I had to turn this in for a class back in 2006. It's 19 pages of total bullshit that would've gleaned me a 92 if it hadn't been a month late due to the momentous task of compiling it out of 9 different sources that were essentially the same thing. It's been brought up in jokes a bunch around Paper Mill. Here it is: THE SPACE DEBRIS PAPER
Introduction
For as long as human space exploration and operations have been going on humans have been treating the vast expanses of space in the same way that we treat our own planet. We have been trashing it. Each year, as more and more space missions take place more and more man made garbage has filled the orbital field around our planet. There is also a great amount of natural space debris but there is really nothing we can do to curb that problem so for now we must focus efforts on man made space debris and the problems it creates.
There are actually two different categories of orbital debris placement. There is orbital debris in low-Earth orbit, which places it right above our atmosphere. This debris will eventually be pulled into the atmosphere by atmospheric drag and break apart, returning to Earth. Obviously debris in this orbit will eventually clean itself up for a lack of a better term. The other category of orbital debris is that in geosynchronous orbit. This debris poses more of a problem. Geosynchronous, or geostationary debris, remains in one place in orbit. This debris lies along the equator, rotating with the Earth in the same position as the planet. It is easier to track by ground instruments due to it’s fixed position so many communications satellites are placed here. But when the satellite becomes obsolete and no longer works it will not just naturally plummet back to Earth like it’s counterparts in Low-Earth orbit. It will remain in the same exact spot until it is collected or destroyed by another piece of space debris (Muir, 2005, p.1).
FIGURE I- Spatial Density of Space Debris as of 2001
Rocket Components: A Major Source
A major source of space debris is spent rocket stage pieces. After achieving its objective a rocket’s fuel tanks disengage from the main body and they are left floating in orbit. Since the 1950s, the beginnings of the space age there have been around 200 explosions in orbit. Around half of these explosions were old rocket fuel tanks and stage parts. The dregs inside them are ignited by pieces of either man made space debris or natural debris. These explosions completely shatter the tanks and in turn create an even larger cloud of space debris. Thus a vicious cycle occurs where one piece of space debris can create thousands if not millions of more pieces of similar space debris (Hogan, 2004, p.1).
The IADC Solution
The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, or IADC, a coalition made up of all countries with space programs has attempted to create guidelines for keeping geostationary orbiting space free of too much space debris. They make it a point to try and find ways of controlling space debris without having to either spend or lose too much money. They work on these methods during the preparations to launch space missions and the design and construction of space craft and satellites. The IADC is made up of the following organizations: The Italian Space Agency (ASI), British National Space Centre (BNSC), Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), China National Space Administration (CSNA), Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft-und Raumfahrt (DLR), European Space Agency (ESA), Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), Japan, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Space Agency of Ukraine (NSAU) and Russian Aviation and Space Agency (Rosaviakosmos) (Leonard, 2003,p.1). Their guidelines established that after a satellites operations are over it should be moved, basically, boosted by rockets, to a satellite graveyard area 300 kilometers from the active geostationary ring. This was just the minimum distance; they concluded that anything less then that and the satellite would be pushed back into the geostationary ring by solar radiation and other gravitational forces (Muir, 2005, p.1).
A survey was conducted by Rudiger Jehn, an employee of the European Space Agency, whose headquarters is based in Darmstadt, Germany. This survey found that, unfortunately, many members of the IADC are not following the own rule they helped establish. Using various sensors and methods of observation supplied by the US Space Surveillance Network they were able to detect 1120 objects in the geostationary ring that were more then 60 centimeters wide. Only about 300 of these objects were deemed operational satellites, leaving a whopping 820 objects that are not currently operational satellites, simply dead in geostationary orbit (Muir, 2005, p.1). This means that a majority of the detected items in geostationary orbit are pieces of space trash that do not belong there.
