36 replies to this topic

[Freezout]

One question here about satellites.

 

I am personally not feeling too much bad due to light pollution, because I truly think that it will be, at some point, no more an issue. I told many times on that forum that according to me light pollution will either

A) be mitigated when it becomes an ecological concern, like ozone depleting substances were, even if it takes time, especially considering that light pollution is easy to "clean" (turn off the light and save money!); or

B) completely disappear if our civilization crushes.

 

For sure it won't happen during my life, or maybe the one of my kids, but I believe it will happen.

 

The only point that still worries me is the pollution by satellites that will continue to turn around us. It would be a shame to have scenario A or B occurring, and still have skies polluted by too many satellites.

 

The question: Once tenths of thousands of it will be up there so that we can download faster videos of dancing cats, how can we get rid of them?

 

A) do they all, standard, have to include a de-orbiting capacity? (so that if I become world dictator, I can give order to get them all out of my FOV forever)

B) If there is nobody or no possibility to take care of it (scenario B), do they stay up there forever, or does some law of physics make them fall and burn at one point? even if it's in 1000 years, that would make me feel better.

 

Thanks a lot

Freezout

 

 

[TOMDEY]

The ones in higher orbits will last for centuries and millennia. And if they start to break up by collisions with others, that will turn into a cloud of particles... which is a distinct possibility, the way things are going. There's no way to clean it up, other than wait a few million years or more. Evidence --- Saturn's rings.    Tom

[Dobs O Fun]

 

...

 

The question: Once tenths of thousands of it will be up there so that we can download faster videos of dancing cats, how can we get rid of them?

 

...

Starlink has a large perceived value in that it provides valuable connection to society that otherwise cannot get that connection commercially like we can.  People who travel or live in rural parts of the world are the primary focus of Starlink.  More people are affected by lack of connectivity than than we think.  We also take this connectivity for granted as it has become part of our everyday life.  We have seen Starlink became a vital connection point post hurricane (pending equipment delivery).  Imagine being on the otherside of the country getting a message that your loved ones are okay.

 

That being said the proliferation of satellites present problems on many dimensions, far from just light pollution; we have orbital decay, life span and reclamation .

 

What I have seen is a lot of complaints, Musk bashing and etc.  There are those though in thier own capacity was able to do something positive about this problem.  I'm going to steer you at least in one direction as a starter.  Advocacy in a group setting is much more powerful than a single effort.  

 

Take a look at the IDA, at least that's a start that is possible without having a single voice muffled in a sea of others who haven't banded together to initiate change.

[Freezout]

Completely agree that remote internet is useful and I won’t advocate a ban of internet satellites. But if we would use it reasonably (my reference to cats videos) and define priorities, there would be no need of giga constellations. I’m ready to give up 90% of my phone capacities to keep a proper sky for my kids.

[Fabricius]

The question: Once tenths of thousands of it will be up there so that we can download faster videos of dancing cats, how can we get rid of them?

 

A) do they all, standard, have to include a de-orbiting capacity? (so that if I become world dictator, I can give order to get them all out of my FOV forever)

B) If there is nobody or no possibility to take care of it (scenario B), do they stay up there forever, or does some law of physics make them fall and burn at one point? even if it's in 1000 years, that would make me feel better.

How can we get rid of them? We can't. Some of them will come down, reenter the atmosphere and burn up. But not all of them.

Take a look at this list of active geosynchronous satellites, sort the column "International Designator" (= year of launch and number) and you will see that some of them are more than 30 years active:

https://celestrak.or....php?FORMAT=tle

 

What will happen after their operational life?

Some of them - mind you, not all of them - will be moved further away from earth to a so-called graveyard orbit. Radius > 40.000 km.

Quote: "the standard geosynchronous satellite graveyard orbit results in an expected orbital lifetime of millions of years". So we will not get rid of them in our lifetime.

 

If you would become world dictator, nobody would be able to execute your order to get all satellites out of your FOV. If your subjects are wise, they will keep telescopes away from you (satellites in 40.000 km orbits are visible in > 8" scopes).

Edited by Fabricius, 16 October 2024 - 01:11 PM.

[Freezout]

The ones in higher orbits will last for centuries and millennia. And if they start to break up by collisions with others, that will turn into a cloud of particles... which is a distinct possibility, the way things are going. There's no way to clean it up, other than wait a few million years or more. Evidence --- Saturn's rings.    Tom

 

How can we get rid of them? We can't. Some of them will come down, reenter the atmosphere and burn up. But not all of them.

