Ars Technica: Earth's orbit has become a giant landfillScientists are increasingly beginning to talk about the clogging of the near-Earth orbit with space debris.
Some objects enter the Earth's atmosphere every day and burn up in it, but people quickly create a new one, Arc Technica writes. The situation will soon begin to threaten people's lives.
"Geopolitical muscles are being played in space to harm others"
Eric BergerUntil the last decade, an average of 80 to 100 satellites per year were placed in different orbits.
Some of them quickly entered the Earth's atmosphere, while others remained in orbit.
It is curious that over the past five years, against the background of the development of such communication networks as SpaceX's Starlink and the increase in the number of small satellites, there have been more such objects in space.
According to the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, more than 300 such vehicles were launched in 2017. By 2020, their number exceeded a thousand for the first time. This year there have already been more than two thousand of them. With the advent of broadband networks in space, like Amazon's Project Kuiper, their number will only grow.
A sharp increase in the number of satellites, most of which are located at an altitude of thousands of kilometers from the Earth's surface, leads to clogging of the low Earth orbit with space debris. Last month, for example, the upper stage of the Chinese Long March6A rocket unexpectedly collapsed after delivering cargo into orbit. Now more than 300 visible fragments of space debris are flying at an altitude of 500 to a thousand kilometers. In November 2021, Russia shot down its Kosmos-1408 satellite, which led to the appearance of more than a thousand fragments in orbit. NASA's International Space Station still has to dodge them.
Someday the situation will reach its limit. Yes, space is big, but there is too much garbage in it.
According to scientists and engineers, hundreds of thousands of fragments of space debris the size of blueberries are flying in orbit, which is why they cannot be tracked. Given that their speed is many times faster than the speed of light, the kinetic energy of these objects is like that of a falling anvil. There are tens of thousands more traceable fragments the size of a softball ball and larger with kinetic energy like a large bomb. Some objects enter the Earth's atmosphere every day and burn up in it, but people quickly create new portions of space debris.
To get an idea of this threat and understand how people should behave, the Ars portal spoke with an expert in astrodynamics at the University of Texas at Austin, Moriba Jah. He is a real star in the field of space debris research. Jha was one of the first who began to sound the alarm about the clogging of space with garbage and called on humanity to preserve the near-Earth orbit. He also works as a lead researcher at Privateer Space, which he founded with Apple Computer co-founder Steve Wozniak in order to collect and share data on tracked space debris.
The interview has been edited for clarity.
Does this meet the principles of sustainable development?Ars: Taking into account what has happened over the past few years and forecasts for the future, do you think our activities in low Earth orbit comply with the principles of sustainable development?
Moriba Ja: My answer is no, it doesn't match.
Many people don't like this whole "tragedy of shared resources", but I think this is exactly what we are facing now. Near-Earth space has limits. We have to treat it as a limited resource. We have to deal with it together with other countries. There should be coordination, planning and other similar things. But we don't do that.
I think it's similar to the early stages of air and even sea traffic. If you have a couple of boats and they arrived at the place, then it doesn't really matter. But when traffic increases, it needs to be coordinated, because everyone makes decisions without knowing what decisions others make in this limited resource.
Ars: Is it possible to control all this traffic in low Earth orbit?Ja: There are no plans for coordination yet.
Each country plans without taking into account the plans of other countries. That's one part of the problem. So it's pointless. If only one country was engaged in space, then everything would probably be fine. But it's not like that. Every time there are more and more countries that say, "Hey, look, I can freely and freely use outer space. No law obliges me to report to anyone, because I am a sovereign nation and I can do whatever I want." In my opinion, this is stupid.
Ars: In the USA, most of the satellite activity is now regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. But it seems that she is more for business, so she is condescending.Ja: I'm also for business in space.
It's about how we conduct it. In the end, according to international law, codified in agreements and conventions approved from 1967 to 1972, the responsibility for damage and harmful interference falls entirely on the shoulders of the countries parties to the treaty. As a result, Governments are responsible. Companies do not bear any responsibility for their behavior, and countries do.
Countries are responsible for approving and ensuring continuous supervision of all activities of non-State companies. Governments issue licenses and permits, so they have to hold their people accountable. It is necessary that countries adopt space laws at the national level that would stimulate environmental protection and sustainability. They should demand that the people they allow to operate in space — be they companies or anyone else — comply with the laws and be responsible for their actions.
Ars: And what is the situation with the interaction of countries? What will happen if Starlink from China collides with the Chinese Tiangong space Station and causes serious damage to it?Ja: The United States will be responsible for the damage to China, not the companies.
So China can come to the UN and say, they say, you know, under the Convention on Liability for Damage, I demand compensation. That's the system.
What can be done?Ars: You said that governments should hold companies accountable.
What else could the US and other countries do so useful in terms of policy?JA: I have a couple of ideas on this.
The United States could take the initiative to develop a closed-loop space economy, which would focus primarily on preventing pollution by minimizing the use of disposable satellites and rockets. That's how we try to minimize the use of disposable plastic, and the US could encourage minimizing the use of disposable satellites and rockets, making them reusable and recyclable.
For those that cannot be reused or recycled, we are going to create a responsible recycling system. This is not the same as uncontrolled reuse. This will be one of the systems for regulating space activities that the United States should lead. The idea actually corresponds to the aspirations of the White House related to space maintenance, assembly and production. If you want to create an entire ecosystem in orbit, recycle, refuel and maintain, then it is necessary that the government switch to a closed-loop space economy.
The US military is engaged in the development and maintenance of official databases on space objects, therefore, for many obvious reasons, there is not enough transparency. It is necessary to transfer these functions to a civil organization. After Trump signed the Space Policy Directive N3 in 2018, and other similar things began to be promoted in Congress, the idea arose to transfer these functions to the Office of Space Trade under the leadership of Richard DalBello. But with what money should he do it?
So Congress should allocate money and provide funds to the Space Trade Administration. Thus, the Space Trade Administration will be able to share information in a freer and more transparent form with the whole world, including with countries such as Russia and China. We are not going to share data from military sensors with them, but we have commercial organizations in the United States with their sensors, radars and telescopes. We, as a government, are going to buy this data and make it available to people from all over the world so that we have a set of tools for observing space.
Ars: Is this really an attempt to establish data exchange standards so that other countries follow them?Ja: I think "norms" is a term that has a special meaning because people want to be leaders in norms, and they themselves want to establish what are called "best practices", which really annoys me.
In my opinion, the "best practices" mostly repel those who were not in the group that established them. I think that "effective practices" sounds better and requires inclusivity, and this implies diversity, which, in turn, affects the final results.
Therefore, to be honest, I believe that the best way to move forward is to establish relations at the technical and scientific level. I have familiar colleagues in Russia and China, and we really want to cooperate with each other. We want to exchange information that has nothing to do with the violation of national security or trade secrets. Let's start with cooperation, and then experience will show what is possible and what is not. Besides, the practice of exchanging data and information will not only not harm anyone, but may also have advantages, for example, to show how governments can cooperate. They can create a framework around such cooperation, because it is already established and people like it.
Ars: But companies don't want to litter space with garbage, do they? It is in their interest to keep space suitable for commerce. What strategy should governments have to sort out the problem with companies?Ja: They should look at what practices have been successful in waste management and environmental protection on Earth.
For example, something like carbon credits. The World Economic Forum has a rating of space sustainability, which, by the way, I participated in the development of. You can link stimulation measures here. Maybe tax breaks. So I think governments have a number of tools that they can use to inspire people. It's in everyone's interest.
How much will the situation worsen?Ars: I'm curious to know what you think about what will happen during the rest of this decade.
You have described some encouraging strategies. However, only a year has passed since Russia shot down its satellite Cosmos. The "Wolf Amendment" adopted in the United States in many ways hinders the cooperation you mentioned, or at least constrains it. Last month, there was an uncontrolled entry into the atmosphere of the Chinese Long March rocket. I see some progress, but it is clearly not enough to compensate for the speed with which we are launching these satellites, each time polluting the low Earth orbit more and more.Ja: I think I'll be realistic here.
I think we won't be able to use some orbits anymore because they will be overloaded with various objects and space debris. The congestion of the orbit means that "our decisions and actions will no longer be able to prevent undesirable consequences." That is, if we try to minimize the probability of a collision and the need to get out of the way and still cannot prevent it, then the orbit is no longer suitable for use for any purpose.
According to my forecasts, this should happen. And I also expect that we will still see the death of people from objects the size of a school bus, which, after passing through the atmosphere, will fall in some locality, or in the midst of the development of commercial cosmonautics, some piece of garbage will suddenly fall into a ship with a passenger. I believe both of these things could happen in the next decade.
Ars: If some of this does happen, which I do not rule out, could it push for the necessary regulation and measures that will help restore order? In other words, does something really bad have to happen for us to finally think seriously about solving the problem?Ja: For me, it's something like "frogs in a saucepan over low heat."
When I talk to people, they say: "Is something really bad waiting for us?". And I told them: worse than Russia shooting down its satellites in orbit, what harms Starlink and, as a result, affects the United States? From conversations with SpaceX, it becomes clear that the destruction of the Russian satellite was actually carried out with the aim of damaging the Starlink satellites. They have had to dodge space debris several thousand times already. It affects their work. And it wasn't an accident or an accident.
In my opinion, geopolitical muscles are already being played in space to harm others. Bad things have already happened. But why isn't that enough? I think that if something of what I have described happens, for example, an object the size of a school bus falls to the Ground and kills a bunch of people, then everyone will worry for a couple of weeks, condemn, and then as if nothing had happened. Yes, it's hard for me to believe in the best. What should happen to give us a jolt? Many years ago there was an environmental disaster, the river caught fire…
Ars: Yes, the Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland, about 50 years ago…JA: Yes.
How many times did the river have to catch fire for people to say, "Oh, yes, we have a problem."
Ars: Is there anything that gives you hope for the next 5-10 years of space flight?Ja: A lot of people are desperate about this.
But if people are given the opportunity to solve problems from the bottom of their hearts, then I think they will cope. When I travel the world and talk to people, they tell me: "I have some really cool ideas. I would like to try them, but I don't have access to data and information for that." This is exactly what we are trying to do together with Privateer Space. It is, in fact, a platform company. How can we make data and information available to humanity, and people bring their great ideas and develop their own applications that could overshadow what people like me could come up with? That's exactly what we're trying to do.
