klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) (11/02/88)
For over thirty years now the human race has been launching
all types of vehicles into the Universe, creating an immense "cloud"
of human-made objects orbiting Earth and slowly expanding into the
Solar System and interstellar space.
While many of the satellites in space are of benefit to our
society, many more are now inactive, floating around Earth serving
no purpose at present. In addition to dead satellites and rocket
boosters, there are also thousands of pieces of metal scrap and paint
flecks from rockets and satellites which have disintergrated in orbit
for one reason or another; and the satellite cloud is growing all the
time. At present there is a one in thirty chance that a Space Shuttle
could be struck by some man-made orbital debris; by 2010 the chances
will be reduced to one in four.
This cloud represents a danger on many levels: In space, this
debris is orbiting Earth at eighteen thousand miles per hour (the
minimum velocity needed to achieve and stay in orbit); while some of
it will eventually be dragged into Earth's atmosphere and burn up, many
more are in orbits which will last for millennia! As more functioning
manned and unmanned vehicles are launched into orbit, the risk of being
struck and killed/destroyed by this debris - no matter how small -
grows constantly. Even a grain-sized particle could hit with the
impact of a rifle bullet! And people and places on Earth's surface
are not immune from the dangers of falling debris: If an object
is large enough, it will not burn up completely and strike the surface.
The Soviet nuclear-powered COSMOS satellite hitting Canada in 1978
and the United States SKYLAB space station hitting Australia in 1979
are good examples of debris too big to be burned up on reentry and the
consequences which result.
Satellite debris also interferes with astronomical observations.
The incredibly sensitive instruments professional astronomers use can
be "thrown off" by passing satellites and man-made debris. Even more
threatening, just recently the French were stopped from launching a
huge balloon ring satellite to commemorate Paris' Eiffel Tower's one
hundredth anniversary. Many astronomers opposed the ring satellite, as
it would have been the size and visual brightness of the full Moon as
viewed from the ground and interfered with observations. They were also
concerned that it might start companies advertising in space with huge
satellite "billboards", which some *are* considering! Along with light
pollution on the ground from ever-growing cities, astronomers - and
those who just enjoy looking at the stars - are having their work cut
out for them.
The International Dark-Sky Association is an organization designed
to help deal with our growing light pollution problem, while not
compromising public safety in the process. For more details, write to:
Dr. Dave Crawford
Kitt Peak National Observatory
PO Box 26732
Tucson, AZ 85726
You can also receive a brochure on an important meeting of
astronomers and other scientists who discussed the problems of light
pollution in Washington, DC, on August 13-16, 1988, by writing to Dr.
Tomas Gergely, National Science Foundation, Dept. of Astronomy, 1800 G
St., NW, Washington, DC 20550.
Now I know some of you are probably asking yourselves: "How can
I possibly stop and/or clean up space debris? I'm afraid I don't
have much access to a Space Shuttle with a huge vacuum cleaner; also,
I and other average citizens did not personally make the pollution
now flying over our heads!" I am well aware of this, and naturally
this is a project for a major government and/or corporation to handle;
but as is always pointed out, such organizations won't do much of
anything unless it personally affects them and/or the citizens they
are supposed to serve say something about it - in other words, write
to your Congressman; it does a lot more good than you might think.
Tell them there should be a major program to start picking up
the useless satellite and rocket debris orbiting Earth. It can be
done using the Space Shuttle, or even relatively cheaply using robot
satellites which can attain orbits where the Shuttle cannot; and
what is even better is that the debris need not be returned to pollute
Earth. For one thing, some old, deactivated satellites are now part
of space history, and deserve to be returned to Earth for placement in
our museums. Others still have valuable parts which can be reused
and/or recycled; and as for the truly useless debris, if it is
small enough it can be deorbited to burn up completely on reentry, or
launched into the Sun with no harmful effects to our star. The
debris can also be placed in safe containers and launched into solar
orbit away from Earth, or even out of the Solar System, but I do not
care for this plan, as it does not destroy the debris, and just leaves
the hazard for future space travelers when humanity start to colonize
this and other star systems.
I would like to point out that I am aware these clean-up plans
are not for the immediate future, as I understand the difficulties in
orbital mechanics, such as trying to send an object towards the Sun,
etc., but I hope they will inspire the start of such projects when
it is more feasible. I am also aware of the recent Air Force project
designed to deorbit booster rockets earlier than normal for previous
missions, to make Low Earth Orbit (LEO) a bit less cluttered; I
personally approve of this, but it might be more beneficial if we could
recover the boosters and other debris for scrap metal, if nothing else.
I just feel that *something* should be started relatively soon, so that
it does not become too late for us to do anything about it by the time
we are socially and technologically ready. It would be horrible to
think that we might trap ourselves on this planet with our own space
debris circling the globe, making space launchings too risky to attempt.
This is an extreme view in some ways, but not impossible.
Besides the fact that man-made debris is potentially dangerous
to satellites and humans, why else should we "clean up" space?
