution is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade in which each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions.[3] In 2009 Kessler wrote that modeling results had concluded that the debris environment was already unstable, "such that any attempt to achieve a growth-free small debris environment by eliminating sources of past debris will likely fail because fragments from future collisions will be generated faster than atmospheric drag will remove them".[4] One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges difficult for many generations.[3] """ -- Summary from Wikipedia's article.
Also from that article "One technology proposed to help deal with fragments from 1 to 10 cm (1⁄2 to 4 in) in size is the laser broom, a proposed multimegawatt land-based laser that could deorbit debris: the side of the debris hit by the laser would ablate and create a thrust that would change the eccentricity of the remains of the fragment until it would re-enter and be destroyed harmlessly.[32]"
A thought likely independently re-invented by anyone (myself included) who's seen science fiction where solar sail mirrors are used as parabolic solar reflectors often used by super villains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
""" The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading, or ablation cascade), proposed by NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) due to space pollution is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade in which each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions.[3] In 2009 Kessler wrote that modeling results had concluded that the debris environment was already unstable, "such that any attempt to achieve a growth-free small debris environment by eliminating sources of past debris will likely fail because fragments from future collisions will be generated faster than atmospheric drag will remove them".[4] One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges difficult for many generations.[3] """ -- Summary from Wikipedia's article.
Also from that article "One technology proposed to help deal with fragments from 1 to 10 cm (1⁄2 to 4 in) in size is the laser broom, a proposed multimegawatt land-based laser that could deorbit debris: the side of the debris hit by the laser would ablate and create a thrust that would change the eccentricity of the remains of the fragment until it would re-enter and be destroyed harmlessly.[32]"
A thought likely independently re-invented by anyone (myself included) who's seen science fiction where solar sail mirrors are used as parabolic solar reflectors often used by super villains.
Would add that Kessler Syndrome is a hypothesis that considers “specific orbital ranges” becoming inaccessible for hundreds of years.
>There’s also an interesting kurzgesagt video that says that if we reach some threshold we’ll never be able to launch anything in space anymore.
That's called Kessler Syndrome, but it's not as bad as you portray. It doesn't mean we'll never be able to launch anything any more; it just means we won't be able to launch anything for a few centuries or so. All orbital debris will eventually fall into the atmosphere and burn up, so we just have to wait.
That's called Kessler Syndrome, but it's not as bad as you portray. It doesn't mean we'll never be able to launch anything any more; it just means we won't be able to launch anything for a few centuries or so. All orbital debris will eventually fall into the atmosphere and burn up, so we just have to wait.
Definitely the first thing I thought of when I saw the title
Anyone remember the Hanna Barbera cartoon where Yogi and the gang are trying to find the "perfect place" free of pollution? They eventually end up in space, thinking this must be it, only to see it becoming more cluttered and full of junk. They finally decide to go back home and clean it up, because they won't find the perfect place, they have to make it.
Essentially the same plot line as Dr. Seuss' "I Had Trouble In Getting To Solla Sollew".
This seems like a good idea with a reasonable prioritization. It probably shouldn't be news, just a line item. But, a good one.
Debris removal is related to antisatellite weaponry.
However people get twitchy when you call it like this, nevertheless DARPA will probably happily found your Startup.
Lasers are a good avenue of approach, tracking and targeting can be provided by government agencies.
DLR has/had a project for this.
https://www.dlr.de/tp/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10062/171...
However people get twitchy when you call it like this, nevertheless DARPA will probably happily found your Startup.
Lasers are a good avenue of approach, tracking and targeting can be provided by government agencies.
DLR has/had a project for this.
https://www.dlr.de/tp/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10062/171...
Would anyone working in this space mind sharing their thoughts on the most promising methods for removing the small space debris? I work with radar and the debris problem is increasingly a large part of that work. I've heard various solutions suggested like physically impacting each piece, disintegrating them with lasers, creating pockets of atmosphere to slow them down, but nobody sounds convinced that any of these are good practical solutions.
How much is removing 1kg from Low-Earth Orbit worth?
Launch cost is ~$3,000 to $5,000 per kg
What's the value of pulling it back down and what drives this value?
Launch cost is ~$3,000 to $5,000 per kg
What's the value of pulling it back down and what drives this value?
You can't reasonably measure this by the kg. Pulling down a single 10000 kg satellite is fairly cheap; all you need to do is latch onto it and deorbit. This can be done with a single vehicle. Deorbiting 10k 1 kg fragments would be vastly more expensive. 1 million 10 gram fragments would be more expensive still.
There are techniques with which deorbiting 1 million 10 gram fragments might end up being quite cheap. E.g. the use of a single laser-equipped base that selectively hits the debris to cause localized evaporation and thrust, disrupting their trajectory.
If a tiny bit of undirected evaporation is enough to push the fragment to deorbit, it's already so low that it would have deorbited on its own very soon anyway.
In that case evaporating it completely would be a better option, as a gas it's harmless
In that case evaporating it completely would be a better option, as a gas it's harmless
You overestimate the ease of evaporating something and umderestimate the effectiveness of a little bit of thrust.
>You can't reasonably measure this by the kg. Pulling down a single 10000 kg satellite is fairly cheap
On the contrary, this seems reasonable. It (correctly) identifies that deorbiting intact satellites before they fragment is overwhelmingly the cost-optimal strategy.
In the long-run, it's really total mass in a given orbit that's the dominant variable which separates runaway Kessler syndrome from stability. Therefore, a per-kilogram "bounty" (with a sliding scale depending on orbit) wouldn't be a bad incentive model.
Don't pick winners, let the market decide™.
On the contrary, this seems reasonable. It (correctly) identifies that deorbiting intact satellites before they fragment is overwhelmingly the cost-optimal strategy.
In the long-run, it's really total mass in a given orbit that's the dominant variable which separates runaway Kessler syndrome from stability. Therefore, a per-kilogram "bounty" (with a sliding scale depending on orbit) wouldn't be a bad incentive model.
Don't pick winners, let the market decide™.
I've heard about space drives which leverage a tether and an electrical wire which allows you to trade electricity for momentum by reacting against Earth's magnetic field. I wonder if a space tug could use this effect and maneuver indefinitely. Grab a dead satellite, spin up to speed using magneto drive, let go and simultaneously yeet the junk retrograde and boost its own orbit.
[deleted]
There's two fold for missions like this
1) Debris is dangerous to orbiting objects. So the value of bringing it down is more valuable than the per kilogram value. It is highly dependent upon potential damage it can do. Space debris is already causing damage to satellites and the ISS. As we place more objects in space this danger increase super-linearly.
2) If you can decommission debris you can decommission satellites. This has obvious military applications. In fact to properly do this you actually have to get pretty close to other satellites without colliding. By solving the debris problem you're solving a lot of the same problems you need for these military applications.
So both incentives are valued far greater than the per-mass value of the trash.
1) Debris is dangerous to orbiting objects. So the value of bringing it down is more valuable than the per kilogram value. It is highly dependent upon potential damage it can do. Space debris is already causing damage to satellites and the ISS. As we place more objects in space this danger increase super-linearly.
2) If you can decommission debris you can decommission satellites. This has obvious military applications. In fact to properly do this you actually have to get pretty close to other satellites without colliding. By solving the debris problem you're solving a lot of the same problems you need for these military applications.
So both incentives are valued far greater than the per-mass value of the trash.
> "If you can decommission debris you can decommission satellites. This has obvious military applications. In fact to properly do this you actually have to get pretty close to other satellites without colliding. By solving the debris problem you're solving a lot of the same problems you need for these military applications."
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Having a collector satellite match orbit with the debris and grab is one way to get rid of it, but I suspect in most cases it's good enough to just position a satellite with, say, a big steel plate in a path that intersects the debris' path and deflect it at the right angle so it returns to Earth. (If you're really clever you might use the impacts to deflect the interceptor satellite into roughly the right orbit to intercept the next piece of debris.)
There might also be ways to "catch" debris with moderately high relative velocity with the collector satellite. I imagine there's limits to the size of thing you can capture that way and the maximum relative velocity if you want to be pretty sure you can catch it without creating more debris.
