Satellite Crowding

[Matthias]

I have heard many people now try to push the agenda of cleaning up space, which is not only a very challenging and expensive venture, but doesn't seem so important. I know there is some crowding up there, but in all honesty, is there much to worry about? The amount of space at that distance from the planet is immense, and it will clear out as old satellites slowly fall in decaying orbits, and they will burn up harmlessly in our atmosphere, making room for more new satellites.

Is this really so much of a concern? In an emergency, the Americans could just shoot them down with there nifty anti-satellite devices. Do we really have anything to worry about?

[kidjan]

I have heard many people now try to push the agenda of cleaning up space, which is not only a very challenging and expensive venture, but doesn't seem so important. I know there is some crowding up there, but in all honesty, is there much to worry about?

I'd say yes, there's considerable issues with both manned and unmanned satellites being struck by space debris. And considering how much it costs to put a satellite into space, I think it's potentially a very serious issue.

And I think you should probably read the wiki article in full; I think the issue is more complicated than you might think.

[Louis_B]

Ditto. I think there is a considerable problem with space debris. A loose bolt travelling at 20,000 MPH could easily decompress a manned craft and kill people. Not only that, but there are literally thousands of pieces of high-velocity space junk out there that will not necessarily fall into a decaying orbit anytime soon. Given the prohibative cost of space missions that are already inherently dangerous, there is a huge financial burden to account for if something goes wrong. Blowing up old sattelites might be good fun, but will only compound the problem in my view.