FCC Starts Taking ‘Space Junk’ More Seriously, Fines Dish For Parking Satellite In A Dumb Spot
from the can't-make-the-jump-to-hyperspace 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 late last year the agency finally announced it would be taking some basic steps to tackle the space junk problem. That included a newly proposed (and rather generous) five year limit for letting older satellites just sit around in orbit:
“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.“
This week the FCC took its first action under the new guidelines, fining Dish Network (which has had no shortage of problems trying to shift from satellite TV to wireless) $150,000 for not cleaning up one of its older, neglected satellites:
“The FCC’s investigation found that the company violated the Communications Act, the FCC
rules, and the terms of the company’s license by relocating its direct broadcast satellite
(“DBS”) service EchoStar-7 satellite at the satellite’s end-of-mission to a disposal orbit well
below the elevation required by the terms of its license. At this lower altitude, it could pose
orbital debris concerns.”
Dish was supposed to bring down its EchoStar-7 satellite to 186 miles (300 kilometers) above its operational geostationary orbit, using its remaining fuel to bring the satellite out of orbit on May 2022. Instead, Dish parked the satellite 75 miles (122 kilometers) above the geostationary arc instead and left it there, creating “space junk” concerns.
Having the FCC wake up from its multi-decade nap here is a decidedly good thing. According to the European Space Agency (ESA), there are roughly 34,580 large debris objects currently being tracked, with thousands of more smaller chunks also posing a risk. Apparently, just leaving a bunch of garbage in space and then doing absolutely nothing about it wasn’t working as a mitigation strategy; imagine that.
Filed Under: echostar-7, fcc, leo, low orbit, nasa, satellites, space junk
Companies: dish
Comments on “FCC Starts Taking ‘Space Junk’ More Seriously, Fines Dish For Parking Satellite In A Dumb Spot”
i’m super confused by the down-to-above thing.
Re:
I got confused too. Is the geostationary orbit the satellite takes in the air, or instead the path of the satellite’s “shadow” on the ground?
Well, regardless of whether the satellite was moves up or down in absolute terms, Dish left it lower than it was supposed to be.
Re: Re:
Left out a word. Meant to say
Re: Re: Re:
“Is the geostationary orbit the path the satellite takes in the air ”
Technically, there is no air at that orbit. Just some atomic oxygen and other random particles.
Re: Re: Re:
Geosynchronous orbit is circa 22K miles up. Probably the most distant orbit for anything commercial. Definitely no air.
Re: Re:
Geo stationary Is because the satellite does not move in relationship to the earth surface. If it was big enough to cast a shadow, the shadow would not move. Its not.
pretty sure the article has at least one of its directions incorrect.
I suspect that dish left it higher than its supposed to be, not lower.
Re: Re: Re:
While the satellite might not move, it’s shadow could. The shadow depends on the interaction of a light-source with the object casting the shadow. Since the earth does turn—and the satellite moves with it—the satellite’s relationship to the sun keeps moving also, which would also cause the shadow to move.
But, as you said, the thing is too small to cast a shadow.
Sorry to be so pedantic about the whole thing, but, we do strive for accuracy.
Re: Re: Re:
Nope, to de-orbit from geostationary orbit takes a lot of energy, so the slot is freed up by boosting the satellite to a higher orbit, and dish did not raise its orbit enough.
Re: Re: Re:2
Dish agreed to lower its orbit (expensive big move) but instead raised it’s orbit (cheap small move). Both are better than leaving it parked in geo, and maybe there’s good reason, but the cheap option now leaves space junk. Pray the deal isn’t altered further…
Now we’re going to see sats turned over to the lowest bidder to get deorbited and see them skipping off the atmosphere making it worse.
Re: And as 1 person on the moon said..
FOUR….
Re:
Not gonna happen, as once a low orbit satellite hits the atmosphere it is coming down, even if it manages to skip a couple of time, which requires a somewhat aerodynamic re-entry shield or tiling. A skip was a potential problem for Apollo, but that was hitting the atmosphere much faster that low Earth orbit satellite can achieve.
