# data[].attributes.body
Aerospace is the commercial science and engineering discipline concerned with the design, build, and operation of spacecraft and aircraft. Aeronautics and astronautics constitute its two primary domains. While aeronautics focuses on the study of aircraft and other vehicles that operate in the Earth's atmosphere, astronautics investigates space-bound vehicles such as satellites and rockets. The aerospace sector is vital in numerous fields, including commercial aviation, defence, space exploration, and satellite technology. It entails preparation and construction, testing, and operation of spacecraft and aircraft.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A view of the Earth's atmosphere with the Moon beyond

Aerospace is a term used to collectively refer to the atmosphere and outer space. Aerospace activity is very diverse, with a multitude of commercial, industrial, and military applications. Aerospace engineering consists of aeronautics and astronautics. Aerospace organizations research, design, manufacture, operate, or maintain both aircraft and spacecraft.

The beginning of space and the ending of the air is proposed as 100 km (62 mi) above the ground according to the physical explanation that the air pressure is too low for a lifting body to generate meaningful lift force without exceeding orbital velocity.

In most industrial countries, the aerospace industry is a cooperation of the public and private sectors. For example, several states have a civilian space program funded by the government, such as National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States, European Space Agency in Europe, the Canadian Space Agency in Canada, Indian Space Research Organisation in India, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency in Japan, Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities in Russia, China National Space Administration in China, SUPARCO in Pakistan, Iranian Space Agency in Iran, and Korea Aerospace Research Institute in South Korea.

Along with these public space programs, many companies produce technical tools and components such as spacecraft and satellites. Some known companies involved in space programs include Boeing, Cobham, Airbus, SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, MDA and Northrop Grumman. These companies are also involved in other areas of aerospace, such as the construction of aircraft.

Glider proposed by Cayley in an 1852 magazine.

Modern aerospace began with Engineer George Cayley in 1799. Cayley proposed an aircraft with a "fixed wing and a horizontal and vertical tail," defining characteristics of the modern aeroplane.

The 19th century saw the creation of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain (1866), the American Rocketry Society, and the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences, all of which made aeronautics a more serious scientific discipline. Airmen like Otto Lilienthal, who introduced cambered airfoils in 1891, used gliders to analyze aerodynamic forces. The Wright brothers were interested in Lilienthal's work and read several of his publications. They also found inspiration in Octave Chanute, an airman and the author of Progress in Flying Machines (1894). It was the preliminary work of Cayley, Lilienthal, Chanute, and other early aerospace engineers that brought about the first powered sustained flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina on December 17, 1903, by the Wright brothers.

War and science fiction inspired scientists and engineers like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Wernher von Braun to achieve flight beyond the atmosphere. World War II inspired Wernher von Braun to create the V1 and V2 rockets.

The launch of Sputnik 1 in October 1957 started the Space Age, and on July 20, 1969 Apollo 11 achieved the first crewed Moon landing. In April 1981, the Space Shuttle Columbia launched, the start of regular crewed access to orbital space. A sustained human presence in orbital space started with " Mir" in 1986 and is continued by the " International Space Station". Space commercialization and space tourism are more recent features of aerospace.

Rocket cores under construction at a SpaceX facility.

Aerospace manufacturing is a high-technology industry that produces "aircraft, guided missiles, space vehicles, aircraft engines, propulsion units, and related parts". Most of the industry is geared toward governmental work. For each original equipment manufacturer (OEM), the US government has assigned a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code. These codes help to identify each manufacturer, repair facilities, and other critical aftermarket vendors in the aerospace industry.

In the United States, the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are the two largest consumers of aerospace technology and products. Others include the very large airline industry. The aerospace industry employed 472,000 wage and salary workers in 2006. Most of those jobs were in Washington state and in California, with Missouri, New York and Texas also being important. The leading aerospace manufacturers in the U.S. are Boeing, United Technologies Corporation, SpaceX, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. As talented American employees age and retire, these manufacturers face an expanding labor shortfall. In order to supply the industrial sector with fresh workers, apprenticeship programs like the Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship Council (AJAC) collaborate with community colleges and aerospace firms in Washington state.

Important locations of the civilian aerospace industry worldwide include Washington state ( Boeing), California ( Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc.); Montreal, Quebec, Canada ( Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney Canada); Toulouse, France ( Airbus/ EADS); Hamburg, Germany ( Airbus/ EADS); and São José dos Campos, Brazil ( Embraer), Querétaro, Mexico (Bombardier Aerospace, General Electric Aviation) and Mexicali, Mexico (United Technologies Corporation, Gulfstream Aerospace).

In the European Union, aerospace companies such as EADS, BAE Systems, Thales, Dassault, Saab AB and Leonardo S.p.A. (formerly Finmeccnica) account for a large share of the global aerospace industry and research effort, with the European Space Agency as one of the largest consumers of aerospace technology and products.

In India, Bangalore is a major center of the aerospace industry, where Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the National Aerospace Laboratories and the Indian Space Research Organisation are headquartered. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) launched India's first Moon orbiter, Chandrayaan-1, in October 2008.

In Russia, large aerospace companies like Oboronprom and the United Aircraft Building Corporation (encompassing Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Yakovlev, and Irkut which includes Beriev) are among the major global players in this industry. The historic Soviet Union was also the home of a major aerospace industry.

The United Kingdom formerly attempted to maintain its own large aerospace industry, making its own airliners and warplanes, but it has largely turned its lot over to cooperative efforts with continental companies, and it has turned into a large import customer, too, from countries such as the United States. However, the UK has a very active aerospace sector, including the second largest defence contractor in the world, BAE Systems, supplying fully assembled aircraft, aircraft components, sub-assemblies and sub-systems to other manufacturers, both in Europe and all over the world.

Canada has formerly manufactured some of its own designs for jet warplanes, etc. (e.g. the CF-100 fighter), but for some decades, it has relied on imports from the United States and Europe to fill these needs. However Canada still manufactures some military aircraft although they are generally not combat capable. Another notable example was the late 1950s development of the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow, a supersonic fighter-interceptor whose 1959 cancellation was considered highly controversial.

France has continued to make its own warplanes for its air force and navy, and Sweden continues to make its own warplanes for the Swedish Air Force-especially in support of its position as a neutral country. (See Saab AB.) Other European countries either team up in making fighters (such as the Panavia Tornado and the Eurofighter Typhoon), or else to import them from the United States.

Pakistan has a developing aerospace engineering industry. The National Engineering and Scientific Commission, Khan Research Laboratories and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex are among the premier organizations involved in research and development in this sector. Pakistan has the capability of designing and manufacturing guided rockets, missiles and space vehicles. The city of Kamra is home to the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex which contains several factories. This facility is responsible for manufacturing the MFI-17, MFI-395, K-8 and JF-17 Thunder aircraft. Pakistan also has the capability to design and manufacture both armed and unarmed unmanned aerial vehicles.

In the People's Republic of China, Beijing, Xi'an, Chengdu, Shanghai, Shenyang and Nanchang are major research and manufacture centers of the aerospace industry. China has developed an extensive capability to design, test and produce military aircraft, missiles and space vehicles. Despite the cancellation in 1983 of the experimental Shanghai Y-10, China is still developing its civil aerospace industry.

The aircraft parts industry was born out of the sale of second-hand or used aircraft parts from the aerospace manufacture sector. Within the United States there is a specific process that parts brokers or resellers must follow. This includes leveraging a certified repair station to overhaul and "tag" a part. This certification guarantees that a part was repaired or overhauled to meet OEM specifications. Once a part is overhauled its value is determined from the supply and demand of the aerospace market. When an airline has an aircraft on the ground, the part that the airline requires to get the plane back into service becomes invaluable. This can drive the market for specific parts. There are several online marketplaces that assist with the commodity selling of aircraft parts.

In the aerospace and defense industry, much consolidation has occurred at the end of the 20th century, going into the 21st century. Between 1988 and 2011, more than 6,068 mergers & acquisitions with a total known value of US$678 billion have been announced worldwide. The largest transactions have been:

Multiple technologies and innovations are used in aerospace, many of them pioneered around World War II:

patented by Short Brothers, folding wings optimise aircraft carrier storage from a simple fold to the entire rotating wing of the V-22, and the 12 ft (3.7 m) wingtip fold of the Boeing 777X for airport compatibility.

To improve low-speed performance, a de Havilland DH4 was modified by Handley Page to a monoplane with high-lift devices: full-span leading-edge slats and trailing-edge flaps; in 1924, Fowler flaps that extend backward and downward were invented in the US, and used on the Lockheed Model 10 Electra while in 1943 forward-hinged leading-edge Krueger flaps were invented in Germany and later used on the Boeing 707.

The 1927 large Propeller Research Tunnel at NACA Langley confirmed that the landing gear was a major source of drag, in 1930 the Boeing Monomail featured a retractable gear.

The flush rivet displaced the domed rivet in the 1930s and pneumatic rivet guns work in combination with a heavy reaction bucking bar; not depending on plastic deformation, specialist rivets were developed to improve fatigue life as shear fasteners like the Hi-Lok, threaded pins tightened until a collar breaks off with enough torque.

First flown in 1935, the Queen Bee was a radio-controlled target drone derived from the Tiger Moth for Flak training; the Ryan Firebee was a jet-powered target drone developed into long-range reconnaissance UAVs: the Ryan Model 147 Fire Fly and Lightning Bug; the Israeli IAI Scout and Tadiran Mastiff launched a line of battlefield UAVs including the IAI Searcher; developed from the General Atomics Gnat long-endurance UAV for the CIA, the MQ-1 Predator led to the armed MQ-9 Reaper.

At the end of World War I, piston engine power could be boosted by compressing intake air with a compressor, also compensating for decreasing air density with altitude, improved with 1930s turbochargers for the Boeing B-17 and the first pressurized airliners.

The 1937 Hindenburg disaster ended the era of passenger airships but the US Navy used airships for anti-submarine warfare and airborne early warning into the 1960s, while small airships continue to be used for aerial advertising, sightseeing flights, surveillance and research, and the Airlander 10 or the Lockheed Martin LMH-1 continue to be developed.

As US airlines were interested in high-altitude flying in the mid-1930s, the Lockheed XC-35 with a pressurized cabin was tested in 1937 and the Boeing 307 Stratoliner would be the first pressurized airliner to enter commercial service.

In 1933, Plexiglas, a transparent Acrylic plastic, was introduced in Germany and shortly before World War II, was first used for aircraft windshields as it is lighter than glass, and the bubble canopy improved fighter pilots visibility.

In January 1930, Royal Air Force pilot and engineer Frank Whittle filed a patent for a gas turbine aircraft engine with an inlet, compressor, combustor, turbine and nozzle, while an independent turbojet was developed by researcher Hans von Ohain in Germany; both engines ran within weeks in early 1937 and the Heinkel HeS 3-propelled Heinkel He 178 experimental aircraft made its first flight on Aug 27, 1939 while the Whittle W.1-powered Gloster E.28/39 prototype flew on May 15, 1941.

In 1935, Britain demonstrated aircraft radio detection and ranging and in 1940 the RAF introduced the first VHF airborne radars on Bristol Blenheims, then higher-resolution microwave-frequency radar with a cavity magnetron on Bristol Beaufighters in 1941, and in 1959 the radar-homing Hughes AIM-4 Falcon became the first US guided missile on the Convair F-106.

In the early 1940s, British Hurricane and Spitfire pilots wore g-suits to prevent G-LOC due to blood pooling in the lower body in high g situations; Mayo Clinic researchers developed air-filled bladders to replace water-filled bladders and in 1943 the US military began using pressure suits from the David Clark Company.

The modern ejection seat was developed during World War II, a seat on rails ejected by rockets before deploying a parachute, which could have been enhanced by the USAF in the late 1960s as a turbojet-powered autogyro with 50 nm of range, the Kaman KSA-100 SAVER.

In 1942, numerical control machining was conceived by machinist John T. Parsons to cut complex structures from solid blocks of alloy, rather than assembling them, improving quality, reducing weight, and saving time and cost to produce bulkheads or wing skins.

In World War II, the German V-2 combined gyroscopes, an accelerometer and a primitive computer for real-time inertial navigation allowing dead reckoning without reference to landmarks or guide stars, leading to packaged IMUs for spacecraft and aircraft.

The UK Miles M.52 supersonic aircraft was to have an afterburner, augmenting a turbojet thrust by burning additional fuel in the nozzle, but was cancelled in 1946.

In 1935, German aerodynamicist Adolf Busemann proposed using swept wings to reduce high-speed drag and the Messerschmitt P.1101 fighter prototype was 80% complete by the end of World War II; the later US North American F-86 and Boeing B-47 flew in 1947, as the Soviet MiG-15, and the British de Havilland Comet in 1949.

In 1951, the Avro Jetliner featured an ice protection system from Goodyear through electro-thermal resistances in the wing and tail leading edges; jet aircraft use hot engine bleed air and lighter aircraft use pneumatic deicing boots or weep anti-icing fluid on propellers, wing and tail leading edges.

In 1954, Bell Labs developed the first transistorized airborne digital computer, Tradic for the US Boeing B-52 and in the 1960s Raytheon built the MIT-developed Apollo Guidance Computer; the MIL-STD-1553 avionics digital bus was defined in 1973 then first used in the General Dynamics F-16, while the civil ARINC 429 was first used in the Boeing 757/B767 and Airbus A310 in the early 1980s.

After World War II, the initial promoter of Photovoltaic power for spacecraft, Hans K. Ziegler, was brought to the US under Operation Paperclip along Wernher von Braun and Vanguard 1 was its first application in 1958, later enhanced in space-deployable structures like the International Space Station solar arrays of 0.33 hectares (0.82 acres).

To board an airliner, jet bridges are more accessible, comfortable and efficient than climbing the stairs.

In the 1950s, to improve thrust and fuel efficiency, the jet engine airflow was divided into a core stream and a bypass stream with a lower velocity for better propulsive efficiency: the first was the Rolls-Royce Conway with a 0.3 BPR on the Boeing 707 in 1960, followed by the Pratt & Whitney JT3D with a 1.5 BPR and, derived from the J79, the General Electric CJ805 powered the Convair 990 with a 28% lower cruise fuel burn; bypass ratio improved to the 9.3 BPR Rolls-Royce Trent XWB, the 10:1 BPR GE9X and the Pratt & Whitney GTF with high-pressure ratio cores.

