The consideration to keep in mind is called space junk, we got quite some trash up there in orbit of our planet. It's considered not to be a problem due that the size of the object would burn in our atmosphere. But we of Asgardia want to go to space and we require to keep in mind out of the prospect of security, what do we do about the space junk?

Why bot of just said space junk is an increasing problem and how can we deal with it,...

Bearnard - lay off the stuff before you post...

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches. However, we all understand that it's impossible now and will hardly ever be possible. That's why space agencies work on numerous projects that aim to clean the orbit. Some of them presuppose the use of satellites, and they seem the most interesting to me. I have just started to monitor dragonflyaerospace.com, a promising South-African endeavor that manufactures satellite imagers that can do good for such mission I suppose. I may tell you more about them if you want.

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches. However, we all understand that it's impossible now and will hardly ever be possible. That's why space agencies work on numerous projects that aim to clean the orbit. Some of them presuppose the use of satellites, and they seem the most interesting to me. I have just started to monitor dragonflyaerospace.com, a promising South-African endeavor that manufactures satellite imagers that can do good for such mission I suppose. I may tell you more about them if you want.

I guess it`s impossible to decrease the number of launches. I heard that some space agencies are going to make some ``cleaning`` missions. I guess the easiest way to cope with space junk is to make them burn down in the atmosphere. However, it depends on the size of some space debris. It can be so large that it won't just burn down in the atmosphere

bearnard123 wrote:

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches. However, we all understand that it's impossible now and will hardly ever be possible. That's why space agencies work on numerous projects that aim to clean the orbit. Some of them presuppose the use of satellites, and they seem the most interesting to me. I have just started to monitor dragonflyaerospace.com, a promising South-African endeavor that manufactures satellite imagers that can do good for such mission I suppose. I may tell you more about them if you want.

I guess it`s impossible to decrease the number of launches. I heard that some space agencies are going to make some ``cleaning`` missions. I guess the easiest way to cope with space junk is to make them burn down in the atmosphere. However, it depends on the size of some space debris. It can be so large that it won't just burn down in the atmosphere

Large particles can be split into several small pieces by laser or any other technology.

The big number of space junk can damage expensive spacecrafts The growing number of space items can lead to the state where the object density is so high that one collision is enough to generate a cascade effect, leading to further collisions.

The growing number of space items can lead to what is known as the ‘Kessler syndrome’, which represents a state where the object density is so high that one collision is enough to generate a cascade effect, leading to further collisions.

MadAstronaut wrote:

bearnard123 wrote:

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches. However, we all understand that it's impossible now and will hardly ever be possible. That's why space agencies work on numerous projects that aim to clean the orbit. Some of them presuppose the use of satellites, and they seem the most interesting to me. I have just started to monitor dragonflyaerospace.com, a promising South-African endeavor that manufactures satellite imagers that can do good for such mission I suppose. I may tell you more about them if you want.

I guess it`s impossible to decrease the number of launches. I heard that some space agencies are going to make some ``cleaning`` missions. I guess the easiest way to cope with space junk is to make them burn down in the atmosphere. However, it depends on the size of some space debris. It can be so large that it won't just burn down in the atmosphere

Large particles can be split into several small pieces by laser or any other technology.

I`ve heard the mission called the ``Claw`` is gonna work according to the method I`ve mentioned previously in this thread. This mission is about to be launched in 2025.

bearnard123 wrote:

MadAstronaut wrote:

bearnard123 wrote:

I guess it`s impossible to decrease the number of launches. I heard that some space agencies are going to make some ``cleaning`` missions. I guess the easiest way to cope with space junk is to make them burn down in the atmosphere. However, it depends on the size of some space debris. It can be so large that it won't just burn down in the atmosphere

Large particles can be split into several small pieces by laser or any other technology.

I`ve heard the mission called the ``Claw`` is gonna work according to the method I`ve mentioned previously in this thread. This mission is about to be launched in 2025.

There's also a mission that aims to launch a CubeSat that'll clean up the space junk and deorbit by tethers and nets. It's called OSCaR.

The ISS recently suffered a clash with a piece of space junk that hit its robotic arb. Isn't it an important signal for us to start doing something with it...

A recent inspection of the International Space Station's Canadarm2 has revealed that it was hit by orbital debris. See the hole that was created and a time-lapse of the robotic arm in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFijTNJqnYA

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches.

Or make de-orbit mandatory, including requiring insurance for clean up if the de-orbit fails.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches.

Or make de-orbit mandatory, including requiring insurance for clean up if the de-orbit fails.

Best regards
Thomas

I guess scientists should work on the issue of the short lifespan of microsatellites. I hope that in some time scientists will succeed and solve that issue. By doing that scientists can reduce the number of launches and the number of dead satellites in the orbit of Earth.

bearnard123 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches.

Or make de-orbit mandatory, including requiring insurance for clean up if the de-orbit fails.

Best regards
Thomas

I guess scientists should work on the issue of the short lifespan of microsatellites. I hope that in some time scientists will succeed and solve that issue. By doing that scientists can reduce the number of launches and the number of dead satellites in the orbit of Earth.

That is already solved: Put it in an orbit that decays within a reasonable time or give it enough delta-V to de-orbit itself at the end of its useful life.

Both costs money in all cases where such orbit isn´t conductive to the mission objective, either by shortening it or requiring to lift more fuel into orbit.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches.

Or make de-orbit mandatory, including requiring insurance for clean up if the de-orbit fails.

What is your position on commercial entities setting up massive space segments for some project or other?
( Starlink comes to mind. beside introducing a massive amount of junk into space the design would allow to
use the individual retargetable sats as space denial tool. Ops! sorry Russia, to hit your freshly started space asset.)

