Are we close to it? What can be done about it?
The term comes from the name of a retired NASA scientist, Donald J. Kessler, known for a paper he wrote in the 1970s, "Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt." It hypothesized that the amount of artificial debris in low earth orbit would in time reach a tipping point, creating a cascade effect where collisions cause smaller debris to float around, causing further collisions, ending with a sort of hollow and impassable sphere around the earth rendering further space usage and exploration impossible for generations.
NASA was impressed by his exposition of this threat, and Kessler had written himself into a promotion: he became the head of the Orbital Debris Program Office.
The term "Kessler syndrome" for this effect was first employed a short time later by a NORAD employee. John Gabbard. The work of Kessler and Gabbard was popularized in 1982 by Jim Shefter, a writer with Popular Science.
One common response is that such a situation will resolve itself, because such debris will have unstable orbits and will fall to earth, or burn up through atmospheric friction on the way down. Unfortunately, everybody who has looked at it with some care agree that that could take centuries once the belt has formed.
Is it forming? In June 2024, a Russian satellite broke up into more than 100 pieces. This and various near-collisions have stimulated discussion of whether the syndrome is close at hand.
In the near future, NASA may set about shooting down decommissioned satellites and chunks of debris with ground-based lasers, in order to force them out of orbit and into the earth's atmosphere. A Japanese company is working on the same thing.
God's speed to them both.
Side note: The comedy sci-fi movie "Mars Attacks" had a character called "Donald Kessler," a science advisor who gave the President (Jack Nicholson) what turns out to be terrible advice. That Kessler is played by Pierce Brosnan. None of that has anything to do with the Kessler Syndrome, but it does justify the above graphic.
Comments
Post a Comment