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.

Comments

The worst thing about space junk

[James_Duncan8181]

...is that it is a chain reaction. It is relatively safe up there at the moment, but if we ever get a satelite (say) hit then the debris caused by it's disintergration will cause further problems. I am sure those with even the slightest imagination can see the ongoing process that happens next. You want to go up after that has been becoming exponetially worse for a year or two?

Re:The worst thing about space junk

[Forgotten]

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.

Space cr4p

[saitoh]

I've wondered about this as a problem for a while. Wouldnt it be advantageous to the UN to clean up a majority of the stuff (manmade) in space to prevent further problems such as the speculated involvement in the recent Columbia crash?

On that note, has anyone else wondered what it would be like to take landfills, package them in rockets, shoot them to the sun and see what happens or am I the only one who has strange dreams like that. ;-p What are the odds something like this becomes viable?

Re:Space cr4p

[kfg]

What happens is relatively unspectacular. They vaporize. Quietly. They don't blow up or nothin'.

The spectacular part is the approximate cost of $25k /kg.

Do you know how much a landfill weighs?

So we don't even have to go into the fact that the overall enviromental impact of doing this is greater than a properly managed landfill.

KFG

Re:Space cr4p

[EvilStein]

It's more useful to launch prison inmates into orbit.

Maybe we can launch them towards Mars so they can colonize it. Hey, it worked for Australia, didn't it? It's a cool place! ;)

Re:Space cr4p

[Tackhead]

> Wouldnt it be advantageous to the UN to clean up a majority of the stuff (manmade) in space to prevent further problems such as the speculated involvement in the recent Columbia crash?

REUTERS - Feb 1, 2023:
UN Secretary General Clinton said in a speech today that while the loss of the privately-launched and operated "Armadillo" space plane last weekend is regrettable, but that the United States is obliged to "give the collections process time to work", and called for the UN Space Council to pass a resolution calling for the complete cleanup of space debris by 2033.

BACKGROUND: The UN Space Council was formed following the loss of Shuttle Columbia 20 years ago. After passing resolutions calling for permanent funding form the UN, it promptly passed a series of resolutions concerning the issue of space debris in low earth orbit.

Following the loss of Shuttle Discovery to space debris in 2005, the UN Space Council passed Resolution 1042, calling for a programme that would investigate the feasibility of LEO debris collection.

In response to the stranding of the crews of the ISS and Shuttle Atlantis due to damage a surprise recurrence of the Leonids in 2006, the UN Space Council passed Resolution 1334, lauding the process of investigation, and calling for additional time to study the problem.

Rescue shuttle Endeavor was launched one month later, but failed to make it into orbit after the main engine was punctured by space debris. All three vehicles were loss. This catastrophe prompted Resolution 1349, demanding an extension of the deadline for submission of the debris collection feasibility study, and an expansion of the study to include weapons of meteoric destruction below the tropopause.

Secretary-General Clinton hailed this week's decision by the UN Space Council to proceed on another resolution, and in his speech, reminded the world that despite the Armadillo tragedy, it was due to the diligence of the UN Space Debris Collections Process that there had been no losses of manned spacecraft since the loss of the last Shuttle in 2006.

A furious Tom Paine, former NASA administrator during the Apollo years, was ejected as he attempted to disrupt the proceedings from the visitors' gallery. Rumors that the words "You sick bastards, the reason NASA hasn't lost a manned mission since the loss of the last shuttle in 2006 is because it hasn't launched anything since then! For fuck's sake, it hasn't even frickin' built a new manned vehicle based on post-1982 technology!" are completely false.

UN Secretary-General Clinton kept his composure despite the disruption in the gallery, and concluded his address to the UN Space Council without further incident.

His call for a new UN Space Council resolution to "let the debris collectors assess the situation" has received great support, particularly from representatives of Arianespace.

Re:Space cr4p

[oh]

Wouldnt it be advantageous to the UN to clean up a majority of the stuff (manmade) in space to prevent further problems such as the speculated involvement in the recent Columbia crash?

Off the top of my head there are only a handfull of space programs worthy of the name, US, Russia, China, Japan and the EU. I think most of the members of the UN have other things on their mind, like starvation, AIDS, war, terrorism, and general economics. I'm sure that space junk isn't high on the priority list.

Try the Google partner link if you don't like reg

[Akardam]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/science/space/18 TRAF.html?ex=1046149200&en=f39397b7a99dc415&ei=506 2&partner=GOOGLE

Don't wanna register at NYT?

[Greedo]

Use user/pass: slashdot_coward

Much better photos here

[EggMan2000]

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.

The UN?

[Will_Malverson]

Given that Libya chairs the UN human rights committee, and Iraq is scheduled to chair the disarmament committee later this year, is Elbonia going to chair the space debris committee?

Kinetic Energy...

[Aesculapius]

It would be extremely difficult to track small pieces of debris. That's why you have to get rid of junk when it's big....before it becomes little pieces.

Remember, the energy a moving mass has (kinetic energy) is defined as:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity ^ 2

What that means is that velocity is much more important than mass. To give an example, a small bolt about 1/4" in diameter traveling at 17,500 mph has the same kinetic energy as a bowling ball traveling at 60 mph.

Yikes!

Re:Kinetic Energy...

[cybercuzco]

Remember, the energy a moving mass has (kinetic energy) is defined as:
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.

What about other planets?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Earth's got problems? Imagine the space debris problem in the Endor system. I mean, hell, the entire death star exploded - and that thing was friggin' HUGE! I mean, there you are, heading towards a nice vacation on Endor's forest moon, planning on partying down with the Ewoks, when all of a sudden - WHAM! little Palpatine bits are impacting against your YT1300 cockpit windows. I wouldn't want to be the clean-up crews working the Alderaan, Yavin, or Endor star systems. You'd be there for as long as it takes a Sarlaac to digest a barge full of Hutts...

Re:I'm pretty sure this is a dupe article

[nomadic]

Don't be ridiculous. Like slashdot would ever dupe articles; I mean, there are a bunch of people working there, they post only a handful of stories a day, and it takes what, a few seconds to check whether an article is a dupe? Do you really think they wouldn't take those 10 seconds to check?

I think you owe the editors an apology for even insinuating such a thing.

Space Debris and the ISS

[luzrek]

The ISS has some interesting features to make it space debris resistant. Apparently the sleeping quarters (and hopefully anything else that has humans in it) has several layers of high strength fabric separated by quite a bit of empty volume in order to soak up the kinetic energy of space debris as it will inevitably hit the station. Of course, this approach is difficult for a launch or re-entry vehicle since the gaurd would have to be deployed after launch and retracted before re-entry.

Re:Space Debris and the ISS

[kyletinsley]

Apparently the sleeping quarters ... has several layers of high strength fabric separated by quite a bit of empty volume in order to soak up the kinetic energy of space debris as it will inevitably hit the station.

Ahhh yes, the good old "bed sheet deflector shield"... I've used those before in the past. Kept those high-velocity monsters from my closet at bay quite well!

Re:Broken Link

[AntiNorm]

The link in the article is broken. Either the newspaper is routing webpage requests to some login page for reporters, or the actual link to the article is wrong. I can tell this because a newspaper wouldn't have it's readers log in

You're new here, aren't you?

With the UN in charge

[rossz]

With the UN in charge, if someone broke the rules the UN would say, "Stop! or we'll say 'Stop!', again".

The UN has proven on numerous occassions that they are nothing but pencil pushing bureaucrates who, at best, do nothing, but all too often simply make the situation worse.

Look at Rwanda. Given the job of protecting 100,000 unarmed refugees, the UN security force DID NOTHING when a warlord's army arrived and proceeded to slaughter every man, woman, and child.

So now someone wants to give the UN the job of reducing space junk? No thank you, I'd rather take my chances with out their help.

No Registration NYT Link

[NewWaveNet]

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:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/science/space/18 TRAF.html?...&partner=GOOGLE

Relative velocities?

[Theaetetus]

Even a one-centimeter pellet, the width of a fingertip, can destroy a spacecraft traveling at a typical orbital speed of 20,000 miles per hour or more, experts say.

Small question, having heard for a while about the problems of space junk...
If that one-centimeter pellet is going 20,000 mph faster than the shuttle, wouldn't it be in a much higher orbit? And if the shuttle is going 20,000 mph faster than the pellet, wouldn't the pellet be in a lower orbit (i.e. on the ground)? And if they're both going at 20,000 mph... what's the problem?

I know that LEO is getting pretty damn crowded with junk, but what are the real differences in relative speed at that altitude/orbit? Without the 20,000 mph FUD?

-T

Re:Relative velocities?

[EvilBuu]

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).

circular vs. elliptical

[Anonymous Coward]

for circular orbits, yes. Actually, for any orbits, yes, the semi-major axis goes as the cube for the period of the orbit squared. Kepler's 3rd law.

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.

Found It...

[black_widow]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/25/163522 8&mode=thread

Force Fields And Plasma Shields Get Closer
Posted by timothy on 03:23 AM July 26th, 2000
from the use-half-power-for-melting-butter dept.


http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /cold_plasma_000724.html

Misleading pictures

[freeweed]

Computer-simulated pictures of orbiting space debris suffer from the same problem that images of our solar system do:

Each individual 'thing' (piece of debris/planet) is incredibly tiny compared to the size of the background object (Earth/the solar system). If they showed an actual scale model of the solar system on your (for example) 1600x1200 screen, even jupiter would be well under a pixel wide (in fact, Jupiter's diamater is about 1/40,000th the size of the mean distance from Pluto to the Sun).

Same thing for Earth orbit space debris - sure, there are tens of thousands of objects up there - but the biggest thing we've ever sent into space is only a few hundred yards long, and the vast majority of these things measure in the inches. The Earth is more than 12 MILLION yards wide.

Point is, you wouldn't see anything on any real scale model of either the Earth or the solar system. They artificially blow up the little things so it has some relevance to us feeble humans. Not that this lessens the danger from space debris, mind you - it's just nowhere near as bad as it looks from the pretty pictures.