Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

JiminyDickish t1_jbu49b5 wrote

Hey everyone...if each of us picks up just one piece of space junk, we can make a difference.

I'll be in low Earth orbit early Sunday morning if anyone wants to join

395

wsclose t1_jbu7pha wrote

Just gotta catch it first.

"In low Earth orbit (below 1,250 miles, or 2,000 km), orbital debris circle the Earth at speeds of between 4 and 5 miles per second (7 to 8 km/s). However, the average impact speed of orbital debris with another space object will be approximately 6 miles per second (10 km/s). Consequently, collisions with even a small piece of debris will involve considerable energy."NASA Link

So for the anyone who wants to know (6 miles per second) 6mi/s= 21600.00mph. So I hope you are the flash or superman.

40

PortlyCloudy t1_jbvq6kd wrote

One of the early shuttle flights came back with a pea-sized divot in the windshield. NASA later determined the ship collided with a paint flake.

21

Geektomb t1_jbvfo96 wrote

Mothership is going to be shredded on entry

19

MagicHamsta t1_jbvutwj wrote

Why? Why not just shoot it down/up instead? Enough lasers could probably do something. Or what if we shoot the debris with some sort of gas to knock it out of orbit?

>Just gotta catch it first.

9

sifuyee t1_jbvy7w9 wrote

Actually they have been proposing using lasers for a while now and it seems promising: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51946228_Removing_Orbital_Debris_with_Lasers

While using gas would work too, it rapidly disperses, requiring an enormous supply and potentially dragging down working spacecraft too.

5

MagicHamsta t1_jbwh89e wrote

I see that as an absolute win. Couldn't we gas bomb the area to clear out large swaths of space?

> While using gas would work too, it rapidly disperses,

1

sifuyee t1_jbwhqdb wrote

Well, you *could* but it would be very expensive because the rapid dispersal means you'd need so much of it do do anything that you'd require thousands of rockets just hauling gas to orbit. While that would drive down the cost of rockets individually, no one has that kind of money to spend.

3

Jasrek t1_jbycit8 wrote

It rapidly disperses in the sense that the gas scatters too much to actually influence anything's orbit. For you to use it to clear out any swath of space, you would need an enormous amount of gas released at a high velocity. And even then, since all the debris is constantly moving, it's not like that area is now 'clear'. You just have slightly less debris at that orbital inclination. Or slightly more debris, depending on the design of your gas bomb.

1

wsclose t1_jbvz45w wrote

But then we would miss the opportunity for Space junk athletes and competitions.

3

carbonclasssix t1_jbvyikh wrote

To stay in low earth orbit you'd basically have to be going as fast as everything else, so it's kind of a moot point to say you have to catch it

5

Silliestmonkey t1_jbvzini wrote

I mean if these little scraps collide and fall to earth who’s responsible? Are they just gonna hit the Earth as shrapnel?

2

wsclose t1_jbwc7c7 wrote

Most objects burn up in our atmosphere on reentry, so not a lot or worry over falling debris.

5

RedJimi t1_jbxtud7 wrote

You seem to have it backwards. We WANT the smallest shrapnel to fall to the atmosphere because then they'll burn up. The problem is the stuff that is way above the effects of atmospheric drag (the top of the atmosphere varies at 10-17 km) and travelling at the speed required to maintain the orbital height they're at. They might stay there indefinitely unless we learn how to make gravity guns or something. For example, some orbital speeds: 6.90 km/s @ 2000 km, 7.35 km/s @ 1000 km.

2

jon_reremy9669 t1_jbwscla wrote

you would have hated the wheel during the stone ages.... /s😊

1

superjudgebunny t1_jbun3ik wrote

Can I get a ride? I never got around to completing my space rocket. All my friends make fun of me for it, I still wanna help! I’ll pick up two pieces for the effort!

8

Flukemaster t1_jbw8sg6 wrote

Can't wait to see how the corporate media spins the fix this particular environmental disaster to be "personal responsibility".

4

jon_reremy9669 t1_jbwsfoo wrote

"all that junk wouldnt be up there if YOU didnt DEMAND gps larry!"

