Do cubesats add too much space junk?

[DanClemmensen]

There is a lot of talk about all of the big comms constellations and potential collisions. But with dramatically lower cost of launch, the number of smaller satellites is also increasing. Does this raise concerns about increased collisions? Should all of these itty-bitty independent experiments be consolidated onto fewer platforms to reduce the clutter? If this is useful, what regulatory mechanism could enforce this?

[Kyra's kosmos]

This is the best article I could find - U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - but it seems to pertain more the effects of the planet itself not to a collision in orbit. So it seems there is not much regulation on this, and it will be one big party until there is a collision that makes a part of LEO hazardous for a certain number of years.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-constellations-could-harm-the-environment-new-watchdog-report-says/

I'm not a big fan of the LEO constellation concept that seems all the rage now. For communications I support the model to build a sheilded fiber optic network on the ground. And EMP sheilding the power grid as best as can be done.  Good practical ideas.

[DanClemmensen]

This is the best article I could find - U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - but it seems to pertain more the effects of the planet itself not to a collision in orbit. So it seems there is not much regulation on this, and it will be one big party until there is a collision that makes a part of LEO hazardous for a certain number of years.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-constellations-could-harm-the-environment-new-watchdog-report-says/

I'm not a big fan of the LEO constellation concept that seems all the rage now. For communications I support the model to build a sheilded fiber optic network on the ground. And EMP sheilding the power grid as best as can be done.  Good practical ideas.

I spent the first 30 years of my career in terrestrial networking, so I'm fond of it. As always, the problems are "last mile", sparsely-populated areas, and mobile customers, and for these LEO constellations are ideal. However, we do not need the massive constellations we are seeing. Instead, we need a few thousand very large satellites. These same satellites should serve as platforms for most "commodity" earth-sensing functions, so the total number of satellites would be reduced and coverage improved.

[laszlo]

Cubesats are not the same as large comms constellations.

[DanClemmensen]

Cubesats are not the same as large comms constellations.

That's why I asked the question. Each large constellation is under control of a single entity that is monitoring it and has a vested interest in keeping it tidy to avoid fratricide if nothing else, and the proper satellite positions are needed for the system to operate. By contrast a transporter mission seems to spew out a hundred or more little satellites that are mostly under separate control by various organizations, ans some of the satellites (and organizations?) seem to have limited operational lifetimes. Where to these satellites end up?

[su27k]

For those cubesats without propulsion and cannot do collision avoidance, my feeling is Yes.

People are worried about megaconstellation, yet there're only 35 or so Starlink failed at or near operational orbit and cannot do collision avoidance. Each smallsat rideshare mission probably launched similar number of cubesats without propulsion and cannot do collision avoidance.

[Jim]

There is a lot of talk about all of the big comms constellations and potential collisions. But with dramatically lower cost of launch, the number of smaller satellites is also increasing. Does this raise concerns about increased collisions? Should all of these itty-bitty independent experiments be consolidated onto fewer platforms to reduce the clutter? If this is useful, what regulatory mechanism could enforce this?

Cubesats are launched into low short term orbits.

[DanClemmensen]

There is a lot of talk about all of the big comms constellations and potential collisions. But with dramatically lower cost of launch, the number of smaller satellites is also increasing. Does this raise concerns about increased collisions? Should all of these itty-bitty independent experiments be consolidated onto fewer platforms to reduce the clutter? If this is useful, what regulatory mechanism could enforce this?

Cubesats are launched into low short term orbits.

Thanks, Jim. Is this enforced by anyone, or is is just the community doing the right thing?

[Jim]

There is a lot of talk about all of the big comms constellations and potential collisions. But with dramatically lower cost of launch, the number of smaller satellites is also increasing. Does this raise concerns about increased collisions? Should all of these itty-bitty independent experiments be consolidated onto fewer platforms to reduce the clutter? If this is useful, what regulatory mechanism could enforce this?

Cubesats are launched into low short term orbits.

Thanks, Jim. Is this enforced by anyone, or is is just the community doing the right thing?

How can a cubesat go rogue?

[dchill]

Cubesats are launched into low short term orbits.

Thanks, Jim. Is this enforced by anyone, or is is just the community doing the right thing?

How can a cubesat go rogue?

The most reckless thing I can think of is if China put something like a 12U inspector satellite into a geosynchronous retrograde orbit as it was mentioned they were considering in this SpaceNews article:
https://spacenews.com/china-looked-at-putting-a-monitoring-satellite-in-retrograde-geostationary-orbit-via-the-moon/

As it was best described in the article: "it would be like a car driving the wrong way down the freeway".
 
If they did that then you'd also hope that nobody like the Iranians would be able to hack that satellite, assuming the delta-V it carries to go to its graveyard orbit could take it into the main belt (or even into where legit satellites might want to maneuver through).

[Jim]

The most reckless thing I can think of is if China put something like a 12U inspector satellite into a geosynchronous retrograde orbit as it was mentioned they were considering in this SpaceNews article:
https://spacenews.com/china-looked-at-putting-a-monitoring-satellite-in-retrograde-geostationary-orbit-via-the-moon/

As it was best described in the article: "it would be like a car driving the wrong way down the freeway".
 
If they did that then you'd also hope that nobody like the Iranians would be able to hack that satellite, assuming the delta-V it carries to go to its graveyard orbit could take it into the main belt (or even into where legit satellites might want to maneuver through).

You are confusing smallsat with Cubesat

It doesn't matter what the size of satellite is, if there is somebody bad intentions involved

Cubesat in this context are small spacecraft that fly on rideshares, aggregated missions on large launch vehicles or dedicated launches on small launch vehicles.  The spacecraft are going to be too small to have enough delta V to anything themselves and licensing of launch provider is going to prevent them from interfering with others during deployment.

[Vahe231991]

I found this research paper from 2021 discussing the effect of Cubesats in the space junk environment:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128178843000205