Read on Twitter
It& #39;s fascinating that even in the time I have read about it we have learned so much about the problem, though often we only find it turns out more difficult than previously thought 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ" title="Verwirrtes Gesicht" aria-label="Emoji: Verwirrtes Gesicht">
Pre-Kessler it was thought "natural removal" (i.e. orbit decay) would take care of most...
Pre-Kessler it was thought "natural removal" (i.e. orbit decay) would take care of most...
By 2005, when I first heard about the problem from an @esa article, we were speaking mostly about RB explosions from leftover fuel in orbit, and from objects breakups that occurred over time due to expected degradation of materials.
http://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/Space_debris_mitigation_the_case_for_a_code_of_conduct">https://www.esa.int/Enabling_...
http://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/Space_debris_mitigation_the_case_for_a_code_of_conduct">https://www.esa.int/Enabling_...
In the last few years the problem has been done great justice by some fantastic journalists + science communicators.
It is because of that effort that I can confidently say something like "I& #39;m sure you& #39;ve heard of the space debris crisis" to nearly any person I meet nowadayshttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ°" title="Zeitung" aria-label="Emoji: Zeitung">
It is because of that effort that I can confidently say something like "I& #39;m sure you& #39;ve heard of the space debris crisis" to nearly any person I meet nowadays
A tiny aside, some recent examples (great reads even for those familiar):
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-17/space-junk-like-overfishing-and-pollution-is-a-global-tragedy-of-the-commons
-">https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/28/the-elusive-peril-of-space-junk">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/... (animated page, sometimes slow)
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-17/space-junk-like-overfishing-and-pollution-is-a-global-tragedy-of-the-commons
-">https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/28/the-elusive-peril-of-space-junk">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/... (animated page, sometimes slow)
People get that space debris is a problem and that we haven& #39;t yet developed a [reliable] on-orbit removal solution [to scale or maturity].
But where my work lives is even before that: to catch debrisâor to prevent debris in the first placeâyou have to know WHERE it is.
But where my work lives is even before that: to catch debrisâor to prevent debris in the first placeâyou have to know WHERE it is.
Know its trajectory, speed, size, etc. So you can know where it& #39;s going when you want to catch it, or whether it& #39;s going to hit something else + shatter. You have to know this for _everything_ up there.
SO much hard work is going into debris removal, but STM comes firsthttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ°" title="Satellit" aria-label="Emoji: Satellit">
SO much hard work is going into debris removal, but STM comes first
Space Traffic Management (synonymous w/ Space Situational/Domain Awareness to some) is about cataloguing everything that is up there, it& #39;s physical + orbital properties, + updating it as often as possible. Accurately + precisely.
This is only possible through global cooperation.
This is only possible through global cooperation.
Like @RDEIL was speaking about earlier, this global sat-tracking effort began with the US MiniTrack network in the & #39;50s. But the need for co-op isn& #39;t just that no country has can see our whole sky; it& #39;s also bolstering an inexact process through correlation with multiple methods.
The Earth gets brighter + noisier as our sats get smaller.
Every optical/radio/radar sensor is prone to some noise/error, digitisation of this analog data inevitably loses information, + the process by which trajectories are propagated can only be simulated to limited precision.
Every optical/radio/radar sensor is prone to some noise/error, digitisation of this analog data inevitably loses information, + the process by which trajectories are propagated can only be simulated to limited precision.
In my work, I think of these as a cycle:
1. Data acquisition: a sensor records the sky.
2. Processing: analog signals are digitised, data is calibrated to make the relative absolute, etc.
3. Interpretation: system(s) seeks to identify objects in the data, infer their properties.
1. Data acquisition: a sensor records the sky.
2. Processing: analog signals are digitised, data is calibrated to make the relative absolute, etc.
3. Interpretation: system(s) seeks to identify objects in the data, infer their properties.
4. Propagation: known algorithms (e.g. SGP4) estimate orbital perturbation effects on the current trajectory and plot the likely path of the identified object in the near future.
5. Planning: take the knowledge you have now, decide where to point your sensor next.
<Repeat>
5. Planning: take the knowledge you have now, decide where to point your sensor next.
<Repeat>
With these steps defined, and looking from a computer science perspective, it is unsurprising that each of these suffer unique issues that can contribute to the errors we see.
(See: incident last Oct. where <STM startup> put up a collision alert + Vandenburg was like "nah, m8")
(See: incident last Oct. where <STM startup> put up a collision alert + Vandenburg was like "nah, m8")