Maybe the least sophisticated way to deorbit debris would be to just have an object with relatively low mass but very high surface area (e.g. an artificial "asteroid" made of aerogel) in an orbit that gives it the greatest probability of hitting any average piece of space junk, and then you wait for things to hit it by chance. The things that hit it lose momentum and hopefully fall back to Earth.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Having a collector satellite match orbit with the debris and grab is one way to get rid of it, but I suspect in most cases it's good enough to just position a satellite with, say, a big steel plate in a path that intersects the debris' path and deflect it at the right angle so it returns to Earth. (If you're really clever you might use the impacts to deflect the interceptor satellite into roughly the right orbit to intercept the next piece of debris.)
There might also be ways to "catch" debris with moderately high relative velocity with the collector satellite. I imagine there's limits to the size of thing you can capture that way and the maximum relative velocity if you want to be pretty sure you can catch it without creating more debris.
Maybe the least sophisticated way to deorbit debris would be to just have an object with relatively low mass but very high surface area (e.g. an artificial "asteroid" made of aerogel) in an orbit that gives it the greatest probability of hitting any average piece of space junk, and then you wait for things to hit it by chance. The things that hit it lose momentum and hopefully fall back to Earth.
It's the cheap price of a cover story for capabilities with military applications.
The value will be based on the value of the reduced risk of damage/loss from orbital debris and reduced cost from orbital adjustments to avoid debris (which uses fuel or mass which reduces the lifespan of the satellite). Once we end up with 100k or more LEO satellites it'll be very valuable to reduce the amount of debris at those altitudes.
Many countries can launch satellites - the debris could be from anyone. We should all clean it up together. The USA is the richest and can afford to do it, but it would be more appropriate for this type of thing to be a joint mission.
How about space companies pay the f@cking cost of their externalities?
An estimate is made for the total cost of clearing significant space junk.
Space companies pay a fee per launch. Amount gets pooled.
Pool pays for it estimated total cost.
But no .... no one wants to pay for their sh!t ... just like here on Earth.
An estimate is made for the total cost of clearing significant space junk.
Space companies pay a fee per launch. Amount gets pooled.
Pool pays for it estimated total cost.
But no .... no one wants to pay for their sh!t ... just like here on Earth.
Debris can be caused by defunct companies that put sats up when this all wasn't a concern.
Also, deorbiting a sat at end of life is one thing, but deorbiting debris from an accidental collision (or an intentional one, just not intended by the sat's owner!) is a completely different thing. Companies do plan for end of life sat deorbiting, but it's hard to ask them to plan for unintentional collision debris deorbiting.
Paying for debris cleanup could be a thing that new sat deployment could be required to have covered, but without first knowing the cost of debris cleanup, it's hard to charge enough. Debris cleanup has never been done, so we don't know the cost of it! Also, if the government were the escrow agent, you know the money would just be spent, so the escrow would have to be a private entity.
Lastly, a lot of debris in orbit is due to anti-sat missile testing by nation states, so you're really asking them to clean up their debris.
But ranting is more fun?
Also, deorbiting a sat at end of life is one thing, but deorbiting debris from an accidental collision (or an intentional one, just not intended by the sat's owner!) is a completely different thing. Companies do plan for end of life sat deorbiting, but it's hard to ask them to plan for unintentional collision debris deorbiting.
Paying for debris cleanup could be a thing that new sat deployment could be required to have covered, but without first knowing the cost of debris cleanup, it's hard to charge enough. Debris cleanup has never been done, so we don't know the cost of it! Also, if the government were the escrow agent, you know the money would just be spent, so the escrow would have to be a private entity.
Lastly, a lot of debris in orbit is due to anti-sat missile testing by nation states, so you're really asking them to clean up their debris.
But ranting is more fun?
> Debris can be caused by defunct companies that put sats up when this all wasn't a concern.
I think the point is that it was always a concern. It's never not been a problem to leave your trash for someone else to clean up. A person standing in a pristine forest is still wrong to throw their trash on the ground and walk away even though it doesn't immediately turn the forest into a toxic cleanup site, and it would be hard for the litterbug to guess at the costs of paying someone to go into the forest to clean up that mess in the future.
