Maybe I am overthinking this, but it appears to me that all the reporting of the conjunctions involving Starlink satellites & the Chinese Space Station is forgetting that close approaches & avoidance manoeuvres are a normal part of space traffic management.
Even in environments with little to no debris (e.g. in Mars orbit) collision avoidance manoeuvres are performed. Perhaps not routinely, but they do occur.
Even with great surveillance and tracking in the future, and the most robust space traffic regulations, collision avoidance manoeuvres will be part of space operations. Avoidance manoeuvres are unavoidable.
Although I would hope for better communication in the future, how these occurrences were resolved is exactly how I would expect future occurrences to be resolved - with manoeuvres to reduce the risk.
This is not a sign of a growing #SpaceDebris problem, given that these events involved active spacecraft. It is, perhaps, a sign of congestion but as I have said, manoeuvres can be needed even when there are only a handful of spacecraft in orbit.
Nonetheless, the rapidly growing population of active spacecraft in orbit is having a disproportionate effect on the number of close approaches and manoeuvres. Each occurrence represents a non-zero risk of a collision & requires effort to mitigate.
Improving transparency & communication whilst reducing the complexity & burden involved will be important & vital steps if we are to maintain the safety of robotic & human spaceflight.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Elon Musk told the Financial Times that "Tens of billions" of satellites can be accommodated in orbits close to Earth. Here's a thread looking at whether this is correct... bbc.co.uk/news/business-…
1/ To investigate, I used the stability model developed by Don Kessler & Phillip Anz-Meador, which Phillip presented at the 3rd European Conference on Space Debris in 2001
2/ I will skip over the derivation of the model to go straight to the key result, the
critical number of intact objects above a specified altitude producing a
runaway environment:
Here's a thread containing the slides and thoughts I shared at today's @seradata space conference. I wasn't able to invest much time to prepare the talk, so some of the slides will look familiar to those attending April's ESA #SpaceDebris conference. Some are new [1/n]
[alt text: talk title "The Space Debris Environment - Current Status and Evolution of the Risk"]
I put this slide together using data from celestrak.com. It shows the historical evolution of the orbital object population (as recorded in the public catalogue). The highlight statistic is that active spacecraft make up 20% of the current catalogue population [2/n]
I think the #KesslerSyndrome is too often presented as a tipping point or a threshold we have yet to cross, so I wanted to use some aspects of my paper at the 8th European Conference on #SpaceDebris to explain why I think that is wrong [1/n]
The starting point of my thinking was to look at how natural populations grow. The simple exponential model is a standard model that describes the growth of a single population [2/n]
If we know the initial number of individuals in the population N(0) then this model allows us to estimate the number of individuals at any future time t. Here, r is the intrinsic rate of natural increase, which depends on the birth rate, b, and death rate, d [3/n]
I am seeing some ill-informed takes on today's near-miss in orbit so would like to offer some trajectory corrections if I may. Firstly, the chance that a single collision would trigger a catastrophic 'chain reaction' that would sweep through LEO is tiny.
For every close pass involving catalogued objects in orbit we can estimate a collision probability, or Pc. The Pc is between 0 and 1. If it is 1 we can say that a collision is certain. If it is 0 then we can say that a miss is certain.
The event today may have had a Pc between 0.02 & 0.2. In any case, the Pc was relatively small (compared to a Pc of 1) so a miss was the most likely outcome. For a chain reaction to occur a long & sustained sequence of collisions would need to take place.
All of my work interactions are virtual at the moment, as I am sure many of yours are too. In this format I think it is even more difficult to be aware of an #InvisibleIllness or #InvisibleDisability so for #MEAwarenessHour I'd like to ask you to keep this in mind.
It will be harder for you to see if someone is facing challenges so it's perhaps even more important than ever to be kind & considerate in all of your online work interactions.
It's easy to be dismissive, to compare someone else's situation to your own, or to persuade yourself that perhaps your colleague's slow progess is because of a lack of effort. It's important to have empathy & not to judge.
It could be argued that many of the approaches to ensure sustainability identified in this (otherwise excellent infographic) are actually focused on ensuring spaceflight safety & IMHO there are some fundamental omissions, most importantly to do with how we think about the future
It's also not really correct to place large constellations into the category of trends that pose challenges to long-term sustainability (even though most might disagree with me). If we do so, then surely we must place all past, present & future space systems into this category.
I'd also argue that diversity of space actors is a necessary feature of space sustainability, as defined by the UN: it is "the ability to maintain the conduct of space activities indefinitely into the future" realising the objectives of "equitable access to the benefits"