Adapting Satellite Design to the Growing Space Debris Problem

Interview conducted by Louis CastelJul 13 2026

insights from industryDean SladenAerospace Engineer & Quality ManagerAccu Components

AZoQuantum speaks to Dean Sladen, Aerospace Engineer & Quality Manager at Accu Components, about the growing challenge of space debris and what it means for the future of satellite engineering. 

Could you tell us a little about your role at Accu Components and how precision-engineered components connect to the wider aerospace and satellite sector?

At Accu, my day-to-day role as Quality Manager focuses on ensuring our precision components meet exacting standards and that our quality management system operates flawlessly. However, my foundational background is in aerospace engineering, a field in which I hold a Master of Science. At Accu, we bridge the gap between microscopic precision and macroscopic exploration. We work closely with high-profile space agencies, ranging from major government organizations to commercial developers, supplying high-integrity fasteners and components essential for payload prototyping.

Download the PDF of this interview here

The Space Debris Report highlights more than 33,000 tracked objects in orbit, with nearly half classified as junk. From an engineering perspective, what makes even very small debris fragments so dangerous to spacecraft?

Space debris poses an extraordinary risk to both crewed and uncrewed orbital missions. Because there is minimal atmospheric drag in low Earth orbit, small objects travel at hypervelocities, often exceeding 7 to 8 kilometers per second, and can maintain that energy for decades.

To put that into perspective, back in 2015, a tiny fleck of paint estimated to be just a few thousandths of a millimeter wide struck the International Space Station, leaving a 7mm circular chip in one of the cupola windows. The crew was safe because those windows are engineered with a 1 cm-thick debris pane, but a slightly larger object could easily have penetrated it.

The true existential threat, however, is the cascading debris from collisions. In 2009, the American communications satellite Iridium-33 collided with a defunct Russian military satellite, Kosmos-2251, at a relative speed of 11.7 km/s. The impact instantly destroyed both spacecraft, generating over 2,300 trackable debris fragments. Unlike on Earth, these fragments don't slow down; they keep orbiting, threatening other satellites and risking a chain reaction known as the Kessler Syndrome. Ultimately, a heavily cluttered orbit could trap humanity on Earth, making future launches financially prohibitive and incredibly dangerous.

Image Credit: Accu Components

How does the growing debris environment influence the way engineers think about component design, material choice, and reliability for higher impact tolerance?

Designing for orbital debris isn't a new challenge; agencies like NASA established the Orbital Debris Program Office back in 1979, pioneering 'inherent mass design' where existing structural components are strategically placed to shield sensitive internal electronics.

However, as orbits become more congested, passive shielding isn't always enough. Engineers are forced to look at dedicated shielding, advanced impact-resistant materials, and highly damage-tolerant component designs. Material selection is now incredibly important: structures must absorb hypervelocity kinetic energy while minimizing internal damage.

Because designers must factor in a higher probability of debris impact into their mission risk assessments, adding dedicated shielding entails significant trade-offs. Every extra gram of shielding reduces payload capacity, increases the required propellant, and significantly drives up launch costs. Reliability engineering now extends beyond making a component work to ensuring it can survive a hostile environment.

What does that ratio of satellite to debris in orbit tell us about the long-term sustainability of satellite operations and future launch activity?

In the near term, a high debris-to-satellite ratio forces the industry into a defensive posture. It reduces the usable capacity of premier orbital regions and drives up operational costs through mandatory collision-avoidance maneuvers, heavier shielding, and stricter end-of-life disposal protocols.

Long-term, as that ratio skews further, we inch closer to the critical mass required to trigger the self-sustaining chain reaction of the Kessler Syndrome. The conversation around space access is fundamentally changing: future growth in satellite launches will no longer be dictated by how many rockets we can physically build and launch, but by whether we can successfully control and remove debris to keep those orbits safely usable.

Which debris-removal concepts do you think show the most promise, and what are the biggest engineering challenges in making them work at scale?

Active Debris Removal (ADR) is one of the most exciting frontiers in aerospace right now. Concepts utilizing net-capture systems, robotic arms, and even magnetic docking, like those being trialed by companies like ClearSpace, show immense promise for capturing large, defunct objects before they break apart.

The engineering challenges of scaling these technologies are monumental. First, you are dealing with 'non-cooperative targets.' These are dead satellites tumbling unpredictably at thousands of miles per hour; matching their spin rate and securing a safe capture point without creating more debris requires incredibly sophisticated autonomous guidance and navigation. Second, there is an economic scaling issue. Launching a highly complex, dedicated pursuit vehicle to bring down just one piece of junk is incredibly expensive. To make ADR viable at scale, we need multi-target capture vehicles capable of neutralizing several high-risk objects in a single mission.

Image Credit: Accu Components

How close are we to a point where debris management becomes a standard design requirement for every mission?

We are right on the cusp of it shifting from 'best practice' to strict regulatory compliance. The landscape changed significantly when the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) introduced its five-year deorbit mandate for low Earth orbit satellites, which took effect in late 2024. The European Space Agency (ESA) has followed a similar path, advancing its Zero Debris Charter, which commits signatories to a near-zero debris footprint by 2030.

Currently, compliance still relies heavily on regional licensing regimes and operator goodwill. However, as international space agencies align on these regulations, debris management, end-of-life propulsive deorbiting, and 'design-for-demise' will very quickly become non-negotiable standard requirements for every mission design globally.

What questions should engineers and scientists be asking about the environmental impact of re-entry, both in orbit and on Earth?

Historically, re-entry research only asked one question: 'Will any large chunks survive to hit the ground?' Little thought was given to what happens when tons of advanced materials vaporize in our upper atmosphere. While more studies have emerged over the last decade, this is still a relatively young field of research.

Initial findings are already raising red flags. Studies show that roughly 10% of aerosol particles in the stratosphere now contain aluminum and other metals that originate directly from the 'burn-up' of satellites and rocket stages.

As an industry, we must urgently address several key environmental questions:

• What exact chemical compounds are being vaporized into our upper atmosphere?

• What are the long-term anthropogenic effects of these metallic aerosols on the ozone layer and global temperatures?

• How will this atmospheric impact scale as mega-constellations increase the frequency of re-entries?

• How do we accurately measure and monitor these atmospheric changes moving forward?

In short, we need to understand the true ecological footprint of 'clean' deorbiting before the scale of space travel outpaces research.

What role can precision component suppliers like Accu Components play in helping the aerospace industry build safer, more resilient, and more sustainable space systems?

While Accu doesn't supply flight-certified hardware for final orbit quite yet, our role is absolutely vital in the critical R&D and prototyping phases where space sustainability truly begins. Before any spacecraft ever reaches the launchpad, it undergoes rigorous ground testing, and we specialize in providing the high-precision components and exotic aerospace-grade materials, like titanium and aluminum, that prototypers need to build and test their designs. 

Our components are trusted by industry leaders like NASA and SpaceX, and though we aren't privy to the confidential projects our fasteners are integrated into, their presence in these engineering pipelines highlights how crucial accessible, high-quality hardware is during development. By empowering engineers to safely iterate, stress-test, and refine their structural designs on Earth using the exact material profiles they need, we help ensure that the final, flight-approved systems are inherently safer, more reliable, and optimized for long-term sustainability.

We also explored the possibility of data centers in space - read on here

About the Speaker