Functional safety relates to a part of the general safety of a system or a piece of equipment. It implies that the system or equipment can be operated properly and without causing any danger, risk, damage or injury.

Functional safety is crucial in the aerospace industry, which allows no compromises or negligence. In this respect, supervisory bodies, such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA ), regulate the aerospace market with strict certification standards. This is meant to reach and ensure the highest possible level of safety. The standards AS 9100 in America, EN 9100 on the European market or JISQ 9100 in Asia particularly address the aerospace and aviation industry. These are standards applying to the functional safety of aerospace vehicles. Some companies are therefore specialized in the certification, inspection verification and testing of the vehicles and spare parts to ensure and attest compliance with the appropriate regulations.

Spinoffs refer to any technology that is a direct result of coding or products created by NASA and redesigned for an alternate purpose. These technological advancements are one of the primary results of the aerospace industry, with $5.2 billion worth of revenue generated by spinoff technology, including computers and cellular devices. These spinoffs have applications in a variety of different fields including medicine, transportation, energy, consumer goods, public safety and more. NASA publishes an annual report called "Spinoffs", regarding many of the specific products and benefits to the aforementioned areas in an effort to highlight some of the ways funding is put to use. For example, in the most recent edition of this publication, "Spinoffs 2015", endoscopes are featured as one of the medical derivations of aerospace achievement. This device enables more precise and subsequently cost-effective neurosurgery by reducing complications through a minimally invasive procedure that abbreviates hospitalization. "These NASA technologies are not only giving companies and entrepreneurs a competitive edge in their own industries, but are also helping to shape budding industries, such as commercial lunar landers," said Daniel Lockney.

Blockley, Richard, and Wei Shyy. Encyclopedia of aerospace engineering (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2010).

Brunton, Steven L., et al. "Data-driven aerospace engineering: reframing the industry with machine learning." AIAA Journal.. 59.8 (2021): 2820-2847. online

Davis, Jeffrey R., Robert Johnson, and Jan Stepanek, eds. Fundamentals of aerospace medicine (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008) online.

Mouritz, Adrian P. Introduction to aerospace materials (Elsevier, 2012) online.

Petrescu, Relly Victoria, et al. "Modern propulsions for aerospace-a review." Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology 1.1 (2017).

Phero, Graham C., and Kessler Sterne. "The aerospace revolution: development, intellectual property, and value." (2022). online

Wills, Jocelyn. Tug of War: Surveillance Capitalism, Military Contracting, and the Rise of the Security State (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2017), scholarly history of MDA in Canada. online book review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aerospace is a term used to collectively refer to the atmosphere and outer space. Aerospace activity is very diverse, with a multitude of commercial, industrial, and military applications. Aerospace engineering consists of aeronautics and astronautics. Aerospace organizations research, design, manufacture, operate, or maintain both aircraft and spacecraft.

# data[].attributes.body
The history of aerospace is a journey marked by significant milestones and achievements. Here's a concise overview:

1. Early Aviation (Late 19th to Early 20th Century):

- The Wright Brothers, Orville and Wilbur Wright, achieved the first controlled, powered flight on December 17, 1903, with their aircraft, the Wright Flyer, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

2. World War I (1914-1918):

- Aviation played a crucial role in reconnaissance and combat during World War I. Fighter planes and bombers became integral components of military strategies.

3. Golden Age of Aviation (1920s-1930s):

- Charles Lindbergh made the first solo nonstop transatlantic flight in 1927. This era saw significant advancements in aircraft design and long-distance flight.

4. World War II (1939-1945):

- Aircraft technology rapidly advanced during World War II. Iconic planes like the Spitfire and the P-51 Mustang emerged. Jet engines saw combat use.

5. Jet Age (Post-World War II):

- The development of jet propulsion revolutionized aviation. The first jet airliner, the de Havilland Comet, entered service in 1952. The Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 followed, marking the beginning of commercial jet travel.

6. Space Race (1957-1975):

- The Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, in 1957, initiating the Space Race. Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space in 1961, and the United States landed astronauts on the Moon with the Apollo program in 1969.

7. Advancements in Aerospace Technology (1970s-1980s):

- The development of supersonic passenger jets like the Concorde occurred in the 1970s. The Space Shuttle, a reusable spacecraft, made its first flight in 1981.

8. Commercial Aviation Growth (Late 20th Century):

- The aviation industry experienced significant growth with the introduction of wide-body aircraft like the Boeing 747. Airlines expanded their fleets, and air travel became more accessible.

9. International Space Station (ISS):

- The ISS, a collaborative effort involving multiple countries, began construction in 1998 and has since served as a platform for scientific research in space.

10. Private Space Companies (21st Century):

- Private companies, such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, have played an increasingly prominent role in space exploration. SpaceX achieved the first privately-funded orbital spaceflight in 2008.

11. Advancements in Aerospace Technology (21st Century):

- Ongoing advancements include the development of more fuel-efficient aircraft, exploration of Mars with rovers like Curiosity, and plans for future crewed missions to Mars.

The history of aerospace is a story of human ingenuity, exploration, and technological progress, from the early days of powered flight to the current era of space exploration and commercial spaceflight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aerospace industry - History, Wright Brothers, World War I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aerospace industry - History, Wright Brothers, World War I: The origin of the aerospace industry dates to 1903 when Wilbur and Orville Wright demonstrated an airplane capable of powered, sustained flight (see Wright flyer of 1903). The Wright brothers’ success was due to detailed research and an excellent engineering-and-development approach. Their breakthrough innovation was a pilot-operated warping (twisting) of the wings to provide attitude control and to make turns. Patents with broad claims for their wing-warping technology were granted in Europe in 1904 and in the United States in 1906. The French government was the first to negotiate with the Wright brothers for the sale of their patents for

# data[].attributes.headline
Example of related Companies that running Aerospace Industries businesses:

# data[].attributes.subject
Example of related Companies that running Aerospace Industries businesses:

# data[].attributes.body
Here is the following Aerospace Company that are available :

- SpaceX.
- Boeing.
- Rolls Royce.
- Ball Aerospace.

# data[].attributes.body
SpaceX, or Space Exploration Technologies Corp., is a private American aerospace manufacturer and space transportation company founded by Elon Musk in 2002. Renowned for its ambitious goals and disruptive approach, SpaceX has become a key player in the space industry. The company is known for developing the Falcon and Starship rockets, as well as the Dragon spacecraft. Notable achievements include the first privately-funded spacecraft to reach orbit, the first privately-funded spacecraft to dock with the International Space Station (ISS), and the development of reusable rocket technology to significantly reduce launch costs. SpaceX is at the forefront of commercial space travel and has plans for ambitious missions, including crewed missions to Mars.

# data[].attributes.body
Boeing is a major American aerospace company with a rich history dating back to 1916. It is a leading manufacturer of commercial airplanes, military aircraft, satellites, and space exploration systems. Boeing is renowned for iconic aircraft such as the Boeing 747 jumbo jet and the Boeing 737 series. The company is a key player in the global aerospace industry, providing a wide range of products and services to both commercial and defense sectors. Boeing has been instrumental in shaping modern air travel and continues to be a major influencer in aviation and aerospace innovation.

# data[].attributes.body
Rolls-Royce Aerospace is a division of Rolls-Royce Holdings plc, a British multinational engineering company. This aerospace division specializes in the design, development, and manufacturing of aircraft engines, propulsion systems, and related technologies. Rolls-Royce is a prominent player in the global aerospace industry, providing a wide range of engines for commercial and military aircraft, as well as for applications in the marine and energy sectors. The company is known for its cutting-edge technology, innovation in aviation propulsion, and a strong legacy of engineering excellence. Rolls-Royce Aerospace plays a crucial role in powering various aircraft models and contributes to advancements in air travel efficiency and sustainability.

# data[].attributes.body
Ball Aerospace is an American aerospace manufacturer and service provider, specializing in the design and production of spacecraft, satellite systems, and scientific instruments. Established in 1956, Ball Aerospace has been involved in numerous space exploration and Earth observation projects. The company is known for its contributions to satellite technology, space-based telescopes, and instruments for planetary exploration. Ball Aerospace has been an integral part of missions led by NASA and other space agencies, playing a key role in advancing our understanding of the cosmos and our own planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Aerospace is a broad and dynamic field that encompasses the design, development, production, testing, and operation of aircraft and spacecraft. It involves both the aeronautics and astronautics disciplines. The character of aerospace can be described in several key aspects:

# data[].attributes.subject
Aerospace is a broad and dynamic field that encompasses the design, development, production, testing, and operation of aircraft and spacecraft. It involves both the aeronautics and astronautics disciplines. The character of aerospace can be described in several key aspects:

# data[].attributes.body
Technological Advancement.

Commercial and Military Sector.

Space Exploration.

Education and training.

# data[].attributes.body
Aerospace technological advancements encompass a range of innovations in aircraft and spacecraft design, propulsion, materials, and avionics. These include developments such as more efficient and powerful engines, lightweight materials like advanced composites, improved aerodynamics, and cutting-edge navigation and communication systems. Advancements also extend to space exploration technologies, with innovations in propulsion systems for spacecraft, satellite technologies, and the development of reusable launch systems. Overall, these advancements contribute to enhanced performance, safety, and sustainability in aerospace applications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Technology drives exploration. NASA technology development supports the nation's innovation economy by creating solutions for space exploration that also generate tangible benefits for life on Earth.

# data[].attributes.body
The aerospace industry is divided into commercial and military sectors, each serving distinct purposes.

Commercial Sector:

1. Civil Aviation: Involves the design, manufacturing, and operation of civilian aircraft for passenger and cargo transportation. Companies like Boeing and Airbus are major players.

2. Satellites: Commercial entities launch satellites for communication, Earth observation, and navigation, contributing to sectors like telecommunications and weather forecasting.

Military Sector:

1. Defense Aviation: Focuses on developing aircraft for military purposes, including fighter jets, bombers, and reconnaissance planes. Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are key players.

2. Space Systems: Involves military satellite development for communication, surveillance, and reconnaissance, enhancing national security capabilities.

Both sectors drive technological innovation, but their applications differ, with the commercial sector addressing civilian needs and the military sector emphasizing national defense and security.

# data[].attributes.body
Space exploration, by means of crewed and uncrewed spacecraft, of the reaches of the universe beyond Earth’s atmosphere and the use of the information so gained to increase knowledge of the cosmos and benefit humanity. A complete list of all crewed spaceflights, with details on each mission’s accomplishments and crew, is available in the section Chronology of crewed spaceflights.

Humans have always looked at the heavens and wondered about the nature of the objects seen in the night sky. With the development of rockets and the advances in electronics and other technologies in the 20th century, it became possible to send machines and animals and then people above Earth’s atmosphere into outer space. Well before technology made these achievements possible, however, space exploration had already captured the minds of many people, not only aircraft pilots and scientists but also writers and artists. The strong hold that space travel has always had on the imagination may well explain why professional astronauts and laypeople alike consent at their great peril, in the words of Tom Wolfe in The Right Stuff (1979), to sit “on top of an enormous Roman candle, such as a Redstone, Atlas, Titan or Saturn rocket, and wait for someone to light the fuse.” It perhaps also explains why space exploration has been a common and enduring theme in literature and art. As centuries of speculative fiction in books and more recently in films make clear, “one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind” was taken by the human spirit many times and in many ways before Neil Armstrong stamped humankind’s first footprint on the Moon.

Achieving spaceflight enabled humans to begin to explore the solar system and the rest of the universe, to understand the many objects and phenomena that are better observed from a space perspective, and to use for human benefit the resources and attributes of the space environment. All of these activities—discovery, scientific understanding, and the application of that understanding to serve human purposes—are elements of space exploration. (For a general discussion of spacecraft, launch considerations, flight trajectories, and navigation, docking, and recovery procedures, see spaceflight.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source: Ernst and Young 2022 Aerospace and Defense Workforce Study.

# data[].attributes.body
The aerospace industry requires a highly skilled and educated workforce. Universities and technical institutions offer programs and degrees in aerospace engineering, aeronautics, and astronautics to train future professionals in the field.

# data[].attributes.body
Space launches refer to the process of sending spacecraft, satellites, or payloads into space using rockets or launch vehicles. These launches can serve a variety of purposes, including scientific research, telecommunications, Earth observation, and space exploration. Here are summaries of space launches :

- Launch vehicle.
- Space agency.
- Commercial space.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SpaceX Falcon Heavy

Space launch is the earliest part of a flight that reaches space. Space launch involves liftoff, when a rocket or other space launch vehicle leaves the ground, floating ship or midair aircraft at the start of a flight. Liftoff is of two main types: rocket launch (the current conventional method), and non-rocket spacelaunch (where other forms of propulsion are employed, including airbreathing jet engines).

SpaceShipOne completed the first human private spaceflight in 2004, reaching an altitude of 100.12 km (62.21 mi).[1]

There is no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, as the density of the atmosphere gradually decreases as the altitude increases. There are several standard boundary designations, namely:

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has established the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) as a working definition for the boundary between aeronautics and astronautics. This is used because at an altitude of about 100 km (62 mi), as Theodore von Kármán calculated, a vehicle would have to travel faster than orbital velocity to derive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself.[2]: 84  [3]

Up until 2021, the United States designated people who travel above an altitude of 50 mi (80 km) as astronauts.[4]: 16  Astronaut wings are now only awarded to spacecraft crew members that "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety".[5]

NASA's Space Shuttle used 400,000 ft, or 75.76 miles (120 km), as its re-entry altitude (termed the Entry Interface), which roughly marks the boundary where atmospheric drag becomes noticeable, thus beginning the process of switching from steering with thrusters to maneuvering with aerodynamic control surfaces.[6]

In 2009, scientists reported detailed measurements with a Supra-Thermal Ion Imager (an instrument that measures the direction and speed of ions), which allowed them to establish a boundary at 118 km (73.3 mi) above Earth. The boundary represents the midpoint of a gradual transition over tens of kilometers from the relatively gentle winds of the Earth's atmosphere to the more violent flows of charged particles in space, which can reach speeds well over 268 m/s (880 ft/s).[7][8]

Therefore, by definition for spaceflight to occur, sufficient altitude is necessary. This implies a minimum gravitational potential energy needs to be overcome: for the Kármán line this is approximately 1 MJ/kg. W=mgh, m=1 kg, g=9.82 m/s ², h=10 ⁵m. W=1*9.82*10 ⁵≈10 ⁶ J/kg=1MJ/kg

In practice, a higher energy than this is needed to be expended due to losses such as airdrag, propulsive efficiency, cycle efficiency of engines that are employed and gravity drag.

