Community > Forum > Perception, Barriers & Regulation of Privatized Space Travel > Debris causes regulation - but not best ideas...

Debris causes regulation - but not best ideas...

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:12 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 17 posts ] 
Debris causes regulation - but not best ideas... 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Debris causes regulation - but not best ideas...   Posted on: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:12 am
And article in the newsticker of www.diewelt.de yesterday in the evning said that and international conference about debris at ESOC in Darmstadt/Germany has discussed about regulative ideas and measures.

According to that article the following ideas can be listed:

Interdiction of explosions
Norms under development by ISO
european control system based on radar and telescopes

The article is mentioning technical and technological developments too.

No word about participation of NASA or the US at least at that conference. And - more remarkable - not a single word about incentives for cleaning orbits. No prizes for technologies especially. But prizes for technologies would be a very good way to prevent new future debris. They did know governmental instruments only at that conference if the informations in that article are complete - interdiction and command but no incentives.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Tue May 03, 2005 8:17 am
Don't throw in a prize for every single problem. It's a hype, and only the big prizes get the big attention.

For the cleanup, Bigelow cannot afford to have all that debris near his inflatable structures if he has a lot of habitats floating around, so it's simply a mather of time when it becomes necessairy to clean it up. I don't think a prize is needed for this at this moment.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue May 03, 2005 8:36 am
Alright - I simply want to see a wider range of ideas who to get rid of the debris only. I don't like the way the governments are going - especially the narrow range of what the article is reporting.

I think that if there is significant growth of personal and commercial spavefligth in the future there will be several space branches or space industries like on Earth. There will companies specialized on different tasks - debris removal companies and debris prevention companies will from the space debris industry perhaps, catering companies will provide food, water, atmosphere, closing etc. supply for stations, repair companies will repair satellites, stations, vehicles...and so on.

So there could be one prize for each such industry to stimulate it's creation - but I would like if it would be treid other ways too.

I would like to see proposals here would should be done additionaly to waht the governments seem to do.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Tue May 03, 2005 11:18 am
You're giving my answer in your story and then contradicting it another line later.

Currently, only the IIS and several satelites are 'endangered' by debris. That's not a lot. If commercial space travel will lift off, then it will be required to make it safe, thus removing the debris. There is no point for a prize here. If Bigelow wants to have safe modules, he has to take care of the debris that will be generated by launches and the debris thats allready there.

Noone has any gains by removing any debris from orbit at this point. A prize for this is absolutely not usefull since there will be no market for it afterwards.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue May 03, 2005 11:34 am
That's a different point of view than that applied by the government(s).

The government(s) are claiming for regulations - or at least they are claimed to introduce regulations because of debris. The regulations in mind there are of the intervention- and threat-kind - that's not a good idea. There should be incentives for innovations and private approaches.

I am not that focussed at prizes - they are one example simply. Other positives incentives are very welcome.

If there would be no serious talk about regulations in that article I wouldn't have initiated this thread. It is not meant to propose - it is meant to express sorrow and to stimulate debating with the government's and the participants of that international conference about debris I mentioned in the initial post.

There is a misunderstanding arising here I fear. Perhaps I should provide a link to this thread if I start a thread about regulations which I have in mind because of the complexity of the topic "regulations" and because of problmes in anopther thread.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Tue May 03, 2005 11:48 am
I'm not sure what kind of regulations should apply at all. Sure, if space is visited regularly by lots of people, the governments should keep it clean. But like i said, when the time comes its busy enough up there, thats incentive enough to clean dangerous debris. You dont need 'rules' for that imo.

Do you want to discus certain 'rules' regarding to debris or ideas how to prevent and clean things a bit up, up there?


