all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 11 months ago (8 children)

So much space junk up there...eventually it will be impossible to leave earth without risking a hit from a screw travelling 50k miles per hour

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 18 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Wasn't Earth just over polluted so humanity had left?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    And they eventually went back because they learned staying in space was a mistake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    But I don't remember the part about the orbits being so crowded or full of trash that you cannot grt on or off planet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    https://youtu.be/RmG5tUCrrsA

    Eve spacecraft goes through quite a few dead spacecrafts when escaping Earth

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Now rewatching it is hard not to notice how stationary the space junk appears in that scene.

    In which case it would all be falling to earth.

    Either that or it’s all moving at the same orbital speed at the launching ship and the ship is actually spiraling out from the planet, not launching directly into deep space.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 62 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Lol, wait until Elon and everyone else sets off the Kessler Syndrome. There won’t be shit up in the sky after that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    Looks my photo of Orion nebula! No but seriously, like 80% of the frames I took had satellite streaks. It's becoming a rather difficult target to photograph, at least relative to my place on Earth. Sucks to see this likely to become true for Hubble too.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    And it's only going to get worser.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Is there any feesible plan for removing all the space junk? Has any authority that's reliable put forth a plan that could actually work?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    Europe, ESA, and a good amount of space actors have signed the zero debris charter that aims to increase the accuracy at which satellites are to deorbit when their activities have seized and to prevent space debris in a preventative approach.

    ESA also has active plans to recover or extend space operations of satellites that needs servicing via its RISE-mission.

    Finally, there are also the CAT and Clearspace-1 missions (amongst others?) which intend to actively remove satellites from orbit, or place them in the graveyard orbit.

    Oh, and space lasers (for monitoring space debris).

    I guess there are more, but I think this already shows it is actively being developed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    For future missions they could probably detect a sat pass by an obvious bright dot moving in a straight line and then prevent that small area from being added to output photo. It would still be an issue for Hubble and a range of other older telescopes but some newer ones could receive a software update given the HW could handle the change.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

    Honestly, Hubble is old, very old. It was based on a spy satellite that the US developed in the 70s, we built 5 of them. There were essentially 5 hubbles looking down at the earth and only 1 looking up.

    But those spy satellites were retired years ago, they're 4 generations old now. Since then, we've gradually launched 14 other spy sats to replace them.

    All that is to say, why are we still content with our 1 ancient Hubble telescope? Clearly there is a budget for more. If the military can point 19 satellites down at the earth, surely we should be able to point 5 upward, right?

    Yeah, the Hubble is struggling up there in LEO, but this isn't a hubble problem, it's a US prioritization problem. You get what you pay for, and apparently we're only willing to pay for war.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I was also going to reference the Chandra XRay telescope, but holy shit, I had no idea it was almost 27 years old

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    I have models of both Hubble and Chandra telescopes hanging in my room. πŸ˜ƒ

    It's a great telescope, it made a whole slew of discoveries possible. But yeah, digital imaging has improved a lot over the last 27 years, do you remember what digital cameras were like in 1998?

    What we have is great, and what we've managed to do with it is astonishing. But... I believe we are doing ourselves a disservice by not updating these space observatories more frequently and by not building enough of them for all of the observations we want to make. Because we could, but we aren't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    Oh absolutely! But why not more?

    Why are scientists around the globe competing for small chunks of time on the jwst when we could have several more telescopes like it? Or perhaps even a few slightly less advanced telescopes. I know designing it was a huge challenge, but even with the design complete, just constructing it presented a number of serious challenges. Given that the jwst was such a complex project, I wonder if a series of telescopes with optics and instruments still significantly more modern than Hubble would still be useful to astronomers as well as much easier to produce than the jwst.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    There's so much crap up there. Are there any regulations or can billionaires start fucking up space now too?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (8 children)

    How about:

    • Stick them somewhere out of the way, like the dark side of the Moon.

    • Use multiple space telescopes and build a composite image.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    You mean stick the Hubble on the dark side of the moon? That’s a little difficult.

    The small satellites swarming everywhere can’t be stuck out of the way. They’re communications satellites. They need to be close by to reduce latency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    You mean stick the Hubble on the dark side of the moon?

    Space telescopes in general. Somewhere that isn't LEO; I grabbed that as an example because I recall it being needed for...IIRC it was radiotelescopes, to avoid communications chatter. Might not be ideal for optical telescopes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    The two biggest problems with observatories on the far side of the moon are being limited to only half of space (the same as planetary observatories) and the cost to build it. You can mitigate the first by having observatories on opposite edges of the far side, but that also costs twice as much as building one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    There's also the issue with communicating with the satellite. Hard to do that with thousands of kilometers of rock in the way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    And yet, I can use satellites to communicate on the other side of the world. I have a suspicion the same system would work for this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments