Slashdot Mirror
Traffic Cops for Space
The NY Times has a good story about a push for international action, via the UN, on the growing problem of space debris. Includes a pretty picture of a space shuttle window that got nailed by a fleck of paint.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/science/space/18 TRAF.html?ex=1046149200&en=f39397b7a99dc415&ei=506 2&partner=GOOGLE
Use user/pass: slashdot_coward
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
This is pretty old news but it's got better pics. Norad has been tracking space trash for decades. Fact of the matter is, there is trash up there, yes it can hurt you or the shuttle, or the hubble, etc. But the odds are very slim for most orbits. The hubble got hit with a little piece once, but the odds are pretty slim anything we send up will get hit by debris.
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
This is the "critical mass" problem, where at a certain point all the junk colliding with itself creates a self-propagating chain reaction. This has two effects - more smaller bits are harder to track, of course (particularly because there's a resolution limit that determines the smallest size per distance that ground radar can track), but also a spreading of the material into wilder orbits and outside the two bands where it's currently still concentrated. The shuttle & ISS altitude, for instance, is relatively clear right now. Once the chain reaction starts (and some people think it already is in the chaotic early stages) this will no longer be true, and all space travel will become a lot more difficult.
The NYT article only slightly alludes to this with the "10 or 20 years" bit, but it is the real problem. As you note it's a question of linear vs. exponential growth - manageable or unmanageable. There is a tipping point, and regardless of where it is, it's folly to keep approaching it without SOME sort of cleanup scheme. So save your chewing gum; it's going to come in handy one day for the great space sweepup.
Am I the only person that's noticed all you have to do is slap ?partner=GOOGLE on the end of a NewYork Times URL and it won't force you to register? Point in case for this article:
8 TRAF.html?...&partner=GOOGLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/science/space/1
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity ^ 2
um, its a bit more dramatic than that. You should recheck your calculations. 60 mph is about 26 m/s, orbital speed is approximately 7600 m/s for a bolt mass of 50 g (.05 kg or about .11 lbs) the kinetic energy is roughly equivalent to 4000 kg at 60 mph or about 8 tons ( in lbs tons) so imagine getting hit by an 8 ton truck that has the cross section of a bee. It would go right through a space shuttle or anything inbetween.
As previously stated, the problem is when that pellet is going 20,000mph in the opposite direction of the space craft. 40,000mph whammo.
On a related note, anyone here ever play RIFTS? I remember getting the expansion book describing whole space colonies which hadn't contacted the surface of the Earth for hundreds of years due to massive interweaving clouds of space crap that destroyed any ship attempting to land (or presumably move within communication distance).
Green-voting, republican-registered, socialist-libertarian.
But, a highly elliptical orbit will have an object moving SIGNIFICANTLY faster at it's perigee (closest point to sun) than a corresponding circular orbit at the radius of the perigee. Kepler's 2nd law (equal areas swept out in equal times).
Just for completeness, Kepler's 1st law says bound gravitional systems move in elliptical orbits, with the gravitational source at one of the focii.
So, yes, it is quite possible that at any point one can encounter an object moving significantly faster.