Posted by
Hemos
on from the fun-with-accelerated-light dept.
Andy_R writes: "The BBC is reporting that NASA is to build a laser "broom" that is designed to sweep debris in space away from the path of the International Space Station." It's being tested - the plan is to destroy debris between one to ten centimeters in length.
Re:Suddenly 30,000 times cooler...
by
styopa
·
· Score: 3
Actually we have had lasers that can damage, if not destroy, other countries satilites for more than a year.
There is one of these in Arizona, it was tested last year to see if it could hit a sensor so that NASA could record some info. They used the lowest setting that they knew would reach the satilite and it destroyed the sensor.
As for lasers in space. There is an international treaty that was originally constructed and signed by the US, CCCP, and China that bans laser weapons in space. So NASA could not construct a deathstar with lasers without breaking international treaty. Particle weapons and rail guns, on the other hand, I believe are still viable options.
-- Disclamer - Opinion of Person
I need a laser broom for my workshop
by
anticypher
·
· Score: 3
Man, just think of how fast I could clean up with one of those. Hurry up NASA, you've finally created a useful bit of technology!:-)
the AC
-- Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
But seriously, this has been just one of many proposals for clearing space junk. There's foam shields, thermal reflectors, lasers, armor, reactive panels, and, my favorite, luck. -
bukra fil mish mish -
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Trials of the system are due to start in 2003. The US space shuttle will launch dummy targets of a similar size, and a laser back on Earth will attempt to lock on to them.
I don't understand, there's TONS of junk already up there that they're tracking all the time. Why release MORE of it to test with??
How does it work, Mr. Wizard?
by
code_rage
·
· Score: 3
The BBC article does not say how it works. Although vaporizing debris might seem like a good idea, a little calculation shows that the energy requirements for this are HUGE. Do a little calorimetry on melting a steel bolt. I haven't done the calculations but it's gotta be pretty daunting. (Where's that CRC handbook when I need it?)
A few months ago I heard of a proposal by The Aerospace Corp to use lasers for just this purpose. The idea was to generate light pressure on debris objects to cause orbital decay, not to disintegrate them. The experiment mentioned by the BBC is likely a feasibility demonstration.
Orbital debris is the probably the single greatest hazard for any planned satellite or space station. Something like this will make sustained development of orbital frontiers much more feasible.
I'm getting antsy to see us (globally, not in a U.S.ian sense) put more send more platforms up the gravity well. All of the more realistic proposals for interstellar/interplanetary travel involve orbital construction.
And again, I think that sustainable development is key. What's the orbital equivalent of ecology? Vacuumology? La Grange-ology?
-carl
-- .
We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
Suddenly 30,000 times cooler...
by
MythoBeast
·
· Score: 3
Ten centimeters? Do you realize that this means we can shoot other people's satilites out of orbit? Cool! Unfortunately, even a laser beam would spread out over several feet when shot from the ground - it would be REALLY neat if they could have one of those suckers mounted on the space station itself. It's the NASA deathstar!
Mythological Beast
-- Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Weapons treaty to change?
by
liquidgrrl
·
· Score: 4
I fail to understand how this system will get past the international weapons treaty mentioned in the article. It states that it "is a ground-based system that can locate and destroy or divert these fragments." However, the system trials planned for 2003 "will not involve lasers with sufficient power to affect the debris, as there are concerns that such high power devices might contravene the international weapons treaty banning laser weapons in space."
Do they expect the treaty to be altered in time for the system's official launch? Is NASA expecting that the space station will acquire significant puplic importance, sufficient to overcome the general fear of 'space lasers' that initially birthed the treaty?
Just one thing is on my mind: "How the hell did the Russians do it?"
The Russians, who are the world experts on long-duration space flight, simply relied on their cosmonauts' being able to scurry into a Soyez capsule in the event of a hull breach. Unless the breach were catastrophic, e.g. impact with a large piece of junk, the crew would have many minutes before the cabin would become uninhabitable. This indeed happened in recent times, though not from impact with space debris or meteorites. During the Shuttle-Mir program Tsibliev, the Russian cosmonaut/commander, inadvertantly rammed an unmanned supply vessel into Mir and punctured the hull of the space station. Tsibliev has since been cleared of wrongdoing in the collision since Energia (the private company who runs Mir) and their systems were ultimately at fault, but he and Latzukin, the other cosmonaut on board at the time, will probably never return to space--in the Russian program you don't make Energia look bad and then expect to collect your bonuses or see time in the sky. Michael Foale was the NASA astronaut on Mir at the time. Apparently, as Foale has commented subsequent to his mission, having one's ears pop from a hull breach can really ruin one's day.
The collision, depressurization, and subsequent risky EVAs (even an intra-vehicular activity where astronauts moved through the depressurized cabin to restore the science component of Mir and diagnose the breach) caused much concern among NASA for the safety of the astronaut and cosmonauts on board. It should come as no surprise that the international community wants a system for averting such emergencies on the ISS.
