Slashdot Mirror


Space Station & Shuttle Evade Debris

T.Hobbes writes: "There's an article at the BBC about the shuttle had to take evasive maneuvers to avoid the close (5km) transit of some rocket debris, and how the fuel consumed has cut short the shuttle's stay in orbit by one day. NASA also has an article about it." I know that minor maneuvers are common, but this one seems like a rather major move. Anyone want to bet on how long it will be before we have to establish some sort of clean-up effort in space?

151 comments

  1. Why not build some garbage cleaning satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with kewl missiles and lasers designed to shoot debris... or ICBM's if need be.

  2. They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by Brento · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Slashdot article doesn't make it quite clear enough that they weren't trying to keep the shuttle clear of the debris - they were trying to keep the space station clear of debris. That's why it consumed so much fuel (they had to budge the entire space station 3/4 of a mile.) It's easy to move the shuttle, much harder to use the shuttle as a tugboat.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by FTL · · Score: 3, Interesting
      > It's easy to move the shuttle, much harder to use the shuttle as a tugboat.

      Simple question: What happens if they spot a piece of junk heading at them when a shuttle isn't docked?

      Obviously they would have this covered. The options I can think of are:

      • One of the Russian modules has a propultion device, but can it fire when there's stuff docked to its rear end?
      • The Soyuz lifeboat has engines, but does it have enough fuel to haul the station around and still return safely to Earth? Besides, the Soyuz is often docked at right angles to the V-bar, meaning it's engines would just make the station pinwheel.
      • There is often a Progress cargo delivery ship docked, maybe it can tap into the Russian module's fuel and burn it useing its own engines?
      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    2. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by Ubi_NL · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's three russian solutions, of which none is sure.
      Other countries must have thought of this I presume. If all relies on getting a space shuttle up there it's just a matter of waiting untill bad weather prevents the shuttle to launch in time

      --

      If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    3. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by rtscts · · Score: 2, Funny
      What happens if they spot a piece of junk heading at them when a shuttle isn't docked?
      Whip out that robot arm (assuming it's working), and BATTER UP!
    4. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 1, Troll
      That's three russian solutions, of which none is sure.

      What do you mean these solutions are not sure? Are you a technical expert on the matter or just bashing the Russian space technology and expertise?

      If it's the latter one, I'd strongly suggest you consider the fact that Soviet Union/Russia is the only country that managed to maintain a working space station in orbit for decades, provided most of the low-cost heavy lifting for ISS building and is currently edging ahead of NASA and ESA when it comes to commercialising space and good PR.

    5. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by sohp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed, one of the roles of the Soyuz lifeboat (and the Progess) is to boost the ISS. Mission managers decided to use the shuttle in order to save consumables on those spacecraft. After all, the shuttle was headed home anyway, but they need the Russian craft for other things for a while.

      As for the Russian modules, their propulsion gear was strictly for boost and initial docking and attitude control until the other modules arrived. The Progress couldn't tap into any residual fuel because there's no piping to hook up (that I know of)

    6. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if they spot a piece of junk heading at them when a shuttle isn't docked?

      Mr. Worf? Fire phasers, full power!

    7. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by CaveMan@wetcoast.ca · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simple question: What happens if they spot a piece of junk heading at them when a shuttle isn't docked?

      The Station uses it's own thrusters. They use the Shuttle's when it's docked to save station fuel. This is pretty much the same reason that they use the Shuttle for the "Re-boost" operations. They'd already done 3 of those this flight, now the emergency maneuvers. I can see why they had to cut the flight a day short.

    8. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any pictures of what this
      specific soviet era booster
      stage/junk looks like or how
      big it is. I'm trying to
      picture what the worst case
      collision would have done.
      Right now I'm picturing something
      half the size of the old skylab
      careening into the ISS.

    9. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Interesting that they could budge such a big, dangling structure like that one without any ill effects. Nice to know.

    10. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by togofspookware · · Score: 0

      It's probably just a couple of old bolts.

      --
      Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
    11. Re:They were moving the ISS, not just the shuttle by flegged · · Score: 1

      A couple of old bolts? So does it matter if they're moving at orbital speed - say a couple of thousand miles per hour? Taking into account the relative motion of the shuttle, it would be down to a couple of hundred miles per hour, which can still to some pretty heavy damage to a space station. Have you ever thrown a penny off a high building? The damage it can cause is frightening.

      --

      "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
  3. Duh! by Calle+Ballz · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's what you get when you leave your garbage in orbit! Where'd they think it would go? the moon? Around orbit is just like that place behind your couch where you throw trash, no one sees it but eventually it will become a problem. I dunno what they were thinking.

  4. beware! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it isn't gonna be cleaned up, and we let the crap pile up in our orbit, we're all gonna suffer from the Green^H^H^H^H^HMetal House Effect!!

  5. The solution to this problem is the moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the surface of the moon NASA should construct a giant laser, with this "Death Sta..." err wait a minute.

  6. Space.com article by vanadium4761 · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a more detailed article here.

  7. "Deadly Litter" by Alrescha · · Score: 3, Informative

    James White wrote about this problem in 1964.

    I could easily believe that someone wrote about the problem before that.

    Deadly Litter (c) 1964 by James White,
    ISBN 0-345-29640-0

    A.

    --
    ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
  8. Not as easy as you think by s20451 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's what you get when you leave your garbage in orbit! ... I dunno what they were thinking.