It was never acceptable for companies to throw their junk into orbit without having a plan in place to remove it, they just did it anyway because no one was willing to force them to be responsible.
Now we've reached a point where it's time to start forcing people to be responsible for their trash, but that doesn't mean the people who have been littering and brought us to this point were not wrong to do it or that it wasn't wrong for our world's governments to allow it to happen. It was wrong. We knew better, people have been warning us about the possible dangers since at least the 80s and NORAD has been keeping track of space junk since the 1950s!
I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that, once again, we failed to hold governments and corporations accountable for trashing the environment and now it's predictably come back to bite us collectively in the ass, yet there's not been much talk about making those directly responsible for the mess pay for what they've done and companies today are continuing to act as they always have done.
I think the point is that it was always a concern. It's never not been a problem to leave your trash for someone else to clean up. A person standing in a pristine forest is still wrong to throw their trash on the ground and walk away even though it doesn't immediately turn the forest into a toxic cleanup site, and it would be hard for the litterbug to guess at the costs of paying someone to go into the forest to clean up that mess in the future.
It was never acceptable for companies to throw their junk into orbit without having a plan in place to remove it, they just did it anyway because no one was willing to force them to be responsible.
Now we've reached a point where it's time to start forcing people to be responsible for their trash, but that doesn't mean the people who have been littering and brought us to this point were not wrong to do it or that it wasn't wrong for our world's governments to allow it to happen. It was wrong. We knew better, people have been warning us about the possible dangers since at least the 80s and NORAD has been keeping track of space junk since the 1950s!
I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that, once again, we failed to hold governments and corporations accountable for trashing the environment and now it's predictably come back to bite us collectively in the ass, yet there's not been much talk about making those directly responsible for the mess pay for what they've done and companies today are continuing to act as they always have done.
While it was always a concern, it was not a practical concern.
It would not be reasonable to require an 1970s satellite launch to be able to clear out the debris if the satellite exploded after a collision, because that's something we aren't able to do even now, 50 years later (note that the proposal is for 'thinning out', not clearing it). So obviously it was acceptable for companies to throw their junk without having a plan in to place to remove the debris after an accident - they are required to have a plan to deorbit after a normal operation, since that is actually a reasonably practical requirement.
Stating that this is unacceptable would mean that essentially no satellite launches would happen, and so the society chose to explicitly accept launches without a responsibility for clearing out the debris.
It would not be reasonable to require an 1970s satellite launch to be able to clear out the debris if the satellite exploded after a collision, because that's something we aren't able to do even now, 50 years later (note that the proposal is for 'thinning out', not clearing it). So obviously it was acceptable for companies to throw their junk without having a plan in to place to remove the debris after an accident - they are required to have a plan to deorbit after a normal operation, since that is actually a reasonably practical requirement.
Stating that this is unacceptable would mean that essentially no satellite launches would happen, and so the society chose to explicitly accept launches without a responsibility for clearing out the debris.
For the most part they already do what you suggest.
Companies are required to have plans for save disposal. The problem is currently if you have a total failure, you are not required to pay for removal. This could be added as a law and then it would just be part of the insurance package.
Also, most actual space junk in LEO are government sats or parts of rockets that launched government sats.
Commercial stuff is mostly in GEO and there you also have a disposal problem but its quite a different problem then LEO.
> Space companies pay a fee per launch. Amount gets pooled.
This seems to be a very bad approach. Amount of launch does not have much to do with how much debris exists.
Companies are required to have plans for save disposal. The problem is currently if you have a total failure, you are not required to pay for removal. This could be added as a law and then it would just be part of the insurance package.
Also, most actual space junk in LEO are government sats or parts of rockets that launched government sats.
Commercial stuff is mostly in GEO and there you also have a disposal problem but its quite a different problem then LEO.
> Space companies pay a fee per launch. Amount gets pooled.
This seems to be a very bad approach. Amount of launch does not have much to do with how much debris exists.
Think of it as the equivalent of insurance. Extrapolate.
I'm just saying. Sure, current launches are not responsible, but pay to play, man. And I don't mean make launching unprofitable, but play your part.
Commercialize the clean up. I don't know, NASA drafts a contract that soace players bid for, funded by launches. I dont know, but just do it.
