Granted, not all of this is aluminium but I can imagine there is more metal raining down than all man made satellites combined.
As to space junk which is matter floating on specific orbits around Earth, it does not matter much what it is composed of. If they hit each other at multiple kilometers per second it doesn't matter if it is made of wood, paper or steel. The result is from kinetic energy being released, not the composition of the bodies.
I think the goal should be to make less satellites, smaller ones and maybe also built in a way that would make them less prone shattering into multiple small parts if hit.
Less satellites -- satellites should be shared. We shouldn't be in a position where every company that decides to send thousands of satellites can do so at will. I think the number of satellites at various orbits should be limited and controlled the same way the electromagnetic spectrum is being controlled for common good. For this reason we should think how we can make as many possible uses with small amount of satellites and this I think should include some sharing schemes (the same way we share EM spectrum).
Smaller == less cross section for collisions, less matter spread in case it collides.
Less prone to shattering == further prevents or slows down any chain reactions from part of one satellites hitting another satellites.
One of the 'atmospheric' descriptions in The Expanse that I have loved is the use of antispalling coatings on the interiors of ships.
Micrometeoroids are a fact of space travel, and in this universe, so are kinetic weapons. so the authors imagined/researched a material meant to resist the tendency of the ship's materials to become secondary projectiles ricocheting through the ship turning everyone and everything into swiss cheese.
I think they may be defunct now, but there was a company called Tethers, Inc who had in their toolbox making 'cables' that look more like fishing nets. The idea being to reduce the likelihood of a single strike damaging multiple structural members at once.
I don't know what or if we can do for satellites that is in this direction. You can make the satellites tiny but you still need solar collectors.
My brow raised when you said the share word. I just don’t see it happening because people are greedy. And then the minute some small country decides it wants to enter the space will they be allowed? How will space be allocated to players late in the game is what I am asking?
Space is limited and we share it whether we like it or not.
In case of physical landmass we have borders.
But in case of seas we have international treaties that describe sphere of influence of each country and what they are and are not allowed to do depending on some very arbitrary rules.
If you think about it, most of Earth surface is actually shared between countries, ie. there is not single country having exclusive access over it.
In case of electromagnetic spectrum we have other international treaties where countries agreed on how to share it so that they don't step on each other.
I don't understand why you don't like the word "share" since we are already sharing so much.
And what about countries such as Iran? Somehow I prefer a world with lots of space junk over a world in which the US effectively controls who gets access to space.
I honestly can't imagine an international organization that is fair in the least in allocation of space trajectories. See the UN, WTO, WHO, the Worldbank... No thanks.
It is a shame that geopolitically insightful comments are downvoted. Politics and technology are deeply intertwined. Perhaps China and Russia passively protect Iran's space interests.
Sharing of satellites does happen in some senses already. These tend to be large satellites with significant power/data resources that can afford to host an extra payload.
2. The US military uses bandwidth of commercial communications satellites. Note, the article is actually about how they can't do it very well and want to get better so I will admit this is a bit contradictory to my point. https://spacenews.com/to-predict-the-future-of-military-sate...
I just don’t see it happening because people are greedy.
People aren't uniformly greedy though. Some are 'I win when you lose' (maybe 30%), some are 'win win' entrepreneur types (15-20%), a similar proportion are 'insurance buyers', and some are natural volunteers. Perhaps the solution is to develop strategies that yield modest but reliable reward for the largest number, while frustrating the greedy.
There is much more natural matter entering our atmosphere by way of dust and meteorites. This one says about 40 thousand tonnes each year:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astronomy-qu...
Granted, not all of this is aluminium but I can imagine there is more metal raining down than all man made satellites combined.
As to space junk which is matter floating on specific orbits around Earth, it does not matter much what it is composed of. If they hit each other at multiple kilometers per second it doesn't matter if it is made of wood, paper or steel. The result is from kinetic energy being released, not the composition of the bodies.
I think the goal should be to make less satellites, smaller ones and maybe also built in a way that would make them less prone shattering into multiple small parts if hit.
Less satellites -- satellites should be shared. We shouldn't be in a position where every company that decides to send thousands of satellites can do so at will. I think the number of satellites at various orbits should be limited and controlled the same way the electromagnetic spectrum is being controlled for common good. For this reason we should think how we can make as many possible uses with small amount of satellites and this I think should include some sharing schemes (the same way we share EM spectrum).
Smaller == less cross section for collisions, less matter spread in case it collides.
Less prone to shattering == further prevents or slows down any chain reactions from part of one satellites hitting another satellites.