    As with most issues in the space program, this is not as simple as it sounds. The debris in question is an old Soviet-era rocket booster, which travels into orbit along with whatever payload it's carrying. Unless some action is taken, it will circle the earth for hundreds of years until the extremely rareified upper atmosphere creates enough drag to bring it down. In order to remove these objects from orbit, you would have to install a retro-rocket system to bring it down on command, which would introduce complexity and cost quite a lot of weight. The debris has to come down somewhere, and if the de-orbiting device malfunctions, it will come down over Chicago rather than some isolated patch of the Pacific. Furthermore, most of the debris that people are worried about are not huge boosters, but tiny rice-grain-sized specs, which are impossible to track and account for.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:Not as easy as you think by treyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We actually have (at least) two usefull technologies for cleaning up space: tethers and wake shields. I don't know if the SVEC folks have considered building a wake shield specifically for NEO cleanup, though.

    2. Re:Not as easy as you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not relevant whether it is simple or not. It is also not relevant that it is Soviet.
      What is relevant is that it is not a good idea to leave your waste where you happen to be at the time.

    3. Re:Not as easy as you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm kind of wondering what they
      would have tried to do if the
      shuttle were not in orbit, or
      no shuttle was readied for launch.
      Could they have used the station's
      manuvering module to achieved the
      same orbital relocation?? If not
      its like me driving onto some
      railroad tracks and then throwing
      the keys into the river.

    4. Re:Not as easy as you think by tarogue · · Score: 1

      Why can't we just push it into the sun? Give it a good shove sun-ward and let inertia happen.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    5. Re:Not as easy as you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they should have attached Skylab to a Russian booster in the seventies, then it would stay up for 100's of years, rather than the 30(?) or so it managed.

  9. This is cool by alen · · Score: 1, Funny

    For some reason this reminds me of the movie Armageddon.

    1. Re:This is cool by pinkj · · Score: 1, Troll

      'For some reason this reminds me of the movie Armageddon.'

      Why would anyone WANT to be reminded of the movie Armegeddon?

    2. Re:This is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah the wildly nonscientific
      irrational movie armegeddon.
      Thats the one where they introduced
      the concept of objects being able
      to move,.. in space,.. right.
      :P

    3. Re:This is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first, I thought
      that was a haiku. Then I realized
      it was just dumb.

    4. Re:This is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'cause Liv Tyler is hot and it was a quite good movie?

    5. Re:This is cool by togofspookware · · Score: 0

      Independence day seemed like a good movie the first time (I was about 13). Then I bought the movie. The first thing I thought was /oh my god this is dum/. As long as I've only seen Armageddon once, it will remain a good movie.

      --
      Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
  10. how long? by digitalsushi · · Score: 1
    Anyone want to bet on how long it will be before we have to establish some sort of clean-up effort in space?

    how long? i'd guess now is an excellent time to start thinking about it. I read there is quite a problem already. But like most things, if mankind can figure a way out of it, or better, around it in this instance, I'm sure we will. Then some day something BIG will crash up there, and then all of a sudden people will do something about it (a la airport security)

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    1. Re:how long? by plalonde2 · · Score: 1

      The right answer is *not* to de-orbit the stuff, but to gather it together, and leave it *in* orbit. We've already paid dearly to put the stuff up there, we should start thinking of it as a mine. We won't be smelting the ore for a while, but it is pretty high grade stuff.

  11. Discover had an article about this just recently by wfaulk · · Score: 3, Informative
    --

    Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$

  12. You need funding to clean up space. by MongooseCN · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    I'm sure politicians will only realize how much we need to clean up space after a shuttle crew dies from a collision with space debris. I mean right now our money is much better spent on that missle defence system. I mean after Sept 11th it's clearly missles we need to defend against, right?

    1. Re:You need funding to clean up space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think someone needs to think outside the box. Perhaps you'd rather us get nuked by a terrorist funded ICBM before we plan ahead?

    2. Re:You need funding to clean up space. by Peaker · · Score: 2

      Try to compare the loss of life from space debris, and from chemcial/other missles that can be shot from Iraq/Iran/etc.

      Where would you put your money?

    3. Re:You need funding to clean up space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe one day when North Korea or China fires an ICBM at the United States and our little missle defense system saves your life you'll think differently. Were you ever a Boy Scout? Remember thier motto? BE PREPARED! You think terrorism is the only threat to this country? I don't expect you to change your opinion, you're a brainwashed yuppe who's as stubborn as a mule.

    4. Re:You need funding to clean up space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty much how it always is. First, somebody has to die. Then you can justify expense. If you expense before someone dies, you are porky.

    5. Re:You need funding to clean up space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean after Sept 11th it's clearly missles we need to defend against, right?

      CLUE: Missiles existed before Spet 11th, they still exist, they still threaten us. BMD is still needed.

      Sept 11th ADDEDD threats. It did not remove any.

  13. Better orderly mess than messy order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Space junk really isn't that much of an issue since its orderly - Im pretty sure they have known about this object for a long time [years], and since the trajectory and orbit of all known space junk is static, noboby is going to be surprised by flying banana peel. However, when you get more than one object large enough to have gravitaional pull on its own, I suppose the calculations will become more and more complex and you end up having to put up some serious timex watches in stuff you put up there. When that time comes, a small british company has already made a tiny inexpensive cleaning bot for earth-orbiting debris [BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_7 97000/797338.stm]
    /penhead

    1. Re:Better orderly mess than messy order by CowbertPrime · · Score: 1

      Actually it is more like messy order. According to computer simulations, because space litter has almost no predicted entry into an orbit, the orbits they occupy tend to precess and scatter the debris. Because of a lack of tracking, there is no way to know if Story Musgrave's lost torque wrench hurtling through space at 30m/s is about to punch a whole through the habitation module of the ISS. At the same time, in the close vicinity (several hundred km), debris can be detected by either radar on the shuttle, the station, or instruments on various DSN trackers (such as Hubble, or LIDAR-based ISS ground trackers). The main problem is avoidance. You have to first verify the existance of an eminent collision, and then write up an orbital change maneuver plan. You must calculate the exact force you need on the exact vectors to assure that you accelerate in the right direction with the correct delta-v, at the same time considering the estimated time of possible impact with the object.

