Plus: Treating space debris as a dosage problem
| By Dan Robitzski
Welcome back to our weekly newsletter highlighting the opinions and perspectives of the SpaceNews community.
| | | | | | |
You may have seen the commentary article from earlier this month where members of the National Space Society and academic astronomy community called for a new era of astronomy observations and research that relies heavily on off-world observatories orbiting Earth, rather than the facilities on the planet's surface. Now, members of the American Astronomical Society have responded, penning a new commentary article to push back on the idea that terrestrial astronomy should be abandoned.
"As leaders in our professional field, we have spent countless hours in the rooms where decisions are made that shape humanity's ability to understand the universe — at NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Academies," they wrote. "We share the concern that motivates the recent commentary: We must protect our ability to observe the cosmos we are part of. But the idea that astronomy can simply relocate off Earth misunderstands how modern astronomy works and sidesteps deeper questions about how companies are choosing to operate in space."
They argue that moving astronomy from Earth to space needlessly cedes ground to the megaconstellation operators who are polluting and blocking the night sky. And in the absence of orbital equivalents to the ground-based facilities operating today, abandoning them would represent a significant loss for science.
"More to the point: moving astronomy to space does not solve the underlying problem. It avoids it," they wrote.
"The challenges facing ground-based astronomy — optical interference from satellite trails, radio contamination, orbital congestion — stem from policy choices and engineering decisions. They are not inevitable consequences of progress in our space ambitions. Leaving Earth behind would mean letting commercial interests set the rules for access to the sky, and that is not a precedent humanity should accept."
See the full article here. | | | |  | | The La Silla Observatory, located on the outskirts of the Chilean Atacama Desert. Credit: ESO
| | | |
It may be time to reframe how we think of orbital debris hazards. Atomic-6 President and CEO Trevor Smith wrote an opinion article to argue that treating orbital debris as a statistical problem, where operators concern themselves with the probability of a catastrophic collision, may be outdated. Instead, he argued, it may be more accurate to think of debris, especially the tiny fragments that create a growing cloud around Earth, as a dosage problem where a barrage of impacts are expected and assumed.
Smith cited evidence that spacecraft could be taking hundreds or thousands of impacts every year that gradually chip away at them. He argued that operators and manufacturers need to start planning for this barrage until active debris removal becomes feasible and commonplace.
"Active debris removal may come, and I hope it does," he wrote. "When we are there, we will likely have the tech base for off-world manufacturing too. Between here and there, the pragmatic path is clear: treat [micrometeoroid and orbital debris] as dosage, put mass where flux and consequence intersect and make sure your shield does not become a fragmentation source."
See the full article here.
SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community's diverse perspectives. Whether you're an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion (at) spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. If you have something to submit, read some of our recent opinion articles and our submission guidelines to get a sense of what we're looking for. The perspectives shared in these opinion articles are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent their employers or professional affiliations. | | | | | | | | | Get a clear, curated view of what matters most: Subscribe to SpaceNews for less than $5 a week – or save more than 25% on a multi-user subscription for your team – and gain foresight that helps you make smarter strategic decisions, reduce surprises and stay credible in an industry where being informed is not optional – it's essential to success. | | Subscribe now | | | | |
