We’ve Already Passed the Tipping Point for Orbital Debris

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/satellites/weve-already-passed-the-tipping-point-for-orbital-debris?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrumFullText+%28IEEE+Spectrum+Full+Text%29

by vectorbunny • 14 years ago

80 80 14 years ago

spectrum.ieee.org

shawndumas• 14 years ago

http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/09WOrbitalDebrisf1-134867493242...

indiecore• 14 years ago

This is a completely accurate and to scale representation of Earth orbit.

Tipzntrix2• 14 years ago

The 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.

pentar• 14 years ago

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.

panzagl2• 14 years ago

Space 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• 14 years ago

Well 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.

oinksoft2• 14 years ago

Thus continues the reddit-ization of this website. A shame. At least cite the man; "inside jokes" of this sort are tired.

seanalltogether2• 14 years ago

I imagine the average distance between these satellites is well over 100 km.

kiba• 14 years ago

There was a manga that specifically involves astronauts collecting space junks and that manga is Planetes.

johnpmayer• 14 years ago

I 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• 14 years ago

It'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• 14 years ago

Two live-action TV series from the 1970s about space garbage: "Salvage 1" (with Andy Griffith no less) and "Quark."

washedup2• 14 years ago

Any 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.

keeperofdakeys2• 14 years ago

I 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• 14 years ago

I 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.

washedup2• 14 years ago

Good point.. maybe there are "rings", or orbits with a high concentration of junk that justify the fuel?

berntb• 14 years ago

Google something like: laser remove orbital debris

I don't know how old this idea is, but I think I saw some discussion on sci.space.tech a long while ago. (Yes, my hair is getting gray.)

Edit: After reading a bit myself (http://spie.org/x84761.xml), the lasers are Earth based these days (IIRC, the laser was in a high orbit in sci.space.tech) because adaptive optics is "easy" now. It should be less risk of frying satellites with Earth viewing optics if the laser is in orbit, but that should just be a software problem.

ck22• 14 years ago

Between this and the great pacific garbage patch, I think the human legacy is going to be litter.

crag2• 14 years ago

Ever see the film Wall-E? Cause that's where we are headed.

AJ007• 14 years ago

I'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.

InclinedPlane4• 14 years ago

The 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-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.

ck22• 14 years ago

The plastic NEVER goes away and is always increasing, not decreasing

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10patch.html

curiouscats• 14 years ago

My 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-1999-20...

seanalltogether2• 14 years ago

Is 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?

ble2• 14 years ago

There 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

outworlder2• 14 years ago

The 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.

outworlder2• 14 years ago

There's some research on that (lasers), according to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom

DanBC• 14 years ago

Here's NASA's webpage for orbital debris.

(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.)

ChuckMcM4• 14 years ago

Awesomest link from that refereence: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNv16i1....

The current newsletter on debris. Excellent data in there.

hermannj3143• 14 years ago

Identify 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.

btilly4• 14 years ago

OK, 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_mis... before complaining that I'm unfairly singling out China.

InclinedPlane4• 14 years ago

http://blogs.nature.com/news/files/debris.JPG

roc• 14 years ago

Anyone who trades with them?

To make an honest attempt at addressing the problem, you'd need an international treaty. And -- not unlike Kyoto -- unless it included penalties up to and including automatic tariffs to collect those penalties, it would be pointless.

m_for_monkey2• 14 years ago

Still, you are unfairly singling out China. From the article you linked:

"It was the first known successful satellite intercept test since 1985, when the United States conducted a similar anti-satellite missile test"

"In February 2008 the US launched its own strike to destroy a malfunctioning US satellite, which demonstrated to the world that it also had the capability to strike in space"

crag2• 14 years ago

We and Russia and the UK and France and Japan and Israel and South Korea, and on and on. We ALL left junk in space.

So I guess we ALL pay? And pay who? A space=based clean up crew? I doubt we even have the technology to clean it up. Right now.

Variance• 14 years ago

It's interesting that you think that this is an issue of capitalism, when it has nothing to do with capitalism at all. The vast majority of space junk is the result of governmental programs like NASA and its peers [1].