I'm just saying. Sure, current launches are not responsible, but pay to play, man. And I don't mean make launching unprofitable, but play your part.
Commercialize the clean up. I don't know, NASA drafts a contract that soace players bid for, funded by launches. I dont know, but just do it.
>An estimate is made for the total cost of clearing significant space junk.
The same bullshit as carbon credits: we make up a number, make companies pay it, and feel good about ourselves.
The same bullshit as carbon credits: we make up a number, make companies pay it, and feel good about ourselves.
Actually, no. I assume major debris is tracked.
So, we can verifiably determine whether the money has done its job or not.
Or shall we do nothing?
So, we can verifiably determine whether the money has done its job or not.
Or shall we do nothing?
Rather than debris removal there needs to be focus on just not producing more. Put limits on how long a satellite can be in orbit after end of life. The market will figure itself out after that happens.
This is already done, although without significant penalties (and maybe impossible to add them as there is no global government to enforce them). Nonetheless basically all satellites plan to be in a low temporary orbit in the first place, or have plans/margins to either move into a higher parking orbit or deorbit. But things can fail, preventing these actions.
Does this incentivise other countries not to remove debris?
Planetes is coming one day closer to becoming reality, I am all for this
And ofc having a cleaner leo is also a good thing on itself ofc
And ofc having a cleaner leo is also a good thing on itself ofc
Where can I go watch Planetes?
[deleted]
How about focus on hyper inflation that's hurting everyone rather than what's in space....
space roombas! (with space lasers!)
Can junk just be kinetically shoved into a low failing orbit at low expense/effort/energy like a cue ball in pool?
Can junk just be kinetically shoved into a low failing orbit at low expense/effort/energy like a cue ball in pool?
Why don't they introduce a bill to stop deficit spending during inflation and make private companies bear the costs associated with space commercialization?
Aspiring asteroid miners should start with space junk in orbit.
We talk about all this junk polluting orbit, but I can’t imagine it is dense enough to to efficiently fish for and return to earth.
Yup.
If it were sufficiently dense to fish, it'd be worth more to collect and keep it in orbit — that junk has a lot of high-grade materials and a lot of already-imparted momentum. Just[] move it all into a few large objects that can be managed as large craft, and the debris problem is solved, and there's a mineable resource already in orbit.
[] "Just" is doing some escape-velocity-class lifting there — all that junk is in such massively different orbital planes and altitudes that silly amounts of ΔV are needed to fetch each one and then to pull it back to dock with the new orbital junkheap.
If it were sufficiently dense to fish, it'd be worth more to collect and keep it in orbit — that junk has a lot of high-grade materials and a lot of already-imparted momentum. Just[] move it all into a few large objects that can be managed as large craft, and the debris problem is solved, and there's a mineable resource already in orbit.
[] "Just" is doing some escape-velocity-class lifting there — all that junk is in such massively different orbital planes and altitudes that silly amounts of ΔV are needed to fetch each one and then to pull it back to dock with the new orbital junkheap.
Space junk in orbit is much more accessible than the nearest asteroid.
Its also far easier to recycle and salvage than refining raw ore.
Its also far easier to recycle and salvage than refining raw ore.
Both true - that's what makes it seem feasible.
I suppose the real comparison is [cost of refining material in orbit] - [cost of collecting on orbit (which must be done anyway)] vs [cost of refining it on the surface + launching it into orbit].
I suppose the real comparison is [cost of refining material in orbit] - [cost of collecting on orbit (which must be done anyway)] vs [cost of refining it on the surface + launching it into orbit].
Does the US government have any authority on this? I thought there were a dozen countries launching satellites now.
What authority do you think this bill is claiming that would be impacted by other countries launching? You can read it here: https://www.hickenlooper.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/...
It's establishing (assuming it gets passed and signed) the work for a demonstration program on active debris removal from orbit. It's not imposing the US government's will on anyone else.
It's establishing (assuming it gets passed and signed) the work for a demonstration program on active debris removal from orbit. It's not imposing the US government's will on anyone else.
landemva(3)
Space is "international waters". Any country has the right to remove dangerous debris from the ocean or from space.
