A

Seminar Report
On
KESSLER SYNDROME
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement
For the award of the
Degree of
Bachelor of Technology
In
Mechanical Engineering

Submitted By: Under the supervision of:

Candidate's Name Name_of_Seminar_Guide

(xx/xxx) Designation
(VIII Semester) Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
UTD, RTU Kota

Department of Mechanical Engineering

RAJASTHAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, KOTA
Jun 2021
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. name of Candidate, student of B.Tech (Mechanical
Engineering) VIIIth Semester has submitted his seminar entitled “Title of Seminar”
under my guidance.

Seminar_Guide

Designation

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Pankaj Sharma for providing his invaluable
guidance, comments and suggestions throughout the course. I am indebted to him for constantly
motivating me to work harder, helping me throughout the seminar.

Further, I am obliged to Mr. Anshul Khandelwal and UG Coordinator Dr. Brijesh Tripathi for
constantly supporting and guiding me throughout the semester. I would like to thank Mr. Surendra
Godara, Mr. K S Bhati, Mr. Anshul Bansal, Mr. Mohammad Shahid and Mr. Sanjay Kumar
Choudhary for their guidance and suggestions regarding seminar topic and presentation.

I extend this acknowledgement to my batch mates and Department of Mechanical Engineering for
constantly supporting me and providing me their invaluable suggestion. I am extremely thankful
to Professor Sanjeev Mishra, HOD (Department of Mechanical Engineering) for constantly
motivating me regarding career. I thank my parents and family for always appreciating me efforts
and keep inspiring me to perform better. Finally, I am thankful to the Almighty God who gives me
the opportunity to lead on this earth and providing me strength in the toughest phase of my life.

Name of candidate
Roll no)

ii
 ABSTRACT
The “Kessler Syndrome” is an orbital debris term that has become popular outside the professional
orbital debris community without ever having a strict definition. The Kessler syndrome (also called
the Kessler effect collisional cascading or ablation cascade), proposed by the NASA scientist
Donald J. Kessler is a scenario in which the density of objects in low earth orbit (LEO) is high
enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision generates space
debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions. This effect comes into major consideration
in 1978 when Donald J. Kessler discussed this with his colleague John Gabbard who worked for
NORAD.

The Kessler syndrome is especially insidious because of the domino effect and feedback runaway
wherein impacts between objects of sizable mass spall off debris from the force of collision. The
shrapnel can then hit other objects, producing even more space debris: if a large enough collision
or explosion were to occur, such as between a space station and a defunct satellite, or as the result
of hostile actions in space, then the resulting debris cascade could make prospects for long-term
viability of satellites in low earth orbit extremely low.

Space debris (also known as space junk) is a term for the mass of defunct human-made objects in
Earth orbit, such as old satellites and spent rocket stages. It includes the fragments from their
disintegration, erosion and collisions. The Kessler syndrome, a runaway chain reaction of
collisions exponentially increasing the amount of debris, has been hypothesized to ensue beyond
a critical density. This could affect useful polar-orbiting bands, increases the cost of protection for
spacecraft missions and could destroy live satellites. Currently in space industry, one of the great
discussion lies over the disintegration of satellites into space debris as the effects of this were
clearly observed in 2009.

Every satellite, space probe, and manned mission has the potential to produce space debris. A
cascading Kessler syndrome becomes more likely as satellites in orbit increase in number. The
most commonly used orbits for both manned and unmanned space vehicles are low earth orbits,
which cover an altitude range low enough for residual air drag to be sufficient to help keep the
zone clear. Collisions that occur in this altitude range are also less of an issue because the directions
into which the fragments fly and/or their lower specific energy often result in orbits intersecting
with earth or having perigee below this altitude.

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: History of catalogued objects in orbit............................................................................................ 1

Figure 2: Distribution of the catalog population in the LEO region in January 2007 (blue), January 2008
(red), and officialy cataloged Fengyun-1C Fragments ................................................................................. 2
Figure 3: Responsible countries for producing space debris in terms of percentage .................................... 3
Figure 4: Effective no. of space debris in Earth orbit ................................................................................... 4
Figure 5: Spent upper stage of a Delta II rocket, photographed by the XSS 10 satellite .............................. 5
Figure 6: A drifting thermal blanket photographed in 1998 during STS-88 ................................................. 6
Figure 7: Breakdown of Debris..................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8: Saudi officials inspect a crashed PAM-D module in January 2001 .............................................. 8
Figure 9: Debris impacts on Mir's solar panels degraded their performance. ............................................... 9
Figure 10: The TIRA Facility ..................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 11: Gabbard Diagram ...................................................................................................................... 13

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE ............................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 History................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Characterization ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Higher Orbits .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Sources of Space Debris.................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1 Explosion of Satellites and Rocket bodies ................................................................................ 5
1.4.2 Lost Equipment .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.4.3 Dead Spacecraft.......................................................................................................................... 6
THREATS ................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 To Earth ............................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 To Spacecraft..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Kessler Syndrome ........................................................................................................................... 10
TRACKING AND MEASUREMENT OF SPACE DEBRIS................................................................ 11
3.1 The FGAN System .......................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Other Detectors ............................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Measurement Techniques............................................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Gabbard Diagram .................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.2 Kessler Syndrome .................................................................................................................... 14
KESSLER SYNDROME .......................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Historical Background by Donald J. Kessler ............................................................................... 15
4.2 Findings Since 1978......................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Significance of the “Kessler Syndrome” Today ........................................................................... 18
4.4 Significance in Fiction..................................................................................................................... 21
4.4.1 Review of Novel “Seveneves” .................................................................................................. 22
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 25
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 26

v
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Space debris can be defined as any man-made Earth orbiting or reentering object which is
nonfunctional with no reasonable expectation of assuming or resuming its intended function,
including fragments and parts thereof. It is a term for the mass of defunct human-made objects in
Earth orbit, such as old satellites which is of no use and spent rocket stages. It includes the
fragments produced from their disintegration, erosion and collisions.