[1]http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast...

SilasX• 14 years ago

In fairness, I don't imagine private space companies would be careful about their debris unless someone else made them.

hermannj3143• 14 years ago

You are right, but I'm not going to let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant!

I'm not sure what word I should have used, but my fundamental point was that as long as decision-makers, be they corporations, individuals, or government entities, are allowed to make decisions without considering the cost of the mess they make (because they don't have to pay for it), then we are burdening those who will have to clean up the mess and don't even have a voice in our Democratic process.

stretchwithme3• 14 years ago

You're correct. Its the absence of a system of property rights that caused this problem. Its the opposite of capitalism, as is the case with many things that get polluted.

Space is an example of the tragedy of the commons. No one owns space so the incentive is to exploit it now without regard to what happens in the long run.

I think property rights are the answer, but until they are applied to something new, it is non-obvious how to go about it. I have a few, not fully baked thoughts.

What if someone owned the satellite real estate in a particular region of space? They would have an interest in keeping it orderly to maximize revenue.

The owner could charge rent to anyone wanting to put up a satellite in that space. That party would also have to provide a way to remove it and would be charged for accidents that spread debris.

The owners of different regions would compete against each other so we could keep prices reasonable. And other uses of space, such as passage through those regions could be left out of the arrangement.

And if debris from one region impacts another, they owners could sue each other.

pragmatic• 14 years ago

Should we contact the Illuminati and make sure the "One World Government" charges a fee?

How would you force China, India and Russia and other pseudo capitalist countries to pay, let alone the United States, Europe etc?

If the UN enforced a fee of some sort, why wouldn't we just offshore space launches to a country that ignores the UN.

hermannj3143• 14 years ago

Of course, you are right. You can't force anyone to do anything.

And yet, remarkably, international cooperation on many issues still exists. Practicality come down to being diplomatic and being compromising.

You are right - it is difficult many groups of people (e.g. Dominionist Christians that think the rapture will happen in their lifetime) to even understand the need for policies of long-term sustainability.

eloisius• 14 years ago

It could potentially be a major business model to clean this junk up too. Satellite insurers will eventually asess the risk high enough that it will be profitable to pay someone to take care of it. Onward oppression of the working class!

gregsq• 14 years ago

I think you're right to criticise capitalism's approach to so called externalities. It's a convenience to not treat limited resources as depreciating assets, for the purposes of competitive advantage. And near space is a limited resource. As are oceans and accessible space and atmosphere and so on.

The normal solution is a market based allowance cap, An example from another resource area are carbon taxes that give pricing to carbon.

Pointing out that accounting rules don't correctly price scarcity is not really a criticism of capitalism per se.

Androsynth• 14 years ago

There is a decent discussion that could be had regarding how capitalism should deal with negative externalities. However your equating of 'Traditional Capitalism' with 20th century American Capitalism mars everything you said.

swang• 14 years ago

My 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• 14 years ago

DARPA is currently working on this now.

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.

rbellio2• 14 years ago

Tractor 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.

rbellio2• 14 years ago

Or 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• 14 years ago

I 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...

mikeash2• 14 years ago

Don'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.

awj2• 14 years ago

Also, 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.

rbanffy2• 14 years ago

> mid-air collisions do happen,

Airplanes are not evenly distributed. They follow well defined routes and flight levels.

ChuckMcM4• 14 years ago

I'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_mis...

btilly4• 14 years ago

The 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.

ChuckMcM4• 14 years ago

At 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_challeng...

iyulaev• 14 years ago

Aren't GPS satellites geostationary? And aren't geostationary orbits like 100 times further out than LEO?

ChuckMcM4• 14 years ago

No, more like 16,500 (about 10x LEO if you consider leo to be 100 - 200 per NASA's definition). View of debris from GEO which also includes the GPS orbits : http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/GEO1...

[1] Fun GIF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ConstellationGPS.gif

ArbitraryLimits• 14 years ago

I 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• 14 years ago

Don'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.

We’ve Already Passed the Tipping Point for Orbital Debris

Related Stories