  14. Star wars by Yahiko · · Score: 2, Funny

    Star wars was just a coverup for an intergalactic garbage disposal unit!

    Yahiko

    --


    Everything I say is a lie.
    Except that. And that. And that. And that.
  15. A very hard task by zer0vector · · Score: 1

    Cleaning up near earth space would be extrememly difficult and costly. Going out at grabbing just one or two dead satellites or pieces of junk would require a separate mission. Deorbiting large quantities of debris at once would be ideal, but then there is the problem of differentiating between junk and working satellites, as well as the rain of metal through the atmosphere.

    --

    ----
    Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
  16. Keep the Universe clean! by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

    I think they already avoid any explosion that makes a lot of nontraceable fragments. (The Gorbachev's asymmetric answer to US Star Wars program was reportedly a bunch of asymmetric nuts to be sent to collision with US ICBM). The problem is that the used rockets will orbit the Earth indefinitely. As I know this problem is being solved: during one of shuttle flights it was shown that the tethered satellite tends to induce currents along the tether which gives a lot of electricity and creates drag which lowers the orbit without any need of propellant. You only attach the cable and electrode to every booster and eject it after use (Or, if you like, pump electricity into the cable and obtain the propulsion without propellant).

  17. Space Junk by standards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real problem is that space junk leads to more space junk.

    Space junk by itself isn't too bad. It's just some stuff that's floating around Earth's orbit.

    The problem is that this space junk will collide with other space junk, leading to smaller, faster moving pieces of junk. This small, undetectable junk will smack into good equipment, leading to even more space junk. Before you know it, there's a chain reaction, and near earth orbit becomes an unsuitable wasteland of high velocity particles.

    Just what we don't need.

    And trust me, it's one thing to get and send down a spent rocket. It's a bit harder to remove a few thousand small shards of aluminum, paint and ceramic.

    There is an immediate need to de-orbit as much space junk as possbile.

    1. Re:Space Junk by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny
      The problem is that this space junk will collide with other space junk, leading to smaller, faster moving pieces of junk. This small, undetectable junk will smack into good equipment, leading to even more space junk. Before you know it, there's a chain reaction, and near earth orbit becomes an unsuitable wasteland of high velocity particles.

      This scenario sounds like a certain late-70's video game. We can effectively solve this problem by installing a hyperspace button on every spacecraft. You just have to assign one of the crew members sit near the button at all times and look out for incoming debris.

    2. Re:Space Junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that this space junk will collide with other space junk, leading to smaller, faster moving pieces of junk.



      This is dead wrong. As anyone who has taken an elementary course on gravitational forces knows, the trajectory of an object in a gravitational field is strictly independent of its mass. Light debris do not move faster than big chunks, and their velocity solely depends on the orbit they are resting on.

    3. Re:Space Junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but warning! You're only looking at one little tiny piece of the physics behind object collisions. You'll learn about the following once you get out of your first semester course:

      Let's take two orbiting 1 kg masses moving at, um, let's say 1000 meters per second towards each other. Let them collide. But before we do, let's step away from the theoretical collision of perfect particles. Instead, let's have odd-shaped 1 kg masses have a high-speed fender-bender. What happens?

      Well, the masses break apart. Some of the pieces end up going near zero meters/second. And some end up going faster than 1000 meters per second.

      True: not all the masses will be moving faster. But there will be many more faster pieces of space junk.

      And there will be many more slower pieces of space junk.

      I think the original poster's argument is that large and/or slow space junk isn't a huge problem. But small and/or fast space junk is. I think the space community agrees.

      Don't worry - after another course or two you'll understand .

    4. Re:Space Junk by irchans · · Score: 1

      It may be wrong, but it's not dead wrong:

      Two slow moving objects colliding can generate small fragments that shoot off at high speed. Imagine two trains colliding with daffy duck tied onto one train. Even if the relative speed of the trains is only 10 mph, it is possible that some daffy guts will squirt out at a high speed perpendicular angle.

      Are there any numbers for the distribution of particles over speed, mass, size, and height?

    5. Re:Space Junk by TH4L35 · · Score: 2

      rotfl
      thank you

      --
      When Thales was asked what was difficult, he said, "To know one's self." And what was easy, "To advise another."
    6. Re:Space Junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but this is pretty stupid. There is O(10000) pieces of garbage. This leads to something like on piece per land mass about the size of Colorado. On top of this, it is not like they are all orbiting on the same two-dimensional surface, they all have different altitude orbits! Combine this with the fact that they are all almost circular, stable orbits, there is not that much chance of collision. Remember that this was not an eminent collision that we just avoided, it was just something close enough to make us be cautious (5 km). Of course it isn't impossible for collisions to occur, but I do not find that there is much concern of frequent collisions now

  18. Re:Why not build some garbage cleaning satellites. by zmooc · · Score: 1

    To shoot debris where? You will end up with a lot more pieces of smaller debris which are just as dangerous.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  19. Clean up effort by pj7 · · Score: 1

    Wonder if they'll be using e-cons to clean it up ;)

  20. My guess of a time for cleanup... by active8or · · Score: 1

    "Anyone want to bet on how long it will be before we have to establish some sort of clean-up effort in space?"

    Personally, I don't think it is needed for a long time. First of all, more communications will probably be moved down to earth using high-flying aircrafts over longer time, unless somebody (Like the guys who use microwaves and laser to fire stuff into the sky) with a cheaper launch technique succeeds. Secondly, its not actually THAT big a problem, and a clean up effort will most likely be a major undertaking. I bet it's cheaper to protect and move spacecraft away from the trash rather than removing it.

    IF they were to do a cleanup, I bet it would be when space finaly is commericialised, and more spacestations and flights are run. My guess of a timescope? 75-150 years. We can do it today, bu it cost to much, just like normal flight back in the yearly 20th century. Ne technology is being developed that may change all of this. Again, I love the idea of using laser to fire off a craft, imaging a solar powered launch facility using solid-state lasers, cheap, clean and efficent.

    My guess would be using small drones flying around on solar power, just pushing the trash down into the atmosphere.


    Mvh:
    - Knut S.

  21. Ya know... by Talisman · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they would just mount a frickin' laser beam on the Shuttle, this wouldn't be a problem. They should also mount lasers on the ISS. Anything that makes it more like a Death Star is tax money well spent.

    Talisman

    --

    "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    1. Re:Ya know... by MouseR · · Score: 2

      NASA has examined using the Star Wars project (the Raegan one, not the Lucas one) to have orbiting lasers just powerful enough to burn up small (bolt-sized) debris.

      The problem they currently face with that is detection. When a chicken Mc-Nugget -sized debris (actually, chicken Mc-Nugget are debris by themselves) is coming at you at 50 000kph, it's hard to detect it before it hits you.

      And to detect them long enough for a relatively weak laser (unlike Lucas') to burn them is another problem.

    2. Re:Ya know... by Sinical · · Score: 1

      Also, I think you'd have to worry about what would happen after vaporization: I mean, in the atmosphere, once something's vaporized, it'll fall to the ground as a new flavor of dirt, but in space wouldn't this just lead to gajillions of superfast droplets as the target recondensed?

    3. Re:Ya know... by ZPO · · Score: 1

      Do you really need to vaporize it? If you hit as its coming towards the laser would it be possible the take off enough forward velocity that it would drop into a low enough orbit to be affected by enough atmospheric drag to decay?

      It would seems with things the size of bolts, straps, gloves, torque wrenches, etc that you could safely depend on them burning up in the atmosphere instead of crashing into an inhabited area.

    4. Re:Ya know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Do you really need to vaporize it? If you hit as its coming towards the laser would it be possible the take off enough forward velocity that it would drop into a low enough orbit to be affected by enough atmospheric drag to decay?

      Welcome to orbital physics ;-), if you slow it down it'll move into a *higher* orbit, not a lower one.

      One of the first things one learns, to great amusement, when trying out a game that has you flying a shuttle and trying to dock with a station; the expected moves give non-intuitive results, you have to learn a whole new way of moving around in order to get where you want to go..

  22. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was their deflector array offline?

  23. Space Invaders by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    We're going to have to get autocontrolled space going robots running from orbit, complete with little nets or something to cath the debris and knock the stuff out of orbit to burn up on re-entry. We wouldn't want to use completely hard projectiles because of the possible shrapnel. We want to avoid the "golden BB" effect, where a tiny bit of debris knocks out a 100 million dolar piece of equipment.

    Not quite space invaders, but it would give a career path for alot of those video gamers out there.p.Although, gamers would tear their hair out trying to get used to the inherent latency of a spacecraft flying from orbit.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  24. Target Practice by vxagent · · Score: 1

    Why not use the larger pieces of space junk as target practice for the missle defense shield that Bush is after? Test the system while destroying the junk.

    1. Re:Target Practice by Jazu · · Score: 1

      You mean test the sheild while turning large, known junk into faster, smaller, unknown junk.

      --
      My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
  25. I thought there was a space cleanup project by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    back in the late 90's nasa was working with the generation of aerogels to make a "space sponge" of a sorts. a huge frame holding a cube of aerogel inside to basically place in a low orbit, allow it to "sweep" for a while until it starts to gain a certain amount of damage and then de-orbit it.

    I remember a huge segment on it from the show "beyond 2000" (the best tv show discovery ever had, and the morons cancelled it replacing it with a ton of animal crap)

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I thought there was a space cleanup project by T-Lex · · Score: 1
      (the best tv show discovery ever had, and the morons cancelled it replacing it with a ton of animal crap)


      INCORRECT! The best show Discovery ever had (and still has) is "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts."

      If you haven't walked with the beasts, you haven't lived.
  26. Deflectors by BlueCoder · · Score: 2, Flamebait
    I would have thought that NASA and the US government would have designed space deflectors by now. Thrusting robots that deflect debris into the atmosphere or collect it depending on the circumstances.

    It's shocking that the space industry is so affected by simple debris. It's a wonder one of the middle eastern countries have not tried to build orbital rockets whose only purpose is to blow up when they get there. They have lots of money and their engineers are not incompetent. One properly armed missle could create a whole cascade effect. It's would totally devistate our economy and take out spy and targeting satelites all at once. There might be secret lasers or particle cannons in space that might be able to hit rockets but they could always say they are launching a satelite. Scary how vulnerable we are.

    1. Re:Deflectors by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      sorry our economy would survive well without sattelites. besides, you'd have to create one helluva(tm) metal shard cloud to get the geosync birds that are over 25,000 KM away remember that the ISS is less than 200 miles up. and shuttle missions rarely go higher than that.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Deflectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a nuclear bomb were exploded in in low earth orbit, the resulting flood of high-energy electrons would be traped by the Earth's magnetic feild, concentrating them into the exact same area were all our satelites are. Damn near every satellite would be wrecked, except maybe military ones which had been specifically designed to resist this, and the electrons would last a good year, making it impossible to launch replacements in the interim.

    3. Re:Deflectors by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      I doubt that anyone would notice that the sattelites were broken from a LEO nuclear burst. Everything electronic in view of that burst will cease to operate. if you used a big enough bomb, and placed it high enough, you might be able to wipe out everything electronic in that hemisphere.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Deflectors by Graff · · Score: 1

      It's a wonder one of the middle eastern countries have not tried to build orbital rockets whose only purpose is to blow up when they get there. They have lots of money and their engineers are not incompetent. One properly armed missle could create a whole cascade effect. It's would totally devistate our economy and take out spy and targeting satelites all at once.

      There's several problems with this. One is just how vast space is. Even in a low earth orbit you are talking about distances that are much larger than on the Earth. Suppose you did turn a whole rocket into debris. Most of the debris from the explosion would immediately deorbit to the Earth. The fraction of the original mass which stayed up would have to spread out enough to cover a good-sized area, or else it would present such a small target that the chance of it hitting anything would be extremely small. Even when the debris is out there, it would be very likely to miss any spacecraft, unless you sent up a few dozen of these things.

      The second, major issue is cost. I did a little searching and found here that launches cost around $20,000 per pound for a 400 pound launch. That means that the entire 400 pound payload would cost around $8 million.

      Now, with the World Trade Center disaster as an example you can see that far more damage could be done far more inexpensively. For an investment which was probably in the several hundred thousand dollar range (including food, housing, training, travel, of all the terrorists), they were able to kill 5,000 people, cause damage which is in the billions, and disturb an entire world. If they sent up 400 pounds worth of shrapnel they might eventually take out a satellite or spacecraft and cause damage in the few hundred million, along with 4 or 5 lives - all for the cost of $8 million a shot (assuming that one is enough). Which choice would you make? :)

    5. Re:Deflectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do enjoy how you assume that all us in the Middle East are bent upon America's destruction. If you bothered to pay attention, you would notice that your media has painted a few hooligans as poster boys for us all. This is simply not true. Also, if you were half as intelligent as some poster you would know of the past wrongs that America has wrought on the Middle East. You have reasons for hating us, and we have reasons for hating you. All are antithetical to progress. Don't believe the hype or the "facts" when they are presented to you by those who have a stake in the game.

  27. natural debris by Veteran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By far the biggest problem with collision in space comes from micro meteorites. The formula for the quantity of meteors of a given size is that the number of meteors is inversely proportional to the mass of the meteor. If there are 1000 1 Km asteroids in near earth orbit there would be about one million 100 meter asteroids. (Remember the mass of a sphere is proportional to the cube of its diameter.) That means that there are about a billion 10 meter rocks in near earth orbit - a trillion 1 meter rocks, 10 to the 15th 10 cm rocks, 10 to the 18th 1 cm rocks etc.

    One of the problems that we humans have is over estimating our importance in the cosmic sphere - the universe hardly notices us - indeed the Earth hardly notices us; from low earth orbit it is very difficult to see anything that man has done on the Earth.

    The space station - because of its size - has about 1/2 lb of drag due to the nascent atmosphere 250 miles up. This drag is why experiments in the station are referred to as "micro gravity" instead of "zero g"; there is a tiny gravitational field due to the drag. One of the reasons for the periodic shuttle trips is to reboost the space station to make up for the lost velocity from the residual drag.

    1. Re:natural debris by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      the funny part was that spacelab was only 100 miles up and it maintained it's own orbit (it had it's own thrusters) and Mir wasn't much higher. the only required missions were resupply and refuel. It has always blown my mind that the ISS doesnt have any maneuver capability, and why it wasn't placed in a geosync or a higher circular orbit.... oh well, maybe someday the governments of this planet will remove their heads from their butts and start spending real money on space research and platforms.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:natural debris by FTL · · Score: 4, Informative
      > It has always blown my mind that the ISS doesnt have any maneuver capability,

      It most certainly does. Check your facts.

      > and why it wasn't placed in a geosync

      Geosync is the most crowded orbital position we have. This is the last place you want to be if you are trying to avoid junk. Check your facts.

      > or a higher circular orbit.

      As it stands the shuttle is strained to the limit to get to the station. Infact Columbia (the heaviest of the four shuttles) can't reach the station where it is. Move it any higher, and you wouldn't be able to get to it. Check your facts.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    3. Re:natural debris by Scott+Ransom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Geosync is the most crowded orbital position we have.
      > This is the last place you want to be if you are trying to avoid junk.
      > Check your facts.

      Geosync may be crowded, but the space junk problem is not nearly as severe up there. There are a couple reasons why:

      1. The density of small non-trackable debris (i.e. rivets, bolts, metal pieces from booster separation) is _much_ lower than in low-Earth orbit. The small debris causing events happen much lower -- possibly enroute to Geosync.

      2. The distribution of relative velocites between spacecraft is much narrower (and hence better for survivability) since the purpose of Geosync is to effectively "park" a spacecraft over a fixed point on the equator. So everything is travelling in pretty much the same direction at the same velocity. In low-Earth orbit there is crap flying every which way.

    4. Re:natural debris by Schemer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > As it stands the shuttle is strained to the limit to get to the station. Infact Columbia (the heaviest of the four shuttles) can't reach the station [space.com] where it is. Move it any higher, and you wouldn't be able to get to it. Check your facts.

      Actually, the ISS's original planned orbit would have allowed all of the shuttles to reach it, and they would have been able to carry much more cargo than they can now. When russia became involved in ISS's construction, the orbit of the system was changed so that Russia's weaker rockets could barely reach it. The problem is that the final orbit is not an optimal orbit for the shuttle and as a result they can't carry as big of a load, and columbia can barly make it at all.

      --
      A buddhist walks up to a hot dog stand and says ``Make me one with everything.''
    5. Re:natural debris by MConlon · · Score: 1

      You can't have a lab (staffed by humans) in geosync without some sort of shielding.

      The ISS is inside Earth's magnetosphere, so it's largely protected from the nasty particles the Sun, etc., heave at us.

      MJC

    6. Re:natural debris by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      As it stands the shuttle is strained to the limit to get to the station. Infact Columbia (the heaviest of the four shuttles) can't reach the station [space.com] where it is. Move it any higher, and you wouldn't be able to get to it.

