Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

symedia t1_jacdb84 wrote

who is going to enforce the rules? the space marines?

71

ioncloud9 t1_jacfr6q wrote

A treaty. Enforced by the signatories. There are only a handful of countries with launch capability, even fewer that can put large numbers of satellites in orbit, and even fewer that can put up a moon base. This is basically saying we need to make rules and get China to follow them.

49

CharlieH_ t1_jad1bjl wrote

This is in everyone's interest though right? So surely some very basic rules could be agreed by both sides.. together.

8

myflippinggoodness t1_jaexa3n wrote

Well, should be. I smell some stinky fckn political crap coming down the pipe on that tho tbh

5

typo9292 t1_jaf44tz wrote

You’re making the mistake of thinking china thinks the way you do. They don’t. How are things going climate change agreements? They turn on a new coal power plant a week. If it benefits them they will do it and screw the consequences.

3

DCTron t1_jaf1mmr wrote

China isn’t going to follow them. Look at how they’ve treated disputed territory in the South China Sea.

2

snewz404 t1_jachhxf wrote

I watched a documentary on space junk at least 5 years ago and it was already OOC. So we will probably neglect it, a tragedy will happen, we will ignore it, and then try hail mary solutions and fail because our leadership are idiots. We can’t even keep the planet clean and you want us to clean up space too!!??

20

theexile14 t1_jacrgx0 wrote

It remains a resolvable problem. There are only a handful of orbits where it's a longterm issue. At low LEO orbits are cleared as drag pulls debris in for reentry and MEO/GSO orbits are pretty big and remain mostly uncrowded. High LEO and GEO is the real issue, particularly GEO. If parties with launch capacity now were mildly responsible that's not a huge issue. The key is moving satellites before they break up and not testing ASATs.

That's pretty doable if certain countries could not be totally irresponsible.

18

Pigs_in_the_Porridge t1_jadw2hn wrote

You're missing the issue of collisions in LEO & possible Kessler syndrome (orbits so filled with junk everything gets shredded).

−7

Spider_pig448 t1_jae09zw wrote

Kessler syndrome is mostly a thought experiment, similar to the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction igniting the atmosphere. Space junk in LEO isn't a huge concern, partially because LEO is already unburdened by the early space age and all the waste created from it.

14

Pigs_in_the_Porridge t1_jae12be wrote

What do you know that the world's space agencies don't? They have publicly expressed concern about space junk in LEO making some orbits, like those around 400 miles or so, unusable at some point in the future. Chinese and Russian ASAT tests have added thousands of pieces of debris. Just saying it's not an issue is not in the least convincing.

−5

Spider_pig448 t1_jae1yz9 wrote

It is an issue. ASAT tests and cyber attacks in particular are huge concerns for space debris generation. Regular generation of space junk per launch is decreasing a lot though. Check out ESA's environmental report from last year (https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/ESA_s_Space_Environment_Report_2022). Almost every rocker body is successfully clearing LEO these days, and half of all payloads are being successfully de-orbited after end of mission.

7

theexile14 t1_jae7zee wrote

I have worked in space debris tracking before. I'm not forgetting anything. Low LEO clears in a relatively short period of time, it is not at serious risk. High LEO...I mentioned? You seem to be freaked out that I didn't mention a specific term that's become overly common amongst those who don't understand the environment.

The most serious risks to High LEO are what I mentioned: ASATs and breakups of non-operating satellites. If those continue to happen unabated for some time then we can start to worry about Kessler Syndrome. Too many people watched Gravity and took it as a real risk.

6

myflippinggoodness t1_jaey5bz wrote

Ok, mby you're someone to ask about this: what if they put up like a big, heavy metal shield just to float around, let small shit smash into it, just so the small shit loses velocity and falls into LOW LEO so that it falls in like a couple years instead of a couple centuries?

Hopes like I'm 5 👌

2

theexile14 t1_jaf082x wrote

There are ideas about doing that with some gel type substance to capture junk. Unfortunately, a large metal object doesn't work as the collisions may occur at relative speeds of hundreds or thousands of km/hr. At that speed you mostly just smash things into pieces and send the careering all over. Unfortunately that hurts more than helps.

Also, that mass would be huge and cost a ton to put into orbit.

5

Spider_pig448 t1_jadz6i8 wrote

eh the policies in place already for combating space junk have resulted in considerable progress in the last five years. The problem of new space junk has already dropped significantly, and if things continue on pace we'll be in a good place in a few years.

The problem of existing space junk is different however.

Here's a great report ESA recently released about progress here https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/ESA_s_Space_Environment_Report_2022

2

JonesoftheNorth t1_jacgjp1 wrote

Could space junk be repurposed/recycled in space to help build bases?

15

theexile14 t1_jacroly wrote

Maybe? Some older intact satellites may be of some value with more reliable in orbit servicing. Outside of those though, not so much. There's little infrastructure to recycle parts, and the cost of doing so would greatly exceed launch costs.

The short and medium term path needs to be developing infrastructure to keep orbit cleaner (deorbiting and refueling old sats).

9

JonesoftheNorth t1_jacsvuw wrote

Ya, the straight-up melting of metals, etc, would be hard, I get it. Perhaps the components of the orbiting devices could be re-used for non-critical systems in future developments. 🤷‍♂️ dunno just spit balling here. ✌️

1

Bipogram t1_jadq4p9 wrote

Perhaps.

But you still need to launch that junk from its current orbit to wherever you want it to go, and then soft-land it (if you're aiming for the Moon).

The average satellite will lack;

a) Fuel/engines to perform such a task

b) the same for capture/soft-braking manoeuvres

c) structures/resources to allow it to land safely (legs, power, etc.)

It's like saying I could go down to the beach, and cobble together a boat from discarded plastic and wood.

I could.

Or I could build a ship.

4

Decronym t1_jaew36o wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ASAT|Anti-Satellite weapon| |ESA|European Space Agency| |GEO|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |GSO|Geosynchronous Orbit (any Earth orbit with a 24-hour period)| | |Guang Sheng Optical telescopes| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |MEO|Medium Earth Orbit (2000-35780km)|

^(6 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 16 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8634 for this sub, first seen 28th Feb 2023, 22:55]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

4

Zebrahead69 t1_jad6xqd wrote

China is talking about the moon! Quick we need control so now there NEEDS to be rules for the moon which NO ONE CAN CLAIM. Cool man.

2

Ceekay151 t1_jae7wvx wrote

Better late than never, if it can be decided who will & how will they be enforced...

1

Am_Seeker_731 t1_jaeel5a wrote

Just send space junk on a direct path for the sun

0

Adeldor t1_jaeuc70 wrote

The Δv required to send anything from Earth orbit into the sun is far higher than that required to eject it from the solar system. Less Δv still is required to have it reenter the Earth's atmosphere. The practicalities of imparting the required velocities is, however, non-trivial.

To get an idea of the Δv required to get anywhere departing Earth - from the Sun to leaving the solar system - this map helps.

6