In the past fifty years spaceflight has usually meant remaining in space for a period of time, rather than going up and immediately falling back to earth. This entails orbit, which is mostly a matter of velocity, not altitude, although that does not mean air friction and relevant altitudes in relation to that and orbit don't have to be taken into account. At much, much higher altitudes than many orbital ones maintained by satellites, altitude begins to become a larger and larger factor and speed a lesser one. At lower altitudes, due to the high speed required to remain in orbit, air friction is a very important consideration affecting satellites, much more than in the popular image of space. At even lower altitudes, balloons, with no forward velocity, can serve many of the roles satellites play.

Many cargos, particularly humans, have a limiting g-force that they can survive. For humans this is about 3-6 g. Some launchers such as gun launchers would give accelerations in the hundred or thousands of g and thus are completely unsuitable.

Launchers vary with respect to their reliability for achieving the mission.

Safety is the probability of causing injury or loss of life. Unreliable launchers are not necessarily unsafe, whereas reliable launchers are usually, but not invariably safe.

Apart from catastrophic failure of the launch vehicle itself other safety hazards include depressurisation, and the Van Allen radiation belts which preclude orbits which spend long periods within them.

Trajectory optimization is the process of designing a trajectory that minimizes (or maximizes) some measure of performance while satisfying a set of constraints. Generally speaking, trajectory optimization is a technique for computing an open-loop solution to an optimal control problem. It is often used for systems where computing the full closed-loop solution is not required, impractical or impossible. If a trajectory optimization problem can be solved at a rate given by the inverse of the Lipschitz constant, then it can be used iteratively to generate a closed-loop solution in the sense of Caratheodory. If only the first step of the trajectory is executed for an infinite-horizon problem, then this is known as Model Predictive Control (MPC).

Although the idea of trajectory optimization has been around for hundreds of years ( calculus of variations, brachystochrone problem), it only became practical for real-world problems with the advent of the computer. Many of the original applications of trajectory optimization were in the aerospace industry, computing rocket and missile launch trajectories. More recently, trajectory optimization has also been used in a wide variety of industrial process and robotics applications.[9]

Many rockets use fossil fuels. A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket for instance burns through 400 metric tons of kerosene and emits more carbon dioxide in a few minutes than an average car would in more than two centuries. As the number of rocket launches is expected to increase heavily in the coming years, the effect that launching into orbit has on Earth is expected to get much worse.[neutrality is disputed] Some rocket manufacturers (i.e. Orbex, ArianeGroup) are using different launch fuels (such as bio-propane,methane produced from biomass).[10]

Sub-orbital space flight is any space launch that reaches space without doing a full orbit around the planet, and requires a maximum speed of around 1 km/s just to reach space, and up to 7 km/s for longer distance such as an intercontinental space flight. An example of a sub-orbital flight would be a ballistic missile, or future tourist flight such as Virgin Galactic, or an intercontinental transport flight like SpaceLiner. Any space launch without an orbit-optimization correction to achieve a stable orbit will result in a suborbital space flight, unless there is sufficient thrust to leave orbit completely. (See Space gun#Getting to orbit)

In addition, if orbit is required, then a much greater amount of energy must be generated in order to give the craft some sideways speed. The speed that must be achieved depends on the altitude of the orbit - less speed is needed at high altitude. However, after allowing for the extra potential energy of being at higher altitudes, overall more energy is used reaching higher orbits than lower ones.

The speed needed to maintain an orbit near the Earth's surface corresponds to a sideways speed of about 7.8 km/s (17,400 mph), an energy of about 30MJ/kg. This is several times the energy per kg of practical rocket propellant mixes.

Gaining the kinetic energy is awkward as the airdrag tends to slow the spacecraft, so rocket-powered spacecraft generally fly a compromise trajectory that leaves the thickest part of the atmosphere very early on, and then fly on for example, a Hohmann transfer orbit to reach the particular orbit that is required. This minimises the airdrag as well as minimising the time that the vehicle spends holding itself up. Airdrag is a significant issue with essentially all proposed and current launch systems, although usually less so than the difficulty of obtaining enough kinetic energy to simply reach orbit at all.

If the Earth's gravity is to be overcome entirely then sufficient energy must be obtained by a spacecraft to exceed the depth of the gravity potential energy well. Once this has occurred, provided the energy is not lost in any non-conservative way, then the vehicle will leave the influence of the Earth. The depth of the potential well depends on the vehicle's position, and the energy depends on the vehicle's speed. If the kinetic energy exceeds the potential energy then escape occurs. At the Earth's surface this occurs at a speed of 11.2 km/s (25,000 mph), but in practice a much higher speed is needed due to airdrag.

Larger rockets are normally launched from a launch pad that provides stable support until a few seconds after ignition. Due to their high exhaust velocity-2,500 to 4,500 m/s (9,000 to 16,200 km/h; 5,600 to 10,100 mph)-rockets are particularly useful when very high speeds are required, such as orbital speed at approximately 7,800 m/s (28,000 km/h; 17,000 mph). Spacecraft delivered into orbital trajectories become artificial satellites, which are used for many commercial purposes. Indeed, rockets remain the only way to launch spacecraft into orbit and beyond.[11] They are also used to rapidly accelerate spacecraft when they change orbits or de-orbit for landing. Also, a rocket may be used to soften a hard parachute landing immediately before touchdown (see retrorocket).

Non-rocket spacelaunch refers to theoretical concepts for launch into space where much of the speed and altitude needed to achieve orbit is provided by a propulsion technique that is not subject to the limits of the rocket equation.[12] Although all space launches to date have been rockets, a number of alternatives to rockets have been proposed.[13] In some systems, such as a combination launch system, skyhook, rocket sled launch, rockoon, or air launch, a portion of the total delta-v may be provided, either directly or indirectly, by using rocket propulsion.

Present-day launch costs are very high - $2,500 to $25,000 per kilogram from Earth to low Earth orbit (LEO). As a result, launch costs are a large percentage of the cost of all space endeavors. If launch can be made cheaper, the total cost of space missions will be reduced. Due to the exponential nature of the rocket equation, providing even a small amount of the velocity to LEO by other means has the potential of greatly reducing the cost of getting to orbit.

Launch costs in the hundreds of dollars per kilogram would make possible many proposed large-scale space projects such as space colonization, space-based solar power[14] and terraforming Mars.[15]

1. ^ Michael Coren (July 14, 2004), "Private craft soars into space, history", CNN.com, archived from the original on April 2, 2015.

2. ^ O'Leary, Beth Laura (2009), Darrin, Ann Garrison (ed.), Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage, Advances in engineering, CRC Press, ISBN 978-1-4200-8431-3

3. ^ "Where does space begin?", Aerospace Engineering, archived from the original on 2015-11-17.

4. ^ Wong, Wilson; Fergusson, James Gordon (2010), Military space power: a guide to the issues, Contemporary military, strategic, and security issues, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-0-313-35680-3

5. ^ FAA Commercial Space Astronaut Wings Program (PDF), Federal Aviation Administration, July 20, 2021.

6. ^ Petty, John Ira (February 13, 2003), "Entry", Human Spaceflight, NASA, archived from the original on October 27, 2011.

7. ^ Thompson, Andrea (April 9, 2009), Edge of Space Found, space.com, archived from the original on July 14, 2009.

8. ^ Sangalli, L.; et al. (2009), "Rocket-based measurements of ion velocity, neutral wind, and electric field in the collisional transition region of the auroral ionosphere", Journal of Geophysical Research, 114 (A4): A04306, Bibcode:2009JGRA..114.4306S, doi:10.1029/2008JA013757.

9. ^ Qi Gong; Wei Kang; Bedrossian, N. S.; Fahroo, F.; Pooya Sekhavat; Bollino, K. (December 2007). "Pseudospectral Optimal Control for Military and Industrial Applications". 2007 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. pp. 4128-4142. doi:10.1109/CDC.2007.4435052. ISBN 978-1-4244-1497-0. S2CID 2935682.

10. ^ "Can we get to space without damaging the Earth through huge carbon emissions?". Los Angeles Times. 2020-01-30. Archived from the original on 2023-07-22.

11. ^ "Spaceflight Now-worldwide launch schedule". Spaceflightnow.com. Archived from the original on 2013-09-11.

12. ^ "No Rockets? No Problem!". Popular Mechanics. 2010-10-05.

13. ^ George Dvorsky (2014-12-30). "How Humanity Will Conquer Space Without Rockets". io9.

14. ^ "A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power: New Architectures, Concepts, and Technologies. John C. Mankins. International Astronautical Federation IAF-97-R.2.03. 12 pages" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-10-26.

15. ^ Robert M. Zubrin (Pioneer Astronautics); Christopher P. McKay. NASA Ames Research Center (c. 1993). "Technological Requirements for Terraforming Mars".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Space launch is the earliest part of a flight that reaches space. Space launch involves liftoff, when a rocket or other space launch vehicle leaves the ground, floating ship or midair aircraft at the start of a flight.

# data[].attributes.body
A launch vehicle in aerospace, commonly known as a rocket, is designed to transport payloads—such as satellites or crewed spacecraft—from Earth's surface into space. Key components include the payload, rocket engines, propellant tanks, guidance systems, and structural elements. Launch vehicles vary in size and capabilities, from small rockets for placing satellites into low Earth orbit to heavy-lift rockets capable of carrying larger payloads or crewed missions to destinations like the Moon or Mars. Various launch vehicles are used in aerospace, developed by different space agencies and private companies. Some notable examples include:

1. SpaceX Falcon 9: Developed by SpaceX, the Falcon 9 is a partially reusable rocket designed for the reliable and safe transport of satellites and the Dragon spacecraft into orbit.

2. NASA Space Launch System (SLS): NASA's SLS is a powerful rocket designed for deep-space missions, including crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.

3. Blue Origin New Glenn: Blue Origin's New Glenn is an upcoming heavy-lift orbital launch vehicle, intended to be reusable and capable of carrying a variety of payloads.

4. Roscosmos Soyuz: The Soyuz rocket family, operated by the Russian space agency Roscosmos, has been a workhorse for human spaceflight and satellite launches for decades.

5. ULA Atlas V: The Atlas V, from United Launch Alliance (ULA), is a reliable launch vehicle used for a variety of missions, including scientific exploration and national security satellite launches.

These launch vehicles serve diverse purposes, from commercial satellite deployment to crewed space missions and deep-space exploration. Each contributes to advancing aerospace capabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Several space agencies worldwide are actively involved in aerospace activities. Some prominent ones include:

1. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): The United States' government agency responsible for the nation's civilian space program and aeronautics research.

2. ESA (European Space Agency): An intergovernmental organization dedicated to the exploration of space, representing multiple European countries.

3. Roscosmos (Russian Federal Space Agency): The governmental body responsible for the space science program of the Russian Federation and general aerospace research.

4. ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation): India's space agency, known for its achievements in satellite launches, interplanetary exploration, and space research.

5. CNSA (China National Space Administration): China's national space agency responsible for the planning and development of space activities.

6. JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency): Japan's national space agency engaged in space exploration, research, and satellite launches.

These agencies contribute significantly to advancements in aerospace technology, space exploration, and scientific research.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent years, commercial space companies have gained prominence and are conducting a growing number of space launches. SpaceX, for example, has played a significant role in launching both commercial and government payloads.

# data[].attributes.body
Exploring aerospace is driven by a combination of scientific curiosity, technological advancement, economic opportunities, and strategic interests. Here are several compelling reasons to explore aerospace:

- Scientific discovery.
- Technological innovation.
- Economic opportunity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why We Go to Space

At NASA, we explore the secrets of the universe for the benefit of all, creating new opportunities and inspiring the world through discovery.

NASA's exploration vision is anchored in providing value for humanity by answering some of the most fundamental questions: Why are we here? How did it all begin? Are we all alone? What comes next? And, as an addendum to that: How can we make our lives better?

NASA was created more than half a century ago to begin answering some of these questions. Since then, space exploration has been one of the most unifying, borderless human endeavors to date. An international partnership of five space agencies from 15 countries operates the International Space Station, and two dozen countries have signed the Artemis Accords, signaling their commitment to shared values for long-term human exploration and research at the Moon. Through space exploration, we gain a new perspective to study Earth and the solar system. We advance new technologies that improve our daily lives, and we inspire a new generation of artists, thinkers, tinkerers, engineers, and scientists.

Unite with us on our journey to explore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At NASA, we explore the secrets of the universe for the benefit of all, creating new opportunities and inspiring the world through discovery.

# data[].attributes.body
Scientific discovery in the aerospace industry is driven by the quest to understand the universe, Earth, and its surrounding environment. The aerospace sector, through space exploration and satellite missions, contributes to advancements in astrophysics, Earth sciences, and materials science. Scientific research in this industry expands our knowledge of celestial bodies, planetary systems, and the fundamental laws of physics. Additionally, aerospace technologies often have applications beyond space, influencing fields like medicine, telecommunications, and environmental monitoring. Overall, the pursuit of scientific discovery in the aerospace industry not only deepens our understanding of the cosmos but also yields practical benefits for life on Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Future of Aerospace: Advancements and Innovations - The Geopolitics

# data[].attributes.body
The challenges of aerospace exploration drive the development of advanced technologies. These innovations often have applications beyond space exploration and benefiting various industries. Exploring technological innovation in aerospace is crucial for several reasons:

1. Advancing Capabilities: Innovation in aerospace technology improves the capabilities of aircraft and spacecraft, leading to more efficient, safer, and high-performance systems.

