Space debris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
"Space Junk" redirects here. For other uses, see Space Junk (disambiguation).
Earth from space, surrounded by small white dots
A computer-generated image representing space debris as could be seen from high
Earth orbit. The two main debris fields are the ring of objects in geosynchronous
Earth orbit (GEO) and the cloud of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO).
Initially, the term space debris referred to the natural debris found in the solar
system: Asteroids and comets, and the fragments of those larger bodies, also known
as meteoroids. However, with the 1979 beginning of the NASA Orbital Debris Program
[1] the term also includes the debris from the mass of defunct, artificially
created objects in space, most notably in Earth orbit, such as old satellites and
spent rocket stages. It includes the fragments from their disintegration, erosion
and collisions. As of December 2016, five satellite collisions have resulted in
generating space waste.[citation needed] Space debris is also known as orbital
debris, space junk, space waste, space trash, space litter or space garbage.[2]

As of 5 July 2016, the United States Strategic Command tracked a total of 17,852
artificial objects in orbit above the Earth,[3] including 1,419 operational
satellites.[4] However, these are just objects large enough to be tracked. As of
July 2013, more than 170 million debris smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in), about 670,000
debris 1�10 cm, and around 29,000 larger debris were estimated to be in orbit.[5]
Collisions with debris have become a hazard to spacecraft; they cause damage akin
to sandblasting, especially to solar panels and optics like telescopes or star
trackers that cannot be covered with a ballistic Whipple shield (unless it is
transparent).[6]

Below 2,000 km (1,200 mi) Earth-altitude, debris are denser than meteoroids; most
are dust from solid rocket motors, surface erosion debris like paint flakes, and
frozen coolant from RORSAT nuclear-powered satellites. For comparison, the
International Space Station orbits in the 300�400 kilometres (190�250 mi) range,
and the 2009 satellite collision and 2007 antisat test occurred at 800 to 900
kilometres (500 to 560 mi) altitude.[7] The ISS has Whipple shielding; however,
known debris with a collision chance over 1/10,000 are avoided by maneuvering the
station.

The Kessler syndrome, a runaway chain reaction of collisions exponentially

increasing the amount of debris, has been hypothesized to ensue beyond a critical
density. This could affect useful polar-orbiting bands, increases the cost of
protection for spacecraft missions and could destroy live satellites. Whether
Kessler syndrome is already underway has been debated.[8][9] The measurement,
mitigation, and potential removal of debris are conducted by some participants in
the space industry.

Contents
1 Characterization
1.1 Size
1.2 Low Earth orbit (LEO)
1.3 Higher altitudes
2 Sources
2.1 Dead spacecraft
2.2 Lost equipment
2.3 Boosters
2.4 Weapons
3 Threats
3.1 To spacecraft
3.1.1 Unmanned spacecraft
3.1.2 Manned spacecraft
3.1.2.1 Space Shuttle missions
3.1.2.2 Mir
3.1.2.3 International Space Station
3.1.3 Kessler syndrome
3.2 To Earth
4 Tracking and measurement
4.1 Tracking from the ground
4.2 Measurement in space
4.3 Gabbard diagrams
5 Dealing with debris
5.1 Growth mitigation
5.2 Self-removal
5.3 External removal
5.4 International regulation
6 History and shielding technologies
6.1 Micrometeoroids
6.2 Micrometeoroid shielding
6.3 NORAD, Gabbard and Kessler
6.4 Follow-up studies
6.5 A new Kessler syndrome
6.6 Debris growth
7 In popular culture
8 See also
9 References
9.1 Notes
9.2 Bibliography
10 Further reading
11 External links
Characterization
Size
There are estimated to be over 170 million pieces of debris smaller than 1 cm (0.39
in) as of July 2013. There are approximately 670,000 pieces from one to ten cm. The
current count of large debris (defined as 10 cm across or larger[10]) is 29,000.[5]
The technical measurement cutoff is c. 3 mm (0.12 in).[11] Over 98 percent of the
1,900 tons of debris in low Earth orbit (as of 2002) was accounted for by about
1,500 objects, each over 100 kg (220 lb).[12] Total mass is mostly constant despite
addition of many smaller objects, since they reenter the atmosphere sooner. Using a
2008 figure of 8,500 known items, it is estimated at 5,500 t (12,100,000 lb).[13]

Low Earth orbit (LEO)

Earth from space, with space debris enhanced
Space debris in LEO, with its size exaggerated
In LEO there are few "universal orbits" which keep spacecraft in particular rings
(in contrast to GEO, a single widely used orbit). The closest are sun-synchronous
orbits that keep a constant angle between the Sun and the orbital plane; they are
polar, meaning they cross over the polar regions. LEO satellites orbit in many
planes, up to 15 times a day, causing frequent approaches between objects (the
density of objects is much higher in LEO).[14]

Orbits are further changed by perturbations (which in LEO include unevenness of the
Earth's gravitational field), and collisions can occur from any direction. For
these reasons, the Kessler syndrome applies mostly to the LEO region; impacts occur
at up to 16 km/s (twice the orbital speed) if head-on � the 2009 satellite
collision occurred at 11.7 km/s,[15] creating much spall in the critical size
range. These can cross other orbits and lead to a cascade effect. A large-enough
collision (e.g. between a space station and a defunct satellite) could make low
Earth orbit impassable.[8]
Manned missions are mostly at 400 km (250 mi) and below, where air drag helps clear
zones of fragments. Atmospheric expansion as a result of space weather raises the
critical altitude by increasing drag; in the 90s, it was a factor in reduced debris
density.[16] Another was fewer launches by Russia; the USSR made most of their
launches in the 1970s and 1980s.[17]

Higher altitudes
At higher altitudes, where air drag is less significant, orbital decay takes
longer. Slight atmospheric drag, lunar perturbations, Earth's gravity
perturbations, solar wind and solar radiation pressure can gradually bring debris
down to lower altitudes (where it decays), but at very high altitudes this may take
millennia.[18] Although high-altitude orbits are less commonly used than LEO and
the onset of the problem is slower, the numbers progress toward the critical
threshold more quickly.[contradictory][page needed][19]

Many communications satellites are in geostationary orbits (GEO), clustering over

specific targets and sharing the same orbital path. Although velocities are low
between GEO objects, when a satellite becomes derelict (such as Telstar 401) it
assumes a geosynchronous orbit; its orbital inclination increases about .8� and its
speed increases about 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) per year. Impact velocity peaks
at about 1.5 km/s (0.93 mi/s). Orbital perturbations cause longitude drift of the
inoperable spacecraft and precession of the orbital plane. Close approaches (within
50 meters) are estimated at one per year.[20] The collision debris pose less short-
term risk than from an LEO collision, but the satellite would likely become
inoperable. Large objects, such as solar-power satellites, are especially
vulnerable to collisions.[21]

Although the ITU now requires proof a satellite can be moved out of its orbital
slot at the end of its lifespan, studies suggest this is insufficient.[22] Since
GEO orbit is too distant to accurately measure objects under 1 m (3 ft 3 in), the
nature of the problem is not well known.[23] Satellites could be moved to empty
spots in GEO, requiring less maneuvring and making it easier to predict future
motion.[24] Satellites or boosters in other orbits, especially stranded in
geostationary transfer orbit, are an additional concern due to their typically high
crossing velocity.

Despite efforts to reduce risk, spacecraft collisions have occurred. The European
Space Agency telecom satellite Olympus-1 was struck by a meteoroid on 11 August
1993 and eventually moved to a graveyard orbit.[25] On 29 March 2006, the Russian
Express-AM11 communications satellite was struck by an unknown object and rendered
inoperable;[26] its engineers had enough contact time with the satellite to send it
into a graveyard orbit.

Sources
Dead spacecraft
See also: Kosmos 954, Kosmos 1402, and Derelict satellites orbiting Earth
Small, round satellite with six rod antennas radiating from it
Vanguard 1 is expected to remain in orbit for 240 years.[27]
In 1958, the United States launched Vanguard I into a medium Earth orbit (MEO). As
of October 2009, it, and the upper stage of its launch rocket, are the oldest
surviving man-made space objects still in orbit.[28][29] In a catalog of known
launches until July 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists listed 902 operational
satellites[30] from a known population of 19,000 large objects and about 30,000
objects launched.

An example of additional dead satellite debris are the remains of the 1970s/80s
Soviet RORSAT naval surveillance satellite program. The satellite's BES-5 nuclear
reactor were cooled with a coolant loop of sodium-potassium alloy, creating a
potential problem when the satellite reached end of life. While many satellites
were nominally boosted into medium-altitude graveyard orbits, not all were. Even
satellites which had been properly moved to a higher orbit had an eight-percent
probability of puncture and coolant release over a 50-year period. The coolant
freezes into droplets of solid sodium-potassium alloy,[31] forming additional
debris.[32][32]

These events continue to occur. For example, in February 2015, the USAF Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program Flight 13 (DMSP-F13) exploded on orbit, creating
at least 149 debris objects, which were expected to remain in orbit for decades.
[33]

Lost equipment

A drifting thermal blanket photographed in 1998 during STS-88.

