Posted on 08/18/2026 5:00:51 AM PDT by MtnClimber
There is only so much capacity in space for objects; a cleanup is critical and overdue.
Satellites bring to mind images of shiny, angular objects orbiting Earth at tremendous speed through the boundless emptiness of space. Yet the orbits are no longer empty. Besides traffic, they are teeming with debris from spacecraft breaking up because of age, explosions, or collisions.
Orbital debris has doubled over the past decade. As of 2026, about 1.2 million objects measuring 1–10 cm are in orbit. Traveling at speeds of 7–8 km per second—10 times that of a bullet and 4–5 times that of the fastest planes—these objects can disable or destroy spacecraft. Without debris management, this growing danger to expensive space projects remains unchecked.
Two companies—ClearSpace and Astroscale—have approached the U.K. Space Agency to demonstrate active debris removal (ADR). ClearSpace has conducted two ADR missions for the agency. Last year, Astroscale received a U.S. patent for its 2021 filing for a cleanup system. Both companies are competing for a contract to remove two defunct British satellites from orbit.
But such nascent efforts are meager. They will not reach meaningful scale unless a binding international legal framework with clear protocols, impartial, well-coordinated monitoring, and enforceable liabilities is established. The current regime is wholly inadequate.
To understand how more than a million man-made fragments came to orbit Earth, consider the number of satellites, the stresses they endure, and the high probability of collisions. Space warfare, a possibility, may add to the problem; but even discounting that, we are creating more debris than we can handle.
Of the four major gravitational orbits, the two most populated are the Low Earth Orbit (LEO), 60–2,000 km above Earth, where satellites complete an orbit in 90–120 minutes; and the Geosynchronous or Geostationary Orbit (GEO), roughly 35,800 km above the Equator
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Like wipe it with a cloth?
These objects are traveling in the same orbits and in the same direction as new launches. In the final analysis, speed of them is relative zero.
But how do you safely get through the LEO junk to go to Mars?
Same way you avoid the bulk of the Van Allen belts: Go out through the doughnut hole.
Maybe the Nasa wizards and Musk and his gang of geniuses can come up with a way to divert the space junk’s path to rain down on Iran.
I would think that if they could get this junk in a low orbit, it would easily burn up going through the atmosphere. For some reason, they apparently can’t get it into that position. Am I correct on this?
High Earth Orbit satellites are typically moved to a higher “Graveyard” orbit when they are decommissioned to reduce the possibility of colliding with another satellite.
The Low Earth Orbit satellites have a small amount of drag from the outer molecules in the atmosphere. They will eventually slow down and burn up on reentry.
“ They will not reach meaningful scale unless a binding international legal framework with clear protocols, impartial, well-coordinated monitoring, and enforceable liabilities is established.”
Yeah. That’s the ticket. Get a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats involved to reach clear protocols and impartial liabilities.
EC
I say we send up a bunch of kids w/bb guns to nudge targets into lower orbit so they fall a burn up.
Yes. There are millions on small objects, all requiring some sort of deceleration. How does on even locate small objects, let alone maneuver to them? If you try to speed up to meet with them, you end up in a higher orbit. When you attempt to slow down, you orbit below them. Each and every "meetup" has to carefully planned and started in a small "launch window" in time.
It is a really bad problem.
This deals with the physical debris, but the chemical ‘debris’ and reactions are far more damaging to the atmosphere. The video below deals with the specific chemical compounds the interactions with the atmosphere - a little - no problem, but a lot - big problems.
Elon Musk’s Million AI Satellite Plan is WAY more dangerous than you think!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDjXAKuOlfE
This can’t be done for the “junk”, like Hasselbald cameras, BIC pens, fragments of shrouds, and so on. I think a great deal of that junk does not include thrusters or control equipment.
What does Elon understand that the rest of us do not see?
If you are in a circular orbit at one altitude and do a motor burn to speed up, it will put you into an elliptical orbit. To go from a circular orbit at one altitude to a circular orbit at a higher altitude it takes at least two motor burns in what is called a transfer orbital maneuver. Two motor burns of exactly the right amount of thrust, in exactly the right direction and at exactly the right time. Going around collecting space junk would be a hugely complex and expensive operation.
Mel Brooks had the solution decades sgo.
Exactly
Yes, indeed! Orbital maneuvering is a mess and collecting little pieces of junk would be a monumental task. I can’t think of any economical way to do this. This problem is a bit above my pay grade and outside of my silo as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.