Does all orbiting space debris eventually fall and why?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jonathan212
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fall Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the fate of orbiting space debris and the mechanisms that contribute to its eventual re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. Participants explore the role of atmospheric drag at various altitudes and the implications for different types of debris, including those in low Earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that there are approximately 500,000 pieces of debris in orbit, questioning whether all will eventually fall back to Earth.
  • Atmospheric drag is identified as the primary cause of orbital decay, with a belief that even minimal atmospheric presence at low Earth orbit can lead to significant drag over time.
  • One participant provides a table estimating the lifetimes of satellites at various altitudes, suggesting that debris at 900 km may remain in orbit for up to 1000 years, raising the question of whether this duration can be considered "forever."
  • Another participant discusses the comparison of atmospheric density at different altitudes, referencing archived NASA data and suggesting that the density at 900 km is comparable to the best artificial vacuums on Earth.
  • There is a mention of the interstellar medium and vacuum conditions at the Large Hadron Collider, indicating that achieving a vacuum better than that found in low Earth orbit is challenging.
  • Concerns are raised about geosynchronous satellites, with some participants arguing that they are unlikely to experience significant drag and thus are not at risk of falling.
  • Some participants propose potential methods for actively removing space debris, though they express skepticism about the feasibility and cost of such schemes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the longevity of space debris in various orbits, particularly regarding the fate of geosynchronous satellites. There is no consensus on whether all debris will eventually fall to Earth or the effectiveness of proposed debris removal strategies.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various estimates and models regarding atmospheric density and drag, but the discussion includes uncertainties about the accuracy of these figures and their implications for debris longevity.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in orbital mechanics, space debris management, and the environmental impact of human activities in space may find this discussion relevant.

Jonathan212
Messages
198
Reaction score
4
Just read somewhere that we have left some 500,000 pieces of debris orbiting around earth. Some probably are near enough to touch a little atmosphere so it is reasonable to expect they will fall eventually. But what about the ones a little further? Will they never return to earth?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The main cause of the orbital decay is atmospheric drag. Even the tiny bit of atmosphere in low Earth orbit, which I believe is better than any vacuum we can produce on Earth [I'm sure somebody will ding me on that; meanwhile I'll try to track down some numbers for comparison] is enough to cause significant drag at orbital speeds.

So the lifetime increases with altitude as the atmospheric density decreases. I found one estimate of lifetimes here:
https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm

##\begin{array}{|l|l|}
\hline \text{Satellite Altitude} & \text{Lifetime} \\
\hline \text{200 km} & \text{ 1 day} \\
\hline \text{300 km} & \text{ 1 month } \\
\hline \text{400 km} & \text{ 1 year } \\
\hline \text{500 km } & \text{ 10 years } \\
\hline \text{700 km } & \text{100 years } \\
\hline \text{900 km } & \text{1000 years } \\
\hline
\end{array}##

Is 1000 years long enough to consider "forever"? Notice that we're only at 900 km in this table, and geosynchronous altitude is 36000 km, so I think it's safe to say that geosynchronous satellites are not in danger of falling.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, Jonathan212 and Klystron
Trying to answer the question I raised above (how does "vacuum" in orbit compare to "vacuum" on earth?) led me first to this page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060513193723/http://modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/atmos/jacchia.html

That's an archived version of the official NASA atmosphere model that was used for shuttle missions. Didn't find any data though.
Here's another paper, dated 1982, that has some charts. https://spaceweather.usu.edu/files/chapters_1_3.pdf
According to Figure 3, p. 20, the mass density at 300 km is ##10^{-10}## to ##10^{-11}## kg/m##^3## while at 900 km it's ##10^{-13}## to ##10^{-15}## kg/m##^3##

The best artificial vacuum on this chart appears to be the Molecular Beam Epitaxy at ##10^5## to ##10^7## molecules per cm##^3##. Using 29 gm as the average molecular weight of air I get ##10^5## molecules = about ##5 \times 10^{-15}## kg/m##^3## so actually the very best vacuums these days are comparable to the 900 km atmosphere. (If I did the calculation right). Pretty good.
 
at 900 km it's 10^-13 to 10^-15 kg/m3

The Avogadro number comes to mind. As in, how many molecules per m3 at moon distance.
 
RPinPA said:
Even the tiny bit of atmosphere in low Earth orbit, which I believe is better than any vacuum we can produce on Earth [I'm sure somebody will ding me on that;
Well, if you insist. :wink:

It looks like instellar medium is about 10-10mbar and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN betters it by a factor of ten at 10-11mbar. But they work REALLY hard at it!

https://home.cern/science/engineering/vacuum-empty-interstellar-space
 
RPinPA said:
Notice that we're only at 900 km in this table, and geosynchronous altitude is 36000 km, so I think it's safe to say that geosynchronous satellites are not in danger of falling.
Plus the fact that I don’t think geosynchronous satellites would experience any overal “drag” from what little atmosphere they encounter.

There are, of course, some schemes in development to bring down space junk in a controlled way. Every one of those that I’ve seen looks enormously expensive, complicated, and likely to fail. I’ve always thought that the best approach would be to simply give “atmospheric drag” a helping hand. Put a small pocket of atmosphere in the satellite’s path, and make it lose some orbital velocity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K