According to Edward Tufte's book Envisioning Information, space debris includes a
glove lost by astronaut Ed White on the first American space-walk (EVA); a camera
lost by Michael Collins near Gemini 10; a thermal blanket lost during STS-88;
garbage bags jettisoned by Soviet cosmonauts during Mir's 15-year life,[28] a
wrench and a toothbrush. Sunita Williams of STS-116 lost a camera during an EVA.
During an STS-120 EVA to reinforce a torn solar panel, a pair of pliers was lost,
and in an STS-126 EVA, Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost a briefcase-sized tool
bag.[34]

Boosters

Spent upper stage of a Delta II rocket, photographed by the XSS 10 satellite

In characterizing the problem of space debris, it was learned that much debris was
due to rocket upper stages (e.g. the Inertial Upper Stage) which end up in orbit,
and break up due to decomposition of unvented unburned fuel.[35] However, a major
known impact event involved an (intact) Ariane booster.[36] Although NASA and the
United States Air Force now require upper-stage passivation, other launchers[vague]
do not. Lower stages, like the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters or Apollo
program's Saturn IB launch vehicles, do not reach orbit.[37]

On 11 March 2000 a Chinese Long March 4 CBERS-1 upper stage exploded in orbit,
creating a debris cloud.[38][39] A Russian Briz-M booster stage exploded in orbit
over South Australia on 19 February 2007. Launched on 28 February 2006 carrying an
Arabsat-4A communications satellite, it malfunctioned before it could use up its
propellant. Although the explosion was captured on film by astronomers, due to the
orbit path the debris cloud has been difficult to measure with radar. By 21
February 2007, over 1,000 fragments were identified.[40][41] A 14 February 2007
breakup was recorded by Celestrak.[42] Eight breakups occurred in 2006, the most
since 1993.[43] Another Briz-M broke up on 16 October 2012 after a failed 6 August
Proton-M launch. The amount and size of the debris was unknown.[44] A Long March 7
rocket booster created a fireball visible from portions of Utah, Nevada, Colorado,
Idaho and California on the evening of 27 July 2016; its disintegration was widely
reported on social media.[45]

Weapons
A past debris source was the testing of anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) by the U.S.
and Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s. North American Aerospace Defense
Command (NORAD) files only contained data for Soviet tests, and debris from U.S.
tests were only identified later.[46] By the time the debris problem was
understood, widespread ASAT testing had ended; the U.S. Program 437 was shut down
in 1975.[47]

The U.S. restarted their ASAT programs in the 1980s with the Vought ASM-135 ASAT. A
1985 test destroyed a 1-tonne (2,200 lb) satellite orbiting at 525 km (326 mi),
creating thousands of debris larger than 1 cm (0.39 in). Due to the altitude,
atmospheric drag decayed the orbit of most debris within a decade. A de facto
moratorium followed the test.[48]

Simulation of Earth from space, with orbit planes in red

Known orbit planes of Fengyun-1C debris one month after the weather satellite's
disintegration by the Chinese ASAT
China's government was condemned for the military implications and the amount of
debris from the 2007 anti-satellite missile test,[49] the largest single space
debris incident in history (creating over 2,300 pieces golf-ball size or larger,
over 35,000 1 cm (0.4 in) or larger, and one million pieces 1 mm (0.04 in) or
larger). The target satellite orbited between 850 km (530 mi) and 882 km (548 mi),
the portion of near-Earth space most densely populated with satellites.[50] Since
atmospheric drag is low at that altitude the debris is slow to return to Earth, and
in June 2007 NASA's Terra environmental spacecraft maneuvered to avoid impact from
the debris.[51]

On 20 February 2008, the U.S. launched an SM-3 missile from the USS Lake Erie to
destroy a defective U.S. spy satellite thought to be carrying 450 kg (1,000 lb) of
toxic hydrazine propellant. The event occurred at about 250 km (155 mi), and the
resulting debris has a perigee of 250 km (155 mi) or lower.[52] The missile was
aimed to minimize the amount of debris, which (according to Pentagon Strategic
Command chief Kevin Chilton) had decayed by early 2009.[53]

The vulnerability of satellites to debris and the possibility of attacking LEO

satellites to create debris clouds, has triggered speculation that it is possible
for countries unable to make a precision attack[clarification needed]. An attack on
a satellite of 10 tonnes or more would heavily damage the LEO environment.[48]

Threats
Large glass pit (damage)
A micrometeoroid left this crater on the surface of Space Shuttle Challenger's
front window on STS-7.
To spacecraft
Space junk is a threat to active satellites and spaceships. The Earth's orbit may
even become impassable as the risk of collision grows too high.[54]

Unmanned spacecraft
Although spacecraft are protected by Whipple shields, solar panels, which are
exposed to the Sun, wear from low-mass impacts. These produce a cloud of plasma
which is an electrical risk to the panels.[55]

Satellites are believed to have been destroyed by micrometeorites and orbital

debris (MMOD). The earliest suspected loss was of Kosmos 1275, which disappeared on
24 July 1981 (a month after launch). Kosmos contained no volatile propellant,
therefore, there appeared to be nothing internal to the satellite which could have
caused the destructive explosion which took place. However the case has not been
proven and another hypothesis forwarded is that the battery exploded. Tracking
showed it broke up, into 300 new objects.

Many impacts have been confirmed since. Olympus-1 was struck by a meteoroid on 11
August 1993, and left adrift.[25] On 24 July 1996, the French microsatellite Cerise
was hit by fragments of an Ariane-1 H-10 upper-stage booster which exploded in
November 1986.[36] On 29 March 2006, the Russian Ekspress AM11 communications
satellite was struck by an unknown object and rendered inoperable;[26] its
engineers had sufficient time in contact with the spacecraft to send it to a
parking orbit out of GEO.[citation needed] On October 13, 2009, Terra suffered a
single battery cell failure anomaly and a battery heater control anomaly which were
likely the result of an MMOD strike.[56] On March 12, 2010, Aura lost power from
one-half of one of its 11 solar panels and this was also attributed to an MMOD
strike.[57] On May 22, 2013 GOES-13 was hit by an MMOD which caused it to lose
track of the stars that it uses to maintain attitude. It took nearly a month for
the spacecraft to return to operation.[58]

The first major satellite collision occurred on 10 February 2009 at 16:56 UTC. The
deactivated 950 kg (2,090 lb) Kosmos 2251 and the operational 560 kg (1,230 lb)
Iridium 33 collided, 500 mi (800 km)[59] over northern Siberia. The relative speed
of impact was about 11.7 km/s (7.3 mi/s), or about 42,120 km/h (26,170 mph).[60]
Both satellites were destroyed, with accurate estimates of the number of debris
unavailable.[61][62] On 22 January 2013 BLITS (a Russian laser-ranging satellite)
was struck by debris suspected to be from the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile
test, changing its orbit and spin rate.[63]

Satellites frequently have to perform Collision Avoidance Maneuvers and managers

have to monitor debris as part of maneuver planning. For example, in January 2017,
the European Space Agency planned to alter orbit of one of its $319 million[64]
Swarm mission spacecrafts, based on data from the US Joint Space Operations Center,
to end the risk of collision from Cosmos-375, an old Russian satellite.[65] Cosmos-
375, which was destroyed by Soviet operators when its mission was complete, had
previously threatened to impact the International Space Station in 2011.

Manned spacecraft
Space Shuttle missions
Grey spacecraft wing at aircraft altitude
Discovery's lower starboard wing and Thermal Protection System tiles, photographed
on STS-114 during an R-Bar Pitch Manoeuvre where astronauts examine the TPS for any
damage during ascent
From the early Space Shuttle missions, NASA used NORAD to monitor the Shuttle's
orbital path for debris. In the 1980s, this used much of its capacity.[66] The
first collision-avoidance maneuver occurred during STS-48 in September 1991,[67] a
seven-second thruster burn to avoid debris from Kosmos 955.[68] Similar maneuvers
followed on missions 53, 72 and 82.[67]

One of the first events to publicize the debris problem occurred on Challenger's
second flight, STS-7. A fleck of paint struck its front window, creating a pit over
1 mm (0.04 in) wide. On STS-59 in 1994, Endeavour's front window was pitted about
half its depth. Minor debris impacts increased from 1998.[69]

Window chipping and minor damage to thermal protection system tiles (TPS) was
already common by the 1990s. The Shuttle was later flown tail-first to take the
debris load mostly on the engines and rear cargo bay (not used in orbit or during
descent, and less critical for post-launch operation). When flying to the ISS, the
two connected spacecraft were flipped around so the better-armored station shielded
the orbiter.[70]

Bullet-like hole in metallic material

Space Shuttle Endeavour had a major impact on its radiator during STS-118. The
entry hole is about ?1/4 inch, and the exit hole is twice as large.
NASA's study concluded that debris accounted for half of the overall risk to the
Shuttle.[70][71] Executive-level decision to proceed was required if catastrophic
impact was likelier than 1 in 200. On a normal (low-orbit) mission to the ISS the
risk was c. 1 in 300, but STS-125 (the Hubble repair mission) at 350 mi (560 km)
was initially calculated at a 1-in-185 risk (due to the 2009 satellite collision).
A re-analysis with better debris numbers reduced the estimated risk to 1 in 221,
and the mission went ahead.[72]

Debris incidents continued on later Shuttle missions. During STS-115 in 2006 a

fragment of circuit board bored a small hole through the radiator panels in
Atlantis' cargo bay.[73] On STS-118 in 2007 debris blew a bullet-like hole through
Endeavour's radiator panel.[74]

Mir
Impact wear was notable on Mir, the Soviet space station, since it remained in
space for long periods with its original module panels.[75][76]

Space station with Earth as the background

Debris impacts on Mir's solar panels degraded their performance. The damage is most
noticeable on the panel on the right, which is facing the camera with a high degree
of contrast. Extensive damage to the smaller panel below is due to impact with a
Progress spacecraft.
International Space Station
Although the ISS uses Whipple shielding to protect itself from minor debris,[77]
portions (notably its solar panels) cannot be protected easily. In 1989, the ISS
panels were predicted to degrade c. 0.23% in four years, and they were overdesigned
by 1%.[78] A maneuver is performed if "there is a greater than one-in-10,000 chance
of a debris strike".[79] As of January 2014, there have been sixteen maneuvers in
the fifteen years the ISS had been in orbit.[79]

The crew sheltered in the Soyuz on three occasions due to late debris-proximity
warnings. In addition to the sixteen firings and three Soyuz-capsule shelter
orders, one attempted maneuver failed (due to not having the several days' warning
necessary to upload the manoeuvre timeline to the station's computer).[79][80][81]
A March 2009 close call involved debris believed to be a 10 cm (3.9 in) piece of
the Kosmos 1275 satellite.[82] In 2013, the ISS did not maneuver to avoid debris,
after a record four debris maneuvers the previous year.[79]

Kessler syndrome
Main article: Kessler syndrome
Although most manned space activity takes place at altitudes below 800 to 1,500 km
(500 to 930 mi), a Kessler syndrome cascade in that region would rain down into
lower altitudes and the decay time scale is such that "the resulting [low Earth
orbit] debris environment is likely to be too hostile for future space use".[83]
[84]

In a Kessler syndrome, satellite lifetimes would be measured in years or months.