Because it will help the future of our space programs, which in turn
benefits all of society. These very clean-up projects will get us
more involved in space exploration and colonization. We will colonize
the other planets and star systems someday, and we cannot continue to
bring our pollution and poor management habits with us. Space leaves
very little room for error and bad planning. What you say to those
who will guide our future in space can have a lot of impact.
Do not think of space as something separate from Earth and its
concerns: We live on a planet in space, and if we ruin not only our
world but the environment around it, then where can we go to live?
Larry Klaeskarn@jupiter..bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (11/03/88)
The note on stopping space pollution is interesting, but one of the proposed solutions is, shall we say, a bit impractical. First of all, the main problem isn't intact payloads. The real problem is with the numerous small fragments in long-lived orbits, and these are not easily reached from the Shuttle. Debris, large or small, that *is* in a typical Shuttle orbit (about 300 km) re-enters within a few months anyway, so there's not much point in going up to get it. Second, there are so *many* small bits of debris, in so many different orbits, that even if you could reach them with the Shuttle you'd have to expend enormous amounts of fuel chasing them all. Third, the Shuttle itself generates a not-insignificant amount of debris through such things as waste dumps and loose parts. This would largely offset whatever debris it could pick up. I remember seeing the first on-orbit TV of the payload bay sent to earth during STS-1; clearly visible was a small piece of loose hardware spinning across the field of view, off into the blackness. If you're seriously interested in the space pollution problem, I believe you should advocate the following PREVENTIVE approaches: 1. An international treaty prohibiting deliberate collisions between or explosions of objects in earth orbit above a certain altitude, say 500 km. This would include both Soviet and American SDI and ASAT tests. Much existing orbital debris is the result of Soviet ASAT tests. The reduction of space debris is only one of many reasons that a complete ban on all ASAT testing would be to our mutual advantage. 2. An international treaty requiring launch agencies to vent excess liquid fuel from spent upper stages to render them incapable of exploding. Much existing orbital debris has come from upper stages that explode some time after deploying their payloads. This can happen in a cryogenic stage when the fuel vaporizes (e.g., the Ariane 3rd stage that launched SPOT-1) or it can happen in a hypergolic stage when the fuel and/or oxidizer corrode through the bulkhead and mix (e.g., some Delta 2nd stages). I believe that most launchers now vent as standard operating procedure, so it shouldn't be much of a burden to make this a formal requirement. 3. International guidelines for the design of orbital missions missions such that the fewest possible non-payload objects are deployed in long lived orbits. This would consist of several aspects: a. The use of short-lived transfer orbits whenever possible. For example, a standard Ariane geostationary transfer orbit has a perigee of about 200 Km. Spent Ariane third stages generally last in this orbit for a few years or so. intermediate earth orbits with "direct ascent" launches are the real problem, since the upper stage goes into the same orbit as the payload. If at all possible, spent stages should be designed to de-orbit themselves after deploying their payloads. b. Methods to control the amount of debris generated in long-lived orbits, with emphasis on payload deployment operations. Clamp bands, springs, fasteners, explosive bolt cutters and the like should be captive, i.e., they should be tethered so they don't go floating off on their own after separation. This is already standard procedure on most Western launches; it should be an international requirement. c. Integrity standards for external coatings on all objects deployed in long-lived orbits. The white paint used on Delta upper stages has been traced as the cause of some small craters found on Shuttle windows. Phil
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/05/88)
In article <1379@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@jupiter.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Second, there are so *many* small bits of debris, in so many different >orbits, that even if you could reach them with the Shuttle you'd have to >expend enormous amounts of fuel chasing them all. In fact, even if you had propulsion suitable to the job -- I once took a cursory look at the idea of a tiny satellite with electrodynamic propulsion, specifically as a garbage retriever -- the sheer size of the problem is just plain excessive. It's not the two-ton lumps that are the real problem: they are (relatively) few in number and collisions with them are fairly unlikely. The bad part of the problem is the coin-sized bits. They're too small for any practical retrieval scheme, too numerous to just trust to luck, too small *and* too numerous to just track and avoid, and too massive to just disregard. The best we can do is to protect major facilities against them and try hard to avoid creating more! >b. Methods to control the amount of debris generated in long-lived orbits, >with emphasis on payload deployment operations. Clamp bands, springs, >fasteners, explosive bolt cutters and the like should be captive, i.e., they >should be tethered so they don't go floating off on their own after >separation. This is already standard procedure on most Western launches... An alternative that is worth exploring for some types of object is photo- degradeable materials. De-spin weights, for example, *have* to be cut loose, but I would suspect that they and their cables could be made out of some plastic that would break down in sunlight, so eventually you'd have nothing but organic gas left. >c. Integrity standards for external coatings on all objects deployed in >long-lived orbits. The white paint used on Delta upper stages has been >traced as the cause of some small craters found on Shuttle windows. Those who are enthusiastic about using shuttle external tanks in orbit should note that the insulation on the tanks is likely to "popcorn" in vacuum as it outgases. The folks working on turning a tank into a gamma-ray telescope (the only NASA-funded external-tank work) plan to put an outer casing around the tank, partly to contain the debris. (The other reason for the casing is as a classic "meteor bumper" against both natural meteorites and space debris.) -- The Earth is our mother. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Our nine months are up. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu