The Politics of Space Debris in Earth Orbit

[Phi for All]

I just saw the movie Space Junk 3D at the IMAX theater in our museum of nature and science. It's a fascinating look at the problems we have with all the orbital debris from satellites and rocket boosters in the various Earth orbits.

 

It's not so much the sheer volume of zombie satellites that aren't functioning anymore, it's the fact that collisions in orbit happen too often, and every time it does, two satellites become thousands of smaller bits of debris whizzing around at an average of 17,000 mph. Each of those bits has the capability of producing exponentially more debris as these clouds of junk intertwine. The problem was given a name back in the late 70s by NASA, who named it the Kessler Syndrome after their scientist who proposed it. I was very fortunate to meet Don Kessler after the movie, where he was part of a panel discussion along with the director of the movie and some other scientists who are on the leading edge of trying to solve this mounting problem.

 

What I really want to discuss is the politics involved here. When satellites are sent into orbit, the country hosting the launch is responsible for whatever happens to that satellite, including any damages it may cause. Live satellites can of course be shifted out of the way of potential collisions (the ISS has to maneuver several times a day to avoid possible collisions with pieces bigger than what it was designed to withstand, which is only marble-sized and smaller debris), but the ones whose fuel has run out (zombies) are incapable of maneuvering. And once satellites have collided, it's almost impossible to monitor who the debris belongs to, at least for liability purposes. Every country wants to maintain ownership of everything they shoot into space, and you can see their point, but they don't want the responsibility of taking care of what damages their debris does to other country's satellites.

 

One solution that's been proposed is to treat space derelicts like sea derelicts. Once a craft has lost its ability to maneuver, it becomes potential debris and would no longer belong to those who put it there. Salvage (which is a bit beyond our present technology), or at least the right to deal with another country's property without reprimand, would be at least possible then. Some very creative ways to slow debris down so its orbit decays and it burns up on re-entry are being developed, but the problem right now is political. Imagine someone leaving a car stranded in the middle of the highway, but they can legally refuse to let anyone touch it because it belongs to them, and they aren't really required to remove it themselves. And while the owner can be made to pay for damages to the first person who runs into this car, after that the liability is fuzzy because there are now two cars worth of debris on the road, so who's responsible for the next collision?

 

I know there are often some sensitive technologies involved in these satellites, and countries and corporations who spend the money to get them up there want to make sure they protect every aspect of their investment, but it seems like we really need something more in place. This is truly something that threatens the Earth as a whole, and needs to be addressed by every nation that relies on space technology. If we don't do something soon, it might become impossible for us to send extra-planetary devices out through the clouds of debris that fill the orbits.

 

What do you think?

[StringJunky]

Is it totally unfeasible for satellites to be pre-fitted with a rocket pack that could push them out of Earth's gravity to drift out into open space when it is time for them to be decommissioned...would the additional fuel payload they would need to carry for their service life be too much?

[Phi for All]

Is it totally unfeasible for satellites to be pre-fitted with a rocket pack that could push them out of Earth's gravity to drift out into open space when it is time for them to be decommissioned...would the additional fuel payload they would need to carry for their service life be too much?

There are current protocols that require new satellites to have the capability of retaining enough fuel to eventually push them back into the atmosphere to burn up. Pushing them out beyond Earth's orbit is too costly in terms of energy. Prohibitions on metals like titanium that don't burn up are also being pursued.

 

New satellite launches are only a small part of the political problem. Countries like China give the nod to some of these protocol requirements but not on an official level. China also refuses to give up their anti-satellite programs, which causes other countries to want them, and China has tested their ASAT program with disastrous results for the space debris problem. They literally blew up a satellite and created a huge problem for everyone.

 

There are obviously some secrets involved that countries want to protect, but we've come to a point where security needs to shift from "don't touch our stuff" to "we can't protect our new satellites from the debris of our old ones". This could be that threat to Earth we've all been waiting for that could bring us together as a species, but there are a lot of twitchy politics that aren't being handled fast enough.

[Moontanman]

Is there actually a method that can currently be deployed to do something about derelict satellites? It looks like a problem that doesn't have much incentive as far as financial goes...

[Phi for All]

Is there actually a method that can currently be deployed to do something about derelict satellites? It looks like a problem that doesn't have much incentive as far as financial goes...

NASA has some interesting things in the works, my favorite is attaching what amounts to a streamer to the satellite or piece of debris to slow it down, make it more likely to fall back into the atmosphere. Some kind of orbiting recycling center is my next favorite, a station that could somehow match speeds with and bring in and recycle dead craft and debris. This could bring financial incentive, but there has to be some kind of international agreement that allows for this without causing international legal incidents every time it happens.

[JohnB]

Actually the "recycle" idea has been around SciFi literature for some time. In the case of the current ISS we would need to ship up some extra shielding for a start so that it didn't have to move all the time. Let's face it, we either ship up shields or more go juice.

 

Then we ship up the recycler module and a "jeep" or three. The module would melt down old satellites and allow the metal to be reformed. Remember that there isn't just satellites up there, but quite a few shrouds and nose cones too. (Migh even be some big old bits of Apollo and Gemini as well.

 

A "Jeep" is the bare minimum rocket. It has a frame, fuel tanks, engines and inertial guidance. And a grappel. When junk is detected the jeep goes for the retrieval and brings it back to the ISS for recycling. The station can then start making it's own shielding at a far lower cost than shipping it up from Earth.

 

And there absolute tons of the stuff up there. To quote from Space dot com;

Euroconsult forecasts that the increased average weight of a commercial geostationary satellite will occur especially at the upper end of the scale. Among the current crop of commercial telecommunications satellites under construction are several consumer broadband and mobile voice and data spacecraft weighing well over 13,277 pounds (6,000 kg).

 

Euroconsult found that 3 percent of commercial satellites currently on order and scheduled for launch by 2011 will weigh more than 14,330 pounds (6,500 kg) at launch. Between 2012 and 2018, the report says, 13 percent of all commercial telecommunications satellites will weigh more than 14,330 pounds, while another 27 percent will weigh between 12,125 pounds and 14,330 pounds (5,500-6,500 kg).

 

Envisat weighs in at 17,636-pounds and is the biggest around. The ISS weighs some 450 tonnes but we are pretty much launching more than that every year and we must be coming close to that figure for sats going zombie each year. Thousands of tons of highly refined metal that is already in orbit. All we need is the craft ot retrieve and the fuel for course corrections.

 

But for this to happen there would have to be the political will and commitment to remain in space on a permanent basis. An acceptance that it isn't just for an experiment, or to see what is there, but the natural next step on our journey away from the planet that gave us life.

[John Cuthber]

"Prohibitions on metals like titanium that don't burn up are also being pursued."

Pardon?

 

[Phi for All]

But for this to happen there would have to be the political will and commitment to remain in space on a permanent basis. An acceptance that it isn't just for an experiment, or to see what is there, but the natural next step on our journey away from the planet that gave us life.

I don't think this is going to be the biggest part of the problem, although it is frustrating now. Most countries will not pass up the potential that near-Earth space exploration represents. And as soon as the technology for recycling space debris is made cost-effective, this should naturally lead us to mining asteroids for more materials that can be used off-planet to further the exploration. Dwindling resources will demand that we either change our consumption habits or find more sources, so I think that commitment to space is inevitable.

 

Right now, though, the countries and companies that have already sent up satellites want to retain rights to their equipment without liability when the debris from their equipment damages other satellites. And if nothing is done to correct this problem, 20 years from now we won't even be able to send a rocket through the hundreds of trillions of pieces of shrapnel that will be orbiting by then. Imagine the cost of sending a craft with shielding heavy enough to withstand almost constant bombardment as it leaves the planet!

 

I think the biggest problem is a combination of fears. Fear that someone else will "harvest" your space technology. Fear that someone will build platforms that could be weaponized. Fear that if you give up any rights at all you'll be exploited. All fairly short-term concerns, with almost no thought for long-range consequences. I'd love to see this space debris issue become something that unites us as a planet, as a species, but we need to establish some international law to govern what happens out there. And that's been tough since everyone wants everything with no limitations or restrictions.

 

"Prohibitions on metals like titanium that don't burn up are also being pursued."

Pardon?

I didn't think I'd have to explain the difference between a factory fire and atmospheric re-entry heat. And I don't think I want to, particularly, so I'll just over-clarify for those who enjoy nit-picking:

 

http://www.npr.org/2...lide-with-earth

Things that are made out of titanium or stainless steel, beryllium, that all have high temperatures for melting, survive re-entry. But usually most everything else burns up.

[John Cuthber]

"I didn't think I'd have to explain the difference between a factory fire and atmospheric re-entry heat. "

Nor did I. This is from wiki

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

"An approximate rule-of-thumb used by heat shield designers for estimating peak shock layer temperature is to assume the air temperature in kelvins to be equal to the entry speed in meters per second — a mathematical coincidence. For example, a spacecraft entering the atmosphere at 7.8 km/s would experience a peak shock layer temperature of 7800 K. "

 

7800 K is hot enough to melt anything.

Since Titanium is flammable it's odd that it survives re-entry in the vicinity of that superheated air.

 

Brickwork and steelwork often survive factory fires because they are not all that hot.

 

Obviously, if it's observably true that Ti survives re-entry then it does and so it should be phased out.

[JohnB]

I think the biggest problem is a combination of fears. Fear that someone else will "harvest" your space technology. Fear that someone will build platforms that could be weaponized. Fear that if you give up any rights at all you'll be exploited. All fairly short-term concerns, with almost no thought for long-range consequences. I'd love to see this space debris issue become something that unites us as a planet, as a species, but we need to establish some international law to govern what happens out there. And that's been tough since everyone wants everything with no limitations or restrictions.

 

Then simply present the Fait Acompli. Send up a module and some jeeps and start hauling stuff in for recycling. If somebody objects then fine, they can have their satellite returned for the recovery costs. Either that or they can build their own station and clean up their own mess. Offer the alternative that for a modest funding amount they could join the ISS and have their own people on board to vet any "sensitive" stuff and remove it before the recycling begins.

 

What would make life interesting is that the various concerns might be a smokescreen to cover the fact that some nations might not have taken the "non weaponisation of space" too seriously. It would very embarassing for a government to have a dead sat dragged in that had a series of warheads on board.

[Phi for All]

Check out this visualization of all the known space debris and their orbits, based on Space Track data from the US military. Satellites are in there too.

[StringJunky]

That is a mess but... carry on regardless. Wonder what the critical density when hostilities start?

[Unity+]

They should have littering laws in space. Problem is the ones on Earth aren't even enforced that much.

[Harold Squared]

Damned mess alright. Menace to navigation and progress. Perfect issue for the spacefaring nations to tackle together as a common woe, if you ask me.

Actually the "recycle" idea has been around SciFi literature for some time. In the case of the current ISS we would need to ship up some extra shielding for a start so that it didn't have to move all the time. Let's face it, we either ship up shields or more go juice.

 

Then we ship up the recycler module and a "jeep" or three. The module would melt down old satellites and allow the metal to be reformed. Remember that there isn't just satellites up there, but quite a few shrouds and nose cones too. (Migh even be some big old bits of Apollo and Gemini as well.

 

A "Jeep" is the bare minimum rocket. It has a frame, fuel tanks, engines and inertial guidance. And a grappel. When junk is detected the jeep goes for the retrieval and brings it back to the ISS for recycling. The station can then start making it's own shielding at a far lower cost than shipping it up from Earth.

 

And there absolute tons of the stuff up there. To quote from Space dot com;

 

 

Envisat weighs in at 17,636-pounds and is the biggest around. The ISS weighs some 450 tonnes but we are pretty much launching more than that every year and we must be coming close to that figure for sats going zombie each year. Thousands of tons of highly refined metal that is already in orbit. All we need is the craft ot retrieve and the fuel for course corrections.

 

But for this to happen there would have to be the political will and commitment to remain in space on a permanent basis. An acceptance that it isn't just for an experiment, or to see what is there, but the natural next step on our journey away from the planet that gave us life.

A magnetic sail might be better than a rocket, as it might better manipulate ferrous debris and would need no reaction mass. Just a suggestion. Brilliant idea recycling materials already in orbit, good job bringing it up.

[overtone]

The task of gathering all this stuff from space orbit sounds expensive, to me. Like catching sardines one by one. There's a lot of it, sure, but there's a lot of space for it to be zipping through at high speed.

Edited July 25, 2015 by overtone

[Phi for All]

The task of gathering all this stuff from space orbit sounds expensive, to me. Like catching sardines one by one. There's a lot of it, sure, but there's a lot of space for it to be zipping through at high speed.

 

And that's where the politics comes in. If everyone agrees that the probability of existing debris colliding with itself and other satellites, as well as threatening future space efforts, doesn't warrant the expense of capture/relocation, and we aren't going to do anything else about them, then we need protocols on what to do when collisions do happen. Or we just agree that if, say, part of the weather satellite China destroyed in 2007 collides with one of your satellites, we chalk it up to bad luck and improbable odds.

[Harold Squared]

 

And that's where the politics comes in. If everyone agrees that the probability of existing debris colliding with itself and other satellites, as well as threatening future space efforts, doesn't warrant the expense of capture/relocation, and we aren't going to do anything else about them, then we need protocols on what to do when collisions do happen. Or we just agree that if, say, part of the weather satellite China destroyed in 2007 collides with one of your satellites, we chalk it up to bad luck and improbable odds.

LAWYERS IN SPACE!

 

Sounds like a good place for them, but seriously, if the junk came from a particular nation could not that nation be held liable? Apologies for coming late to the discussion if this has been asked before.

[StringJunky]

I suggest an international statute of limitation of ownership after decommissioning. After this period, any enterprising company may remove eligible satellite for their own commercial exploitation.

[Phi for All]

LAWYERS IN SPACE!

 

Sounds like a good place for them, but seriously, if the junk came from a particular nation could not that nation be held liable? Apologies for coming late to the discussion if this has been asked before.

 

The biggest problem, imo, is that all this debris collides with itself too, breaking up bigger pieces into smaller, and sending all those off in new trajectories. Who's junk collided with what other junk? If two pieces of junk collide, which one is at fault? And if each of those go off to strike functioning satellites, who's fault is it then?

 

It's pretty clear-cut when an identified piece of debris hits a working piece of equipment that's doing what it's supposed to, where it's supposed to be. Less so after a few collisions make ownership and liability questionable.

[StringJunky]

 

The biggest problem, imo, is that all this debris collides with itself too, breaking up bigger pieces into smaller, and sending all those off in new trajectories. Who's junk collided with what other junk? If two pieces of junk collide, which one is at fault? And if each of those go off to strike functioning satellites, who's fault is it then?

 

It's pretty clear-cut when an identified piece of debris hits a working piece of equipment that's doing what it's supposed to, where it's supposed to be. Less so after a few collisions make ownership and liability questionable.

What I suggested avoids that state of, what is ultimately, wilful future ignorance.