You don't want to tell me it's because the Russians are more lucky, do you?
No, but cultural differences exist in how we and they approach space flight. In short, we think they are reckless, and they think we are wusses. In many ways their cosmonauts are more flexible than our astronauts. We train our astronauts six ways until Sunday to do precisely what we want them to do in space, and almost without fail they do it. The Russians have less reliance on specifics, but they have a wealth of experience forming contingencies and repairing broken stuff. Space stations suffer breakdowns, and the ISS will be no different. The Russians cosmonauts and ground support personnel, with their experience keeping Mir up in the sky for so long, will prove to be valuable partners in the ISS program.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually we have had lasers that can damage, if not destroy, other countries satilites for more than a year.
There is one of these in Arizona, it was tested last year to see if it could hit a sensor so that NASA could record some info. They used the lowest setting that they knew would reach the satilite and it destroyed the sensor.
As for lasers in space. There is an international treaty that was originally constructed and signed by the US, CCCP, and China that bans laser weapons in space. So NASA could not construct a deathstar with lasers without breaking international treaty. Particle weapons and rail guns, on the other hand, I believe are still viable options.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Man, just think of how fast I could clean up with one of those. Hurry up NASA, you've finally created a useful bit of technology! :-)
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
... to the term "Vacuum cleaner."
But seriously, this has been just one of many proposals for clearing space junk. There's foam shields, thermal reflectors, lasers, armor, reactive panels, and, my favorite, luck.
-
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
I don't understand, there's TONS of junk already up there that they're tracking all the time. Why release MORE of it to test with??
A few months ago I heard of a proposal by The Aerospace Corp to use lasers for just this purpose. The idea was to generate light pressure on debris objects to cause orbital decay, not to disintegrate them. The experiment mentioned by the BBC is likely a feasibility demonstration.
Orbital debris is the probably the single greatest hazard for any planned satellite or space station. Something like this will make sustained development of orbital frontiers much more feasible.
I'm getting antsy to see us (globally, not in a U.S.ian sense) put more send more platforms up the gravity well. All of the more realistic proposals for interstellar/interplanetary travel involve orbital construction.
And again, I think that sustainable development is key. What's the orbital equivalent of ecology? Vacuumology? La Grange-ology?
-carl
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
Ten centimeters? Do you realize that this means we can shoot other people's satilites out of orbit? Cool! Unfortunately, even a laser beam would spread out over several feet when shot from the ground - it would be REALLY neat if they could have one of those suckers mounted on the space station itself. It's the NASA deathstar!
Mythological Beast
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Do they expect the treaty to be altered in time for the system's official launch? Is NASA expecting that the space station will acquire significant puplic importance, sufficient to overcome the general fear of 'space lasers' that initially birthed the treaty?
The New Scientist article
Marshall Space Flight Center PDF file
I first read that topic and throught, "whoa--Internet Security Systems is getting reallllly serious about proactive security..."
I'm too deep in this all.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Just one thing is on my mind: "How the hell did the Russians do it?"
The Russians, who are the world experts on long-duration space flight, simply relied on their cosmonauts' being able to scurry into a Soyez capsule in the event of a hull breach. Unless the breach were catastrophic, e.g. impact with a large piece of junk, the crew would have many minutes before the cabin would become uninhabitable. This indeed happened in recent times, though not from impact with space debris or meteorites. During the Shuttle-Mir program Tsibliev, the Russian cosmonaut/commander, inadvertantly rammed an unmanned supply vessel into Mir and punctured the hull of the space station. Tsibliev has since been cleared of wrongdoing in the collision since Energia (the private company who runs Mir) and their systems were ultimately at fault, but he and Latzukin, the other cosmonaut on board at the time, will probably never return to space--in the Russian program you don't make Energia look bad and then expect to collect your bonuses or see time in the sky. Michael Foale was the NASA astronaut on Mir at the time. Apparently, as Foale has commented subsequent to his mission, having one's ears pop from a hull breach can really ruin one's day.
The collision, depressurization, and subsequent risky EVAs (even an intra-vehicular activity where astronauts moved through the depressurized cabin to restore the science component of Mir and diagnose the breach) caused much concern among NASA for the safety of the astronaut and cosmonauts on board. It should come as no surprise that the international community wants a system for averting such emergencies on the ISS.
You don't want to tell me it's because the Russians are more lucky, do you?
No, but cultural differences exist in how we and they approach space flight. In short, we think they are reckless, and they think we are wusses. In many ways their cosmonauts are more flexible than our astronauts. We train our astronauts six ways until Sunday to do precisely what we want them to do in space, and almost without fail they do it. The Russians have less reliance on specifics, but they have a wealth of experience forming contingencies and repairing broken stuff. Space stations suffer breakdowns, and the ISS will be no different. The Russians cosmonauts and ground support personnel, with their experience keeping Mir up in the sky for so long, will prove to be valuable partners in the ISS program.