Take a look at this list of active geosynchronous satellites, sort the column "International Designator" (= year of launch and number) and you will see that some of them are more than 30 years active:

https://celestrak.or....php?FORMAT=tle

 

What will happen after their operational life?

Some of them - mind you, not all of them - will be moved further away from earth to a so-called graveyard orbit. Radius > 40.000 km.

Quote: "the standard geosynchronous satellite graveyard orbit results in an expected orbital lifetime of millions of years". So we will not get rid of them in our lifetime.

 

If you would become world dictator, nobody would be able to execute your order to get all satellites out of your FOV. If your subjects are wise, they will keep telescopes away from you (satellites in 40.000 km orbits are visible in > 8" scopes).

Thanks for your answers. Now, I have no more reason to become world dictator.

It seems like I better to stick with my 150mm telescope then, at least I won't see too many satellites...

[RLK1]

Evasive maneuvers now!  "NASA says that the International Space Station (ISS) shifted its orbit on Tuesday to avoid a piece of debris.

The debris avoidance maneuver involved firing thrusters on the ISS at 2:09 p.m. CT for 5 minutes, 31 seconds, according to NASA. This adjustment raised the ISS orbit to "provide an extra margin of distance from a piece of orbital debris from a defunct defense meteorological satellite that broke up in 2015," the agency says."

 

"The ISS, which travels at least 17,500 mph, is in orbit in an environment filled with hundreds of satellites and thousands of pieces of space debris.

This was the first time the ISS implemented a maneuver to dodge space debris this year and the 39th time proactive measures have been taken to avoid debris since its launch in 1998, NASA says.

In October 2022, the ISS also fired its thrusters for 5 minutes and 5 seconds to dodge a piece of debris from a Russian satellite."

 

"The U.S. has cataloged 19,000 pieces of space debris in Earth's orbit, not including active satellites, U.S. Space Forces-Space tells NPR. Additionally, NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office says there are about 9,000 metric tons of material orbiting Earth. Most of the debris in lower orbit is "moving very fast and can reach speeds of 18,000 miles per hour," NASA says."

 

"...even a small a blueberry-sized piece of space debris "can create the impact of a falling anvil."

 

https://www.npr.org/...ss-dodge-debris

[vsteblina]

I just read somewhere that the StarLink satellites have a limited life and they will reenter the atmosphere after a few years.

 

I also read that they have some maneuvering capability and the plan is once they are obsolete they will be "driven" down to earth.  The maneuvering capability was revealed with the Chinese government filed a complaint that a StarLink satellite came over to say hi to one of their satellites!!!

 

Lots of fireballs coming in future years?? 

[Jordan Savoie]

They are small enough that they should all burn up, shouldn't reach the ground. Though the effect of these on the upper atmosphere? Unclear! Hopefully we won't burn another ozone hole.

[ayadai]

On the death side of the equation, here's an interesting bit:

 

How do you clean up 170 million pieces of space junk? - American Federation of Scientists

 

On the life side of the equation, there's the recent success of a wooden satellite launch by Japan.

[Dave Mitsky]

The EU has signed a deal for its IRIS² constellation of 290 communication satellites that will operate in both medium and low-earth orbit. The Starlink rival will provide secure connectivity to governmental users as well as private companies and European citizens, and bring high-speed internet to dead-zones. The public-private deal valued at €10.6 billion (about $11 billion), according to The Financial Times, is expected to come online by 2030.

https://www.theverge...urope-date-cost

[Dave Mitsky]

SpaceX hopes to expand its megaconstellation to as many as 42,000 satellites. China is aiming for a similar scale and hopes to have around 38,000 satellites across three of its low earth orbit internet projects, known as Qianfan, Guo Wang and Honghu-3.
 

Aside from Starlink, European-based Eutelsat OneWeb has also launched more than 630 low earth orbit, or LEO, internet satellites. Amazon also has plans for a large LEO constellation, currently called Project Kuiper, made up of more than 3,000 satellites, though the company has launched only two prototype satellites so far.

https://www.nbcnewyo...arlink/6070983/

[RLK1]

Regarding the Kessler syndrome of space collisions spiraling out of control:

 

"Several experts actually disagree on the exact timeline of potential orbital congestion, but at the same time, there is consensus that the situation is eminently critical."

 

"Collisions, weapons tests and accidental explosions are the things which have contributed to the proliferation of space debris with incidents like the satellite collision of the year 2009 creating thousands of new fragments."

 

https://economictime...15.cms?from=mdr

[Dave Mitsky]

https://www.n2yo.com...-Earth-orbit/86

 

https://www.space.co...ypes-space-junk

[RLK1]

https://www.n2yo.com...-Earth-orbit/86

 

https://www.space.co...ypes-space-junk

From the first link:  "The usual response of humans to environmental problems is to do too little, too late," McDowell said. "I think we are then going to try and scramble and do something at the last minute that maybe lets you carry on surfing the edge of a disaster."

 

It'll probably be sheer luck if all that happens is it "lets you carry on surfing the edge of disaster"...

[Jhunt]

 A Chinese satellite(GaoJing 1-02) that went out of service a few years ago just burnt up over the Southern US on Dec 21st. Make you wonder how common it will be for satellites to just be burning up over our heads. 

[Fabricius]

Make you wonder how common it will be for satellites to just be burning up over our heads. 

"will be"?

The future is already here .

A random selection from last week's burning space junk:

 

reference: https://aerospace.org/reentries

 

[Dobs O Fun]

8 that are two-year old sats?

[Rlakjdlsj]

 A Chinese satellite(GaoJing 1-02) that went out of service a few years ago just burnt up over the Southern US on Dec 21st. Make you wonder how common it will be for satellites to just be burning up over our heads. 

Not all of them burn up.   Sometimes they land on or in your house.  

 

https://www.leonardd...hicle-leftover/

 

https://www.cbsnews....-village-kenya/

Edited by Ron359, 01 January 2025 - 07:20 PM.

[Jhunt]

"will be"?

The future is already here .

A random selection from last week's burning space junk:

spacejunkcomingdown.jpg

 

reference: https://aerospace.org/reentries

 

The goal is to allow them to burn up over the ocean correct? How common is it to lose contact and have your satellite reenter uncontrollably over another nation? 

[Jhunt]

Not all of them burn up.   Sometimes they land on or in your house.  

 

https://www.leonardd...hicle-leftover/

 

https://www.cbsnews....-village-kenya/

 

I read about that. Crazy. 

 

I was most surprised to learn Kenya has a Space Agency. I guess i can't blame myself seeing as hoe it's only 7 years old. 

[havasman]

Here's a link to a TED talk by Moriba Jah about his crowd funded tracking system, 5 minutes 19 seconds. It's 6 years old and old news to those in the business of saving us from orbiting objects. Jah's a coworker of a friend of mine and an extremely interesting scientist worth checking out. WIRED magazine listed him as one of 25 people trying most effectively to save us from ourselves. The images in this talk are in use today by computational space scientists.  https://www.ted.com/...tem?subtitle=en

 

My friend is giving a presentation (Manmade Satellite Impacts to Terrestrial Astronomy) on the subject to Texas Astronomical Society of Dallas on January 24 that should be available live via Zoom or the like to TAS members. Join via TEXASASTRO.ORG

The talk will be worthwhile and of interest to anyone interested in scientific data on this topic. Highly recommended.

Edited by havasman, 02 January 2025 - 05:08 PM.

[havasman]

For instance, there are "only" 145 inactive, dead Starlink satellites currently in orbit.

[Astroman007]

The goal is to allow them to burn up over the ocean correct? How common is it to lose contact and have your satellite reenter uncontrollably over another nation? 

The earth is over 70% water, so it's a fairly safe bet...if you like to bet.

 

Sometimes it doesn't go quite according to plan, with unintended consequences, like Kosmos 954:

 

https://www.historic...smos-954/39474/

[RLK1]

Well, I think the problem has been solved:  all ya gotta do is reclassify space debris as a "valuable heritage"!

To wit:

 

"Anthropologists push for cataloging Martian debris as valuable artifacts"

"Justin Holcomb and colleagues argue that Mars' remnants, like crashed landers and rover tracks, are valuable heritage, not "space trash."

"It's critical to shift that narrative towards heritage because the solution to trash is removal, but the solution to heritage is preservation. There's a big difference," said Holcomb,"

 

https://www.jpost.co.../article-835866