3

FloodMoose t1_jbtnxbt wrote

Yo we can't even clean up Earth junk... how's this going to actually happen

168

Jahmann t1_jbup050 wrote

Space lasers probably

36

meursaultvi t1_jbuzhjk wrote

Who made the lasers?

3

jon_reremy9669 t1_jbwsipo wrote

is craYE going to hate the answer? /joking (but he does hate them)

1

CaptainMagnets t1_jbw0iyx wrote

It won't, it will get ignored until it's unsolvable

11

TimeTravelMishap t1_jbw8lh5 wrote

Oh no don't worry. Society will collapse and will be incapable of launching anything into space long before this becomes a real problem.

7

CollegeIntellect t1_jbxrczp wrote

Hello, aerospace engineer here. There are quite a few things being done about this. First, the FCC adopted a change in rules last year that state that object out in orbit must come down within 5 years after end of life. Previously this rule was 20-25 years which was long enough for any LEO object to deorbit on its own. 5 years is too short of a time frame for upper atmosphere drag to pull it down so satellite manufacturers have to add a deorbit thruster or pay companies to use their space tug. Space tugs sound fictional but Launcher, RocketLab, and Firefly Aerospace are just a few commercial companies building or have already flight proven the concept.

This is going to be a larger deal with the FAA approving several thousand sized constellations entering the market by the end of the decade. My personal opinion is that trackable junk isn’t really a threat as countries blowing up satellites to prove a point. That debris cloud basically locks out an entire orbit. Space is really big and there are think tanks like Aerospace Corporation that are studying this problem to help mitigate the impacts and to advise industry and government on what to do.

The reality is that space objects are only going to go up not down in the next decade. Our job as space engineers around the world is to treat these missions with respect by providing deorbit plans and alerting agencies for possible collisions of our hardware with someone else’s.

This subject is of course highly nuanced and some of these nuances I can’t fully capture here in a Reddit comment. I highly encourage checking out the aerospace link below for some more information.

Source: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-5-year-rule-deorbiting-satellites

Source: https://aerospace.org/cords

6

TheCrimsonSteel t1_jbydo8k wrote

Curious to pick a proper engineers brain as my main experience is just the game Kerbal Space Program

We'd have to deorbit existing junk, and maybe somehow figure out a way to eliminate the tiny junk? All the paint chips and screws and wrenches and things?

And I'm guessing most of the junk is also in the most commonly used orbits? All farirly equatorial (right term?) stuff in Low Earth Orbit?

All my knowledge of why everything's near the equator is from having to recheck my dV when I take a regual rocket setup and try to use it for a polar orbit, especially when I made my design as lean as possible

1

CollegeIntellect t1_jbyif9a wrote

Tiny stuff is incredibly difficult to track and deorbit. There was one suggestion of using a reinforced solar sail or even aerogel to capture the tiny debris in orbit. It is incredibly difficult to go out and just say you’re going to clean up LEO of all paint chips. It is much easier to add reenforcement to your existing hardware or using debris agnostic designs.

NASA and DoD tracks everything larger than about 2 inches. If the object is greater than 4inches they plan on object avoidance maneuvers, otherwise they let ballistic shields handle anything smaller.

There are plenty of dead satellites out there in LEO that will eventually make their way back to earth from drag. All of those missions are grandfathered in to the old 25 year rule.

In real life, equatorial orbits aren’t very interesting. Most commonly satellites sit in sun synchronous orbits. This gives you the same angle of the sun to power your panels and observe the earth with the same lighting year round. It works because the earth is oblate and slightly causes the orbit to precess around the planet. Inclination is about 98 degrees.

Due to the limitations of kerbal, it’s not possible to get into that orbit. Gamers would be pretty mad if the game started taking into account orbital precession causing their orbits to change around the planet as they time warp through the year.

Source: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amse/2013/484153/

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html

Source: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/33704/distribution-of-satellites-by-inclination

2

TheCrimsonSteel t1_jbymxam wrote

Man, one single post scratching every itch in my brain - nerdy generalist, mat sci engineer, and gamer. I do love Reddit

I'm guessing, depending on details, that ballistic shielding is generally designed to not cause further debris and sort of optimized for toughness? Assuming it doesn't impact the base protection and functionality of protection

And now I'm super curious about debris fields and tracking, I knew we did some amounts, may have to go on a nerd rabbit hole

It is good to hear we're doing a decent amount of 25 year self termination plans. I vaguely remember there being something of a "graveyard orbit" do you know if those are those deeper orbits, or do we try to make those also into one's that'll self-deorbit?