2. Safety and Reliability: Technological advancements enhance the safety and reliability of aerospace vehicles, reducing the risk of accidents and ensuring the well-being of passengers, crew, and assets.

3. Environmental Impact: Innovation helps develop greener technologies, such as fuel-efficient engines and sustainable materials, reducing the environmental footprint of aerospace operations.

4. Scientific Discovery: Aerospace technology enables scientific exploration of space, fostering discoveries about our universe, other celestial bodies, and the fundamental laws of physics.

5.Economic Growth: Advancements in aerospace technology drive economic growth by creating new industries, generating jobs, and contributing to various sectors such as telecommunications, weather forecasting, and defense.

6. National Security: The development of cutting-edge aerospace technologies is vital for maintaining and advancing national security capabilities, particularly in the military and defense sectors.

Overall, exploring technological innovation in aerospace not only pushes the boundaries of human achievement but also has far-reaching impacts on various aspects of society and the economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Future of Aerospace: Advancements and Innovations - The Geopolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, aerospace technology plays a crucial role in modern society, from enabling global trade and travel to advancing scientific research and exploration. In recent years, advancements in technology have made aerospace more efficient, safe, and accessible than ever before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division.

# data[].attributes.body
The aerospace industry is a major contributor to economic growth. Commercial space activities, satellite launches, and the development of space tourism create job opportunities, stimulate innovation, and drive economic development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
How to Visit Space as a Tourist - Zero-G

# data[].attributes.body
From this article, only professional astronauts could travel space for decades. The majority of humans in space have been salaried employees, but space travel may change. According to Pew Research, 42% of Americans would “definitely or probably be interested” in orbiting Earth in a spacecraft. Space tourism is one of the fastest-growing aerospace industries. About 133 million Americans and about 15 New York Cities worth want to explore the Final Frontier. We expect that number to rise as more individuals cross “going to space” off their bucket list and return with stories. 63% of Millennials (1981-1996) desire to go to space, compared to 39% of Gen Xers (1965-80) and 27% of Baby Boomers. This option how to go to space :

- Balloon Capsule Flight.
- Rocket Flight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
4 min read

How to Visit Space as a Tourist: The Space Age of Adventure

For decades, space travel was reserved for professional astronauts. Although the vast majority of humans in space have been salaried employees, the future of space travel may look completely different.

Space tourism is one of the fastest-growing parts of the space industry; according to Pew Research, about 42% of Americans say they would "definitely or probably be interested" in orbiting Earth in a spacecraft.

That's roughly four out of every ten Americans today, or about 133 million people- about 15 New York Cities worth of humans looking to explore the Final Frontier.

We anticipate that figure increasing as more people check "going to space" off the bucket list and come home with stories to tell.

Younger generations are also more likely to want to travel to space- 63% of Millennials (1981-1996) fall into the interested category, whereas Gen Xers (1965 to 1980) lag slightly behind the average at 39%, and Baby Boomer or older generations are at 27%.

The following guide explores how to visit space as a tourist today, and what new space adventure options we can expect in the future.

What You Should Know Before Going to Space

Before we get started on the best ways to visit space as a tourist, let's address a current debate- where does space actually begin?

Once you pass through the thickest parts of Earth's atmosphere, there isn't exactly a "Welcome to Space" sign.

Countries tend to differ on the arbitrary mark acknowledging space, but it's typically pinned between 50 miles above ground to over 600 miles above the ground. The International Space Station, for example, orbits at around 200 miles above the ground.

Today's options for space tourists focus on the points of space nearest Earth- while they might not meet the minimum criteria of 50 miles above ground, they capture much of the experience of being in space without the preparation and costs of going deeper.

Let's explore three popular means of getting to space, or close enough to count.

Balloon Capsule Flights

The only way to get up to the deeper layers of outer space is through a rocket, which is a drastically different endeavor than gearing up to explore the closer layers.

Balloon capsule flights make the layers closer to Earth accessible with comparatively less intensive preparation.

If you're imagining futuristic hot air balloons, you're not too far off.

Balloon capsules sound like they're straight from a sci-fi novel, and many of them are currently in the "waitlist" phases of launching.

The balloon gradually lifts the capsule up to around 100,000 feet, above the thickest parts of the atmosphere- enough to see a breathtaking wide-angle panoramic view of Earth's surface, viewing Earth's curvature for over a thousand miles in every direction. Looking up, you'll see the dark infinity of space, covered with distant star clusters and galaxies.

Space Perspective and Worldview are two providers of balloon capsule space flights for space tourists.

Balloon capsule flights run about $50,000 to $125,000 per seat.

Rocket Flights

Perhaps the most notable of the space-tech companies, Elon Musk's SpaceX sits at the top of the list of rocket-propelled space tourism flights.

SpaceX is also credited with the emergence of commercialized space flight, as its consistent aerospace and rocketry iteration and reinventions have significantly lowered the cost of going to and from space. SpaceX has numerous achievements, such as being the first privately funded company to successfully launch, orbit, and recover its spacecraft.

Although the company's primary revenue is from commercial and government contracts, it may soon be a staple in the space tourism industry.

In 2017, SpaceX announced it was contracted by two individual space tourists who wanted to go on a trip around the moon - a trip that has been postponed until at least 2023.

Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo is a singed space shuttle getting as high as 53.5 miles above Earth's surface. Tickets cost around $150,000. Virgin owner Richard Branson took the flight in mid-2021.

Blue Origin, owned by Amazon's Jeff Bezos, uses conventional rocket technology with reusable components. The experience consists of a few days of training in Texas for an 11-minute flight up to 62 miles, enabling people to experience zero gravity and some killer views. There isn't a set price (nor launch dates) for Blue Shepherd's inaugural flight, but the first seat was auctioned off for $28 million.

Zero Gravity Flights

The feeling of floating and bouncing around without gravity captures much of the imagination-share of what people want to experience if they ever go to space.

When Travel and Leisure interviewed two NASA veterans, Dr. Leroy Chiao and Dr. Scott Parazynski, on what people should know before going to space, they recommended taking a zero-gravity flight prior to going into broader space on a suborbital flight.

Commercial companies like Zero-G allow people to experience a zero-gravity environment similar to suborbital flight.

Zero gravity flights are physically similar to skydiving or roller coaster drops; rather than feeling like you're on the receiving end of an intense gravity pull (in less scientific terms, "falling"), you'll be floating inside the airplane- similar to how a spacecraft feels when in space with the engines cut off.

In the above interview, Dr. Parazynski notes, "if they have the means, they should get on a zero-G flight before they go on a suborbital flight. It would take some of the mystery out of 'what am I going to feel like?' and 'how do I move?"

Alternatively, one could aim to get the same feeling by being at a point of neutral buoyancy while scuba diving near the ocean floor or pool; but be sure to have adequate professional experience and supervision- the ocean poses threats a contained zero-gravity environment does not.

Final Thoughts: What's Next for Space Tourism?

As Stephen Hawking once said, "Taking more and more passengers out into space will enable them, and us, to look both outward and back but with a fresh perspective in both directions."

Companies like Zero-G are bringing space within reach today, the experiences of which can help build a more substantial base for future space endeavors. Just the weightless feeling of zero gravity is something so unique that it sends people home with stories for a lifetime.

We're looking forward to what the future of space tourism holds. While man's first steps on the moon were done on the clock and filmed with bulky grainy cameras, the next sets of bootprints on the moon may be recreational and streamed on Instagram Live.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Visit Space as a Tourist - Zero-G

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How to Visit Space as a Tourist: The Space Age of Adventure For decades, space travel was reserved for professional astronauts. Although the vast majority of humans in space have been salaried employees, the future of space travel may look completely different. Space tourism is one of the fastest-growing parts of the space industry; according [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Want to travel to space? In 2024, balloons might take you part of the way there

# data[].attributes.body
A rocket is the only means of accessing the more profound strata of space, which diverges significantly from the exploration of the proximate strata. Accessible strata of the Earth may be accessed more easily with balloon capsule flights, requiring less preparation. Envisioning futuristic hot air balloons is within our grasp. Several balloon capsules are now on the waiting list for launch. The balloon ascends the capsule gradually to an altitude of 100,000 feet, beyond the densest part of the atmosphere. At this height, it offers a panoramic view of Earth's curvature, extending for almost one thousand miles in all directions. When look upwards, this may see distant groups of stars and galaxies in the vast expanse of darkness. Both Space Perspective and Worldview provide balloon capsule space excursions for guests. The cost of individual balloon capsule journeys ranges from $50,000 to $125,000 per seat.

# data[].attributes.body
Rocket-propelled space tourism missions are pioneered by Elon Musk's which SpaceX. Commercial space flight was pioneered by SpaceX, whose constant aerospace and rocketry iterations have cut space travel costs. SpaceX launched, orbited, and recovered their spacecraft after receiving private funding. Although the corporation relies on commercial and government contracts, it may eventually dominate space tourism. Two space tourists engaged SpaceX in 2017 to do a moon orbit, which was delayed until 2023. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo is a singed space shuttle that reaches 53.5 miles above Earth. Tickets average $150,000. Richard Branson flew mid-2021. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin employs conventional rocket technology with reusable components. After a few days of training in Texas, passengers fly up to 62 miles in 11 minutes with zero gravity and magnificent vistas. The first ticket sold for $28 million, but Blue Shepherd's debut date and pricing are unknown.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration 2013

# data[].attributes.headline
Space exploration benefits Earth and everyone living on it in ways most people never expect.

# data[].attributes.subject
Space exploration benefits Earth and everyone living on it in ways most people never expect.

# data[].attributes.body
Space exploration is the grandest endeavor the human race has ever undertaken. Reaching out beyond the planetary cradle on which we evolved represents the next logical step in the evolution of the human race. Here are some benefit of space exploration to human from NASA studies:

- Scientific exploration.
- Earth observation.
- Medical advances.
- National security.

# data[].attributes.body
Space missions expand our understanding of the universe, leading to breakthroughs in astrophysics, cosmology, and planetary science. This knowledge has broad implications for advancing human understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Satellites in space help monitor Earth's climate, weather patterns, natural disasters, and environmental changes. This data is crucial for managing resources, disaster response, and environmental protection.

# data[].attributes.body
Research in space, particularly in microgravity environments, provides insights into human health. Discoveries have led to advancements in areas like bone density research and the development of medical technologies.

# data[].attributes.body
Space technologies play a role in national security, contributing to communication, surveillance, and navigation capabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
While aerospace industry offers numerous advantages and has transformed the way we explore and interact with the world, it also comes with certain disadvantages and challenges. Here are some of the disadvantages associated with aerospace:

- Environmental effect.
- Risk of accidents.
- Space debris.
- Limited energy efficiency.

# data[].attributes.body
Aerospace activities, particularly rocket launches, can have a significant environmental impact. They release greenhouse gases, contribute to ozone layer depletion, and produce harmful emissions and noise pollution.

# data[].attributes.body
Aircraft operations carry inherent risks. Mishaps, technical failures, or accidents can result in loss of life, damage to property, or environmental harm.

# data[].attributes.body
The increasing amount of space debris, including defunct satellites and rocket stages, poses a risk to active spacecraft and can create a hazardous environment in orbit. It is a growing concern for space agencies and commercial satellite operators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A computer-generated image representing the locations, but not relative sizes, of space debris as could be seen from high Earth orbit (HEO). The two main debris fields are the ring of objects in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) and the cloud of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO).

Space debris (also known as space junk, space pollution, space waste, space trash, space garbage, or cosmic debris) are defunct human-made objects in space - principally in Earth orbit - which no longer serve a useful function. These include derelict spacecraft - nonfunctional spacecraft and abandoned launch vehicle stages - mission-related debris, and particularly numerous in Earth orbit, fragmentation debris from the breakup of derelict rocket bodies and spacecraft. In addition to derelict human-made objects left in orbit, other examples of space debris include fragments from their disintegration, erosion and collisions or even paint flecks, solidified liquids expelled from spacecraft, and unburned particles from solid rocket motors. Space debris represents a risk to spacecraft.

Space debris is typically a negative externality - it creates an external cost on others from the initial action to launch or use a spacecraft in near-Earth orbit - a cost that is typically not taken into account nor fully accounted for in the cost by the launcher or payload owner.

Several spacecraft, both crewed and uncrewed, have been damaged or destroyed by space debris. The measurement, mitigation, and potential removal of debris are conducted by some participants in the space industry.

As of November 2022, the US Space Surveillance Network reported 25,857 artificial objects in orbit above the Earth, including 5,465 operational satellites. However, these are just the objects large enough to be tracked and in an orbit that makes tracking possible. Satellite debris that is in a Molniya orbit, such as the Kosmos Oko series, might be too high above the northern hemisphere to be tracked. As of January 2019, more than 128 million pieces of debris smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in), about 900,000 pieces of debris 1-10 cm, and around 34,000 of pieces larger than 10 cm (3.9 in) were estimated to be in orbit around the Earth. When the smallest objects of artificial space debris (paint flecks, solid rocket exhaust particles, etc.) are grouped with micrometeoroids, they are together sometimes referred to by space agencies as MMOD (Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris). Collisions with debris have become a hazard to spacecraft; the smallest objects cause damage akin to sandblasting, especially to solar panels and optics like telescopes or star trackers that cannot easily be protected by a ballistic shield.

Below 2,000 km (1,200 mi) Earth- altitude, pieces of debris are denser than meteoroids; most are dust from solid rocket motors, surface erosion debris like paint flakes, and frozen coolant from Soviet nuclear-powered satellites. For comparison, the International Space Station orbits in the 300-400 kilometres (190-250 mi) range, while the two most recent large debris events - the 2007 Chinese antisat weapon test and the 2009 satellite collision - occurred at 800 to 900 kilometres (500 to 560 mi) altitude. The ISS has Whipple shielding to resist damage from small MMOD; however, known debris with a collision chance over 1/10,000 are avoided by maneuvering the station.

Space debris began to accumulate in Earth orbit immediately with the first launch of an artificial satellite Sputnik 1 into orbit in October 1957. But even before that humans might have produced ejecta that became space debris, as in the August 1957 Pascal B test. Going back even earlier, there was natural ejecta from Earth in orbit.

After the launch of Sputnik, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) began compiling a database (the Space Object Catalog) of all known rocket launches and objects reaching orbit: satellites, protective shields and upper-stages of launch vehicles. NASA later published modified versions of the database in two-line element set, and beginning in the early 1980s the CelesTrak bulletin board system re-published them.

Gabbard diagram of almost 300 pieces of debris from the disintegration of the five-month-old third stage of the Chinese Long March 4 booster on 11 March 2000

The trackers (NORAD) who fed the database were aware of other objects in orbit, many of which were the result of in-orbit explosions. Some were deliberately caused during the 1960s anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) testing, and others were the result of rocket stages blowing up in orbit as leftover propellant expanded and ruptured their tanks. To improve tracking, NORAD employee John Gabbard kept a more detailed database of as many objects as he could identify.

Studying the explosions, in March 1971, 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 modeling of orbital evolution and decay.

When the NORAD database became publicly available during the 1970s, techniques developed for the asteroid-belt were applied to the study to the database of known artificial satellite Earth objects.

Baker-Nunn cameras were widely used to study space debris.

In addition to approaches to debris reduction where time and natural gravitational/atmospheric effects help to clear space debris, or a variety of technological approaches that have been proposed (with most not implemented) to reduce space debris, a number of scholars have observed that institutional factors - political, legal, economic, and cultural "rules of the game" - are the greatest impediment to the cleanup of near-Earth space. By 2014, there was little commercial incentive to reduce space debris, since the cost of dealing with it is not assigned to the entity producing it, but rather falls on all users of the space environment, and rely on human society as a whole that benefits from space technologies and knowledge. A number of suggestions for improving institutions so as to increase the incentives to reduce space debris have been made. These include government mandates to create incentives, as well as companies coming to see economic benefit to reducing debris more aggressively than existing government standard practices. In 1979 NASA founded the Orbital Debris Program to research mitigation measures for space debris in Earth orbit.

During the 1980s, NASA and other U.S. groups attempted to limit the growth of debris. One trial solution was implemented by McDonnell Douglas in 1981 for the Delta launch vehicle by having the booster move away from its payload and vent any propellant remaining in its tanks. This eliminated one source for pressure buildup in the tanks which had previously caused them to explode and create additional orbital debris. Other countries were slower to adopt this measure and, due especially to a number of launches by the Soviet Union, the problem grew throughout the decade.

A new battery of studies followed as NASA, NORAD, and others attempted to better understand the orbital environment, with each adjusting the number of pieces of debris in the critical-mass zone upward. Although in 1981 (when Schefter's article was published) the number of objects was estimated at 5,000, new detectors in the Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance system found new objects. By the late 1990s, it was thought that most of the 28,000 launched objects had already decayed and about 8,500 remained in orbit. By 2005 this was adjusted upward to 13,000 objects, and a 2006 study increased the number to 19,000 as a result of an ASAT and a satellite collision. In 2011, NASA said that 22,000 objects were being tracked.

A 2006 NASA model suggested that if no new launches took place the environment would retain the then-known population until about 2055, when it would increase on its own. Richard Crowther of Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency said in 2002 that he believed the cascade would begin about 2015. The National Academy of Sciences, summarizing the professional view, noted widespread agreement that two bands of LEO space - 900 to 1,000 km (620 mi) and 1,500 km (930 mi) - were already past critical density.

In the 2009 European Air and Space Conference, University of Southampton researcher Hugh Lewis predicted that the threat from space debris would rise 50 percent in the next decade and quadruple in the next 50 years. As of 2009, more than 13,000 close calls were tracked weekly.

A 2011 report by the U.S. National Research Council warned NASA that the amount of orbiting space debris was at a critical level. According to some computer models, the amount of space debris "has reached a tipping point, with enough currently in orbit to continually collide and create even more debris, raising the risk of spacecraft failures." The report called for international regulations limiting debris and research of disposal methods.

Objects in Earth orbit including fragmentation debris. November 2020 NASA:ODPO

By mid-1994 there had been 68 breakups or debris "anomalous events" involving satellites launched by the former Soviet Union/Russia and 18 similar events had been discovered involving rocket bodies and other propulsion-related operational debris.[40]

As of 2009, 19,000 debris over 5 cm (2 in) were tracked by United States Space Surveillance Network.[16]

As of July 2013, estimates of more than 170 million debris smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in), about 670,000 debris 1-10 cm, and approximately 29,000 larger pieces of debris are in orbit.[41]

As of July 2016, nearly 18,000 artificial objects are orbiting above Earth,[42] including 1,419 operational satellites.[43]

As of October 2019, nearly 20,000 artificial objects in orbit above the Earth,[9] including 2,218 operational satellites.[10]

As of January 2019 there were estimated to be over 128 million pieces of debris smaller than 1 cm (0.39 in), and approximately 900,000 pieces between 1 and 10 cm. The count of large debris (defined as 10 cm across or larger) was 34,000 in 2019, and at least 37,000 by June 2023. The technical measurement cut-off is c. 3 mm (0.12 in).

As of 2020, there were 8,000 metric tons of debris in orbit, a figure that is expected to increase.

Satellite hit by a space debris; animation by ESA

In the orbits nearest to Earth - less than 2,000 km (1,200 mi) orbital altitude, referred to as low-Earth orbit (LEO) - there have traditionally been few "universal orbits" that keep a number of spacecraft in particular rings (in contrast to GEO, a single orbit that is widely used by over 500 satellites). This is beginning to change in 2019, and several companies have begun to deploy the early phases of satellite internet constellations, which will have many universal orbits in LEO with 30 to 50 satellites per orbital plane and altitude. Traditionally, the most populated LEO orbits have been a number of sun-synchronous satellites that keep a constant angle between the Sun and the orbital plane, making Earth observation easier with consistent sun angle and lighting. Sun-synchronous orbits are polar, meaning they cross over the polar regions. LEO satellites orbit in many planes, typically up to 15 times a day, causing frequent approaches between objects. The density of satellites - both active and derelict - is much higher in LEO.

Orbits are affected by gravitational perturbations (which in LEO include unevenness of the Earth's gravitational field due to variations in the density of the planet), and collisions can occur from any direction. The average impact speed of collisions in Low Earth Orbit is 10 km/s with maximums reaching above 14 km/s due to orbital eccentricity. The 2009 satellite collision occurred at a closing speed of 11.7 km/s (26,000 mph), creating over 2,000 large debris fragments. These debris cross many other orbits and increase debris collision risk.

It is theorized that a sufficiently large collision of spacecraft could potentially lead to a cascade effect, or even make some particular low Earth orbits effectively unusable for long term use by orbiting satellites, a phenomenon known as the Kessler syndrome. The theoretical effect is projected to be a theoretical runaway chain reaction of collisions that could occur, exponentially increasing the number and density of space debris in low-Earth orbit, and has been hypothesized to ensue beyond some critical density.

Crewed space missions are mostly at 400 km (250 mi) altitude and below, where air drag helps clear zones of fragments. The upper atmosphere is not a fixed density at any particular orbital altitude; it varies as a result of atmospheric tides and expands or contracts over longer time periods as a result of space weather. These longer-term effects can increase drag at lower altitudes; the 1990s expansion was a factor in reduced debris density. Another factor was fewer launches by Russia; the Soviet Union made most of their launches in the 1970s and 1980s.

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 centuries. Although high-altitude orbits are less commonly used than LEO and the onset of the problem is slower, the numbers progress toward the critical threshold more quickly.

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 inclination increases about .8° and its speed increases about 160 km/h (99 mph) per year. Impact velocity peaks at about 1.5 km/s (0.93 mi/s). Orbital perturbations cause longitude drift of the inoperable spacecraft and precession of the orbital plane. Close approaches (within 50 meters) are estimated at one per year. The collision debris pose less short-term risk than from an LEO collision, but the satellite would likely become inoperable. Large objects, such as solar-power satellites, are especially vulnerable to collisions.

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. Satellites could be moved to empty spots in GEO, requiring less maneuvering and making it easier to predict future motion. Satellites or boosters in other orbits, especially stranded in geostationary transfer orbit, are an additional concern due to their typically high crossing velocity.

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 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; its engineers had enough contact time with the satellite to send it into a graveyard orbit.

Vanguard 1 is expected to remain in orbit for 240 years.[66][67]

In 1958, the United States of America had launched Vanguard I into a medium Earth orbit (MEO). As of October 2009, it, the upper stage of Vanguard 1's launch rocket and associated piece of debris, are the oldest surviving artificial space objects still in orbit and are expected to be until after the year 2250. As of May 2022, the Union of Concerned Scientists listed 5,465 operational satellites from a known population of 27,000 pieces of orbital debris tracked by NORAD.

Despite the use of passivization, or prior to its standardization, many satellites and rocket bodies have exploded or broken apart on orbit. In February 2015, for example, the USAF Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Flight 13 (DMSP-F13) exploded on orbit, creating at least 149 debris objects, which were expected to remain in orbit for decades. Later that same year, NOAA-16 which had been decommissioned after an anomaly in June 2014, broke apart on orbit into at least 275 pieces. For older programs, such as the Soviet-era Meteor 2 and Kosmos satellites, design flaws resulted in numerous break-ups - at least 68 by 1994 - following decommissioning, resulting in more debris.

In addition to the accidental creation of debris, some has been made intentionally through the deliberate destruction of satellites. This has been done as a test of anti-satellite or anti-ballistic missile technology, or to prevent a sensitive satellite from being examined by a foreign power. The United States has conducted over 30 anti-satellite weapons tests (ASATs), the Soviet Union/ Russia has performed at least 27, China has performed 10 and India has performed at least one. The most recent ASATs were the Chinese interception of FY-1C, Russian trials of its PL-19 Nudol, the American interception of USA-193 and India's interception of an unstated live satellite.

A drifting thermal blanket photographed in 1998 during STS-88.

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, a thermal blanket lost during STS-88, garbage bags jettisoned by Soviet cosmonauts during Mir's 15-year life, a wrench, and a toothbrush. Sunita Williams of STS-116 lost a camera during an EVA. 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.

Spent upper stage of a Delta II rocket, photographed by the XSS 10 satellite

Rocket upper stages which end up in orbit are a significant source of space debris. 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. The first such instance involved the launch of the Transit-4a satellite in 1961. Two hours after insertion the Ablestar upper stage exploded. But even boosters that don't break apart can be a problem as a major known impact event involved an (intact) Ariane booster.

Although NASA and the United States Air Force now require upper-stage passivation, other launchers - such as the Chinese and Russian space agencies - do not. Lower stages, like the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters or Apollo program's Saturn IB launch vehicles, do not reach orbit.

Orbit of 2020 SO

Examples:

Two Japanese H-2A rockets rockets broke up in 2006.

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. Although the explosion was captured on film by astronomers, due to the orbit path the debris cloud has been difficult to measure with radar. By 21 February 2007, over 1,000 fragments were identified. A 14 February 2007 breakup was recorded by Celestrak.

Another Briz-M broke up on 16 October 2012 after a failed 6 August Proton-M launch. The amount and size of the debris was unknown.

The second stage of the Zenit-2, called the SL-16 by western governments, along with the second stages of the Vostok and Kosmos launch vehicles, make up about 20% of the total mass of launch debris in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). An analysis that determined the 50 "statistically most concerning" debris objects in low Earth orbit determined that the top 20 were all Zenit-2 upper stages.

a Delta II rocket used to launch NASA's 1989 COBE spacecraft exploded on December 3, 2006. This occurred even though its residual fuel had already been vented to space.

In December 2020, scientists confirmed that a previously detected near-Earth object, 2020 SO, was rocket booster space junk launched in 1966 orbiting Earth and the Sun.

At least eight Delta rockets have contributed orbital debris in the sun-synchronous low earth orbit environment. The variant of the Delta upper stage that was used in the 1970's was found to be prone to in-orbit explosions. Starting in 1981, depletion burns - to get rid of excess propellant - became standard and no Delta Rocket Bodies launched after 1981 experience severe fragmentations afterward, but some of those launched prior to 1981 continued to explode. In 1991, the Delta 1975-052B fragmented, 16 years after launch, demonstrating the resilience of the propellent.

A past debris source was the testing of anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) by the U.S. and Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s. North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) files only contained data for Soviet tests, and debris from U.S. tests were only identified later. By the time the debris problem was understood, widespread ASAT testing had ended; the U.S. Program 437 was shut down in 1975.

The U.S. restarted their ASAT programs in the 1980s with the Vought ASM-135 ASAT. A 1985 test destroyed a 1-tonne (2,200 lb) satellite orbiting at 525 km (326 mi), creating thousands of debris larger than 1 cm (0.39 in). Due to the altitude, atmospheric drag decayed the orbit of most debris within a decade. A de facto moratorium followed the test.

Known orbit planes of Fengyun-1C debris one month after the weather satellite's disintegration by the Chinese ASAT

China's government was condemned for the military implications and the amount of debris from the 2007 anti-satellite missile test, the largest single space debris incident in history (creating over 2,300 pieces golf-ball size or larger, over 35,000 1 cm (0.4 in) or larger, and one million pieces 1 mm (0.04 in) or larger). The target satellite orbited between 850 km (530 mi) and 882 km (548 mi), the portion of near-Earth space most densely populated with satellites. Since atmospheric drag is low at that altitude, the debris is slow to return to Earth, and in June 2007 NASA's Terra environmental spacecraft maneuvered to avoid impact from the debris. Dr. Brian Weeden, U.S. Air Force officer and Secure World Foundation staff member, noted that the 2007 Chinese satellite explosion created an orbital debris of more than 3,000 separate objects that then required tracking. On 20 February 2008, the U.S. launched an SM-3 missile from the USS Lake Erie to destroy a defective U.S. spy satellite thought to be carrying 450 kg (1,000 lb) of toxic hydrazine propellant. The event occurred at about 250 km (155 mi), and the resulting debris has a perigee of 250 km (155 mi) or lower. The missile was aimed to minimize the amount of debris, which (according to Pentagon Strategic Command chief Kevin Chilton) had decayed by early 2009.