New satellites could be launched through the debris field into higher orbits or
placed in lower orbits (where decay removes the debris), but the utility of the
region between 800 and 1,500 km (500 and 930 mi) is the reason for its amount of
debris.[85]

To Earth
Cylindrical rocket fragment on sand, with men looking at it
Saudi officials inspect a crashed PAM-D module in January 2001.
Although most debris burns up in the atmosphere, larger objects can reach the
ground intact. According to NASA, an average of one cataloged piece of debris has
fallen back to Earth each day for the past 50 years. Despite their size, there has
been no significant property damage from the debris.[86]

In 1969 five sailors on a Japanese ship were injured by space debris.[87] In 1997
an Oklahoma woman, Lottie Williams, was uninjured when she was hit in the shoulder
by a 10 cm � 13 cm (3.9 in � 5.1 in) piece of blackened, woven metallic material
confirmed as part of the propellant tank of a Delta II rocket which launched a U.S.
Air Force satellite the year before.[88][89]

The original re-entry plan for Skylab called for the station to remain in space for
eight to ten years after its final mission in February 1974. High solar activity
expanded the upper atmosphere, resulting in higher-than-expected drag and bringing
its orbit closer to Earth than planned. On 11 July 1979 Skylab re-entered the
Earth's atmosphere and disintegrated, raining debris along a path over the southern
Indian Ocean and Western Australia.[90][91]

On 12 January 2001, a Star 48 Payload Assist Module (PAM-D) rocket upper stage re-
entered the atmosphere after a "catastrophic orbital decay",[92] crashing in the
Saudi Arabian desert. It was identified as the upper-stage rocket for NAVSTAR 32, a
GPS satellite launched in 1993.

In the 2003 Columbia disaster, large parts of the spacecraft reached the ground and
entire equipment systems remained intact.[93] More than 83,000 pieces, along with
the remains of the six astronauts, were recovered in an area from three to 10 miles
around Hemphill in Sabine County, TX.[94] More pieces were found in a line from
west Texas to east Louisiana, with the westernmost piece found in Littlefield, TX
and the easternmost found southwest of Mora, LA.[95] Although there is significant
evidence that debris fell in Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico, debris was only found in
Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana. In a rare case of property damage, a foot-long metal
bracket smashed through the roof of a dentist office.[96] NASA warned the public to
avoid contact with the debris because of the possible presence of hazardous
chemicals.[97] 15 years after the failure, people were still sending in pieces with
the last,as of February 1, 2018, found in the spring of 2017.[98]

On 27 March 2007, airborne debris from a Russian spy satellite was seen by the
pilot of a LAN Airlines Airbus A340 carrying 270 passengers whilst flying over the
Pacific Ocean between Santiago and Auckland. The debris was within 5 nautical miles
(9.3 km; 5.8 mi) of the aircraft.[99]

Tracking and measurement

Tracking from the ground
Radar and optical detectors such as lidar are the main tools for tracking space
debris. Although objects under 10 cm (4 in) have reduced orbital stability, debris
as small as 1 cm can be tracked,[100][101] however determining orbits to allow re-
acquisition is difficult. Most debris remain unobserved. The NASA Orbital Debris
Observatory tracked space debris with a 3 m (10 ft) liquid mirror transit
telescope.[102] FM Radio waves can detect debris, after reflecting off them onto a
receiver.[103] Optical tracking may be a useful early-warning system on spacecraft.
[104]

The U.S. Strategic Command keeps a catalog of known orbital objects, using ground-
based radar and telescopes, and a space-based telescope (originally to distinguish
from hostile missiles). The 2009 edition listed about 19,000 objects.[105] Other
data come from the ESA Space Debris Telescope, TIRA,[106] the Goldstone, Haystack,
[107] and EISCAT radars and the Cobra Dane phased array radar,[108] to be used in
debris-environment models like the ESA Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial
Environment Reference (MASTER).

Measurement in space
Large, cylindrical spacecraft against Earth background, photographed from the
Challenger space shuttle
The Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) is an important source of information on
small-particle space debris.
Returned space hardware is a valuable source of information on the directional
distribution and composition of the (sub-millimetre) debris flux. The LDEF
satellite deployed by mission STS-41-C Challenger and retrieved by STS-32 Columbia
spent 68 months in orbit to gather debris data. The EURECA satellite, deployed by
STS-46 Atlantis in 1992 and retrieved by STS-57 Endeavour in 1993, was also used
for debris study.[109]

The solar arrays of Hubble were returned by missions STS-61 Endeavour and STS-109
Columbia, and the impact craters studied by the ESA to validate its models.
Materials returned from Mir were also studied, notably the Mir Environmental
Effects Payload (which also tested materials intended for the ISS[110]).[111][112]

Gabbard diagrams
A debris cloud resulting from a single event is studied with scatter plots known as
Gabbard diagrams, where the perigee and apogee of fragments are plotted with
respect to their orbital period. Gabbard diagrams of the early debris cloud prior
to the effects of perturbations, if the data were available, are reconstructed.
They often include data on newly observed, as yet uncatalogued fragments. Gabbard
diagrams can provide important insights into the features of the fragmentation, the
direction and point of impact.[113][114]

Dealing with debris

An average of about one tracked object per day has been dropping out of orbit for
the past 50 years,[115] averaging almost three objects per day at solar maximum
(due to the heating and expansion of the Earth's atmosphere), but one about every
three days at solar minimum, usually 5� yr later.[115] In addition to natural
atmospheric effects, corporations, academics and government agencies have proposed
plans and technology to deal with space debris, but as of November 2014, most of
these are theoretical, and there is no extant business plan for debris reduction.
[116]

A number of scholars have also observed that institutional factors�political,

legal, economic and cultural "rules of the game"�are the greatest impediment to the
cleanup of near-Earth space. There is no commercial incentive, since costs aren't
assigned to polluters, but a number of suggestions have been made.[116] However,
effects to date are limited. In the US, governmental bodies have been accused of
backsliding on previous commitments to limit debris growth, "let alone tackling the
more complex issues of removing orbital debris."[117]

Growth mitigation
Graph with blue line
Spatial density of LEO space debris by altitude, according to 2011 a NASA report to
the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs[118]
Graph with red line
Spatial density of space debris by altitude according to ESA MASTER-2001, without
debris from the Chinese ASAT and 2009 collision events
Upper stage passivation (e.g. of Delta boosters[66]) by releasing residual
propellants reduces debris from orbital explosions; however not all boosters
implement this.[119] Although there is no international treaty minimizing space
debris, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS)
published voluntary guidelines in 2007.[120] As of 2008, the committee is
discussing international "rules of the road" to prevent collisions between
satellites.[121] By 2013, various legal regimes existed, typically instantiated in
the launch licenses that are required for a launch in all spacefaring nations.[122]

The U.S. has a set of standard practices for civilian (NASA) and military (DoD and
USAF) orbital-debris mitigation,[123][124] as has the European Space Agency.[125]
In 2007, the ISO began preparing an international standard for space-debris
mitigation.[126] Germany and France have posted bonds to safeguard property from
debris damage.[127]

When originally proposed in 2015, the OneWeb constellation, initially planned to

have ~700 satellites anticipated on orbit after 2018, would only state that they
would re-enter the atmosphere within 25 years of retirement.[128] By October 2017,
both OneWeb�and also SpaceX, with their large Starlink constellation�had filed
documents with the US FCC with more aggressive space debris mitigation plans. Both
companies committed to a deorbit plan for post-mission satellites which will
explicitly move the satellites into orbits where they will reenter the Earth's
atmosphere within approximately one year following end-of-life.[129]

With a "one-up, one-down" launch-license policy for Earth orbits, launchers would
rendezvous with, capture and de-orbit a derelict satellite from approximately the
same orbital plane.[130] Another possibility is the robotic refueling of
satellites. Experiments have been flown by NASA,[131] and SpaceX is developing
large-scale on-orbit propellant transfer technology and tanker spacecraft.[132]

Another approach to debris mitigation is to explicitly design the mission

architecture to always leave the rocket second-stage in an elliptical geocentric
orbit with a low-perigee, thus ensuring rapid orbital decay and avoiding long-term
orbital debris from spent rocket bodies. Such missions require the use of a small
kick stage to circularize the orbit, but the kick stage itself may be designed with
the excess-propellant capability to be able to self-deorbit.[133]

Self-removal
Although the ITU requires geostationary satellites to move to a graveyard orbit at
the end of their lives, the selected orbital areas do not sufficiently protect GEO
lanes from debris.[22] Rocket stages (or satellites) with enough propellant may
make a direct, controlled de-orbit, or if this would require too much propellant, a
satellite may be brought to an orbit where atmospheric drag would cause it to
eventually de-orbit. This was done with the French Spot-1 satellite, reducing its
atmospheric re-entry time from a projected 200 years to about 15 by lowering its
altitude from 830 km (516 mi) to about 550 km (342 mi).[134][135]

Passive methods of increasing the orbital decay rate of spacecraft debris have been
proposed. Instead of rockets, an electrodynamic tether could be attached to a
spacecraft at launch; at the end of its lifetime, the tether would be rolled out to
slow the spacecraft.[136] Other proposals include a booster stage with a sail-like
attachment[137] and a large, thin, inflatable balloon envelope.[138]

External removal
A well-studied solution uses a remotely controlled vehicle to rendezvous with,
capture and return debris to a central station.[139] One such system is Space
Infrastructure Servicing, a commercially developed refueling depot and service
spacecraft for communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit originally
scheduled for a 2015 launch.[140] The SIS would be able to "push dead satellites
into graveyard orbits."[141] The Advanced Common Evolved Stage family of upper
stages is being designed with a high leftover-propellant margin (for derelict
capture and de-orbit) and in-space refueling capability for the high delta-v
required to de-orbit heavy objects from geosynchronous orbit.[130] A tug-like
satellite to drag debris to a safe altitude for it to burn up in the atmosphere has
been researched.[142] When debris is identified the satellite creates a difference
in potential between the debris and itself, then using its thrusters to move itself
and the debris to a safer orbit.

