India's Satellite Destruction: Kessler Syndrome Anyone?
- Thread starter DAllen
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
At this stage do we not have the capability to launch a "satellite catcher" that could catch up to an offending satellite, capture it then de-orbit it by decelerating it's velocity? Also I thought there was an international agreement in place that stipulates how to deal with the stewardship of space junk.
Stewardship is expensive. It kind of like all the garbage alongside the road. It is more expensive to pick it up than just let it rot in place. Unfortunately, the garbage rarely causes a problem along the road unless you hit it with your care. Same might be true with space garabage.
Somewhat reminiscent of the movie 'Gravity'. The movie had some issues with science and physics, but the plot line follows this occurrence to an extent that makes one uneasy.
Jim
Jim
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,411
- Reaction score
- 7,956
I should think that if you could hit the satellite, you could also deploy a space equivalent of the bird net with four balls in the corners. With not very much effort, you could probably use one of those to trash the solar panels on a satellite. It wouldn't be an instant death for the satellite, but it would be pretty quick. Unfortunately, "fly go boom" is probably easier and seems cooler.
Maybe they need to get another laser broom up into orbit?
No. We have the capability to create that capability. Developing that capability would be expensive, each mission would be expensive, and all with zero commercial payoff. So it would all have to be taxpayer paid. And that means it would require political will. "We gots ta stop the gubment from wastin' our money on more space toys!"
Or some other sort of capture technique, sure.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Simple is not the same thing as easy.
Like the Titanic had "some issues" with iceburgs.
Like Kirk had "some issues" with Kahn.
Like the Estes Little Joe has "some issues" with adhesives.
For the sake of our species we would all benefit if all space nations participated in an agreement dealing with how to de-orbit, decommission, etc. what eventually becomes space junk.
At this stage, I believe that whomever puts something up there needs to be responsible for bringing it down. This reminds me of the early days of the industrial age where companies openly dumped things into the environment and the governments did nothing or very little. I realize this still happens around the world regardless of the laws of the country but arguably some progress has been made towards mitigating this practice, space junk should be no different.
The problem is that to actively remove something from orbit (as opposed to waiting for it to deteriorate and fall due to drag) you have to expend nearly as much energy to slow it down as it took to get it up there. Simply wrapping a net around it won't be enough to remove the problem, you have to launch a rocket up to it and then do a retro burn, bringing it and the rocket back down. Very expensive for no immediate benefit to whoever pays for it.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,411
- Reaction score
- 7,956
I was thinking that the solution with the net destroying the solar array disables the satellite as soon as the satellite's batteries run out. That process will also likely throw it out of whatever alignment it had, so it becomes a very large piece of space junk that is in the same orbit as it was (and likely slowly decaying), not much different than if it was a satellite that just died on its own. Granted, it's not ideal to have large space junk floating about, but it seems better than dozens of pieces of small space junk moving fast and unpredictably.
I'm also not 100% sure I agree with your math on the amount of fuel needed for a retro burn. Wouldn't you just need to slow it down enough that it touches the top of the atmosphere every so often? Eventually, air drag does most of the work of de-orbiting. I don't know enough orbital mechanics to figure out how much delta-V you would need to apply to get it into an eccentric orbit that would lead to rapid slowing, though.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,354
- Reaction score
- 5,565
Being a military mission, I'm pretty sure that doing it cleanly was not their primary objective. Yes, it's VERY expensive to decommission something in space... cleanly or otherwise. I don't foresee somebody trying to make a commercial enterprise out of this, although I could see a movie plot with somebody with an orbiting barge that goes and collects old satellites for recycling... kind of a cross between Han Solo and Wall-e.
BA_Incognito
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 71
Not a movie, but TV series "Salvage 1". From IMDB "Harry runs a salvage operation, in which he and his partners reclaim trash and junk and sell it as scrap (or as other things). Harry also has a home-made spaceship which he sometimes uses to reclaim junk satellites." (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/). Starred Andy Griffith, Joel Higgins, Trish Stewart.
