
Objects designed to explore the universe are now challenges for spaceflight - molecule
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/04/21/thousands-of-tiny-satellites-are-about-to-go-into-space-and-possibly-ruin-it-forever/
======
edlinfan
IMO the article overstates the danger of cubesats. If deployed to a low orbit
(~ISS height) they deorbit in months due to atmospheric drag. You don't really
run into the problems described in the WaPo article until you start putting
them into higher orbits where they will last longer.

Here is a more detailed article describing the cubesat problem and potential
mitigations.

[https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/30/nasa-tracking-
cubesats...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/30/nasa-tracking-cubesats-is-
easy-but-many-stay-in-orbit-too-long/)

------
tstactplsignore
This is an __extremely __disingenuous article. Not even the worst case models
of the Kessler syndrome predict any real impact on beyond-Earth space flight-
rather, they are concerned with higher probabilities of impact over months to
years for satellites in specific overused low earth orbits. Nothing for comms
satellites in geostationary to worry about, let alone a rocket just going past
orbit to the moon or Mars. It 's definitely something for scientists to think
about and track so specific useful orbits stay useful, but has _nothing_ to do
with space flight. It's wild how much this idea has been misrepresented in the
media!

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)

------
JohnJamesRambo
I know this is a long shot but is it possible to detect life on other planets
by the metal and trash sphere all modern societies must eventually accumulate
around their planet? We have just begun, I can only imagine how crazy it is
going to get around our own planet.

~~~
sandworm101
No. The total mass of metal up there is nothing in comparison to natural stuff
like dust and atmosphere. And the metal is in very low orbits. Someone far
away would see our cities, our atmospheric pollution, long before detecting a
hint of orbital debris.

------
lukejduncan
The satellite launch the article references was mostly nano stats from Planet
Labs. These satellites are designed to deorbit and burn up on rented with a
lifespan of about 2 years. Space debris is a problem, but they could have done
a much better job motivating that problem with something more accurate.

------
josho
I thought satellites in orbit suffered decay and needed Station Keeping, or
small periodic thrust to keep their orbits. Does anyone know how long it takes
orbital decay to bring a satellite back into the atmosphere?

~~~
vietjtnguyen
The lame answer is "it depends", but you might find this chart enlightening:
[http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx](http://www.heavens-
above.com/IssHeight.aspx)

~~~
andrewrice
Cool data. What happened in January 2017?

~~~
oh_sigh
Measurement error

------
louithethrid
One Solar Powered Laser in High Orbit pressuring trash into lower orbits would
be enough to clean stripes up. Activation of course only over naval
territories and clouded waters. In Addition warn every vessel in the path
about whats going down.

Solveable problem

~~~
peatmoss
I was wondering about the same thing. Would the forcing pressure of such a
laser be great enough to deorbit heavy things? I know that a laser + sail has
been suggested as one way of accelerating objects in space, so presumably so?

Maybe the US military would want to bankroll something like this. "Mostly used
for peaceful space junk clean up... mostly"

------
sushisource
Sounds like we need to bring back Star Wars and laser them out of the air!
Kidding/Not Kidding.

~~~
hughes
Actually an interesting idea. If the Starshot project [1] (which uses ground-
based laser propulsion) gets off the ground, perhaps the system could be
equally useful for de-orbiting space junk.

Firing at orbital objects as they approach from low on the horizon could
produce an ablative thrust that could accelerate the natural de-orbiting
process.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Initiatives#Break...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Initiatives#Breakthrough_Starshot)

------
monomyth
On a positive side, space polluted with micro-sateliets will deter an alien
invasion. No generation ships parked in a near orbit.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I assure you, space debris of that nature would likely be a very solvable
problem for a civilization capable of building and operating an interstellar
generational starship.

------
red_hairing
hmm...I wonder if all these new satellites could possibly be part of some new
cheap, high-speed internet system? That would be great for consumers, I guess,
but bad for the profits of comcast, et al. I would also be against this
pollution of our pristine natural wonderland of outer space, especially if it
cut into corporate profits.

~~~
fooker
High speed and really bad latency, maybe.

~~~
ceejayoz
Current satellite internet has high latency, because it's going thorough
geosynchronous satellites about 25,000 miles up.

The SpaceX ([https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2016/11/space...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-
gigabit-speed/)) and other similar proposed satellite internet constellations
would be made of lots of low-orbit satellites a couple hundred miles up.
Latency wouldn't be much of a concern there.