On 27 March 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that India shot down one of its own LEO satellites with a ground-based missile. He stated that the operation, part of Mission Shakti, would defend the country's interests in space. Afterwards, US Air Force Space Command announced they were tracking 270 new pieces of debris but expected the number to grow as data collection continues.

The vulnerability of satellites to debris and the possibility of attacking LEO satellites to create debris clouds has triggered speculation that it is possible for countries unable to make a precision attack. An attack on a satellite of 10 t (22,000 lb) or more would heavily damage the LEO environment.

A micrometeoroid left this crater on the surface of Space Shuttle Challenger's front window on STS-7.

Space junk can be a hazard to active satellites and spacecraft. It has been theorized that Earth orbit could even become impassable if the risk of collision grows too high.

However, since the risk to spacecraft increases with exposure to high debris densities, it is more accurate to say that LEO would be rendered unusable by orbiting craft. The threat to craft passing through LEO to reach a higher orbit would be much lower owing to the very short time span of the crossing.

Uncrewed spacecraft

Although spacecraft are typically protected by Whipple shields, solar panels, which are exposed to the Sun, wear from low-mass impacts. Even small impacts can produce a cloud of plasma which is an electrical risk to the panels.

Satellites are believed to have been destroyed by micrometeorites and (small) orbital debris (MMOD). The earliest suspected loss was of Kosmos 1275, which disappeared on 24 July 1981 (a month after launch). Kosmos contained no volatile fuel, therefore, there appeared to be nothing internal to the satellite which could have caused the destructive explosion which took place. However, the case has not been proven and another hypothesis forwarded is that the battery exploded. Tracking showed it broke up, into 300 new objects.

Many impacts have been confirmed since. For example, on 24 July 1996, the French microsatellite Cerise was hit by fragments of an Ariane-1 H-10 upper-stage booster which exploded in November 1986. On 29 March 2006, the Russian Ekspress AM11 communications satellite was struck by an unknown object and rendered inoperable. On 13 October 2009, Terra suffered a single battery cell failure anomaly and a battery heater control anomaly which were subsequently considered likely the result of an MMOD strike. On 12 March 2010, Aura lost power from one-half of one of its 11 solar panels and this was also attributed to an MMOD strike. On 22 May 2013, GOES 13 was hit by an MMOD which caused it to lose track of the stars that it used to maintain an operational attitude. It took nearly a month for the spacecraft to return to operation.

The first major satellite collision occurred on 10 February 2009. The 950 kg (2,090 lb) derelict satellite Kosmos 2251 and the operational 560 kg (1,230 lb) Iridium 33 collided, 500 mi (800 km) over northern Siberia. The relative speed of impact was about 11.7 km/s (7.3 mi/s), or about 42,120 km/h (26,170 mph). Both satellites were destroyed, creating thousands of pieces of new smaller debris, with legal and political liability issues unresolved even years later. On 22 January 2013, BLITS (a Russian laser-ranging satellite) was struck by debris suspected to be from the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test, changing both its orbit and rotation rate.

Satellites sometimes perform Collision Avoidance Maneuvers and satellite operators may monitor space debris as part of maneuver planning. For example, in January 2017, the European Space Agency made the decision to alter orbit of one of its three Swarm mission spacecraft, based on data from the US Joint Space Operations Center, to lower the risk of collision from Cosmos-375, a derelict Russian satellite.

Crewed spacecraft

Crewed flights are naturally particularly sensitive to the hazards that could be presented by space debris conjunctions in the orbital path of the spacecraft. Examples of occasional avoidance maneuvers, or longer-term space debris wear, have occurred in Space Shuttle missions, the MIR space station, and the International Space Station.

Space Shuttle missions

Space Shuttle Discovery's lower starboard wing and Thermal Protection System tiles, photographed on STS-114 during an R-Bar Pitch Manoeuvre where astronauts examine the TPS for any damage during ascent

From the early Space Shuttle missions, NASA used NORAD space monitoring capabilities to assess the Shuttle's orbital path for debris. In the 1980s, this used a large proportion of NORAD capacity. The first collision-avoidance maneuver occurred during STS-48 in September 1991, a seven-second thruster burn to avoid debris from the derelict satellite Kosmos 955. Similar maneuvers were initiated on missions 53, 72 and 82.

One of the earliest events to publicize the debris problem occurred on Space Shuttle Challenger's second flight, STS-7. A fleck of paint struck its front window, creating a pit over 1 mm (0.04 in) wide. On STS-59 in 1994, Endeavour's front window was pitted about half its depth. Minor debris impacts increased from 1998.

Window chipping and minor damage to thermal protection system tiles (TPS) were already common by the 1990s. The Shuttle was later flown tail-first to take a greater proportion of the debris load on the engines and rear cargo bay, which are not used in orbit or during descent, and thus are less critical for post-launch operation. When flying attached to the ISS, the two connected spacecraft were flipped around so the better-armoured station shielded the orbiter.

Space Shuttle Endeavour had a major impact on its radiator during STS-118. The entry hole is about 5.5 mm (0.22 in), and the exit hole is twice as large.

A NASA 2005 study concluded that debris accounted for approximately half of the overall risk to the Shuttle. Executive-level decision to proceed was required if the catastrophic impact was likelier than 1 in 200. On a normal (low-orbit) mission to the ISS, the risk was approximately 1 in 300, but the Hubble telescope repair mission was flown at the higher orbital altitude of 560 km (350 mi) where the risk was initially calculated at a 1-in-185 (due in part to the 2009 satellite collision). A re-analysis with better debris numbers reduced the estimated risk to 1 in 221, and the mission went ahead.

Debris incidents continued on later Shuttle missions. During STS-115 in 2006 a fragment of circuit board bored a small hole through the radiator panels in Atlantis's cargo bay. On STS-118 in 2007 debris blew a bullet-like hole through Endeavour's radiator panel.

Impact wear was notable on Mir, the Soviet space station since it remained in space for long periods with its original solar module panels.

Debris impacts on Mir's solar panels degraded their performance. The damage is most noticeable on the panel on the right, which is facing the camera with a high degree of contrast. Extensive damage to the smaller panel below is due to impact with a Progress spacecraft.

International Space Station

The ISS also uses Whipple shielding to protect its interior from minor debris. However, exterior portions (notably its solar panels) cannot be protected easily. In 1989, the ISS panels were predicted to degrade approximately 0.23% in four years due to the "sandblasting" effect of impacts with small orbital debris. An avoidance maneuver is typically performed for the ISS if "there is a greater than one-in-10,000 chance of a debris strike". As of January 2014, there have been sixteen maneuvers in the fifteen years the ISS had been in orbit. By 2019, over 1,400 meteoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) impacts had been recorded on the ISS.

As another method to reduce the risk to humans on board, ISS operational management asked the crew to shelter in the Soyuz on three occasions due to late debris-proximity warnings. In addition to the sixteen thruster firings and three Soyuz-capsule shelter orders, one attempted maneuver was not completed due to not having the several days' warning necessary to upload the maneuver timeline to the station's computer. A March 2009 event involved debris believed to be a 10 cm (3.9 in) piece of the Kosmos 1275 satellite. In 2013, the ISS operations management did not make a maneuver to avoid any debris, after making a record four debris maneuvers the previous year.

Kessler syndrome

Growth of tracked objects in orbit and related events;[137] efforts to manage outer space global commons have so far not reduced the debris or the growth of objects in orbit

The Kessler syndrome, proposed by NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a theoretical scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade effect where each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions. He further theorized that one implication, if this were to occur, is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges economically impractical for many generations.

The growth in the number of objects as a result of the late-1990s studies sparked debate in the space community on the nature of the problem and the earlier dire warnings. According to Kessler's 1991 derivation and 2001 updates, the LEO environment in the 1,000 km (620 mi) altitude range should be cascading. However, only one major satellite collision incident occurred: the 2009 satellite collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251. The lack of obvious short-term cascading has led to speculation that the original estimates overstated the problem. According to Kessler in 2010 however, a cascade may not be obvious until it is well advanced, which might take years.

Saudi officials inspect a crashed PAM-D module in January 2001.

Although most debris burns up in the atmosphere, larger debris 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. Burning up in the atmosphere may also contribute to atmospheric pollution. Numerous small cylindrical tanks from space objects have been found, designed to hold fuel or gasses.

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 re-acquisition 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. 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).

The Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) is an important source of information on small-particle space debris.

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

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).

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.

An average of about one tracked object per day has been dropping out of orbit for the past 50 years, averaging almost three objects per day at solar maximum (due to the heating and expansion of the Earth's atmosphere), but one about every three days at solar minimum, usually five and a half years later. In addition to natural atmospheric effects, corporations, academics and government agencies have proposed plans and technology to deal with space debris, but as of November 2014, most of these are theoretical, and there is no extant business plan for debris reduction.

A number of scholars have also observed that institutional factors - political, legal, economic, and cultural "rules of the game" - are the greatest impediment to the cleanup of near-Earth space. There is little commercial incentive to act, since costs are not assigned to polluters, though a number of technological solutions have been suggested. However, effects to date are limited. In the US, governmental bodies have been accused of backsliding on previous commitments to limit debris growth, "let alone tackling the more complex issues of removing orbital debris." The different methods for removal of space debris have been evaluated by the Space Generation Advisory Council, including French astrophysicist Fatoumata Kébé.

There is no international treaty minimizing space debris. However, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) published voluntary guidelines in 2007, using a variety of earlier national regulatory attempts at developing standards for debris mitigation. As of 2008, the committee was discussing international "rules of the road" to prevent collisions between satellites. By 2013, a number of national legal regimes existed, typically instantiated in the launch licenses that are required for a launch in all spacefaring nations.

The U.S. issued a set of standard practices for civilian (NASA) and military ( DoD and USAF) orbital-debris mitigation in 2001. The standard envisioned disposal for final mission orbits in one of three ways: 1) atmospheric reentry where even with "conservative projections for solar activity, atmospheric drag will limit the lifetime to no longer than 25 years after completion of mission;" 2) maneuver to a "storage orbit:" move the spacecraft to one of four very broad parking orbit ranges (2,000-19,700 km (1,200-12,200 mi), 20,700-35,300 km (12,900-21,900 mi), above 36,100 km (22,400 mi), or out of Earth orbit completely and into any heliocentric orbit; 3) "Direct retrieval: Retrieve the structure and remove it from orbit as soon as practicable after completion of mission." The standard articulated in option 1, which is the standard applicable to most satellites and derelict upper stages launched, has come to be known as the "25-year rule". The US updated the Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) in December 2019, but made no change to the 25-year rule even though "[m]any in the space community believe that the timeframe should be less than 25 years." There is no consensus however on what any new timeframe might be.

In 2002, the European Space Agency (ESA) worked with an international group to promulgate a similar set of standards, also with a "25-year rule" applying to most Earth-orbit satellites and upper stages. Space agencies in Europe began to develop technical guidelines in the mid-1990s, and ASI, UKSA, CNES, DLR and ESA signed a "European Code of Conduct" in 2006, which was a predecessor standard to the ISO international standard work that would begin the following year. In 2008, ESA further developed "its own "Requirements on Space Debris Mitigation for Agency Projects" which "came into force on 1 April 2008."

Germany and France have posted bonds to safeguard the property from debris damage. The "direct retrieval" option (option no. 3 in the US "standard practices" above) has rarely been done by any spacefaring nation (exception, USAF X-37) or commercial actor since the earliest days of spaceflight due to the cost and complexity of achieving direct retrieval, but the ESA has scheduled a 2025 demonstration mission (Clearspace-1) to do this with a single small 100 kg (220 lb) derelict upper stage at a projected cost of €120 million not including the launch costs.

By 2006, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) had developed a number of technical means of debris mitigation (upper stage passivation, propellant reserves for movement to graveyard orbits, etc.) for ISRO launch vehicles and satellites, and was actively contributing to inter-agency debris coordination and the efforts of the UN COPUOS committee.

In 2007, the ISO began preparing an international standard for space-debris mitigation. By 2010, ISO had published "a comprehensive set of space system engineering standards aimed at mitigating space debris. [with primary requirements] defined in the top-level standard, ISO 24113." By 2017, the standards were nearly complete. However, these standards are not binding on any party by ISO or any international jurisdiction. They are simply available for use in any of a variety of voluntary ways. They "can be adopted voluntarily by a spacecraft manufacturer or operator, or brought into effect through a commercial contract between a customer and supplier, or used as the basis for establishing a set of national regulations on space debris mitigation."

The voluntary ISO standard also adopted the "25-year rule" for the "LEO protected region" below 2,000 km (1,200 mi) altitude that has been previously (and still is, as of 2019) used by the US, ESA, and UN mitigation standards, and identifies it as "an upper limit for the amount of time that a space system shall remain in orbit after its mission is completed. Ideally, the time to deorbit should be as short as possible (i.e., much shorter than 25 years)".

Holger Krag of the European Space Agency states that as of 2017 there is no binding international regulatory framework with no progress occurring at the respective UN body in Vienna.

The continued practice of disposing of space debris on Earth in areas such as the spacecraft cemetery has raised environmental concerns. Klinger states that "the environmental geopolitics of Earth and outer space are inextricably linked by the spatial politics of privilege and sacrifice - among people, places, and institutions". Since 1971, 273 spacecraft and satellites have been directed to Point Nemo; this number includes the Mir Space Station (142 tonnes) and will include the International Space Station in 2024 (240 tonnes). In 2018, it was found that the water had 26 microplastic particles per cubic metre, meaning it is highly polluted. The prevalence of orbital debris has been likened to the terrestrial environmental phenomenon of " sacrifice zones", which are designated geographic regions with high levels of environmental degradation.

Since the 1960s, over three hundred rocket launch sites have been built globally. Among these launch sites, 17 hosted 90 launches in 2017 alone. Rocket launches affect local and global environments through the construction of necessary infrastructure, exposure of local environments to toxic residue and the dispersal of pollutants. Rockets are the only source of direct anthropogenic emissions into the stratosphere and emit ozone depleting substances such as nitrous oxide, hydrogen chloride and aluminium oxide; these substances can destroy 105 ozone molecules before depleting. Each launch showers an area concentrated within a kilometre with toxins, heavy metals, and acids. This results in localised regional acid rain, plant death, fish kills, and failed seed germination. Furthermore, studies on trace elements concentration in alligators, near NASA launch activities in Florida (USA), showed that over 50% of alligators had "greater than toxic levels" of trace elements in their liver. Similarly, research in Kazakhstan, Russia and China has found that unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) has carcinogenic, mutagenic, convulsant, teratogenic, embryotoxic and DNA damaging effects on rodents living near the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. It is unknown, however, at what trace concentrations these toxic effects manifest in humans or how it may bioaccumulate up the food chain. A lack of adequate resourcing to maintain safe, non-toxic environments makes these areas sacrifice zones and spaces of waste. The relative remoteness of these spaces makes them attractive launch sites, yet this "periphery" remain central to both their human and non-human inhabitants, who become "sacrificial".

An increase in anthropogenic activity in outer space has resulted in large amounts of physical pollution known as orbital debris. This has resulted in space becoming more and more congested due to this rapid increase. This increase in congestion threatens the orbital operations of nations and corporations alike. However, orbital debris also has an impact on the wider population through various means, such as potentially lethal debris falling from the sky, or orbital debris ruining night skies through light pollution. Environmental justice as described by the United States Environmental Protection Agency is the fair and meaningful involvement of all demographics in the development and implementation of environmental regulations and policies. Outer space can be seen as an environment like any other environment on Earth, making orbital debris a potential issue of environmental justice.

The idea of environmental injustice is also that the rights of those who have suffered environmental harm or have been disrupted and encroached upon by more powerful actors are protected. In the context of the space industry large space organisations and nations are the powerful actors and those who have suffered are public. Recent research shows that space exploration opens many questions about environmental justice. Environmental geopolitics of the earth and that of outer space are linked, particularly by the geopolitics of privilege from one party and sacrifice from another. They are also linked in the premise of environmental justice, this injustice can unfold on multiple scales such as emission from space launches, placement of outer space-related infrastructure and of course orbital debris in this case.

There is an argument that as well as viewing space as an environment space should also be viewed as a commons. If space is viewed as a commons then its resources need to be managed for the common good of all people. If not, then this poses a risk of injustice. By managing space as a resource that all nations have access to, and none can claim sovereignity over, outer space can be also understood as an example of a global commons. However, legally defining space as a common is challenging, as the idea of global commons is a social construct. Many space treaties include various phrases describing and defining the usage of outer space, including phrases such as "for the benefit of all people" and "shall be the providence of all mankind". However, none of these treaties provides an adequate framework for handling resources or resolving issues.

Governance frameworks for outer space have a very narrow and utilitarian view of outer space that looks at what they can gain from exploration.

Spatial density of LEO space debris by altitude, according to 2011 a NASA report to the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs[194]

Spatial density of space debris by altitude according to ESA MASTER-2001, without debris from the Chinese ASAT and 2009 collision events

As of the 2010s, several technical approaches to the mitigation of the growth of space debris are typically undertaken, yet no comprehensive legal regime or cost assignment structure is in place to reduce space debris in the way that terrestrial pollution has reduced since the mid-20th century.

To avoid excessive creation of artificial space debris, many - but not all - satellites launched to above-low-Earth-orbit are launched initially into elliptical orbits with perigees inside Earth's atmosphere so the orbit will quickly decay and the satellites then will destroy themselves upon reentry into the atmosphere. Other methods are used for spacecraft in higher orbits. These include passivation of the spacecraft at the end of its useful life; as well as the use of upper stages that can reignite to decelerate the stage to intentionally deorbit it, often on the first or second orbit following payload release; satellites that can, if they remain healthy for years, deorbit themselves from the lower orbits around Earth. Other satellites (such as many CubeSats) in low orbits below approximately 400 km (250 mi) orbital altitude depend on the energy-absorbing effects of the upper atmosphere to reliably deorbit a spacecraft within weeks or months.

Increasingly, spent upper stages in higher orbits - orbits for which low-delta-v deorbit is not possible, or not planned for - and architectures that support satellite passivation, at end of life are passivated at end of life. This removes any internal energy contained in the vehicle at the end of its mission or useful life. While this does not remove the debris of the now derelict rocket stage or satellite itself, it does substantially reduce the likelihood of the spacecraft destructing and creating many smaller pieces of space debris, a phenomenon that was common in many of the early generations of US and Soviet spacecraft.

Upper stage passivation (e.g. of Delta boosters) by releasing residual propellants reduces debris from orbital explosions; however even as late as 2011, not all upper stages implement this practice. SpaceX used the term "propulsive passivation" for the final maneuver of their six-hour demonstration mission ( STP-2) of the Falcon 9 second stage for the US Air Force in 2019, but did not define what all that term encompassed.

With a "one-up, one-down" launch-license policy for Earth orbits, launchers would rendezvous with, capture and de-orbit a derelict satellite from approximately the same orbital plane. Another possibility is the robotic refueling of satellites. Experiments have been flown by NASA, and SpaceX is developing large-scale on-orbit propellant transfer technology.

Another approach to debris mitigation is to explicitly design the mission architecture to always leave the rocket second-stage in an elliptical geocentric orbit with a low-perigee, thus ensuring rapid orbital decay and avoiding long-term orbital debris from spent rocket bodies. Such missions will often complete the payload placement in a final orbit by the use of low-thrust electric propulsion or with the use of a small kick stage to circularize the orbit. The kick stage itself may be designed with the excess-propellant capability to be able to self-deorbit.

Although the ITU requires geostationary satellites to move to a graveyard orbit at the end of their lives, the selected orbital areas do not sufficiently protect GEO lanes from debris. Rocket stages (or satellites) with enough propellant may make a direct, controlled de-orbit, or if this would require too much propellant, a satellite may be brought to an orbit where atmospheric drag would cause it to eventually de-orbit. This was done with the French Spot-1 satellite, reducing its atmospheric re-entry time from a projected 200 years to about 15 by lowering its altitude from 830 km (516 mi) to about 550 km (342 mi).

The Iridium constellation - 95 communication satellites launched during the five-year period between 1997 and 2002 - provides a set of data points on the limits of self-removal. The satellite operator - Iridium Communications - remained operational over the two-decade life of the satellites (albeit with a company name change through a corporate bankruptcy during the period) and, by December 2019, had "completed disposal of the last of its 65 working legacy satellites." However, this process left 30 satellites with a combined mass of (20,400 kg (45,000 lb), or nearly a third of the mass of this constellation) in LEO orbits at approximately 700 km (430 mi) altitude, where self-decay is quite slow. Of these satellites, 29 simply failed during their time in orbit and were thus unable to self-deorbit, while one - Iridium 33 - was involved in the 2009 satellite collision with the derelict Russian military satellite Kosmos-2251. No contingency plan was laid for the removal of satellites that were unable to remove themselves. In 2019, the Iridium CEO, Matt Desch, said that Iridium would be willing to pay an active-debris-removal company to deorbit its remaining first-generation satellites if it were possible for an unrealistically low cost, say "US$10,000 per deorbit, but [he] acknowledged that price would likely be far below what a debris-removal company could realistically offer. 'You know at what point [it's] a no-brainer, but [I] expect the cost is really in the millions or tens of millions, at which price I know it doesn't make sense.'"

Passive methods of increasing the orbital decay rate of spacecraft debris have been proposed. Instead of rockets, an electrodynamic tether could be attached to a spacecraft at launch; at the end of its lifetime, the tether would be rolled out to slow the spacecraft. Other proposals include a booster stage with a sail-like attachment and a large, thin, inflatable balloon envelope.

In late December 2022, ESA successfully carried out a demonstration of a breaking sail-based satellite deorbiter, , which could be used by mitigation measures and is part of ESA's Zero Debris Initiative. Around one year earlier, China also tested a drag sail.

A variety of approaches have been proposed, studied, or had ground subsystems built to use other spacecraft to remove existing space debris.

A consensus of speakers at a meeting in Brussels in October 2012, organized by the Secure World Foundation (a U.S. think tank) and the French International Relations Institute, reported that removal of the largest debris would be required to prevent the risk to spacecraft becoming unacceptable in the foreseeable future (without any addition to the inventory of dead spacecraft in LEO). To date in 2019, removal costs and legal questions about ownership and the authority to remove defunct satellites have stymied national or international action. Current space law retains ownership of all satellites with their original operators, even debris or spacecraft which are defunct or threaten active missions.

A well-studied solution uses a remotely controlled vehicle to rendezvous with, capture, and return debris to a central station. One such system is Space Infrastructure Servicing, a commercially developed refueling depot and service spacecraft for communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit originally scheduled for a 2015 launch. The SIS would be able to "push dead satellites into graveyard orbits." The Advanced Common Evolved Stage family of upper stages is being designed with a high leftover-propellant margin (for derelict capture and de-orbit) and in-space refueling capability for the high delta-v required to de-orbit heavy objects from geosynchronous orbit. A tug-like satellite to drag debris to a safe altitude for it to burn up in the atmosphere has been researched. When debris is identified the satellite creates a difference in potential between the debris and itself, then using its thrusters to move itself and the debris to a safer orbit.

A variation of this approach is for the remotely controlled vehicle to rendezvous with debris, capture it temporarily to attach a smaller de-orbit satellite and drag the debris with a tether to the desired location. The "mothership" would then tow the debris-smallsat combination for atmospheric entry or move it to a graveyard orbit. One such system is the proposed Busek ORbital DEbris Remover (ORDER), which would carry over 40 SUL (satellite on umbilical line) de-orbit satellites and propellant sufficient for their removal.

On 7 January 2010 Star, Inc. reported that it received a contract from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command for a feasibility study of the ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE) propellantless spacecraft for space-debris removal. In February 2012 the Swiss Space Center at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne announced the Clean Space One project, a nanosatellite demonstration project for matching orbit with a defunct Swiss nanosatellite, capturing it and de-orbiting together. The mission has seen several evolutions to reach a pac-man inspired capture model. In 2013, Space Sweeper with Sling-Sat (4S), a grappling satellite which captures and ejects debris was studied. In 2022, a Chinese satellite, SJ-21, grabbed an unused satellite and "threw" it into an orbit with a lower risk for it to collide.

In December 2019, the European Space Agency awarded the first contract to clean up space debris. The €120 million mission dubbed ClearSpace-1 (a spinoff from the EPFL project) is slated to launch in 2025. It aims to remove a 100 kg VEga Secondary Payload Adapter (Vespa) left by Vega flight VV02 in an 800 km (500 mi) orbit in 2013. A "chaser" will grab the junk with four robotic arms and drag it down to Earth's atmosphere where both will burn up.

The laser broom uses a ground-based laser to ablate the front of the debris, producing a rocket-like thrust that slows the object. With continued application, the debris would fall enough to be influenced by atmospheric drag. During the late 1990s, the U.S. Air Force's Project Orion was a laser-broom design. Although a test-bed device was scheduled to launch on a Space Shuttle in 2003, international agreements banning powerful laser testing in orbit limited its use to measurements. The 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster postponed the project and according to Nicholas Johnson, chief scientist and program manager for NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office, "There are lots of little gotchas in the Orion final report. There's a reason why it's been sitting on the shelf for more than a decade."

The momentum of the laser-beam photons could directly impart a thrust on the debris sufficient to move small debris into new orbits out of the way of working satellites. NASA research in 2011 indicates that firing a laser beam at a piece of space junk could impart an impulse of 1 mm (0.039 in) per second, and keeping the laser on the debris for a few hours per day could alter its course by 200 m (660 ft) per day. One drawback is the potential for material degradation; the energy may break up the debris, adding to the problem. A similar proposal places the laser on a satellite in Sun-synchronous orbit, using a pulsed beam to push satellites into lower orbits to accelerate their reentry. A proposal to replace the laser with an Ion Beam Shepherd has been made, and other proposals use a foamy ball of aerogel or a spray of water, inflatable balloons, electrodynamic tethers, electroadhesion, and dedicated anti-satellite weapons.

On 28 February 2014, Japan's Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched a test "space net" satellite. The launch was an operational test only. In December 2016 the country sent a space junk collector via Kounotori 6 to the ISS by which JAXA scientists experiment to pull junk out of orbit using a tether. The system failed to extend a 700-meter tether from a space station resupply vehicle that was returning to Earth. On 6 February the mission was declared a failure and leading researcher Koichi Inoue told reporters that they "believe the tether did not get released".

The RemoveDEBRIS mission plan is to test the efficacy of several ADR technologies on mock targets in low Earth orbit. In order to complete its planned experiments the platform is equipped with a net, a harpoon, a laser ranging instrument, a dragsail, and two CubeSats (miniature research satellites). The mission was launched on 2 April 2018.

Metal processing technologies to melt space debris and transform it into other useful form factors are developed by CisLunar Industries. Their system uses electromagnetic heating to melt metal and shape it into metal wire, sheet metal, and metal fuel.

A propulsion system dubbed the Neumann Drive has been developed in Adelaide, Australia, with first sent into space in June 2023. Metal space junk is converted into fuel rods, which can be plugged into the Neumann Drive, "basically converting the solid metal propellant into plasma". The Drive will be used by American space companies which already carry nets or robotic arms to capture orbital waste. The thruster enables these satellites to return to Earth with the waste they have collected, allowing it to be melted down to make more fuel.

With the rapid development of the computer and digitalization industries, more countries and companies have engaged in space activities since the turn of the 20th century. The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory referring to a situation where maximizing self-interest through using a shared resource can finally lead to the resource degradation shared by all. Based on the theory, individuals' rational action in space will finally lead to an irrational collective result: orbits are crowded with debris. As a common-pool resource, the Earth's orbits, especially LEO and GEO that accommodate most satellites, are nonexcludable and rivalry. To address the tragedy and ensure space sustainability, many technical approaches have been developed. And in terms of governance mechanisms, the top-down centralized one is less suitable to tackle the complex debris problem due to the increasing number of space actors. Instead, much evidence has proved that polycentric form of governance developed by Elinor Ostrom can work in space.

In the process of promoting the polycentric network, there are some existing barriers needed to be dealt with.

As orbital debris is a global problem affecting both spacefaring and non-spacefaring nations, it is necessary to be handled in a worldwide context. Because of the complexity and dynamics of object movements like spacecraft, debris, meteorites, etc., many countries and regions including the United States, Europe, Russia and China have developed their space situational awareness (SSA) to avoid potential threats in space or plan actions in advance. To a certain extent, SSA plays a role in tracking space debris. In order to build a powerful SSA system, there are two prerequisites: international cooperation and exchange of information and data. However, limitations still exist in spite of the substantially improving data quality over the past decades. Some space powers are not willing to share the information that they have collected, and those, such as the U.S., that have shared the data keep parts of it secret. Instead of joining in a coordinated way, a great deal of SSA programs and national databases run parallel to each other with some overlaps, hindering the formation of a collaborative monitoring system.

Some private actors are also trying to establish SSA systems. For example, the Space Data Association (SDA) formed in 2009 is a non-governmental entity. It currently consists of 21 global satellite operators and 4 executive members: Eutelsat, Inmarsat, Intelsat and SES. SDA is a non-profit platform, aiming to avoid radio interference and space collisions through pooling data from operators independently. Researchers suggest that it is essential to establish an international center for exchanging information on space debris because SSA networks do not completely equal debris tracking systems - the former ones focus more on active and threatening objects in space. And in terms of debris populations and defunct satellites, not very much operators have provided data.

In a polycentric governance network, a resource that cannot be holistically monitored is less possible to be well managed. Both insufficient transnational cooperation and information sharing bring resistance to addressing the debris problem. There is still a long way to go before building a global network that covers complete data and has strong interconnection and interoperability.

With the commercialization of satellites and space, the private sector is getting more interested in space activities. For example, SpaceX is planning to create a network of around 12,000 small satellites that can transmit high-speed internet to any place in the world. The proportion of commercial spacecraft has increased from 4.6% in the 1980s to 55.6% in the 2010s. Despite the high participation rate of commercial entities, UN COPUOS once deliberately excluded them from having a voice in discussions unless being formally invited by a member state. Ostrom said that the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the rule-design and implementation process is one of the critical elements of successful governance. The exclusion of private actors largely reduces the effectiveness of the committee's role in making collective-choice arrangements that reflect the interests of all space users.

The limited engagement of private actors slows down the process of addressing space debris to some degree. Ties existing between dissimilar stakeholders in the governance network offer access to diverse resources. Different competence among stakeholders can help allocate the tasks more reasonably. In that case, the expertise and experience of private operators are critical to help the world achieve space sustainability. The complementary strengths of different stakeholders enable the governance network to be more adaptable to changes and reach common goals more effectively. In recent years, many private actors have seen commercial opportunities of eliminating space debris. It is estimated that by 2022 the global market for debris monitoring and removal will generate a revenue of around $2.9 billion. For example, Astroscale has contracted with European and Japanese space agencies to develop the capacity of removing orbital debris. Despite that, they are still in small quantity compared to the number of those who have placed satellites in space. Privateer Space, a Hawaiian-based startup company started by American engineer Alex Fielding, space environmentalist Dr. Moriba Jah, and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, announced plans in September 2021 to launch hundreds of satellites into orbit in order to study space debris. However, the company stated it is in "stealth mode" and no such satellites have been launched.

Fortunately, the current space exploration is not completely driven by competition, and there still exists a chance for dialogues and cooperation among all stakeholders in both developed and developing countries, to reach an agreement on tackling space debris and assure an equitable and orderly exploration. Besides private actors, network governance does not necessarily exclude the states from playing a role. Instead, the different functions of states might promote the governance process. To improve the polycentric governance network of space debris, researchers suggest: encourage data-sharing among different national and organizational databases at the political level; develop shared standards for data collection systems to improve interoperability; enhance the participation of private actors through involving them in national and international discussions.

A piece of a thermal blanket that may have come from the descent stage of the Perseverance

Perseverance's backshell sitting upright on the surface of Jezero Crater

The issue of space debris has been raised as a mitigation challenge for missions around the Moon with the danger of increasing space debris around it.

In 2022, several elements of space debris were found on Mars, Perseverance's backshell was found on the surface of Jezero Crater, and a piece of a thermal blanket that may have come from the descent stage of the rover.

It is thought that on 4 March 2022, for the first time, human space debris - most likely a spent rocket body, Long March 3C third stage from the 2014 Chang'e 5 T1 mission - unintentionally hit the lunar surface, creating an unexpected double crater.

Until the End of the World (1991) is a French sci-fi drama set under the backdrop of an out-of-control Indian nuclear satellite, predicted to re-enter the atmosphere, threatening vast populated areas of the Earth.

, a 2013 survival film directed by Alfonso Cuaron, is about a disaster on a space mission caused by Kessler syndrome.

In season 1 of Love, Death & Robots (2019), episode 11, "Helping Hand", revolves around an astronaut being struck by a screw from space debris which knocks her off a satellite in orbit.

Manga and anime tells a story about a crew of Space Debris station that collects and disposes space debris.

Gleghorn, George; et al. (1995). Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment (PDF) (Report). National Academy of Sciences. ISBN 0-309-05125-8..

Hoots, Felix; Schumacher, Paul Jr.; Glover, Robert A. (2004). "History of Analytical Orbit Modeling in the U.S. Space Surveillance System". Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. 27 (2): 174-185. Bibcode:2004JGCD...27..174H. doi:10.2514/1.9161.

Johnson, Nicholas L. (1998). "Monitoring and Controlling Debris in Space". Scientific American. 279 (2): 62-67. Bibcode:1998SciAm.279b..62J. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0898-62. JSTOR 26070599..

Kessler, Donald (1971). "Estimate of Particle Densities and Collision Danger for Spacecraft Moving Through the Asteroid Belt". Physical Studies of Minor Planets. NASA SP-267. 267: 595-605. Bibcode:1971NASSP.267..595K..

Kessler, Donald; Cour-Palais, Burton (June 1978). "Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research. 81 (A6): 2637-46. Bibcode:1978JGR....83.2637K. doi:10.1029/JA083iA06p02637. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 May 2011..

Kessler, Donald (1981). "Sources of Orbital Debris and the Projected Environment for Future Spacecraft" (PDF). Journal of Spacecraft. 16 (4): 357-60. Bibcode:1981JSpRo..18..357K. doi:10.2514/3.57828. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2010..

Kessler, Donald (December 1991). "Collisional Cascading: The Limits of Population Growth in Low Earth Orbit" (PDF). Advances in Space Research. 11 (12): 63-66. Bibcode:1991AdSpR..11l..63K. doi:10.1016/0273-1177(91)90543-S. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2010..

Kessler, Donald; Anz-Meador, Phillip (March 2001). "Critical Number of Spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit: Using Fragmentation Data to Evaluate the Stability of the Orbital Debris Environment" (PDF). Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Space Debris. Darmstadt Germany..

Kessler, Donald (8 March 2009). The Kessler Syndrome. Western University Canada..

Liou, J.-C. (14 January 2020). "Risks from Orbital Debris and Space Situational Awareness" (PDF). IAA Conference on Space Situational Awareness. Washington, D.C..

Schefter, Jim (July 1982). "The Growing Peril of Space Debris". Popular Science. Vol. 221, no. 1. pp. 48-51 - via Google Books..

"What is Orbital Debris?", Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, Aerospace Corporation

Committee for the Assessment of NASA's Orbital Debris Programs (2011). Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. ISBN 978-0-309-21974-7.
News item summarizing the above report

Steven A. Hildreth and Allison Arnold. Threats to U.S. National Security Interests in Space: Orbital Debris Mitigation and Removal. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 8 January 2014.

David Leonard, "The Clutter Above", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2005.

Patrick McDaniel, "A Methodology for Estimating the Uncertainty in the Predicted Annual Risk to Orbiting Spacecraft from Current or Predicted Space Debris Population". National Defense University, 1997.

"Interagency Report on Orbital Debris, 1995", National Science and Technology Council, November 1995.

Nickolay Smirnov, Space Debris: Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002, ISBN 0-415-27907-0.

Richard Talcott, "How We Junked Up Outer Space", Astronomy, Volume 36, Issue 6 (June 2008), pp. 40-43.

"Technical report on space debris, 1999", United Nations, 2006. ISBN 92-1-100813-1.

Robin Biesbroek (2015). Active Debris Removal in Space: How to Clean the Earth's Environment from Space Debris. CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1-5085-2918-7.

Khatchadourian, Raffi, "The Trash Nebula: Millions of man-made artifacts are circling Earth. Will one of them cause a disaster?", 28 September 2020, pp. 44-52, 54-55. "By one estimate, there are a hundred million bits of debris that are a millimetre in size, a hundred million as small as a micron. We live in a corona of trash. [T]he problem, if ignored, could destroy all the satellites that orbit near the Earth - a loss that would be more acutely felt as humanity increasingly relied on space." (p. 47.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Space debris (also known as space junk, space pollution, space waste, space trash, space garbage, or cosmic debris) are defunct human-made objects in space - principally in Earth orbit - which no longer serve a useful function.

# data[].attributes.body
Space travel and rocket launches require significant amounts of energy, which often come from non-renewable sources. Developing more energy-efficient propulsion systems is a challenge.

# data[].attributes.body
To summarise, the aerospace industry is a powerful and ever-changing sector that has a huge impact on the development of technology, scientific exploration, and general human progression. The aerospace industry has greatly enhanced our understanding of the cosmos and transformed our engagement with it across several areas, such as space flight and deep space research. The aircraft sector serves as a focal point for the integration of technical advancements, scientific exploration, and global cooperation. As we consider the future, the industry's continued progress offers the possibility of new discoveries, groundbreaking improvements, and a constant improvement in our understanding of the cosmos and our place in it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opinion about Aerospace Industry in future.

# data[].attributes.subject
Opinion about Aerospace Industry in future.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the future of the aerospace industry appears poised for continued evolution, marked by exciting opportunities and transformative advancements. Environmental considerations will gain prominence. The aerospace industry is likely to intensify efforts to adopt sustainable practices, reduce emissions, and explore eco-friendly technologies to address environmental concerns and meet global sustainability goals. Other that, the industry will continue to demonstrate resilience and adaptability. Adapting to geopolitical shifts, economic challenges, and global events will be crucial for sustained growth and innovation. While the future of the aerospace industry holds great promise, it will also require addressing challenges, embracing sustainability, and navigating the complexities of a rapidly evolving technological landscape. Overall, the industry is positioned to be a driving force in shaping the future of human exploration and connectivity.

# data[].attributes.body
Here link of references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace

https://www.britannica.com/technology/aerospace-industry/History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Holdings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Aerospace_%26_Technologies

https://www.cnbc.com/aerospace-defense/

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/why-go-to-space/

https://thegeopolitics.com/the-future-of-aerospace-advancements-and-innovations/#google_vignette

https://www.gozerog.com/article/how-to-visit-space-as-a-tourist/#

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/how-to-go-to-space

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/space-tourism-firms-plan-to-use-balloons-to-go-to-space-in-2024.html

https://www.ey.com/en_us/aerospace-defense/2022-aerospace-and-defense-workforce-study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefits_of_space_exploration

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/benefits-stemming-from-space-exploration-2013-tagged.pdf

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14296283/sensor-processing-artificial-intelligence-ai-sensors-networking

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/armstrong/advancing-space-based-medical-technology-through-suborbital-flights-2/

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/global-air-travel-last-year-22-million-jet-flights-just-one-fatal-accident/

https://aerospace.org/cords

https://generalaviationnews.com/2020/11/22/tips-to-improve-fuel-efficiency-in-your-airplane/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=MDvH8lWcU4g

https://www.mida.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Aerospace-SIB-2022-2023.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Strategically located at the heart of the wider Asia-Pacific region, Malaysia sits within the world’s largest air travel market, and has world-class infrastructure. Together with its business-friendly Government, supportive industry policies, diversified manufacturing base, and widely available industry talent, the country is a cost-effective location for projects. The Malaysian Government considers the industry to be a catalytic high- value industry under its 11th Malaysia Plan (11MP) and beyond. The Government has also put in place the Malaysian Aerospace Industry. Blueprint 2030 (MAIB2030) to help drive the industry’s growth. Underscoring the Asia-Pacific region’s air travel market growth, The Boeing Company predicts that demand for planes will pick up over the next decade, with the region needing almost 17,485 planes. The region will also account for 39 per cent of global deliveries of passenger and freight planes over the same period. With 40 per cent of aerospace industry growth coming from Asia-Pacific alone, and a collective GDP of four ASEAN countries exceeding US$1 trillion by 2030, the future of the industry is in Asia.

# data[].attributes.headline
Given the robust industry growthoutlook for the Asia-Pacific region,opportunities abound in:

# data[].attributes.subject
Given the robust industry growthoutlook for the Asia-Pacific region,opportunities abound in:

# data[].attributes.body
Strategically located in the heart of Southeast Asia, Malaysia’s economic landscape with state-of-the-art and world-class infrastructure such as the KLIA Aeropolis, Subang Aerotech Park, Senai Aerospace Park, Serendah High Value Manufacturing Park Kulim Hi-Tech Park, Nusajaya Tech Park and Penang Technology Park@Bertam.

# data[].attributes.body
Aerospace manufacturing is one of the fastest growing subsectors within the industry, both in the areas of metallic and composite details and assemblies. In Malaysia, aerospace manufacturing has overtaken all other subsectors in the industry as the main contributor to total revenue. There are efforts underway to further develop local supply chains and vendors (Tier 2 and below) to support demand.

Tier 1 set ups such as UMW Holdings Berhad’s plant (which manufactures Rolls-Royce fan cases) catalyse lower tier industry growth. The company’s new aerospace hard metal manufacturing park provides an excellent platform to nurture this subsector. Leading aerostructure manufacturing firms with a presence in Malaysia include Spirit AeroSystems Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Composites Technology Research Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Aerospace Composites Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., SME Aerospace Sdn. Bhd., Upeca Aerotech Sdn. Bhd. (part of Senior plc), Singapore Aerospace Manufacturing (SAM), and Honeywell.