1.1 History
There had been more than 4000 launches comprising 5000 satellites in orbit since the launch of
Sputnik on October 4, 1957. In total about 27000 larger objects – satellites, rocket upper stages,
mission-relate objects like telescope covers or bolts and fragments from in orbit explosions have
been observed by ground based radars and telescopes. About 18500 of these have burnt up in the
atmosphere, leaving about 8500 larger objects currently in Earth orbit [1].

Figure 1: History of catalogued objects in orbit [1]

1
As of 5 July 2016, the United States Strategic Command tracked a total of 17,852 artificial objects
in orbit above the Earth, including 1,419 operational satellites. However, these are just objects
large enough to be tracked. As of July 2013, more than 170 million debris smaller than 1 cm (0.4
in), about 670,000 debris 1–10 cm, and around 29,000 larger debris were estimated to be in orbit
[2].

1.2 Characterization
There are over 170 million pieces of debris smaller than 1 cm (0.39 in) as of July 2013. There are
approximately 670,000 pieces from one to ten cm. The current count of large debris (defined as 10
cm across or larger) is 29,000. The technical measurement cutoff is 0.03 mm (0.12 in) [3].

Figure 2: Distribution of the catalog population in the LEO region in January 2007 (blue), January 2008 (red), and
officialy cataloged Fengyun-1C Fragments [4]

In low Earth orbit, objects down to a size of about 10 cm are maintained in the catalogue. In the
geostationary orbit, objects have to have a size of about 1 m to enter into the catalogue. The
boundaries are not precisely determined. Whether an object can be detected depends on its material

2
properties as well as on the observing geometry (elevation over the horizon, Sun illumination,
number of observations, etc.).

Figure 3: Responsible countries for producing space debris in terms of percentage [2]

Orbits are further changed by perturbations (which in LEO include unevenness of the Earth's
gravitational field), and collisions can occur from any direction. For these reasons, the Kessler
syndrome applies mostly to the LEO region; impacts occur at up to 16 km/s (twice the orbital
speed) if head-on – the 2009 satellite collision occurred at 11.7 km/s, creating much spall in the
critical size range. These can cross other orbits and lead to a cascade effect. A large-enough
collision (e.g. between a space station and a defunct satellite) could make low Earth orbit
impassable [5].

1.3 Higher Orbits

At higher altitudes, where air drag is less significant, orbital decay takes longer. Slight atmospheric
drag, lunar perturbations, Earth's gravity perturbations, solar wind and solar radiation pressure can
gradually bring debris down to lower altitudes (where it decays), but at very high altitudes this
may take millennia.

Many communications satellites are in geostationary orbits (GEO), clustering over specific targets
and sharing the same orbital path. Although velocities are low between GEO objects, when a
satellite becomes derelict (such as Telstar 401) it assumes a geosynchronous orbit; its orbital

3
inclination increases about .8° and its speed increases about 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) per
year. Impact velocity peaks at about 1.5 km/s (0.93 mi/s).

Figure 4: Effective no. of space debris in Earth orbit [1]

Although the ITU now requires proof a satellite can be moved out of its orbital slot at the end of
its lifespan, studies suggest this is insufficient. Since GEO orbit is too distant to accurately measure
objects under 1 m (3 ft 3 in), the nature of the problem is not well known.

Despite efforts to reduce risk, spacecraft collisions have occurred. The European Space Agency
telecom satellite Olympus-1 was struck by a meteoroid on 11 August 1993 [1] and eventually
moved to a graveyard orbit. On 29 March 2006, the Russian Express-AM11 communications
satellite was struck by an unknown object and rendered inoperable [6].

4
1.4 Sources of Space Debris
Orbital debris is (nearly) forever, and threatens to render near-Earth space (under 1250 miles, or
2000 km altitude) unusable. The sources of this debris are normal launch operations, certain
operations in space, fragmentations as a result of explosions and collisions in space, firings of
satellite solid rocket motors, material ageing effects, and leaking thermal-control systems.

1.4.1 Explosion of Satellites and Rocket bodies

Fragmentation events occurring in space are assumed to have generated a population of objects
larger than 1 cm numbering on the order of 750 000. The sporadic flux from naturally occurring
meteoroids may only prevail over that from human- made debris objects near sizes of 0.1–1 mm.

The primary cause of in orbit explosions is related to residual fuel that remains in tanks or fuel
lines, or other remaining energy sources, that remain on board once a rocket stage or satellite has
been discarded in Earth orbit. In characterizing the problem of space debris, it was learned that
much debris was due to rocket upper stages (e.g. the Inertial Upper Stage) which end up in orbit,
and break up due to decomposition of unvented unburned fuel. However, a major known impact
event involved an (intact) Ariane booster.