      Height is not the problem at all, Columbia can easily reach the current altitude of the ISS. What Columbia can't easily do is reach the orbit of the ISS. The two sound the same, but they aren't really. To explain: (highly simplified)

      A given booster can launch it's maximum weight to a given altitude launching at 0 degrees inclination, that is due East. (In the same plane as the Equator.) At that angle the booster gets the maximum help from the Earth's spin. As the angle of inclination increases (or decreases) the help from the Earth's spin goes down, and so does the payload to a given altitude. Minimum payload to a given altitude occurs at +/- 180 degrees, or due West. (You have to 'slow down' relative to the Earth before 'speeding up' to orbital velocity.)

      The ISS is in a 52 degree orbit so that the Russians can reach it from their launch sites. The orbits they can reach are limited because of where the stages of the booster will drop early in the flight. Low inclinations require either dropping the stages on China, or choosing trajectories that require so much booster energy that useful payload drops dramatically. Since the Russian modules had to be launched more-or-less fully equipped, ISS had to be in an orbit they could effectively reach, thus causing the US to accept a major payload hit.

      After her latest overhaul Columbia can in fact reach the station with a minimal payload. (Which is even specified in the article you referenced.) Check your facts.

      Geosync is the most crowded orbital position we have. This is the last place you want to be if you are trying to avoid junk.

      Geosync is crowded because for a given 'slot' (a chunk of orbit that can see directly a specific spot on the ground) there is a lot of competition. Also while there are a number of dead sattelites in the vicinity, there is almost no booster stages, debris from breakups, or 'lost' hardware. In fact geosync is highly desireable for debris avoidance because the relative velocities and absolute debris density are much lower. Check your facts.

    7. Re:natural debris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The space station - because of its size - has about 1/2 lb of drag due to the nascent atmosphere 250 miles up. This drag is why experiments in the station are referred to as "micro gravity" instead of "zero g"; there is a tiny gravitational field due to the drag. One of the reasons for the periodic shuttle trips is to reboost the space station to make up for the lost velocity from the residual drag.

      You got the part about the drag right, but think again about the gravity - that has nothing to do with airdrag, it's the attraction between two masses separated by a distance. The microgravity would be there regardless of any airdrag.

  28. Re:Space Invaders by pauldy · · Score: 1

    I would use a modified form of that liquid styrofoam to operate in low pressure environments. Then the bot could build a "net" of the styrofoam and when it feels he mass is at a predefined point or x time has passed it would jettison it off towards the atmosphere to burn up and build a new net without requiring a reentry and re-equipment with a new net.

  29. Suggestion by Digitalia · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's Martha Stewart when you need her? Slap her on a shuttle and send her uip to orbit. Then you'll solve to of our problems at once.

    --
    Pax Digitalia
    1. Re:Suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if I blow your head off with a shotgun, we'll be one step closer solving another problem: there are people that can't manage to use "to","two", and "too" correctly.

    2. Re:Suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His problem is more one of not being able to type properly. If you'll notice, he also misspelled up, instead typing "uip." Obviously, he doesn't think that up is really spelled that way. It's more logical to assume that he merely accidentally omitted the w.

  30. Major Threat by thebabelfish · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The most threatening of space junk is that which is not large enough to detect and manuever around, but not small enough to not worry about. This range holds lots of potentially dangerous objects that could puncture the outside of spacecraft. The problem is collecting and removing most of these objects from orbit.

    On a side note, now that the ISS is higher, how is it's visibility from earth affected (if any) and will it stay at its new altitude (if so, for how long)?

    Just one more note, Heaven's Above is a great resource for tracking satellites and other close to home astronomical events (such as Iridium flares).

    --
    "I don't trust goats," --To Catch a Spy
  31. where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where in the story do they say that the mission was cut by a day? In the space.com article, it says that due to the maneuver they actually had to leave 40 minutes after they had originally planned.

    1. Re:where? by T.Hobbes · · Score: 1

      I remember the BBC story from last night mentioning a delay of 1 day, but my cache of the page is gone now and the current article dosen't mention that, so I have to assume that I misread the original article. Sorry about that.. it was a late night..

  32. Why? by dangermouse · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why is a five-kilometer clearance not good enough? Is it that the people tracking the two objects weren't certain enough of their calculations, or that it was likely something would alter the course of the rocket fragment? How far away from that 5km pass-by were the two objects when the call was made?

    Just curious.

    1. Re:Why? by Arlet · · Score: 2

      Good question. Maybe they're afraid smaller parts have separated from the big piece of debris, and that these fragments are too small to detect from earth ?

    2. Re:Why? by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      Maybe they aren't sure whether they converted to metric or not.

      :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Why? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      We tend to think of orbits as being circular and completely predictable. In theory this is true. In practice the orbit is affected by solar effects, magnetic effects on the vehicle (depends on the shape and materials of the vehicle), perturbations by the moon, saturn, the sun, the non spherical nature of the earths gravity field, etc. etc.

      In practice you can't predict the orbit exactly, so the rules say that if the vehicle is coming within a certain distance (a few miles), then measures have to be taken, ranging from moving the vehicle to piling into the escape vehicle, depending on the predicted distance.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because maybe the covariance on the rocket body they were trying to avoid was to big.

      We don't know precisely where everything is in orbit. We have a pretty good idea for the big stuff, but we don't have the sensor resources to maintain extremely precise orbits on everything up there. Particularly at LEO (Low Earth Orbit) where atmospheric drag, and geodetic perturbations are greatest.

      The Air Force has been shutting down space surveillance sites for years to cut costs. It will bite us someday.

      In any case, I'll check out what the covarince was on that fragment when I get in to work tomorrow.

    5. Re:Why? by icejai · · Score: 0

      It's not that 5km isn't good enough, but engineers are all too familiar with error.

      When you measure something with your ruler, it isn't 5.0cm, it's 5.0cm +/- 0.005 cm.
      There's always a bit of distance that you won't be able to measure with your ruler.

      Same thing applies here. Even though NASA is pretty good at tracking the path of 'stuff' in space, there is a certain limit to their level of precision. So, if they can track the path of 'stuff' in space to +/- 1km precision and they find that the paths of the ISS and the junk rocket seem to intercept (or close to it), then they'll give the order to maneuver the ISS away.
      Slap on a safety factor of 3 or 4, or heck... even 10, then 5km doesn't feel that *safe* anymore.

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they wanted to test tugboat mode so they would have experience for the next 5 METER clearance event.

  33. What happens... by limejuice · · Score: 1

    when the shuttle isn't there to move the ISS out of harm's way? Would the ISS have been destroyed had the shuttle not moved it? Couldn't something like this happen again, and if so, how are they going to prevent debris from damaging or destroying the ISS?

    --
    Daniel J. Kelly
  34. It's been done before... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    Space junk caused the death of several astro-nuts, back 21 years ago... :) :) :)

  35. ...what? by Transcendent · · Score: 2, Funny

    evasive maneuvers?? Umm... it should be defensive maneuvers, unless it actually attacked the debris at the same time... which uh... i dont think they did...

    1. Re:...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think evasive implies attack.
      Isn't the root for that word evade?
      I think that you perform evasive
      maneuvers when attacked, then if
      your not dead you can counter
      attack.

    2. Re:...what? by Rytsarsky · · Score: 2

      evasive
      adj.

      1. Inclined or intended to evade: took evasive action.

      ...that doesn't say anythng about attacking... not even envading. :)

      --
      God became man to enable men to become sons of God. -C.S. Lewis
    3. Re:...what? by Transcendent · · Score: 1

      I think that you perform evasive maneuvers when attacked

      you do... ...so were they attacked?

  36. Yeah, why not? :-P by Hatechall · · Score: 1

    Im sure I speak for all of us when I say that the world will feel safer after we contract people to fling Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at coke cans just outside our atmosphere.
    :-P

  37. There was an article on this in discover magazine by KnightElite · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apparently, NASA is working on setting up cleaning efforts, and all the space agencies have agreed not to drop garbage off in space anymore. NASA is working on making their hulls more micro-meteorite proof due to all the floating garbage. To test new hull designs, they have the four most powerful guns in the world, which shoot pea sized bullets at various types of hull designs, at 15 000 m/s. That's in the latest issue of discover.

  38. 1969 and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    sad that in 1969, people landed on the moon (and later as well) picked up some stuff and came back. Yet now, we still operate the space program with the method of 'no room for error'. Everything has to be so very perfect, and the methods used for maneuvering are so primitave as well. Too bad that the people and ideology that produced the SR-71 cannot be put to use. Just think about it, the SR-71 was able to achieve at times low orbit (at least what was referred to as low orbit due to the trajectory if it glided back in). If only you could utilize that method to get up to the equivelent height and then 'kick in' some boosters or something similar to get you the rest of the way into orbit. Cheaper. More efficient. Longer lasting.

    I expect that the growing surge in interest in space from the people getting hitches up to the ISS will bring about great changes... too bad NASA has become the administrative black hole of progress.

  39. Not as big a risk by quantaman · · Score: 1

    For the most part collisions with space junk isn't quite as big a problem asd you'd think. The reason is in order to have a stable orbit at a certain altitude the object must have a certain velocity (which wold be the same for all other objects at that altidude) as a result the only time a near collision like this could happen is if the debris happens to have an intersecting orbit which is still extremely unlikely. Even in this case the debris would probably not have collided if it hadn't been moved, it was just a percautionary measure. Still does anyone know if there are plans for manouvering rockets on the completed ISS?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  40. Re:Space Invaders by yancey · · Score: 1


    Actually, we could use those nifty ion drives (like on Deep Space 1) and some really good AI to push much of the larger debris back into the atmosphere.

    --
    Ouch! The truth hurts!
  41. Re:Space Invaders by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    I would use a modified form of that liquid styrofoam to operate in low pressure environments

    Well, anything that had enough surfac area/sail area would slow down fast as it is.

    Otherwise you need to either hit it with something that would slow it down substantially, or else you go and scoop it up. Things like errant gloves, wrenches, Nuts, bolts, etc.

    then you could take the bag and throw that towards the earth to burn up

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  42. adobt a highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean we might start to see an adobt a 'space' program in the near future?

    Adobt a space program
    bob smith
    next 3 trillion miles

  43. Laser guard for space station by Rytsarsky · · Score: 2, Interesting
    BBC has this article about a laser "broom" being tested for use on ISS that could divert or destroy some debrit. Here is an exerpt from the article:
    ... there are some fragments about the size of a tennis ball which are big enough to pierce a spacecraft but too small to monitor easily. These intermediate bits of space junk are the target of Nasa's new laser space broom. This is a ground-based system that can locate and destroy or divert these fragments.
    -JK
    --
    God became man to enable men to become sons of God. -C.S. Lewis
  44. Use the Shuttle Thrusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The shuttle usually blasts any junk it creats back twards the earth with its thrusters. I beleive that when they fixed the hubble, they had the old solar array that was left over. SO, they blasted it with the thrusters from the shuttle to push it out of orbit. If there are large enough pieces to worry about, like the one the shuttle had to move the ISS out of the way of. If only it had hung arround, maybe synced orbit with the junk, then give it a good blast, and off it goes, in a decaying orbit, and eventually it burns up. Yes it would cost fuel, maybe they need to send the shuttle on future missions outfitted with a little more maneuvering fuel, upgrade the fuel tanks or something, so that it can do more maneuvering when in orbit. They could probably put a dent in the larger pieces that are out there.

    -Beware of he who would deny you acess to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

  45. Re:There was an article on this in discover magazi by cybercrap · · Score: 0

    the most powerful gun in the world would be a rail gun and they shoot shit at about .5-.6c which would be lemme think.. 1.5x10^8 m/s . So i dont think they are using those.

  46. how much space junk could be removed by a nuke by elliott666 · · Score: 1

    OK, this is America, we got nukes. so many nukes as a matter of fact that we are taking them apart and burying them, why not just put on the best 4th of July firework display ever, and, as an added bonus, vaporise a buttload of space junk? Aside from the massive EMP that would happen, would nukes really work at getting rid of some of the larger peices of junk? What about the blast pushing sattelite out of their orbits? Sounds like fun anyway....

    1. Re:how much space junk could be removed by a nuke by ZPO · · Score: 1

      You mean besides a couple international treaties that forbid nuclear detonations in space?

      The little EMP event you mention would be quite damaging. Take a look at every electronic device around your home. (Including your car). Now imagine it as a paperweight.

  47. Time for Quark! by hfcs · · Score: 1

    Anyone out there remember the TV show from the 70's (around the time of Star Wars) called Quark, with (I think) Richard Benjimin. (http://www.tvparty.com/recquark.html) He flew a intergalactic garbage scow around and collected garbage. What a show....

    -Bill

  48. come on the above is flaimbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is a blanant political baiting... so we just worry about terroist and then a missle hits then what will be said.

  49. Burn it. by halfline · · Score: 1

    They should just blast it all into the sun and burn it.

  50. Burn it. by halfline · · Score: 1

    They should just blast all the junk into the sun.

  51. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing that the cleanup will occur -long- before the cleanup on earth takes place. Just a guess.

  52. Just borrow Phobos and send it around backwards by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    After a few months of that, no more garbage problem, and a nice thinly spread ring of scrapmetal around Phobos' equator to recycle. Plus a new stellar object for the rubbernecks to find and follow. (-:

    Of course, it might take a bit of time and money to move that many gigatonnes of rock, but then it's always harder to fix stuff than to muck it up.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  53. Magnetic Satalite by arsaspe · · Score: 1

    I would assume that 90% of the junk in space is small metalic parts right? So why not put up a satalite a few hundred k's in front of the ISS, with a powerfull electromagnet and a very strong hull? If the magnet was strong enough, it would pull in a lot of the small parts, which would no longer be a threat. That would then just leave the larger pieces of debris, some of which could be thrown out of orbit by the magnet, and the rest would be a lot easier to dodge.

    1. Re:Magnetic Satalite by ZigMonty · · Score: 1

      What about the ones small enough to be significantly deflected towards the magnet but just big enough not to be deflected all the way into the magnet+shield. For objects that size aren't you *attracting* them towards the station. If you were careful, and switched it off when you saw an object that size coming, it might work.

  54. Re: err on the side of caution + stupidity? by kresmoi · · Score: 1

    after NASA has learned its lesson on metric vs imperial units on that mars mission that got lost, i can just see it... "5km? how much is that? ...Better move it just in case."

  55. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how well the toilets work up there.

  56. Useful Links: by DerekLyons · · Score: 2
  57. The reason they are moving the shuttle by ghostshadow-tec.net · · Score: 1

    Like the bbc article says the shuttle used it's thusters (on a series of small burns that lasted about 20 mins) to push the station and thus aviod comming within 3 miles of a I think the second or third stage of a Soviet rocket that was launched in the 70's.

    On any other given day when the shuttle leaves the station they fly a lap around the station (to check it out and take photos.)

    I was watching this on Nasa TV and I heard that at first (because they where using fuel on the burn to move the station) the shuttle was only going to do a 1/4 lap around the station, But after the bean counters on the ground re-did the maths they mannage to pull out a half lap around the station (if the shuttle crew loose a hour of their off duty time and sleep with the shuttle pointed towards the stars..)

    There is some US agency that monitors space junk I think their name is "space command" (I think the same mob who montors missile launches) they issue warnings when something comes within a 40 mile box of the station.

  58. Do you read your stories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you slashdot fucktards actually read the stories you post before clicking the 'post' (or whatever) button? Look how you ended this story:
    "Anyone want to bet on how long it will be before we have to establish some sort of clean-up effort in space? "
    Have you any idea how fucking moronic that sounds? You just said that so that 243 years from now, when the space debris problem is actually a really serious problem, you can say 'I told you so', and post it to slashdot, and have all the other slashdotters pat your back and say 'you are so right!' and 'I agree!' and otherwise verbally suck your cock in hopes of one day becoming one of the power-hungry, opinionated assholes that sits behind a keyboard as a slashdot moderator. Start acting responsibly when you post a story to slashdot!

    I will again lash out at the sans-democratic way in which this system which whines about the need for democracy is run, and you will counter-lash by moderating this message to the grave.

  59. WTF by Ubi_NL · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    don't you READ the parent mail?? It clearly states three possible solutions to evade without a shuttle docked. As it says in THAT email, non of these methods was shown to be dedicated for evasive actions
    get your head out of your ass

    --

    If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
  60. Re:Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

    My *god*, man. GET SOME NEW MATERIAL!

    You're like a troglodyte, who, because he gets an idea in his head once in a great, great while, never lets it go until the next idea comes along.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, this post had relevance for 15 minutes or so. That time has passed.

  61. Quark - United Galaxy Sanitation Patrol by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    Star Wars? Nah. Quark was the way to clean up space.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  62. Rings? (was Re:Space Junk) by juliao · · Score: 1

    Wow! Doesn that mean we'll get rings, like Saturn? Great!

  63. Seen Futurama? by CCIEwannabe · · Score: 1

    Do as Fry suggests and fire junk at junk