Pollution Eye Opening Numbers On Space Debris!

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
This was a very telling and very interesting post over at RMN. I'm surprised nobody caught it.

Eye Opening Numbers On Space Debris!

Newsletter:

Orbital debris, otherwise known as “space junk”, is a major concern. This massive cloud that orbits the Earth is the result of the many satellites, platforms and spent launchers that have been sent into space over the years. And as time went on, collisions between these objects (as well as disintegrations and erosion) has created even more in the way of debris.

Aside from threatening satellites and posing a danger to long-term orbital missions – like the International Space Station – this situation could pose serious problems for future space launches. And based on the latest numbers released by the Space Debris Office at the European Space Operations Center (ESOC), the problem has been getting getting worse.

To break the numbers down, according to ESOC, about 5250 launches have taken place since the beginning of the space age, which officially kicked off on October 4th, 1957, with the launch of the the Soviet Sputnik 1 satellite. Of the many missions that have been launched since then, some 23,000 are still in orbit, while only 1200 are still operational.

However, this accounts of only 6% of all the actual objects in orbit. Another 38% can be attributed to decommissioned satellites, spent upper stages and mission-related objects (launch adaptors, lens covers, etc.). All told, an estimated 94% of objects in orbit qualify as being “space debris” – a term used to describe objects which no longer serve any useful purpose.

About 64% of these objects are fragments from the many breakups, explosions and collisions of satellites or rocket bodies that have taken place over the past decades. In addition, there is evidence of a much larger population of debris that cannot be tracked operationally. That’s where the ESA’s latest numbers once again come into play.

According to various statistical models, there is an estimated 166 million objects in orbit that range in size from 1 mm to 1 cm in diameter. There is also another 750,000 objects that range from being 1cm to 10 cm in diameter, and about 29,000 objects that exceed 10 cm in diameter. The ESA and other space agencies around the world are responsible for tracking about 42,000 of the larger ones.


All told, the total mass of all the objects orbiting the Earth is estimated at 7500 metric tons (~8267 US tons). And between all this debris, a little over 290 break-ups, explosions and collisions events have taken place, resulting in the fragmentation of objects and the creation of many smaller pieces of debris. Each and every one of these is considered a serious threat due to the relative orbital velocities they have.

Essentially, orbital debris can reach speeds of up to 56,000 km/h due to the Earth’s rotation. At this speed, even a centimeter-sized piece of debris can seriously damage or disable an operational spacecraft. Meanwhile, a collision with an object that is larger than 10 cm will lead to catastrophic break-ups, releasing more hazardous debris clouds that can cause further catastrophic collisions – a phenomena known as “Kessler Syndrome”.

Left unchecked, it is acknowledged that the problem will become exponentially worse. Little wonder then why the ESA and other space agencies are talking about implementing “space debris mitigation measures“. Such measures, which include reducing mass in high-density regions and designing craft with safe re-entry technologies, could curtail the growth rate of space debris populations.

There’s also proposals for “active removal”, which would target the debris fields already there. Already, there are several ideas on the table, ranging from space-based lasers that could clear debris out of the path of the ISS to spacecraft that could latch onto debris and deorbit it. These and other related subjects will all be raised at the upcoming 7th European Conference on Space Debris.

This conference will be taking place from April 18th to 21st, 2017, at the European Space Operations Center in Darmstadt, Germany. As the largest gathering of its kind, this four-day conference will see internationally renowned scientists, engineers, operators, lawyers and policy makers from around the world coming together to discuss different aspects of space debris research.

ESA graphic titled “Why Space Debris Mitigation is needed”. Click to enlarge and animate. Credit: ESA

This will include measurement techniques, environment modelling theories, risk analysis techniques, protection designs, mitigation and remediation concepts, and policy & legal issues. In addition to providing a forum for presenting and discussing the latest results, this conference also is chance for experts to define future directions for research.

The space lanes need to be cleared if we hope to commercialize and exploit Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in the coming years. And the good folks who conduct research aboard the ISS and China’s Tianglong-1 space station would surely appreciate it.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
I know and I suggested they use the space shuttle when it was still in use to collect some of the dead satellites and bring them back. Its seems some see as an expensive endeavor, and I don't see how that is as they are out there and just as well cut the solar panels and pull it all in the cargo bay and strap it down for the trip back. Many of these satellites they used gold and sliver for wiring and its used other components in the electronics and foil that covers some of the outside of it. So yeah salvage that pays.
 

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
I know and I suggested they use the space shuttle when it was still in use to collect some of the dead satellites and bring them back. Its seems some see as an expensive endeavor, and I don't see how that is as they are out there and just as well cut the solar panels and pull it all in the cargo bay and strap it down for the trip back. Many of these satellites they used gold and sliver for wiring and its used other components in the electronics and foil that covers some of the outside of it. So yeah salvage that pays.

Good point Publius. If the metals go up like they claim they will, maybe then something will be done about this. When I saw the numbers (estimated 166 million objects in orbit) it about knocked me off my chair. Whoa!