BA_Incognito
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 71
Oh, one more thing. Estes was looking at making a model of it!
https://web.archive.org/web/2009012...om/capecanaveral/launchpad/9782/salestes.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2009012...om/capecanaveral/launchpad/9782/salestes.html
DAllen
Well-Known Member
Not a movie, but TV series "Salvage 1". From IMDB "Harry runs a salvage operation, in which he and his partners reclaim trash and junk and sell it as scrap (or as other things). Harry also has a home-made spaceship which he sometimes uses to reclaim junk satellites." (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/). Starred Andy Griffith, Joel Higgins, Trish Stewart.
That is one of the most Kerbal things I have ever seen outside of Kerbal.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 3,958
- Reaction score
- 2,720
Not a movie, but TV series "Salvage 1". From IMDB "Harry runs a salvage operation, in which he and his partners reclaim trash and junk and sell it as scrap (or as other things). Harry also has a home-made spaceship which he sometimes uses to reclaim junk satellites." (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/). Starred Andy Griffith, Joel Higgins, Trish Stewart.
I absolutely LOVED this show!
Full episodes are on Youtube, not the greatest quality but watchable.
My Freshman microeconomics professor said that this is a classic example used in economic theory:
When trade ships crash into offshore rocks it costs the owners and merchants a lot of money. Lighthouses could greatly alleviate this problem, but a lighthouse is expensive to build, staff, and maintain. It's in no individual's or small consortium's interest to make that investment, but it would be in societies interest. It's called a "common good"; yes, that term comes from a specific economic meaning. The solution is that the government steps in and spends public money to build, staff, and maintain them. Things like a military, emergency responders, roads, etc. all work by this same model.
Safe decommissioning of derelict satellites and clearing of smaller space junk of dangerous size would have to be the same. Call it a "lighthouse problem". But the cost is higher and the threat less visible. Spending public funds on a common good requires the political consent of the public, and I very much doubt that exists outside of TRF and a few other rarefied environments.
In summary, yeah it should happen, and no it won't any time in the foreseeable future.
(I could go on a bit about the technical issues, differences in the challenges for LOE, MEO, and GEO satellites, but I won't belabor the point, since I'm pretty sure the political will doesn't exist to anything about any of them.)
When trade ships crash into offshore rocks it costs the owners and merchants a lot of money. Lighthouses could greatly alleviate this problem, but a lighthouse is expensive to build, staff, and maintain. It's in no individual's or small consortium's interest to make that investment, but it would be in societies interest. It's called a "common good"; yes, that term comes from a specific economic meaning. The solution is that the government steps in and spends public money to build, staff, and maintain them. Things like a military, emergency responders, roads, etc. all work by this same model.
Safe decommissioning of derelict satellites and clearing of smaller space junk of dangerous size would have to be the same. Call it a "lighthouse problem". But the cost is higher and the threat less visible. Spending public funds on a common good requires the political consent of the public, and I very much doubt that exists outside of TRF and a few other rarefied environments.
In summary, yeah it should happen, and no it won't any time in the foreseeable future.
(I could go on a bit about the technical issues, differences in the challenges for LOE, MEO, and GEO satellites, but I won't belabor the point, since I'm pretty sure the political will doesn't exist to anything about any of them.)
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,354
- Reaction score
- 5,565
No way this is going to happen until some piece of space junk takes out something major, like the ISS or some GPS satellites. Even if it took out Hubble then it probably wouldn't happen... there would be a lot of screaming and whining but ultimately commercial and military interests are going to take precedence over science. Sadly...
The general public would barely notice a couple of GPS satellites disappearing, since their navigators would still work. If junk took out the whole ISS (which is unlikely) or made a hole that killed one or more astronauts (less unlikely) then the public would send thoughts and prayers to the families, call them heroes, and promptly forget the whole thing.
Take out a DBS satellite, that they'll notice. The junk density is a lot lower in GEO, I'm pretty sure, so it'll be a long time before that happens.
Take out a DBS satellite, that they'll notice. The junk density is a lot lower in GEO, I'm pretty sure, so it'll be a long time before that happens.
Unfortunately it will take some catastrophic event to get the world's attention and political will to take action. At that stage the cost in dollars and life may far exceed a proactive approach.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 3,958
- Reaction score
- 2,720
As long as the Kardashians are on television or live stream, until/unless people start getting killed en mass by falling pieces of old satellites, no one cares....sadly.