One mans space treasure is another mans space junk.
Say China decides to flood a particular orbit path that a US company was planning on using and went through all the approvals for.
Is the China stuff now "dangerous debris"?
Say China decides to flood a particular orbit path that a US company was planning on using and went through all the approvals for.
Is the China stuff now "dangerous debris"?
It works the same way in space as it does in the ocean. You can mess with other people's stuff under the pretext of doing something legitimate, and you might get away with it or you might provoke a conflict.
It depends on who you are, who you're messing with, who your friends and their friends are, whether they stand to lose face or can pretend they didn't notice it, etc. The US once tried to steal the wreck of an entire Soviet nuclear-armed submarine off the bottom of the ocean (and mostly failed.) The Soviet response was a request to stop talking about it, because it wasn't worth a war and Soviet leadership didn't want to explain the incident to their own public.
It depends on who you are, who you're messing with, who your friends and their friends are, whether they stand to lose face or can pretend they didn't notice it, etc. The US once tried to steal the wreck of an entire Soviet nuclear-armed submarine off the bottom of the ocean (and mostly failed.) The Soviet response was a request to stop talking about it, because it wasn't worth a war and Soviet leadership didn't want to explain the incident to their own public.
Which is my point. This isn't just about "removing junk". This is about space capability vs others in space.
Depends. If they're building satellites that grapple dead satellites, that can certainly be used to attack active satellites too. But laser brooms wouldn't be effective against anything larger than a few centimeters. A space broom might be a cover for a more powerful directed energy weapon, but not necessarily so.
Anyway, China is already toying around with the first sort, and they didn't ask anybody for permission. Their 'authority' to do it is being a sovereign nation.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/sj-21.htm
Anyway, China is already toying around with the first sort, and they didn't ask anybody for permission. Their 'authority' to do it is being a sovereign nation.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/sj-21.htm
They also have the right to create the space junk in the first place. What are they going to do, revoke your space launch permit?
This is specifically funding for R&D.
Having the world’s most powerful military gives them de facto authority. :)
The cost to "collect" space junk is astronomical. The issue is relative velocities of their orbits combined with the fact that even LEO has a lot of separation between objects.
It's very similar to the issue of extracting CO2 from the air - once it's in the air, you first have to add the energy of entropy to un-diffuse it and then you need collect it. That entropic energy is ENORMOUS. And you can easily generate more CO2 to create the energy to overcome it than you are extracting because most energy generation is still fossil-fuel sourced.
There's a very similar entropy problem with space junk. The energy requires is far higher.
It's very similar to the issue of extracting CO2 from the air - once it's in the air, you first have to add the energy of entropy to un-diffuse it and then you need collect it. That entropic energy is ENORMOUS. And you can easily generate more CO2 to create the energy to overcome it than you are extracting because most energy generation is still fossil-fuel sourced.
There's a very similar entropy problem with space junk. The energy requires is far higher.
One reason to rush the colonization of the Moon and Mars is that if/once Earth gets Kessler-ed, they will be the only places that can keep exploring and exploiting space.
For those who don't know what "Kessler-ed" means, from Wikipedia:
The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading, or ablation cascade), proposed by NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) due to space pollution is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade in which each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions.[3] In 2009 Kessler wrote that modeling results had concluded that the debris environment was already unstable, "such that any attempt to achieve a growth-free small debris environment by eliminating sources of past debris will likely fail because fragments from future collisions will be generated faster than atmospheric drag will remove them".[4] One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges difficult for many generations.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading, or ablation cascade), proposed by NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) due to space pollution is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade in which each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions.[3] In 2009 Kessler wrote that modeling results had concluded that the debris environment was already unstable, "such that any attempt to achieve a growth-free small debris environment by eliminating sources of past debris will likely fail because fragments from future collisions will be generated faster than atmospheric drag will remove them".[4] One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges difficult for many generations.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
So:
Study the issue, publish debris catalog, fund pilot programs to deorbit debris, encourage agencies and other countries to develop standards about debris...
Everything except "generate less debris".
Study the issue, publish debris catalog, fund pilot programs to deorbit debris, encourage agencies and other countries to develop standards about debris...