There's a niche of Kerbal players that love shooting for hyper realism. I'm more on the end of let's see what the existing engine can do and engineer something that functions on wonky mechanics and not so much real life. Like mass driver designs that are just... broken

And any resources to recommend from real life aerospace physics that'd improve my Kerbal skills? I'd love to improve my gravity slingshot game

1

CollegeIntellect t1_jbys1jx wrote

The shielding is really just two plates slightly apart from each other. When the debris strikes the first plate it vaporizes and the second plate catches the vapor. It’s called a whipple shield. That first plate prevents back splash when it strikes the second plate. This minimizes debris going back to space.

Graveyard orbits are for geostationary satellites. That are farther out, if I remember correctly, than the standard GEO orbits. Those are premium orbits. They are tightly regulated. Unfortunately, those are way to far out to deorbit on their own. It’s something like a millennia or more before perturbations could cause it to deorbit. Going out to gather them and bring them back is a waste of current resources, hence the graveyard orbit.

If you’re looking to take some real life Aerospace knowledge into kerbal. I recommend searching for “patched conics”. This matches how kerbal models their system and will allow you to understand how they get to their dV calculations plus do slingshots in the game.

You’re in luck too, one of my favorite channels just dropped a video on space debris and debris shields here: https://youtu.be/_FFNz2q7F88

Source: https://ai-solutions.com/_freeflyeruniversityguide/patched_conics_transfer.htm

1

TheCrimsonSteel t1_jbz3c6m wrote

Thanks!! And nice, I keep forgetting to sub to Real Engineering. I've stumbled onto his channel like 5 or 6 times now

If you don't know them already a few other favorites of mine are Smarter Every Day, Practical Engineering, and Kyle Hill

2

xMetix t1_jbwf3p9 wrote

Sounds like a banger idea for a MrBeast video, he always tries to one up himself maybe he'll get to that point eventually.

2

TheCrimsonSteel t1_jbybuyu wrote

Mr Beast version of the anime Planetes?

The main characters work as space junkers. Literally salvaging or deorbiting junk because they're basically on the precipice of Kesler Syndrome

1

darwinkh2os t1_jbuoeor wrote

I did a science fair project on space junk because scientists were warning about it. I believe this was in 1991 or 1992.

66

Sawses t1_jbw2twu wrote

It's quite possible that a common "Great Filter" is space debris. Like it could be such a problem that it routinely keeps civilizations confined to their home planet.

27

FillThisEmptyCup t1_jbw8i7f wrote

Possibly. More than possible, the great filter can certainly be some entropy problem where exponential complexity is accompanied by more than exponential energy needs, which eventually cannot be sourced locally.

Certainly most civilizational collapses could be described in such a manner, because sufficiently directed energy could readily solve most problems.

17

Sotovya t1_jbyx29b wrote

Sounds like a cool science fiction movie. But that could sadly be our reality if we aren’t careful enough.

1

No_Huckleberry_2905 t1_jc129m7 wrote

possible, but from my layman understanding quite unlikely. leaving our planet only requires going through orbit once, or maybe assembling a bigger craft for a limited time. if low earth orbit is too messed up you "simply" go up to 1000km+, where there's much less stuff spread over much more space. you'll need more energy to reach those orbits, but then again, it's energy you safe when you launch that thing.

of course that only works up to a point. i don't think 100k satellites in LEO, mostly deorbiting in a matter of years due to atmospheric drag, will be the problem it is hyped up to be, but going forward not decades, but centuries and more, i have no idea what humans think of next to fuck it all up even more.

so yeah, from the current standpoint i don't think that space debris or the kesser syndrom are, or will be, substantial problems. but time doesn't stop at 2050, who knows what happens after that.

1

KannMuttLoeppt t1_jbwoq36 wrote

Nobody listens to scientists unfortunately. Russians even destroyed a satellite for propaganda reasons.

7

Dr-Causti t1_jbwqm40 wrote

India shot one with a rocket just to see if they can. What a degenerate species we are.

4

imtheshiznit t1_jbwb6bt wrote

They warned us about single use plastic too and now look at us.

4

MoonshineInc t1_jc1v7e3 wrote

Kessler Syndrome or Kessler theory was first coined by a scientist named Donald Kessler in the late 70s. He basically was warning of a catastrophic chain reaction of collisions that created more and more debris. Once the domino effect starts it cannot be stopped and the orbital infrastructure will be ripped apart.

2

thebelsnickle1991 OP t1_jbtlge1 wrote

Scientists have called for a legally binding treaty to ensure Earth's orbit isn't irreparably harmed by the future expansion of the global space industry.

The number of satellites in orbit is expected to increase from the current 9,000 to more than 60,000 by 2030, with estimates suggesting there are already more than 100 trillion untracked pieces of old satellites circling the planet.

While such technology is used to provide a huge range of social and environmental benefits, there are fears the predicted growth of the industry could make large parts of Earth's orbit unusable, wrote an international collaboration of experts in fields, including satellite technology and ocean plastic pollution, the journal Science.

This demonstrates the urgent need for global consensus on how best to govern Earth's orbit, said researchers, including from the Universities of Plymouth, Arribada Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, California Institute of Technology, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Spaceport Cornwall and ZSL (Zoological Society of London).

The experts acknowledged that a number of industries and countries are starting to focus on satellite sustainability, but this should be enforced to include any nation with plans to use Earth's orbit.

Any agreement, they added, should include measures to implement producer and user responsibility for satellites and debris, from the time they launch onwards. Commercial costs should also be considered when looking at ways to incentivise accountability.

"Minimising the pollution of the lower Earth orbit will allow continued space exploration, satellite continuity and the growth of life-changing space technology," said co-author Kimberley Miner, scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

31

sifuyee t1_jbvynum wrote

The most effective way to implement this is to have an agreement where every new launch pays a fee based on the orbital debris potential of what they're launching. So that would factor in things like what orbit they are going to, how many objects, what size, what the potential is for explosions, and what their capability is to self de-orbit. The fees collected from new launches should be used to establish bounties for cleaning up the most hazardous objects in the most sensitive places. Let the bounties be collected by whoever gets there first. Let market forces figure out the most efficient method of collecting the bounties.

6

LaughRune t1_jbven8i wrote

Aliens don't visit because we are the trailer park of planets

23

jon_reremy9669 t1_jbwt0fs wrote

that's exactly what an alien would say to throw off the scent trail😑

3

LaughRune t1_jbx5ooz wrote

Rocket people, perhaps you’ve heard of them?

4

qster123 t1_jbto87e wrote

What a depressing thought, can't even look after our own planet

22

ChimpBrisket t1_jbtu36m wrote

We can’t even look after our own people

19

skabooshman t1_jbu4q79 wrote

A lot of us can’t even look after our selfs

8

No_Huckleberry_2905 t1_jc13g82 wrote

self-loathing intensifies

continues to sit on couch, opening the second 6-pack of the night while shitposting on reddit at 4AM

1

MIBlackburn t1_jbv0baf wrote

The manga and Anime, Planetes, discusses this. It's going to be a problem jf we don't do something about it.

I remember an anti-satellite system being used and thinking it was a bad idea. One test ended up generating 40,000 pieces of debris of 1cm and more rather than one bigger piece.

20

wheelontour t1_jbwqzst wrote

Yes, that was the Chinese. IIRC that single satellite interception test increased the number of dangerous debris in LEO by 30% at the time. Absolutely reckless idiocy. Probably greenlit by some politician who had no idea of the consequences and was just obsessed with making the world "respect" China.

10

No_Huckleberry_2905 t1_jc12ehx wrote

have there been any consequences to that? i have the feeling there should have been.

1

jscooper22 t1_jbv4vyw wrote

No one will care or pay for a nickel to clean any of it up. Then one will hit and kill an astronaut and the very same ones who refused most ardently to contribute to the cleanup will blame others for not cleaning it up

18

GibsonMaestro t1_jbvtcgu wrote

How long before there's too much debris to travel into space?

10

Annicity t1_jbw69s9 wrote

As far as I understand, a long time, space is so very, very big. That doesn't mean we should disregard pollution, and it's great to see interest in it. The biggest risk right now is the loss of capital, we are a long way away from Kessler syndrome.