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue May 03, 2005 12:00 pm
I want to discuss which can be proposed to the participants of that conference as alternatives to their own ideas and so could be proposed to the governments too.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

PS: I fear the governments might act before anyone can get rid of the topic and the privates and the people here would have to react - what is the defensive and weaker situation. We should be the ones who are acting and not the governments.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue May 03, 2005 4:20 pm
Stefan Sigwarth wrote:
Do you want to discus certain 'rules' regarding to debris or ideas how to prevent and clean things a bit up, up there?
I do think the focus should be on prevention and not cleanup. Debris in orbits below 400 km will re-enter on it's own within a few months. (See page 3-7 of http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/1740_14.pdf)
So if we don't add new debris every month, the lower orbits will be clean at no cost to us.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed May 04, 2005 6:06 pm
The whole Galileo deal gripes me.

It is basically a GPS clone. What we have is too much duplication of effort these days. We have GPS, they have GPS--everyone has GPS. We will have capsules--they have capsules--everyone has capsules. We have up-to-20ton rockets, they have them, etc.

We need to build heavy lift, have the Russians and Euros do fly-backs winged systems, and the Chinese launch automated probes.

The whole idea behind Galileo was to give military capability to nations that might find GPS turned off/blacked if they were hostile to the USA.

This duplication of effort is what is making space unprofitable due to the glut in medium launchers. This has poisoned people into thinking "there is no market for heavy lift'' when in fact space utilization on a massive scale is the only thing that is going to get us out of the comsat/tourist funk.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu May 05, 2005 2:18 pm
This is completely off-topic - no relation to debris prevention or debris removal. Don't discuss desires, wishes or requirements or need to have heavy lifters here!

The reasons why tthe markets for launching heavy payloads break away are reasons to be discussed in the Financial Barriers section and technological reasons

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:16 pm
Posts: 51
Location: Albuquerque
Post debris policy   Posted on: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:48 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
I do think the focus should be on prevention and not cleanup. Debris in orbits below 400 km will re-enter on it's own within a few months. (See page 3-7 of http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/1740_14.pdf)
So if we don't add new debris every month, the lower orbits will be clean at no cost to us.


I know I'm late coming to this discussion (just found this website... like it!). Anyway I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

The only way we can avoid adding new debris each month is by not launch anything. NASA guidelines recommend for a 25 year limit on generated debris. 25 years is usually two generations of LEO satellites. The US Air Force generally sticks very close to NASA and international (Inter-Agency Debris Coordination committee - IADC) guidelines. The NASA Safety Standard (NSS) 1740.14 referenced above is undergoing its first revision since 1995. A lot has changed in the 11 years since it was published.

This may come as a surprise to many people, but the US Air Force has probably the best track record for responsibly disposing of satellites and limiting debris. The federal government is very good also (though NASA intentionally left a hurricane monitoring satellite in orbit instead of disposing of it.... more lives saved thru hurricane data than lives jeopordized by uncontrolled reentries). The commerical space industry isn't very good, though they are beginning to learn. The Russians are hit and miss. They dispose of their GLONASS satellites in place. And they plan on hitting some golf balls off of the space station (to quote a NASA Debris Program office person, "bad, bad, bad idea. but then they didn't ask me...did they.")

The big problem comes about when you've got organizations like the Missile Defense Agency (not subject to normal DoD regulations with regards to space safety policy) that wants to conduct on-orbit intercept tests. In the ideal world, no testing would be necessary. Of course we all know, that this is unrealistic, and that if they do successfully intercept a test missile, it will create a mess. We can all run around shouting, "no testing! no testing!", but let's be realistic, they will test given the current political climate. So how do we minimize debris creation of an on-orbit missile intercept test? Several things that can be done are limiting altitudes, intercept angles (keep most of the debris in a ballistic vs. orbital track), etc. We need to get used to the idea, and figure out a way to reduce the long term effects.

Hopefully, the up-coming solar max will clean up LEO (additional drag) without taking out too many satellites due to the additional charging.

Prevention is definitely the best method to deal with debris. Space is not the "big sky" theory that some people still buy into. It's not a question of if something will get hit (it has, at least twice), but when will the next time be. Who's satellite? And what are the implications.


I'll get off my soap box now, its starting to creak.

- Alistair


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:44 am
Hello, alistair,

I like your post - interesting aspects.