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,749
India ASAT test debris poses danger to International Space Station, NASA says
Impact of weapon on satellite threw some debris into orbits that could strike space station.
4/2/2019
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ger-to-international-space-station-nasa-says/
Of the 400 pieces of debris that had been identified by NASA, Bridenstine said, 60 were large enough to be tracked by the US Air Force’s Space Surveillance Network and US Strategic Command’s Combined Space Operations Center. ”Of those 60, we know that 24 of them are going above the apogee of the International Space Station,” he continued. Calculations by NASA and DOD after the test found that the risk of debris striking the space station went up by 44 percent over a ten-day period following the test, Bridenstine told NASA employees.
“That is a terrible, terrible thing, to create an event that sends debris in an apogee that goes above the International Space Station,” Bridenstine declared. “And that kind of activity is not compatible with the future of human spaceflight that we need to see happen. We are charged with commercializing low Earth orbit. We are charged with enabling more activities in space than we’ve ever seen before, for the purpose of benefiting the human condition… all of those are placed at risk when these kinds of events happen. And if one country does this, then other countries feel they have to do it, too. It’s unacceptable, and NASA needs to be very clear about what its impact to us is."
Bridenstine placed the actual risk of a collision much lower, saying that the ISS’ crew was not at risk because the space station could be maneuvered if necessary. ”The probability of that, I think, is low,” he said. But the test was still irresponsible, he said—a much stronger rebuke than any delivered officially by the US to Indian officials.
Analytical Graphics has posted a video showing a simulated breakup of Microsat-R based on initial data from US Strategic Command. The model shows a tail of debris pushed into an orbit with a higher apogee, while other debris scatters at lower velocity in a lower, more quickly decaying orbit. Most of the debris field should re-enter the atmosphere within a month, but some may remain a hazard for years to come. A similar ASAT test by China in 2007 created a debris field of more than 3,000 objects in low Earth orbit—some of which passed within six kilometers of the ISS in 2011. As of 2016, there were still nearly 3,000 trackable pieces of debris still in orbit—more than nine years after the test.
Impact of weapon on satellite threw some debris into orbits that could strike space station.
4/2/2019
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ger-to-international-space-station-nasa-says/
Of the 400 pieces of debris that had been identified by NASA, Bridenstine said, 60 were large enough to be tracked by the US Air Force’s Space Surveillance Network and US Strategic Command’s Combined Space Operations Center. ”Of those 60, we know that 24 of them are going above the apogee of the International Space Station,” he continued. Calculations by NASA and DOD after the test found that the risk of debris striking the space station went up by 44 percent over a ten-day period following the test, Bridenstine told NASA employees.
“That is a terrible, terrible thing, to create an event that sends debris in an apogee that goes above the International Space Station,” Bridenstine declared. “And that kind of activity is not compatible with the future of human spaceflight that we need to see happen. We are charged with commercializing low Earth orbit. We are charged with enabling more activities in space than we’ve ever seen before, for the purpose of benefiting the human condition… all of those are placed at risk when these kinds of events happen. And if one country does this, then other countries feel they have to do it, too. It’s unacceptable, and NASA needs to be very clear about what its impact to us is."
Bridenstine placed the actual risk of a collision much lower, saying that the ISS’ crew was not at risk because the space station could be maneuvered if necessary. ”The probability of that, I think, is low,” he said. But the test was still irresponsible, he said—a much stronger rebuke than any delivered officially by the US to Indian officials.
Analytical Graphics has posted a video showing a simulated breakup of Microsat-R based on initial data from US Strategic Command. The model shows a tail of debris pushed into an orbit with a higher apogee, while other debris scatters at lower velocity in a lower, more quickly decaying orbit. Most of the debris field should re-enter the atmosphere within a month, but some may remain a hazard for years to come. A similar ASAT test by China in 2007 created a debris field of more than 3,000 objects in low Earth orbit—some of which passed within six kilometers of the ISS in 2011. As of 2016, there were still nearly 3,000 trackable pieces of debris still in orbit—more than nine years after the test.