4

GibsonMaestro t1_jbw71py wrote

But isn’t the space in our orbit much more finite? I’m thinking about a ring of debris around the place that makes travel impossible

8

Dr-Causti t1_jbwr1wl wrote

Wait till this guy you replied to hears about gravity 🤯

2

No_Huckleberry_2905 t1_jc13the wrote

travelling though orbit wont be a problem, but the risk for space stations in the most crowded altitudes of low earth orbit increases by some amount, yes.

1

slackfrop t1_jbwyhe0 wrote

It may be a long time until the likelihood is considered high, but it could happen at any time in a domino fashion. That’s why they track every piece they can, but errors happen.

3

Dr-Causti t1_jbwqyk3 wrote

Probably impossible to say as nobody can forsee our future space traffic, but at some point it will get more difficult, as the risk of getting hit from tiny bits of metal that fly with an insane speed will get higher and higher when leaving orbit.

This debris is dangerous to our astronauts and satellites already, so maybe instead of thinking of year XY when we can't travel anymore, think of a rising chart. The more shit we shoot in space, no matter for what purpose, the quicker the line on the chart will grow and the more risky it will get.

4

M4err0w t1_jc1cjwz wrote

i'm sure we'll eventually create meta materials that can just take it

1

Otherwise-Arm3245 t1_jbukxf0 wrote

Just start linking them together in space web and use it to block out the sun over the icecaps. Easy.

9

MrBragg t1_jbuos98 wrote

Let’s use this problem to our advantage: If we can create a method for gathering up this space junk, and launch it at the moon, crashing it into a very small area, perhaps a single crater, it can be recycled into building materials for future projects. Who’s with me?

8

vorpal_potato t1_jbuss2r wrote

That sounds very difficult, and only saves you about 60% of the delta-V needed to get material to the moon.

10

Annicity t1_jbw430u wrote

While not feasible now (what vorpal said) salvage operations are eventually going to be required in the future. I wonder how that will work.

2

Monowakari t1_jbuy2uv wrote

They also called for reduction in carbon emissions... Dont hold your breath.. Or i mean....maybe do... 'cause the air is poison...

8

Croce11 t1_jbw37v8 wrote

Carbon emissions and space junk is like the least of our problems. We got god only knows what leaking into the soil and drinking waters. Microplastics everywhere. Cancer causing gasses and potentially invisible waves between all our devices doing who knows what to our longterm health.

It doesn't matter what you do personally. Big unregulated corporations have decided to just do whatever they want and you're going to get genetically fucked just by existing on the same planet as them.

3

crosiss76 t1_jbudjnm wrote

So whats the solution to clean it up. Giant magnets

6

Annicity t1_jbw5w81 wrote

The easiest way to dispose of orbiting bodies is to crash them into Earth. Most sats are quite small and unless you're dropping the ISS, they burn up in the atmosphere.

Future sats may use drag sails to slowly pull it down. https://www.space.com/esa-drag-sail-prototype-adeo-unfurls

And regulation is already happening, the FCC has introduced the 5-year plan. https://www.nasa.gov/smallsat-institute/sst-soa/deorbit-systems https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-5-year-rule-deorbiting-satellites

Removing existing debris will ultimately mean slowing them down, to drag them to earth. A likely candidate is using lasers. https://phys.org/news/2021-04-laser-sky-space-debris.html But other concepts are being developed. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505020386/japan-sends-long-electric-whip-into-orbit-to-tame-space-junk https://www.npr.org/2021/03/21/979815691/new-effort-to-clean-up-space-junk-prepares-to-launch https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/business/space-debris-capture/index.html

4

TruthsNoRemedy t1_jbuklpv wrote

Only us humans can fuck over the planet and outside the planet. We are a next level virus to all planets.

6

DaStampede t1_jbvrho0 wrote

How in the fuck did we not learn after what we did to the planet? Oh right, it’s cheaper to dump things.

5

Annicity t1_jbw6pkf wrote

I feel we have learned, albeit a bit late, and are putting into place mechanisms to reduce the pollution.

2

VanArchie t1_jbwfdlo wrote

This isn't like the great garbage patch where a spokesperson from BP can stand up and say that everyone can help by carpooling and cycling.

Want to not room humanity's future space programs? Then I'd recommend the 10 richest people fight over designing the best giant net to fix it. Hopefully it's a fight to the death.

4

Strkl t1_jbw7etl wrote

Wall-E is becoming more and more real Fuck humans, fuck capitalism…we are such a poison to this planet

3

Delicious-Diver-1579 t1_jbvapvu wrote

Understood! See you in about 30 years when it's way too late to do anything and the problem has ballooned wildly out of proportion. Then, just when all hope seems lost, a conservative will ask how we'll pay for it.

2

Paranoid_Neckazoid t1_jbved8b wrote

If we can't even clean up our damn oceans how are we supposed to clean up space!

2

podolot t1_jbw9jst wrote

Can't we just be responsible and launch these into the oceans with the other satellites we yeet into the ocean?

2

ImagineSisAndUsHappy t1_jbwb1z1 wrote

Can’t wait for the next 10,000 “Scientist call for global action to” headline to be ignored over and over.

2

Franticfap t1_jbwhgk5 wrote

Watch us try to blow it up and it becomes EVEN CRAAAAZIER SPACE JUNK!

2

BergilSunfyre t1_jc02xaq wrote

I've heard that the best way to deal with space junk is actually to decelerate it, so it falls into the atmosphere and burns up.

1

FutureWorth2 t1_jbwmf6f wrote

What if, we just shot all the space junk at the sun?

2

skillywilly56 t1_jbwna1f wrote

Can’t even pick up trash on earth and now you want us to clean up space? Come on man I’m going to have no weekend at all at this rate

2

Ashtrail693 t1_jbwnm89 wrote

Quite sure they have been calling for the clean up of ocean plastic too, but just look at the other thread and you know where this is going.

2

bottlerocketz t1_jbwpddb wrote

People on earth don’t care about the shit we do to the earth. Why the fuck they gonna care about shit off the earth?

2

Muddgutts t1_jbwuea2 wrote

We can’t even clean our own oceans! How the f**k can we tackle cleaning outer space?

2

DawnOfTheTruth t1_jbwvycn wrote

You would think that the materials orbiting around up there would be worth recovery should someone be savvy enough to retrieve a sizable amount cheap enough to turn a profit from recycling. Re-entry might even complete some of the process.

Big ass electromagnet roomba that uses re-entry to melt most of it down somehow IDK. Maybe that big ass vacuum maid from space balls.

2

ruffneckting t1_jbx1gzf wrote

If I collect a defunct satalite does it belong to me or the people that left it there?

I wonder what the scrap value would be.

If we started to clump the junk together would it gather all the other junk and create a new metal moon?

2

y2k2r2d2 t1_jbx4d6q wrote

This is upto the Scientist . They can blame scientists and scientist alone for this one . They treated space launches as if it was Rocket science .

2

Kaizen2468 t1_jbx6o1w wrote

That’s a good thing. I would like to see, if you want to put something up there, you need to remove something first. If you can’t afford to, to bad you don’t get to.

2

Apocalyptic-turnip t1_jbxlnh2 wrote

haah ha we can't even get governments to deal with earth trash and we expect them to deal with space trash

2

DarkGengar94 t1_jbxuedq wrote

This is why we should stop sending things into space

2

Run-Amokk t1_jbxzojl wrote

Huh, but they also explore blocking out the sun to cool the earth so no one has to change any habits...Seems a win win, pollute space, block the sun, we can all pollute on earth forever...https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/remediation/moon-dust-cool-earth.htm

2

iuytrefdgh436yujhe2 t1_jby7iw1 wrote

Kessler Syndrome is a search term for anyone curious to learn more about the problem of space junk. It is a hypothesis that suggests orbital debris could create cascading destruction that simultaneously destroys basically everything we have in orbit and creates a debris field dense enough that it would effectively cut ourselves off from orbital entirely. It's a proposed 'great filter' in the Fermi Paradox, suggesting that potentially advanced civilizations can inadvertently hamstring their ability to leave the planet because of this.

This is also, as an aside, why we should really want to avoid space-to-space combat.

