Satellite operators want option to exceed deorbiting rules

A group of satellite operators has asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider its proposed five-year window to remove orbital junk by adding language that would let them request waivers to exceed the limit.  Iridium Communications, HughesNet operator EchoStar, Luxembourg-based SES, and OneWeb, currently …

[Bartholomew]

Granted!

I would grant them their option to exceed deorbiting rules as long as their satellite is at or below an orbit of 550 km

( It takes about 5 years for debris at 550 km to naturally deorbit due to atmospheric drag (depending on mass and surface area, amount of X-rays from the sun absorbed and warming the thermosphere, oh and disturbances to earths magnetic field ). So to stay in orbit they would need to use fuel, and once their fuel is gone they will deorbit in about 5 years *evil grin*). Once you get to 2000 km natural deorbit takes about 20 thousand years, and higher than the Exosphere (10,000 km) there is no atmospheric drag and the objects will never de-orbit. Most GPS satellites orbit roughly above about 20,000 km.

[Doctor Syntax]

Allow a waiver with a couple of conditions: 1. You can't replace it until it's down and 2. You're on the hook for any collisions it's involved in while in orbit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Being "on the hook" for collisions is fairly meaningless. The concern isn't that a collision costs money, but that it snowballs quickly to the point where the earth is surrounded by 1mm bits of metal orbiting at 15000mph and obliterating anything we ever try and launch again. If that happens it doesn't matter who is "on the hook for it", it brings an end to any goals we have in space.

[Claptrap314]

We've got a LONG ways to go before that's a real problem, however.

Far more problematic is a business doing a default & restructure to avoid liability. You would want a bond--but there are issues with the insurance industry as well.

[Doctor Syntax]

An obligation to insure is what I had in mind. And, of course, the premium would have to be large to take into account the collateral damage due to the fragmentation the A/C mentions. IOW, make it preferable to get an unusable satellite down. Why leave it there?

[M.V. Lipvig]

Make all C-suite members personally liable then, including jailtime if they can't pay. And, not dischargeable under bankruptcy. After all, they get paid the big bucks for taking the big risks, right?

[brainwrong]

batshit crazy idea

Build large scale solar powered electrolysis plants to produce hydrogen gas to vent into the atmosphere. It will rise to the top of the atmosphere and provide drag on all orbiting objects on its journey to space. It'll bring all stuff down quicker, and maybe reduce sea levels to boot.

May need a big, well enforced no-smoking zone :)

[brainwrong]

Re: batshit crazy idea

That looks very tiny. I suppose it could be scaled up to be useful for that purpose, but it may effectively be a big red light advertising our availability to any passing aliens looking for "a good time".

Good luck!

[FeepingCreature]

Starlink V2 can launch on Falcon 9

Slight correction: Starlink V2 can probably be launched on F9 with some adjustments, at least according to an FCC filing: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2398259#msg2398259

They'll probably only really be economic with Starship though.

[DrSunshine0104]

I guess I don't see why it isn't disposed of more-or-less immediately at EOL. It isn't an asset that can be rehabilitated and it has to have the fuel on-board to de-orbit. So why wait any longer than it is necessary to make a safe transit from orbit to atmosphere? Either space-traffic control(?) is really backed-up on getting transfers completed or they are just wanting to play games with ledger books.

[M.V. Lipvig]

They can use that fuel to deorbit, or they can use it to get another year of life out of it. Guess what option they'll pick, every time?

[Bartholomew]

Maybe an Ion thruster, where some mass of the satellite is used as the fuel to deorbit. In LEO temperature can fluctuate from about 240°C to about 380°C, so maybe part of the satellite could me made of Zinc, lead or Bismuth and once the satellite is out of fuel the blocks can be ionized with power from the solar panels to deorbit. And to prevent the ion thrusters being used to extend the life of the satellite, have them connected to critical parts that will be damaged once the drive is power up. That the deorbit ion thruster only has one function and can do nothing else.

[Bartholomew]

Sorry I meant 240K to 380K

[Richard 12]

They won't do either unless forced

Hence the five year rule.

It's entirely up to the operator to select the method used to deorbit, as long as it does not leave debris. They have many options. (Though melting metal parts of the spacecraft is near certain to leave debris.)

This is not a technical problem. It is political, thus only soluble via contracts or legislation.

[FlamingDeath]

When profit is the sole motivator, all sorts of stupid happens

If these profit seeking businesses fuck up our ability to explore space, they are gonna make a lot of enemies

[FeepingCreature]

It is not profitable for a space business to lose access to space.

Just saying.

Capitalism has inherent issues but this shouldn't be one of them.

[Richard 12]

Tragedy of the commons

Unfettered capitalism always results in a sharp focus on short-term profit, with the longer term consequences either assumed to be paid for by "someone else" or ignored entirely.

Once the incentives (profit) are plausibly separated from the consequences of misuse, the resource gets squandered and consumed.

We see this everywhere else - climate change, land, banking - LEO is no different.

For example, we're all still paying for the 2007 banking crisis, but those responsible would do it all again if given half a chance.

Legislation is required to prevent this. Or at least, limit the damage.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But our business model doesn't allow for deorbiting and cleaning up debris. If we do that, we'll either lose money or have to charge customers so much that they won't use our services and products!"

That about sum it up? :(