Furthermore, Jehn made an even more disappointing announcement at the April 2005 European Conference on Space Debris in the ESA’s home city of Darmstadt. He and his team had done research on the thirteen geosynchronous satellites that ceased operations in 2004. Five of these satellites were boosted to the “graveyard” according to the IADC guidelines. Five more of these former satellites were boosted, but not far enough to escape the chance of being tossed back into the geostationary ring. Sadly, three of these satellites were left in orbit without an attempt to even get them out of the way (Muir, 2005, p.1).
Jehn found that the country of Japan and Intelsat and Eutelsat, two satellite companies, were the best behaved when it came to following the guidelines and boosting their satellites out of geosynchronous orbit. The Chinese space program and American commercial satellite operators were violators of the rules. The worst violator though, was discovered to be the Russian Space Program. The scientists discovered that Russia had abandoned a staggering twenty six satellites in the middle of the ring (Muir, 2005, p.1).
Why do these countries and companies ignore these guidelines? The answer is the reason for many problems that are neglected both in the United States and in the world. The answer is money. To boost a satellite into orbit a pretty hefty supply of fuel is a necessity. It has been found that the cost of the fuel to boost the satellite could be spent on keeping the satellite for an extra three operational months. And of course, in this extra three months the operators would be making money, not spending money like they’d have to to move their satellite. Every now and then a malfunction or simply an unpredicted lack of the required fuel will unfortunately add up to a satellite abandoned in the ring. Mostly though the operators do not want to take responsibility and properly handle their spacecraft (Muir, 2005, p.1). In a way they may possibly assume that once something is in space it is out of the way, as many people in the general public do, but as research and incidents have proven this is simply not the case.
Not all people are willing to accept that space debris is as big a problem as most research indicates. Surprisingly, some of these people are even officials in NASA and other space programs. A shuttle official in NASA, Steve Poulos, has admitted that some people of NASA consider space debris to be a serious problem, where as others just write it off as an annoyance to be taken into account (Watson, 2005, p.1).
Stable Orbit Points in the Geostationary Ring
So since these satellites are in the geostationary ring don’t they stay absolutely put, just rotating with the ring? It would seem so but sadly this is not the case. Due to the non-uniformity of the gravitational forces of Earth there are two stable orbit points in the geostationary ring. These points are over India (at 75 degrees east longitude) and over the Pacific ocean (at 105 degrees west longitude). When abandoned; geosynchronous satellites will begin to move towards the nearest point. Once there the satellites will oscillate, or “librate” as it is sometimes called. This means the satellite will swing back and forth in the ring like a pendulum. Thirty four satellites were abandoned between 1997 and 2003. Jehn and his team found that majority of twenty two of these satellites were Russian and they are librating over the orbit point above India. At the orbit point over the Pacific there are ten formally operational satellites librating. One of these satellites known as Telstar 401 exhibits these problems. The operators lost their control over Telstar 401 back in 1997 and it has been floating through the geostationary ring ever since. This has caused many operational satellites to interrupt service to maneuver around the lost satellite. And as stated earlier moving a satellite is not an economical endeavor. As more and more of these satellites are abandoned by their operators the problem of potential collisions will only increase with time (Muir, 2005, p.2).
In 1998, forty five million people lost capabilities with their paging service. Public radio transmission, ATM transactions, and news wire services also ceased operations. This sudden collapse of communications infrastructure can be directly attributed to space debris. The Galaxy IV satellite, the platform used for delivering these signals, was interrupted by impacts from orbital refuse (Leonard, 2005, p.33).
FIGURE II- Space Debris Around Earth
Radioactivity In Abandoned Satellites
Recent research has also shown that the satellites left abandoned in geosynchronous orbit are not just littering space with debris, but also with toxic and harmful materials. The European Conference on Space Debris has also observed that there are many thirty two out of use nuclear reactors in orbit. That is not all though, as there are also thirteen reactor fuel cores and a minimum of eight thermoelectric generators. It has been conclude that upwards of one ton of radioactive material is in orbit above our planet. Most of these harmful radioactive pieces of debris are Soviet in their origin and from the Cold War Era, 1967-1988 (Muir, 2005, p.3).