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches.

Or make de-orbit mandatory, including requiring insurance for clean up if the de-orbit fails.

What is your position on commercial entities setting up massive space segments for some project or other?

Deorbit them, pay someone to de-orbit them or be made to pay to de-orbit them at the end of their operation lifetime.

Best regards
Thomas

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

MadAstronaut wrote:

The most obvious decision we can take is to reduce the number of launches.

Or make de-orbit mandatory, including requiring insurance for clean up if the de-orbit fails.

What is your position on commercial entities setting up massive space segments for some project or other?
( Starlink comes to mind. beside introducing a massive amount of junk into space the design would allow to
use the individual retargetable sats as space denial tool. Ops! sorry Russia, to hit your freshly started space asset.)

The same starlink satellites that are designed to be de-orbited and have literally already done that? I don't know the actual cost of the propellants, but compared to the launch cost, its trivial. If you leave your garbage in orbit, its cuz you are a jerk, not because its difficult to remove it.

meecrob wrote:

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Or make de-orbit mandatory, including requiring insurance for clean up if the de-orbit fails.

What is your position on commercial entities setting up massive space segments for some project or other?
( Starlink comes to mind. beside introducing a massive amount of junk into space the design would allow to
use the individual retargetable sats as space denial tool. Ops! sorry Russia, to hit your freshly started space asset.)

The same starlink satellites that are designed to be de-orbited and have literally already done that? I don't know the actual cost of the propellants, but compared to the launch cost, its trivial. If you leave your garbage in orbit, its cuz you are a jerk, not because its difficult to remove it.

Its not difficult, but the higher the orbit, the more expensive it gets.

Best regards
Thomas

SpaceX told their satellites can naturally deorbit themselves and burn in the Earth's atmosphere. Do they have another deorbiting system?

MadAstronaut wrote:

SpaceX told their satellites can naturally deorbit themselves and burn in the Earth's atmosphere. Do they have another deorbiting system?

If I am not mistaken, some space company has already made such microsatellites, I mean with the same option of deorbiting themselves and burn in the Earth's atmosphere

There are rules about satellites' end of life saying they should be put into specific orbits, however if something goes wrong, no rule is mandating you go up there to fix the problem. Yet.

MadAstronaut wrote:

SpaceX told their satellites can naturally deorbit themselves and burn in the Earth's atmosphere. Do they have another deorbiting system?

They have ion thrusters...and I'm not sure about this bit, but I remember hearing that future versions will turn their solar arrays broadside to the atmosphere to help as well.

Fishing for knowledge here. Any answers welcome

How large/how much mass does something need to be to be counted as a unit of space junk? I presume that a dust cloud consisting in 10,000 particles does not count as 10,000 pieces of space junk.

What are the smallest/least massive objects currently trackable? How many orbiting objects are tracked (orbits known and recorded)?

If things are in geostationary orbit a long way from Earth, will it be hundreds/thousands of years before they return home?

art wrote:

How large/how much mass does something need to be to be counted as a unit of space junk? I presume that a dust cloud consisting in 10,000 particles does not count as 10,000 pieces of space junk.

There is no minimum size for space junk. Even tiny paint chippings are counted as debris.

Any particles in space cause damage to satellites. 'Dust' will usually only cause superficial damage similar to sandblasting a surface.

Particles of a size <1 cm can create a small crater. Thin and soft parts like thermal shielding foils, cables or coolant lines may be penetrated; delicate small parts like sensors may be destroyed.

Solid particles with diameters of 1 - 10 cm can easily penetrate any primary structure, which can damage and destroy subsystems.

Particles >10 cm are generally expected to destroy a satellite. The lower limit for complete destruction is estimated at around 40 J/g when comparing the impactor energy to the satellite mass, so a 500g piece of Aluminum is more than sufficient for medium-sized satellites.
https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/7#99

art wrote:

What are the smallest/least massive objects currently trackable? How many orbiting objects are tracked (orbits known and recorded)?

Objects are tracked by radar. The smallest tracked objects used to have a (RCS) diameter of at least 10 cm, some newer systems are hoping to track parts as small as 1 cm. The smaller the object and the higher its altitude, the more difficult it can be to track them accurately. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/4/1364/htm

For comparison, old stealth aircraft like the B-2 and F-117 have an RCS diameter of approx. 7-10 cm, while newer aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 are said to be around 1 cm or less. Birds are also around 10 cm. (rough orders of magnitude)

art wrote:

If things are in geostationary orbit a long way from Earth, will it be hundreds/thousands of years before they return home?

Yes. Atmospheric drag in GEO and the GEO graveyard orbit is basically zero. Even for GPS satellites, it's negligible. These satellites will only reenter if orbital mechanics and the solar pressure disturb their orbit so that their perigee drops low enough (<1000km). That takes time. Centuries in some cases, several millenia in others. To illustrate this, some satellites in graveyard orbits only 100 km above GEO will not drop below the GEO altitude within 200 years. https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/pro ... /paper/864 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7701004471

Where actually is the difference between 10k pieces of space junk and
commercial system consisting of the same number of independently orbiting items?

WIederling wrote:

Where actually is the difference between 10k pieces of space junk and
commercial system consisting of the same number of independently orbiting items?

Working satellites, assuming they have some means to change their orbit, can avoid collisions and can be deorbited in a controlled fashion.

mxaxai wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Where actually is the difference between 10k pieces of space junk and
commercial system consisting of the same number of independently orbiting items?

Working satellites, assuming they have some means to change their orbit, can avoid collisions and can be deorbited in a controlled fashion.

That makes the issue even bigger as unpredictable changes can occur.
And the operator has been shown to not bother by stepping on other users.
ref: https://futurism.com/spacex-starlink-sa ... -collision