How can you reduce the cost and environmental impact of space debris?

Awesome Michael! Developing longer duration use cycles for these satellites would also be an incredible leap forward. That doesn’t mean hardening them only to offset the overexposure to high energy particles but increasing their operability by decades. Equipping them with the tools to steer actively, knowing what the heck is up there and when it’s getting close, and yes, like we say in the high mountains, if you brought it in, pack it out.

Removing a piece of space debris does not necessarily require international cooperation if the debris is registered by the same county that provides the debris removal service. Fundamentally, if there is permission and consent between the debris owner and the service provider, removing debris can be quite straight forward from a legal, policy, and regulatory perspective.

Reducing the cost and environmental impact of space activities involves several strategies: Reusable Technology. Efficient Propulsion Systems. Miniaturization and Efficiency.Collaboration and Shared Resources. Green Propellants. Advanced Manufacturing Techniques. Solar Power Long-Term Planning. Space Debris Mitigation. Commercialization and Private Investment. Balancing technological advancements, international cooperation, and environmental consciousness is key to creating a more sustainable and cost-effective space exploration framework.

We should fly only spacecraft with fail-safe deorbit capability or provide "shepherd" satellites for multi-satellite orbits that can collect errant spacecraft and dispose them at end of constellation life. For existing debris, we should fly affordable debris removal spacecraft, e.g., like two-dimensional BraneCraft for 10-cm scale and smaller objects, or larger spacecraft to deorbit or corral old boosters. Finally, we need an international legal framework to enable space salvaging with established debris "recycling" orbits. Orbiting recycling centers should become useful in the coming decades as a source for metals, solar arrays, etc. as human colonization of LEO accelerates. Why deorbit when you can recycle?

As an Aviation and Space law LLM grad and former EPA Superfund attorney...an important step we can take is to get Congress to implement a Superfund trust fund for space debris mitigation research and development funded by launch user fees. We have to apply the "polluter pays" principle to the space environment in order to ensure that future generations retain access to space. Billionaire space barons and commercial launch companies need to go beyond mitigation of their own vehicles and share the burden of preserving the space environment for all, and the nation state signatories of the Outer Space Treaty owe a duty to their citizens and the global community to preserve space for the common heritage of all mankind.

Many countries have started developing their own SSA program. There is also an increased capability in the private market to provide such services. Currently, in the United States there is an effort to move SSA services from the military to a civil organization.

In the paragraph above I laid out the problems with small debris. They are hard to avoid because their orbital data are often not very good. Nevertheless a hit by them can be fatal. So to make avoidance happen, SST-Systems need do be able to monitor debris from 1-5cm diameter in LEO as good as “the big stuff”. We are not there-yet. And: lots of small satellites are not equipped with thrusters. So there are a lots of non-maneuverable active “debris”. To make this less annoying these systems should be equipped with highly reflective surfaces so at least the SST-systems can easily track them and provide accurate orbital data of these systems for other users. So collision avoidance is a measure but no solution to the problem underlying.

The IADC guideline is actually move debris 200 km up or down for GEO orbits. Recently, the FCC also implemented a new rule to re-enter debris within 5 years.

Alternatives are highly mission dependent. While it is good to look at alternatives from going into space, it would be like using a ship to get to Australia versus taking a plane. Some alternatives might not be economically viable or fulfill the need.

“Public stakeholders” is an oxymoron. The stakeholders are not the public. Few stakeholders can do much except provide funding and wring their hands. The degree of engagement is undefined, and broadcasting warnings that we cannot prove is not proper. The best way to minimize debris, is to control the number of launches. That can be achieved only through complete international collaboration. Then, who is in charge. Even more, how could that be enforced? The Treaty of Versailles prohibited German military aviation.

Well, installing small micro-Newtons magnetic thrusters on LEO and VLEO spacecraft could gradually de-orbit them after their useful life.

We cannot plan to deal with objects we cannot see. We could never see everything everywhere. More observations of some smaller things will overlook many more serious threats. There will always be threats, just as there will always be disease. Having “eradicated” polio does not mean that it is gone. There are still cases continuously. Not many, but as we grow complacent, it becomes a greater and greater threat. It is disingenuous to state that small fragments could destroy satellites. No experiment or theory proves this. We are ignorant of the mechanics of hyper velocity impact. We cannot achieve orbital speed in the laboratory. Analogy with the energy of a freight train” are specious. They are not freight trains.

"How can you reduce the cost & environmental impact of space debris?".... Make less of it. Easier said than done, perhaps, but if you continue building and using systems designed for disposal you will ALWAYS be increasing debris. However, if you build and use systems designed for REUSE, the size of your future waste pile will decrease. Yes: Designing for reuse costs more up-front, but if done wisely will cost less in the long-term. The alternative is where we are now; digging ourselves out of a waste-hole. "There always seems to be enough money to fix it when it's broken, but never enough to design it not to break in the first place." There's always money for what's important. There's always time for what's important. What's important?