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
post
Lol, wait until Elon and everyone else sets off the Kessler Syndrome. There wonβt be shit up in the sky after that.
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.
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?
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.
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.
FWIW, what you described is done by hobby astrophotographers. Satellite rejection during stacking:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51169334733_c2f9b44508_o.png

If you detect it the image is already ruined. You need to predict where it'll be.
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.
You've heard of JWST right?
I was also going to reference the Chandra XRay telescope, but holy shit, I had no idea it was almost 27 years old
I have models of both Hubble and Chandra telescopes hanging in my room. π
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.
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.
Because learning about the universe is unlikely to have any short-term gains for people making budget decisions on this scale
There's so much crap up there. Are there any regulations or can billionaires start fucking up space now too?
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.
You mean stick the Hubble on the dark side of the moon? Thatβs a little difficult.
The small satellites swarming everywhere canβt be stuck out of the way. Theyβre communications satellites. They need to be close by to reduce latency.
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.
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.
There's also the issue with communicating with the satellite. Hard to do that with thousands of kilometers of rock in the way
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.
It would require multiple additional satellites orbiting the Moon.
all 37 comments