Scientific American - 11.2019

(Nancy Kaufman) #1
November 2019, ScientificAmerican.com 23

ANNA SERDYUK

Getty Images

spective, junk can be very valuable. When
we call orbital debris “space junk,” we’re
closing off the idea that it might have some
positive qualities, now or in the future.
Some space junk is still functional—satel-
lites that still have fuel and can still transmit.
They’re only junk because no one is using
them at this point in time. Not that these
things must be gathering and relaying data
to be useful; space artifacts can have pri-
marily social rather than scientific functions,
like Elon Musk’s now interplanetary red Tes-
la sports car, or Vanguard 1, the oldest satel-
lite [remaining] in space. Most of their value
comes from shaping people’s ideas of what
space is and how they are connected to it.

In your book, you argue that orbital
debris should be left in place when
there’s no risk of collision with opera-
tional satellites and spacecraft. But
why not bring something like Van-
guard 1 down and put it in a museum?
I don’t think putting Vanguard 1 or other
superlative artifacts in a museum is the
best strategy for preserving value.
An artifact’s setting can be an impor-
tant part of its significance. Some of Van-
guard 1’s significance depends on its being
the oldest human-made object in orbit.
Brought back to Earth, it can’t be the old-
est thing in orbit anymore—something

else would gain that status. And, in terms
of scientific significance, the longer we
leave it up there, the more precious it
becomes as a resource telling us the
effects of long-term exposure to the space
environment. We can and do study this
remotely, measuring via reflectance how
rough Vanguard 1’s once smooth surface is
becoming over time. Also, if you put Van-
guard 1 in a museum, most people will
never see it, only locals or tourists. But left
as is, anyone can go look for it in the sky.

Are there any space artifacts or sites
that merit special protections?
I’m very worried about lunar sites, particu-
larly those of the Apollo landings. Everyone
seems to be talking about going to the
moon again, and people have talked about
visiting or approaching these places. If we
don’t make a solid case for their protec-
tion, then some cowboy might just send a
rover right up to Apollo 11’ s landing site and
drive over Armstrong’s and Aldrin’s foot-
prints. Even if they only get close enough
for a photo from a distance, that can still
stir up lots of lunar dust, which can be very
damaging for past exploration sites. On
Earth the archaeological principle is to not
unnecessarily destroy things and to always
leave more for future researchers who may
use better, more advanced techniques.

islands is distinct from the marine record,
Zhang adds, it helps to build the case for
a multimillion-year age.
The Sahara is the biggest source of air-
borne dust in the world—and that dust’s
journey does not end in the Canary Islands,
which lie just off the western coast of Afri-
ca. It continues on to places such as the

Caribbean and the Amazon rain forest,
Muhs notes. Amazon soils are poor in
nutrients, and he says the new results help
to show how nourishing dust from Africa
could have been supporting the South
American region’s incredible biodiversity
for millions of years—adding to the Ama-
zon’s own origin story. —Lucas Joel

Caravan journeys across
Saharan dunes in Libya.

© 2019 Scientific American © 2019 Scientific American


November 2019, ScientificAmerican.com 23

ANNA SERDYUK

Getty Images

spective, junk can be very valuable. When
we call orbital debris “space junk,” we’re
closing off the idea that it might have some
positive qualities, now or in the future.
Some space junk is still functional—satel-
lites that still have fuel and can still transmit.
They’re only junk because no one is using
them at this point in time. Not that these
things must be gathering and relaying data
to be useful; space artifacts can have pri-
marily social rather than scientific functions,
like Elon Musk’s now interplanetary red Tes-
la sports car, or Vanguard 1, the oldest satel-
lite [remaining] in space. Most of their value
comes from shaping people’s ideas of what
space is and how they are connected to it.

In your book, you argue that orbital
debris should be left in place when
there’s no risk of collision with opera-
tional satellites and spacecraft. But
why not bring something like Van-
guard 1 down and put it in a museum?
I don’t think putting Vanguard 1 or other
superlative artifacts in a museum is the
best strategy for preserving value.
An artifact’s setting can be an impor-
tant part of its significance. Some of Van-
guard 1’s significance depends on its being
the oldest human-made object in orbit.
Brought back to Earth, it can’t be the old-
est thing in orbit anymore—something

else would gain that status. And, in terms
of scientific significance, the longer we
leave it up there, the more precious it
becomes as a resource telling us the
effects of long-term exposure to the space
environment. We can and do study this
remotely, measuring via reflectance how
rough Vanguard 1’s once smooth surface is
becoming over time. Also, if you put Van-
guard 1 in a museum, most people will
never see it, only locals or tourists. But left
as is, anyone can go look for it in the sky.

Are there any space artifacts or sites
that merit special protections?
I’m very worried about lunar sites, particu-
larly those of the Apollo landings. Everyone
seems to be talking about going to the
moon again, and people have talked about
visiting or approaching these places. If we
don’t make a solid case for their protec-
tion, then some cowboy might just send a
rover right up to Apollo 11’ s landing site and
drive over Armstrong’s and Aldrin’s foot-
prints. Even if they only get close enough
for a photo from a distance, that can still
stir up lots of lunar dust, which can be very
damaging for past exploration sites. On
Earth the archaeological principle is to not
unnecessarily destroy things and to always
leave more for future researchers who may
use better, more advanced techniques.

islands is distinct from the marine record,
Zhang adds, it helps to build the case for
a multimillion-year age.
The Sahara is the biggest source of air-
borne dust in the world—and that dust’s
journey does not end in the Canary Islands,
which lie just off the western coast of Afri-
ca. It continues on to places such as the

Caribbean and the Amazon rain forest,
Muhs notes. Amazon soils are poor in
nutrients, and he says the new results help
to show how nourishing dust from Africa
could have been supporting the South
American region’s incredible biodiversity
for millions of years—adding to the Ama-
zon’s own origin story. —Lucas Joel

Caravan journeys across
Saharan dunes in Libya.

sad1119Adva3p.indd 23 9/18/19 5:19 PM

In


SCIENCE


We


Trust


Join the nation’s


largest association of
freethinkers, atheists

and agnostics working
to keep religion
out of government.

FFRF is a 501(c)(3) educational charity.
Deductible for income tax purposes.

ffrf.org


For a free sample of
FFRF’s newspaper,
Freethought Today:

Call 1-800-335-4021
ffrf.us/reason

Call 1-800-335-4021


Freethought Today:


Untitled-113 1 11/09/2019 17:26

Untitled-11 1 9/19/19 9:24 AM
Free download pdf