2

FuturologyBot t1_jbtqawb wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/thebelsnickle1991:

Scientists have called for a legally binding treaty to ensure Earth's orbit isn't irreparably harmed by the future expansion of the global space industry.

The number of satellites in orbit is expected to increase from the current 9,000 to more than 60,000 by 2030, with estimates suggesting there are already more than 100 trillion untracked pieces of old satellites circling the planet.

While such technology is used to provide a huge range of social and environmental benefits, there are fears the predicted growth of the industry could make large parts of Earth's orbit unusable, wrote an international collaboration of experts in fields, including satellite technology and ocean plastic pollution, the journal Science.

This demonstrates the urgent need for global consensus on how best to govern Earth's orbit, said researchers, including from the Universities of Plymouth, Arribada Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, California Institute of Technology, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Spaceport Cornwall and ZSL (Zoological Society of London).

The experts acknowledged that a number of industries and countries are starting to focus on satellite sustainability, but this should be enforced to include any nation with plans to use Earth's orbit.

Any agreement, they added, should include measures to implement producer and user responsibility for satellites and debris, from the time they launch onwards. Commercial costs should also be considered when looking at ways to incentivise accountability.

"Minimising the pollution of the lower Earth orbit will allow continued space exploration, satellite continuity and the growth of life-changing space technology," said co-author Kimberley Miner, scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11oootr/scientists_call_for_global_action_to_clean_up/jbtlge1/

1

Economy-District-279 t1_jbuw9go wrote

Even as a kid it was always off putting for me to see them just litter their junk in space.

1

AloofPenny t1_jbvmjyr wrote

We barely clean up earth junk. it would be cool if we focused on that

1

truteamplaya t1_jbvz3xz wrote

Sweet now many of the concerned and worried job seekers could actually get hired.

1

KingGidorah t1_jbvzgfn wrote

Sure, bcuz it worked so well with ocean, land and air pollution…

1

zenzukai t1_jbw3k0x wrote

Easy peasy. Just launch some orbital solar powered lasers.

1

AstrialWandering t1_jbwf9mz wrote

Oh yeah, let me just get my jellyfishing net and snorkel.

1

apopDragon t1_jbwg9yk wrote

Well, we’ll see a lot of “shooting stars” with all these junk on re-entry

1

orzhavmahfriens t1_jbx0uui wrote

I checked indeed and there's no "space trash collector" openings anywhere. Anybody got links to some?

1

EskimoCheeks t1_jbyeh9t wrote

Make a monolithic baseball bat and bolt it to the Canada Arm and knock homerunsbof space junk directly at the sun.

Problem solved!

1

vanthin t1_jbym4ph wrote

Junk in our space, junk in our ocean, junk in our bodies, junk in our mind....junk junk junk

1

CoolJetta3 t1_jbyquif wrote

Clean up space junk? I can't even keep up with the litter on my street

1

M4err0w t1_jc1cfjc wrote

but wouldn't it be much more efficient to wait a bit longer?

like dusting, there's really no point to do it every day, when you get the same result, 10 minutes without dust, only doing it once a year.

1

Doobency t1_jc99kk4 wrote

Because space junk is more important than junk on our planet? I guess it's all important. But not while consumers are consuming and manufacturers are manufacturing! Go capitalism!

1

sparklinglites t1_jbvp7xw wrote

How about we hold those responsible accountable and get them to clean it up? Elon Musk is still alive and he's currently adding to it. Why is it always our job to be the peasants that clean up after

0

Frequent-Act4256 t1_jbw7srm wrote

Please. Another hoax to steal taxpayers money. Most of the sats are on helium balloons. Most signals are bounced off the firmament. How do you think AM radio signals were received from Chicago to London in the 1930s?

0

TheStrikeofGod t1_jbwubem wrote

We should take the planet, and push it somewhere else.

0

robmac550 t1_jbw6mnn wrote

Let's start with all the starlink satellites. No one guy should control that much information.

−3

phantom_in_the_cage t1_jbu68ap wrote

Funnily enough, I lean on the side of not calling for action

In fact, Kessler Syndrome (the space debris death spiral) can't get here fast enough

Why? A thought experiment

What will the Earth look like in a century if space colonies become feasible? Think about it, then you'll know why I prefer all of us being stuck on this rock

−5