Op-Ed: Trying to manage space debris with economics and forward planning is the only option

It’s an appalling, dangerous junkyard up there. The European Space Agency estimates that there are well over 140 million pieces of space junk of various sizes in orbit. With possibly millions of proposed new satellites, the situation is likely to become even more chaotic.

This is hardly a new problem. It’s been getting exponentially worse and far more complex for decades despite constant warnings. Historically, the warnings resulted in many proposals and guidelines, but the problem is now huge.

Cost in space

Surrounded by debris, the Earth is now a fuzzy ball of effectively useless and hazardous materials. The physics of space junk are undeniable. Even a small innocuous piece of debris turns into a bullet at orbital speeds. Big expensive systems have to navigate this shooting gallery to operate.

The space junk is anything but under control. Images of the impacts of space junk look like ballistic weapons tests. The debris directly affects live operational systems. Even the Hubble Telescope is scarred by miscellaneous flying debris.

The worst case scenario for space debris is called Kessler Syndrome, in which a hypothetical cascade of collisions set off by a single collision could trigger many more collisions and trash and destroy low Earth orbital altitudes.

Kessler Syndrome was theorized in 1978, and it hasn’t happened yet. That said, even a mini-Kessler event could be incredibly destructive, and the probabilities rise with more satellites and related debris in orbit.  

Fixes are minimal, to put it politely. Graveyard orbits just relocate the mess. They don’t clean it up. Falling space junk is turning into an increased risk, ironically due to stronger materials in orbital technologies.

The overall problem is now upscaling to a serious statistical situation as more satellites launch. A big network like Starlink turns over 2 to 5 satellites per day, and they do try to program and manage the resulting debris. Now expand that statistic to the overall number of satellites in current use under varying degrees of management.

There’s another unavoidable issue here. Everything in space is expensive throughout its life cycle. The natural problem for cleaning up this unsightly, dangerous mess is economic. There’s a distinct lack of solid financial incentives for taking on the added costs of a cleanup.  

Cleaning up the mess economically with a new perspective

These ungainly and unsustainable economics are now under serious review. A group called the Clean Orbit Foundation has taken a more proactive perspective to managing the mess. The Foundation views space debris as an economic resource and proposes a “circular space economy”.

In an interview with Innovation News Network, Kyle Cybul, Founder and Executive Director of the Clean Orbit Foundation lays out an economic model for a “regenerative” approach to the future management of orbital space.

Cybul painstakingly but very effectively explains a new and far more systematic series of initiatives to create a self-driven ecosystem. He proposes a management system that “intentionally designs spacecraft, materials, and infrastructure for reuse, repair, refuelling, recycling, and resource recovery from the ground up.“ That’s almost the exact opposite of the current “fire and forget” methods that have created the problem.

There’s also a strong element of Karmic justice at the economic level in this proposal. Space launches aren’t exactly famous for their ability to recover any of these inherent costs. There are uncountable millions or perhaps billions of dollars’ worth of used materials in orbit. This approach is also much better attuned to the comparatively very slapdash current regime of full-cycle management.

Increasing risk vs increasing scale is absurd

Proposals for new orbital operations are increasing on an almost daily basis. From orbital power transmission to space mirrors for sunlight on demand, the “clutter factor” is ramping up.

With all this enthusiasm comes a barely hidden added risk. The Kessler Syndrome effect didn’t factor in disruption to large networks. Can an orbital network be derailed by random collisions? Can orbital systems be hacked to fail or enter unplanned orbital paths? Can a glitch turn into a disaster?

The lack of a credible, let alone a coherent, plan for managing orbital tech is beyond ridiculous and dangerous. If the Clean Orbit Foundation can outline a plan in a few hundred words, surely the vast intellects managing orbital space can, too?

The choice seems to be an ongoing rain of debris with added attractions in the form of damage to high-value satellites, or not. The choice between firing billions of dollars’ worth of materials into space for no further cost benefit or not is equally absurd.

Let’s clarify the values:

You can reliably cost recovery values.

You can accurately cost recycling values.

You can reduce potentially extremely expensive risk.

You can declutter orbits which are full of useless materials.

The alternative is not to do any of these things?

The argument in favour of systemic management of orbital space isn’t even debatable. The question is now when and how fast.