The current state of space debris:
Swirling fragments of past space endeavours are trapped in orbit around Earth, threatening our future in space. Over time, the number, mass and area of these debris objects grows steadily, boosting the risk to functioning satellites.
ESA's Space Debris Office constantly monitors this ever-evolving debris situation, and every year publishes a report on the current state of the debris environment.
Since the beginning of the space age in 1957, tonnes of rockets, spacecraft and instruments have been launched to space. Initially, there was no plan for what to do with them at the end of their lives. Since then, numbers have continued to increase and explosions and collisions in space have created hundreds of thousands of shards of dangerous debris.
"The biggest contributor to the current space debris problem is explosions in orbit, caused by left-over energy – fuel and batteries – onboard spacecraft and rockets. Despite measures being in place for years to prevent this, we see no decline in the number of such events. Trends towards end-of-mission disposal are improving, but at a slow pace," explains Holger Krag, Head of the Space Safety Programme.
"In view of the constant increase in space-traffic, we need to develop and provide technologies to make debris prevention measures fail-safe, and ESA is doing just that through its Space Safety Programme. In parallel, regulators need to monitor the status of space systems as well as global adherence to debris mitigation under their jurisdiction more closely".
International guidelines and standards now exist making it clear how we can reach a sustainable use of space:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2020, @07:16AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54562501 [bbc.com]
(Score: 2) by bmimatt on Saturday October 17 2020, @07:46AM (1 child)
That seems to reflect the human nature as we currently know it. I'm glad SpaceX is pioneering reusability and paving the way to cleaner trips.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2020, @08:46PM
And don't forget their plans for adding thousands of pieces of space junk too.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2020, @07:53AM
Excuse me, just here to sweep up some space debris, like the Runaway satellite debris. Space debris, or mental debris, makes no nevermind to us. Space junk sweepers, we be. Runaway is much lower velocity than most, and less intelligent, so easier to de-orbit.
When you see a shooting star, that could be a Runaway idea, burning up in the mainstream media. Or in reality.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Saturday October 17 2020, @08:02AM (2 children)
Deorbiting debris safely, without makingf more orbiting debris, would be a primary concern for any space-based defense strategy. You'd have to keep the orbits clear of debris to operate, but in the times of hot conflict, enemy satellites could also be treated in the same way. However, I don't think the idea of cleaning up will take hold and we'll soon end up with the Kessler Syndrome.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday October 17 2020, @02:18PM (1 child)
Think bigger. Build some kind of laser defense platform that just vaporize all the space debris, like for target practice. It's a two in one solution. You get your space lasers in orbit and you also blast all the junk away.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Saturday October 17 2020, @03:59PM
About the only way might be to collect the pieces while they are largish. A powerful laser would just make small pieces, eventually small particles too tiny to be tracked by ground radar. Sand-size grains at orbital velocities do carry enough kinetic enertgy to puncture satellites and manned craft. Thus the Kessler Syndrom is completed. There's nothing for the tiny particles to oxidize with and no wind resistance to cause them to slow down and precipitate out of orbit. If it would be hot enough to make a plasma that might work. Maybe an ion beam down the same path as the laser would add a charge to the atoms. But then you would just end up with an abrasive cloud.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2020, @08:53AM (1 child)
And I don't want to be haste...
But I think, though I'm not quire sure, but still, I think we should nuke them garbage from the moon.
That's the only way to sweep them out, I think. Though...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2020, @08:57PM
Why not? I've heard it works for hurricanes.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by oumuamua on Saturday October 17 2020, @03:59PM
If you put up a satellite with no plan for deorbit that is littering.
Those countries that litter get a fine.
Fines alone did not work for trash littering, what worked was public shaming, when ever people noticed someone else littering they pointed it out from the subtle, 'hey you dropped this' to the not so subtle.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 17 2020, @05:09PM (3 children)
Everything that we have put up there had a use when it was put there. Today, it's junk, but it's expensive junk. Not only that, it's expensive junk that can be reused. Some part of it could be repurposed and reused without much work. The rest? Some of it probably has near zero value in it's current form, but it contains high value alloys, plastics, and chemicals.
We really need to capture the stuff, and put it into some safe orbit to be held for future use.
Sounds to me like the perfect use for a few autonomous or semi-autonomous bots with cheap propulsion. Ion drive, anyone?
It doesn't matter if individual missions take months, or even years, to complete. All that matters is the machinery be built, and set into motion. Target the highest hazard bits of junk first, then those bits that are likely to become hazards. Maybe pack it all away at one of the earth-moon lagrange points, where it can reliably be tracked forever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2020, @09:07PM (1 child)
The computer monitor you throw away contains high value alloys, plastics, and chemicals. None of it worth extracting when we have easy access to it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 17 2020, @10:57PM
Transportation for the crap on my desk didn't run into thousands of dollars per gram. It is the fact that all that junk is in orbit that makes it valuable, or at least potentially valuable. Granted, unrecoverable resources have zero or negative value.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday October 18 2020, @04:10PM
You're even starting to sound like Trump now, Runaway!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?