And what if something happens where one or more come crashing to earth and they blame the Russians. Aye!!!
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
Good point Publius. If the metals go up like they claim they will, maybe then something will be done about this. When I saw the numbers (estimated 166 million objects in orbit) it about knocked me off my chair. Whoa!

And what if something happens where one or more come crashing to earth and they blame the Russians. Aye!!!



I remember being told in the 1970s they put like $3,000. in gold into most of the satellites, at todays prices yeah it would be much higher cost, but as salavge it would be worth it.
 

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
I remember being told in the 1970s they put like $3,000. in gold into most of the satellites, at todays prices yeah it would be much higher cost, but as salavge it would be worth it.

You're giving me visions of Aliens 4. I think that ship was a salvage ship if I remember correctly. Thanks! lol
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Space Shuttle launches cost $1 billion and more for EACH launch, so you'd have to recover a hell of a lot of valuable debris on every single mission to recoup that cost. Whatever method they finally use, it won't be a manned vehicle doing the recovery or debris destruction. And it won't happen until the energy for maneuvering is virtually free and inexhaustible.

I said it before and I'll say it again: I suspect you could very likely spend six months in orbit and never once see a piece of space debris with the naked eye. Of course, even things you can't see can still kill you up there. At least one Shuttle mission came back with a cockpit window starred by something that hit it -- it wasn't a BIG star, but they apparently had no trouble finding it on the post-landing inspection. They used to maneuver the Shuttle on occasion to avoid debris and they sometimes maneuver the Space Station now for the same reason, but it's more to be safe rather than actual expectations that they would otherwise definitely be hit.

No country is going to stop launching things into space due to concerns about debris in orbit. The graphics look dramatic and the numbers sound terrifying, but even space at LEO is a BIG place. Just because you can see something on a single page (like the Pacific Ocean or a graphic showing the Earth surrounded by a swarm of space debris) doesn't mean it isn't big beyond imagination. The Pacific Ocean isn't just like your local lake only a little bigger, and space from the lowest reasonable orbit all the way out to GEO isn't a small place filled to bursting with space debris.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
Yeah it cost big money to light one of them oversized roman candles off. But while they are at it at no extra cost, yes recover some of the dead satellites and some of these things are as big as your car
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Yeah it cost big money to light one of them oversized roman candles off. But while they are at it at no extra cost, yes recover some of the dead satellites and some of these things are as big as your car

That still would require they take a lot of maneuvering fuel on every mission AND deliberately launch into an orbit that let them recover something after their main mission was completed. Typically you don't just launch into an orbit and then drastically change the orbit once you get up there -- it's more like you get into an orbit and then fine tune it with nudges to go higher or lower (but usually still on the same orbital track). The reality was that the Space Shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System) wasn't a huge propulsion system with a big fuel tank to draw on -- they didn't carry all THAT much extra fuel up there any more than commercial airliners carry extra fuel beyond a standard safety margin.
 

Ku Commando

Inactive
Here ya go Publius......just strap some solid rocket boosters to one of these and you gots you a "Gold Cacher" !!!


Fotolia_2551131_S.jpg
 

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
That still would require they take a lot of maneuvering fuel on every mission AND deliberately launch into an orbit that let them recover something after their main mission was completed. Typically you don't just launch into an orbit and then drastically change the orbit once you get up there -- it's more like you get into an orbit and then fine tune it with nudges to go higher or lower (but usually still on the same orbital track). The reality was that the Space Shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System) wasn't a huge propulsion system with a big fuel tank to draw on -- they didn't carry all THAT much extra fuel up there any more than commercial airliners carry extra fuel beyond a standard safety margin.

Wow Tanstaafl, I'm impressed. Thank you for giving me a sense of peace thinking about what's hoovering over our heads. I might be able to sleep a tad easier now. :)
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Anything solid and hard (like a net or a funnel) probably wouldn't work. Given a maneuvering system with sufficient reaction mass and a tracking system, the bigger stuff (say, more than one foot across) can likely be tracked and avoided by spacecraft easily enough, so it's the little stuff traveling at high speeds and coming from unusual directions that's the real concern. They've used aerogel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel) to capture particles from comets, so with enough money it could be within the realm of the practical to use larger chunks of the stuff to capture the smaller bits of space debris and then de-orbit the capture vehicle (it does no good to capture a bunch of small stuff and then have the collected mass hit something anyway). Remember, you have to slow down anything traveling any significantly different speed from the capture vehicle before it can actually be captured ... and never forget that it's a three-dimensional world up there! Whatever they use it would probably take a LOT of different capture vehicles (hundreds if not thousands) in a LOT of different orbits (don't forget all that massive amount of space between LEO and GEO) and it would probably take decades of committed effort to make a real dent in the numbers.
 

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
Not to add fuel to the fire here but I couldn't help thinking about this movie when I read the original Newsletter...


Oh btw, the also blamed it on the Russians. :P
 
Top