Clutter in space presents an imminent threat to human activity at or above the Kármán line, the altitude at which conventional aircraft can no longer fly—about 62 miles (100 kilometers) above the surface. As more objects are launched into orbit, the possibility of catastrophic collisions increases. More frequent collisions increase the volume of debris, thereby raising the odds of another collision. Like a traffic jam, eventually the area becomes so congested that nothing can move safely.
The minimum speeds necessary to achieve orbit are very high, thus everything up there moves extremely fast. Basic physics teaches that the faster an object moves, the higher energy it carries into an impact scenario. For this reason, even tiny morsels pack a devastating punch. For example:
An object 10 cm wide (3.9 inches) packs the same force as 7 kg (15.4 lbs.) of TNT.
With limited ability to conduct repairs and collect debris, the problem worsens with each occurrence. Decades ago, a NASA physicist calculated how this situation can eventually devolve into disaster. He determined that putting low earth orbit (where most human-made objects reside) into such a state of chaos will lead to space travel—manned or unmanned—eventually becoming impossible. This principle is now called the Kessler Syndrome.
In the piece linked at the top of this story, I discussed the Kessler Syndrome and how the privatization of space is contributing to it. In short, the Kessler Syndrome:
describes a scenario in which space pollution impacts result in the generation of even more debris, which leads to more collisions. Kessler basically determined that once “a critical population density of objects” in space is reached, collisions among this debris will increase the overall population of dangerous objects, regardless of whether more objects are added via new launches.
In other words, there is a point at which completely ceasing the launch of new objects into space will not prevent the debris field up there from growing.
NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler first proposed the concept in 1978. He articulated it in detail in his 1991 paper, proffering the mathematical computations that illustrated a probable timeline for the complete desecration of low earth orbit and, therefore, human space activity generally. He concluded that even in 1991 the situation was “unstable,” and that a breaking point could be reached with just one impact event involving a sizeable enough object.
Just recently, a team of scientists recalculated Kessler’s probabilities of a sizeable event happening based on the volume and nature of space launches since the 1990s. Their conclusions are disturbing.
Assuming the current launch rate going forward of around 1,500 satellites per year, the researchers estimate that the “critical population density” turning point will occur around 2050. By that year, a catastrophic event in low earth orbit becomes inevitable—if one has not already happened. The timeline shortens if launches increase in number.
To explain how such a disaster would affect life on earth’s surface, Moriba Jah, Associate Professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, provided a chilling narrative in a Ted Talk (edited here for brevity):
The most immediate sign to the public would be the sudden failure of broadcast TV. Not long after, travelers and operators would notice that their GPS no longer worked. Air Traffic Controllers would have to quickly start grounding airplanes while trying to safely land those already airborne. While complicated, this could possibly be done without incident as most airliners have other systems to assist in guiding them, but it would at least cause significant chaos. After an hour or so, however, the real strife begins.
Because of its reliance on information provided by satellites, the global economy would screech to a halt. People would not be able to withdraw money, and global supply chains would freeze. The electronic economy’s vascular system is pumped by the global satellite network. Simultaneously, militaries around the world would be scrambling to organize their forces, now partially out of contact or lacking other critical information sources.
One can easily imagine the discord that would occur around the world when theft or the use of force reigns supreme in the acquisition of an ever-dwindling supply of goods. The question at issue is not how bad would it be? Because the answer is really bad. But, the operative question is, how long would it last? Controlling the subsequent chaos and reconnecting the globe through traditional means would take quite some time, and likely many, many lives. Some reorganization in the global governmental hierarchy might possibly occur. The long-term ramifications are hard to imagine. And it need not be so.
An obvious solution would be to stop superfluous launches of satellites. A large number of these are for satellite-based internet and other nonessential services. In the piece linked at the top, I explained why satellite internet is unnecessary. Put simply, higher quality internet could be offered to many more people using ground-based resources and technology for the same amount of money.
In most instances, satellite internet is little more than a vanity project, or a means to generate profit for a small number of elites (or both). Where it might be necessary, such as to foster scientific research or provide service in extremely remote areas, a constellation of thousands of orbital objects is simply not required.
A second solution, proposed by the authors of the recent paper, is to demand a 5-year deorbit time for existing satellites. Because governments issue launch licenses to satellite providers, this regulation could be tied to the approval of such requests. Currently, the requirement for deorbit stands at twenty-five years, leading to thousands of defunct objects remaining aloft for decades (alongside hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pieces of other space junk).
Infographic showing the space debris situation in different kinds of orbits around Earth; Credit: Pablo Carlos Budassi, CC BY 4.0.
A third idea is currently being researched at an organization called RemoveDEBRIS. There, scientists and engineers are working on ways to actively reduce the amount of debris in low earth orbit. These include efforts such as forced deorbiting using ground-based lasers, capturing litter with deployable nets, and harpooning and reeling in objects. Sort of like fishing in space.
Probably the best path forward will involve some elements of all three of these proposals.
As has been shown among all runaway sectors, a failure to regulate results in eventual catastrophe. Despite the claims of deregulation proponents, the logic and outcomes are clear. Profit-driven enterprises do not prioritize human or environmental health. This is glaringly apparent in tech, healthcare and, lately, space.
The future of humanity’s ability to explore the cosmos—not to mention its utilization of earth orbits for practical and necessary on-the-ground services—hangs on a thread. Whether scientists’ predictions are off by a few years or even a few decades, without change the consequences are a practical certainty. Citizens need to support the science lobby (insofar as one exists) and implore their representatives to take action.
For more on how private interests are dangerous to human progress, click below.