On 11 March 2000 a Chinese Long March 4 CBERS-1 upper stage exploded in orbit, creating a
debris cloud. A Russian Briz-M booster stage exploded in orbit over South Australia on 19
February 2007. Launched on 28 February 2006 carrying an Arabsat-4A communications satellite,
it malfunctioned before it could use up its propellant [4].

Figure 5: Spent upper stage of a Delta II rocket, photographed by the XSS 10 satellite [5]

5
Over time, the harsh space environment reduces the mechanical integrity of external and internal
parts, leading to leaks and/or mixing of fuel components, which could trigger self- ignition. The
resulting explosion can destroy the object and spread its mass across numerous fragments with a
wide spectrum of masses and imparted velocities.

1.4.2 Lost Equipment

Sunita Williams of STS-116 lost a camera during an EVA. According to Edward Tufte's book
Envisioning Information, space debris includes a glove lost by astronaut Ed White on the first
American space-walk (EVA). A camera lost by Michael Collins near Gemini 10 and a thermal
blanket lost during STS88. During an STS-120 EVA to reinforce a torn solar panel a pair of pliers
was lost, and in an STS-126 EVA Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost a briefcase-sized tool bag
[6].

Figure 6: A drifting thermal blanket photographed in 1998 during STS-88 [6]

1.4.3 Dead Spacecraft

In 1958, the United States launched Vanguard I into a medium Earth orbit (MEO). As of October
2009, it is the oldest surviving man-made space object still in orbit.In a catalog of known launches
until July 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists listed 902 operational satellites from a known
population of 19,000 large objects and about 30,000 objects launched [5].

6
An example of additional dead satellite debris are the remains of the 1970s/80s Soviet RORSAT
naval surveillance satellite program. Even satellites which had been properly moved to a higher
orbit had an eight-percent probability of puncture and coolant release over a 50-year period. The
coolant freezes into droplets of solid sodium-potassium alloy, forming additional debris.

Figure 7: Breakdown of Debris [7]

Solid-rocket motors use aluminum as a catalyst (about 15% by mass) and when burning they emit
aluminum-oxide particles typically 1 to 10 microns in size. In addition, centimeter-sized objects
are formed by metallic aluminum melts, called ‘slag’. They typically amount to 1% of the
propellant mass and leave the motor with low velocities at the end of the burn. There is evidence
from ground-based radar measurements that 16 of a total of 31 nuclear reactors used by Russian
RORSATs (Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites) have lost their sodium-potassium (NaK)
coolant, following their reorbiting and subsequent core ejection in disposal orbits at between 700
and 950 km altitude. The size of the NaK droplets observed ranges from 6 mm to 4.5 cm. The NaK
population is assumed to consist of about 60 000 objects, with a total mass of about 50 kg [1].

7
CHAPTER 2
THREATS

Space junk is a threat to active satellites and spaceships. The Earth's orbit may even become
impassable as the risk of collision grows too high.

2.1 To Earth
The major concern with debris is that it might hit an operational spacecraft or a larger object such
as the International Space Station, with a whole variety of detrimental consequences. The average
collision velocity in LEO is greater than in the much higher circular (GEO) orbits and typically
ranges between 8 and 12 km/s. In a LEO collision between an operational spacecraft and a
catalogued object, it is likely that both would be destroyed and hence many more space-debris
fragments would be generated. If these fragments were large enough, they too could generate
additional debris through further collisions.

Although most debris burns up in the atmosphere, larger objects can reach the ground intact.
According to NASA, an average of one cataloged piece of debris has fallen back to Earth each day
for the past 50 years. Despite their size, there has been no significant property damage from the
debris [8].

Figure 8: Saudi officials inspect a crashed PAM-D module in January 2001 [7]

8
On 12 January 2001, a Star 48 Payload Assist Module (PAM-D) rocket upper stage re-entered the
atmosphere after a "catastrophic orbital decay", crashing in the Saudi Arabian desert. It was
identified as the upper-stage rocket for NAVSTAR 32, a GPS satellite launched in 1993 [9].

2.2 To Spacecraft
Although spacecraft are protected by Whipple shields, solar panels, which are exposed to the Sun,
wear from low-mass impacts. These produce a cloud of plasma which is an electrical risk to the
panels.

Impact wear was notable on Mir, the Soviet space station, since it remained in space for long
periods with its original module panels. Larger debris usually destroy a spacecraft. The earliest
suspected loss was of Kosmos 1275, which disappeared on 24 July 1981 (a month after launch).
Kosmos contained no volatile propellant, but a battery explosion is also a possible cause. Tracking
showed it broke up, into 300 new objects. Kosmos 1484 broke up in a similar manner on 18
October 1993 [8].

Figure 9: Debris impacts on Mir's solar panels degraded their performance [8]

9
The French Cerise reconnaissance satellite, has been hit by another catalogued object, being struck
in 1996 by a fragment from the third stage of an Ariane launcher that had exploded ten years
earlier. Evidence of the degrading nature of the space environment, however, is provided by the
increasing numbers of close encounters in space. Several times per week, the flight path of ESA’s
ERS-2 Earth observation satellite is carefully examined for potential close encounters or collisions
with catalogued objects. If the chance of a collision exceeds a certain tolerance, a collision
avoidance manoeuvre is carried out. ESA performed two such evasive manoeuvres with the ERS-
1 spacecraft in June 1997 and March 1998 [8]. The most recent collision-avoidance manoeuvre,
with the International Space Station (ISS), took place on 15 December 2001, when Space Shuttle
‘Endeavour’ increased the Station’s altitude by 1 km to avoid a collision with a Russian SL-8
upper stage launched in 1971 [9].

