Satellite Collision Avoidance Methods Questioned After Space Crash

Satellite Collision Avoidance Methods Questioned After Space Crash
This computer model depicts the new debris from the Iridium-Cosmos crash (in red) on top of the existing debris (in green) in orbit today. (Image credit: AGI.)

STRASBOURG,France ? The Feb. 10 collision of an operational commercial satellite and aspent Russian spacecraft, which has resulted in a decades-long pollution of a widelyused orbit, is raising questions about whether the company whose satellite wasdestroyed had done all it could to avoid the event, according to government andindustry officials.

It alsocasts scrutiny on the way the U.S. Air Force disseminates information itcollects on likelyorbital collisions, these experts said.

Severalofficials said the collision, which produced two clouds of debris that arerapidly spreading above and below the 790-kilometer-high point of impact, mightbe enough to force the world's spacefaring nations tojoin forces to create a spacetraffic management agency whose data would be available to all nations withspace-based assets.

Others wereless optimistic. The dramatic in-orbit collision of the operational Iridium 33satellite with the retired Russian Cosmos 2251 is the third event in two yearsdrawing attention to the orbital debris issue in low Earth orbit. A Chineseanti-satellite test destroyed a retired Chinese satellite and unleashedthousands of pieces of debris at nearly the same altitude in early 2007, andthe U.S. government sent a missile to destroy one of its own classifiedsatellites a year later, saying the satellite's imminent atmospheric re-entryposed a hazard to people.

"Arethese enough to dramatize the nature of the issues relating to space security?I'm not sure," said John M. Logsdon, chair in aerospace history at theU.S. National Air and Space Museumin Washington. "Maybe itwill only happen when we face a loss of life, if debris destroysthe International Space Station. Do we have to kill people to payattention? That seemed to be the case with the [U.S.space] shuttle."

The AirForce has neither the resources nor the political mandate to stand watch overall commercial satellites, and the collision illustrates "the need to makeinformation sharing more international," Carey told the conference Feb.18. "If we don't operate safely in space then we don't have assuredanything in space. We need a broader international engagement. We are activelyseeking opportunities to put a coherent plan together."

"Regardingthe sequence of events that led to the collision, we may never know exactlywhat happened since we had no heads-up that it was coming," DeCastro said. "Our team that monitors ourconstellation saw that the satellite was missing when it went missing. Wedidn't move the satellite because we didn't know we had reason to."

WhetherBoeing and Iridium take two-line-element data into account in flying theIridium constellation is unclear. Iridium's satellites were launched between1997 and 1999 and designed to last for just five years. All are thus well pasttheir planned service lives. Iridium officials have said in the past that theyand Boeing do their utmost to save fuel, and have had to use fuel on somesatellites to compensate for the loss of moment wheels, which provide satelliteattitude control.

"Theywould be reacting so often they wouldn't do much else," said Brian Weeden of the Secure World Foundation, which the week ofFeb. 16 proposed a global space traffic management system to the U.N. Committeeon the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Weeden said Feb.20 that each operator is free to take two-line-element information intoaccount, or not.

"Thereis no real industry standard for how to react to two-line data," Weeden said. "It comes down to each owner-operator'scost-benefit analysis." In addition to the use of fuel in performing anavoidance maneuver, a serious attempt to track threats for a constellation likeIridium would involve substantial spending on technical expertise, Weeden said.

Carey saidthat while the U.S. Air Force has compiled a catalog of objects being trackedin space, "we don't do conjunction analyses for all 18,000 objects in thecatalog. Our first priority is human spaceflight. The next is our nationalsecurity assets. Then you get to where you run out of opportunity and time todo conjunction analyses on all operating spacecraft. It would be a dauntingtask, and it's one we are not assigned to do."

Commercialsatellite operators may ask the Air Force to check the high-accuracy databaseto determine whether a given satellite faces an especially high probability ofcollision. Weeden said that in these cases, the AirForce takes the satellite operator's information and then performs a checkagainst the high-accuracy data before returning a higher-reliability threatanalysis.

  • New Video - Amateur Sleuth Spots Secret DSP-23 Satellite
  • Video - The Expanding Danger of Space Debris
  • Video - How the Iridium/Cosmos Satellite Collision Happened

 

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Charles Q. Choi
Contributing Writer

Charles Q. Choi is a contributing writer for Space.com and Live Science. He covers all things human origins and astronomy as well as physics, animals and general science topics. Charles has a Master of Arts degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Journalism and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of South Florida. Charles has visited every continent on Earth, drinking rancid yak butter tea in Lhasa, snorkeling with sea lions in the Galapagos and even climbing an iceberg in Antarctica. Visit him at http://www.sciwriter.us