Re:
Ideally you would have companies paying someone like Virgin or X to play space pinball and bump them into burn up orbits with low cost guided micro rockets.
I know, it’s still hardly more than scifi. But an article in J-Space some time ago stuck in my head.
For all the crap everyone left in space capable of real damage (that is: nuts, bolts, wrenches, poo) that are too small to guide around, a satellite is easy to dodge. At minimum cost. But I don’t understand why nobody is looking into a real life game of asteroids or galaxian. The idea has been talked about and discussed since the 80s. Micro rockets can cost as little as a few hundred dollars and properly guided could clear paths quickly (in space terms) and launch hundreds from a single vessel.
And yet...
Varda was denied reentry permission for a controlled reentry to a Utah site.
So only SOME satellites are allowed to come down. Perhaps only if they intend to burn up in the atmosphere rather than land?
Re:
They can otherwise de-orbit it. They were denied a landing on a military range.
Re: Re:
lol – wut
You know, when I heard Dish got a public performance license for WALL-E, I was a little excited. But I didn’t know that they wanted to do a live-action remake in real life!
Re:
That was my point above. The idea of pushing junk into the atmosphere to burn up has been discussed by many over 3 decades. Someone daring could make an absolute fortune if they ever put it into practice.
The amount fined wasn’t even a slap on the wrist. It was more like a side eye.
Re:
And one question I don’t see answered is “what happens now?” (The FCC link is telling me “An unexpected error occurred with your request. Please check back later.”)
So, we fined them $150,000. Did we also make them move the satellite to the proper place, so as not to be a danger? If they’re unable, will they have to pay a relocation fee in addition to the fine? That can’t be nearly enough money to pay anyone else to move it.
Re:
This was what caught my eye also. Why even bother having such utterly ineffectual fines, they simply become a [minor] cost of doing business. It’s pretty much the norm when it comes to fines as sanctions by government agencies and it really needs to stop. At the very least, fine amounts need to be multiples of the benefits gained by the prohibited activity/behavior, or multiples of the costs involved if, as here, the reason for the fine is to limit the risk of costly accidents, which would be probably 10’s of millions for geostationary satellites.
Re: Re:
The FCC should’ve put out a bid for someone to properly move the satellite; then paid the winner to execute this space mission, added a “finder’s fee” for the government, and charged it all to Dish.
Let the satellite companies and their insurers worry about costs and benefits. Our goal is to just get rid of space junk. (I hope the FCC requires really good insurance. The insurer and their re-insurer(s) will be hit hard if a satellite operator’s negligence causes a Kessler syndrome: it’d certainly cost many billions of dollars, maybe upward of a trillion.)
'Or you'll do what, shake your fingers at me?'
Dish was supposed to bring down its EchoStar-7 satellite to 186 miles (300 kilometers) above its operational geostationary orbit, using its remaining fuel to bring the satellite out of orbit on May 2022. Instead, Dish parked the satellite 75 miles (122 kilometers) above the geostationary arc instead and left it there, creating “space junk” concerns.
Yeah, that’s the sort of behavior you get when a person/company doesn’t respect those in authority, and believes rightly or wrongly that any threats and orders are empty bluster that can be ignored.
If the FCC wants to start addressing the problem that’s going to require them to bring the hammer down hard on the responsible companies, hitting them with fines that aren’t just rounding errors in the monthly budgets but as I don’t see that happening any time soon I don’t imagine even Dish will pay much attention to their efforts.
Re:
Oh, I’d love to see the FCC start using asset forefeiture as enforcement…
Re: Re:
Asset forfeiture and tacking on some executive forfeiture would be nice.
I hear there are a number of disused mines up north of the arctic circle that could be put to use.
Re: Re:
…as long as they don’t accept EchoStar-7 as the asset being forfeit. It’d kind of defeat the purpose.
Article lacking details
As some already know, a geostationary orbit causes the satellite to remain in a fixed location when observed from Earth. This is quite useful since you just need to point an stationary antenna at it and not have to have the antenna actively track it. However, the number of slots to put a geostationary satellite in is strictly limited. So when the satellite is no longer useful, it needs to be moved in order to free up the slot it was using, so another satellite can be placed there.
In order to free up that slot, they move the satellite into a “graveyard” orbit 300 km above the geostationary orbital path. Why above instead of below? If they went below, the the old satellites would be in the way of newer satellites being moved into geostationary orbits. Why not deorbit the old satellite entirely? In order to move the satellite into the graveyard orbit, it needs a delta-v of approximately 11 m/s, whereas to deorbit it, the required delta-v would be approximately 1500 m/s.
Re:
“Why not deorbit the old satellite entirely? In order to move the satellite into the graveyard orbit, it needs a delta-v of approximately 11 m/s, whereas to deorbit it, the required delta-v would be approximately 1500 m/s.”
It cost too much to clean up after ourselves, rinse repeat.
Re: Re:
One thing that wasn’t mentioned is that because Earth isn’t completely symmetric and because the sun and the moon are not in the same plane as Earth’s equator, the geosynchronous orbit is not stable. In fact, it requires a delta-v of about 50 m/s every year in order to maintain station. And since it would take about 1500 m/s to completely deorbit such a satellite, that means carrying an extra 30 years worth of operational fuel just to “clean up after themselves.” Add in the minor detail that the satellite in question was operational for only 20 years, I think your attitude is more than a little impractical. Those satellites are taken out of service because they run out of station keeping fuel. Not because their electronics are failing. And they’re given as much fuel as possible in order to extend their service time as much as possible.
Re: Re: Re:
” I think your attitude is more than a little impractical. ”
Yes, it is impractical to clean up after our selves. Let’s just wallow in our waste, it will be so much fun.
“Those satellites are taken out of service because they run out of station keeping fuel. Not because their electronics are failing. ”
Are you positive about that? All? Really now … lol
Re: Re: Re:
If that’s what it takes, then what you call “30 years worth of operational fuel” is actually 0 years of operational fuel and barely enough decommissioning fuel. A satellite should be declared “out of fuel” and de-orbited well before it gets to that point.
It’s the cost of doing business; and, yeah, space is expensive. Similarly, if you open a nuclear power plant or chemical factory, you’re supposed to have enough money to safely close it, rather than just abandoning it for Superfund to deal with. If the laws only allow for a small fine that doesn’t cover actual cleanup costs, they need to change.
Re: Re: Re:2
You obviously do not understand rocket science, as for every pound of fuel launched to Geo-stationary orbit, a huge amount more fuel more fuel is used at launch. Instead of a falcon 9, a falcon heavy is needed for launch, with a bigger second stage to boost the satellite into the transfer orbit, and more maneuvering fuel to maneuver all that extra weight.
Re: Re: Re:3
I don’t. So what? The FCC’s license was contingent on Dish properly parking their satellite when they were done with it, which they didn’t do. It was their responsibility to figure out the rocket science that would allow them to do what they promised to do. Are you suggesting the FCC’s rules are inherently unreasonable, or just that they’re inconvenient?
Okay, so Dish saved some money. How much will it now cost us to launch something to push their satellite to a reasonable place?
If I want to hike into the Grand Canyon, common sense dictates that I bring enough food and water to survive the return trip. But I might note that it’s uncomfortable and inconvenient to carry that extra weight, so why not just take an iPhone and use the emergency-SOS-via-satellite feature to call a free rescue helicopter when I get tired, hungry, or bored?
Terminology
The golf term is “Fore!” not FOUR.
I’m missing something
Sounds to me like they are trying to do a rapid deorbit. In theory that’s not a “bad” idea. Various reports show little to no landfall concern even at the lower semi-orbit.
If my readings elsewhere are correct they intend to to an atmospheric burn up. Fairly common premise.
It’s small enough to burn up. Unless the tucked it directly into a use route, there’s no real issue here.
What am I missing?
Re:
Never mind. Some further reading shows they still intend to recover it. Somehow. Eventually. Now the cost savings of a mini-move makes more sense.