2.3 Kessler Syndrome

Although most manned space activity takes place at altitudes below 800 to 1,500 km (500 to 930
miles), a Kessler syndrome cascade in that region would rain down into lower altitudes and the
decay time scale is such that "the resulting [low Earth orbit] debris environment is likely to be too
hostile for future space use".

10
CHAPTER 3
TRACKING AND MEASUREMENT OF SPACE DEBRIS

NASA and other space agencies had setup their own tracking and measuring the movement of
space debris. Some of them are discussed below:

3.1 The FGAN System

The main subsystems of the FGAN Tracking and Imaging Radar (TIRA) are: a 34-m parabolic
antenna, a narrow-band mono-pulse L-band tracking radar, and a high resolution Ku-band imaging
radar. The sophisticated, fully computer-controlled, 34-m parabolic Cassegrain-feed antenna is
mounted on an elevation-over-azimuth pedestal. It is shielded from atmospheric influences by a
rigid 49 m-diameter radome [1].

Figure 10: The TIRA Facility [1]

The main space applications of TIRA are:

i. Searching for and tracking space objects (orbit determination)

ii. Characterization of the space-debris environment
iii. Validation of space-debris models
iv. Tracking re-entering (risk) objects

11
 v. Imaging space objects (verification of operational procedures, attitude determination,
emergency operations, damage and fragmentation analysis)
vi. Radar measurements of meteoroid streams.

3.2 Other Detectors

Radar and optical detectors such as lidar are the main tools for tracking space debris. Although
objects under 10 cm (4 in) have reduced orbital stability, debris as small as 1 cm can be tracked,
however determining orbits to allow reacquisition is difficult. Most debris remain unobserved. The
NASA Orbital Debris Observatory tracked space debris with a 3 m (10 ft.) liquid mirror transit
telescope. FM Radio waves can detect debris, after reflecting off them onto a receiver. Optical
tracking may be a useful early-warning system on spacecraft.

The U.S. Strategic Command keeps a catalog of known orbital objects, using ground-based radar
and telescopes, and a space-based telescope (originally to distinguish from hostile missiles). The
2009 edition listed about 19,000 objects [5]. Other data come from the ESA Space Debris
Telescope, TIRA, the Goldstone, Haystack, and EISCAT radars and the Cobra Dane phased array
radar, to be used in debris-environment models like the ESA Meteoroid and Space Debris
Terrestrial Environment Reference (MASTER) [1].

3.3 Measurement Techniques

Returned space hardware is a valuable source of information on the directional distribution and
composition of the (sub-millimeter) debris flux. The LDEF satellite deployed by mission STS-41-
C Challenger and retrieved by STS-32 Columbia spent 68 months in orbit to gather debris data.
The EURECA satellite, deployed by STS-46 Atlantis in 1992 and retrieved by STS-57 Endeavour
in 1993, was also used for debris study [8].

The solar arrays of Hubble were returned by missions STS-61 Endeavour and STS-109 Columbia,
and the impact craters studied by the ESA to validate its models. Materials returned from Mir were
also studied, notably the Mir Environmental Effects Payload (which also tested materials intended
for the ISS).

12
3.3.1 Gabbard Diagram
To improve tracking, NORAD employee John Gabbard kept a separate database. Studying the
explosions, Gabbard developed a technique for predicting the orbital paths of their products, and
Gabbard diagrams (or plots) are now widely used. These studies were used to improve the
modelling of orbital evolution and decay.

John Gabbard developed a diagram, named after him, that is very useful for illustrating the orbital
changes. A Gabbard diagram is a scatter plot of height versus period. The apogee and perigee of
each ejected fragment is shown as a point on the diagram. The resultant plot looks like two
asymmetrical boomerangs joined at their apices. An example is shown in figure:

A debris cloud resulting from a single event is studied with scatter plots known as Gabbard
diagrams, where the perigee and apogee of fragments are plotted with respect to their orbital
period. Gabbard diagrams of the early debris cloud prior to the effects of perturbations, if the data
were available, are reconstructed. They often include data on newly observed, as yet uncatalogued
fragments. Gabbard diagrams can provide important insights into the features of the fragmentation,
the direction and point of impact.

Figure 11: Gabbard Diagram [10]

13
3.3.2 Kessler Syndrome
When the NORAD database became publicly available during the 1970s, NASA scientist Donald
J. Kessler applied the technique developed for the asteroid-belt study to the database of known
objects. In 1978 Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais co-authored "Collision Frequency of Artificial
Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt", demonstrating that the process controlling asteroid
evolution would cause a similar collision process in LEO in decades rather than billions of years.
They concluded that by about 2000, space debris would outpace micrometeoroids as the primary
ablative risk to orbiting spacecraft [11].

At the time, it was widely thought that drag from the upper atmosphere would de-orbit debris faster
than it was created. However, Gabbard was aware that the number and type of objects in space
were under-represented in the NORAD data and was familiar with its behaviour. In an interview
shortly after the publication of Kessler's paper, Gabbard coined the term "Kessler syndrome" to
refer to the accumulation of debris; it became widely used after its appearance in a 1982 Popular
Science article, which won the Aviation Space Writers Association 1982 National Journalism
Award.

