Space Debris: Why did it happen in the first place? Is it still happening?

[SlabGizor117]

I was just wondering:  Why did rocket launches allow something like that to happen?  Geostationary satellites, for example, are one thing, but that can be dealt with as well with a little more planning.  Why not, in KSP terms, slap a few nose-facing seperatrons on the orbital insertion stage that fire on decoupling so that it doesn't leave debris?  

And are launches still leaving debris in orbit, regardless of the worries?

[Nibb31]

There are regulations in place to limit the amount of debris. Most of the debris from launches decay naturally, including upper stages. Anything that has a perigee below a few hundred kilometers is going to come down after a few weeks or months. GEO sats go to graveyard orbits.

It's not as much of a problem as some people think.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Nibb31

[PB666]

14 minutes ago, SlabGizor117 said:

I was just wondering:  Why did rocket launches allow something like that to happen?  Geostationary satellites, for example, are one thing, but that can be dealt with as well with a little more planning.  Why not, in KSP terms, slap a few nose-facing seperatrons on the orbital insertion stage that fire on decoupling so that it doesn't leave debris?  

And are launches still leaving debris in orbit, regardless of the worries?

In the beginning it was niavete, sputnik did not have a problem or create a problem. And there was drive, drive to get to the moon first, The GPS stuff is not to much of a problem becacuse the diiferential velocites arent that high. There were whoopsies, like satelltites that blew up, and then there were 'did i dobthat? when the chinese blew up their own satellites. There is a basic assumption about satellites that you can always communicate with them, but there are instance tgat as soon as a payload gets into space it dumbs up. Many satellites die and thats it. If you are lucky enough to have satellites with a relatively high apogee you can spend a small amout of fuel to place it in a decaying orbit, but this first reduces the eccentrity and then finally decays, while it does this it plows through circular orbitals and risk hitting stuff. Even hitting dead stuuf is bad because it creates 1000s of more objects. If the sat retains more fuel, if it retains communication, and if the actuators still actuate, then you can do a two point burn to either junkyard staus or deorbit. 

[mikegarrison]

People leave their trash everywhere they go. Always have.

[Scotius]

Let's not panic Earth's atmosphere acts as slow, but efficient vacuum-cleaner. Everything in LEO is under constant drag, orbits decay slowly but surely, stuff burns sooner or later. If we decrease the amount of new trash, in couple of years low orbits will be in better shape. As for GEO...well...there is a lot of space there. A lot, lot of space. Two satellites colliding there would be a rare event indeed.

[StrandedonEarth]

The earliest rocket launches had no extra margin for debris management, and they didn't know any better. Space is so huge that they thought the odds for collision with a spent stage were vanishingly small, and there was hardly anything else up there to hit. There is also the learning curve, at first they thought a spent stage would stay intact, but they soon discovered that old batteries and residual propellants had a tendency to explode after many hundreds of solar heating cycles, making small hard-to-track debris pieces. Eventually the powers that be wised up and took steps to prevent explosions by venting residuals and safing batteries, and de-orbiting what they could. By that time it was too late; there were hundreds or thousands of debris objects up there, and the odds of collision were reaching the range enjoyed by lotteries: someone was going to "win." As each collision creates more debris, the risk of more collisions keeps rising.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, SlabGizor117 said:

I was just wondering:  Why did rocket launches allow something like that to happen?  Geostationary satellites, for example, are one thing, but that can be dealt with as well with a little more planning.  Why not, in KSP terms, slap a few nose-facing seperatrons on the orbital insertion stage that fire on decoupling so that it doesn't leave debris?  

And are launches still leaving debris in orbit, regardless of the worries?

Also, in many cases, satellites lacked propulsion systems to deorbit. Also, every pound of propellant used to deorbit a satellite is a pound of propellant lost from a satellites life. Space was big, so people thought it was just ok to dump.

[GeneralVeers]

2 hours ago, SlabGizor117 said:

I was just wondering:  Why did rocket launches allow something like that to happen?

Same reason people used to dump trash in the oceans. Because it seemed so big that nobody ever thought space pollution was going to become a problem. So here we are today, with outer-space environmentalists. Which has me wondering.....how can you have a "green" campaign in outer space??? There's no green out there, and you certainly can't call it a "black" movement because then everybody's gonna think you're campaigning for civil rights or something.

[cubinator]

7 hours ago, Scotius said:

Earth's atmosphere 

 

7 hours ago, Scotius said:

vacuum-cleaner

Umm...I guess the analogy works, but still...

Space debris is not a huge problem, but we have to be careful to make sure it doesn't become a huge problem in the near future.

[Stargate525]

Because you can't tie retro-rockets to that wrench you lost grip on or the nut that shook loose.

And because like most people said, we didn't care or have the margins for it before. And considering Mt. Everest is facing a serious issue with hills of frozen human excrement... we tend not to deal with the issue unless we absolutely have to.

[Kerbart]

10 hours ago, SlabGizor117 said:

I was just wondering:  Why did rocket launches allow something like that to happen?  (...) Why not, in KSP terms, slap a few nose-facing seperatrons on the orbital insertion stage that fire on decoupling so that it doesn't leave debris?  

And are launches still leaving debris in orbit, regardless of the worries?

Google "the tragedy of the commons." In this case, the fertile ground is clean LEO space. Everyone agrees that if everyone else keeps it clean, it will be just fine. And we can save a good chunk of money on the launch cost by NOT fitting reentry thrusters. It's just one piece of debris, as long as everyone else plays nice. Right?

[wumpus]

20 hours ago, Scotius said:

Let's not panic Earth's atmosphere acts as slow, but efficient vacuum-cleaner. Everything in LEO is under constant drag, orbits decay slowly but surely, stuff burns sooner or later. If we decrease the amount of new trash, in couple of years low orbits will be in better shape. As for GEO...well...there is a lot of space there. A lot, lot of space. Two satellites colliding there would be a rare event indeed.

Note that in 2009 Iridium-33 (an active communication satellite) collided with Kosmos 2251 a defunct Russian military satellite.  There have a few (wiki says 9) other satellite collisions, but apparently the others involved dead satellites (I think a few active ones have been taken out by debris).

Typically, both satellites and debris occupy certain areas, and have dangers depending on those areas.

LEO: this is where satellites crash, and will continue to do so until everything is cleaned up.  The catch is that "everything cleaned up" only happens for stuff with a periapsis that dips into the "atmosphere" (lucklily nearly everything in LEO has at least some "atmosphere", so eventually it comes down.  Especially that wrench you lost on the ISS).  Also note that both "equatorialish" and polar orbits tend to cross around here, allowing spectacular collisions like Iridium-33/Kosmos 2251 (which hit at roughly a 90 degree angle).

[a bit higher than] LEO: One of the first US satellites is still up there, and probably will stay for a couple of centuries.  If you don't need any stationkeeping power to stay in orbit, you should know that the debris doesn't either.  Make absolutely sure such a beast can de-orbit.  Not sure how many orbits use this range, the Molniya orbit periapsis I found was listed as 500km, I'm guessing that this will decay (slowly, that aposis is huge).  Note that if just your aposis is sufficiently out of the atmosphere that it is in the "won't decay anytime soon region", your satellite is in danger of debris that has that as a periapsis.

[GEO-graveyard] assumed safe (collisions won't kick stuff up into GEO).  Obviously you don't want to put a working satellite here.

GEO: presumably reasonable safe.  The nature of GEO means that just about everything is in one tiny band that prevents the wildly different velocities that wreck havok in LEO.  Satellites are still expected to move themselves into the graveyard orbit when they are done.  Replacement satellites presumably want to keep station exactly where the last one was (although such an area is presumably big enough to make it hard to hit by accident, and it would presumably be tracking any known dead satellites anyway).   The "good slots" are pretty much taken up, and you don't want to interfere with your neighbors.

[radonek]

21 hours ago, SlabGizor117 said:

Why not, in KSP terms, slap a few nose-facing seperatrons on the orbital insertion stage that fire on decoupling so that it doesn't leave debris?

If you just burn at some random point, you are as likely to raise your orbit as anything. KSP-wise - you'd also need probe core for control, some torque, energy source… If you want to deorbit, it is likely that some of essentials are already malfunctioning. To make it worse, orienting for burn is much harder IRL then in KSP.  You know, real rocket scientists do not have handy camera floating around, perfectly precise and infallible navball, realtime communications all the time, nonsaturating reaction wheels, not even if hardware in question is working perfectly…

[KerbonautInTraining]

15 minutes ago, radonek said:

If you just burn at some random point, you are as likely to raise your orbit as anything. KSP-wise - you'd also need probe core for control, some torque, energy source… If you want to deorbit, it is likely that some of essentials are already malfunctioning. To make it worse, orienting for burn is much harder IRL then in KSP.  You know, real rocket scientists do not have handy camera floating around, perfectly precise and infallible navball, realtime communications all the time, nonsaturating reaction wheels, not even if hardware in question is working perfectly…

Upper stages are essentially independant spacecraft that just happen to hold lots of fuel and an engine. 

They usually have many hours of power/RCS prop. reserved for waiting in a parking orbit or for payload separation. The problem, as you probably know, is re-starting and actually having fuel left over for the burn.

[fredinno]

20 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

Upper stages are essentially independant spacecraft that just happen to hold lots of fuel and an engine. 

They usually have many hours of power/RCS prop. reserved for waiting in a parking orbit or for payload separation. The problem, as you probably know, is re-starting and actually having fuel left over for the burn.

And adding a way to deorbit reduces payload capacity.

[Snark]

19 hours ago, Stargate525 said:

Because you can't tie retro-rockets to that wrench you lost grip on or the nut that shook loose.

This.

And also, when you think "debris", don't just think "big mechanical parts".  Think things like "paint flakes" and tiny chips and the like.  The odds of a collision with a really big piece are fairly low (someone will eventually win the lottery, yes, but it's pretty good odds for any given trip).

However, there are far more tiny objects (like paint chips) that are very easy to create accidentally in large numbers unless you're really diligent about trying to prevent them.  These are more dangerous, not just because they're far more numerous (and therefore collisions are much more likely), but also because they're too small to track. Space agencies are tracking that socket wrench someone dropped, and they can adjust orbits to avoid collisions.  But you can't dodge what you can't see.

"Tiny paint chip" may not sound like something very dangerous, but even something very small can be lethal if it's moving kilometers per second and hits something you care about.

It's a real problem.  Some notable examples here.

 

[SlabGizor117]

On 3/23/2016 at 2:52 PM, mikegarrison said:

People leave their trash everywhere they go. Always have.

Weeeelllll, I don't think that's quite fair to the mission planners to say that.  People leave trash everywhere because they don't think about anyone but themselves.  With space missions, it's very much the opposite.  Every single detail and problem is accounted for, which leaves the decision to leave debris in orbit a conscious, deliberate one.  

Funny story, one time I was with my mom in the car, behind someone at a red light, who opened their door, and dropped their McDonalds togo bag on the road.  I wanted so bad, to get out, grab it, knock on her window, stick the bag in, and say in the most polite voice I could, "Here, you dropped this.  Wouldn't want people running over it!"  I almost did....  And I wish I did now!

20 hours ago, Stargate525 said:

Because you can't tie retro-rockets to that wrench you lost grip on or the nut that shook loose.

And because like most people said, we didn't care or have the margins for it before. And considering Mt. Everest is facing a serious issue with hills of frozen human excrement... we tend not to deal with the issue unless we absolutely have to.

Good point!

6 hours ago, radonek said:

If you just burn at some random point, you are as likely to raise your orbit as anything. KSP-wise - you'd also need probe core for control, some torque, energy source… If you want to deorbit, it is likely that some of essentials are already malfunctioning. To make it worse, orienting for burn is much harder IRL then in KSP.  You know, real rocket scientists do not have handy camera floating around, perfectly precise and infallible navball, realtime communications all the time, nonsaturating reaction wheels, not even if hardware in question is working perfectly…

My idea was for the seperatrons to activate at the same time as decoupling so that it would be guaranteed to point the right way, if the spacecraft was pointing prograde.  As in, as soon as the second stage established orbit, it "de-established" it's orbit; without the payload.  Point being, there's just not enough time for the stage to fall away and tumble around and get out of line.

On 3/23/2016 at 3:01 PM, Scotius said:

Let's not panic Earth's atmosphere acts as slow, but efficient vacuum-cleaner. Everything in LEO is under constant drag, orbits decay slowly but surely, stuff burns sooner or later. If we decrease the amount of new trash, in couple of years low orbits will be in better shape. As for GEO...well...there is a lot of space there. A lot, lot of space. Two satellites colliding there would be a rare event indeed.

I'm not panicking, I do know about orbital decay, but I feel like people are putting more debris in orbit than it's falling out of orbit.

[fredinno]

4 minutes ago, SlabGizor117 said:

My idea was for the seperatrons to activate at the same time as decoupling so that it would be guaranteed to point the right way, if the spacecraft was pointing prograde.  As in, as soon as the second stage established orbit, it "de-established" it's orbit; without the payload.  Point being, there's just not enough time for the stage to fall away and tumble around and get out of line.

It can't be at exactly the same time, or the payload might be damaged. But spin stabilization can keep a upper stage pointing prograde.

[SlabGizor117]

1 minute ago, fredinno said:

It can't be at exactly the same time, or the payload might be damaged. But spin stabilization can keep a upper stage pointing prograde.

Well, they could be angled outward away from the fuselage as well as forward towards the nose.  I thought that would be a given, hence not mentioning it in the post.

[YNM]

Well... everything decays. Fleck of paint, aluminum covering, waste, etc. - you don't even need collision to make even more debris. Those upper stages don't just stay there and then decay altogether, maybe some loose nut ?

[Bill Phil]

On March 23, 2016 at 3:36 PM, GeneralVeers said:

Same reason people used to dump trash in the oceans. Because it seemed so big that nobody ever thought space pollution was going to become a problem. So here we are today, with outer-space environmentalists. Which has me wondering.....how can you have a "green" campaign in outer space??? There's no green out there, and you certainly can't call it a "black" movement because then everybody's gonna think you're campaigning for civil rights or something.

Except there ain't no life in the vacuum of space. 

Some of the outer space environmentalists say that space is constant. But that certainly isn't true.

Also, I'd call it a Void movement. Maybe a lack of color movement?

1 hour ago, Snark said:

This.

And also, when you think "debris", don't just think "big mechanical parts".  Think things like "paint flakes" and tiny chips and the like.  The odds of a collision with a really big piece are fairly low (someone will eventually win the lottery, yes, but it's pretty good odds for any given trip).

However, there are far more tiny objects (like paint chips) that are very easy to create accidentally in large numbers unless you're really diligent about trying to prevent them.  These are more dangerous, not just because they're far more numerous (and therefore collisions are much more likely), but also because they're too small to track. Space agencies are tracking that socket wrench someone dropped, and they can adjust orbits to avoid collisions.  But you can't dodge what you can't see.

"Tiny paint chip" may not sound like something very dangerous, but even something very small can be lethal if it's moving kilometers per second and hits something you care about.

It's a real problem.  Some notable examples here.

 

But what if you're moving at the same velocity? Or a very similar one?

Even so, paint and other small stuff is only a problem to the more sensitive parts of a spacecraft. Windows and the like.

[sgt_flyer]

even a single bolt hitting something with a few hundreds of m/s of difference can cause some serious damage. (ex, if the bolt comes from an excentric orbit, and crosses a circular one)

get damage to the thermal protection layer of a satellite, even if the components are unharmed at first, can lead to more serious consequences afterwards. regardless, even an impact that creates minimal damage will lilely create even more debris, on an orbit very close to the one your satellite already is. 

there's a reason the astronauts on ISS have to go into their soyuz spacecrafts if there's some risk a debris will come near the station.

 

now, with launch prices starting to come down, there are more and more studies (public and private) to see if there would be economic ways to salvage or deorbit some of the most dangerous debris.

[RainDreamer]

Relevant video:

This is what happen when you have a 3.2mm aluminum sphere flying at 7km/s hitting a Whipple shield.

Tracking all of mm-sized target is way too much work, if not impossible.

Edited March 25, 2016 by RainDreamer

[fredinno]

11 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

Relevant video:

This is what happen when you have a 3.2mm aluminum sphere flying at 7km/s hitting a Whipple shield.

Tracking all of mm-sized target is way too much work, if not impossible.

But micrometeors/space junk will generally not travel 7km/s relative to a space station...

[SlabGizor117]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

But micrometeors/space junk will generally not travel 7km/s relative to a space station...

True.  For example, with Gravity, the movie...  No debris could be in a retrograde orbit.