Reply to post: Less bang for your more bucks?

Less bang for your more bucks?

Now, this may be a little contentious, but it strikes me that it is becoming time to do something about the amount of junk floating around up there - not from an 'eco' point of view, but one of global risk (We absolutely depend on the the contents of the 'space segment' for more and more as time goes on - Satellite TV, navigation, communication, weather forecasting etc. etc,. mersum premite).

I am relatively uneducated re space and orbital operations*, but even I can appreciate the amount of damage done by being struck by something of low mass but with a significant relative velocity (The often quoted 'chip of paint' example) or something with a decent mass (100Kg, taken from the article text) impacting something at an entirely achievable 500Km/H differential velocity.

Anyone know of a published study that comes up with a *realistic* probability of a catastrophic Kessler-like event occurring?

Lets assume there *is* a risk of the Kessler syndrome becoming a thing - how would we cope if we lost most of the functions/services in the space segment at the moment AND were not able to leave the planet due to not being able to navigate through the resulting debris field. [ Obligatory Ref. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_DnrceDEI8&feature=youtu.be&t=112 :-) ]

OK, that's the problem. I like solutions, so what about this:

Every item of flight hardware that remains in orbit MUST be launched with a physically attached but entirely separate/autonomous thruster system (not necessarily high thrust!) with it's own mesh network/repeater communications system to cover failure of the hosting platform (Can't communicate with main platform - fine, de-orbit with the autonomous thruster, or the reverse). It must also have an end-of life plan that results in it's removal from space, not just shoving it into a parking orbit along with lots of other redundant cruft leaving a 'critical mass' of accident-waiting-to-happen.

Having one job to do, I bet these extra boosters can be standardised and low cost, at least compared with the TCO for launching and operating the parent platform.

Think of nuclear fission : It only works once things are densely packed enough to sustain the chain reaction, but boy, when it happens the results are interesting. Removing end-of-life platforms = less density = less risk = acceptable risk.

Nice idea, I think, but then I probably don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm not paying the bill (Unless the Kessler thing does happen, then we *all* get to cough up!)

*And in other things : 'mersum premite' comes to you courtesy of Google Translate.....