14
CHAPTER 4
KESSLER SYNDROME

The “Kessler Syndrome” is an orbital debris term that has become popular outside the professional
orbital debris community without ever having a strict definition. The purpose of this writing is to
clarify the intended definition, to put the implications into perspective after 30 years of research
by the international scientific community, and to discuss what it may mean to future space
operations.

4.1 Historical Background by Donald J. Kessler

As far as Donald J. Kessler was aware, the term originated with his colleague, John Gabbard, who
worked for NORAD. NORAD maintained a catalogue of man-made objects in orbit, but did not
maintain a breakup record of events in orbit. John unofficially kept a record of major satellite
breakup events, which later proved very useful in understanding the sources of smaller orbital
debris. John is known for his description of these events with a graph we now call a “Gabbard
Plot” [11].

When he met John in 1978, he had just published the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR)
paper, “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt”. This paper
predicted that around the year 2000 the population of catalogued debris in orbit around the Earth
would become so dense that catalogued objects would begin breaking up as a result of random
collisions with other catalogued objects and become an important source of future debris. These
finding were important for three reasons:

1. At the time, it was generally assumed that there were very few objects in orbit that were too
small to catalogue, although there was no definition as to what limiting size was in the catalogue.
The paper illustrated that even if this assumption were correct, future collisions between
catalogued objects would produce a large amount of small debris fragments. This small debris
population would be more hazardous to other spacecraft than the natural meteoroid environment
immediately after the first collision.

15
2. Each collision would also produce several hundred objects large enough to catalogue, increasing
the rate that future collision breakups would occur resulting in an exponential growth in the
collision rate and debris population.

3. The only way to prevent this exponential growth was to reduce the number of rocket bodies and
non-operational spacecraft left in orbit after their useful lifetime.

It was the second prediction that caught John Gabbard’s attention. While talking to a reporter
shortly after the publication of the JGR paper, John used the phrase “Kessler Syndrome” to
summarize his prediction of a future cascading of collisions in orbit. The reporter published the
phrase. Perhaps it was a 1982 Popular Science article that made the term more popular, since the
Aviation and Space Writers Association gave the author, Jim Schefter, the 1982 National
Journalism Award for the article. However, regardless of the source, the label stuck, becoming
part of the storyline in some science fiction, and a three-word summary describing orbital debris
issues [10].

However, not all who have used the phrase have referred to it in the context of its original meaning.
It was never intended to mean that the cascading would occur over a period of time as short as
days or months. Nor was it a prediction that the current environment was above some critical
threshold although the concept of a critical threshold was an important possibility that was studied
in detail more than 10 years later. The “Kessler Syndrome” was meant to describe the phenomenon
that random collisions between objects large enough to catalogue would produce a hazard to
spacecraft from small debris that is greater than the natural meteoroid environment. In addition,
because the random collision frequency is nonlinear with debris accumulation rates, the
phenomenon will eventually become the most important long-term source of debris, unless the
accumulation rate of larger, non-operational objects (e.g., non-operational payloads and upper
stage rocket bodies) in Earth orbit were significantly reduced. Based on past accumulation rates,
the 1978 publication predicted that random collision would become an important debris source
around the year 2000, with the rate of random collisions increasing rapidly after that, if the
accumulation rate were not reduced to near zero [7].

16
4.2 Findings Since 1978
Combined with the discovery that 42% of the catalogued objects were the results of only 19
explosions in orbit of U.S. upper stage rockets and that NORAD was not tracking “all manmade
objects” as generally believed, NASA took these findings and predictions seriously. Beginning in
October of 1979, Kessler was given funds to begin research for data to more accurately define the
current and future debris hazard, and understand techniques to limit the future growth in the debris
population. With these funds, they accomplished their objectives with a combination of modeling,
measurements that sampled the environment, ground tests to simulate space collisions, and
coordination with the space community to determine cost effective techniques to minimize future
growth of the debris population [11].

They sampled the small debris environment by developing and using ground telescopes and
powerful, shorter wavelength radars. They also analyzed recovered spacecraft surfaces for impacts
using scanning electronic microscopes, which allowed them to determine the chemistry of the
objects causing those impacts. Together with the Air Force, they conducted hypervelocity ground
simulation of collisions and examined ground explosion data to more accurately predict the amount
of small debris generated. They also developed much more elaborate computer models which they
used to test their assumptions and ground data against the data they obtained by sampling the
environment. They used these computer models to test the effectiveness of various techniques to
minimize future growth in the debris population. These efforts were led by a team of scientists in
what is now known as the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. Other international governmental
agencies participated in this research, forming an international organization now known as the
Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC). The following conclusions were
reached as a result of this research:

1. The hazard from the debris that was too small to catalogue had already exceeded the hazard
from the natural meteoroid environment. The sources of that debris included not only explosions,
but paint flecks from spacecraft surfaces, exhaust from solid rocket upper stages, and leaks of
coolant from nuclear reactors.

2. Better data and more accurate modeling by NASA and the international community support the
conclusion that the long-term threat to the environment is collision cascading, as predicted in 1978.