Fortunately a nuclear powered satellite has not been launched into Earth’s orbit since 1988. Most of these satellites were sent into orbits from 700 to 1500 kilometers above Earth at the end of their operational lifespan. This precaution was taken to avoid the re-entry of radioactive material into Earth’s atmosphere, which would be a very harmful situation (Muir, 2005, p.3). In 1978 this feared scenario actually occurred. A Soviet satellite known as Cosmos 954 was not able to boost itself into the proper orbit to prevent re-entry. The satellite eventually re-entered Earth’s atmosphere, disintegrating upon this re-entry. When this happened radioactive material and debris rained down on the country of Canada. Soviet engineers attempted to fix this problem by making it possible for the radioactive cores to eject upon threat of satellite reentry. This led to more problems though, when many of the cores were ejected their containment walls were breached and the fuel was able to leak out into space (Hecht, 2004, p.1).
It is hoped that the satellites in that orbit will remain there until their radioactive properties die off, a process that takes hundreds of years. Unfortunately since these hazardous waste carrying satellites have to remain in orbit for so long that just increases their chances of being involved in an orbital collision (Muir, 2005, p.3).
This does not mean that nuclear powered spacecraft are things of the past though, quite the contrary actually. Spacefaring countries are contemplating nuclear propulsion for use on spacecraft that are taking on extraordinarily long missions, such as flights to the outer reaches of our solar system and other neighboring planets within it. This means that nuclear powered satellites may make a reemergence in the space programs of the future (Muir, 2005, p.3).
The Re-Entry of Debris
One major cause for concern with orbital debris is that it does not always remain orbital. Since the beginning of time meteorites and asteroids have broken through our atmosphere and rained down on our planet. Sometimes these natural pieces of space debris impact harmlessly, but sometimes they cause great destruction. It is widely believed, for example, that the dinosaurs and other prehistoric beings were driven to extinction by the impact of a massive asteroid (NASA, 2005, p.1).
Man-made space debris can echo the problems of natural space debris though. It is not just a physical threat to satellites and space ships in orbit. While strolling through a park in Tulsa, Oklahoma in the early morning hours of January 22nd, 1997, a woman named Lottie Williams saw a meteor-like light cruise over her head. Seconds later she was hit on the shoulder by a piece of six inch charred metal. Just a half an hour prior to this a Delta II rocket had re-entered Earth’s atmosphere and broken up after a nine month period in orbit. Williams was the first person believed to have been hit by space debris re-entering from orbit (n.d., Space).
Ms. William’s case is not the only documented case of man-made space debris returning to Earth though, far from it in fact. In April 2000, a gigantic metal sphere landed in a field in Cape Town, South Africa. Scientists believe it to be part of a satellite that broke up in the atmosphere (Leonard, 2005, p.36).
Threat to Space Shuttles and other Manned Missions
In February 2003 the Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed upon re-entry to Earth. A piece of debris similar to what litters the Earth’s orbit, specifically; a piece of foam had fallen from the fuel tank and opened a hole on the left front wing. This hole let hot gases enter the ship, disintegrating it and killing the seven astronauts aboard (Watson, 2005. p.1). Before this disaster NASA calculated a 1-in-500 chance of shuttle destruction by space debris, with their goal being a 1-in-200 or greater chance. On April 26, 2003 after a reevaluation of the effectiveness of spacecraft heat shields NASA revealed that the chance of destruction by debris was currently between 1-in-54 and 1-in-113. This study is actually now being redone though, because as Poulos states the study was somewhat flawed because it assumes that even the slightest puncture would destroy the shuttle. Poulos later claims that recent tests have concluded that the space shuttles can withstand blemishes up to 0.1 inches on the front of the wings from space debris, he goes on to state that out of forty three times that debris hit the front of the wings of the test shuttle, considerable damage was done only once. In an effort to ensure a successful mission and the safety of the crews, more insulation was added behind the front edge of the wings of the shuttles, as this is the area most at risk from space debris (Watson, 2005,p.1). Another similar study conducted found that eleven out of twenty of the most feasible scenarios that could lead to a shuttle’s destruction are related to space debris (Leonard, 2005, p.33). In low Earth orbit, tiny pieces of space debris zip along at about ten times the speed of a rifle bullet. A piece of trash the size of a marble will have the force of a one ton safe falling from a five story building (Leonard, 2005, p.33).