Everything except "generate less debris".
2 ways to reduce orbital debris: get rid of stuff that's already there, and generate less. This law seems to me like it would tackle both.
More stringent deorbiting standards and better methods for satellites to commit sudoku will reduce the amount of satellites that become debris.
But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of debris in orbit today comes from 2 sources: the Chinese ASAT test and leaky Soviet nuclear reactors. The proposed ASAT test ban helps that from being an issue, but you still need a way to clean up the existing debris (other than waiting decades or centuries)
More stringent deorbiting standards and better methods for satellites to commit sudoku will reduce the amount of satellites that become debris.
But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of debris in orbit today comes from 2 sources: the Chinese ASAT test and leaky Soviet nuclear reactors. The proposed ASAT test ban helps that from being an issue, but you still need a way to clean up the existing debris (other than waiting decades or centuries)
There is a 3rd method already being implemented,[1] though it is enhanced by your second method. If no more satellites were put in orbit, eventually there would be no satellites (or space junk) in orbit.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
Unfortunately I don't think it's practical to wait thousands-millions of years for everything to decay
How about 150 years? Because due to orbital decay, that is about how long it would take for everything to fall out of orbit. If there is a Kessler Syndrome, depending on its effect at higher orbits, it might take a few hundred more years, but definitely definitely not billions of years.
How on earth would a leaky Soviet reactor create orbital debris?
Commenter is probably referring to this incident[1] where a sodium-cooled nuclear reactor on a Soviet satellite ended up spraying a bunch of small beads of sodium into Earth orbit. The number and density of the beads makes them a long-lived hazard.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
There's a few dozen nuclear powered RORSATS. When their start leaking (due to micrometeorite strikes or just wear & tear), they leak out globs of coolant that coagulate together. Each satellite has a few hundred points of coolant, which can make a LOT of 1cm across globs (or larger globs, or droplets that are too small to detect). I don't have a paper handy, but IIRC these droplets were the #1 source of space junk up until the 2007 antisatellite weapon test
e: Paper here, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.27...
e: Paper here, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.27...
Thanks, I’ll read it.
> Other Washington companies like SpaceX, Amazon’s Kuiper Systems, and Stoke Space Technologies are also looking for new ways to reduce debris from accumulating in space in the first place or have been threatened by debris.
Good news! Concurrent efforts can work concurrently! Reducing future debris is already an area of active work.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32793236 <- Posted two days ago.
Good news! Concurrent efforts can work concurrently! Reducing future debris is already an area of active work.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32793236 <- Posted two days ago.
There have been moves to get nations to sign on to a ban on antisatellite weapons. The largest recent contributions to space debris have been tests of antisatellite weapon systems. So that is at least being attempted, but it is a separate track based mostly on foreign relations.
> encourage agencies and other countries to develop standards about debris...
> Everything except "generate less debris".
What else would the standards be about?
> Everything except "generate less debris".
What else would the standards be about?
If you've looked at our environmental efforts over the last 50 years. The trends should be pretty obvious :-)
The scam that is recycling exists as an industry mostly to allay the fear of the populace, not address the issue. It's a nice side benefit that sometimes companies can save on costs for certain products.
[deleted]
This recent article actually discusses reducing debris more quickly. [1] Are you suggesting fewer launches?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32793236
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32793236
How about all the drug debris in SF. Why not take care of matters closer to home?
Why solve this problem when there are other unrelated problems I care about?
Yes. OTOH, I've seen New York Times editorials warning that the Democrats will likely lose control of Congress in a few months, because they've been too busy with their ideological d*ck-measuring contests, pie-in-the-sky projects, etc. to pay much attention to the "bread and butter" problems causing daily misery for millions of their potential voters. And a whole lotta those folks are likely to return the "ignore your needs" favor on election day.
Government problem-solving rule #1: Any 5-year-old can recite "my government will solve..." slogans. Actually doing stuff requires that you actually control the government.
Government problem-solving rule #1: Any 5-year-old can recite "my government will solve..." slogans. Actually doing stuff requires that you actually control the government.
Flight volume is an easily solved problem with the near future market, and that cost is the main reason junk isn't deorbited already.