17
3. Modeling results supported by data from USAF tests, as well as by a number of independent
scientists, have concluded that the current debris environment is “unstable”, or above a critical
threshold, such that any attempt to achieve a growth-free small debris environment by eliminating
sources of past debris will likely fail because fragments from future collisions will be generated
faster than atmospheric drag will remove them.

4. Although the rate of growth in the catalogued population has been reduced as a result of new
operational procedures that minimize the possibility of explosions in orbits and leaving non-
operational upper stages and payload in orbit for periods longer than 25 years, the catalogued
population continues to increase, but at a lower rate than it was increasing prior to the 1978 paper
[11].

4.3 Significance of the “Kessler Syndrome” Today

On February 10, 2009 the Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 satellites collided with a velocity of ll.6
km/sec, at an altitude of 790 km. The collision was catastrophic, likely producing hundreds of
fragments large enough to catastrophically breakup other satellites, and tens of thousands of
fragments large enough to damage other satellites. This is the first clear example of what was
predicted in 1978. Although there have been three other random collisions between catalogued
objects since 1991, none of those were catastrophic [2].

Although all existing data and analysis support the major conclusions presented in the 1978 JGR
paper, there are minor differences. The most obvious is the difference between the predicted
growth rate in the catalogue population of 510 objects per year compared with the actual growth
rate, which was less. There were a number of conditions that contributed to the lower rate:

1. The success of the orbital debris program in establishing international agreements that reduced
the number of accidental explosions in orbit. These explosions had been a major source of
catalogued debris.

2. An abnormally high solar activity increased the upper atmospheric density and caused more
satellites to reenter.

18
3. The declining economy and eventual fall of the USSR significantly reduced the number of
Soviet launches. As a result of these conditions, the actual average growth rate over the last 50
years was about 300 objects per year. This rate would have been lower, had it not been for the
Chinese antisatellite test in 2007, which produced over 2000 fragments large enough to catalogue.
A rate of 300 objects per year is close to the lower assumed rate in the 1978 JGR paper. This
average growth rate would predict the first collision between catalogued objects to have occurred
around the year 2000, and it was assumed to be a catastrophic collision.

The lower growth rate of 320 objects per year in the 1978 paper predicted two collisions by 2009,
both catastrophic. Although the actual number of collisions is too few to be statistically
meaningful, they may indicate that the actual collision rate could be higher than predicted, but
fewer are catastrophic. This higher collision rate would be consistent with the uncertainty in
spacecraft area subject to collisions, as was noted in 1978. In 1991 and 2000 publications, the
collision area was shown to be about 2.5 times greater than adopted in 1978. The 2000 publication
also concluded that not all cataloged fragments were massive enough to cause a catastrophic
collision this would be especially true if the colliding fragment hit an antenna, stabilizer boom, or
solar panel, or if the target were the empty tank of an upper stage. The presence of antennae, solar
wings, and stabilizer booms were ignored in 1978, and obviously hitting one of these areas will
only transfer a fraction of the impact energy to the entire spacecraft structure, reducing the
likelihood of a catastrophic breakup. Also an impact into the empty fuel tank of an upper rocket
stage may not transfer all the impact energy to the rocket body structure again not causing a
catastrophic breakup. They may have been lucky that only one of the four collisions since 1991
was catastrophic or it may be that only one out of four of the collisions between catalogued objects
will be catastrophic. The 1978 prediction of collision frequency becomes more consistent with the
actual collision frequency by simply assuming that the area used in 1978 is the average catastrophic
collision area, which was the intent of the paper. However, a more accurate understanding of both
the non-catastrophic and catastrophic collision frequency is achieved by using data generated since
1978 in more accurate models currently used by the Orbital Debris Program Office [10].

Despite the absence of random catastrophic collisions, the predicted fluxes of smaller debris in
1990 and beyond in the JGR paper are not too different from what has been measured as a result
of the orbital debris program. Accidental explosions and a few intentional collisions almost

19
certainly contributed to the similarity and possibly some non-catastrophic collisions involving an
un-catalogued object also contributed. However, the major contributors were a number of small
debris sources that were discovered since 1978. Even though these sources have produced a debris
environment in the past that is about the same as predicted from collisions, past debris sources are
fundamentally different from future random collisions between catalogued objects. The past
sources produce debris at a rate that is proportional to the number of objects in orbit, while the
future frequency of collisions will produce debris at a rate that is proportional to the square of the
number of objects in orbit. For example, if one were to double the number of upper stages and
payloads in orbit, each having a probability that they would explode, then the rate that debris is
generated by explosions would also double. However the rate that debris is generated by collisions
between these objects would increase by a factor of four.

The 1978 prediction of a catastrophic collision between catalogued objects of 0.013 per year was
based on a catalogue containing 3866 objects; today, the catalogue contains about 13,000 objects,
or more than 3 times as many objects. This gives a collision rate that is more than 10 times what
it was just over 30 years ago, or 0.13 per year which is the same as one catastrophic collision
between cataloged objects every 8 years with the time between collisions rapidly becoming shorter
as the catalog continues to grow. The larger fragments from either explosions or collisions will
further accelerate the rate of collisions [10].

Most of the collisions in the 1978 paper were predicted to take place between 800 km and 1000
km altitude. That is even truer today. Not only is this region rapidly growing, certain altitudes
contain a high concentrations of satellites, and the inclinations of their orbits are near polar, both
conditions increasing the probability that they will collide, and do so with collision velocities that
average more than 10 km/sec.

We are entering a new era of debris control an era that will be dominated by a slowly increasing
number of random catastrophic collisions. These collisions will continue in the 800 km to 1000
km altitude regions, but will eventually spread to other regions. The control of future debris
requires, at a minimum, that we do not leave future payloads and rocket bodies in orbit after their
useful life and might require that we plan launches to return some objects already in orbit.

These control measures will significantly increase the cost of debris control measures; but if we
do not do them, we will increase the cost of future space activities even more. We might be tempted

20
to put increasing amounts of shielding on all spacecraft to protect them and increase their life, or
we might just accept shorter lifetimes for all spacecraft. However, neither option is acceptable:
More shielding not only increases cost, but it also increases both the frequency of catastrophic
collisions and the amount of debris generated when such a collision occurs. Accepting a shorter
lifetime also increases cost, because it means that satellites must be replaced more often with the
failed satellites again increasing the catastrophic collision rate and producing larger amounts of
debris [7].

Aggressive space activities without adequate safeguards could significantly shorten the time
between collisions and produce an intolerable hazard to future spacecraft. Some of the most
environmentally dangerous activities in space include large constellations such as those initially
proposed by the Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-1980s, large structures such as those
considered in the late-1970s for building solar power stations in Earth orbit, and antisatellite
warfare using systems tested by the USSR, the U.S., and China over the past 30 years. Such
aggressive activities could set up a situation where a single satellite failure could lead to cascading
failures of many satellites in a period of time much shorter than years.

As is true for many environmental problems, the control of the orbital debris environment may
initially be expensive, but failure to control leads to disaster in the long-term. Catastrophic
collisions between catalogued objects in low Earth orbit are now an important environmental issue
that will dominate the debris hazard to future spacecraft.

4.4 Significance in Fiction

i. Ken MacLeod's 1999 novel The Sky Road features an attempt to regain space-going
capability following a Kessler syndrome catastrophe well before the book starts.
ii. The plot of 1999 manga and 2003 anime Planetes revolves around a crew in charge of
disposal of debris to prevent further damage and destruction of spacecraft.
iii. The 2013 film Gravity features a Kessler syndrome catastrophe as the event that sets the
plot in motion [3].
iv. The plot of Neal Stephenson's 2015 novel Seveneves begins with the unexplained
explosion of the Moon into seven large pieces, the subsequent creation of a cloud of debris

21
 by Kessler syndrome collisions, and the eventual bombardment of Earth's surface by lunar
meteoroids.
v. The Wii U video game Devil's Third utilizes Kessler syndrome as a major plot-point. In
the game, both military and civilian satellites are destroyed by events similar to Kessler
syndrome and this leads to a militaristic struggle among the world's nations.

4.4.1 Review of Novel “Seveneves”

Stephenson’s best hook since Snow Crash masterfully sets the tone for the remainder of the novel.
There are many different ways in which a reader can imagine the moon blowing up—imagery of
the death star annihilating Alderaan comes to mind as the most culturally ubiquitous. But
Stephenson quickly establishes the hard-SciFi slant of the novel. There are no reworks, no loud
booms—the opening chapters read like historical fiction for what would actually happen if the
moon was fractured into (mostly) gravitationally bound chunks by some unknown force. Chiefly,
people would freak out a little bit [12].

In some sense, this is naively true. A common physics brain teaser is to ask what would happen if
our sun were replaced by a black hole of equal mass. Barring the joke answer of “everything would
probably freeze to death”, nothing much would happen. The black-sun would still be in the same
place, with the same mass, thus the orbit of the earth would remain unchanged. As it’s established
in the early pages of Seveneves, whatever unknown force which fractured the moon didn’t send it
on a direct crash-course with the earth - it just imparted enough energy to fracture it into a handful
of pieces - pieces which remain in a wildly chaotic orbit around each other, but still somewhat
conned to the general vicinity of the moon [12].

Orbital mechanics problems are notoriously tricky to solve. The so-called three-body-problem was
one of the earliest problems tackled once the tools of calculus were developed by Isaac Newton in
the late 1600s (a prominent character in Stephenson’s own Baroque Cycle). The problem is almost
entirely explained by its title: how will three (or more) celestial bodies evolve in the night sky if
you know their starting positions and velocities? Mathematicians eventually proved that there is
no general analytic solution to the three-body-problem, barring a handful of special cases. The
difficulty arises in the sensitivity of the problem to its initial conditions. If you don’t know exactly
where the objects are and exactly how fast they’re going, your estimate can be wildly off.

22
Because numerical integration is really the only way to actually solve orbital mechanics problems,
it’s clearly important that the chosen integration scheme be error free. Tools like Runge-Kutta and
Euler integration are good, but they have technical shortfalls - they don’t manifestly conserve
quantities that we know should be conserved. This sort of error is more than enough to yield
completely nonsense results when trying to predict where things might be going in the night sky.

So, in one of my favorite scenes, when Doob realizes that the wildly chaotic orbits of the moon
chunks might not be so harmless, and could even result in an exponentially increasing number of
colliding and breaking fragments of moon stuff, I imagine that he sprinted to the nearest python
terminal and coded up a symplectic integrator —an algorithm which is particularly good at orbital
mechanics simulations. Whatever simulations canon Doob did run, they soon indicated that the
earth had about 2 years before the remaining moon chunks would rapidly break apart, and bombard
the earth in moon-asteroids for approximately 10,000 years. This kills the planet. And everything
on it [12].