Regarding prevention and clean-up the point is that there is already debris orbiting since decades and in relatively stable orbits. The number of peaces traceable is above 170,000 according to officials of NASA and ESA and debris in lower orbits might be more dangerous than debris in high orbits - since the lower orbits have to be passed to get into a higher orbit.

The number of debris not known is estimated to be significantly higher than 170,000. These are objects not traceable.

Since there already several events where debris caused damages the clean-up is very essential and important.

I am applying the short-run aspect here since launches are short-run events - Peter seems to not have that in mind. What I am thinking about is the practical side of it all which is linked to business of private space travel and the like.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:16 pm
Posts: 51
Location: Albuquerque
Post    Posted on: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:51 pm
Clearly the trackable debris is dwarfed in number by the untrackable debris by several orders of magnitude. Estimates I've seen go as high as 800 million pieces total (since is down to the paint flecks and smaller). It's a WAG as far as I'm concerned, but gives us the idea of what we're dealing with.

Because its unreasonable to expect any spacecraft to not be impacted by any debris, spacecraft should be designed to sustain a certain amount (or size) of debris with no mission impact.

Sspacecraft developers need to mitigate debris generation that is too small to track, but big enough to cause mission impacting damage (generally 1 mm or larger). We're also using the general guideline of reducing all debris mitigation, its just that untrackable debris is potentially the most hazardous, while the trackable debris is avoidable through maneuvering.

But you are correct, the clean-up of debris is the best long term solution.

My concern for stuff like space elevators, is that it will be constantly bombarded with debris. They have limited maneuverability (mobile anchor).

We need some sort of space trash truck. Two flavors of this, one to pick up large debris and another to sweep up the small stuff (very large surfaces). I'd also advocate an on-orbit or lunar trash dump for the debris, since we can probable recycle a lot of the material. Why burn it up when we've already expended the engery to get it up there.

- Alistair

_________________
Mach 25 Begins With Safety


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:16 pm
Posts: 51
Location: Albuquerque
Post base...colony...independence?   Posted on: Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:53 am
What sort of thresholds for transitioning from an outpost to base to colony to independent state do you think there should be?

My general definitions as follows:

outpost - can support human presence for some period, but not permanently

base - can support humans on a permanent basis. Still needs outside supplies/support

colony - permanent human presence and self-sufficient resources. Dependent on 'mother country' for protection and most personnel/goods transport

Independent - completely self-sufficient in all ways, except where trade is more efficient than domestic production of all goods/services.

I think there needs to be something in between base and colony, though what to call it I don't know.

I would think that the US government would have a hard time, pyschologically, granting a colony independence. Previous colonial experience, it made sense to grant independence, because the people of the colony, where not Americans (e.g. Philipines). A US lunar/Martian colony would be primarily Americans (I expect there to be a fair number of foreigners).

- Alistair

_________________
Mach 25 Begins With Safety


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post Re: base...colony...independence?   Posted on: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:01 am
alistair wrote:
What sort of thresholds for transitioning from an outpost to base to colony to independent state do you think there should be?

My general definitions as follows:

outpost - can support human presence for some period, but not permanently

base - can support humans on a permanent basis. Still needs outside supplies/support

colony - permanent human presence and self-sufficient resources. Dependent on 'mother country' for protection and most personnel/goods transport

Independent - completely self-sufficient in all ways, except where trade is more efficient than domestic production of all goods/services.

I think there needs to be something in between base and colony, though what to call it I don't know.

I would think that the US government would have a hard time, pyschologically, granting a colony independence. Previous colonial experience, it made sense to grant independence, because the people of the colony, where not Americans (e.g. Philipines). A US lunar/Martian colony would be primarily Americans (I expect there to be a fair number of foreigners).

- Alistair


I have to pose this thought - you seem to be assuming that you will pase from one phase to the other, but that very well might not be the case. For example, it might never make sense for a colony/base/outpost/base to be self-sufficent, but you could easily enter a realm of a trading economy, in such a way that trade is more efficent than being completely self-relient.

I also have to pose the question, why is this in the Debries catagory?


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use