FAA Proposal: Don't leave your booster in low Earth orbit

[.Scott]

TL;DR Summary

An FAA notice of proposed rule-making provides 5 options for the disposal of the commercial rocket upper stages.

For all of you with orbital rocket systems:

https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-proposes-rule-to-limit-commercial-space-vehicles-debris/

The options are:
1) Controlled reentry;
2) Boosting to an uncongested graveyard orbit;
3) Deorbit by boosting it to escape velocity;
4) Retrieving it within 5 years; and
5) Relying on natural decay if that will bring it down within 25 years.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Interesting. I predict lawsuits.

• The constitutional authority appears to be the power to "regulate interstate commerce".
• The government exempts its own flights from this regulation.

I do not predict who will win these lawsuits, just that there will be some.

 

[Bystander]

just that there will be some.

Some?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, some. You need to show "standing" to sue - show that you have or will be harmed by the action, not just that you think it is a bad idea. (And it may even be a good idea) How many entities are in that category? Four? Ten?

Also, there are more possible outcomes than just yes or no. For example "Federal government, you can impose these restrictions but not exempt yourselves."

 

[.Scott]

Interesting. I predict lawsuits.

• The constitutional authority appears to be the power to "regulate interstate commerce".
• The government exempts its own flights from this regulation.

I do not predict who will win these lawsuits, just that there will be some.

Launches for the US government already follow these guidelines.
However, I believe this may be the first rule proposed by the FAA that is concerned with space traffic. It's not clear that that is within their "aviation" charter.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's not clear that that is within their "aviation" charter.

This is where it gets interesting. The relevant FAA office was formed by executive order. Someone will go back and look at all the Congressional actions in the past 39 years to determine the extent of Congressional action: as a rule, the more Congressional attention there is, the more a regulatory agency is allowed to do.

But where it really gets...um..interesting is that the office was originally going to be placed under Commerce, and then was moved to Transportation. So the federal government may fund itself trying to simultaneously argue that this is and is not commerce. This has wide-ranging implications, as much of what the federal government does is under the authority of "regulating interstate commerce".

 

[Flyboy]

Launches for the US government already follow these guidelines.
However, I believe this may be the first rule proposed by the FAA that is concerned with space traffic. It's not clear that that is within their "aviation" charter.

14 CFR Chapter III would argue that it is.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III

For the record, 14 CFR Chapter I covers aviation and as such is the most frequently encountered. Chapter II covers the interactions by the FAA with the DOT as a whole, if I'm reading it right. Chapter IV isn't present yet, and Chapter V covers NASA.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A lot of the litigation in Washingtom boils down to "who is responsible for what?" with different entities (agencies, states, whatever) arguing one position or another. Is a puddle of water a 'navigable waterway'? Until May, it was. Is a farmer growing food on his own land for his own use engaged in interstate commerce? Since 1942, he is. You can't count on the common meaning of words once the lawyers descend.

That said, I think that it's a good idea that anyone who puts something into space is responsible for it, including where and how it comes down. Vanguard 1 has been in space long enough to collect Social Security, for heaven's sake!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm wondering if there us a market for a private company to clean up the junk that's still in orbit. "You shoot it up, and we'll bring it down!" Among other things, it might develop some technologies.

 

[Flyboy]

I'm wondering if there us a market for a private company to clean up the junk that's still in orbit. "You shoot it up, and we'll bring it down!" Among other things, it might develop some technologies.

Where's the financial incentive? Spaceflight isn't cheap, so there's gotta be some serious money to be had from cleaning up orbital debris before it'll be a "market".

 

[Vanadium 50]

If AT&T wants a communications satellite up, they need to pay someone to launch it, and in this model, pay someone to take it down when they are done with it.

That's not the financial problem I am worried about. I am worried about the years between launch and removal. Companies can go broke in that time. It would probably have to be organized something like pensions.

 

[Flyboy]

Given the average service life of a GEO communications satellite is running ~15 years now, yeah, that's hard to ensure.

But the FAA is looking less at the satellite itself, and more the upper stage used to deliver the satellite to orbit. Which is a lot easier to manage in a short timeframe. From something as simple as leaving a propellant reserve and at least one extra start on the engine(s) to make a deorbit (or ejection) burn, to something like rendezvousing with the stage, literally spearing it with a grapple, and deploying a drag sail.

 

[phinds]

You can't count on the common meaning of words once the lawyers descend.

Boy howdy, its THAT ever true.

 

[Vanadium 50]

the upper stage used to deliver the satellite to orbit. Which is a lot easier to manage in a short timeframe

Maybe.

Asteroid J002E3 is most likely the 3rd stage of Apollo 12. That's been in space for more than 50 years.

It might be a 30m long rock, one supposes, but then one needs to understand why the spectral analysis indicates it has been painted.

 

[Tom.G]

It might be a 30m long rock, one supposes, but then one needs to understand why the spectral analysis indicates it has been painted.

The visiting Extra Terrestials didn't like the color so they redecorated?
(sorry)

 

[Flyboy]

Maybe.

Asteroid J002E3 is most likely the 3rd stage of Apollo 12. That's been in space for more than 50 years.

It might be a 30m long rock, one supposes, but then one needs to understand why the spectral analysis indicates it has been painted.

Yes, but that was ejected into a heliocentric orbit and doesn't pose a risk of orbital debris like it would if it had been left in geocentric orbit. It's in a safe location.

Leaving the upper stage of, say, a Falcon 9, on orbit after delivering a load of Starlink satellites is what they're looking at, not stuff outside the local neighborhood.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, that particular upper stage was intended to go elsewhere. Sometimes stuff doesn't end up where it should.

 

[mfb]

Typically launches to the Moon or beyond are not an issue. The chance that anything returns to Earth is very small, and even then it's unlikely to stay around for long.

Low Earth orbits up to ~600 km or so fall in the 25 year category. Deorbit burns are still a good idea but won't be required with this proposed rule.

Starlink satellites are all released in low orbits (~300 km) so the second stage would deorbit passively within months even if the deorbit burn fails for whatever reason.

OneWeb launches with Falcon 9 go to ~600 km and the satellites raise their orbit to 1200 km. That makes the deorbit burn of the upper stage easy, and passive deorbit within 25 years is a fallback option. Once they go to operational orbits the satellites won't deorbit passively on any reasonable timescale, however - failed satellites are an issue.

This rule is very interesting for launches that directly go to a higher low Earth orbit and launches to GTO where a deorbit burn is the only good option. That needs extra fuel (LEO or GTO) or the upper stage needs to survive longer to get to a good spot for the deorbit burn (GTO).