research paper on space junk

A Comprehensive Study on Space Debris, Threats Posed by Space Debris, and Removal Techniques

Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Science & Technologies For Engineering Systems (ICETSE-2019)

8 Pages Posted: 2 Jan 2020 Last revised: 23 Jul 2020

Sangita Mullick

S J C Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Students

Yashwanth Srinivasa

Ashutosh kumar sahu, jhanvi tharun sata.

Date Written: May 17, 2019

After exploring space for more than 50 years for research, study and defense purposes, the region above the atmosphere of earth is highly polluted by orbital debris. Figure 1 shows the total number of rocket launches in period of nine years. This has become a concern for placing satellites in their respective orbits and their safe functioning during their mission. Space debris or orbital debris colloquially known as space junk are parts of the non-functional satellites, thermal blankets, booster stages of the rockets. Those satellites are placed in the several orbits according to their missions. Mainly, they are placed in LEO (Low Earth Orbit), an earth centered orbit ranging from 200 to 2000 kilometers. Some are also placed in GEO (Geostationary Earth Orbit), at an altitude of 36000 kilometers and some are placed in the Higher Earth Orbit. Since the dawn of space age, approximately 7000 rockets have been launched, placing their payloads in several orbits of the Earth, revolving at several kilometers per second. And more than half of these objects are present in LEO. It is estimated that their sizes vary from a few millimeters to few meters, the largest being the European Envisat. Because of their high speeds, pieces of debris not more than a millimeter apart also poses a huge risk to current and upcoming space missions. Since the risk is increasing exponentially and is of great concern for all the space-faring nations, there is a need for the active removal of space debris. Hence, in this paper, the authors have analyzed the threat that space debris poses, and some of its removal techniques that have been proposed by scientists and space organizations. The authors have also suggested a few more of these Active Debris Removal techniques.

Keywords: Space Debris, Threats posed by Space Debris, and Removal Techniques

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Sangita Mullick (Contact Author)

S j c institute of technology, department of aeronautical engineering, students ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, industrial & manufacturing engineering ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Aerospace Engineering eJournal

Astronomy & astrophysics ejournal, materials performance ejournal, computational materials science ejournal.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Menu

• Aerospace Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Reviewer Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors
• Special Issues
• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Society Collaborations
• Conferences
• Editorial Office
• 10th Anniversary

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 11 (2024)
• Vol. 10 (2023)
• Vol. 9 (2022)
• Vol. 8 (2021)
• Vol. 7 (2020)
• Vol. 6 (2019)
• Vol. 5 (2018)
• Vol. 4 (2017)
• Vol. 3 (2016)
• Vol. 2 (2015)
• Vol. 1 (2014)

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Space Debris Removal: Challenges and Opportunities

• Print Special Issue Flyer
• Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Benefits of publishing in a special issue.

• Published Papers

A special issue of Aerospace (ISSN 2226-4310). This special issue belongs to the section " Astronautics & Space Science ".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 June 2022) | Viewed by 25751

Share This Special Issue

Special issue editor.

Dear Colleagues,

Over the past few decades, Earth orbits, specifically the geosynchronous orbits ideal for communication satellites and the Sun synchronous orbits favored for Earth observation satellites, are increasingly crowded with human-made space debris. Controlling the population of space debris is commonly recognized as a critical task for the safety of operating satellites and long-term sustainability of our space activities. The first ever satellite–satellite collision between operational and abandoned satellites in 2009 is a just wake-up call. While most current efforts focus on debris mitigation methods and strategies, it is widely believed that the population of space debris will continue to grow over time unless we actively remove five or more massive pieces of debris from the orbit annually.

In this Special Issue, we invite high-quality original contributions covering all aspects of space debris removal—the current challenges, methodologies, and opportunities. Papers dealing with new technology developments for passive/active space debris removal technologies and strategies, the associated technological readiness of solutions, analysis and/or experimental results in the context of space debris removal methodologies, business perspectives, and initiatives are welcome. 

Prof. Dr. George Z.H. Zhu Guest Editor

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website . Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form . Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Aerospace is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• space debris
• dynamic modeling
• debris detection, surveillance, and tracking
• collision avoidance
• approach and capture of space debris
• passive and active removal techniques and strategies
• risk analysis and management
• autonomous operation and control
• Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
• Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
• Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
• External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
• e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here .

Published Papers (8 papers)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 11 July 2022

Unnecessary risks created by uncontrolled rocket reentries

• Michael Byers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2234-335X 1 ,
• Ewan Wright 2 ,
• Aaron Boley 3 &
• Cameron Byers 4  

Nature Astronomy volume  6 ,  pages 1093–1097 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

16 Citations

2130 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Space physics

Most space launches result in uncontrolled rocket body reentries, creating casualty risks for people on the ground, at sea and in aeroplanes. These risks have long been treated as negligible, but the number of rocket bodies abandoned in orbit is growing, while rocket bodies from past launches continue to reenter the atmosphere due to gas drag. Using publicly available reports of rocket launches and data on abandoned rocket bodies in orbit, we calculate approximate casualty expectations due to rocket body reentries as a function of latitude. The distribution of rocket body launches and reentries leads to the casualty expectation (that is, risk to human life) being disproportionately borne by populations in the Global South, with major launching states exporting risk to the rest of the world. We argue that recent improvements in technology and mission design make most of these uncontrolled reentries unnecessary, but that launching states and companies are reluctant to take on the increased costs involved. Those national governments whose populations are being put at risk should demand that major spacefaring states act, together, to mandate controlled rocket reentries, create meaningful consequences for non-compliance and thus eliminate the risks for everyone.

Similar content being viewed by others

Orbital Reef and commercial low Earth orbit destinations—upcoming space research opportunities

Towards sustainable human space exploration—priorities for radiation research to quantify and mitigate radiation risks

Enhanced Kinetic Impactor for Deflecting Large Potentially Hazardous Asteroids via Maneuvering Space Rocks

In May 2020, an 18 t core stage of a Long March 5B rocket reentered the atmosphere from orbit in an uncontrolled manner after being used to launch an unmanned experimental crew capsule. Debris from the rocket body, including a 12-m-long pipe, struck two villages in the Ivory Coast, causing damage to several buildings. One year later, another 18 t core stage of a Long March 5B rocket made an uncontrolled reentry after being used to launch part of China’s new Tiangong space station into low Earth orbit. This time, the debris crashed into the Indian Ocean. These two rocket stages were the heaviest objects to reenter in an uncontrolled manner since the Soviet Union’s Salyut-7 space station in 1991.

China received criticism for imposing the reentry risks of its rockets onto the world, including from US government officials. However, there is no international consensus on the acceptable level of risk, and other spacefaring states—including the USA—make similar choices concerning uncontrolled reentries. In 2016, the second stage of a SpaceX rocket was abandoned in orbit; it reentered one month later over Indonesia, with two refrigerator-sized fuel tanks reaching the ground intact.