In 1996 in an attempt to solve the problem of space debris collisions NASA scientists looked into using a deflective laser against pieces of space debris that were closing in on manned craft and operational satellites. The laser would be fired at the offending object in an attempt to destroy a chunk of it and create force that would push it out of its current path. It was determined though that this project would be too expensive and logistically complicated to attempt (Scott, 2004, p.1).
It was determined that the best option for protection of craft against debris was shielding. The operators of the International Space Station outfitted the craft with hundreds of shields, custom made to combat space debris penetration. These shields were made up of many layers. The first outer layer was a layer of aluminum. The next layer, the real protection, was made up of a ten centimeter thick coating of either Kevlar or Nextel, these bulletproof substances can withstand impacts from one centimeter pieces of debris traveling at speeds of up to ten kilometers a second (Scott, 2004, p.2).
Approximately once a year the command of the International Space Station steer it clear of a larger piece of debris. The operators use radar and satellites to pinpoint pieces of debris moving towards the station up to three days before a projected impact. The orbit of the space station will then be changed by a few kilometers to avoid the impact with the refuse (Scott, 2004, p.2). Hopefully in the future similarly effective command centers can be implemented for many more satellites in orbit to cut down on collisions and reduce debris.
Space Warfare
It is difficult to track how much space debris there actually is in orbit around the Earth. Of 13,400 objects that are identified in orbit, only about 7% of these objects are actual satellites in use (Morring, 2005, p.1). Another 15% of these objects in abandoned and useless rocket bodies (Leonard, 2005, p.33). The remainder is all orbital refuse. Radar used to monitor these items, unfortunately, cannot see items that are less then the size of a baseball (Morring, 2005, p.1). According to the CDI, the Center for Defense Information, there are “possibly trillions” of tiny bits of debris in orbit, along with 100,000 considerably sized pieces (Mooring, 2005, p.1). In 1996 the upper stage of a Pegasus rocket exploded in orbit, unleashing approximately 300,000 pieces of debris , each bigger then four millimeters (Scott, 2004, p.2). According to some experts there may be as much as ten million pounds of this debris, in orbit above our planet (Scholastic, 2004, p.1). The amount of trash has been rising at nearly 5% every year as well. If this trend continues, the CDI estimates that satellites in orbit will have a 40% chance of impact from space debris (Morring, 2005, p.1). If the piece of debris doesn’t destroy the spacecraft due to its size it could still cause trouble with a satellite’s operational systems. This could very well lead to another breakdown in communications and infrastructure, similar to what happened with the Galaxy IV satellite in 1998 (Leonard, 2005, p.33). These statistics have been released in response to the United States’ plan for using anti-satellite weapons in the defense of America. These weapons would only increase the problem of debris in the Earth’s orbit (Morring, 2005, p.1).
The United States of America is not completely responsible for the talk of space warfare and anti-satellite weaponry. There are many other developed and powerful nations with space programs discussing this prospect as well. In the American discussion there is even talk of “orbital minefields”, these minefields would be made up of objects used to destroy enemy satellites and space craft, not unlike the balloons tethered by cables used to destroy airplanes in World War I (Leonard, 2005, p.34).
A Survey About Space Debris
Method
The research done for this paper kept coming to a few shared conclusions. One of these conclusions was that space debris, by and large, is not considered a problem by the majority of people. The problem is even neglected among some of the members of our own country’s space program personnel as well as those of other countries and space based corporations. I decided that I would create a survey to administer to average members of the public to see if this theory held up, along with seeing what people assumed the actual risks and threats of space debris are. I created seven questions and administered them to twenty willing participants between the ages of 18 and 75. As stated I did not discriminate on subjects as I wanted a relatively unbiased demographic.
