Talk:Space debris

This NASA graph of space debris over time probably needs to be in the article
This NASA graph of space debris over time probably needs to be in the article. Discuss. Concur or oppose? N2e (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the copyright of it?Integral Python click here to argue with me 15:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a NASA chart. Here's the [original in a NASA publication.


 * All the NASA stuff is pretty explicitly public domain, which is why Wikipedia spaceflight articles have so many NASA reports, graphs, videos, etc. in it. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree that an updated chart would be useful as most visuals in the article are quite dated. An updated version of the chart in the publication linked above here probably a more permanent source here NASA Orbital Debris Program Office quarterly report Jan 2020. I'm going to upload a copy of the chart and put it in. Phil (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Vanguard 1 age
The article on Vanguard 1 states that it will last only 240 years, original estimate 2000 years based on citation

The article on space debris states Vanguard 1 age estimate 240 years with a citation that states 2000 years, original 200 years.

I changed Vanguard 1 age to 2000 years based on the citation. Clearly there is a confusion with the sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.233.208.252 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a better reference and suggests that 240 year estimated lifetime is revised from previous 2000 years. The '2000 years' figure comes from this 10 year old NRL press release. Ohsin  09:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Space Junk Multiplying
Space Junk multiplies extremely rapidly. For example, a small wing nut comes off of a satellite. That wing nut goes into orbit. If it collides with a satellite in orbit, at 67,000 miles an hour, or 30 kilometers per second, that satellite will instantly become millions more pieces of space junk. If this keeps happening, no one will be able to see the stars in a very, very far away future.


 * Sounds like a nice PLANETES anime reference. Well, except for the fact it's the sorrow reality 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Starlink failure rate
The failure rate estimate for SpaceX Starlink satellites has some issues. It is not from a reliable source to begin with and the blog it is sourced from misrepresents its source going from an educated estimate by one scientist (not peer reviewed to any indication in the Business Insider article). The BI article here notes a potential 2.5% failure rate while the researcher also noted his estimated failure rate had originally been 3% was dropping noticeably as more v1.0 satellites were launched. The initial analysis included prototypes and the researcher is responsibly, very tentative about his findings. The blog not only rounds up the data to 2.5% to 3% but states that these failures "have been proven" rather than just being the educated estimated the researcher presents them as. I'm going to at least begin to remedy this by replacing the blog source with the underlying Business Insider article source I used which it links and tweak the wording slightly to be more accurate. I welcome any improvements on this. It certainly is a notable issue and deserves accurate but not sensationalized coverage. Phil (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Starlink section because it's not relevant to the article. Operational satellites, even if there are a great number of them, are not "space debris". Ergzay (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alarmist reporting in. Main issue with lotsa sattelas is, they can get rekt-- erm, sorry, but literally wrecked by the space debris, becoming more space debris. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since a lot of the Starlink satellites have already stopped working (and many more will soon enough, practically all of them in 5 years) and there is debris from all the launches, how is that not space debris and just operational satellites? Simanos (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Space Junk.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cleanspace One chasser.jpg

Starlink
As SpaceX thinks that lauching 12 000 distinct objects in orbit to provide a service that will probably be outdated in a decade or two is an excellent idea, there needs to be a section about it within the article. A real section, with pros, cons, estimates, because it could be the biggest pollution since the needle project. And of course, people who will try to remove this type of section should be banned. There is one in this page, and removing content from an encyclopaedia without having a debate BEFORE is just not acceptable. Whatever the "rank" you claim, you are just a person. Also, i dont believe that pursuit of knowledge is the real reason for the removal. Should we also ask the astronomers using long-exposure pictures what they think about Starlink? Please participate astronomers, before somebody tries tells us it's a side topic. I know we're on the anglo-saxon Wikipedia, where some people think space entrepreneurs are heroes. But i'd very much like to see if they can sabotage wikipedia's quality and range, by avoiding discussing this subject in-depth. Not even trying to edit the article here, just watching. I saw some very interesting stuff in politically-loaded articles, and i want to see if if my fears are justified or not. 77.131.39.197 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I personally think you have a point about the negative aspects of Starlink, it's outside the scope of "defunct human-made objects in space—principally in Earth orbit—which no longer serve a useful function." Schazjmd   (talk)  00:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Starlink addresses some of the criticisms of Starlink. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since a lot of the Starlink satellites have already stopped working (and many more will soon enough, practically all of them in 5 years) and the debris from all the launches, how is that outside the scope of defunct human-made objects in space? Simanos (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Environmental concerns / Environmental justice
Do the sections Environmental concerns and Orbital debris as a question of environmental justice belong here? The Point Nemo reference which made to sound like plastic pollution is caused by space debris actually says the opposite "The area is so far flung that the nearest humans are often those aboard the International Space Station. But even that hasn’t saved it from the scourge of microplastics"

Environmental concerns is entirely about launches not debris. Orbital debris as a question of environmental justice is about all objects in space not debris and then it goes off into a entirely different topic. Mtpaley (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

While I am here the "On Earth / Although most debris burns up" section also needs work as it refers to 3 different things.

In popular culture
Some comments on this section.


 * Until the End of the World - Initial plot is driven by a satellite that is predicted to crash releasing radioactive waste. A single satellite crashing to Earth is one thing but space debris is usually referring to within orbit issues.
 * Gravity - A impact between two satellites. Yes this is a good example of genuine space debris although not Kessler Syndrome which is a gradual process.
 * Love Death and Robots Helping Hand - Plot is directly initiated by space debris and a single random impact like this is a very plausuble incident.
 * Planetes - Sounds like the entire plot of this is about space debris.

Mtpaley (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)