The FCC Finally Starts Taking Space Junk Seriously
from the twinkle-twinkle dept
While technologies like low orbit satellite can help shore up broadband access, they come with their own additional challenges. One being that services like Space X’s Starlink have cause potentially unavoidable light pollution, harming scientific research. The other being the exponential growth in space detritus, aka space junk, that will make space navigation increasingly difficult.
The FCC has generally been an absentee landlord on both issues, though last week finally announced it would be taking some basic steps to tackle the space junk problem. A new proposal by the agency would implement a five year limit for letting your dead satellite stick around in space:
The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order that would adopt rules requiring low-Earth orbit space station operators planning disposal through uncontrolled atmospheric re-entry to complete disposal as soon as practicable, and no more than five years following the end of their mission.
Currently, a legally non-binding NASA advisory recommends that satellite operators either remove their satellites from orbit immediately post-mission, or leave them in an orbit that will slowly decay and have the satellite entering Earth’s atmosphere sometime in a 25 year period.
But leaving this number of defunct satellites in orbit to fall apart over decades is no longer practical given how crowded space is getting; particularly at the hands of low-orbit satellite operators like Starlink and Amazon, which intend to launch tens of thousands of additional LEO satellites in the next few years:
Defunct satellites, discarded rocket cores, and other debris now fill the space environment creating challenges for future missions. Moreover, there are more than 4,800 satellites currently operating in orbit as of the end of last year, and the vast majority of those are commercial satellites operating at altitudes below 2,000 km—the upper limit for LEO. Many of these were launched in the past two years alone, and projections for future growth suggest that there are many more to come.
Enter the new five year rule, which provides a two-year grandfather period to allow satellite operators to adjust. Satellites that are currently stumbling drunkenly around orbit with no purpose are exempt from the new rule.
Filed Under: atmosphere, fcc, leo, low orbit, satellites, space junk
Comments on “The FCC Finally Starts Taking Space Junk Seriously”
Eventually they’ll put up so many low orbit satellites they won’t be able to launch anything without getting hit, never minding the defunct stuff.
At least SOMEBODY is paying attention
I’m glad that somebody is finally looking at this. I read that another company was planning a satellite for broadband that would be so large that it would be visible from the ground in daylight. Ridiculous!
But does the FCC really have the authority? Serious question, I don’t know who has that authority if anybody does.
Re:
For communications satellites, which are most satellites, yes.
Re: Re:
For communications satellites launched from US territory or by US companies, yes. For all others no. The FCC has no jurisdiction or control over, say, Russian launched Russian built satellites (same goes for Chinese and Indian equivalents).
Re: Re: Re:
The FCC is intending to set the standard. And since the US currently has the largest market for satellite communications, and supplies many other markets, it is expected that the FCC’s standard will become the world standard. It’s not guaranteed, byut it is very likely.
Calling for regulating the light pollution is absurd. Pollution is a fact of the modern world which we learn to live with. And unlike real pollution, light pollution up there does not harm anyone. It only annoys and obstruct the astronomers, but the astronomers can suck it up. The light pollution as it currently stand should not be made an issue to justify governmental intervention. Orbital technology has great potential of betterment of civilization unlike astronomy so it should not be impeded on account of the light pollution. Orbital technology is going to revolutionize the world and create a new economy in time. Can one say the same thing of astronomy?
It is good to see the government deciding to intervene in the matter of space junk as it is indeed a menace unlike light pollution.
Re: Light Pollution is not harmless....
What i don’t think you realize is that there are a number of species harmed by light pollution, with the sea turtles in eastern NC coming to mind. How many more links in the web of life can be broken before humanity itself is threatened? Seemingly trivial changes can make big differences: https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1573589517025660928?cxt=HHwWgMC-iYPVwdYrAAAA (14 wolves released into Yellowstone; ultimate result includes erosion control along the rivers through a long chain of consequences)
Also, that kind of light pollution, besides harming astronomy (kind of a funny thing, but amateur astronomers keep finding earth-crossing asteroids, so we could be harmed by that) also interferes with military efforts to track unfriendly satellites.
Anyway, next step on all this is active removal of defunct and non-communicating space hardware without further multiplying the debris issue. I’ve not heard lately how that effort is coming along.
Re: Re:
Last I checked Starlink is 5.0 apparent magnitude. There are thousands of stars brighter than any of these satellites and planets in our solar system hundreds of times brighter. Jupiter is -2.2 apparent magnitude or 631x brighter. A flash light or street lamp in close proximity to an animal is what harms them not an apparent magnitude 5 satellite (higher is less bright). 6.5 is the threshold for being so faint it can’t even be seen by the naked eye. A nearby streetlamp is 10 lux while an apparent magnitude 5.0 satellite is 2.12e^-8 lux. Really a non-issue.
Re: Re: Re:
And astronomers are interested in the faintest objects in the night sky, which is why they build larger and larger mirrors. Those Starlink satellites are bright objects to astronomers.
Re: Re: Re:2
They are when they aren’t in the Earth’s shadow. Their brightness plummets during most of the night. The astronomer complaints are about observing during twilight. Vera Rubin observers NEOs, which Starlink will significantly impact. VLT doesn’t and it’s only estimated to experience 2% data loss for the full constellation during certain hours of the night. NEO observer can detect 90% of NEOs over a certain size, which can supplement the issues Starlink causes.
https://www.economist.com/img/b/640/356/90/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20211127_IRC301.png
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/11/25/vast-satellite-constellations-are-alarming-astronomers
Re: Re: Re:
All that hand-wringing over light pollution in space, LOL. Read carefully. I didn’t say light pollution on the ground is harmless and that was in context of humans. I was referring to space. If I could see lights from satellites, I would consider myself lucky, because that would means I would be able to see more than just a few stars… LOL. The light pollution is so bad here than I can only like see Juoiter, Mars, Venus, and maybe a few stars like Sirius in the night sky.
No real scientists are making the case that the light pollution from space could be a threat to animals. What can be worse than light pollution from the moon or the stars or sun, LOL LOL
Also real scientists or media so far are not making a case that the light pollution from space is a threat as to ability to prevent threatening earthbound meteorites. No. Its ooh no because light pollution. Not ooh no because we will miss threatening earthbound meteorites. Recognize the difference.
If real scientients went to the government and made a good case that the light pollution is endangering human lives because it takes away ability to detect threatening earthbound meteorites assuming threatening earthbound meteorites are such a threat to justify impeding orbital technology then yes, it needs to be taken seriously, of course.
But this is not the case. It’s just oh no because light pollution impedes ‘science’ which is my point. If it just science research at sake, not human lives, then yes orbital technology should trump over astronomy.
Re:
That orbital tech can provide amazing benefits to civ, does not mean every tech will. Starlink’s limited capacity will prevent it from having the kinds of benefits which justify ignoring the drawbacks.
Re: Re:
Quite right. However, using light pollution as an excuse to impede even Starlink to protect the “endangered species” of astronomers is gonna create a stupid precedent and gonna put obstacles to future more valuable space enterprises building on the early pioneers like SpaceX. Maybe orbital internet service as it is now is overrated but it does not necessarily mean it will be in the future. And only its not orbital internet service I’m thinking about but other possible application that involves mass use of mini-sats. I think its great if Earth is blanketed with valuable sats, who does not want this but “space environmentalist” morons because gasps think about the light pollution and the self-centered astronomers because gasps think about my precious research?
[Elon joins the chat]
Oh really?
Re:
Are you suggesting that Elon wants to send his junk into space?…
Re: Re:
He did send his junk-extender to space though…
Not Starlink
If you remember past news, Starlink launches below stable orbital level then works its way up. Dysfunctional satellites fall to earth within weeks. One launch was suffered when a solar storm heated the atmosphere, making it too dense for the satellites with low power thrusters to raise to a stable orbit.
Anyone living outside a dense urban first world city would probably value communication services above the impact of passing satellites on astronomical observations. Someone doing deep space studies trying to collect data from extremely low magnitude stars is likely looking a very tiny field of view, so less likely to encounter a satellite.
the big problem is “junk” – debris from explosions, deliberate discards and cast-offs from launches. (Or worse, Russia or China testing satellite killers with live explosions) This is what needs to be regulated.
Re:
And someone looking for asteroids and comets uses a wide field long exposure, and looks for streaks in the filed, and are reporting that they capture at least one Starlink satellite on every exposure. Given how twitchy a certain Putin is getting, it would be nice to spot a Chelyabinsk meteor before it removes all the windows in a Russian town, and Starlink interferes with doing that.
Starlink
You mention SpaceX and Starlink several times in the article as a source of the problem, and then neglect to mention that they actually requested that the FCC implement this rule. Starlink satellites were designed around quick deorbiting at end of life from the beginning and are deliberately launched at a low enough altitude that they would deorbit within 5 years even with a complete loss of control.
For those thinking, “Ish jusht light pollushun. No probs!”
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21043229/spacex-starlink-satellite-mega-constellation-concerns-astronomy-space-traffic
Do nothing about the wrong problem
Satellites are not space junk, even dead one. Nor are they a problem to anyone beyond ground based scientists.
The real problem up there is ACTUAL space junk. Nuts. Bolts. Tools. Broken scrap pieces.
Of all the things up there that actually are a problem for ‘real’ research, such as the coming launches to the moon, mars, and more, dosing millions of tiny pieces of crap is far more an issue than a few egotistical, soon to be replaced, star gazers.
Landlord
That’s because neither the FCC nor the United States are the ‘landlord’ of outer space.