Findings
The first question I asked on the survey pertained to people’s familiarity with the subject. The question asked if the survey takers had previously researched or read anything on the topic of space debris. 20% of the people asked had previously read articles on the subject, when asked about the sources most claimed that they read the articles in either their local newspaper or from scientific magazines and publications. A majority of the remaining people said they had heard of the problem, particularly following the tragedy of the Space Shuttle Columbia’s last mission in 2003. Which if you recall, ended in the Columbia being destroyed on re-entry by a hole in its wing caused by a piece of foam insulation falling off the shuttle. The piece of foam was of similar composition to many pieces of orbital space debris.
The next question asked on the survey was simpy whether or not the participants believed that orbital debris was a serious problem. 85% of the subjects said they believed it was a serious problem, when pressed on the issue most once again recalled the Columbia disaster.
The third question asked the participants what percentage of orbital debris did they believe was man made. There were four choices given, the choices were None, 0-10%, 10%-50%, or 50%-100%. 60% of the participants stated that they believed 10%-50% of the debris in orbit around Earth was man made. Another 30% believed that the figured was 50%-100%, and finally 10% believed the answer was 0%-10%. The minority was correct on this question. Man made orbital debris accounts for about 7% of all orbital debris. That is still a lot considering how many pieces of debris are micrometeorites and other small natural particles. The obvious wrong answer of None was not selected by anyone as once again the participants were somewhat familiar with the problems of space debris.
The fourth question on the survey actually contained two correct figures. The question asked what people believed was the chance of a space shuttle being destroyed by orbital debris. The correct figures given were either 1 in 50 or 1 in 100. The other two incorrect figures were 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,000,000. 90% of the participants answered with 1 in 1,000. Another 5% answered 1 in 100 and finally the last 5% answered 1 in 100. Most were surprised that the true answers were far below 1 in 1,000 when told that according to recent research the chances were as low as 1 in 54 to 1 in 113.
The fifth question on the survey asked participants what they believed orbital debris posed a threat to. The choices were spacecraft and people in orbit, satellites in orbit, people on the ground, or all of the above. 100% of the respondents answered all of the above. Many felt that the first two responses were obvious and the third one was logical because of past events like Columbia and Challenger debris falling back to Earth, along with events like asteroid and meteor impacts.
The sixth question asked if the respondents believed that orbital debris will continue to accumulate if there are no efforts made to curb it. The choices were yes, no, and don’t know. Once again 100% answered the same, choosing “yes”. The participants felt that it was obvious there is a problem with space debris and as long as space missions continue the debris will continue to collect in orbit over Earth.
The final question was a question of opinion. It asked the participants what they believed the best way to solve problems with space debris was. Once again three choices were given. The first choice was to impose tougher regulations on the maintenance of space craft and satellites. The next choice was making spacecraft and satellites out of materials that could withstand more abuses, such as the Kevlar shielding on the International Space Station. The final choice was setting up new programs and plans to curb and control space debris. 55% of the respondents said that they believed making space craft and satellites out of stronger materials was the best choice. They concluded that if these objects were stronger to begin with they would not break apart so easily and thus there would be less debris in orbit. 25% believed that implementing new plans and regulations would help curb debris. The final 20% believed that maintaining space craft so that they would not breakdown or prematurely cease functioning would be the best plan. This question was purely based on opinion and therefore there is no correct answer.
Discussion
The results were not particularly suprising. The answers given supported a majority of the secondary research that states space debris is not a widely realized problem and is sometimes not taken seriously enough. The fourth question for example, showed that just like some of our officials, members of the general public did not consider the high probability that a space shuttle could be destroyed by debris. This kind of thinking eventually led to the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The third question on the other hand was surprisingly positive. The respondents assumed that man made space debris was actually more proliferated then it really is. The reality is the amount of it was far less then what the survey takers assumed. The fifth and sixth questions though showed that the respondents did assume, based on information from the survey that space debris is a problem that will not correct itself and it is not something to simply be swept under the rug and ignored.
