What goes up must come down, and that includes all of the satellites, rocket stages, and junk that humans have launched into space. A group of scientists is sounding the alarm about how that growing cloud of debris orbiting Earth may cause us trouble in the future, and are championing a global approach to governing Earth's orbit.
In a letter published in Science today, the team of researchers says that there are 9,000 satellites currently in orbit, but that that number is projected to rise to 60,000 by 2030. All of these satellites are sources of orbital debris, whether the spacecraft themselves become junk when they are decommissioned or whether they become involved in an in-orbit crash resulting in a cascade of debris that will circle the planet.
Regardless, this group of researchers points to this boom in the space economy as a problem for the future of space safety and are calling for a legally-binding treaty to enforce the sustainability of Earth's orbit—much the way 190 nations just vowed to protect the global oceans."
[...] Until a global initiative to reign in the issue of space debris is achieved, some space agencies are taking steps to tackle the problem. Last year, NASA announced it would be funding three projects from various universities to better understand orbital debris and sustainability in space. Likewise, ESA has approved ClearSpace's giant claw that will grab onto junk in orbit and send it into Earth's atmosphere to burn up to take care of pre-existing space debris. Meanwhile, The Drag Augmentation Deorbiting System, a 38-square-foot (3.5-square-meter) sail to increase a satellite's surface drag, could be a way to retire yet-to-be-launched satellites at the end of their lives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2023, @12:23AM (15 children)
Maybe some leverage for countries to develop some dirty space tech to get concessions for all the dirty earth tech currently fouling up their land.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 14 2023, @12:37AM (14 children)
You do realize that "dirty earth tech" is also a first world problem? When most of your population is dirt poor, then environmentalism ranks up there with space real estate as a compelling problem (/sarc) that your people don't care about.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Tuesday March 14 2023, @01:39PM (5 children)
> When most of your population is dirt poor
I'm not denying the truth of your statement. OTOH your population doesn't do very well if (i) they are permanently in drought/flood (ii) they are continuously being poisoned by all the gunk that is spewed out by the mineral extraction outfits et alia. Probably many of your people don't care, maybe they should.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 14 2023, @02:58PM (4 children)
They also don't do well, if (iii) their well being is sacrificed for first world problems.
You probably ought to look in the mirror for one such person. Hysteria is not an adequate substitute for forethought.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Tuesday March 14 2023, @03:48PM (3 children)
As a concrete example, climate change is not a first world problem. It is very much a third world problem. In particular, my country can buy it's way out of any food or water crisis.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 15 2023, @02:50AM (2 children)
And any extremely poor country would see plenty of food and water crises in the absence of climate change. Nor do I buy that climate change will actually make such crises more common!
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday March 15 2023, @11:03AM (1 child)
> Nor do I buy that climate change will actually make such crises more common!
Fair enough. I guess that's a bigger argument.
What about this as an example of pollution causing problems:
https://news.yale.edu/2021/02/01/study-shows-consequences-arsenic-tainted-well-water-across-bangladesh [yale.edu]
FTFA:
Widespread use of arsenic-contaminated water in Bangladesh during the 20th century has been called by the World Health Organization the largest mass poisoning in history. A new study co-authored by Yale economist Mark Rosenzweig finds that, in addition to profound health impacts, high levels of arsenic retention has caused a significant decline in the productivity, cognition, and earnings of Bangladeshis.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 15 2023, @04:32PM
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Tuesday March 14 2023, @01:56PM (1 child)
I thought that Musk's clouds of Starlink satellites were primarily meant for the benefit of the Third World. That's has been one of Musk's sales pitches anyway. Most of the First World is already well connected by other means, thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2023, @09:01PM
Sure, that's what Zuck said too [wired.com], and all solely for the betterment of mankind.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday March 14 2023, @07:38PM (5 children)
That's actually correct. You have to be able to afford electricity and/or an automobile to pollute. The starving aren't contributing to the ozone shrinking, or global warming, or plastic in the ocean, or oil spills in the Gulf... Now, the super rich with private jets are another story. One of them pollutes more than a hundred middle class Americans or Europeans.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 15 2023, @02:56AM (4 children)
Or cut down forests and burn them.
They are contributing to massive destruction of habitat, the primary contributors to species extinction, and they are major contributors to global warming through deforestation. More importantly, if mass die-offs of humans happen, it'll likely happen there.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday March 15 2023, @08:40PM (3 children)
Or cut down forests and burn them.
The third world isn't doing that, the rich first worlders who own the third world are.
if mass die-offs of humans happen, it'll likely happen there.
It's already happening, but the people it's happening to didn't cause it. We did.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2023, @04:19AM (2 children)
So the third world is indeed cutting down those forests. You just choose to blame someone else for it.
We'd cause it a lot faster, if we didn't feed them.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday March 16 2023, @01:01PM (1 child)
I pity anyone as evil and heartless as you.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2023, @04:12PM
I don't because this is a purely imaginary and harmful narrative. You missed the point of my second sentence:
The developed world is the core of the greatest improvement ever in the human condition. It's because we don't just feed the developing world, we employ them, we trade with them, we have helped make them wealthier and healthier. The narrative of "exporting the pollution" and other developed world blame games helps to rationalize policies harmful to the majority of humanity.
I find it interesting how people are so eager to screw up the best thing ever on the basis of these defective and brutal narratives.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Tuesday March 14 2023, @02:02PM (1 child)
FTFA:
They already are junk anyway, at least to the people who do not use them. As an orbiting object, what is the practical difference between a satellite that is still in use and one that is not? There are claims that they will automatically avoid each other, but if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 14 2023, @03:03PM
What isn't?
That the former is in use and the latter is not.
Those collisions aren't happening. So something is working even if it's not automated.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DadaDoofy on Tuesday March 14 2023, @02:33PM
If this were to be "legally binding", you would need some kind of global authority to enforce it. Yes, there are existing ones, but strengthening them to the point of having the power to enforce something like this is a slippery slope indeed.