I thought this would be nice to visualize, so I coded up a symplectic integrator and tried to see if I
could reproduce what Doob calls the “White Sky” (the rapid dissolution of the moon) and the
“Hard Rain” (the bombardment of the earth with asteroids). I tried to conserve mass and volume
of moon chunks when they break apart and use a nearly elastic scattering model [12].

This simulation was very nearly contrived to produce an explosion of chunks in the beginning, and
should be taken with a tremendous grain of salt, but hopefully it will allow you to at least suspend
disbelief for the doomsday premise of the novel. The actual number of chunks and the rate at which
they appear is, unsurprisingly, fairly sensitive to the initial conditions of the simulation. If nothing
else, this simulation illustrates Kessler Syndrome fairly clearly - the rapid creation of dangerous
debris from uncontrolled, chaotic orbits in space.

This doomsday premise neatly synthesizes two of Stephenson’s long running interests - space
travel and long term sustainability. He’d previously touched on both of these in his last SciFi novel,
Anathem, but here, he’s far more technically grounded. This is the Stephenson thinking long deep
thoughts about rockets - this is the Stephenson pondering how to stave off the harshest elements
for thousands of years. These are ideas based in reality, and as the novel details the reconfiguration
of the world economy into heavy-lift-rocket-factory, you’re stirred with a bittersweet hope—look
at what we could do when faced with an existential threat—look at what we could achieve [12].

23
Because, ultimately, humanity’s only real hope of survival in the novel (and, arguably, in reality,
were such a catastrophe to actually occur) is retrofitting a mildly beefed up fictional version of the
International Space Station (henceforth, Izzy) into a civilization-ark. Thus, Izzy becomes the pivot
of the second conflict of the story (after, you know, not dying in space): humankind versus
bureaucracy.

24
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

Every satellite, space probe, and manned mission has the potential to produce space debris. A
cascading Kessler syndrome becomes more likely as satellites in orbit increase in number. Orbital
decay is much slower at altitudes where atmospheric drag is insignificant. Slight atmospheric drag,
lunar perturbation, and solar wind drag can gradually bring debris down to lower altitudes where
fragments finally reenter, but this process can take millennia at very high altitudes.

The Kessler syndrome is especially insidious because of the domino effect and feedback runaway
wherein impacts between objects of sizable mass spall off debris from the force of collision. The
shrapnel can then hit other objects, producing even more space debris: if a large enough collision
or explosion were to occur, such as between a space station and a defunct satellite, or as the result
of hostile actions in space, then the resulting debris cascade could make prospects for long-term
viability of satellites in low earth orbit extremely low. However, even a catastrophic Kessler
scenario at LEO would pose minimal risk for launches continuing past LEO, or satellites traveling
at medium Earth orbit (MEO) or GEO. The catastrophic scenarios predict an increase in the
number of collisions per year, as opposed to a physically impassable barrier to space exploration
that occurs in higher orbits.

One technology proposed to help deal with fragments from 1 cm to 10 cm in size is the laser
broom, a proposed multimegawatt land-based laser that could deorbit debris: the side of the debris
hit by the laser would ablate and create a thrust that would change the eccentricity of the remains
of the fragment until it would re-enter harmlessly.

The Envisat satellite is a large, inactive satellite with a mass of 8,211 kg (18,102 lb) that drifts at
785 km (488 mi), an altitude where the debris environment is the greatest—two catalogued objects
can be expected to pass within about 200 meters of Envisat every year[3]—and likely to increase.
It could easily become a major debris contributor from a collision during the next 150 years that it
will remain in orbit.

25
 REFERENCES

1. W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf, Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space

Debris, ESA, volume 109, issue 2, pp. 128 – 134, 2002

2. H. Lewis, Space debris, Kessler Syndrome and the unreasonable expectation of certainty,
Space Security, volume 5, issue 3, pp. 41-55, 2016

3. P.S. Roy, Effect of space debris in Earth’s atmosphere, Reuters, volume 7, issue 2, pp. 23-
31, 2013

4. L. Grossman, NASA Considers Shooting Space Junk with Lasers, ESA, volume 141, issue
3, pp. 147-152, 2011

5. M. Ford, Orbiting space junk heightens risk of satellite catastrophes, Ars Technica,
volume 41, issue 5, pp. 84-103, 2009

6. R. McKie, M. Day, Warning of catastrophe from mass of space junk, The Observer,
volume 78, issue 2, pp. 54-67, 2008

7. Evan I., The looming space junk crisis: It’s time to take out the trash, Schwartz, volume
24, issue 10, pp. 43-51, 2010

8. S. Olson, The Danger of Space Junk, The Atlantic Daily, volume 45, issue 5, pp. 145-167,
1998

9. J. Carroll, Space Transport Development Using Orbital Debris", NASA Institute for
Advanced Concepts, volume 121, issue 4, pp. 3, 2002

26
10. D.J. Kessler, The Kessler Syndrome, 2009

11. D.J. Kessler, B.G. Cour-Palais, Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation
of a Debris Belt, Journal of Geophysical Research, volume 83, issue 8, pp. 2637–2646,
1978

12. D. Freeman, Neal Stephenson's Seveneves – A Low-Spoiler "Science" Review, 2015

27