Conclusion
Space debris, orbital debris, space junk or whatever you wish to call it is a serious problem. It is a problem often ignored both in the public realm and in the realm of our governments throughout the world. Not only is it the responsibility of our government sponsored space programs to cut down on but it is also important for corporate space endeavors to follow the rules and attempt to keep our orbit clean. With advancements in space technology and techniques it is a problem that should not be too hard to solve. It is also important to keep any one country, especially the United States, from “weaponizing” space, which is, using anti-satellite weapons in space. This is a situation which would just increase our problems of space debris because if one superpower feels that is has to have dominance in space all of them will and amounts of man made space debris will rise exponentially. Space debris is not something that will simply go away and fix itself. Trash in orbit does not simply float off into the unexplored depths of space. Once above Earth it will either stay in orbit, hindering future craft or if it is low enough it will re-enter our atmosphere and possibly cause property damage and loss of life. Michael Krepon, president of an organization whose cause is to further international peace and security sums it up well, he says that “Space debris kills, and it kills indiscriminately.” (Leonard, 2005, p.36). A few decades ago this statement could be laughable, but now, in an age where we have seen old satellites come crashing back with hazardous nuclear waste in tow and where we have witnessed a space shuttle destroyed and it’s crew killed along with it but what amounts to be a piece of space trash, is it really that hard to believe or even agree with that statement?
Appendix
Survey
1. Man made orbital space debris is comprised of pieces of old and abandoned spacecraft, satellites, and other space program equipment. Orbital debris can be anything in orbit around Earth, such as fragments of asteroids and meteorites. Have you previously read about or researched this topic?
a. Yes b. No
2. Do you believe orbital debris to be a serious problem?
a. Yes b. No
3. What percentage of orbital debris would you think is man made?
a. None b. 0-10% c. 10%-50% d. 50%-100%
4. What would you guess is the likelihood that a space shuttle can be destroyed due to orbital debris impacts?
a. 1 in 50 b. 1 in 100 c. 1 in 1000 d. 1 in a million
5. What do you think orbital debris poses a threat to?
a. spacecraft and people in orbit b. satellites in orbit c. people on the ground d. all of the above
6. Do you think orbital debris will continue to accumulate without proper methods to curb it?
a. Yes b. No c. Not Sure
7. What do you think is a good way to cut down on orbital debris?
a. Tougher regulations on the maintaining of spacecraft and satellites b. Make spacecraft and satellites out of new material that will help cut down on debris c. Set up new programs and plans to control it
References
David, L. (2003, May). Tossed in Space. Foreign Policy. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from EBSCOhost online database
David, L. (2005, July/August). The Clutter Above. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved March 1, 2006
Hecht, J. (2004, April 17). Metal debris threatens craft. New Scientist. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from EBSCOhost online database.
Hogan, J. (2004, July 17). Looking for Space Junk? Then blow up an egg. New Scientist. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from EBSCOhost online database.
Morring Jr, F. (2005, September 5). In Orbit. Aviation Week & Space Technology. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from EBSCOhost online database.
Muir, H. (2005, April 23). Space Crimes and Misdemeanors. New Scientist. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from EBSCOhost online database.
Scholastic News, (2004, April 19). No More Space for Trash! Scholastic News. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from EBSCOhost online databse.
Scott, P. (2004, June). Eye on the Junk. Scientific American. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from EBSCOhost online database.
Space (n.d.). Space Debris Hits Person on Earth. Today in Science History. Retrieved April 15, 2006 from Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia.
Watson, T. (2005, June 8). Shuttle Study Finds Higher Risk of Fatal Hit By Debris. USA Today. Retrieved March 1 2006 from EBSCOhost online database.
