Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FanOfPeace t1_j6kohss wrote

>As more and more pieces of debris accumulate in Earth orbit, collisions between them can generate even more fragments in a frightening theoretical ripple effect known as the Kessler Syndrome. If left unmitigated, the theory proposes that cascading space debris impacts could someday hinder humanity's space ambitions by rendering the space around Earth unpassable.

Wow. That's incredible. I wonder what could be done to reduce space junk if it gets to that point. Would it just be unfixable?

121

glibgloby t1_j6ljg7g wrote

Kessler syndrome is wildly misinderstood. Probably thanks to the movie gravity. I suggest people read the actual wiki on the topic.

Yes, low to mid orbits could become difficult to hold. This would present itself as a small statistical likelihood per year for a satellite in these orbits to be struck.

Higher orbits would not be affected, nor would our ability to travel through these regions whatsoever. We would definitely still be able to travel into space just fine. But hanging out in lower orbits for long periods of time would be somewhat dangerous.

62

Gawkhimm t1_j6lzw5b wrote

thats only if anti-satellite missiles arnt used, thats my biggest worry, not an accidental collision, but a series deliberate shoot downs of satellites from one side or another...

Say Some nation was badly loosing a war and wanted to threaten the west....

12

SlightComplaint t1_j6mfxpb wrote

So an eastern nation?

2

Gawkhimm t1_j6mg0sw wrote

who knows, but the specific nations isn't as important as the risk of it happening at all, on a large scale...

4

SlightComplaint t1_j6mgq62 wrote

Question: If all the current satellites were destroyed at once. What would that change tomorrow? Some things I can think of: -GPS/GNSS. -Weather measurements. -Sat TV / news. -Some comms.

I am just thinking that it wasn't that long ago that we didn't have any of that, and we still managed two world wars just fine.

Alternatives to these are: -Knowing where you are/someone else is. -terrestrial weather measurement. -Short wave radio.

1

RhesusFactor t1_j6mqtou wrote

  • Banking would stop due to loss of timing from GNSS. This has immediate and global ramifications.
  • Some disruption to air traffic control as space based ADSB is lost and only available near airports.
  • Global sea shipping loses tracking. Most navigation. Global disruption to bulk international supply chains until inertial nav and alternates are reinstalled.
  • Military communication and some crypto is lost. Many many intel sources are lost. Most guided munitions are hampered, deterrence is lost in some cases, likely leading to conflict sparking as adversaries try to make use of the more even power equations. SBRS no longer provides nuclear deterrence.
  • Weather prediction is significantly impacted. This has flow on effects to logistics, insurance and risk management. Military operations and rescue services are significantly impacted.
  • Hubble is lost.
  • TESS, Kepler, Chandra etc are gone, setting back some fields of astronomy.
  • Astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts die as the ISS and Tiangong are inhabited satellites. All research aboard is lost.
14

SlightComplaint t1_j6pbnjc wrote

Surely many of these systems have a terrestrial backup.

1

RhesusFactor t1_j6pfuzu wrote

You'd hope they do but many are not implementable in a quick manner or to the scale we have achieved with space based services. The question was about if they all failed at once, which is why we are quite concerned about coronal mass ejection and other space weather that could knock out our space systems all at once.

There are ground based PNT/augmentation seeking to lessen reliance on GNSS/space based PNT.

The US considers some of these capabilities as critical infrastructure with limited alternatives. Some are unique like the ISS and Hubble.

Remarkably GNSS is one of the largest components of the space industry. Near everything has gps or timing requirements now. https://brycetech.com/reports/report-documents/Bryce_2019_Global_Space_Economy.png

3

Gawkhimm t1_j6mgudo wrote

I would guess a lot more.. But I dont know the specifics. But the debris would keep all other orbital launches grounded

2

fakewokesnowflake t1_j6lxj3n wrote

I was at the Space Resiliency Forum in December, and the DoD is certainly taking it seriously…

Also some pretty brilliant folks around space seem to be taking it seriously: McKnight et al.

ESA

Even NASA is working on active debris remediation due to the issues caused by orbital debris

NASA

NASA ADRV

Sure, we could likely still launch to MEO and beyond just fine, but the ISS orbits at 400km. Orbital reef is set to orbit at 500km. We would completely lose sustained human presence in LEO for up to hundreds of years.

Decay by altitude

But I am sure the wiki explained all that to you.

4

glibgloby t1_j6msjxv wrote

The wiki does explain all of that. Even I explained most of that in my actual post.

That’s cool you went to a forum though I guess.

4

klokkert1 t1_j6nmmz7 wrote

Thank you! I was thinking about this earlier today, how long does it stay in orbit. A lot longer than I thought it would be.

1

Paradox_Dolphin t1_j6kyrog wrote

There's a lot of research into fixing it.

My favorite solution is space lasers. Basically, have a system of lasers in space, even just a few watts for each laser, and target all the tiny pieces of space junk. Similar to how a comet gets a tail when the sun shines on it, a powerful laser would melt bits of the space junk, causing it to lose velocity, and drop out of orbit.

The reason why this hasn't been done, is because the problem isn't yet big enough for it to be done.

It's currently still very unlikely for a cascade like this to begin, but as we put more into space, the chances just keep getting higher.

I think it'll be like the climate crisis, we'll wait until we feel the effects, and then do something to change it while hoping it's not too late.

30

smithsp86 t1_j6lbti6 wrote

Certainly the coolest solution. One note, objects wouldn't lose velocity by melting. They would lose it because of material ablating off because of the heat.

21

Paradox_Dolphin t1_j6lh8k9 wrote

Thank you for the word "ablating." I had a mental image of this that I was trying to describe, but I couldn't find the exact words for it. So I tried explaining it like a comet, where it heats up and the has bits of it shoot off.

7

AlpineCorbett t1_j6ltxzy wrote

If a problem can be fixed with a big ass laser, I assert that it is our duty, as humans, to do so. With vigor.

I can think of nothing more human.

13

Paradox_Dolphin t1_j6lvynf wrote

Oh my God yeah, someone call the pentagon, we've gotta be able to sell it to them with this description.

8

AlpineCorbett t1_j6lwe68 wrote

JFK 2.0 - "We choose to do this thing not because it is easy, but because it is supremely fucking cool"

2

Paradox_Dolphin t1_j6lzvo8 wrote

The second time around, his initials stand for "Jesus Fucking Khrist"

2

Vulch59 t1_j6miqzb wrote

Could call it something like Satellite Harm Amelioration and Reduction Campaign

^(Cannot think of a decent K so SHARC with frikkin lasers it is)

2

syntaxvorlon t1_j6mw8q1 wrote

No, on a long enough time scale most of the junk will precipitate down onto Earth, very few orbits are so stable as to be permanent, but that would cut us off for many years.

2

TheUmgawa t1_j6pgroy wrote

On the upside, it also provides natural protection against alien invasion. You gotta look at the glass as half full.

2

jeffsmith202 OP t1_j6ktzjj wrote

SL-8 is a U.S. Department of Defense nomenclature for the Kosmos-3 family of Soviet rockets that first entered service in 1964

1

TolMera t1_j6llvo8 wrote

We launch a rocket with a thick shield of aero gel. The aerogel catches the small particles, without emitting more. Then we probably put a few of these is permanent orbit, designed to mop up their orbit.

0

mfb- t1_j6lzc08 wrote

You would need millions of these to have an impact. Which would lead to added debris if these things collide with each other...

We can deorbit the big objects, that removes the largest source of new debris.

1

WhatADunderfulWorld t1_j6lu1sp wrote

Most would eventually fall to earth anyway. It’s more a problem of designing future satellites that are larger and have more functionality. Small satellites are so cheaply to design and shoot up there but it’s a huge issue when it only doesn’t one thing for one company.

They all need to be designed to fall to earth in 5 years or something.

0

Gawkhimm t1_j6lzz9e wrote

and thats not taking into account deliberate shooting down of sattelites with missiles, say if one nation was loosing a war badly and blamed the other side supplying weapons to their enemy....

0