A variation of this approach is for the remotely controlled vehicle to rendezvous

with debris, capture it temporarily to attach a smaller de-orbit satellite and drag
the debris with a tether to the desired location. The "mothership" would then tow
the debris-smallsat combination for atmospheric entry or move it to a graveyard
orbit. One such system is the proposed Busek ORbital DEbris Remover (ORDER), which
would carry over 40 SUL (satellite on umbilical line) de-orbit satellites and
propellant sufficient for their removal.[116]

The laser broom uses a ground-based laser to ablate the front of the debris,
producing a rocket-like thrust which slows the object. With continued application,
the debris would fall enough to be influenced by atmospheric drag.[143][144] During
the late 1990s, the U.S. Air Force's Project Orion was a laser-broom design.[145]
Although a test-bed device was scheduled to launch on a Space Shuttle in 2003,
international agreements banning powerful laser testing in orbit limited its use to
measurements.[146] The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster postponed the project and
according to Nicholas Johnson, chief scientist and program manager for NASA's
Orbital Debris Program Office, "There are lots of little gotchas in the Orion final
report. There's a reason why it's been sitting on the shelf for more than a
decade."[147]

The momentum of the laser-beam photons could directly impart a thrust on the debris
sufficient to move small debris into new orbits out of the way of working
satellites. NASA research in 2011 indicates that firing a laser beam at a piece of
space junk could impart an impulse of 1 mm (0.039 in) per second, and keeping the
laser on the debris for a few hours per day could alter its course by 200 m (660
ft) per day.[148] One drawback is the potential for material degradation; the
energy may break up the debris, adding to the problem.[citation needed] A similar
proposal places the laser on a satellite in Sun-synchronous orbit, using a pulsed
beam to push satellites into lower orbits to accelerate their reentry.[116] A
proposal to replace the laser with an Ion Beam Shepherd has been made,[149] and
other proposals use a foamy ball of aerogel or a spray of water,[150] inflatable
balloons,[151] electrodynamic tethers,[152] boom electroadhesion,[153] and
dedicated anti-satellite weapons.[154]

cleanspace one
Cleanspace One
On 7 January 2010 Star, Inc. reported that it received a contract from the Space
and Naval Warfare Systems Command for a feasibility study of the ElectroDynamic
Debris Eliminator (EDDE) propellantless spacecraft for space-debris removal.[155]
In February 2012 the Swiss Space Center at �cole Polytechnique F�d�rale de Lausanne
announced the Clean Space One project, a nanosatellite demonstration project for
matching orbit with a defunct Swiss nanosatellite, capturing it and de-orbiting
together.[156] The mission has seen several evolutions to reach a pac-man inspired
capture model.[157]

As of 2006 the cost of any of these solutions is about the same as launching a
spacecraft[not in citation given] and, according to NASA's Nicholas Johnson, not
cost-effective.[158][needs update] Since then Space Sweeper with Sling-Sat (4S), a
grappling satellite which captures and ejects debris, has been studied.[159]

A consensus of speakers at a meeting in Brussels on 30 October 2012 organized by

the Secure World Foundation (a U.S. think tank) and the French International
Relations Institute[160] reported that removal of the largest debris would be
required to prevent the risk to spacecraft becoming unacceptable in the foreseeable
future (without any addition to the inventory of dead spacecraft in LEO). Removal
costs and legal questions about ownership and the authority to remove defunct
satellites have stymied national or international action. Current space law retains
ownership of all satellites with their original operators, even debris or
spacecraft which are defunct or threaten active missions.

On 28 February 2014, Japan's Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched a

test "space net" satellite. The launch was an operational test only.[161] In
December 2016 the country sent a space junk collector via Kounotori 6 to the ISS by
which JAXA scientists experiment to pull junk out of orbit using a tether.[162]
[163] The system failed to extend a 700-meter tether from a space station resupply
vehicle that was returning to Earth.[164][165] On 6 February the mission was
declared a failure and leading researcher Koichi Inoue told reporters that they
"believe the tether did not get released".[166]

Since 2012, the European Space Agency has designed a mission to remove large space
debris from orbit. The mission, e.Deorbit, is scheduled for launch by 2021 with an
objective to remove debris heavier than 4,000 kilograms (8,800 lb) from LEO.
Several capture techniques are being studied, including a net, a harpoon and a
combination robot arm and clamping mechanism.[167]

International regulation
Holger Krag of the European Space Agency states that as of 2017 there is no binding
international regulatory framework with no progress occurring at the respective UN
body in Vienna.[54]

History and shielding technologies

Micrometeoroids

This section may stray from the topic of the article into the topic of another
article, Micrometeoroid. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on
the talk page. (October 2014)
Main article: Micrometeoroid
In 1946 during the Giacobinid meteor shower, Helmut Landsberg collected several
small magnetic particles that were apparently associated with the shower.[168] Fred
Whipple was intrigued by this and wrote a paper that demonstrated that particles of
this size were too small to maintain their velocity when they encountered the upper
atmosphere. Instead, they quickly decelerated and then fell to Earth unmelted. In
order to classify these sorts of objects, he coined the term "micro-meteorite".
[169]

Whipple, in collaboration with Fletcher Watson of the Harvard Observatory, led an

effort to build an observatory to directly measure the velocity of the meteors that
could be seen. At the time the source of the micro-meteorites was not known. Direct
measurements at the new observatory were used to locate the source of the meteors,
demonstrating that the bulk of material was left over from comet tails, and that
none of it could be shown to have an extra-solar origin.[170] Today it is
understood that meteoroids of all sorts are leftover material from the formation of
the Solar System, consisting of particles from the interplanetary dust cloud or
other objects made up from this material, like comets.[171]

The early studies were based on optical measurements only. In 1957, Hans Pettersson
conducted one of the first direct measurements of the fall of space dust on the
Earth, estimating it to be 14,300,000 tons per year.[172] This suggested that the
meteoroid flux in space was much higher than the number based on telescope
observations. Such a high flux presented a very serious risk to missions deeper in
space, specifically the high-orbiting Apollo capsules. To determine whether the
direct measurement was accurate, a number of additional studies followed, including
the Pegasus satellite program. These showed that the rate of meteors passing into
the atmosphere, or flux, was in line with the optical measurements, at around
10,000 to 20,000 tons per year.[173]

Micrometeoroid shielding

This section may stray from the topic of the article into the topic of another
article, Micrometeoroid. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on
the talk page. (October 2014)

The "energy flash" of a hypervelocity impact during a simulation of what happens

when a piece of orbital debris hits a spacecraft in orbit.
Whipple's work pre-dated the space race and it proved useful when space exploration
started only a few years later. His studies had demonstrated that the chance of
being hit by a meteoroid large enough to destroy a spacecraft was extremely remote.
However, a spacecraft would be almost constantly struck by micrometeorites, about
the size of dust grains.[170]
Whipple had already developed a solution to this problem in 1946. Originally known
as a "meteor bumper" and now termed the Whipple shield, this consists of a thin
foil film held a short distance away from the spacecraft's body. When a
micrometeoroid strikes the foil, it vaporizes into a plasma that quickly spreads.
By the time this plasma crosses the gap between the shield and the spacecraft, it
is so diffused that it is unable to penetrate the structural material below.[174]
The shield allows a spacecraft body to be built to just the thickness needed for
structural integrity, while the foil adds little additional weight. Such a
spacecraft is lighter than one with panels designed to stop the meteoroids
directly.

For spacecraft that spend the majority of their time in orbit, some variety of the
Whipple shield has been almost universal for decades.[175][176] Later research
showed that ceramic fibre woven shields offer better protection to hypervelocity
(~7 km/s) particles than aluminium shields of equal weight.[177] Another modern
design uses multi-layer flexible fabric, as in NASA's design for its never-flown
TransHab expandable space habitation module,[178] and the Bigelow Expandable
Activity Module, which was launched in April 2016 and attached to the ISS for two
years of orbital testing.[179][180]

NORAD, Gabbard and Kessler

To avoid artificial space debris, many�but not all�research satellites are launched
on elliptical orbits with perigees inside Earth's atmosphere so they will destroy
themselves. Willy Ley predicted in 1960 that "In time, a number of such
accidentally too-lucky shots will accumulate in space and will have to be removed
when the era of manned space flight arrives".[181] After the launch of Sputnik 1 in
1957, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) began compiling a
database (the Space Object Catalog) of all known rocket launches and objects
reaching orbit: satellites, protective shields and upper- and lower-stage booster
rockets. NASA published modified versions of the database in two-line element set,
[182] and during the early 1980s the CelesTrak bulletin board system re-published
them.[183]

Debris graph of altitude and orbital period

Gabbard diagram of almost 300 pieces of debris from the disintegration of the five-
month-old third stage of the Chinese Long March 4 booster on 11 March 2000
The trackers who fed the database were aware of other objects in orbit, many of
which were the result of in-orbit explosions.[184] Some were deliberately caused
during 1960s anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) testing, and others were the result of
rocket stages blowing up in orbit as leftover propellant expanded and ruptured
their tanks. To improve tracking, NORAD employee John Gabbard kept a separate
database. Studying the explosions, Gabbard developed a technique for predicting the
orbital paths of their products, and Gabbard diagrams (or plots) are now widely
used. These studies were used to improve the modelling of orbital evolution and
decay.[113]

When the NORAD database became publicly available during the 1970s, NASA scientist
Donald J. Kessler applied the technique developed for the asteroid-belt study to
the database of known objects. In 1978 Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais co-authored
"Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt",[185]
demonstrating that the process controlling asteroid evolution would cause a similar
collision process in LEO in decades rather than billions of years. They concluded
that by about 2000, space debris would outpace micrometeoroids as the primary
ablative risk to orbiting spacecraft.[8]

At the time, it was widely thought that drag from the upper atmosphere would de-
orbit debris faster than it was created. However, Gabbard was aware that the number
and type of objects in space were under-represented in the NORAD data and was
familiar with its behaviour. In an interview shortly after the publication of
Kessler's paper, Gabbard coined the term "Kessler syndrome" to refer to the
accumulation of debris;[8] it became widely used after its appearance in a 1982
Popular Science article,[186] which won the Aviation-Space Writers Association 1982
National Journalism Award.[8]

Follow-up studies
Large camera, with a man standing next to it for scale
Baker-Nunn cameras were widely used to study space debris.
The lack of hard data about space debris prompted a series of studies to better
characterize the LEO environment. In October 1979, NASA provided Kessler with
funding for further studies.[8] Several approaches were used by these studies.

Optical telescopes or short-wavelength radar was used to measure the number and
size of space objects, and these measurements demonstrated that the published
population count was at least 50% too low.[16] Before this, it was believed that
the NORAD database accounted for the majority of large objects in orbit. Some
objects (typically, U.S. military spacecraft) were found to be omitted from the
NORAD list, and others were not included because they were considered unimportant.
The list could not easily account for objects under 20 cm (7.9 in) in size�in
particular, debris from exploding rocket stages and several 1960s anti-satellite
tests.[8]

Returned spacecraft were microscopically examined for small impacts, and sections
of Skylab and the Apollo Command/Service Module which were recovered were found to
be pitted. Each study indicated that the debris flux was higher than expected and
debris was the primary source of collisions in space. LEO already demonstrated the
Kessler syndrome.[8]

In 1978 Kessler found that 42 percent of cataloged debris was the result of 19
events, primarily explosions of spent rocket stages (especially U.S. Delta
rockets).[187] He discovered this by first identifying those launches that were
described having a large number of objects associated with a payload, then
researching the literature to determine the rockets used in the launch. In 1979,
this finding resulted in establishment of the NASA Orbital Debris Program after a
briefing to NASA senior management, overturning the previously held belief that
most unknown debris was from old ASAT tests, but from US upper stage rocket
explosions and could be easily managed by depleting the unused fuel following the
payload injection the upper stage Delta rocket. Beginning in 1986, when it was
discovered that other international agencies were possibly experiencing the same
type of problem, NASA expanded its program to include international agencies, the
first being the European Space Agency.[36] A number of other Delta components in
orbit (Delta was a workhorse of the U.S. space program) had not yet exploded.
[citation needed]

A new Kessler syndrome

During the 1980s, the U.S. Air Force conducted an experimental program to determine
what would happen if debris collided with satellites or other debris. The study
demonstrated that the process differed from micrometeoroid collisions, with large
chunks of debris created which would become collision threats.[8]

In 1991, Kessler published "Collisional cascading: The limits of population growth

in low Earth orbit"[188] with the best data then available. Citing the USAF
conclusions about creation of debris, he wrote that although almost all debris
objects (such as paint flecks) were lightweight, most of its mass was in debris
about 1 kg (2.2 lb) or heavier. This mass could destroy a spacecraft on impact,
creating more debris in the critical-mass area.[83] According to the National
Academy of Sciences:

A 1-kg object impacting at 10 km/s, for example, is probably capable of

catastrophically breaking up a 1,000-kg spacecraft if it strikes a high-density
element in the spacecraft. In such a breakup, numerous fragments larger than 1 kg
would be created.[189][full citation needed]

Kessler's analysis divided the problem into three parts. With a low-enough density,
the addition of debris by impacts is slower than their decay rate and the problem
is not significant. Beyond that is a critical density, where additional debris
leads to additional collisions. At densities beyond this critical mass production
exceeds decay, leading to a cascading chain reaction reducing the orbiting
population to small objects (several cm in size) and increasing the hazard of space
activity.[83] This chain reaction is known as the Kessler syndrome.[8]

In an early 2009 historical overview, Kessler summed up the situation:

Aggressive space activities without adequate safeguards could significantly shorten

the time between collisions and produce an intolerable hazard to future spacecraft.
Some of the most environmentally dangerous activities in space include large
constellations such as those initially proposed by the Strategic Defense Initiative
in the mid-1980s, large structures such as those considered in the late-1970s for
building solar power stations in Earth orbit, and anti-satellite warfare using
systems tested by the USSR, the U.S., and China over the past 30 years. Such
aggressive activities could set up a situation where a single satellite failure
could lead to cascading failures of many satellites in a period much shorter than
years.[8]

Debris growth
During the 1980s, NASA and other U.S. groups attempted to limit the growth of
debris. One effective solution was implemented by McDonnell Douglas on the Delta
booster,[when?] by having the booster move away from its payload and vent any
propellant remaining in its tanks. This eliminated the pressure buildup in the
tanks which caused them to explode in the past.[66] Other countries were slower to
adopt this measure and, due especially to a number of launches by the Soviet Union,
the problem grew throughout the decade.[190]

A new battery of studies followed[when?] as NASA, NORAD and others attempted to

better understand the orbital environment, with each adjusting the number of pieces
of debris in the critical-mass zone upward. Although in 1981 (when Schefter's
article was published) the number of objects was estimated at 5,000,[184] new
detectors in the Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance system found
new objects. By the late 1990s, it was thought that most of the 28,000 launched
objects had already decayed and about 8,500 remained in orbit.[191] By 2005 this
was adjusted upward to 13,000 objects,[192] and a 2006 study increased the number
to 19,000 as a result of an ASAT test and a satellite collision.[193] In 2011, NASA
said that 22,000 objects were being tracked.[194]

The growth in the number of objects as a result of the late-1990s studies sparked
debate in the space community on the nature of the problem and the earlier dire
warnings. According to Kessler's 1991 derivation and 2001 updates,[195] the LEO
environment in the 1,000 km (620 mi) altitude range should be cascading. However,
only one major incident has occurred: the 2009 satellite collision between Iridium
33 and Cosmos 2251. The lack of obvious short-term cascading has led to speculation
that the original estimates overstated the problem.[196][full citation needed]
According to Kessler a cascade would not be obvious until it was well advanced,
which might take years.[85]

A 2006 NASA model suggested that if no new launches took place the environment
would retain the then-known population until about 2055, when it would increase on
its own.[158][197] Richard Crowther of Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research
Agency said in 2002 that he believed the cascade would begin about 2015.[198] The
National Academy of Sciences, summarizing the professional view, noted widespread
agreement that two bands of LEO space�900 to 1,000 km (620 mi) and 1,500 km (930
mi)�were already past critical density.[199]

In the 2009 European Air and Space Conference, University of Southampton researcher
Hugh Lewis predicted that the threat from space debris would rise 50 percent in the
next decade and quadruple in the next 50 years. As of 2009, more than 13,000 close
calls were tracked weekly.[200]

A 2011 report by the U.S. National Research Council warned NASA that the amount of
orbiting space debris was at a critical level. According to some computer models,
the amount of space debris "has reached a tipping point, with enough currently in
orbit to continually collide and create even more debris, raising the risk of
spacecraft failures". The report called for international regulations limiting
debris and research of disposal methods.[201]

In popular culture
The plot of episode 4 ("Conflict") of Gerry Anderson's 1970 TV series UFO includes
routine missions for the disposal of spent satellites by bombing.

Salvage 1 (1979 TV series) deals humorously with a scrap dealer who establish a
space junk salvage company.

Planetes is a manga (1999-2004) and anime series (2003-2004) that gives focus on a
team which is responsible for the collection and disposal of space debris. The DVDs
for the TV series include interviews with NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office.

In 2009, Rhett & Link wrote a song called "Space Junk" and made an accompanying
music video for the TV series Brink. The lyrics refer to two men tasked to clean up
debris such as satellites and expended rockets.[202]

Gravity is a 2013 survival film, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, about a disaster on a

space mission caused by Kessler syndrome.

See also
Space portal
Category:Derelict satellites
Interplanetary contamination
Liability Convention
List of large reentering space debris
List of space debris producing events
Long Duration Exposure Facility
Near-Earth object
OneWeb satellite constellation
Orbital Debris Co-ordination Working Group
Satellite warfare
Solar Maximum Mission
Spacecraft cemetery
References
Notes
NASA Orbital Debris Program
GUIDE TO SPACE DEBRIS from the spaceacademy.net.au
"Orbital Debris Quarterly News" (PDF). Vol. 20 no. 3. NASA. July 2016. p. 8.
Retrieved 10 October 2016.
"UCS Satellite Database". Nuclear Weapons & Global Security. Union of Concerned
Scientists. 11 August 2016. Retrieved 10 October 2016.
"How many space debris objects are currently in orbit?" ESA, July 2013. Retrieved
6 February 2016
"The Threat of Orbital Debris and Protecting NASA Space Assets from Satellite
Collisions" (PDF). Space Reference. 2009.
The Threat of Orbital Debris and Protecting NASA Space Assets from Satellite
Collisions (PDF), Space Reference, 2009
Donald J. Kessler (8 March 2009). "The Kessler Syndrome".
Lisa Grossman, "NASA Considers Shooting Space Junk with Lasers", wired, 15 March
2011.
"Technical report on space debris", p. 15, United Nations, New York, 1999.
"Orbital Debris FAQ: How much orbital debris is currently in Earth orbit?" NASA,
March 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2016
Joseph Carroll, "Space Transport Development Using Orbital Debris", NASA Institute
for Advanced Concepts, 2 December 2002, p. 3.
Robin McKie and Michael Day, "Warning of catastrophe from mass of 'space junk'"
The Observer, 24 February 2008.
Matt Ford, "Orbiting space junk heightens risk of satellite catastrophes." Ars
Technica, 27 February 2009.
"What are hypervelocity impacts?" ESA, 19 February 2009.
Kessler 1991, p. 65.
Klinkrad, p. 7.
Kessler 1991, p. 268.
Schildknecht, T.; Musci, R.; Flury, W.; Kuusela, J.; De Leon, J.; Dominguez
Palmero, L. De Fatima (2005). "Optical observation of space debris in high-altitude
orbits". Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Space Debris (ESA SP-587).
18�20 April 2005. 587: 113. Bibcode:2005ESASP.587..113S.
"Colocation Strategy and Collision Avoidance for the Geostationary Satellites at
19 Degrees West." CNES Symposium on Space Dynamics, 6�10 November 1989.
van der Ha, J. C.; Hechler, M. (1981). "The Collision Probability of Geostationary
Satellites". 32nd International Astronautical Congress. 1981: 23.
Bibcode:1981rome.iafcR....V.
Anselmo, L.; Pardini, C. (2000). "Collision Risk Mitigation in Geostationary
Orbit". Space Debris. 2 (2): 67�82. doi:10.1023/A:1021255523174.
Orbital Debris, p. 86.
Orbital Debris, p. 152.
"The Olympus failure" ESA press release, 26 August 1993. Archived 11 September
2007 at the Wayback Machine.
"Notification for Express-AM11 satellite users in connection with the spacecraft
failure" Russian Satellite Communications Company, 19 April 2006.
"Vanguard I celebrates 50 years in space". Eurekalert.org. Retrieved 2013-10-04.
Julian Smith, "Space Junk"[dead link] USA Weekend, 26 August 2007.
Vanguard 50 years
"UCS Satellite Database" Union of Concerned Scientists, 16 July 2009.
C. Wiedemann et al, "Size distribution of NaK droplets for MASTER-2009",
Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Space Debris, 30 March-2 April 2009,
(ESA SP-672, July 2009).
A. Rossi et al, "Effects of the RORSAT NaK Drops on the Long Term Evolution of the
Space Debris Population"[dead link], University of Pisa, 1997.
Gruss, Mike (2015-05-06). "DMSP-F13 Debris To Stay On Orbit for Decades". Space
News. Retrieved 7 May 2015.
See image here.
Loftus, Joseph P. (1989). Orbital Debris from Upper-stage Breakup. AIAA. p. 227.
ISBN 978-1-60086-376-9.
Klinkrad, p. 2.
Some return to Earth intact, see this list Archived 28 October 2009 at the Wayback
Machine. for examples.
Phillip Anz-Meador and Mark Matney, "An assessment of the NASA explosion
fragmentation model to 1 mm characteristic sizes" Advances in Space Research,
Volume 34 Issue 5 (2004), pp. 987 � 992.
"Debris from explosion of Chinese rocket detected by University of Chicago
satellite instrument", University of Chicago press release, 10 August 2000.
"Rocket Explosion", Spaceweather.com, 22 February 2007. Retrieved 21 February
2007.
Ker Than, "Rocket Explodes Over Australia, Showers Space with Debris" Space.com,
21 February 2007. Retrieved 21 February 2007.
"Recent Debris Events" celestrak.com, 16 March 2007. Retrieved 14 July 2001.
Jeff Hecht, "Spate of rocket breakups creates new space junk", NewScientist, 17
January 2007. Retrieved 16 March 2007.
"Proton Launch Failure 2012 Aug 6". Zarya. 21 October 2012. Archived from the
original on 10 October 2012. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
Mike, Wall (2016-07-28). "Amazing Fireball Over Western US Caused by Chinese Space
Junk". space.com. Retrieved 2016-07-28.
Note that the list Schefter was presented only identified USSR ASAT tests.
Clayton Chun, "Shooting Down a Star: America's Thor Program 437, Nuclear ASAT, and
Copycat Killers", Maxwell AFB Base, AL: Air University Press, 1999. ISBN 1-58566-
071-X.
David Wright, "Debris in Brief: Space Debris from Anti-Satellite Weapons" Union of
Concerned Scientists, December 2007.
Leonard David, "China's Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris Cloud Circles Earth"
space.com, 2 February 2007.
"Fengyun 1C � Orbit Data" Heavens Above.
Brian Burger, "NASA's Terra Satellite Moved to Avoid Chinese ASAT Debris",
space.com. Retrieved 6 July 2007.
"Pentagon: Missile Scored Direct Hit on Satellite.", npr.org, 21 February 2008.
Jim Wolf, "US satellite shootdown debris said gone from space", Reuters, 27
February 2009.
"Problem Weltraumschrott: Die kosmische M�llkippe - SPIEGEL ONLINE -
Wissenschaft". SPIEGEL ONLINE. Retrieved 22 April 2017.
Akahoshi, Y.; et al. (2008). "Influence of space debris impact on solar array
under power generation". International Journal of Impact Engineering. 35 (12):
1678�1682. doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.07.048.
Kelley, Angelita. "Terra mission operations: Launch to the present (and beyond)"
(PDF). Retrieved 5 April 2018.
Fisher, Dominic (13 June 2017). "Mission Status at Aura Science Team MOWG Meeting"
(PDF). Retrieved 13 December 2017.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130607192921/http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/SATS/MESS/MSG
1422048.01.txt
Becky Iannotta and Tariq Malik, "U.S. Satellite Destroyed in Space Collision",
space.com, 11 February 2009
Paul Marks, "Satellite collision 'more powerful than China's ASAT test", New
Scientist, 13 February 2009.
"2 big satellites collide 500 miles over Siberia." yahoo.com, 11 February 2009.
Retrieved 11 February 2009.
Becky Iannotta, "U.S. Satellite Destroyed in Space Collision", space.com, 11
February 2009. Retrieved 11 February 2009.
Leonard David. "Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test".
space.com.
"Swarm Satellite Trio Launched To Study Earth's Magnetic Field - SpaceNews.com".
SpaceNews.com. 2013-11-22. Retrieved 2017-01-25.
"Space junk could take out a European satellite this week". CNET. Retrieved 2017-
01-25.
Schefter, p. 50.
Rob Matson, "Satellite Encounters" Visual Satellite Observer's Home Page.
"STS-48 Space Shuttle Mission Report", NASA, NASA-CR-193060, October 1991.
Christiansen, E. L.; Hyden, J. L.; Bernhard, R. P. (2004). "Space Shuttle debris
and meteoroid impacts". Advances in Space Research. 34 (5): 1097�1103.
Bibcode:2004AdSpR..34.1097C. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2003.12.008.
Kelly, John. "Debris is Shuttle's Biggest Threat", space.com, 5 March 2005.
"Debris Danger". Aviation Week & Space Technology, Volume 169 Number 10 (15
September 2008), p. 18.
William Harwood, "Improved odds ease NASA's concerns about space debris", CBS
News, 16 April 2009.
D. Lear et al, "Investigation of Shuttle Radiator Micro-Meteoroid & Orbital Debris
Damage" Archived 18 September 2010 at WebCite, Proceedings of the 50th Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 4�7 May 2009, AIAA 2009�2361.
D. Lear, et al, "STS-118 Radiator Impact Damage", NASA
Smirnov, V.M.; et al. (2000). "Study of Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Effects
on the Solar Panelson 'MIR'". Space Debris. 2 (1): 1�7.
doi:10.1023/A:1015607813420.
"Orbital Debris FAQ: How did the Mir space station fare during its 15-year stay in
Earth orbit?", NASA, July 2009.
K Thoma et al, "New Protection Concepts for Meteoroid / Debris Shields",
Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Space Debris (ESA SP-587), 18�20
April 2005, p. 445.
Henry Nahra, "Effect of Micrometeoroid and Space Debris Impacts on the Space
Station Freedom Solar Array Surfaces". Presented at the 1989 Spring Meeting of the
Materials Research Society, 24�29 April 1989, NASA TR-102287.
de Selding, Peter B. (2014-01-16). "Space Station Required No Evasive Maneuvers in
2013 Despite Growing Debris Threat". Space News. Retrieved 2014-01-17.
"Junk alert for space station crew", BBC News, 12 March 2009.
"International Space Station in debris scare", BBC News, 28 June 2011.
Haines, Lester. "ISS spared space junk avoidance manoeuvre", The Register, 17
March 2009.
Kessler 1991, p. 63.
Bechara J. Saab, "Planet Earth, Space Debris", Hypothesis Volume 7 Issue 1
(September 2009).
Jan Stupl et al, "Debris-debris collision avoidance using medium power ground-
based lasers", 2010 Beijing Orbital Debris Mitigation Workshop, 18�19 October 2010,
see graph p. 4 Archived 9 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
Brown, M. (2012). Orbital Debris Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faqs.html.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Orbiting Debris: A Space
Environmental Problem" Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine., Background
Paper, OTA-BP-ISC-72, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1990, p. 3
"Today in Science History" todayinsci.com. Retrieved 8 March 2006.
Tony Long, "Jan. 22, 1997: Heads Up, Lottie! It's Space Junk!", wired, 22 January
2009. Retrieved 27 March 2016
"NASA � Part I � The History of Skylab." NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and
Kennedy Space Center, 16 March 2009.
"NASA � John F. Kennedy Space Center Story." NASA Kennedy Space Center, 16 March
2009.
"PAM-D Debris Falls in Saudi Arabia", The Orbital Debris Quarterly News, Volume 6
Issue 2 (April 2001).
"Debris Photos" NASA.
Wallach, Dan (1 February 2016). "Columbia shuttle tragedy marks Sabine County
town". Retrieved 8 May 2018.
"Columbia Accident Investigation Report, Volume II Appendix D.10" (PDF). Archived
from the original on 17 October 2011. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
"Shuttle Debris Falls on East Texas, Louisiana". 1 February 2003. Retrieved 8 May
2018.
"Debris Warning" NASA.
"Debris from fallen space shuttle Columbia has new mission 15 years after
tragedy". 1 February 2018. Retrieved 8 May 2018.
Jano Gibson, "Jet's flaming space junk scare", The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 March
2007.
D. Mehrholz et al;"Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris", ESA bulletin
109, February 2002.
Ben Greene, "Laser Tracking of Space Debris", Electro Optic Systems Pty
"Orbital debris: Optical Measurements", NASA Orbital Debris Program Office
Pantaleo, Rick. "Australian Scientists Track Space Junk by Listening to FM Radio".
web. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
Englert, Christoph R.; Bays, J. Timothy; Marr, Kenneth D.; Brown, Charles M.;
Nicholas, Andrew C.; Finne, Theodore T. (2014). "Optical orbital debris spotter".
Acta Astronautica. 104: 99�105. Bibcode:2014AcAau.104...99E.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.07.031.
Grant Stokes et al, "The Space-Based Visible Program", MIT Lincoln Laboratory.
Retrieved 8 March 2006.
H. Klinkrad, "Monitoring Space � Efforts Made by European Countries", fas.org.
Retrieved 8 March 2006.
"MIT Haystack Observatory" haystack.mit.edu. Retrieved 8 March 2006.
"AN/FPS-108 COBRA DANE." fas.org. Retrieved 8 March 2006.
Darius Nikanpour, "Space Debris Mitigation Technologies" Archived 19 October 2012
at the Wayback Machine., Proceedings of the Space Debris Congress, 7�9 May 2009.
"STS-76 Mir Environmental Effects Payload (MEEP)". NASA. March 1996. Retrieved 8
March 2011.
MEEP, NASA, 4 April 2002. Retrieved 8 July 2011
"STS-76 Mir Environmental Effects Payload (MEEP)", NASA, March 1996. Retrieved 8
March 2011.
David Portree and Joseph Loftus. "Orbital Debris: A Chronology" Archived 1
September 2000 at the Wayback Machine., NASA, 1999, p. 13.
David Whitlock, "History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentations", NASA JSC, 2004
Johnson, Nicholas (5 December 2011). "Space debris issues". audio file, @0:05:50-
0:07:40. The Space Show. Archived from the original on 27 January 2012. Retrieved 8
December 2011.
Foust, Jeff (2014-11-25). "Companies Have Technologies, but Not Business Plans,
for Orbital Debris Cleanup". Space News. Retrieved 2014-12-06.
Foust, Jeff (2014-11-24). "Industry Worries Government 'Backsliding' on Orbital
Debris". Space News. Archived from the original on 2014-12-08. Retrieved 2014-12-
08. Despite growing concern about the threat posed by orbital debris, and language
in U.S. national space policy directing government agencies to study debris cleanup
technologies, many in the space community worry that the government is not doing
enough to implement that policy.
"USA Space Debris Envinronment, Operations, and Policy Updates" (PDF). NASA.
UNOOSA. Retrieved 1 October 2011.[permanent dead link]
Johnson, Nicholas (5 December 2011). "Space debris issues". audio file, @1:03:05-
1:06:20. The Space Show. Archived from the original on 27 January 2012. Retrieved 8
December 2011.
"UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines", UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, 2010.
Theresa Hitchens, "COPUOS Wades into the Next Great Space Debate" Archived 26
December 2008 at the Wayback Machine., The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 26
June 2008.
"Compliance of Rocket Upper Stages in GTO with Space Debris Mitigation
Guidelines". Space Safety Magazine. 2013-07-18. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
"U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices" (PDF). United
States Federal Government. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
"Orbital Debris � Important Reference Documents.", NASA Orbital Debris Program
Office.
"Mitigating space debris generation". European Space Agency. 19 Apr 2013.
Retrieved 27 Jul 2014.
E A Taylor and J R Davey, "Implementation of debris mitigation using International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards", Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers: G, Volume 221 Number 8 (1 June 2007), pp. 987 � 996.
Howell, E. (2013). Experts Urge Removal of Space Debris From Orbit. Universe
Today. Retrieved from http://www.universetoday.com/101790/experts-urge-removal-of-
space-debris-from-orbit/
"OneWeb Taps Airbus To Build 900 Internet Smallsats". SpaceNews. 2015-06-15.
Retrieved 19 June 2015.
Brodkin, Jon (2017-10-04). "SpaceX and OneWeb broadband satellites raise fears
about space debris". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2017-10-07.
 Frank Zegler and Bernard Kutter, "Evolving to a Depot-Based Space Transportation
Architecture", AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference & Exposition, 30 August-2 September 2010,
AIAA 2010�8638. Archived 10 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine.
Robotic refueling Mission
Bergin, Chris (2016-09-27). "SpaceX reveals ITS Mars game changer via colonization
plan". NASASpaceFlight.com. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/rocket-lab-capitalize-test-flight-success-
first-operational-mission/
Luc Moliner, "Spot-1 Earth Observation Satellite Deorbitation" Archived 16 January
2011 at the Wayback Machine., AIAA, 2002.
"Spacecraft: Spot 3" Archived 30 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine., agi, 2003
Bill Christensen, "The Terminator Tether Aims to Clean Up Low Earth Orbit",
space.com. Retrieved 8 March 2006.
Jonathan Amos, "How satellites could 'sail' home", BBC News, 3 May 2009.
"Safe And Efficient De-Orbit Of Space Junk Without Making The Problem Worse".
Space Daily. 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
Erika Carlson et al, "Final design of a space debris removal system", NASA/CR-
189976, 1990.
"Intelsat Picks MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. for Satellite Servicing"
Archived 12 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine., CNW Newswire, 15 March 2011.
Retrieved 15 July 2011.
Peter de Selding, "MDA Designing In-orbit Servicing Spacecraft", Space News, 3
March 2010. Retrieved 15 July 2011.
Schaub, H.; Sternovsky, Z. (2013). "Active Space Debris Charging for Contactless
Electrostatic Disposal". Advances in Space Research. 53 (1): 110�118.
Bibcode:2014AdSpR..53..110S. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2013.10.003.
Jonathan Campbell, "Using Lasers in Space: Laser Orbital Debris Removal and
Asteroid Deflection", Occasional Paper No. 20, Air University, Maxwell Air Force
Base, December 2000.
Mann, Adam (26 October 2011). "Space Junk Crisis: Time to Bring in the Lasers".
Wired Science. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
Ivan Bekey, "Project Orion: Orbital Debris Removal Using Ground-Based Sensors and
Lasers.", Second European Conference on Space Debris, 1997, ESA-SP 393, p. 699.
Justin Mullins "A clean sweep: NASA plans to carry out a spot of housework.", New
Scientist, 16 August 2000.
Tony Reichhardt, "Satellite Smashers" Archived 29 July 2012 at Archive.is, Air &
Space Magazine, 1 March 2008.
James Mason et al, "Orbital Debris-Debris Collision Avoidance", arXiv:1103.1690v2,
9 March 2011.
C. Bombardelli and J. Pel�ez, "Ion Beam Shepherd for Contactless Space Debris
Removal". Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 34, No. 3, May�June
2011, pp 916�920. http://sdg.aero.upm.es/PUBLICATIONS/PDF/2011/AIAA-51832-628.pdf
Daniel Michaels, "A Cosmic Question: How to Get Rid Of All That Orbiting Space
Junk?", Wall Street Journal, 11 March 2009.
"Company floats giant balloon concept as solution to space mess", Global Aerospace
Corp press release, 4 August 2010.
"Space Debris Removal", Star-tech-inc.com. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
Foust, Jeff (5 October 2011). "A Sticky Solution for Grabbing Objects in Space".
MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 7 October 2011.
Jason Palmer, "Space junk could be tackled by housekeeping spacecraft ", BBC News,
8 August 2011
"News", Star Inc. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
"Cleaning up Earth's orbit: A Swiss satellite tackles space junk". EPFL. 15
February 2012. Retrieved 2013-04-03.
"Space Debris Removal | Cleanspace One". Space Debris Removal | Cleanspace One.
Retrieved 2017-12-01.
Stefan Lovgren, "Space Junk Cleanup Needed, NASA Experts Warn." National
Geographic News, 19 January 2006.
Jan, McHarg (10 August 2012). "Project aims to remove space debris". Phys.org.
Retrieved 2013-04-03.
"Experts: Active Removal Key To Countering Space Junk Threat" Peter B. de Selding,
Space.com 31 October 2012.
Roppolo, Michael. "Japan Launches Net Into Space to Help With Orbital Debris". CBS
News. 28 February 2014
"Japan launching 'space junk' collector (Update)". Retrieved 24 January 2017.
"Japan launches 'space junk' collector � Times of India". The Times of India.
Retrieved 24 January 2017.
"Space cargo ship experiment to clean up debris hits snag". The Japan Times
Online. 31 January 2017. Retrieved 2 February 2017.
"A Japanese Space Junk Removal Experiment Has Failed in Orbit". Space.com.
Retrieved 2 February 2017.
"Japan's troubled 'space junk' mission fails". Retrieved 12 February 2017.
Biesbroek, 2012 "Introduction to e.Deorbit". e.deorbit symposium. 6 May 2014
Fred Whipple, "The Theory of Micro-Meteorites, Part I: In an Isothermal
Atmosphere", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 36 Number 12
(15 December 1950), pp. 667 � 695.
Fred Whipple, "The Theory of Micrometeorites.", Popular Astronomy, Volume 57,
1949, p. 517.
Whipple, Fred (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and
Meteors". Astrophysical Journal. 113: 464�474. Bibcode:1951ApJ...113..464W.
doi:10.1086/145416.
Brownlee, D. E.; Tomandl, D. A.; Olszewski, E. (1977). "1977LPI.....8..145B
Interplanetary dust: A new source of extraterrestrial material for laboratory
studies". Proceedings of the 8th Lunar Scientific Conference. 1977: 149�160.
Bibcode:1977LPI.....8..145B.
Hans Pettersson, "Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust." Scientific American,
Volume 202 Issue 2 (February 1960), pp. 123�132.
Andrew Snelling and David Rush, "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System"
Archived 12 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Creation Ex-Nihilo Technical Journal,
Volume 7 Number 1 (1993), p. 2�42.
Brian Marsden, "Professor Fred Whipple: Astronomer who developed the idea that
comets are 'dirty snowballs'." The Independent, 13 November 2004.
Fred Whipple, "Of Comets and Meteors" Science, Volume 289 Number 5480 (4 August
2000), p. 728.
Judith Reustle (curator), "Shield Development: Basic Concepts" Archived 27
September 2011 at the Wayback Machine., NASA HVIT. Retrieved 20 July 2011.
Ceramic Fabric Offers Space Age Protection, 1994 Hypervelocity Impact Symposium
Kim Dismukes (curator), "TransHab Concept", NASA, 27 June 2003. Retrieved 10 June
2007.
Howell, Elizabeth (2014-10-06). "Private Inflatable Room Launching to Space
Station Next Year". Space.com. Retrieved 2014-12-06.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/iss-crs-8-dragon-arrival-flawless-launch/
Ley, Willy (August 1960). "How to Slay Dragons". For Your Information. Galaxy
Science Fiction. pp. 57�72.
Felix Hoots, Paul Schumacher Jr.; Glover, Robert. "History of Analytical Orbit
Modeling in the U.S. Space Surveillance System". Journal of Guidance Control and
Dynamics. 27 (2): 174�185. Bibcode:2004JGCD...27..174H. doi:10.2514/1.9161.
T.S. Kelso, CelesTrak BBS: Historical Archives, 2-line elements dating to 1980
Schefter, p. 48.
Kessler 1978
Schefter
Kessler 1981
pdf of article
Technical, p. 4
See charts, Hoffman p. 7.
See chart, Hoffman p. 4.
In the time between writing Chapter 1 (earlier) and the Prolog (later) of Space
Debris, Klinkrad changed the number from 8,500 to 13,000 � compare p. 6 and ix.
 Michael Hoffman, "It's getting crowded up there." Space News, 3 April 2009.
"Space Junk Threat Will Grow for Astronauts and Satellites", Fox News, 6 April
2011.
Kessler 2001
Technical
J.-C Liou and N. L. Johnson, "Risks in Space from Orbiting Debris", Science,
Volume 311 Number 5759 (20 January 2006), pp. 340 � 341
Antony Milne, Sky Static: The Space Debris Crisis, Greenwood Publishing Group,
2002, ISBN 0-275-97749-8, p. 86.
Technical, p. 7.
Paul Marks, "Space debris threat to future launches", 27 October 2009.
Space junk at tipping point, says report, BBC News, 2 September 2011
Rhett & Link (6 July 2009). "Space Junk Song". YouTube (video). Retrieved 18
August 2018.
Bibliography
Donald Kessler (Kessler 1991), "Collisional Cascading: The Limits of Population
Growth in Low Earth Orbit", Advances in Space Research, Volume 11 Number 12
(December 1991), pp. 63 � 66.
Donald Kessler (Kessler 1971), "Estimate of Particle Densities and Collision Danger
for Spacecraft Moving Through the Asteroid Belt", Physical Studies of Minor
Planets, NASA SP-267, 1971, pp. 595 � 605. Bibcode 1971NASSP.267..595K.
Donald Kessler (Kessler 2009), webpages.charter.net, 8 March 2009.
Donald Kessler (Kessler 1981), "Sources of Orbital Debris and the Projected
Environment for Future Spacecraft", Journal of Spacecraft, Volume 16 Number 4
(July�August 1981), pp. 357 � 360.
Donald Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais (Kessler 1978), "Collision Frequency of
Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt" Journal of Geophysical
Research, Volume 81, Number A6 (1 June 1978), pp. 2637�2646.
Donald Kessler and Phillip Anz-Meador, "Critical Number of Spacecraft in Low Earth
Orbit: Using Fragmentation Data to Evaluate the Stability of the Orbital Debris
Environment", Presented and the Third European Conference on Space Debris, March
2001.
Heiner Klinkrad, "Space Debris: Models and Risk Analysis", Springer-Praxis, 2006,
ISBN 3-540-25448-X.
(Technical), "Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment" National Academy of Sciences,
1995. ISBN 0-309-05125-8.
Jim Schefter, "The Growing Peril of Space Debris" Popular Science, July 1982, pp.
48 � 51.
Further reading
"What is Orbital Debris?", Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, Aerospace
Corporation
Committee for the Assessment of NASA's Orbital Debris Programs (2011). Limiting
Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital
Debris Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. ISBN 978-0-309-21974-
7.
Klotz, Irene (1 September 2011). "Space junk reaching 'tipping point,' report
warns". Reuters. Retrieved 2 September 2011. News item summarizing the above report
Steven A. Hildreth and Allison Arnold. Threats to U.S. National Security Interests
in Space: Orbital Debris Mitigation and Removal. Washington, D.C.: Congressional
Research Service, 8 January 2014.
David Leonard, "The Clutter Above", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August
2005.
Patrick McDaniel, "A Methodology for Estimating the Uncertainty in the Predicted
Annual Risk to Orbiting Spacecraft from Current or Predicted Space Debris
Population". National Defense University, 1997.
"Interagency Report on Orbital Debris, 1995", National Science and Technology
Council, November 1995.
Nickolay Smirnov, Space Debris: Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, 2002, ISBN 0-415-27907-0.
Richard Talcott, "How We Junked Up Outer Space", Astronomy, Volume 36, Issue 6
(June 2008), pp. 40�43.
"Technical report on space debris, 1999", United Nations, 2006. ISBN 92-1-100813-1.
Robin Biesbroek (2015). Active Debris Removal in Space: How to Clean the Earth's
Environment from Space Debris. CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1-5085-2918-7.
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Space debris.
Wikinews has related news: Out of space in outer space: Special report on
NASA's 'space junk' plans
Sativew � Tracking Space Junk in real time
NASA Orbital Debris Program Office
ESA Space Debris Office
"Space: the final junkyard", documentary film
Would a Saturn-like ring system around planet Earth remain stable? Abdul Ahad
EISACT Space Debris during the international polar year
Intro to mathematical modeling of space debris flux
SOCRATES: A free daily service predicting close encounters on orbit between
satellites and debris orbiting Earth
A summary of current space debris by type and orbit
Space Junk Astronomy Cast episode No. 82, includes full transcript
Paul Maley's Satellite Page � Space debris (with photos)
Space Debris Illustrated: The Problem in Pictures
PACA: Space Debris
IEEE � The Growing Threat of Space Debris
The Threat of Orbital Debris and Protecting NASA Space Assets from Satellite
Collisions
[1] [2]
Space Age Wasteland: Debris in Orbit Is Here to Stay; Scientific American; 2012
United States Space Surveillance Network
PATENDER: GMV�S Trailblazing low-gravity space-debris capture system
Space Junk Infographic
Project West Ford an intentional placement of a large number of small copper
metallic objects in medium Earth orbit (long lifetime) in the 1960s by the US
government, resulting in a large amount of space debris, which created
international relations adverse effects.
vte
... in space
Biology
Animals (Dogs � Monkeys and non-human apes) The human body The human body (exposed)
Hygiene Locomotion Medicine Neuroscience Plants Sex Sleep
STS-39 in Earth orbit
Environment
Corrosion Debris Dust Weather
Society
Archaeology Christmas Colonization Economy Law Music Religion Tourism War Women
Technology
Accidents Architecture Food Human spaceflight Power (Batteries � Nuclear power �
Solar power (for Earth) � Solar panels on spacecraft) Radar Telescopes Toilets
Weapons Writing
See also
Near space Outer space
Authority control Edit this at Wikidata
NDL: 01236260
Categories: Space debrisGlobal issuesSpace hazardsSpaceflightLitterNear-Earth
objectsFuture problemsTechnology hazards
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView
historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons

Languages
???????
Espa�ol
??????
???????
Svenska
?????
??????
????
??
37 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 18 August 2018, at 03:31 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia� is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie
statementMobile viewWikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki