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?

44 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!
    3. 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)

    4. 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.

  2. 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.

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

    There is a more detailed article here.

  4. "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
  5. 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.

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

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

  7. 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 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?

  8. 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

  9. 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.
  10. 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 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."
  11. 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.

  12. 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"
  13. 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.
  14. 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 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.
  15. 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 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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!"
  18. It's been done before... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

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

  19. ...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 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
  20. 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.

  21. 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"
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Useful Links: by DerekLyons · · Score: 2