The added technological complexity and cost involved in achieving controlled reentries helps to explain the shortage of international rules on this matter. Moreover, casualty risks are usually assessed on a launch-by-launch basis, which keeps them low and makes it easier for governments to justify uncontrolled reentries. However, as humanity’s use of space expands, cumulative risks should also be considered. Launch providers have access to technologies and mission designs today that could eliminate the need for most uncontrolled reentries. The challenge, in an increasingly diverse and competitive space launch market, is not only to raise safety standards but to ensure that everyone is subject to them, and to do all this without creating unreasonable barriers for new entrants.

The problem

Launch sequences vary between rocket models. Some rockets have ‘boosters’, which are dropped suborbitally during the launch sequence with some precision and usually into the ocean. All rockets have a ‘core’ or ‘first stage’, some of which are designed to be suborbital and others orbital. If the core stage attains orbit, it is then either abandoned in orbit (as with the Long March 5B rockets) or brought back through a controlled reentry. When a rocket stage is abandoned with sufficiently low perigees, gas drag gradually reduces its altitude and eventually causes it to reenter the atmosphere in an uncontrolled way, which can occur at any point under its flight path. In contrast, controlled reentries from orbit use an engine burn to direct the stage to a remote area of ocean or recovery zone. Most rockets also have one or more ‘upper stages’, which deploy the ‘payload’ (such as one or more satellites). Although upper stages are sometimes brought back to Earth through a controlled reentry, they are often abandoned in orbit. This article focuses on abandoned orbital stages (generically called ‘rocket bodies’ hereafter) that return to Earth in an uncontrolled way—creating danger for people on the surface.

In 2020, over 60% of launches to low Earth orbit resulted in a rocket body being abandoned in orbit 1 . Remaining in orbit for days, months or even years, these large objects pose a collision hazard for operational satellites. They can also, in the event of a collision or an explosion of residual fuel, fragment into thousands of smaller but still potentially destructive pieces of space debris 2 , creating even more hazards for satellites. There is yet another risk, which is the focus of this paper: when intact stages return to Earth, a substantial fraction of their mass survives the heat of atmospheric reentry as debris 3 . Many of the surviving pieces are potentially lethal, posing serious risks on land, at sea and to people in aeroplanes.

In the USA, the Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSPs) apply to all launches and require that the risk of a casualty from a reentering rocket body is below a 1-in-10,000 threshold 4 . However, the US Air Force waived the ODMSP requirements for 37 of the 66 launches conducted for it between 2011 and 2018, on the basis that it would be too expensive to replace non-compliant rockets with compliant ones 5 . NASA waived the requirements seven times between 2008 and 2018, including for an Atlas V launch in 2015 where the casualty risk was estimated at 1 in 600 (ref. 6 ).

The 1-in-10,000 threshold for casualty risk is arbitrary 7 and makes little sense in an era when new technologies and mission profiles enable controlled reentries. It also fails to address low-risk, high-consequence outcomes, such as a piece of a rocket stage crashing into a high-density city or a large passenger aircraft. In the latter case, even a small piece could cause hundreds of casualties 3 .

Internationally, there is no clear and widely agreed casualty risk threshold. The 2010 UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines recommend that reentering spacecraft not pose ‘an undue risk to people or property’, but do not define what this means 8 . The 2018 UN Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities call on national governments to address risks associated with the uncontrolled reentry of space objects, but do not specify how 9 . There is no binding treaty that addresses rocket body reentries, apart from the 1972 Liability Convention, which stipulates that ‘[a] launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight’ 10 .

Although the possibility of liability often induces good behaviour, on this issue governments have apparently chosen to bear the slight risk of having to compensate for one or more casualties, rather than to require launch providers to make expensive technological or mission design changes. As in some other areas of government and commercial activity, ‘liability risk’ is treated as just another cost of doing business 11 . This approach may have been made easier by the fact that the casualty risk is disproportionately borne by the populations of some of the poorest states in the world, as Fig. 1 demonstrates.

a , Number of rocket bodies with perigee of <600 km and associated global casualty expectation for spacefaring states with large contributions (Europe treated as a single unit). b , Pie chart of the proportion of the total global casualty expectation contributed by each state. c , Standard casualty expectation as a function of orbital inclination for reentry of a single object and the 2020 global population. d , Casualty expectation of rocket bodies currently in orbit by latitude and 2020 population density. Casualty expectation is the number of casualties per square metre of casualty area as described in ref. 13 . Casualty area, which is the total area over which debris could cause a casualty for a given reentry, is not modelled. In all panels, only rocket bodies with perigees at or below 600 km are included, on the basis of the satellite catalogue as of 5 May 2022 12 . This approximates the population of long-lived abandoned rocket bodies that might reasonably be expected to deorbit.

Assessing the casualty risk

The publicly available satellite catalogue 12 provides data for objects that are currently in orbit, as well as those that have reentered, including rocket bodies. Over the past 30 years (4 May 1992–5 May 2022), more than 1,500 rocket bodies have deorbited 12 . Of these, we estimate that over 70% deorbited in an uncontrolled manner, corresponding to a casualty expectation of about 0.015 m −2 . This means that, at face value, if the average rocket body were to cause a casualty area of 10 m 2 , there was an approximately 14% chance of one or more casualties over this time. Although no such event occurred, or at least was reported, these calculations show that the incurred risk has been far from negligible.

The casualty expectation is calculated as follows. Since each abandoned rocket body is left at a specific orbital inclination, the probability that an uncontrolled rocket body (or any object) reenters at a given latitude can be expressed through a latitude weighting function. The weight associated with a latitude represents the fraction of time that an object on a fixed inclination spends over the latitude in question. An object on a zero-degree inclination orbit would have a weighting function that is unity at the equator and zero everywhere else, while an object on a polar orbit would have a weighting function that is a constant for all latitudes. For all other inclinations, an individual orbit will have a weighting function with peaks at the latitudes close to the value of the orbital inclination, a U-shaped distribution between the peaks, and weights of zero at latitudes higher than the inclination. The weighting function for an individual object is normalized such that the summation of weights over all latitudes is unity, while the weighting function for a population is the sum of the individual functions.

A casualty expectation is determined by taking the product of the weighting function and the population density at a given latitude and summing the result over all latitudes. For reference, Fig. 1c shows the casualty expectation for a single reentering object as a function of its orbital inclination, consistent with previous work 13 . Space objects with an inclination around 30° spend more time over higher population densities and so have a higher casualty expectation. The datasets for the world population for different years are GPWv4 (ref. 14 ).

A rocket body reentry is taken to be uncontrolled in this analysis if the time span between the rocket’s launch date and reentry date is 7 d or longer. Several time spans were tested, and 3–7 d delays yield comparable results, with the longer delay being more conservative and thus favoured in this analysis. For the casualty expectation of the past 30 yr, reported above, the 2005 world population is used.

This basic procedure can also be used to estimate the future risk of uncontrolled rocket body reentries.

The future rocket body reentry risk can be modelled in several ways; we explore two. First, the long-term risk resulting from the build-up of rocket bodies in orbit can be estimated by looking at which rocket body orbits have a perigee lower than 600 km, with this perigee representing an imperfect but plausible division between rocket bodies that will deorbit in the coming decades and those that require much longer timescales. For this cut, there are 651 rocket bodies, with a corresponding casualty expectation of 0.01 m −2 . Second, we take the trend of rocket body reentries from the past 30 yr and apply it to the next 10 yr, giving rise to a casualty risk of 0.006 m −2 for that period. Both of these are conservative estimates, as the number of rocket launches is increasing quickly. Assuming again that each reentry spreads lethal debris over a 10m 2 area, we conclude that current practices have on order a 10% chance of one or more casualties over a decade.

In the first method (perigee cut), there is no explicit reentry timescale. As such, only the year 2020 world population is used to calculate the corresponding casualty expectation. This method most clearly identifies the consequences of the long-lived on-orbit rocket body population. However, it does not account for the short-lived rocket body population, such as those bodies that reenter within a few weeks after launch. Nor does the method consider world population growth.

In the second method, these shortcomings are addressed, in part, by using the reentry history as a proxy for the future rocket body reentry rate. In this approach, the catalogue is searched for all rocket bodies that have reentered in the past 30 yr. Because it is not immediately clear from the catalogue alone which of these reentered uncontrollably, we assume that any rocket body spending more than 7 d in orbit is uncontrolled, as noted above. Finally, the weighting functions for each uncontrolled reentry are averaged over 30 yr to arrive at a total average weighting function representative of one year of reentries.

World population growth is modelled as a 1% population increase per year. Assuming no changes to the reentry rate or the rocket body population distribution, the resulting total average weighting function is multiplied by the world population density distribution for each year, with the results summed over 10 yr. An additional sum over latitude is done to obtain the 10 yr casualty risk.

The two methods yield similar results, despite the different approaches. Moreover, the respective weighting functions have a common feature: the largest weights are concentrated near the equator, as shown in Fig. 2 .

Each curve is the sum of the rocket bodies’ normalized time spent over each latitude. Two models are shown: the sum of all rocket bodies currently in orbit with perigee under 600 km, and a 10 yr projection. The latter uses the historical reentries of uncontrolled rocket bodies, from 4 May 1992 to 5 May 2022, to determine an average yearly total weighting function. In this figure, that average is multiplied by ten to show a weighting function for a 10 yr period.

Many of the rocket bodies that lead to uncontrolled reentries are inferred to be associated with launches to geosynchronous orbits, located near the equator. As a result, the cumulative risk from rocket body reentries is significantly higher in the states of the Global South, as compared with the major spacefaring states. The latitudes of Jakarta, Dhaka, Mexico City, Bogotá and Lagos are at least three times as likely as those of Washington, DC, New York, Beijing and Moscow to have a rocket body reenter over them, under one estimate, on the basis of the current rocket body population in orbit (see Fig. 3 ).

Some major and high-risk cities are labelled: 1, Moscow; 2, Washington, DC; 3, Beijing; 4, Dhaka; 5, Mexico City; 6, Lagos; 7, Bogotá; 8, Jakarta. The chosen weighting function is for all rocket bodies currently in orbit with perigees less than 600 km in altitude. The outline of the continents is an equirectangular projection, taken from the Python package Cartopy.

This situation, of risks from activities in the developed world being borne disproportionately by populations in the developing world, is hardly unprecedented. Powerful states often externalize costs and impose them on others, with greenhouse gas emissions being just one example 15 . The disproportionate risk from rocket bodies is further exacerbated by poverty, with buildings in the Global South typically providing a lower degree of protection; according to NASA, approximately 80% of the world’s population lives ‘unprotected or in lightly sheltered structures providing limited protection against falling debris’ 7 .

Fortunately, allowing rocket bodies to reenter in an uncontrolled manner is increasingly becoming a choice rather than a technological limitation. Controlled reentries from orbit require engines that can reignite, enabling the launch provider to direct the rocket body away from populated areas, usually into a remote area of ocean 16 . Some older rocket models that lack reignitable engines are still used by some launch providers; these will need to be upgraded or replaced to achieve a safe, controlled reentry regime.

Performing a controlled reentry also requires having extra fuel on board, above and beyond that required for launching the payload. Some launch providers operating modern rockets with reignitable engines deplete the fuel on board to boost the payload as high as possible, thus saving customers time and fuel—since otherwise the payload will have to use its own thrusters to raise its orbit. However, in doing so, the providers are denying themselves the opportunity for a controlled reentry. Such an approach to mission design will also have to be changed to achieve a safe, controlled reentry regime.

Most of these measures cost money. In the case of the Delta IV rocket, the US government reportedly granted waivers because of the high costs of upgrades 5 , even though, as the entity procuring these launches, it was well positioned to absorb the increased cost of safer missions. In the case of commercial missions, the costs associated with a move to controlled reentries could affect the ability of a launch provider to compete. Yet increased costs often arise when safety, environmental and other negative externalities are internalized. This is where rules and regulations come in: when done well, they ensure a level playing field so that no single company, even a new entrant, loses out from improved practices.

Solving the collective action problem

National governments could raise the standards applicable to launches from their territory or by companies incorporated there. However, individual governments might have competing incentives, such as reducing their own costs or growing a globally competitive domestic space industry. Uncontrolled rocket body reentries constitute a collective action problem; solutions exist, but every launching state must adopt them.

We have been here before. In the 1970s, scientists warned that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration systems were converting and thus reducing ozone molecules in the atmosphere, which in turn allowed more cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation to reach the surface. In 1985, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted 17 . This provided a framework for phasing out the use of CFCs, with the specific chemicals and timelines set out in the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 18 . These two treaties, which have been ratified by every single UN member state, have solved the collective action problem. They have reduced the global use of CFCs by 98%, prevented further damage to the ozone layer and thus prevented an estimated two million deaths from skin cancer every year.

The 1970s also saw a growing risk to oceans and coastlines from oil spills as well as efforts, nationally and internationally, to adopt a requirement for ‘double hulls’ on tankers. The shipping industry, concerned about increased costs, was able to stymie these efforts—until 1989, when the Exxon Valdez spilled roughly 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound. Media coverage of the accident made the issue of oil spills a matter of public concern, and after the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that a double hull would have substantially reduced if not eliminated the spill 19 , the US government required all new tankers calling at US ports to have double hulls 20 . This unilateral move then prompted the International Maritime Organization to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention) in 1992 to require double hulls on new tankers and, through further amendments in 2001 and 2003, to accelerate the retirement of single-hulled tankers.

The 1992 amendments to the MARPOL Convention have since been ratified by 150 states (including the USA, Liberia and Panama), representing 98% of the world’s shipping tonnage. This precedent, of oil spills and the double-hull requirement, is especially relevant for uncontrolled rocket body reentries because it concerns transportation safety in an area beyond national jurisdiction, with oil spills posing risks for all coastal states.

Those national governments whose populations are being put at disproportionate risk by uncontrolled rocket bodies should demand that major spacefaring states mandate controlled rocket reentries, create meaningful consequences for non-compliance and thus eliminate the risks for everyone. If necessary, they could initiate negotiations on a non-binding resolution or even a treaty—because they have a majority at the United Nations General Assembly. A multilateral treaty might not be ratified by the major spacefaring states, but it would still draw widespread attention to the issue and set new expectations for behaviour. This is what happened with the 1997 Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention: although not ratified by the USA, Russia or China, it led to a marked reduction in the global use of antipersonnel mines, with non-ratifiers also changing their behaviour 21 .

On the issue of uncontrolled rocket body reentries, the states of the Global South hold the moral high ground: their citizens are bearing most of the risks, and unnecessarily so, since the technologies and mission designs needed to prevent casualties exist already.

Data availability

The data used in this study are available via GitHub at: https://github.com/etwright1/uncontrolledrocketreentries

Code availability

The analysis scripts used in this study are available via GitHub at: https://github.com/etwright1/uncontrolledrocketreentries

ESA’s Annual Space Environment Report Publication GEN-DB-LOG-00288-OPS-SD (European Space Agency Space Debris Office, 2021); https://www.sdo.esoc.esa.int/environment_report/Space_Environment_Report_latest.pdf

Anz-Meador, P., Opiela, J., Shoots, D. & Liou, J. C. History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentations 15th edn, NASA/TM-2018-220037 (NASA, 2018).

Ailor, W. Large Constellation Disposal Hazards (Aerospace Corporation, 2020).

Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices November 2019 Update (US Government, 2019).

Verspieren, Q. The US Air Force compliance with the Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices. In Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (Maui Economic Development Board, 2020).

Liou, J. C. Orbital Debris Briefing Report JSC-E-DAA-TN50234 (NASA, 2017); https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20170011662

Process for Limiting Orbital Debris NASA-STD-8719.14B (NASA, 2019).

Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), 2010).

Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities A/AC.105/2018/CRP.20 (United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS), 2018).

Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects RES 2777 XXVI (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), 1971).

Abraham, K. S. Environmental liability and the limits of insurance. Columbia Law Rev. 88 , 942–957 (1988).

Article   Google Scholar  

Kelso, T. S. CelesTrak https://celestrak.com/ (2022).

Patera, R. Hazard analysis for uncontrolled space vehicle reentry. J. Spacecr. Rockets 45 , 1031–1041 (2008).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Gridded Population of the World, Version 4.11 (GPWv4): UN WPP-Adjusted Population Count (Center for International Earth Science Information Network—CIESIN, 2022); https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v4-population-density-rev11

Faber, D. Capitalizing on Environmental Injustice: the Polluter–Industrial Complex in the Age of Globalization (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).

De Lucia, V. & Iavicoli, V. From outer space to ocean depths: the ‘spacecraft cemetery’ and the protection of the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Calif. West. Int. Law J. 2 , 367–369 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (United Nations Environment Programme, 1985).

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (United Nations Environment Programme, 1987).

Marine Accident Report: Grounding of the US Tankship Exxon Valdez on Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound Near Valdez, Alaska March 24 163 (National Transportation Safety Board, 1989).

USC Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters Ch. 40, Section 2701 et seq. (Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 1990).

Bower, A. Norms Without the Great Powers: International Law and Changing Social Standards in World Politics (Oxford University Press, 2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Michael Byers

Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Ewan Wright

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Aaron Boley

Bachelor of Engineering Program, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Cameron Byers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.B. co-led the identification and conceptualization of the problem, conducted the legal and policy analyses and led the writing. E.W. conducted the data analysis and risk calculations, produced the figures and contributed to the writing. A.B. co-led the identification and conceptualization of the problem, directed the data and risk analyses and contributed to the writing. C.B. contributed to the identification and conceptualization of the problem and provided comments and feedback on the work. All authors participated in conducting background research, discussing the results of the analyses and formulating possible policy solutions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Byers .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Byers, M., Wright, E., Boley, A. et al. Unnecessary risks created by uncontrolled rocket reentries. Nat Astron 6 , 1093–1097 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01718-8

Download citation

Received : 26 March 2022

Accepted : 19 May 2022

Published : 11 July 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01718-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Suggested Searches

• Climate Change
• Expedition 64
• Mars perseverance
• SpaceX Crew-2
• International Space Station
• View All Topics A-Z

Humans in Space

Earth & climate, the solar system, the universe, aeronautics, learning resources, news & events.

FAQ: NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test Return Status

NASA’s EXCITE Mission Prepared for Scientific Balloon Flight

Talented Teams Tackle Toasty Planet

• Search All NASA Missions
• A to Z List of Missions
• Upcoming Launches and Landings
• Spaceships and Rockets
• Communicating with Missions
• James Webb Space Telescope
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Why Go to Space
• Commercial Space
• Destinations
• Living in Space
• Explore Earth Science
• Earth, Our Planet
• Earth Science in Action
• Earth Multimedia
• Earth Science Researchers
• Pluto & Dwarf Planets
• Asteroids, Comets & Meteors
• The Kuiper Belt
• The Oort Cloud
• Skywatching
• The Search for Life in the Universe
• Black Holes
• The Big Bang
• Dark Energy & Dark Matter
• Earth Science
• Planetary Science
• Astrophysics & Space Science
• The Sun & Heliophysics
• Biological & Physical Sciences
• Lunar Science
• Citizen Science
• Astromaterials
• Aeronautics Research
• Human Space Travel Research
• Science in the Air
• NASA Aircraft
• Flight Innovation
• Supersonic Flight
• Air Traffic Solutions
• Green Aviation Tech
• Drones & You
• Technology Transfer & Spinoffs
• Space Travel Technology
• Technology Living in Space
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Science Instruments
• For Kids and Students
• For Educators
• For Colleges and Universities
• For Professionals
• Science for Everyone
• Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, or Speakers
• STEM Engagement at NASA
• NASA's Impacts
• Centers and Facilities
• Directorates
• Organizations
• People of NASA
• Internships
• Our History
• Doing Business with NASA
• Get Involved

NASA en Español

• Aeronáutica
• Ciencias Terrestres
• Sistema Solar
• All NASA News
• Video Series on NASA+
• Newsletters
• Social Media
• Media Resources
• Upcoming Launches & Landings
• Virtual Events
• Image of the Day
• Sounds and Ringtones
• Interactives
• STEM Multimedia

Hubble Reaches a Lonely Light in the Dark

NASA Funds Studies to Support Crew Performance on Long-Duration Missions

NextSTEP R: Lunar Logistics and Mobility Studies

Station Science Top News: August 16, 2024

STV Precursor Coincident Datasets

NASA-Designed Greenhouse Gas-Detection Instrument Launches

Airborne Surface, Cryosphere, Ecosystem, and Nearshore Topography

NASA Shares Asteroid Bennu Sample in Exchange with JAXA

Gateway: Energizing Exploration

Danish Instrument Helps NASA’s Juno Spacecraft See Radiation

Hubble Finds Structure in an Unstructured Galaxy

NASA Composite Manufacturing Initiative Gains Two New Members

Beyond the Textbook: DC-8 Aircraft Inspires Students in Retirement

NASA Celebrates Ames’s Legacy of Research on National Aviation Day

Copernicus Trajectory Design and Optimization System

Perseverance Pays Off for Student Challenge Winners

How Do I Navigate NASA Learning Resources and Opportunities?

Preguntas frecuentes: estado del retorno de la prueba de vuelo tripulado boeing de la nasa.

Astronauta de la NASA Frank Rubio

Diez maneras en que los estudiantes pueden prepararse para ser astronautas

Space debris.

“The Universe is infinite But space has its limits Rockets a launching Sat’lites are orbiting Explosions in Space Oh what a waste Fragments go flying And we go crying “Space junk we’ve got” Man-made or not Then comes Kessler Who knows the better When things collide Their debris do multiply Thanks to partnering And NASA’s gathering We look for ways To manage the spray” – S. Thuy Nguyen-Onstott.

International Space Station (ISS)Orbital Debris Collision Avoidance Process

One may ask, “What is Orbital Debris?” Although we don’t see space junk in the sky, beyond the clouds and further than the eye can see, it enters low Earth orbit (LEO).

LEO is an orbital space junk yard. There are millions of pieces of space junk flying in LEO. Most orbital debris comprises human-generated objects, such as pieces of space craft, tiny flecks of paint from a spacecraft, parts of rockets, satellites that are no longer working, or explosions of objects in orbit flying around in space at high speeds.

Most “space junk” is moving very fast and can reach speeds of 18,000 miles per hour, almost seven times faster than a bullet. Due to the rate of speed and volume of debris in LEO, current and future space-based services, explorations, and operations pose a safety risk to people and property in space and on Earth.

There are many reasons why LEO has developed into an orbital graveyard. For instance, the deliberate destruction of the Chinese Fengyun-1C spacecraft in 2007 and the accidental collision of an American and a Russian spacecraft in 2009 alone have increased the large orbital debris population in LEO by approximately 70%, posing greater collision risks for spacecraft operating in low Earth orbit.

There are no international space laws to clean up debris in our LEO. LEO is now viewed as the World’s largest garbage dump, and it’s expensive to remove space debris from LEO because the problem of space junk is huge — there are close to 6,000 tons of materials in low Earth orbit.

The NASA Orbital Debris Program officially began in 1979 in the Space Sciences Branch at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The program looks for ways to create less orbital debris, and designs equipment to track and remove the debris already in space.

Space junk is no one countries’ responsibility, but the responsibility of every spacefaring country.  The problem of managing space debris is both an international challenge and an opportunity to preserve the space environment for future space exploration missions.

We have generated a global problem that can only be solved with the help from other Countries. This webpage will cover resources on space debris and the hazards it presents to our continuing use of space. All items are available at the Headquarters Library, except as noted. NASA Headquarters employees and contractors: Call x0168 or  email  for information on borrowing or in-library use of any of these items. Members of the public: Contact your  local library  for the availability of these items. NASA Headquarters employees can  request  additional materials or research on this topic. The Library welcomes your  comments  or  suggestions  about this webpage.

The space around our planet is filled with rubbish. It’s time to take out the trash!

NASA POLICIES AND STANDARDS

The following standards, policies, and procedural requirements can be accessed by anyone through the  NASA Online Directives Information System  or through the  NASA Standards website  :

• NASA-HDBK-8719.14:  NASA Handbook for Limiting Orbital Debris
• NASA-STD-8719.14:  Process for Limiting Orbital Debris (Revision A with Change 1 of 5/25/2012)
• NPR 8715.6B:  NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris and Evaluating the Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Environments

REPORTS AND ARTICLES

Garber, Stephen J. (2017) Incentives for  Keeping Space Clean: Orbital Debris and Mitigation Waivers. Journal of Space Law, 41(2) , 179-201.

Durrieu, Sylvie and Nelson, Ross F. (2013). Earth Observation from Space – The Issue of Environmental Sustainability. Space Policy, 4(2), pg. 238-250. (20140011102),  NTRS

Johnson, Nicholas L. (2010, Feb) Orbital Debris: the Growing Threat to Space Operations. Paper presented 33rd Annual Guidance and Control Conference, Breckenridge, CO; United States, Feb. 6-10, 2010, Report No. AAS 10-011, JSC-CN-19694 (20100004498),  NTRS

Johnson, Nicholas L. and Heiner, Klinkrad (2009, Jan) The International Space Station and the Space Debris Environment: 10 Years On. Paper presented 5th European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, March 30-April 2, 2009. Report No. JSC-CN-17500, JSC-CN-17944 (20090004997),  NTRS

Kaplan, Marshall H. “A Permanent Solution to Near-Earth Orbital Debris”, AIAA Space and Astronautics Forum and Exposition, AIAA SPACE Forum,  (AIAA 2017-5345)

Kessler, D. J. and Su, S.Y. (1985). Orbital Debris. Paper presented at Workshop in NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, July 27-29, 1982. Report No. NASA-CP-2360, S-532, NAS 1:55:2360, 1985 (19850012878),  NTRS

Liou, J.C. (2017, May) Highlights of Recent Research Activities at the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. Paper presented 7th European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, April 18-21, 2017, Report No. JSC-CN-3199, (20170003872),  NTRS

Liou, J.C. (2011). Active Debris Removal – A Grand Engineering Challenge for the Twenty-First Century. Paper presented 21st AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Feb. 13-17, 20100, Report No. AAS-11-254, JSC-CN-23012 (20110011986),  NTRS

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, NASA Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership. (2012). Orbital Debris Management & Risk Mitigation. Retrieved from  NASA website

Matney, Mark (2016, Sept) Measuring Small Debris – What You Can’t See Can Hurt You. Paper presented VKI Lee Series, Space Debris Reentry and Mitigation, Brussels, Belgium, September 12-14, 2016, Report No. JSC-CN-37432-1, (20160011226),  NTRS

Portee, Davis S. F. and Loftus, Joseph P. Jr. (1999). Orbital Debris: A Chronology. Report No. NASA/TP-1999-208856, NAS 1.60:208556, S-843, TX:NASA Johnson Space Center (19990041784),  NTRS

United Nations for Outer Space Affairs. (2010). Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Vienna: United Nations. Retrieved from  NASA website

Human Spaceflight Knowledge Sharing: Micrometeoroids and Orbital Debris. (2017). NASA Knowledge Journal. Winter, 2017. pp 8-11. Retrieved from  NASA Website

Baiocchi, D. and Weiser, W. IV. (2010).  Confronting Space Debris Strategies and Warnings From Comparable Examples Including Deepwater Horizon.  Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. ISBN: 978-0-8330-5056-4. TL 1499 .B35 2010 Bookstacks

Bendisch, J. (ed.). (2002).  Space Debris 2001, Volume 105 Science and Technology Series. Proceedings of the space debris sessions from a symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics held in conjunction with the 52nd International Astronautical Federation Congress, October 1-15, 2001, Toulouse, France.  San Diego, CA: Published for the American Astronautical Society by Univelt. ISBN: 978-0-309-21974-7. TL 1499 .I346 2011 Bookstacks

National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Space Debris. (1995).  Orbital Debris, A Technical Assessment.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN: 0-309-05125-8. TL 1499 .N38 1995. Bookstacks.  Available Free to All.  DOI.

National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Space Shuttle Meteoroid/Debris Risk Management. (1997).  Protecting the Space Shuttle from Meteoroids and Orbital Debris.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN: 0-309-05829-5. TL 795.5 .P77 1997. Bookstacks.  Available Free to All.   DOI.

National Research Council (U.S.) 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 Academy Press. ISBN: 978-0-309-21974-7. TL 1499 .I346 2011 Bookstacks

Pelton, J. N. (2013).  Space Debris and Other Threats from Outer Space.  New York: Springer. ISBN: 978-1-4614-6714-1. TL 1499 .P45 2013 Bookstacks

INTERNET RESOURCES

• NASA Orbital Debris Program
• NASA Office of Safety & Mission Assurance
• NASA Kids’ Club
• Aerospace Technology
• Aerospace Research Central
• Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee
• The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine
• United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
• United States Department of State
• European Space Agency – ESA: Space Debris by the Numbers – ESA FAQ: Space Debris

SLIDE PRESENTATIONS

• Liou, J. C. (2016). The Orbital Debris Program.  Retrieved from NTRS , 20160005242.
• Matney, Mark (2017). Measuring Small Debris – What You Can’t See Can Hurt You.  Retrieved from NTRS , 20160011225.
• Stansbery, Eugene (2013). NASA Orbital Debris Program.  Retrieved from NTRS , 20130010239.
• European Space Agency. (2017).  Dealing with Space Debris.
• European Space Agency. (2017)  A Journey to Earth.
• NASA. (2017).  Mike Squire: Micrometeoroids and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Risks

Filed under:

Waste in space: all the news surrounding space junk

By Jess Weatherbed , a news writer focused on creative industries, computing, and internet culture. Jess started her career at TechRadar, covering news and hardware reviews.

Share this story

What goes up, must come down — unless you’re sending things into space, of course, which creates some complications. After more than 60 years of satellite launches and space exploration, manufactured objects like derelict spacecraft and rocket fragments now litter Earth’s orbit as space junk. The waste has damaged or even outright destroyed active spacecraft it collides with and even caused property damage down here on terra firma when debris has failed to burn up in the atmosphere.

Some efforts, from net-casting satellites to “Zero Debris” space sustainability initiatives , have been made to address the growing problem. But with analysts estimating that over 2,800 satellites will be launched each year between now and 2032, more needs to be done to ensure that the space around Earth is safe. We’re collecting our coverage about space junk here to keep you updated.

The breakup of a Chinese Long March 6A rocket resulted in “over 300 pieces of trackable debris in low-Earth orbit,” according to US Space Command . The agency has “observed no immediate threats” as a result of the breakup.

Space.com has a good story about the situation.

Jess Weatherbed

Getting up close and personal with space junk

We’re getting a close look at some of the space junk that’s floating in space thanks to Tokyo-based company Astroscale Japan. New images taken from a distance of just 50 meters, show the discarded upper stage of a Japanese H-2A rocket that’s currently trapped in Earth’s orbit. They were taken by Astroscale’s Active Debris Removal (ADRAS-J) satellite following the spacecraft’s first fly-around observation of the debris.

ADRAS-J was launched on February 18th with the goal of collecting observational data that can be used to eventually remove large-scale space junk from orbit. The satellite has been monitoring the rocket’s upper stage for several months . The images were released after a test of the craft’s autonomous collision avoidance system designed to allow ADRAS-J to safely approach debris at close distances.

NASA confirms origin of space junk that crashed through Florida home

NASA has confirmed suspicions that the strange object that crashed into a Florida home last month did indeed come from the International Space Station (ISS). The agency analyzed the cylindrical object after it tore through the roof and two floors of a house in Naples on March 8th and established that it came from a cargo pallet of aging batteries that was released from the ISS back in 2021.

More specifically, NASA revealed in a blog post on Monday that the offending object was a support component used to mount the batteries on the 5,800-pound (2,630-kilogram) pallet released from the space station. Made from Inconel (a metal alloy that can withstand extreme environments like high temperature, pressure, or mechanical loads), the recovered stanchion weighs 1.6 pounds and measures four inches high by 1.6 inches in diameter — a smidge smaller than a standard can of Red Bull.

Oct 3, 2023

Jennifer Pattison Tuohy

FCC issues first-ever fine for leaving junk in space

The FCC has issued its first fine for space junk to Dish Network for not properly deorbiting its satellite. The company admitted it was liable for not shifting its EchoStar-7 to a safer spot and will pay a penalty of $150,000 and implement a compliance plan.

Space debris — non-functioning manmade materials floating around space — can pose a hazard to working infrastructure, including the ISS, which has had run-ins with debris in the past. According to the FCC, defunct satellites like Dish’s can also interfere with “the nation’s terrestrial and space-based communication systems by increasing the risk of damage to satellite communications systems.”

Mar 21, 2023

Justine Calma

SpaceX’s Starlink and other satellite internet providers are making light pollution worse for astronomers

The swift rise of internet satellites, forming megaconstellations, and accumulating space junk are already starting to mess with astronomers’ research. The problem is growing exponentially, scientists warn in a series of papers published recently in the journal Nature Astronomy . And they want regulators to do something about it.

The swarm of satellites functioning in low Earth orbit has more than doubled since 2019, when space-based internet initiatives really started to take off. That year, SpaceX and OneWeb launched their first batches of satellites with the goal of providing global internet coverage. Orbiting the planet at a closer range than other satellites is supposed to make those services faster, cutting down how far signals have to travel to and from Earth. The tradeoff is that at such a close range, companies need a lot more satellites to cover the whole planet.

Mar 4, 2022

Loren Grush

After mistaken identity and confusion, a piece of space junk slams into the Moon

After years of zooming through deep space, a presumed leftover piece of a Chinese rocket slammed into the Moon today, just as space tracking experts expected it would. At least, it should have hit the Moon around 7:30AM ET this morning, as long as the law of gravity has not changed. The collision brings an end to the rocket’s life in space and likely leaves a fresh new crater on the Moon that may be up to 65 feet wide.

The now-expired rocket has caused quite a buzz this past month. First of all, the vehicle was never intended to crash into the Moon, making it a rare piece of space debris to find its way to the lunar surface by accident. Additionally, there was some confusion over its identity, with various groups trying to nail down exactly where the rocket came from.

Jan 27, 2022

A SpaceX rocket slamming into the Moon is a reminder to clean up our deep space junk

Update February 13th, 12PM ET:  The astronomer who originally predicted that this object would hit the Moon, Bill Gray, updated his prediction on February 12th , arguing that the vehicle is probably not a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket after all. Instead, he now thinks the object is a leftover piece of a Chinese rocket. The Verge wrote a new story about this update, which you can read here . We’ve kept the original story below, as most of the information still stands, just with a different kind of rocket.

For the last seven years, a leftover piece of an old SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has been circling the Earth on a very wide orbit, having a pretty unremarkable time. But that’s all about to change on March 4th, when this rocket piece is predicted to accidentally slam into the far side of the Moon. And according to the astronomer who first figured this out, it’s a reminder that we need to take better care of our deep space junk.

Nov 30, 2021

NASA delays spacewalk due to threat of space debris

Early this morning, NASA postponed a spacewalk scheduled to occur outside the International Space Station today, after getting word of a possible safety threat from some nearby space debris. It’s unclear where the debris is coming from, but the delay comes about two weeks after Russia blew up one of its own satellites in orbit , creating thousands of dangerous fragments that threatened the space station.

NASA astronauts Kayla Barron and Thomas Marshburn were all set to don spacesuits and leave the confines of the ISS this morning at around 7:10AM ET, in order to replace an antenna on the outside of the station. It would have been the fifth spacewalk for Marshburn and the first for Barron.

Nov 19, 2021

Visualizations show the extensive cloud of debris Russia’s anti-satellite test created

Satellite trackers have been working overtime to figure out just how much dangerous debris Russia created when it destroyed one of its own satellites early Monday — and the picture they’ve painted looks bleak. Multiple visual simulations of Russia’s anti-satellite, or ASAT, test show a widespread cloud of debris that will likely menace other objects in orbit for years.

Early this week, Russia launched a missile that destroyed the country’s Kosmos 1408 satellite, a large spacecraft that orbited the Earth roughly 300 miles up. The breakup of the satellite created at least 1,500 pieces of trackable fragments, according to the US State Department, as well as thousands of smaller pieces that cannot be tracked. All of those pieces are still in low Earth orbit, moving at thousands of miles an hour and posing a threat to any objects that might cross their path. Initially, that even included the International Space Station, with crew members on board forced to take shelter in their spacecrafts as the debris cloud from the satellite passed by the ISS a couple of times.

Apr 2, 2021

Joey Roulette

SpaceX rocket debris lands on man’s farm in Washington

A pressure vessel from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket stage fell on a man’s farm in Washington State last week, leaving a “4-inch dent in the soil,” the local sheriff’s office said Friday.

The black Composite-Overwrapped Pressure Vessel, or COPV, was a remnant from the alien invasion-looking breakup of a Falcon 9 second stage over Oregon and Washington on March 26, local officials said. The stage reentered the atmosphere in an unusual spot in the sky after sending a payload of SpaceX’s Starlink satellites to orbit.

Oct 12, 2020

Mary Beth Griggs

Earth’s next mini-moon might be space junk from the 1960s

Earth is about to get a temporary mini-moon — and this one might be space junk. Researchers are tracking an object that looks like it will be captured by Earth’s gravity for just a few months this winter before safely heading back out into the Solar System. It might be a standard asteroid, but some astronomers say that the mystery object’s path indicates that it could be a part of a 1960s era rocket.

“I’m pretty jazzed about this,” Paul Chodas, the manager of NASA’s Center for Near Earth Object Studies told The Associated Press . Chodas is one of the world’s leading experts on asteroids and has been on the lookout for returning space debris for decades, he told the AP.

Dec 3, 2019

Mesmerizing graph shows uncomfortably close encounters between space junk

As the number of satellites and space junk in orbit continues to increase, so do the chances of these human-made objects colliding with one another, potentially creating more debris that could threaten other healthy spacecraft. Now, a new tool shows just how crowded Earth orbit is by tracking space objects through their close calls every couple of seconds.

Called the “Conjunction Streaming Service Demo ,” the graph tool illustrates in real time the sheer number of space objects — out of an assortment of 1,500 items in low Earth orbit — that get uncomfortably close to one another in a period of 20 minutes. While the X-axis keeps track of the time, the Y-axis shows the short distance between two approaching space objects, ranging from five kilometers to the dreaded zero kilometers. On the graph is a series of arcs demonstrating when two pieces of debris rapidly move toward one another, make their closest approach, and then speed away.

Aug 8, 2019

More than 50 pieces of debris remain in space after India destroyed its own satellite in March

More than four months after India destroyed one of its own satellites in space, dozens of pieces of debris from the cataclysmic event still circulate in orbit, posing a small but potential threat to other functioning spacecraft that might pass close by. It’s possible that some of this debris could stay in orbit for a full year before falling back down to Earth, according to space trackers.

On March 27th, India fired a ground-based missile at a test satellite the country had launched in January, demonstrating the capability to take out a spacecraft in Earth orbit. Destroying an orbiting satellite is no easy feat, as these vehicles are relatively small and zoom above our planet at thousands of miles per hour. Hitting one directly with a missile takes a lot of precision, and it sends a message that a country can take out a perceived hostile satellite if necessary.

Feb 15, 2019

Watch a satellite spear space debris with a harpoon

A British satellite in orbit around Earth has successfully tested out a particularly pointed method for cleaning up space debris: piercing objects with a harpoon. In a new video taken from the spacecraft, the satellite shoots its onboard harpoon to puncture a target panel that’s about five feet away.

The test was part of the University of Surrey’s RemoveDEBRIS mission , which is designed to try out various ways of getting rid of debris in orbit. Space debris has become a growing concern for the aerospace community over the last few decades, as it makes the space environment more dangerous for future satellites. These objects typically consist of defunct spacecraft and other uncontrollable objects circling around Earth at more than 17,000 miles per hour. Getting hit by even a small piece of this debris could be enough to take out a functioning satellite, and the collision could create even more dangerous pieces of junk in the process.

Sep 19, 2018

Satellite uses giant net to practice capturing space junk

A British satellite, designed to test out ways to clean up debris in space, just successfully ensnared a simulated piece of junk in orbit using a big net. On Sunday, September 16th, the vehicle, known as the RemoveDEBRIS satellite , deployed its onboard net, which then captured a nearby target probe that the vehicle had released a few seconds earlier. The demonstration shows that a simple idea like a net may be an effective way to clean up all the material orbiting Earth.

The RemoveDEBRIS satellite is meant to try out numerous different methods for cleaning up space junk, which has become a growing problem ever since we started launching rockets into orbit. Thousands of dead, uncontrollable objects linger in orbit, including defunct satellites, spent launch vehicles, and other pieces of debris that have come off other spacecraft. And all of this junk is moving fast, at upwards of 17,000 miles per hour. The more debris we have in orbit, the higher the chance that these pieces might collide at break-neck speeds, creating even more debris that could pose a threat to other spacecraft.

Jun 28, 2017

Want to get rid of space trash? This gecko-inspired robot may do the trick

Geckos, some of nature’s most skilled climbers, may hold the key to cleaning up the enormous amount of debris clogging up the space around Earth. Scientists at NASA and Stanford have developed a prototype robot that can grip objects in space, the same way a gecko sticks to walls. Such a robot could be a critical tool for grabbing and relocating space trash, helping to clean up Earth orbit and make it much safer for space travel.

The robot capitalizes on the same concept that geckos use to climb. The animal’s feet aren’t actually sticky; they’re covered in thousands of microscopic hairs that, together, act like a flexible adhesive. To imitate gecko feet, the robot has special pads outfitted with thousands of tiny silicone rubber hairs, which are 10 times smaller than the hairs on your head. This allows the robot to use the same forces to “grab” simply by placing its pads on an object’s surface.

Feb 7, 2017

Japanese mission to clear up space junk ends in failure

Japan’s space agency, JAXA, has confirmed the failure of a mission intended to test technology for clearing up debris in space. The Kounotori 6 cargo transporter returned to Earth and burned up in the atmosphere on Monday, officials said. Though the experimental segment of the mission was a failure, Kounotori did successfully deliver supplies to the International Space Station after launching in December.

Kounotori 6 carried a 700-meter (2,296-foot) metal tether that was designed to slow down space junk and bring it back to Earth with electromagnetic force. JAXA says there was an issue with the mechanism to release the tether, however, and technicians were unable to fix it. It’s the second notable setback to hit JAXA in recent weeks after the agency failed to put its SS-520-4 rocket into orbit last month.

Dec 30, 2016

Jesse Emspak

How can humans clean up our space junk?

Humans filled waterways, landfills, and streets with trash, so it’s no surprise the same thing happened in Earth’s orbital neighborhood. Now our species will finally take a crack at cleaning up.   

Some missions focus on dead satellites, aiming to catch them with robotic arms, spear them with harpoons, or slow them with sails or tethers. Others aim for smaller pieces with lasers or stick to them with adhesive. It’s all an effort to keeping low-Earth orbit, the region up to 1,200 miles from the surface, usable. “Keeping all this litter in space, it’s like litter on the floor,” said Jason Forshaw a research fellow at the University of Surrey. “It’s becoming more of a risk.”  

May 12, 2016

Lizzie Plaugic

This is what happens when a tiny piece of flying space debris hits the ISS

As it tumbles through space, the International Space Station is often hit with orbital junk, usually tiny fragments from satellites and lost equipment. Recently, astronaut Tim Peake shared a photo (above) from inside the ISS's Cupola module documenting what kind of damage this debris can do to the satellite. The European Space Agency says the piece of debris that caused this particular chip was "possibly a paint flake or small metal fragment no bigger than a few thousandths of a millimeter across."

It's pretty unnerving that something so small could cause such a significant crack, but the ISS is orbiting Earth at 17,150 miles per hour. The Cupola's massive 80 cm windows are made of fused silica and borosilicate glass that can help it withstand the force of this space junk — to an extent. An impact like the one above poses no real threat to the ISS, according to the ESA, but debris up to 1 cm could cause critical damage while anything larger than 10 cm could "shatter a satellite or spacecraft into pieces."

China's Rocket Debris May Stay In Orbit For Decades, Experts Warn

Despite china's assurances on debris mitigation, experts worry about the growing risk from such incidents..

China's Long March 6A rocket broke apart on August 6, creating nearly 300 debris pieces.

After accomplishing a noteworthy milestone of launching 18 Qianfan satellites, China's Long March 6A rocket broke apart on August 6, producing almost 300 pieces of trackable debris in low Earth orbit.

The first wave of these satellites was supposed to form China's "own version of Elon Musk's Starlink," the Qianfan ("Thousand Sails") broadband network. The rocket was launched from the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre, located in the Shanxi Province of North China.

A report by The Wall Street Journal states that the breakup of the rocket generated a new concern over Beijing's attitude towards space junk.

Also Read | China Rocket Ends Up As 300-Piece Space Junk After Satellite Constellation Launch The report quoted LeoLabs, a US space-tracking firm, as saying the event might create at least 700 fragments floating some 500 miles above earth, making it one of the largest rocket breakups in history. Starlink said the debris didn't pose significant immediate risks to its fleet, but the fragments are “likely to remain in space for decades due to the incident occurring at a high altitude."

#USSPACECOM statement on the break-up of a Chinese Long March 6A rocket: pic.twitter.com/Kf5cz0iZky — U.S. Space Command (@US_SpaceCom) August 8, 2024

China and other countries are pressing ahead with plans to increase rocket launches, raising risks for humans and satellites in orbit. Yet there is little global policing of unsustainable practices.

“Who can enforce anything in space? It's a bit like the Wild West at times," Quentin Parker, director of the Laboratory for Space Research at the University of Hong Kong, told WSJ.

Darren McKnight, senior technical fellow at LeoLabs, said China's recent record on generating debris related to Long March 6 launches was worrisome. “I hope it's a wake-up call for them, and they'll be part of the international dialogue," he said.

Promoted Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Lin Jian, said last week that China “attaches great importance to space debris mitigation" and “has taken active efforts to fulfill relevant international obligations." Without giving details, he said China took necessary measures after the recent rocket breakup.

It also said in the report that the Chinese activities in space are pointing toward a worrisome tendency in the direction of space junk. In 2022, a rocket stage from China had an uncontrolled re-entry into the Sulu Sea, wherein NASA criticised it for less-than-adequate data provision. Major pieces of junk have been created by Chinese rocket launches, including Long March 6A missions, which are notorious for their bad history. While other countries did better, Chinese behavior was largely responsible for space debris that affects low-Earth orbit environments.

Track Budget 2023 and get Latest News Live on NDTV.com.

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world .

India Elections | Read Latest News on Lok Sabha Elections 2024 Live on NDTV.com . Get Election Schedule , information on candidates, in-depth ground reports and more - #ElectionsWithNDTV

Watch Live News: