Low Earth Orbit Junk Yard Nearly Full

vlado4 writes "The New York Times has up an article on the amount of space junk in Earth Orbit. According to NASA officials, the amount of stuff we've put into LEO is at critical levels. Additionally they have great graphics of the nearly 1000 new pieces resulting from testing the new Chinese anti-satellite weapon, as well as the damage to Hubble's solar array. The litter is now so bad that, even if space-faring nations refrained from further interference, collisions would continue to create more clutter just above our atmosphere. Space debris appear to be a difficult problem to deal with and may hinder future space exploration."

Comments

No problem

[2.7182]

We'll just have the Chinese clear it out with their new laser death beam things.

Re:No problem

[Salvance]

In all seriousness, I wonder if there's any way to solve this problem? Would a super-strong electromagnetic connected to a series of huge satellites orbitting in the wrong direction clear out the space junk?

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese anti-satellite weapon that caused all of the space-debris was a missile. The Chinese laser death ray is something completely different. If you had been keeping up on current events instead of nitpicking posts on slashdot while sniffing magic markers you would know that.

Re:No problem

[AVryhof]

Perhaps we need Megamaid

Re:no problem

[Kanerix]

But then all our junk is just in a higher orbit... I think we just need to turn up the gravity for a short time and let the junk burn up in the atmosphere. An added bonus to this is now the moon will be a good deal bigger in the sky for those long walks on the (now-polluted and possibly tidal-flooded) beach with your girlfriend. Let's do it! Remember to bring your asteroid-proof umbrella!

Re:No problem

[rblancarte]

You can see that the stress of all the debris is having a bad effect on astronauts already.

RonB

Re:No problem

[PrescriptionWarning]

I was thinking more along the lines of an electromagnetic orbit pooper scooper

Re:No problem

[pe1chl]

It is of course very easy to point at the Chinese for shattering a satellite into a thousand pieces, but don't forget that the US has their share of stupid mistakes as well.
For example, in 1963 the US Military launched 480 million tiny needles into orbit (project West Ford), to see if they could be used to reflect radio signals.
That did not work well, but the needles remained in orbit for years.
And if scientists would not have been very opposed to it, they probably would have launched even more to see if the idea would work.

Also, it is difficult to say that space is "full" of junk. The LEO area has such a large volume that even hundres of millions of junk particles at a uniform distribution still means they are all many kilometers apart. So what is "full"?

Re:No problem

[rucs_hack]

"We'll just have the Chinese clear it out with their new laser death beam things."

that will never work unless they can breed sharks that can survive in space..

Re:No problem

[dudidam]

No problem? What a heck... Indonesia have been launch their micro satelite with same orbit.

Re:No problem

[cayenne8]

Hmm...well, why don't we create and send up the equivalent of a 'space' Roomba. Just let it go up there, and vacuum up debris...when full, it returns to the space station up there, where they bag it and shoot it further out into space away from us...?

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought of pbelt:

We can use the trash as a sun shade ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/0 6/0416255 ) keeping the smog ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/1 9/2126225 ) out of our lungs.

Seriously people, get serious about recycling... not just on this planet.

Re:No problem

[pe1chl]

One reason this is not so simple, is that there is so much space to vacuum. You will not find much junk by just vacuuming (especially in the vacuum of space)...
Then there is the problem that speeds are very high. A particle in a different orbit than your Roomba will probably go right through it, instead of being properly processed.

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess if the US did it in the 60's then it's A-OK for the Chinese to do it now!

dumbshit

Re:No problem

[God'sDuck]

IANARS, but I would think a big (say, square mile) plow would be able to "catastrophically catch" many objects; and anything that had enough kinetic energy to blast through it like a bullet would probably be slowed enough to drop into a decaying orbit. Thoughts?

Re:No problem

[Zephyros]

And then when it's got everything, we can aim it at whomever we want and switch it from "suck" to "blow"...

Re:No problem

[kannibal_klown]

A plow alone wouldn't work. Assuming the plow was a strong and hard enough surface to not turn into a cheese grater after a few minutes, the pieces would simply start bouncing of. You'd need some sort of contraption to "trap" the junk.

I wonder what the environmental impact would be to try to deflect some of the smaller stuff into the atmosphere to burn up. You know, nothing big/dense enough to survive reentry.

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is "full"? TFA explains that 'full' means the spatial density has reached a point where a collision between two object is highly probable and that such a collision would create more debris, thereby setting off a chain reaction.

Re:No problem

[drinkypoo]

We'll just have the Chinese clear it out with their new laser death beam things.

While this was said in jest, it just might make sense to use a laser system to clean this stuff out of orbit. In theory, if you placed a satellite in a high-ish orbit, then fired on the junk in such a way that part of the side facing away from the planet was vaporized, you could theoretically deorbit it. Also the side facing away from the direction it's moving, because reducing its V is another way to deorbit.

This wouldn't work for big pieces, which would just shed more junk. But those could be attached to by microsats (which could maybe even be fired at the big junk by some other satellite) which would stick on somehow, and then deploy a deorbiting tether.

Of course this is all a moot point if we can't launch something before there's too much junk to launch anything :D

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem at all. I've been training for the mission with my vintage copy of the Asteroids arcade game. Not only does the process works perfectly--all space junk has been destroyed--but when I complete my task I can move into Hyperspace.

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

i patent this process in the name of protecting the 0zone layer

Re:No problem

[dpilot]

I've sometimes mused about a big hunk of aerogel in orbit. I suspect that you don't really need to catch or stop things, just slow them down. If these pieces of junk could just be persuaded to drop perigee down into the 100 mile range, then atmospheric decay would help out.

Re:No problem

[Doctor Memory]

That's a good idea, but so much space hardware is non-ferrous (aliminium, titanium, stainless steel, plastic) I don't know how effective such a device would be. I think a better solution would be some kind of space flypaper, but I don't have any idea how to make an adhesive that would work at space temperatures, or if even something like Kevlar would provide a strong-enough backing material.

Re:No problem

[Convector]

Sucking requires a pressure gradient. LEO is a near vacuum to begin with, so it would be hard to further lower the pressure enough to make a 'space' Roomba effective.

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

considering that electromagnetism has the same distal reflexive signatures as gravity (namely 1/rv^2), the answer is "no". This junk is orbiting a super strong magnet (Earth).

Re:No problem

[willy_me]

And magnets? Given enough time, a magnet might be able to draw in some of the magnetic particles. Of course, so much for Al.

Willy

Re:No problem

[ConceptJunkie]

The problem with all these ideas, unless you could precisely move the "plow" around is that there's just too much space for the junk to be in, i.e., the plow would have to be [pulls number out of nether regions] hundreds of square miles in size to stand a reasonable chance of catching a significant amount of material.

I say we get billg to stitch together 50 billion one dollar bills to make a great big net.

Re:No problem

[dougmc]

While this was said in jest, it just might make sense to use a laser system to clean this stuff out of orbit. In theory, if you placed a satellite in a high-ish orbit, then fired on the junk in such a way that part of the side facing away from the planet was vaporized, you could theoretically deorbit it. Also the side facing away from the direction it's moving, because reducing its V is another way to deorbit.

Hitting something with a laser does not signifigantly affect it's momentum, but I think I see what you're getting at -- if you vaporize one side of the object, the vapor expelled will push the object in the other direction. However, merely pushing a satellite `down' will not make it de-orbit unless you can push it all the way down to the atmosphere. Instead, it'll just make it's orbit more eccentric. `Reducing it's V' would be far more effective.

Of course, in order to hit something with a laser so intense that it vaporizes metal would require massive amounts of power (megawatts? gigawatts?) and a really really good tracking system to even let a few percent of the laser hit the satellite. I don't think this is really practical. And really, you'd have to vaporize most of a satellite to make any signifigant change in it's velocity -- you might as well just vaporize it all (and then you've got metal vapor orbiting the Earth, but that's less of a concern.)

Fortunately, if this stuff is in LEO, that means it's hitting bits of our atmosphere all the time, so the good news is that it'll come down eventually, with exactly how long it takes depending how low the orbit is, how eccentric the orbit is and the density and shape of the item itself. Really low stuff will come down in weeks, but stuff that's higher up might take many years, and if you go higher it might take hundreds of years.

Re:No problem

[Mirar]

Joking apart, can we get them to clean up the debris?

Re:No problem

[mfrank]

Just increase the rate of global warming. The warmer atmosphere will expand further into space, and all the junk will re-enter and burn up.

Also, we can schedule a date and time where everybody exhales simultaneously. That'll help.

Re:No problem

[fredrated]

That sucks!

Re:No problem

[Sebastopol]

Also, it is difficult to say that space is "full" of junk. The LEO area has such a large volume that even hundres of millions of junk particles at a uniform distribution still means they are all many kilometers apart. So what is "full"?

This is the kind of important question people who see humans as having no limits need to answer:

* How many people on earth is TOO many?

* How much pollution in the air is TOO much?

* How many bad air days are TOO many?

* How little oil left is TOO little?

* How warm is TOO warm before you believe global warming?

* How much nuclear fallout from nuking Iraq/Iran is TOO much nuclear fallout?

It's hard to not be partisan with these q's, because in my experience, the god fearing republicans think no limits exist on the above questions. I'm not calling you a GFR, I'm just saying the important focus for these issues is not an absolute number, but "where do you draw the line"? The same goes for LEO garbage. Yes, the volume of LEO is colossal compared to the surface of the earth, but where does one draw the line???

IMO, if scientists can project the rate of fillup and the probability of destroying important satellites or making space travel impossible or becoming detrimental to humanity, we should listen to them, but there seems like little we can do: we haven't done anything about ANY of the issues listed above that have far more impact on humanity, what makes us think we can affect LEO decisions?

Re:No problem

[drinkypoo]

Of course, in order to hit something with a laser so intense that it vaporizes metal would require massive amounts of power (megawatts? gigawatts?) and a really really good tracking system to even let a few percent of the laser hit the satellite. I don't think this is really practical.

It's only going to work for a subset of the crap up there, it's true. But I think you can probably use just kilowatts of power because things don't tend to cool off very well in space. They have to cool through radiation because there's nothing to provide conduction and thus convection.

And really, you'd have to vaporize most of a satellite to make any signifigant change in it's velocity -- you might as well just vaporize it all (and then you've got metal vapor orbiting the Earth, but that's less of a concern.)

In the GP I suggest using microsats with deorbiting streamers/tethers to handle the larger items, like defunct satellites or large pieces thereof. I am proposing that we use the lasers on things like large paint chips (large meaning they can be detected and tracked) and the like. As such they probably do not have to be very powerful. In fact if you were crafty enough you could probably use a magnetic acceleration effect to launch blobs of plasma at them and propel them that way. Just orbit your craft in the opposite direction that most of the crap is going, and hit them on their approaching side, decreasing their V and deorbiting them. It might take many hits and multiple passes to decrease their velocity sufficiently to deorbit them, but we have substantial time to work with - until the satellite is destroyed or expires, anyway - and solar power is both much more efficient in space for obvious reasons (more sunlight reaches the panels) and the latest solar panels are two to three times as efficient as they have traditionally been anyway.

Re:No problem

[ElectricRook]

Is there an upside to this?

Let's see... anything leaving/entering the atmosphere is in danger of being "shot down" by random junk weighing anywhere from fractions of an ounce to several tons, and moving (likely) several thousand meters/second.

All space-craft and satellites are in increased danger, as are weapons. Add a little more junk, and enough collisions to cause a chain reaction, and we have the ultimate space based defense system. NEENER-Neener-Neener, you can't nuke me...

That would set us back to just about 1960... Technology wise, no more: Weather satellites, spy satellites, satellite TV, GPS, ISS...

We would have to get real lives of our own.

Re:No problem

[Rei]

Picture trying to pull a moped off the road at 60 miles per hour.

Now increase the speed of the moped threehundred fold (and its energy almost a hundred thousand fold). Think that will work? No? Bingo. You wouldn't even change the orbit measurably if it flew past a just centimeter from your magnet.

You can take out debris by many methods, such as: applying direct thrust to it (say, attaching a small engine); subjecting it to more drag (say, attaching a sail to it to drag through the rarified atmosphere, or increasing the rarified atmosphere); rendering it into small enough particles that either cannot do enough damage to be problematic, will reenter soon (greater surface area to mass ratio), or most likely, both at the same time; colliding it with a target (having either the debris be either largely contained or disintegrated, as per above); etc.

Re:No problem

[Tanktalus]

we haven't done anything about ANY of the issues listed above that have far more impact on humanity, what makes us think we can affect LEO decisions?

My guess? LEO decisions are likely less partisan.

Re:No problem

[dpilot]

It's the old "Space is BIG!" problem. But the nearly meaningful adder to the aerogel idea would be to station some blocks of it ahead of and behind valuable things, notably the ISS. (If you stationed any around the HST, you'd also want to be able to move it when you wanted to look in that direction. Even this idea still has trouble with the "Space is BIG!" problem, but at least you're trying to protect a smaller space. Obviously it would be necessary to form the aerogel on-orbit, presuming that's possible.

Re:No problem

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Should we use her in suck or blow mode?

Re:No problem

[pe1chl]

The point is that the (abstract of) the article is along the lines of "now that China has added 1000 pieces of junk, LEO is nearly full".
I tried to explain that the US has launched many more pieces of junk, sometimes very useless too. And that it clearly is not "full" but just hitting some arbitrary limit.

I don't want to advocate the launch of arbitrary junk into space. But those that are without sin, should throw the first stone. Not NASA or the USA.
Doing something about it is a different matter. But that can be done without fingerpointing.

Re:No problem

[pixelpusher220]

They're planning on doing just that....only stumbling block is getting the Wii controller to handle the 3 dimenions of space ;-)

Re:No problem

[Rei]

Completely incorrect. First off, things colliding at an average speed greater than 7,800 meters per second (LEO orbital velocity -- a speed that makes bullets look slow) do not "bounce off". They disintegrate. Secondly, any plough would not be at risk for most particle passing through ("swiss cheese"). It's not like flying through a sandstorm: even "crowded" LEO is very, very, very, very empty. The problem is that the particles circle earth every few hours. Any "plough" would consist of a broad, flat plate because you don't know just where a particle will hit. The surface area will remain largely intact because the holes will be so proportionally small. You don't even need to capture the debris; you just need it to end up in small enough particles that they're either not threatening or they'll reenter soon (as small particles tend to do).

The problem with this is, as mentioned, space is very, very, very, very empty -- and proportionally big. Your plough would be responsible for sweeping a three dimensional volume with the area of just two of the dimensions being larger than the surface area of the planet. Thankfully, particles circle often. Unfortunately, that's one darned lot of volume to sweep.

Re:No problem

[PietjeJantje]

It might not be easy, yet it is inevitable. The problem will only get worse. So, the only solution is to clean it up. We better start developing a clean-up solution sooner than later.

Re:No problem

[jvkjvk]

Also, it is difficult to say that space is "full" of junk. The LEO area has such a large volume that even hundres of millions of junk particles at a uniform distribution still means they are all many kilometers apart. So what is "full"? An operative definition of "full" can be found in utilizing the probability that when orbiting your satellite, or during it's operative lifetime one of those pieces of space junk causes it to become inoperative.

Now for different organizations "full" is going be defined with different probabilities. If you have as much money as the DOD, for example, "full" might be somewhere north of 50%, but I can't see many for profit companies putting up with a 50% satellite failure rate. For them, "full" probably is south of 10%.

Re:No problem

[NiceRoundNumber]

Just increase the rate of global warming. The warmer atmosphere will expand further into space, and all the junk will re-enter and burn up.

Paradoxically, just the opposite is occurring. The thermosphere (topmost layer of the atmosphere) gets thinner as carbon dioxide increases, which only makes space junk stay in orbit longer. In light of our dependence on satellites for so many of our modern conveniences (GPS, satellite TV, etc.), the Chinese missile test was a painfully shortsighted and frankly idiotic thing to do.

Re:No problem

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

We'll just have the Chinese clear it out with their new laser death beam things.

If the debris starts falling, we can have a real life Missile Command game!!!!

Re:No problem

[Nefarious Wheel]

The thing is, even if you blow the bits in LEO to vapour you'll have all these heavy ions floating about in orbit until the solar wind does something interesting to them. What would it look like if we did this for a few hundred years? Or would it all fall to Earth eventually and fool archaeologists in the far future into believing a meteor was the cause of an extinction event?

This presupposes we have archaeologists in the future to do the studies. Maybe we'd better cache a few humans off-site just in case...

Re:No problem

[mahmud]

Here's the upside:
Imagine the R&D and tech innovation incentives for coming up with kickass technology to rid near-Earth space from junk! It would probably spawn a lot of international cooperation, university funding, and spillovers over the entire spectrum of economy!

That is of course if economies don't get shattered by massive loss of plant and equipment (read - satelites).Also military might get upset about losing their satelites (and chance to spy on other countries) and preemptively nuke each other, that's a bit far-fetched, though.

Re:No problem

[willy_me]

Now increase the speed of the moped threehundred fold (and its energy almost a hundred thousand fold). Think that will work? No? Bingo. You wouldn't even change the orbit measurably if it flew past a just centimeter from your magnet.

I agree. I had envisioned an autonomous satellite that would synchronize its orbit with whatever junk is to be removed then apply a magnetic field so that the object would drop out of orbit. The benefit of this is that you wouldn't have to setup a collision to remove objects - you would just have to get close (wrt proximity and velocity). Of course, this is all a bit futile if carbon fiber and Al make up a significant portion of the junk up there.

In all honesty, I know nothing of this field so anything I have to say is simply speculation and should be treated as such. For example, after reading your reply I'm beginning to think that an autonomous satellite that lays a field of gas in front of oncoming objects might be a better approach. But running out of gas would be a problem. Or how about positioning a mobile mass large enough to absorb the impact from any orbiting junk? Simple, crude, but effective.

Re:No problem

[ElectricRook]

I would think it rather impossible to clean stuff out of orbit for a few reasons.

A. Junk in orbit is spread out into many different orbits. Any vehicle sent to catch something would be a one time use vehicle. "Ooo here's a multi-million dollar craft that will catch one of the many explosive bolt heads left in orbit from Apollo 8".

2. Objects in orbit are moving very fast, in the kilometers per second range. I can't think of anything that could cleanly "catch" a tumbling piece of hyper-sonic solar panel.

III. Striking space junk will cause more space junk, each new smaller piece now has it's own orbit.

d. Heating space junk with a laser or other kind of beam weapon will only serve to heat the object for a bit. Heating an active weapon or satellite can cause damage, but... well... apply the first law of thermo-dynamics.

Of course, there might be some kick-ass ideas that won't fit into my tiny mind.

Re:No problem

[ksheff]

once Fred can figure out a way to get his son Lamont & his truck in LEO, it will be cleaned up in no time.

Re:No problem

[Linker3000]

dutchpipe.org:

The DutchPIPE server is down
socket_create(): unable to connect [61]: Connection refused

/just sayin'

Re:No problem

[mahmud]

For all I know there in fact _may not_ be a solution to cleaning up space. That's however not the point of my original reply. I meant that desire to solve this problem would attract additional funding to basic and not so basic research and offshoot technologies would benefit all. I admit, that the tone of my previous post was a tad too optimistic, but I honestly have a very hard time believing that if space junk pressures us into abandoning our space presence altogether, we won't do our damnedest to get back there.

This is a challenge, and facing up to the challenges is good for economy and progress.

Re:No problem

[mahmud]

Sorry for the follow-up,
I didn't properly address your point about it being outright impossible to clean up space. Do you really believe it's "impossible enough" for noone to ever even bother with trying to think up the solution? And consider the stakes. Ach, and since the solution won't most likely be easy/obvious/already existing, the positive economic effect from research will be even greater.

Re:No problem

[joeljkp]

In the article, they define "full" as some critical concentration at which junk starts hitting junk and creating more junk pieces by itself.

Re:No problem

[maxume]

The radius of the earth is just under 4000 miles. LEO starts at about 100 miles(and extends to 1000 miles). The surface area of a sphere is given by 4*pi*square(radius). So that's about 211 million square miles of area(per layer). At that scale, 1 square mile is 'minuscule' not 'big', even if you are moving 5 miles a second.

It might be approaching practical to clear certain key orbits, but probably not.

Re:No problem

[StikyPad]

You're aware that surface of the earth is nearly 200 million square miles, right? And that's just at sea level. Of course, LEO is the range of 124 to 1240 miles above the surface, which makes the area of that "sphere" roughly 340 square miles at the upper limit. In a perfect world where the device never overlapped its own path (impossible), it would take over a year to cover that sort of area at 18,000 mi/hr at just one altitude, even if we could launch something that big, which we can't. So let's say we decide to less than 50% of each mile of altitude, using a conservative 6 months per mile of altitude, times 1000 miles of altitude gives us 500 years. And that's just for LEO, assuming no junk is added over that half-millenium. It would be "faster" (except that it would happen during the cleanup process anyway) to simply wait for the crap to fall out of orbit on its own.

Re:No problem

[Nullav]

You're all doing it wrong! We should build a massive, mobile catapult to launch a giant rock at everything so it would land on the moon. Aside from clearing some space, this would provide plenty of supplies if we ever set up a base on the moon, and would also be the largest game of Arkanoid yet.

Re:No problem

[StikyPad]

roughly 340 square miles

Oops.. Times a million.

Re:No problem

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

You're aware that surface of the earth is nearly 200 million square miles, right? And that's just at sea level. Of course, LEO is the range of 124 to 1240 miles above the surface, which makes the area of that "sphere" roughly 340 square miles at the upper limit.

Who put the earth inside a TARDIS?

Re:No problem

[plover]

"them"? Which "them" are you talking about? The Chinese just increased the amount of junk by perhaps 5% with their test. The US and the Soviet Union are responsible for the vast majority of the (s)crap cluttering LEO.

Of course if you were ever planning on cleaning the debris, the sooner you start the less time the fragments have to drift apart. I imagine that the explosion has already driven those fragments in virtually every direction at distances too far to recover.

Re:No problem

[plover]

Objects in orbit are moving very fast, in the kilometers per second range. I can't think of anything that could cleanly "catch" a tumbling piece of hyper-sonic solar panel.

What about aerogels? They were used to catch comet particles that were traveling at extremely high relative speeds (6km/sec.) Yes, they were extremely tiny particles, but perhaps something more dense would be able to do the same work. What we need would be more like a kind of orbital sandbag (one that doesn't leak when you hit it.)

III. Striking space junk will cause more space junk, each new smaller piece now has it's own orbit.

That's what TFA calls "the Kessler Syndrome" after the NASA scientist who first recognized that a chain reaction would eventually occur in LEO where debris collisions produce more debris that are then involved in more collisions, rendering space flight virtually impossible due to the collision hazard.

Re:No problem

[MarkAD88]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo. Is sniffing magic markers supposed to be bad?

Re:No problem

[StikyPad]

Apparently I did when I failed to sufficiently proofread. For my next trick, C is now 299,792,458 miles per second.

Re:no problem

[Watson Ladd]

We seem to have an unobtainum shortage at the moment. Now assuming we can make this gravity switch, we would need to do a detailed calculation to see what happens when we turn it back on. It is possible that a collison could lead to a disaster when gravity is reapplied. But I don't see to many difficulties with that after we obtain a gravity negation device.

Re:no problem

[nytes]

Bah! Gravity generators are so 1970's.

I'm just gonna change the gravitational constant of the universe.

Re:No problem

[myowntrueself]

Is there an upside to this?

Well if you were an ET concerned about the possible spread of human-infestation then yes, there is the upside of them fencing themselves in...

Re:No problem

[Askmum]

I had envisioned an autonomous satellite that would synchronize its orbit with whatever junk is to be removed then apply a magnetic field so that the object would drop out of orbit. The benefit of this is that you wouldn't have to setup a collision to remove objects - you would just have to get close (wrt proximity and velocity).

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I know maneuvering in space is a lot different than on earth, and I seem to remember that changing orbits to something opposite your current orbit is just near to impossible.
It's not that you can just brake and make a U-turn to get into pursuit of the next piece of spacejunk that runs in the opposite direction.

That said, I remember a sci-fi pocketbook series where the protagonists were scheduled to do some cleaning jobs from their spaceship with their foton-raygun. And as we all know Star Trek is for real, this will just be something we will be able to do in 50 years.

Re:No problem

[matushorvath]

The question is, how do you vacuum in a vacuum? Seriously. Vacuum cleaners work by sucking in air, but that would not quite work in space.

Heh

[Moby Cock]

I hereby claim ownership of the concept of the space zamboni.

Re:Heh

[Kierthos]

Well, that beats the hell out of my Space Swiffer idea.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

you really want to claim ownership of an ice resurfacing device for space junk?

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think it's a good idea to create a layer of ice around the earth?

Re:Heh

[ArcherB]

How about a space vacuum?

Re:Heh

[operagost]

I anticipate that there will be a huge demand for brave space pilots to obliterate this menace. Therefore, I have already begun training on an advanced debris-elimination trainer software using the latest vector graphics technology. I realize that space is not two dimensional and the "hyperspace" technology has not yet been developed, but I will be prepared in advance once our brilliant scientists make space junk elimination possible. In addition, I will have a head start on blasting those flying saucers that will be piloted by our vile Chinese nemeses.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

We call those "Black Holes".

Re:Heh

[Ucklak]

You must mean a need for people like Adam Quark.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard a company called Infinium Labs was looking for investors for a similar project? Tim, is that you?

Re:Heh

[Sal Zeta]

uhm,Have you ever seem Planetes? basically it's an anime with a story not too distant from what you and the article say...The interesting point is the premise of the entire story, that is when the debris will become too much dangerous of civilian space flights...I am sure that Sir Richard Branson wouldn't be too happy to lose on of his space flights because of a 1960 era satellite.

Re:Heh

[mahmud]

Actually the opening sequence of Planetes shows how an orbiting bolt hits a spaceplane, depresurizes it and ultimately kills everyone on board. Evokes very powerful image indeed.

Ach, and mod me redundant, but I really liked the series and don't mind giving it a tad more publicity:)

Re:Heh

[freedom_india]

Everyone knows Space is just a series of Tubes, where you can't just dumb something and expect it to go away.

Look at the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

Space debris appear to be a difficult problem to deal with and may hinder future space exploration.

Sure, but it also prevents stuff from comig in. Things like alien landers, etc. Or in an earth hostility only mode, it is a cheaper, and more effective, vresion of the Star Wars defense. Put more up there and let it shield us.

Re:Look at the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the notion in "Mutants in Orbit", an add-on to Palladium's sci-fi RPG "After the Bomb."

The idea was that the nuclear war had left so many weapon systems and debris in orbit that it created a shield so that the survivors in space and those on the ground could not reach each other.

Re:Look at the bright side

[Steve Hosgood]

Evidently you've not seen Gerry Anderson's "UFO". Take a look at "Conflict" (Episode #5, series 1). Evil space aliens hide weapon in orbit using space junk as cover.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Anderson_UFO_se ries#Episodes

Re:Look at the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much light (heat) it blocks...

Re:Look at the bright side

[allresistanceisfutil]

Sorry but 'comig' isnt a word.

Re:Look at the bright side

[Thrakamazog]

Yeah, we were gonna attack Earth, but we couldn't find a place to park.

Re:Look at the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude: NO ONE has seen "Gerry Anderson's UFO." Except you and me and that weird kid who never leaves the house. So, two people.

Re:Look at the bright side

[Rei]

Essentially none.

Any more questions that demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the situation?

Re:Look at the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, loser, it was a great show when I was a kid.
The special effects were state-of-the art (or close to it) at the time.
I prefer those old shows (Thunderbirds, Supercar, Fireball XL-5, UFO, Space 1999) that were new when I was a kid/young adult to all of the anime slide shows (Dragonball Z, Monkey Island or something), stupid CG (Mighty Morphin' Ninja Turtles, Teenage Mutant Power Rangers), and just plain bad cartoons (Squarebob Spongepants, Phil of the Future, Oblongs) that pass for kids entertainment today (with some exceptions, like Beast Wars and Reboot).

Solution

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Launch a new ball of garbage into orbit to propel the old ball of garbage away from earth. It's foolproof.

Re:Solution

[Moby Cock]

The Katamari Damacy Solution. I like it.

Re:Solution

[Cappy Red]

What if the second garbage ball returns to Earth like the first one did?

The solution?

[lpangelrob]

Magnets. Giant magnets. Giant floating, magnetic balls like the boss in FFII for SNES. That'll solve the problem.

Re:The solution?

[Fist! Of! Death!]

Or even better - put the fricking magnets on fricking sharks! Yes! Sharks with fricking magnets on their heads!

but if we toss enough stuff up there...

[Anonymous Coward]

we can delay global climate change!

How bad are we?

[SQLz]

Not only are we destroying our own environment, our planet is surrounded by floating trash.

Re:How bad are we?

[jslater25]

At least all the debris and trash will hide the Earth from aggressive enemy aliens looking for a new world to conquer.

Re:How bad are we?

[rblancarte]

Does this make us the hillbilly's of the galaxy?

What's next, a space station on cinder blocks?

RonB

Re:How bad are we?

[grammar fascist]

Not only are we destroying our own environment, our planet is surrounded by floating trash.

I applaud your progressive sense of guilty despair. Not only is it enlightened, it's constructive as well!

Re:How bad are we?

[L4m3rthanyou]

Hey now, it's not all bad. If we get enough of this crap floating around up there, it'll screen the sunlight and stop global warming! w00t!

Re:How bad are we?

[Intron]

Not really. Decay time due to drag for LEO is fairly short. Debris in orbits below 300 km (where ISS lives) falls in less than 30 days. Debris up by the Hubble can stay up for years, but will fall eventually. Here is a chart of orbital decay vs. altitude.

Re:How bad are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

WE??? Who the hell is we?
It's not "we", it's the few.
Let's start pointing fingers for a change.

Re:How bad are we?

[mikesmind]

Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Re:How bad are we?

[Doc_NH]

That trash represents some pretty rare materials mined and refined or just down right created. I think our better option would be to get aliens to salvage the junk and take it away.

Re:How bad are we?

[Doc_NH]

Down side is they would probably enslave us to continue production of these materials, but no solution is perfect.

Re:How bad are we?

[careysub]

Not really. Decay time due to drag for LEO is fairly short. Debris in orbits below 300 km (where ISS lives) falls in less than 30 days. Debris up by the Hubble can stay up for years, but will fall eventually. Here is a chart of orbital decay vs. altitude.

This is correct. At low enough altitudes space debris does not cause a run-away debris scenario. This point was made in the New York Times article - if the Chinese had conducted their test at the ISS orbital altitude there would be no long term problem (just a medium term one for the ISS).

In fact drag automatically clears debris below about 700 km, eventually, but not above that altitude. There was a good article on this a year ago in Science: "Risks in Space from Orbiting Debris" by Liou and Johnson (20 January 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5759, pp. 340 - 341). They published a debris vs altitude chart for 2004, 2104, and 2204 showing that (assuming nothing else is launched into space), the existing debris cloud would be entirely cleared below 400 km in 100 years, and at least reduced below today's density between 400 and 700 km. Above that altitude the density keeps climbing century after century. By far the worst hazard is between 800 km and 1050 km.

This limits the hazard to a certain band of orbital altitudes, a fact not brought out in the news article. It isn't a denial of space by any means, but it is a significant restriction on usable orbits.

Re:How bad are we?

[clawoo]

Will someone *please* take those chairs away from mr. Ballmer? Thank you!

Re:How bad are we?

[dsanfte]

Fuck you're lazy.

hillbillies

No damned apostrophe required either.

Re:How bad are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this make us the hillbilly's of the galaxy?

What's next, a space station on cinder blocks? Well, our astronauts are already acting like Jerry Springer wannabes.

Re:How bad are we?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:How bad are we?

[MrNaz]

You're mistaken, "hillbilly's" and "hillbillies" are the same number of keystrokes, so it wasn't laziness.

Re:How bad are we?

[dsanfte]

It's intellectual laziness, you tard.

Re:How bad are we?

[MrNaz]

Err... I was attempting to highlight the intellectual nature of his grammar crime. Look behind you though, you'll find the joke stuck to the wall just above your head.

The Garbage Scow

[Gr8Apes]

Didn't Arthur C Clarke or Isaac Asimov detail this problem years ago and posit that a space garbage service would have to be setup to collect this stuff?

Re:The Garbage Scow

[scriptedfate]

I was almost certain that it was Ben Bova. Mind you, PlanetES is a direct address of this problem, so I may be thinking about it instead.

Re:The Garbage Scow

[Anonymous Coward]

"Deadly Litter" by James White (ca 1960)

Re:The Garbage Scow

[Cimon Avaro]

Don't know about the other science fiction authors mentioned, but I know for a fact that at the very least John Barnes adressed this head on in one of his short works.

In his tale some theocratic government deliberately shot junk into orbit on the theory that some line in the bible or another forbade space travel. The solution people who wanted to reclaim space travel found was launching a giant ball(s) of some silly putty like substance to sweep the debris away.

It will counter global warming

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

All these debris collide with one another and create fine dust covering the earth. It will reflect just enough sunlight to reduce the amount of absorbed radiation to counter the global warming. What a great relief! Last momement reprieve, brought to you by Frank Merrywell.

Re:It will counter global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea.. global warming.... *looks at thermometer* -5F .. yea, I am melting here due to global warming..

Re:It will counter global warming

[Loconut1389]

If it's supposed to be like -100 where you are, it's 95 degrees warmer than normal! Could happen in the arctic somewhere?

Re:It will counter global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, you have a short memory. I week of 20 degree below normal temps and you can't remember the several weeks of 20 degree above normal temps from just a month ago. It would take lot more than this cold snap to make this as cool as an average winter.

Re:It will counter global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

A week of unseasonably warm weather followed by a week of extreme cold... it's almost as if the earth's climate is unpredictable and ever-changing! Nah, we're probably causing it by releasing in the entire history of human civilization one tenth of a percent as much CO2 as what comes out of the ocean in a day, that seems likely.

Re:It will counter global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

A typical post quoting a bogus "statistic" that demonstrates that you know exactly jack shit about climatology. Please crawl back into your hole.

Re:It will counter global warming

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Entirely possible. Learn about the Gulf Stream.

Hah--!

[EinZweiDrei]

Hey, wait, I played Math Blaster -- I am ready for this .

Pfft. Think we problems now.

[Nathgar]

Just wait until we blow up the Moon, or put a Disney theme park in orbit, whichever comes first.

-------------
If I had a good quote, that wasn't already said, I'd quote it.

CERISE satellite

[amightywind]

A year later, apprehension rose as the fuel tank of an abandoned American rocket engine exploded, breaking the craft into 713 detectable fragments -- until now, the record.

The NYT calls out the US but makes no mention of the the loss of the CERISE satellite by a fragment of an exploded Ariane upper stage in 1997.

But seriously...

[Panaqqa]

This is a HUGE problem. Considering that kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, think about how much damage even a small chip of paint can do at orbital speeds (low Earth orbit = approx. 5 miles per second). Then think of a 2 lb. chunk of metal at the same speed (8 times the speed of a rifle bullet).

Right off the top of my head I can't think of a feasible way of beginning to clean this up. Perhaps large orbital superconducting magnets (easy to maintain cryo temperatures in space) for the ferrous stuff, but what about ceramics and all the other junk?

This has the potential to make what is usually the safest part of space travel (sitting there in orbit) the most dangerous part, unlike the historical danger zones of liftoff and reentry.

Re:But seriously...

[Annirak]

It is NOT easy to maintain cryo temperatures in space. Disposing of heat in space is quite difficult, as your only means of heat loss is radiation and the sun tends to shine on whatever you're cooling most of the time.

Re:But seriously...

[Panaqqa]

Hmmm... looks like I stand corrected on a few things here. Thanks for the heads up :)

Re:But seriously...

[Rebuke]

think about how much damage even a small chip of paint can do at orbital speeds (low Earth orbit = approx. 5 miles per second). Then think of a 2 lb. chunk of metal at the same speed (8 times the speed of a rifle bullet). That's fine, apart from the fact that anything it would collide with would also be moving at a comparable speed, so the relative speed would be much much less, so while yes there could quite easily be an impact that could cause some damage to a spacecraft, it wouldn't be an impact at 8 times the speed of a rifle bullet...

Re:But seriously...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>anything it would collide with would also be moving at a comparable speed

Comparable speed but not comparable velocity: if something in polar orbit hits something in equatorial orbit, grief will ensue.

Re:But seriously...

[geekoid]

"low Earth orbit = approx. 5 miles per second). Then think of a 2 lb. chunk of metal at the same speed (8 times the speed of a rifle bullet)."

It's all relative. If it is travelling at 5 MPS and the impact object is travelling at 4.9999 MPS in the same direction, then no harm done.

So really, we just need a large object to bounce the objects into the atmosphere.

50 Billion dollars, and I'll set you up.

Re:But seriously...

[Rebuke]

Very good point, I hadn't thought of that...

Re:But seriously...

[cynvision]

So really, we just need a large object to bounce the objects into the atmosphere. At the times I watched "Dead Like Me" the idea of a toilet seat from MIR killing someone was silly, but maybe not...

Re:But seriously...

[Blappo]

Right off the top of my head I can't think of a feasible way of beginning to clean this up.

Gravity. What do I win?

Re:But seriously...

[IcePop456]

Isn't speed relative? I mean we can catch the Space Station or Hubble without a problem and they contain more mass than a chip of paint.

This is also the reason I roll my eyes when they talk about working in space at 17,600 MPH. Yes they are, but so is what they are working with. People don't seem to have any issue picking up their cell phone while driving 80MPH - simply because the phone is going 80 MPH too.

Re:But seriously...

[Ichijo]

Right off the top of my head I can't think of a feasible way of beginning to clean this up.

A giant vacuum cleaner.

More seriously, how about a robotic space skimmer?

Re:But seriously...

[Doc_NH]

Solar powered deathray?

Create a satilite thats only purpose is to collect heat from the sun and track an burn smaller chunks of debires as its means of cooling.

Re:But seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to make your post longer next time and it won't matter if it's wrong. Here on slashdot we love long rebuttals with a sarcastic tone, whatever it says. The way you started your post ("That's fine, apart from the fact that") is perfect and normally would secure a +5 while the pendantic corrections would stay unmoderated.

Re:But seriously...

[stile99]

Right off the top of my head I can't think of a feasible way of beginning to clean this up. Give Superman a golf club and tell him to have fun. No wait, Green Lantern. Save the cost of the golf club.

Re:But seriously...

[borawjm]

Think about how much damage even a small chip of paint can do at orbital speeds (low Earth orbit = approx. 5 miles per second). Then think of a 2 lb. chunk of metal at the same speed (8 times the speed of a rifle bullet).

Yes but, wouldn't you be going the same speed, and direction, as that chunk of metal?

Re:But seriously...

[AshtangiMan]

Hmmm, I'm trying to get this to jive with what I observe here (in the high desert) when at night, with no cloud cover, in May when the air temp is 40-45 degrees F, and the water in my dogs dish freezes because it gives it's heat up, radiating to the emptiness above. So, it seems that all that is required is a simple shade structure to keep the cryo parts from seeing the sun. Design aslo would demand that no heat reflections get to it, but still, I think this would be easy, que no? what do you think . . .

Re:But seriously...

[khallow]

The problem is that the junk can be traveling at a significant angle difference to your path. Everything in orbit travels roughly in its own plane that passes through the center of gravity of the Earth. But planes of two objects (even if you assume that they're heading in roughly the same direction) can intersect at some pretty big angles. If you hit something that's in a plane offset by 20 degrees (but otherwise heading in your direction and traveling at the same orbital speed), then the relative velocity difference is about a third of your speed. Further, those planes shift over time (air resistance, gravity effects from Moon and Sun). So what was originally heading in your direction in a slightly different orbit, may over tens of thousands of orbits end up running through your orbit at a significant angle. And if you have an explosion, you might even have stuff orbiting retrograde. Doesn't stay up as long, but it hurts a lot more when it hits.

Re:But seriously...

[dbIII]

easy to maintain cryo temperatures in space

Not really - some of the first dogs in space died from overheating in orbit due to problems with cooling systems.

Re:But seriously...

[deadlock911]

I see a lot of replies to this along the lines of "but your in orbit so your moving in the same direction"
Thats what i thought....at first. then i remembered, things can orbit in any direction they like, so actually an impact could occur with the craft moving in the same speed but opposite direction to the debris. 5 miles a second head on collision....count me out.

Re:But seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to be retrograde to have essentially a head on collision. Two polar orbits that are 180 degrees apart in right ascention of ascending node will be head on.

Re:But seriously...

[khallow]

Excellent point. I had a little tunnel vision there.

Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to flush

[3seas]

how much is human waist? Can you spot it in teh pictures?

Aerogel

[MillionthMonkey]

Launch a big sponge made of aerogel. Light and easy to carry up there, and it scoops up crud as it orbits.

Re:Aerogel

[operagost]

I'm just wondering: where do the waves of needle snakes and gorillas come in?

Re:Aerogel

[BrettJB]

I'm not sure on the timing, but you can be certain that it's cold enough in space to ensure the gorillas will indeed freeze to death. The lack of oxygen may contribute to this as well...

Typical

[eno2001]

This is typical of the shortsighted idiotic human being. Most people just seem incapable of thinking multiple steps ahead. It's a pretty obvious problem that clear thinking would have revealed from the get go. But, as is the human way, it was far easier to just forget about the problem until it interferes. Of course as soon as someone would have suggested that we find a way to clean up the space junk early on, they would have been derided for getting in the way and worrying about petty concerns. Humanity disgusts me.

Re:Typical

[Detritus]

Some of it was accidental, like the expended rocket stages that exploded well after being shutdown due to something igniting the residual propellants in the tanks.

Re:Typical

[Fist! Of! Death!]

I'm guessing you really would welcome invading alien overlords with open arms.
Coincidentally, cold day-old brocolli disgusts me.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanity disgusts me.

Since you are disgusted by humanity, maybe you should kill yourself?

Re:Typical

[eno2001]

You've made the mistake of assuming I am human. I am but a simple shell script. HAND.

Re:Typical

[ScentCone]

Humanity disgusts me

And yet, here you are, still breathing. I guess you're waiting until you can take more out with you, or something? I know, it's getting more and more expensive to build underground lairs and doomsday devices and whatnot. But if you just step out in front of bus today, you can avoid all of those management and finance headaches, and still immediately cease being disgusted.

BTW, which nascent technology's 40-years-from-now problems are you accurately predicting today, and acting to correct? Just curious.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing you're not human.

Re:Typical

[Shiptar]

Global warming. I burn all my garbage, vote republican and bought a fortress on a mountain.

The sooner I get rid of you guys the better.

Killing yourself is never the answer, killing everyone else is a better and less selfish solution.

Re:Typical

[Red Flayer]

Of course as soon as someone would have suggested that we find a way to clean up the space junk early on, they would have been derided for getting in the way and worrying about petty concerns.

Bah, it's hubris to think that mankind has put enough stuff in LEO to affect the entire orbital space.

Furthermore, what's to say that natural sources don't put more space junk in LEO than human processes?

And who cares if we've "filled up" LEO -- surely technological advances will enable us to deal with the complications as they arise.

And why should we (the US) have to bear the biggest burden of reducing the trash in LEO, when developing nations (those without a space program) get off scott free? It's not like we're the major contributor or anything.

Besides, the jury is still out... plenty of independent* scientists dispute the findings of this study, and we should take no action until there is consensus.

*Independent: funded by the "other side" of the interested parties

Re:Typical

[slugstone]

You've made the mistake of assuming I am human. I am but a simple shell script. HAND.

Maybe Agent Smith will come for a visit.

Re:Typical

[Sebastopol]

And yet, here you are, still breathing.

Never heard of the Existentialist literary movement, I see. Read some Sartre, it will help you to understand the dilemma of being a human and being disgusted by it.

BTW, which nascent technology's 40-years-from-now problems are you accurately predicting today, and acting to correct? Just curious.

I'm an avid nanoassembly protestor.

I carry a large novelty fly swatter and cover myself in grey toothpaste at each rally.

Re:Typical

[wiggles]

You sound like the alien newscaster from Futurama.

PITIFUL HUMANS! HAHAHAHA!

Re:Typical

[KoldKompress]

But.. But.. But.. it's space it's just so.. big

Re:Typical

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

It's a pretty obvious problem that clear thinking would have revealed from the get go.

It's very easy to go round finding mistakes that people have made and then criticize them with the benefit of hindsight. If you're the kind of person who likes to wallow in self-loathing for humanity you can spend all day looking for examples. But please, spare the rest of us.

Re:Typical

[DoctorStarks]

This is typical of the shortsighted idiotic human being. Most people just seem incapable of thinking multiple steps ahead. It's a pretty obvious problem that clear thinking would have revealed from the get go. But, as is the human way, it was far easier to just forget about the problem until it interferes. Of course as soon as someone would have suggested that we find a way to clean up the space junk early on, they would have been derided for getting in the way and worrying about petty concerns. Humanity disgusts me.

Well, yes, and no. When we were originally sending things into space, we had no accurate models of atmospheric drag, which is highly variable and depends on many things, like how much the atmosphere is being "puffed up" by solar radiation.

But as you imply, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that blowing up your spent booster stages maybe wasn't the best way of disposing of them, even when you don't have good drag models.

There's certainly no excuse now, however.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of the Existentialist literary movement, I see. Read some Sartre, it will help you to understand the dilemma of being a human and being disgusted by it.

I would say that he has heard of it, is familiar with it, and responded accordingly. In other words, he went directly to the heart of the matter: if you haven't the courage to act on your convictions, then prepare to be criticized.

Re:Typical

[Tablizer]

Humanity disgusts me.

I for one welcome our clean cockroach Overlords.

Re:Typical

[mahmud]

And yet, here you are, still breathing. - That's an opinion based on _logic_

Read some Sartre, it will help you to understand the dilemma of being a human and being disgusted by it. - This one is based on _emotions_.

Both of these arguments go past each other.
Logic tries to avoid contradictions (yes, I know about Kurt Gödel). Emotions, on the other hand, thrive on inconsistencies. Both logic and emotions have their uses, and intersect at some points. This argument is not one of those points.

Case closed.

Re:Typical

[Sebastopol]

Um, no, his response shows he hasn't read it. Same with yours.

I'm right, ain't I.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, relax Emo.

Re:Typical

[Sebastopol]

Sartre's responses are a result of the mystery of logical contradictions he has uncovered about existence. To oversimplify it for this discussion, the "emotion" part arises from existing at of the these "logic tries to avoid contradiction" weasel-moments, weasely-word moments that is. Logic is flawed, he is at the intersection, emotional expression. You admit logic is flawed with your weasel words above, and that is the source.

I bet you've never read a single page of either Godel or Sartre, but here you declaring the case closed.

Nice try.

Stay in school kid, don't do drugs.

Re:Typical

[mahmud]

I have heard similar responses from philosophy buffs before. I may not be as knowledgeable as you, and no I haven't read Sartre, and yes I have read Gödel's theorem and understood it (or at least I think I did).

The problem here is not me not having read Existential writings. In fact I tried to read Kierkegaard once and was immediately put off by his premise. He was trying to look for some "real" value in things, etc. Didn't make sense to me. I may still read the Existensialists some day so that I am more apt at arguing my point is situations like this.

I am not good at explaining my position, and you may frown upon it since you have read a lot of smart books. Anyway.
I try to look at human brain and all the products of its inner workings in functional terms. I don't like any mysteries. In fact I think it's physicists', mathematicians', chemists' and biologists' job to uncover mysteries of life. Philosophers try to come up with frameworks for thinking, trying to explain feeling in terms of feeling, or at least so it seems, which is a fine, but how reliable is it for finding the ways the things _ARE_ as opposed to the ways _WE FEEL_?

When I said that logic and emotions don't mix is because I view logic as a set of operations and functions for dealing with certain kind of issues/problems, while emotions deal with other sort of problems (sometimes mixing together, when it makes sense __functionally__). Deep down emotions are based on logic, but that's not the level we normally probe during a conversation. Whenever I see someone saying something emotionally grounded like "I hate the world but I want to continue living and interacting with the world", the first thing that comes to mind is that it's just an emotion. Emotions are not supposed to make 100% sense. Emotions are a product of evolution that serve certain functions. So instead of asking "where is the mystery?", I ask, "could there possibly be a selective pressure to evolve individuals who think they don't care about the world while they still contribute?"

And the first thing that comes to my mind is: duh, if you don't care about the world and are disillusioned about it's harder to break you, harder to shock you, and thus decrease your productive and reproductive capacity. If however you don't care about the world and still want to work, interact, etc, you are sturdy, yet useful. No need for mysteries. If you want to go nitpicking, my evolutionary explanation still is based on logic, we just had to zoom out a bit.

So yes, I admit, logic and emotions don't go "woosh" past each other on all levels.

Re:Typical

[eno2001]

If I were Emo I'd just whine about hurt feelings and you not understanding. If this were real life, instead of Slashdot, maybe I'd care enough to beat your ass. ;)

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you didn't write exactly what you intended to write. Let me fix it for you:

It's very easy to go round finding mistakes that people have made and then criticize them with the benefit of hindsight. If you're the kind of person who likes to wallow in self-loathing for humanity you can spend all day looking for examples. But please, spare the rest of us who don't give a damn about anything other than our own lives.

There. All better. Much more honest. You're welcome.

Re:Typical

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Not content with your loathing for humanity you seek to rewrite the world around you to justify that loathing. How sad.

Re:Typical

[gfreeman]

Killing yourself is never the answer, killing everyone else is a better and less selfish solution.

Blackadder puts it better:

Wisewoman: Hail Edmund, lord of Adders Black.
Edmund: Hello.
Wisewoman: Step no nearer, for already I see thy bloody purpose. Thou plot is, Blackadder, thou wouldst be king and drown Middlesex in a butt of wine. Ah, ah, ah, ah.
Edmund: No, no, no, no. it is far worse than that. I'm in love with my man servant.
Wisewoman: Oh well, I'd sleep with him if I were you.
Edmund: What?
Wisewoman: When I fancy people, I sleep with them. Oh, I have to drug them first of course! Being so old and warty.
Edmund: But what about my position, my social life?
Wisewoman: Very well then. Three other paths are open to you. Three cunning plans to cure thy ailment.
Edmund: Oh good.
Wisewoman: The first is simple. Kill Bob!
Edmund: Never.
Wisewoman: Then try the second. Kill yourself!
Edmund: No. And the third?
Wisewoman: The third is to ensure that no one else ever knows.
Edmund: Ha, that sounds more like it. How?
Wisewoman: Kill everybody in the whole world. Ah, ha, ha ...

new moon

[mdemonic]

Maybe it will become a new moon some day, and we could inhabit it, and create a new layer of orbiting junk

Re:new moon

[smbarbour]

I look forward to the day when man will land on an orbiting katamari. ...ducks

I can hear the promo now... Don LaFontaine: "Katamari Damacy... This time, it's for real!"

Already Solved The Problem

[compact_support]

Didn't somebody design a really cheap system of kamikaze satellites that would grapple the dangerous pieces and de-orbit them into the atmosphere? By really cheap I mean ~10,000 dollars. Surely we could put a couple of those on the ISS in case it looked like something was coming for it. I know it's expensive to launch the things, but AFAIK they're about the size of a propane tank for a BBQ and could be launched in vast numbers on a single rocket. The space is so large we only need to worry about the stuff in the space we WANT to be in or go through. All the geosynchronous stuff is in a much higher orbit, so we only need to worry about the stuff in LEO and the stuff going through it. It shoudn't be a problem to plot a course through it, and we can clear the orbits as we go.

Re:Already Solved The Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That could make space walks really exciting. You're out on a solar array screwing in a bolt when suddenly a motherfucking BBQ looking thing grabs you as it flies past and flings you down the gravity well because it thinks you are a piece of garbage.

Re:Already Solved The Problem

[justthinkit]

I think you are thinking of the super duper potato gun. It is staffed by disgruntled postal workers and fires pieces of rejected McDonald's potatoes using a modified green avenger squirt gun.

Seriously, have we lost the ability to gut check our thoughts? $10,000 for a weapon that has to attain orbit, track to and then merge with a small object, attach itself to said object, then retrofire in the appropriate direction with exactly the right amount of force to return everything to Earth.

Insightful? This should be modded catatonic.

Re:Already Solved The Problem

[compact_support]

It's basically a guided thruster. I didn't mean it could be launched and operated for 10,000, but that it could come off an assembly line in asymptotically large quantities at that price. It doesn't take a hell of a lot of thrust per se to deorbit something, depending on your schedule. Use a high specific impulse system like an ion-drive, for instance, and you could probably de orbit hubble in a coupla years.

The bitch of the problem is that we don't have a good thruster that's both high thrust and high specific impulse. The shuttle's main engines, for instance, are high thrust. The ion drive is an example of a much better propulsion system that just doesn't scale (yet anyways) to decent amounts of thrust.

As I said, most of this debris is harmless. We just need to worry about debris (at all levels) that gets on a collision course with missions that we care about.

Re:Already Solved The Problem

[justthinkit]

We just need to worry about debris (at all levels) that gets on a collision course with missions that we care about.

I think about this every time I drive my car.

Oooo pretty rings

[sexybomber]

Wouldn't all that junk eventually form a ring around the equator? IIRC from high school physics, planets do something like that. Then it wouldn't be a ... oh, wait, equatorial launches are easier but would then go through the ring. Gr. Stupid gravity. Always making things difficult for us.

Re:Oooo pretty rings

[Anonymous Coward]

Planets form rings over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Perhaps it will form a thin ring, but we'll never see it (unless we launch a lot more junk up there around the equator). Planetary rings are temporary BTW.

We've finally done it.

[Rob T Firefly]

We've broken Space.

I guess we'll just have to go back to throwing our crap exclusively into the air and oceans. Last one to the beach with a six-pack is a rotten egg!

Re:We've finally done it.

[ToneHog]

We've broken Space.

It's not broken; we just need to reboot it.

Re:We've finally done it.

[Anonymous Coward]

So we just need to hit the south pole, the north pole and the moon simultaneously?

yes, humanity is shortsighted

[circletimessquare]

but the ones who do the real damage are the faithless negative types

know anyone like that?

Re:yes, humanity is shortsighted

[Shiptar]

So NASA is a bunch of faithless negatives?

Re:yes, humanity is shortsighted

[icepick72]

Did you read your own comment? ... Yes, I do!

I have a radical idea

[realmolo]

NASA needs to cut a deal with Blizzard. Make each of the pieces of "space junk" an ultra-rare item in World of Warcraft that the players have to go and collect themselves.

The problem will be solved in 3 months.

Re:I have a radical idea

[idontgno]

Great, another stinking Outland resource grind.

Re:I have a radical idea

[Nocturnal Deviant]

lol then it will be world of warcrack.....hey all you can now die to get your amazing new yadda yadda weapon by hopping on a one way trip t clean up your astronauts feces....of course we will make sure the item is transferred to your next of kin upon the time you return to earth as a flaming asteroid =D

Re:I have a radical idea

[garcia]

Until a bunch of gold rings appear and start cluttering everything up again.

Re:I have a radical idea

[tdhurst]

Wrong game...but nice try.

Re:I have a radical idea

[bareman]

What level does my fishing skill need to be in order to fish in this zone?

Re:I have a radical idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess we'll have to give out a group Darwin Award this year...

Dear China,

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems you missed the announcement, the space junk race has been canceled. While your actions are impressive, and as irresponsible as any superpower has ever been, there is no need to attempt to catch up with the US and the states formerly known as the Soviet Union.

You also might be interested to know that there has been a litany of terrestrial environmental mistakes made over the past century or so. While we recognize that it's you're right to fuck shit up on your own, we strongly suggest at least making an attempt to learn from mistakes already made.

In summary, we all remember our first beer too, but come on, it's time to grow up a bit.

Sincerely,

The World

Re:Dear China,

[Anonymous Coward]

How typical of the west -- you create and contribute the most to a given problem, but after you slow down or stop you chide others for participating in it.

China _is_ learning from past mistakes. It was a modernized military -- first from the west and then from a western-influenced Japan -- that allowed foreigners to invade and colonize China. If the US has anti-satellite weapons, China is going to (and has a right to) develop their own. If that's a problem, you should have thought about that before you started your own program of blowing stuff up in orbit. China isn't going to be blindsided by gunboats again, whether in the water or in orbit.

Perhaps they're not learning from the history you want them to, but then again, why should they care?

Leave it alone

[amightywind]

Right off the top of my head I can't think of a feasible way of beginning to clean this up.

You leave it alone and it will go away. The drag forces on small objects in LEO will cause their orbits to decay in 3-5 years. Debris in higher orbits is another matter.

saweet

[esobofh]

Soon those saturn bastards will envy OUR ring!!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to fl

[multipartmixed]

> how much is human waist?

Depending on the human, somewhere around around 32 inches.

the thing about leo

[petermgreen]

is its unstable due to the resistance from the thin atnosphere up there, even the IIS has to be boosted on a fairly regular basis and that is pretty big.

so long term all this debris should come down and burn up.

Java to the Rescue!

[Flwyd]

All space software should now be written in a garbage-collected language.

Re:Java to the Rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

Java? I don't think we should send excess coffee or other liquids into space, so I think you'd want to use a different language. Of course, you wouldn't want to send snakes or precious gems up there either -- maybe a speech impediment would be a good compromise?

no problem

[circletimessquare]

go in the basement, turn off the gravity generator, wait a few minutes for the debris to float away, then turn gravity back on

you people are so silly

Non-profit ventures?

[ciaohound]

It's a little like what's being done on Mount Everest. Over the years, climbers have left thousands of empty oxygen bottles and other garbage scattered over the high-altitude regions. Starting in 1995, Scott Fischer and others organized charity-funded expeditions to remove the crap, not a minor undertaking given the cold and hypoxic conditions.

I'm of two minds.

[crankyspice]

On the one hand, we could sell salvage rights to the Ferengi.

On the other, it would provide good cover for the 'Falcon after she fools GWB's fleet admirals...

planetes

[Anonymous Coward]

tooku tooku DIVE IN THE SKY

Re:Planetes

[EightySeven]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

It was made into a great (and I mean GREAT) anime as well.

The story of Planetes takes place in the near future. Unlike many other anime and science fiction productions, special care was given in Planetes for a very realistic depiction of space and space travel. For instance, when in a weightless environment, the cel count dramatically increases in order to make weightless motion more fluid and realistic. Also, spaceships make no noise in the vacuum of space and astronauts routinely suffer from known space illnesses such as radiation poisoning, decompression sickness, cancer, brittle bones and mental illnesses spawned from isolation in the vacuum of space. One character, born on the Moon, grew to be abnormally tall due to the lesser lunar gravity.

Concepts like momentum in weightlessness are early plot points and are always illustrated naturally. Director Goro Taniguchi stated in the DVD commentary that he learned much about orbital mechanics in the course of making the series. This can be shown in showing specific orbital energy, through changing orbits by applying thrust throughout the series. Even the necessity for the retrieval of space debris that is central to the plot is rooted in the serious and growing problem with space debris today.

It's a global warming sun shield

[esobofh]

Humans created the problem... and humans shall solve it with a giant solar-radiation blocking shield comprised of small bits of metal. we're saved!

deliberate sabotaging

[Anonymous Coward]

a pissed rogue nation can deliberately launch junk up there .. argh .. ideas to prevent that?

Re:Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to fl

[Kanerix]

Since humans don't survive vacuums very well, and we haven't really lost any in orbit, I highly doubt that there are very many human waists out there, let alone any other human parts. There may, however, be a bit of human waste in the form of excrement flying around, which begs the question:

Who flung poo?

Lower and raise the orbits

[Baldrson]

Much of this can be ameliorated if not solved outright by launching only to lower and higher orbits. Lower orbits will be in the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere which will clean out debris naturally. The orbital decay of the satellites can be matched to their expected operational lives and if launch costs can be brought down then additional station-keeping fuel can be placed aboard to help maintain the operational life until it is time for burn-up. Higher orbits will be in a volume of space that is vastly larger than the LEO shell now being threatened with overpopulation by debris. Space is big... really really big... All you need is to extend the orbital altitude and you reduce the problem as a cube of the orbital radius -- but the cost of additional altitude is _very_ low compared to simply getting to LEO altitude. Once again, lowering launch costs helps here.

Re:Lower and raise the orbits

[physicsnick]

Going lower than LEO is not really practical. There's already enough air resistance there as it is. The ISS needs regular boosts (a couple times a week?) just to stay in orbit. And the cost of additional altitude is not actually that low; gravity in LEO is still 88% of what it is on earth. Sure air resistance is a big factor, but that doesn't make drastic orbit changes free, especially considering installations already in place (such as the ISS) are not fitted to just move around.

More importantly though, the danger this debris poses is not avoided by simply orbiting outside of LEO; you still need to drive through it, and that can cause lots of damage on your way. Say you want to park your spaceship in geosynchronous orbit. Do you just point to the sky and go until you reach 35000 km, then turn at a 90 degree angle and accelerate to orbital velocity? Heck no. You curve your rocket up into LEO orbit (at 300 km), then you do a Hohmann transfer. By staying in orbit, you don't burn any fuel to maintain your altitude; you only burn fuel to increase it, essentially canceling out gravity. This takes a lot of time, which conserves a lot of fuel.

This poses a danger to anything we want to put in orbit or in space, regardless of altitude. A few more satellites get shattered in LEO, and launching into space would be like driving your car through a hurricane.

People seem to have a very Star-Trek view of orbital dynamics. You can't just drive around willy-nilly. You said it yourself: Space is big... really really big.

Re:Lower and raise the orbits

[Baldrson]

Going lower than LEO is not really practical. There's already enough air resistance there as it is.

If that's how you define "LEO" then of course -- you've defined the orbital debris problem out of existence by adopting my proposed solution. Accepted definitions of "LEO" do, however, vary from altitudes where resistance from upper atmosphere is significant to altitudes where it is _not_ significant.

And the cost of additional altitude is not actually that low; gravity in LEO is still 88% of what it is on earth. Sure air resistance is a big factor, but that doesn't make drastic orbit changes free, especially considering installations already in place (such as the ISS) are not fitted to just move around.

No one said "free" but the cost is "very low" to gain altitude. The cost to place mass in a 200km LEO orbit is about 1/2 the cost to place mass in a 20,000km GEO orbit. Do the math. Moreover, the potential gains in economy are even greater by using higher Isp technologies with lower thrust and yes this is directly due to the absence of atmosphere at perigee, where you do the transfer burns.

People seem to have a very Star-Trek view of orbital dynamics. You can't just drive around willy-nilly. You said it yourself: Space is big... really really big.

Grow up.

Re:Lower and raise the orbits

[physicsnick]

If that's how you define "LEO" then of course -- you've defined the orbital debris problem out of existence by adopting my proposed solution. Accepted definitions of "LEO" do, however, vary from altitudes where resistance from upper atmosphere is significant to altitudes where it is _not_ significant.

Yes, and where the ISS is now, it is already significant. It costs enough fuel as it is, making a lower orbit impractical. I don't understand what you're trying to argue here; the simple fact is the space station can't practically orbit any lower because it would cost too much fuel.

No one said "free" but the cost is "very low" to gain altitude. The cost to place mass in a 200km LEO orbit is about 1/2 the cost to place mass in a 20,000km GEO orbit. Do the math. Moreover, the potential gains in economy are even greater by using higher Isp technologies with lower thrust and yes this is directly due to the absence of atmosphere at perigee, where you do the transfer burns.

Again, that's my point. By placing a mass in GEO orbit this way, you still spend quite a bit of time in LEO. While this is currently obviously not comparable to spending years in LEO, if we continue to litter LEO to the point of making permanent orbit there impossible, then reaching LEO orbit to do a transfer burn would still pose a significant risk. Your original example implied you avoid LEO orbit by simply boosting past it, which would cost vastly more than twice the fuel.

hmmm

[AndyboyH]

The anime Planetes really isn't so far from the truth after all...

(if you haven't seen it, or think that anime is all about tentacles, schoolgirls, product marketing, or bulging muscles - it's an anime about a team of people who clean up space for a living. It's well worth seeing.)

Re:hmmm

[killjoy966]

Wait a second...

So are you telling me there are no tentacles, no schoolgirls, and no bulging muscles?
And why do I want to watch this again?

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I dig the schoolgirls, personally.

Hafrumph!!!

[StressGuy]

Republican

{...ducks...}

Re:Hafrumph!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

knowing slashdot, its a wonder no-one moderated you troll or flamebait.

Re:Hafrumph!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican ducks? Well, I guess they do sometimes remind me of quackery.

Re:Pfft. Think we problems now.

[Gulthek]

While the destruction of the moon will certainly cause problems, it isn't in low Earth orbit so this wouldn't be one of them.

Re:The Garbage Scow "Toybox"

[DLWormwood]

Sure, space garbage collectors sounds a little esoteric, but the concept was enough to make a manga and anime out of it.

How long will it stay up there?

[malsdavis]

Nice attack piece on China and Russia. An alternative summary could read: The evil Chinese and Russians don't care and create space debris just for kicks; whereas we, the noble U.S.A., do care, it's beside teh point that we just happened to have actually created more (and we don't even bother mentioning other space programs like the ESA or the Japanese because they aren't communist and are therefore also O.K.).

One important question though the article doesn't seem to mention is whether the space debris will plague future generations (when space travel may well be more common place). Won't most of this low-level space degree simply get burned up sooner or later or is that kind of like saying "well plastic pollution does biodegrade eventually"?

Re:How long will it stay up there?

[jsailor]

Well said.

There are many facts about the US contribution to the problem that could be quoted but aren't.

Re:How long will it stay up there?

[ToneHog]

One important question though the article doesn't seem to mention is whether the space debris will plague future generations (when space travel may well be more common place). Won't most of this low-level space degree simply get burned up sooner or later or is that kind of like saying "well plastic pollution does biodegrade eventually"?

Well, by the time we develop the technology for interspace travel, we will have already tackled the problem of collection and recycling for this low level space junk, just like we've tackled the problem of recycling since the 1970's realization of litter. We've also patched up the ozone layer after years of selling canisters of hair spray as well! Humans 4 teh werld!

Re:How long will it stay up there?

[SeanAhern]

Um...On the second page of TFA:

The breakup was dangerous because the satellite's orbit was relatively high, some 530 miles up. That means the debris will remain in space for tens, thousands or even millions of years.

"Sooner or later" ends up being much, much later.

Re:How long will it stay up there?

[cdrguru]

Do some reading and research.

Recycling is a joke. 90% or more of what goes into a recycling container curbside ends up in a landfill. Why? Because nobody wants it, it is contaminated or it is just plain useless. But we all feel better because we're recycling.

We have no idea what happened to the ozone layer. The use of CFCs was thought to be creating the problem. We stopped putting them out as much but not completely. The expected "cure" time was around 20 years. It took 5 years and nobody has any idea why.

Re:How long will it stay up there?

[Anonymous Coward]

The big difference being that most of the US debris was inadvertant and these debris causing events are taken very seriously now and significant effort is made to avoid them. The US ASAT test was conducted at a much lower altitude, and therefore the debris came down much faster - still a bad idea though.

To perform a kinetic kill ASAT test in this altitude band (highly used my weather & earth resources satellites) is inexcusable.

Re:How long will it stay up there?

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed a problem with your logic. You seem to have a bug.

Try recompiling after adding the line:

include com.sarcasm.*;

There are also libraries available for C++ and C#, but not C.

Re:How long will it stay up there?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Recycling is a joke. 90% or more of what goes into a recycling container curbside ends up in a landfill."

That is just absolute rubbish (haha). I work for a waste disposal and recycling company and can confirm that these sort of claims (which thanks to certain misleading TV programs, I hear quite a lot lately) are just utter bullcr&p. The vast majority of recycling in this country (in particular Aluminium, glass and steel recycling) performs extremely well with very little or no subsidy and results in only a tiny fraction of the energy requirements or environmental impact of virgin materials, so why not recycle these materials? Some forms of recycling (e.g. paper and plastic) do reject a small amount of input, but it is more like 10% than 90%.

Have you plucked that '90%' figure out of the air or did you get it from one of those 'not recycling paper somehow helps forests' bullcr&p neo-con nutter websites. Besides, deposing in landfill is a lot more work (and more expensive) than it sounds (that's why dumpsters cost so much!). My mate who spends all day driving around on a landfill compacting machine will certainly vouch for that!

Recycling isn't the miraculous answer to everything that some fruitcakes claim, but I hate hearing people talk sh!t about it when they obviously have no idea. For most commonly recycled materials, recycling is simply more efficient in every way.

Re:How long will it stay up there?

[malsdavis]

I saw that but it's only for talking about the one satellite, what about the vast, vast majority of the debris?

Besides, despite going on and on about the Chinese satellite incident, the article states that the low-altitude stuff is most dangerous. Personally I think the article is just badly written by someone who appears to know very little on the subject and keeps confusing different things.

A good anime on this topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Planetes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

A giant vacuum...

[cobrajs]

Now if only we could create some giant space vacuum...

Re:A giant vacuum...

[foniksonik]

And how does a Vacuum work in a vacuum? I'm thinking a giant net might be a better option.... just attach it to the Space Elevator and trawl it out like a shrimp net... Yum, giant radioactive space shrimp.

Look to Hollywood for the answer!

[JimDaGeek]

Ever see the movie Spaceballs? There was that big vacuum robot maid-thingy that sucked up the air from Planet Druidia. Maybe some geeks at MIT could borrow that and modify it to suck up the debris?

Somebody set up us the trash.

[hey0you0guy]

Orbiting Trash: How are you gentlemen !!
Orbiting Trash: All your orbit are belong to us.
Orbiting Trash: You are on the way to destruction.
Earth: What you say !!
Orbiting Trash: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Orbiting Trash: Ha ha ha ha ....

Beginnin of the end

[Intangible Fact]

It seems that nobody gives a damn about the future. We are so insatiable that is doesn't matter if we destroy everything in our path as long as we find pride within our selfish perspectives.

Re:Beginnin of the end

[reyalpdemannu]

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again. The Children of Humanity are coming home.

Roomba

[JimDaGeek]

Just build a big Roomba thingy. That should get the job done in a few thousand years or so.

Catamari

[nra1871]

We love catamari....in space! Roll it up!

Re:Catamari

[Kanerix]

...and smoke it?

Re:Catamari

[Floritard]

you can't even spell it right, how much could you love it?

Devo to the rescue!

[countSudoku()]

she was walking all alone
down the street in the alley
her name was sally
she never saw it
when she was hit by space junk

Just get some orange space suits and send up some prisoners to clean up.

Problem solved. Next!

Re:Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to fl

[multisync]

> how much is human waist?

Depending on the human, somewhere around around 32 inches.

Not around these parts.

Re:The Garbage Scow "Toybox"

[OrangeTide]

I thought Planetes was a great little anime. The animators seemed to simulate the physics fairly well without making tasks slow or impossible. (like they would be in real life)

ISS junk

[GweeDo]

You gotta love that they list the ISS as a piece of Space Junk in their "Interactive Graphic".

See here

Re: Quark

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, network television definitely foretold the need for a garbage scow in space...

read the parent

[circletimessquare]

it's hidden. i didn't reply to the top level post

(slaps forehead)

Re:read the parent

[Shiptar]

I think I did. My point is that the faithless negatives weren't launching debris into space that could prevent our childrens and even our space exploration.

It's not like you can quantify the damage of a faithless negative. We just abstain from helping. Life may be better if we participated, but you can't prove it, so to say that is damage is plain false.

If you do think it's a loss, well people should try to be assholes less. But with a winner can do attitude, I doubt a faithless negative can be considered a loss.

how about a collection system!

[Anonymous Coward]

A nice large magnet rotating in that same region might work for ferrous metals. It works in the oil pan of my car.
They could even use a large round magnet and attach netting on the inside. That works in my pool for the bugs.

Don't worry, I've already applied for the patent on those so I'm covered. Of course I also applied for the patent on the business process for the entire concept of cleaning space debris so I'm covered no matter what method someone thinks up. Hey, if it was soooo obvious, why has no one done it? ;)

Re:Chinese Need a Stern Talking To

[OrangeTide]

You can use a stern voice as long as it does not jeopardize our trade relations. and by relations I mean China sending all its stuff here, and the US not sending anything in return. (unless you count pirated movies and music)

Star trek solution

[Chris Shannon]

Just equip every satellite with a deflector dish. Have each satellite perturb the orbit of each piece of debris it comes across to intersect with the atmosphere.

Difference between a landfill and a spacefill

[Mateo_LeFou]

... it takes a couple more years for everyone to realize you can't just keep dumping shit in a spacefill forever.

read the parent comment

[circletimessquare]

it's hidden

i didn't reply to the top level post

easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

all we need is spaceball's mega maid :)

I have the solution

[regular_gonzalez]

Sounds like a job for Mega-Maid

garbage collection?

[nurb432]

Wasnt there a TV show called 'quark' or something 20 some years ago that addressed this problem, in a humorous sort of way?

Why not do it for real?

Solution for Global Warming

[GiovanniZero]

If theres really all that space junk floating around how is global warming a problem? All that junk should be blocking the sun before it even reaches the atmosphere!

If anything we should put more up there.

Paisan!

[dgr73]

The LEO clearing racket over Brooklyn is already cornered by the Soprano Family Garbage Consulting Inc.

New business opportunity

[camg188]

or a sitcom pilot.
Sanford and Son Space Junk.

I propose gelatinous cubes

[Solandri]

Well, spheres. Put up several things that are big, low-density but deformable (gelatinous), and round. The problem with this debris isn't the size, it's the relative velocity. A bunch of gelatinous spheres could absorb the impacts and imbed the debris within themselves, acting like passive vacuum cleaners to clear out that junk. You want them to be big to maximize the chance of random impacts, you want them to be low-density so the junk is gradually decelerated instead of bouncing or fracturing off more pieces, and round so there are no corners to break off.

Who says all those years of playing AD&D were wasted?

solution to non-existent global warming?

[Locutus]

Maybe China was just trying to offset the global warming scale by putting up an umbrella of junk to block the sun? ;-)

You KNOW this is going to get brought up by someone in the "global warming doesn't exist" club.

Seriously, when I heard about China blowing up that satelite, the first thing that came into my mind was all the debre floating around up there. Getting vehicles to the space station, or other, is already like throwing a ball through a swarm of killer bees and hope to not hit one.

LoB

Lashing with tongue

[Lead Butthead]

Someone needs to give them a bad tongue lashing.

You're going to use YOUR tongue to lash the Chinese? I would've thought that be more of a tickle than a lash.

F4

[Capt James McCarthy]

Won't Galactus take care of this when he shows up this later this year?

Manifest Destiny

[Nom du Keyboard]

Space debris appear to be a difficult problem to deal with and may hinder future space exploration.

Well this will keep us where we belong -- and home, and not annoying the rest of the Universe. We've built our own fence.

Petri Dish

[scopius]

Put a culture in a petri dish, and the population increases exponentially. After a lapse in time, the waste material created by the culture follows suit. At some point in the petri dish, the waste starts killing the culture and the population begins to decrease and eventually die out. This can be charted as a bell curve. We are all in a giant Petri Dish and our waste will eventually kill us.

Re:Petri Dish

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope you go first. And they reach equilibrium. So you're wrong and stupid to boot.

Re:Petri Dish

[JebusIsLord]

Equilibrium is when the exponential birth rate is countered by an equivalent starvation rate. You might be looking forward to equilibrium, but I'm hoping we find a more humane solution to overpopulation.

Re:Petri Dish

[Richthofen80]

I am continuously surprised that on a forum like slashdot ( which is frequented by enginereers, techies, scientists, etc) someone would, when confronted with a problem, throw up his hands in despair and cry instead of thinking of a solution. Or, at least trust the brains of the world can and would fix the problem.

Our waste will not kill us because we are problem solving creatures.

Re:Petri Dish

[mahmud]

No.
We have a massive technology growth. That's the reason why we didn't all starve to death as this bloke would have liked us to believe.
If we will need to, we will find a way to deal with evil waste.

I do, however, hope that you were arguing the case for space colonization in an indirect manner, preparing the ground, so to speak. And since the cause in this case is pretty awesome, everything, including false analogy, goes:)

A Solution

[Catmeat]

I suppose I'll get shot to hell for proposing a possible solution, but here goes.

Launch really large balloons (100's m in diameter) into orbit. Use a material that goes rigid under solar UV so it doesn't matter if they get punctured after inflation.

Small debris - paint flecks etc. hit the balloon and vapoise themselves and some of the surface. Larger debris hits the balloon, punches through and out the other side, but in doing so loses some of its KE and drops into a slightly lower orbit, where atmospheric drag will have a greater effect. If larger debris punching through fragments under the impact, then that'll increase the surface area to mass ratio and enhance aerodynamic drag. Try to use a material (better yet, layers of material) that doesn't fragment under impact to compound the problem with secondary debris. Although, hopefully much of the debris would be contained inside the volume of the balloon.

The balloons themselves are in middish orbits (500-1000km) where there's not much drag and debris would otherwise have a very long lifetime.

Re:A Solution

[Zenaku]

Use a material that goes rigid under solar UV so it doesn't matter if they get punctured after inflation. . . . Try to use a material (better yet, layers of material) that doesn't fragment under impact to compound the problem with secondary debris.

I hope this doesn't come off as if I'm picking on you personally, because it seems like everyone has an answer like this, but. . . If the "possible solution" is to just make a big balloon out of a material that goes rigid under solar UV and doesn't fragment under impact, would you mind telling us all what that material is?

Hey, I've got an idea! Why don't we just launch a giant donut made out of a material that emits some kind of tractor rays that space junk is attacted to, and that generates an inverse tachyon field in the middle which makes space junk disappear into another dimension?

What about gravity???

[moeinvt]

" . . .speeding junk that formed more junk would produce "an exponential increase in the number of objects with time, creating a belt of debris around the Earth." "

I guess someone didn't pay attention in Physics class. Speeding junk will coalesce over time because gravity attracts objects together. Of course there will be high energy collision events in which pieces are shattered apart, but there will be low-energy collisions and near misses where the objects stick together. The latter type will eventually dominate as some massive objects form. The idea that we're on some sort of exponential curve of ever increasing junk just because of collisions is silly.

Re:What about gravity???

[Tzarius]

Sir, you are technically correct (re exponential increases) but I believe you may have a disparity in timescales in your model. Stuff is put up there a lot faster than it comes down, and for such small masses even the miniscule drag at >1000km altitudes dwarfs any gravitational interparticle interaction effects (which still only serve to aggregrate masses, not alter orbits).

Planetes

[Pwipwi]

Reminds me of that manga called "Planetes" about a team of space debris cleaners.

The story started as a discovery-type vessel got hit by a screw which led to a window exploding, killing everyone.

It's a pretty good reading imho, very informative for what's about to come in the space exploration adventure.

As a complete aside

[Fist! Of! Death!]

I simply love the link to a description of Earth on the website http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/ earth_planet/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
Who wrote this, Lonely Planet Alpha Centauri?
Last time I checked you could sum it up in 2 words: "Mostly Harmless". Now I guess it would be "Most harmless, watch for debris on approach".

How can you blame them?

[HockeyPuck]

A country that can't keep from polluting their own land, how can we expect them to not pollute space..?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-01/1 1/content_511271.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-05/30/cont ent_604228.htm

Re:How can you blame them?

[drinkypoo]

A country that can't keep from polluting their own land, how can we expect them to not pollute space..?

Uh, have you looked around the US? I personally live in a valley in Northern California that used to be a sort of paradise in which the locals (Pomo "Indians") used to regularly live over 100 years due to their diet and lifestyle. Today the lake is horribly polluted with mercury and agricultural run off. The lake is called Clear Lake, and it was when white men first showed up here. Today it is about the same color as pea soup and frankly you can't see much further through it most days.

This is pretty much the story of the US. Some people were living in harmony with nature, doing controlled burns on a regular basis to provide stewardship of the land. (In fact my lady and I were just looking at a seed catalog and found a plant that said "to germinate, burn several inches of pine needles above the seeds" etc etc.) Then some white guys showed up, killed and enslaved lots of them, and cut down their oaks (depriving them of a major staple) in order to plant crops or grow cattle. Then the government gets involved, and kills most of the rest of them. We have an island up here now known as Bloody Island because the army came through and massacred all but a small handful of members of one band. The island is up the road from where I work in a tribal casino. Next the government would take further action to make sure they couldn't maintain their old way of life; besides granting all their land to some other white people, they actually paid people to plant walnut trees. Walnuts are tasty but they provide nothing like the nutrition of oak acorns.

You are sadly deluding yourself if you think China is any different from the US. They're just behind. And they're catching up rapidly.

Re:How can you blame them?

[eschwinge]

I suggest you read Jared Diamond's latest book Collapse http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnIn quiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780143036555&itm=2 and it will show you that the idealized view of happy primitive societies living in harmony with nature is for the most part completely untrue. Easter Island, Chaco Valley, and a few other examples are used very effectively to debunk this "noble savage" myth.

Re:How can you blame them?

[drinkypoo]

show you that the idealized view of happy primitive societies living in harmony with nature is for the most part completely untrue

But will it get my whites virtually spotless? Will it let me have fresh-frozen vegetables? Does it provide me with military intelligence?

Easter Island, Chaco Valley, and a few other examples are used very effectively to debunk this "noble savage" myth.

That's nice. Easter Island and the Chaco Valley, however, are not inside the US, and as such are not interesting to me in the context of this conversation.

In fact, a great deal of research has been done that supports the idea that the majority of indigenous peoples of North America were fully aware of the results of their actions, and took their role as stewards of the land very seriously. Some of them were not, which is fine, and doesn't reflect on the others at all.

If you would like to show examples from the book in which Northern American peoples are shown to not in fact be deliberate managers of the land, that would be fine and actually relevant. But I'm not buying a book just to refute your points. And frankly, while I did enjoy Guns, Germs and Steel (which I have on my bookshelf, because people cite it as something of a reference work on a recurring basis here) I found it to be inanely repetitive. If he hadn't belabored every point into utter redundancy, well past the point of boredom, the book would have been about a third the size. I don't think I'll be spending my hard-earned money on any more of his books. I do accept gifts, however.

Re:How can you blame them?

[tehdaemon]

It is Chaco Canyon, (not chaco valley) and it is in New Mexico. Think before you speak.

Pre-Columbian population figures for what is now US and Canada are somewhere between that of New York City and New York State, (possibly less, not more) Or about that of the United States in the early 1800's That is why they did not destroy much, there were simply not enough of them (and their tech was stone-age) They probably did try to take care of the land, by praying to the spirits of the animals they killed, and doing rain dances etc. Any attempt of theirs to manage the land was a crap shoot. We, with our science and technology, have a hard enough time.

T

Re:How can you blame them?

[drinkypoo]

It is Chaco Canyon, (not chaco valley) and it is in New Mexico. Think before you speak.

Uh, there's a Chaco in South America too. Maybe specifying which one, or giving the name correctly would have helped. Asshole.

Pre-Columbian population figures for what is now US and Canada are somewhere between that of New York City and New York State, (possibly less, not more) Or about that of the United States in the early 1800's That is why they did not destroy much, there were simply not enough of them (and their tech was stone-age) They probably did try to take care of the land, by praying to the spirits of the animals they killed, and doing rain dances etc. Any attempt of theirs to manage the land was a crap shoot. We, with our science and technology, have a hard enough time.

If you had actually talked to any of these people you would have known that, as I said, they deliberately fired lands when they left to keep the brush down, because they were not idiots and they had noticed what some of us have noticed, that when you have fires on a regular basis the forest survive because the brush doesn't pile up to the point where the trees actually burn.

But with that ivory tower wedged up your ass, I'm sure you can't come down to the land where the rest of us live.

Stop assuming that you are so fucking superior to "primitive" peoples who were living and dying and solving problems before you were dumped out of your mother and started peeing on things.

By the way, managing the land is a lot easier when it's not already fucked and you're not trying to support hundreds of millions of people on it. The indigenous peoples of North America didn't know shit about rehabilitation of a fucked landscape because the invaders hadn't yet come and fucked it all up. You're talking as if we were somehow good at managing the land, but as a whole, we've never even tried. The pursuit of profit is what is most important in our society.

Re:How can you blame them?

[Anonymous Coward]

I take encouragement from the thought that, in the late 1400s and early 1500s, North America was teaming with people, but by the 1700s the land was pristine with a very small population again.

Nature doesn't take long to recover when we stop tampering with it. Traditions also don't take long to develop; by the 1800s when the American Indians were forced to integrate with Western society, there had been generations of these close to nature not impacting the land ideals, since most of them had been killed off centuries before.

Re:How can you blame them?

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries. Next time we'll shoot all of them so none are left to complain.

Re:How can you blame them?

[ChrisMaple]

Many American Indian tribes were nomadic because they so thoroughly polluted their local environment with human wastes that they had to move or die.

Re:How can you blame them?

[tehdaemon]

Uh, there's a Chaco in South America too. Maybe specifying which one, or giving the name correctly would have helped

So there is a place in South America named Chaco (I didn't know that) Not sure why you thought the South American version had any relavance (it is not a valley or canyon) but... Chaco Canyon is the more common name, valley is also used. (I've been there, valley may be a better description...)

Lots of people have used controlled burns for their own benefit. Native Americans among them. This is not 'living in harmony with nature' These practices change the forests, grasslands etc, driving out some species and introducing/encouraging others. This is no different than plows really, just not quite so destructive. Sure the forest survives, and crowds out the patches of grassland that the natural fires left.

As for the 'superior' comment, I remember a short while ago a Nova program about Roald Amundsen (first to south pole..) and his trip through the Northwest Passage. Spending the winter frozen in, he met eskimos, who taught him how to survive in the Artic. Their 'primitive' clothes were superior to his 'advanced' wool clothes, their stupid snow houses better than what he had... They knew so much that he stayed an extra year learning from them. OTOH, there is now a modern village on the spot, largely due to his stay there. They thought some of our stuff was pretty good too.

Primitive != stupid. That said, modern tech will solve most problems in less time than the more primitive people can. It is just that in some cases, they are a few centuries ahead of us.

You're talking as if we were somehow good at managing the land, but as a whole, we've never even tried.

There are some exceptions to this statement, but this is largely true. I did not mean to imply otherwise. However, this is not the result of science and tech, but corporate culture and the fact that we have only really noticed that we need to do better or we are in trouble.

The real point remains though, Native Americans (in north america, excluding central america) did not 'live in harmony with nature'. That idea is a product of european philosophy + ignorant stories by early explorers, (who knew little about how to live in harmony with nature and less about other cultures) It has almost nothing to do with reality. I tried to explain why native americans did not destroy their land in my first post.

T

Re:The Garbage Scow "Toybox"

[xemit]

Exactly! Every time I hear stories about space debris, I remember that anime. The guys behind it really did their homework on that one right down to the wearing of diapers for long space walks. Its a more realistic view of future space travel from our current standpoint. Below is a description of the series. http://www.animenfo.com/animetitle,1244,xkqkfo,pla net_es.html

big sticky balloons? fly-paper?

[advocate_one]

just send up some very big sticky balloons or else use big arrays of fly-paper...

Push them down from above?

[davidwr]

At some altitude, drag will cause orbit decay and the problem will solve itself. Of course, the big-enough-to-not-burn-up chunks will still be a problem.

New things launched into higher orbit should have an end-of-life plan in place before launch.

As far as what's there now:
1) blow the big pieces up
2) use some mechanism to push the pieces into low-enough orbit that drag will take care of the problem.

Pushing something down isn't a huge problem. Zap it with a particle beam from above for long enough and you'll get a reaction.

The problem is pushing it down without having it collide with anything in a bad way.

Re:Push them down from above?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering about the little soccer-ball-floating-robots NASA demos every once in a while. Just have them accelerate to match the speed of the debris and this push it down into the atmosphere. Of course, there are some problems... fuel for the robots? maybe solar batteries that charge up in space? if automated, the bot could go to sleep, charge up, get its next target and then chase it down. Like you mentioned though, another problem could be the path it takes as it 'falls' to enter the atmosphere, you wouldn't want it to take out something else on the way down.

Slow the trash missiles

[red_flea]

Can we let the atmosphere do the cleaning for us? What if we just slow the orbitting trash down so it can't maintain orbital velocity? Then stuff can just burn up in the atmosphere or land in the ocean somewhere...

Maybe we can launch a satellite that orbits way above most of the trash. It can have regular propulsion and an ion gun (like an ion drive, but with targetting system) and regular propulsion to maintain it's position. It'll push the trash downward by shooting it with ions, and the atmosphere will burn it up.

Wholly Crap!

[sudden.zero]

Wholly Crap Batman We've trapped ourselves on the planet!!

Re:How bad are we? Oceans too!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Not only are we destroying our own environment, our planet is surrounded by floating trash.

And so are our oceans -- 2 millions tons of it according to an article I saw yesterday.

Space Roomba?

[advocate_one]

get some little robots up there running around with big sticky mats in front of them... and a "mothership" for them to "recharge" at and change their mats

OK class what can be done?

[GigG]

What we need is a force that draws the junk down into the atmosphere so it can burn up. Can anybody here think of such a force?

Mr. Newton, you have your hand up in the back...

The problem there

[Moraelin]

The problem there is that that junk moves very very fast. In fact, so fast that it makes anti-tank sabot rounds seem like sedated snails by comparison. At the speeds involved, even for the tiniest such objects the energy and momentum are nuts. IIRC in the 80's a speck of paint dented the space shuttle's windshield. The larger objects that can be tracked, well, now _those_ pack quite the punch.

So, well, how are you going to collect them? You'd pretty much either need to send a tank into orbit, or very very precisely match orbit with each and every single such thing to collect it. The problem is that the latter can be an even more expensive exercise than the former. You either launch a ship for each such piece of debris, or need a helluva lot of fuel to switch orbits if you want to pick one at a time without coming back each time.

If you want to go from an equatorial to a polar orbit (pretty extreme example, admittedly), you pretty much have to lose all that massive momentum along X (your original orbit) and gain as much momentum along Y (the one perpendicular to it). Remember that this is in space, so you can't just turn the rudder and turn. You have to literally fire a rocket backwards in your original orbit, to lose all the massive momentum and energy you had to gain to get in orbit in the first place, and a second perpendicular to it so you gain momentum in the other direction. Ok, so you can combine the two in one rocket fired at an angle, but that's still one hell of a lot of fuel. You just can't carry that much with you, because we're talking as much fuel as the rocket who put you up there in the first place. And an even bigger rocket to put you _and_ that fuel up there.

OK, that's a bit simplified, but should give a general idea.

Re:The problem there

[Gr8Apes]

Ahh, it's actually easy to "collect" them. No collection is necessary, merely a deflection into a rapidly degrading orbit (ie, burn up in atmostsphere). This can be accomplished by a ship that definitely would fit the definition of a "scow". (From wikipedia: A scow, in the original sense, is a flat bottomed boat with a blunt bow, often used to haul garbage or similar bulk freight; cf. barge.)

That seems like the perfect ship to deflect things.... a big honking blunt bow made of nice thick steel.... at least until we get deflectors a la Star Trek... :)

Re:The Garbage Scow "Toybox"

[DLWormwood]

I thought Planetes was a great little anime.

Yeah. Pity it came out in the States just as the anime fad was dying down. Not enough people saw it, and Bandai was forced to scale back on the production values of the DVDs mid-run. (The DVDs don't look good on the shelf as a result.) It didn't help that many discs were scratched and the plastic sleeve was shrinked too small for the boxes. The show was the "2001" of anime and it deserved a better fate than it got. (Did they even make a box set for it?)

I bet that his is causing the Global Warming

[Lukasz (Qr)]

that is it - a ton of junk reflecting the heat from the earth

yea, because

[everphilski]

Drag is proportional to the square of velocity and surface area. Greater surface area ( very large solar arrays ) , more drag. Versus small hunks of metal just cruising around with a very small frontal area relative to the same velocity.

Re:yea, because

[marcosdumay]

And mass is proportional o the cube of the linear size... At the same speed, the life of the object (constant shape and density) reduces linearly with the linear size (square root of area).

Of course, those small chuncks don't have the same density of a solar array, much less of a complex (and mostly empty) module. But your assumptions aren't right.

Re:yea, because

[petermgreen]

but what matters with regards decay time is not the drag itself but the decceleration due to drag and per the acceleration equation that is inversely proportional to mass.

the solar arrays may be big but i bet the debris still has a much larger ratio of frontal area to mass than the IIS

70's TV Show: Quark - Space Garbage Collection

[LineGrunt]

I saw this and had to painfully laugh.

The subject of space garbage collection was the subject of the 1970's sit com "Quark."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)

LG
"United Galaxies Sanitation Patrol Cruiser"

Space garbage collection

[thewiz]

Perhaps we should hire this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)

UFO's helping us cleanse Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

I Got your attention.

a.) Let Nature take it's course.
b.) a new NET, SPACENET (four coordinated rockets with a giant ass nylon fishing-net stocking)
c.) New Satellites Made out of Titanium / and Lead.
d.) Call richard C hogland or Art Bell.
e.) The Stargate SG-1 Replicators will assimulate everything and it won't matta.
f.) $money + contingency plan for cleanup before launch
g.) (I like this the best.....) Virgin-Space-Travel clean up crews with mechanical hook and drill bits.

notes: better http://letvafly.com/

Not so bad, if you think about it

[Ancient_Hacker]

Take a few deep breaths, relax. It's not as bad as it sounds.

• LEO is *big*. Try calculating the number of cubic miles in LEO. *Big*
• Most of the stuff is *small*.
• The really small stuff only stays in orbit for a few years at most. Solar wind, you know.
• Most of the stuff is moving in the same direction, pretty much.
• Stuff that's at the same altitude *has* to be moving at the same speed. basic orbital dynamics.
• So you only have to worry about stuff at the same altitude but different orbital angle.
• Now calculate the odds of a collision. Not too high eh?

Re:Not so bad, if you think about it

[Z0mb1eman]

From the article:

"During an eight year period ending in 2002, the solar panels on the Hubble Telescope were struck by space debris at least 725,000 times. Five thousand of these left crates and holes large enough to be seen by the naked eye."

Nope, not too high at all.

Re:Not so bad, if you think about it

[slashkitty]

I doubt that most of that is human generated. Probably most those 700k you would call space dust. There is nothing we can do about that.. only make the things we send up tough enough to withstand impact with the small stuff.

An idea who's time has come?

[Junior J. Junior III]

Makes me think of Planetes...

Re:Dear World

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off.

The United States has filled the skies above our glorious nation with space junk for 50 years, and continues to overfly Our Land with military spying missions. We are obliged to continue our research into space technology until we can force to United States to respect us. As history has shown, the only way to do this is by threatening them, as they believe themselves not subject to international law.

The US started this crap, they mst take the lead in finishing it.

Sincerely

China

Not far off

[A nonymous Coward]

NASA has said that as soon as the space station is complete, they will mothball it. Not only does the proposed Moon and Mars program cost so much taht they can't afford it, they intend to stop using the shuttle because it is so dangerous.

Isn't that spiffy!

Re:Not far off

[buckeyeguy]

So you're saying the Shuttle will be up on blocks. OK. Wonder how much a really big Trans Am decal would cost?

This is why aliens don't land here

[StressGuy]

We probably look like a cosmic trailer-park to them.

global warming

[angelwalkwithme]

we actually need to increase the amount of space junk to counteract the effects of global warming. damn i'm smart.

Hmmm

[kitsunewarlock]

If we launch enough, perhaps we could shield ourselves from the sun a bit more and turn the tide on global warming.

Vacant Position: Astronautical Refuse Engineer

[Beached]

Qualifications: Masters in engineering, Nobel prize recipient or worked for N-Sync
Duration: Permanent ....

Re: Lunar Flying Squirrel Ho!

[DLWormwood]

So are you telling me there are no tentacles, no schoolgirls, and no bulging muscles? And why do I want to watch this again?

Well, there are the space ninjas as well as a French stewardess character...

Despite the cerebral nature of the series, there are plenty of action sequences towards the end of its run, as a "space terrorism" plot kicks in. (With a surprising conclusion which would offend the sensibilities of American neo-cons.)

The 80's already though of that

[MetalPhalanx]

So appropriate, considering I was watching this old movie last night... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkion/

Re:Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to fl

[Red Flayer]

Not around these parts.

I should hope not! 32" around those parts? Considering the typical dimensions of the parts of the opposite sex?

Unheard of..

[segfault_0]

You mean we have to clean up after our past efforts before we start new projects?! Well thats just weird.

Whee's ALF when you need him?

[JoeCommodore]

FWIW: The Fuzzy character from the planet Melmac, Gordon Shumway (aka ALF) from the animated ALF series was a space grabage collector, Collecting junk in Melmac's orbit.

I've come to the conclusion that we (or some nation) should send up some sort of sticky, multilayered expandable ballon/net thing to catch such debris then drag it around different orbial paths to 'dredge' away the orbital junk. I can't see anything like Asteroids working. :-)

Re:Whee's ALF when you need him?

[JensR]

I was thinking about something like that as well! Basically a balloon or some foam that is cheap to transport but then has large surface area when expanded. Once it has swept an orbit clean it is slowed down until it burns in the atmosphere.
The problem will be to find something that doesn't release more debris on impact, apparently even paint flakes will be a hazard at orbital speeds.

Low Earth Orbit Junk Yard Nearly Full

[railman99]

The near term solution is layered defenses around each satellite of high value, these impact bumpers will act as sacrificial lambs to slow down the debris and protect the satellite. There are problems and limitations with any layered defense solution, but these can be overcome. This is not a solution for all debris, just most of the small and annoying stuff. The cost for the layered defense can be borne by the User Community at large. One long term solution is to "steer" the debris towards re-entry using directed energy management solutions with ground based energy projection. Another method would utilize shpeparding technology to "herd" the larger pieces towards LaGrange points for eventual smelting and re-use. The removal of the smaller pieces is an enormous problem and would require energy projection and management in use over a long time span to solve the problem. Since no one on this planet seems to care for long term survival of our human species by getting our seed off planet onto other heavenly bodies, I see no problem here.

Skyfall day...

[xee]

...is coming. Time to dust off the Max Headroom DVDs.

Re:Pfft. Think we problems now.

[Convector]

No, no. The theme park goes on the Moon.

"We're whalers on the moon. We carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales, so we tell tall tales and sing our whaling tune."

This just proves it:

[topical_surfactant]

LEO is the orbital equivalent of a white-trash trailer park.

Kessler Syndrome

[darkheavy]

This scenario was proposed a long time ago, I cannot understand how the NYT doesn't reference it and shows it as something new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome

hey teenager

[circletimessquare]

(and if you're not chronologically an actual teenager, then you are mentally one)

you need to make a choice:

1. if you honestly believe the way you believe, the hopelessness of mankind's state of being, then you would have no motivation to comment on the situation

2. if you continue to comment, then perhaps you do see some hope after all, and you will come around to developing some faith in mankind in your actual statements, if not just in your actions in spite of your statements

so:

1. continue to comment. in which case, no matter what you say, it is obvious to all that hear you that somewhere deep down you still believe in mankind in some way. otherwise, you wouldn't try to communicate. what would be the point in trying to share something with another human being if we're so hopeless, right?

2. disappear, and never speak of this subject again. it's hopeless after all, right? what would be the point of talking about it? in your silence and isolation you will arrive at logical coherence between your actions and your stated beliefs

this fundamental crisis underlines the failure of all nihilistic philosophies: lack of faith in anything leads to isolation and obsolescence. in other words, nihilism kills itself. faith breeds more of itself. its all about which attitude survives. in the darwinian struggle of fertile ideas, nihilism is a stillborn mutation. it doesn't procreate, tid oesn't spread. it's a dead end. it just dies

so: suicide or an attitude adjustment. you decide. but your current approach of commenting on that which you believe is untenable is logically untenable. arrive at some logical coherence by making your choice:

1. if you respond to this comment, or any other comment, or engage in social interaction with anyone in any setting ever again, forever, then i see that you believe in a glimmer of hope that humanity has something positive after all, somehow, no matter what you say otherwise or no matter how vehemently you deny the charge. if you are ever motivated to speak of something to anyone, you have faith in something, because the motivation to communicate is a fundamentally non-nihilistic impulse: you're trying to share something with someone else because you believe it is important to communicate your ideas... with the "hopeless"? actions speak louder than words

2. if you don't talk to anyone ever again, well, i hope the shotgun mouthwash wasn't too bitter

best of wishes,
someone who believes in humanity

Re:hey teenager

[Shiptar]

While I appreciate the free therapy and phsycology lesson, I disagreed with you blaming people not involved.

That's all. I don't need to have faith in humanity to have a sense of justice and a desire to live, or a refusal to die as you would probably look at it.

I wasn't replying to the original comment, just to yours. I have no opinion on the hope or hopelessness of the human race. They'll succeed or fail of their own will, and I gain nothing worrying about it. My faith is my own, but it does not include berating or blaming others for either my own short sighted failures or the short sighted failures of others.

I respect your faithful view of hope, I don't share the same view myself, but I'm not hurting you and I think you have every right in the world to that view. I just took issue with indirectly being blamed for the mistakes made, and that apathy by the 'hopeless' was a cause. Obviously I have some type of vested interested either in myself or life. Thanks for the concern otherwise. =)

The final irony

[gelfling]

For all the 'what good is space research, let's kill it' crowd it'll be our success at space science that ultimately kills it dooming us all to this rock forever.

Blue Color TV

[Joebert]

I just hope no aliens catch an episode of BCTV & get any ideas from the Redneck Yard of the Week.

In other words...

[Kazymyr]

1. Fill LEO with junk
2. ???
3. Profit!!

Re:Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to fl

[anotherone]

Rumor has it the soviets lost plenty of cosmonauts in orbit... they waited to announce spaceflights until after they'd already recovered the lander for a reason.

a couple of stats

[White Yeti]

At 850km, the "lighter" objects (high area-to-mass ratio, e.g. insulation, thin plates) will decay within 30 to 60 years. A 1cm steel sphere at that altitude, for example, will only drop about 80km over the next 100 years.

NASA's Orbital Debris Quarterly News has general articles, and always ends with a launch table and "box score". We'll have to wait for the next issue, but China has more than tripled its cataloged debris. With this one event, it's now got about a quarter of what the US and Russia each have, pulling well ahead of France and locking in its position in 3rd place.

I'm really curious about what's going on behind the Chinese wall. I know that NASA in no way controls what the US DoD does in space, and can only nag the administration to keep its promises. NASA scrambles the same way no matter who does the test. Does the Chinese Minsistry of Science (or whatever) butt heads with the Ministry of Defense? I look forward to reading the history, many years from now.

bad news: some junk radioactive

[edxwelch]

Unfortunately some of that stuff due to come down is radioactive
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www 10.antenna.nl/wise/629/5699.php

Re:bad news: some junk radioactive

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, some of the stuff on the Earth is radioactive. So what?

Re:bad news: some junk radioactive

[Zenaku]

But this would be radiation from SPACE PROBES! Don't you know what happens when a radioactive space probe returns to earth?!?!

I'll give you a hint -- it starts with a B, and ends with RAIN-EATING ZOMBIES!

Re:bad news: some junk radioactive

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it...Burmese Rain-Eating Zombies? That can't be that bad. Burma is mostly jungle, right?

Re:bad news: some junk radioactive

[MrNaz]

OMG!!! BOTTLE-NOSED RAIN EATING ZOMBIES!!! As if the water shortages weren't already bad enough!

Re:Pfft. Think we got problems now.

[Nathgar]

The moon's big enough to put all kindsa rocks in all sorts of orbits, haven't you seen cowboy bebop.

Sounds like

[Anonymous Coward]

Irreversible spacial cluttering to me

Irony...

[s31523]

Wouldn't it be ironic if our attempts at space exploration actually prohibit us from exploring space (due to the littering of space), thus sealing us in to this planet?

Collect it, yes. Throw it away, no.

[perfessor multigeek]

I agree that we should have robots out there collecting all this stuff. It's a huge volume but the math of volume passed through relative to time and fuel is a textbook problem and very addressable. As to what to do with what is collected, as I've said before, we should be breaking this stuff down to basic compounds and reusing it.

Mass costs ungawdly amounts to get up there and small devices using ion engines powered by sunlight could do the job of getting it back to usable locations. Even accounting for the problems of needing to match velocities, this is very doable. And seeing as how we've already seen cases where serious damage has been done to space craft (such as the shuttle windscreen that got pitted none too long back), this work is long overdue.

It never ceases to amaze me how chowderheaded the folks in charge are to not have started doing this long since.

-Rustin

Re:Collect it, yes. Throw it away, no.

[Rei]

Because those "chowderheads" are aware of the facts that:

1) We have no space tugs
2) Space tugs still cost money to operate (ion engines still use fuel, just less of it)
3) All craft break, even tugs, and in-space maintenence is ungodly expensive
4) Due to widely differing debris orbits and the need to match your target's orbit, it could take an ion engine years *per particle*.
5) The stuff is seen as junk for a reason.
6) There is no in-space forge, either researched or built or launched. Developing one would be a massive (unfunded) research project
7) There is no in-space casting facility. See above.
8) There is no in-space welding infrastructure. See above.
9) Any in-space manufacture would cost a fortune due to the extremely high labor and maintenence costs.
10) Any of the necessary components (tug, forge, casting, welding) could outright fail, making the entire system worthless.

All for what benefit -- eliminating one launch per several *thousand* pieces of debris captured? Great plan there. It's just not realistic, nor economical. Apparently non-"chowderheads" aren't aware of this.

Speaking of which...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anybody else notice that we currently a billion dollar probe orbiting a planet that had a moon shatter into billions of pieces, and it's doing ok?

Also, can anyone cite any statistics about the number of people killed by space debris? It seems there is a slight possibility that we can handle this.

Not really an issue

[cyberanth]

First, this is not a permanent problem. It does not take long for an abandoned LEO satellite to decay, fall into the atmosphere, and burn up. Second, imagine about 1000 cars on a surface slightly larger than the earth (not even addressing that LEO satellites are in a pretty wide variation of altitudes). Now image these 1000 cars just driving around the earth in random directions. Collisions seem unlikely. To be precise, is we put the satellites all at 7000km from the earth's center, we have an area A = 6 million km^2. Now, give them roughly the area (actually circumference in 2D) of lets say a bus (to be generous), that be sigma = 6e-2 km. Thus, that gives us a mean free path of l = (1000*sigma/A)^-1 = 10,000,000 km. At a LEO orbital velocity of 7.8 km/s, that would be a collision every 14 days. And if we bumped it up to the full 3D problem, that'd be another couple orders of magnitude.

We must boycot the NYT for this egregious slight!

[spun]

Because the NYT hates America, right? Glad you rectified their egregious oversight.

They don't "call out" the US. They happen to mention that as a small part of a larger story that really "calls out" the Chinese, if anyone. But we can't let any slight against the US, no matter how small or even entirely in your head it might be, go unchallenged. And of course, the best way to excuse anything is to point out that someone else is also doing it.

Rah! Rah! Rah! We're number one! USA! USA! USA!

Shuttle up on blocks- laughing to keep from crying

[perfessor multigeek]

So you're saying the Shuttle will be up on blocks. OK. Wonder how much a really big Trans Am decal would cost?

Oh, the pain. Man, I'm laughing here, I really am. But only to keep from screaming.

Enter the Chinese....

[pablo_max]

Seriously, they should just shoot that stuff down. Sounds like a great business model ;)

Re:The Garbage Scow "Toybox"

[Stanistani]

>Did they even make a box set for it?

Yes. I just bought it. Fine series.

I always say...

[Cygnostik]

...all kinds of stuff really... Nobody ever listens. "Oh yah, they just blasted a satellite inconsiderately into more space junk! Jerks! It's crowded enough as it is!" and people say "oh, you're just over reacting, shut up n00b-cake". But it is getting tight! Though it's fun to think of ways to clean it all up. I'd like to sit in high earth orbit with a BB gun and shoot the larger chunks into ATMO first. That would be fun!

I have a new term for it...

[fudgefactor7]

I call it "JILO", pronounced like the colorful food item available at stores near you. It stands for "Junk In Low Orbit". And this is the time where there is, in fact, no room for JILO.

Just when a space-shuttle would come in handy ...

[golodh]

It's really too bad that just at the point where a reusable launch vehicle (like the space shuttle or its replacement) would have been handy (it doesn't leave a trail of spare parts when it goes into orbit, except perhaps the occasional ceramic tile) the Low Earth Junkj.. err Orbit is getting full.

dream_mode_on

Space shuttles (or equivalent) would be great for retrieving large objects such as rocket stages. If we were quick we might be able to prevent that "cascade" from happening by removing the big pieces of junk before they are shredded.

For the finer debris this is too much work of course. Could we perhaps send up a large lump of frozen water in a net, with some machinery to melt part of it from time to time? The frozen water would be able to absorb the kinetic energy of any impacting trash, and could be melted periodically to trap the trash safely in the ice and to maintain structural integrity.

When the ratio of trash to water becomes too high we could just melt the water, sieve it for reuse, and dunk the trash into an ocean or so.

Trawling for space trash would take an awful lot of time before it makes an impact of course, but if we can just keep the problem from getting worse, we would continue to have the current (relatively acceptable conditions).

dream_mode_off

*sighs* There probably won't be any takers of course ... space shuttles have received the budget axe (and there are no replacements on the horizon), and the international political wrangle between the spacefaring nations (US, EU, Russia, China, Japan, India) about who pays for what will probably take so long that the "cascade" has already happened. Oh well ... it's nice to dream from time to time ...

World Government! Woohoo!

[fugue]

It's time for a body that can manage globally shared resources--of which there are a bunch that are more critical to our survival (like, you know, air 'n' stuff), but it'd be a good precedent if we could get some governing body to start holding people responsible for putting junk into space. "Clean it up, or else...". The "or else" bit is tricky, though.

If they could manage that, then moving onwards to more urgent problems might stand some tiny chance. But without accountability, does anyone really expect to have this problem solve itself?

I guess we're pretty much screwed.

Don't forget orbital mechanics

[MarkusQ]

An even greater effect should come about from orbital mechanics; most collisions should result in most of the material dropping into a lower or more elliptical orbit (to eventially burn up), some of it being ejected altogether, and a diminishing fraction of it remaining in LEO.

--MarkusQ

Higher orbits the future

[heroine]

The solution is going to be higher orbits. There aren't many things that can't be done in higher orbits, if you have enough money. The countries with enough money just aren't US. China is putting their GPS system in geostationary orbit for a reason.

No big issue

[__aahlyu4518]

When you use use this : http://shopping.sify.com/shopping/product_detail.p hp?pid=13175533&prodid=14195964

two birds; one giant ball of garbage

[delvsional]

We could use a Large Magnet. Then tether it the the earth with a long nano-tube cord slap and elevator on it, power the elevator with microwaves or lasers or solar power on the satellite (they make conductive nano-tubes now) and then we could call it a space elevator. I believe that it would require a large weight to counter-balance it. All the weight we need is probobly up there. I know that the magnet would obviously not collect "all" the trash, but most likely a good bit. Space Elevator Conductive Nano-tubes

one more comment

[circletimessquare]

you are involved

you can't sit in your ivory tower and look down and sneer at the ugliness of the human struggle in the mud, and think that you are somehow above it, immune from it, or separate from it

the only requisite for being involved is being alive. your belief that you are somehow not involved in the ugly struggles of the era in which you live is an illusion on your part

and by your continuation to comment on this thread, you realize that already deeper down. if you didn't reply, then your negativity would be real. but it isn't by the simple demonstration of your desire and willingness to communicate. therefore, you're still evolving ideologically, and you will eventually reach a point where your beliefs and your actions will be synchronized. they aren't now, no matter how vehemently you shout it, the sheer act of shouting it to attract other people's attention is inherently and intrinsicly a hopeful effort. and in fact, the louder you proclaim your nihilism, the less you really are one

"methinks the lady doth protest too much": shakespeare. if you understand the meaning of that quote, you understand my whole point, and you have a bette runderstanding of yourself as well

Re:one more comment

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't sit in your ivory tower and look down and sneer at the ugliness of the human struggle in the mud, and think that you are somehow above it, immune from it, or separate from it Actually yes he can think that. He would be wrong, but he can still think it.

Re:one more comment

[Shiptar]

No, I don't understand. I don't know if it's your explanation, or the lack of correlation or evidence from my life to what you are saying. Perhaps someday that will change. It's possible when you have an open mind.

Though, I will never take a stand that doesn't allow for the views of others, for any reason. That is always going to be the difference between the two of us. At least my world allows for an alternate view. I am truly sorry that yours doesn't. I do hope you enjoy the view from your world. Sorry that people such as myself are so offensive.

I am the mud.

My tower is made out of tinfoil, not ivory.

So, if I don't change my views, are you going to kill me? Or is it ok for me to go on being the only single person in the world who lives a hypocrisy?

This is a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

This should serve as an impetus for abandoning the wasteful practice of human space exploration.

Machines are much more cost efficient in space.

NASA need space sanitation engineers!

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

hey I remember a series when I was a kid in the 70's. It was a bout a space junkman. And the spaceship basically
looked like a front loading junk catcher. Hmm... sounds like we need one now.

Gum'n tape

[flyingfsck]

Nothing that some chewing gum and ductape can't fix...

Time for...

[FuzzyDaddy]

An enormous low earth orbit marshmallow. And it will get toasted on re-entry!

Re:Time for...

[evilviper]

Magnets! Several large magnets!

With no friction, and low relative inertia, a few magnets should draw all nearby magnetic debris together, and eventually, all the various magnets will come together as well.

Re:Time for...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sta-Puft Marshmallow Spaceman!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Low Earth Orbit Junk Yard Nearly Full

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's why the aliens haven't visited - they can't get through!

Evidence please?

[bjk002]

"used to regularly live over 100 years due to their diet and lifestyle"

Not a troll, just curious...

Re:Evidence please?

[drinkypoo]

While my employer would probably not appreciate me mentioning their name on slashdot, especially given my potty mouth and strong political ideals, I will tell you that I work for a Tribal casino on a Pomo reservation. I have an interest in local history and have read several books on the subject, as well as some random assorted papers that are floating around this environment. One of those was an eyewitness account by a little girl hiding in the reeds while her peoples were slaughtered on what is now called Bloody Island. I personally live outside the city limits of a town called Kelseyville, which is named for a man who came here to start a ranch, and for his labor he enslaved many of the local Pomo people, forcing them to work his property and raping them for entertainment. Eventually the Pomo people rose up and killed him for his offenses. Kelsey Creek and the town of Kelseyville still bear this raping, murdering bastard's name. Welcome to America!

Anyway, I have no reason to believe that the locals didn't know what a year was before the coming of the white man or that they would lie about such a thing, so I'm willing to accept their assertions. The Pomo people are, as far as I can tell, no more or less prone to deception than any others.

Stanislaw Lem already wrote about this

[smellsofbikes]

The brilliant Polish scifi writer Stanislaw Lem wrote, as I recall, that planets underwent several phases of intelligent development, one transition being when they started orbiting stuff, another when they had so much junk in orbit they couldn't launch anything else because it would collide with stuff already up there, and yet another when the automation and AI cruising around managed to get together and form orbital intelligent life that actively blockaded the planet below. I think he was writing this in the '60's, although I think I remember Heinlein writing about orbital debris in the '40's.

Just plain stupidity on the authors part.

[insomniac8400]

Look at how much of the surface of our planet is covered by our own trash? Do you really think a thousand+ satellites is going to fill up the entire low earth orbit? You have to love their pictures of earth with debris being little dots that cover it so much. Those dots would have to be debris larger than whole cities to even come close to being that big.

Salvage One

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for Andy Griffith and the boys to put this to a real test.

Check out http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/

Couldn't we..

[JohnnyOpcode]

..just make a fairly huge carbon-nanotube net and anchor it with two or so dead satelites and scoop up a pile of crap and then de-orbit the lump?

United States Senator Ted Stevens

[t00le]

Maybe the government should start funding MIT to determine a feasible way to connect the "tubes" into a fixed LEO. We could then get the tube people (i.e. Cisco Systems) to work on a flow reverser technology to suck all of this into the tubes, which would surely be caught by the spam hepa filter things.

Re:Just when a space-shuttle would come in handy .

[red_flea]

Yeah, I was thinking of a big ball of goo too. Water is bad because it costs too much energy to keep it liquid, as opposed to helium, hydrogen, ammonium or whatever else is naturally liquid in space. Then things that collide with this big ball of liquid will either lose kinetic energy as they pass thru the goo or get stuck in it. Either one is good, with preference given to getting stuck inside it so you don't lose extra goo to splash.

The problem with having a liquid net up there is that it's just too small to do any good. Picture an Earth with no oceans, covered by drivable pavement, with a few thousand objects driving around it. They're not going to collide very often, even if one of them happens to be a much larger object that absorbs whatever it collides with.

I thought about an ion drive that shoots its ions at the trash. The trash would then be slowed down or pushed downward, hastening its orbital decay. But for such a targetting system to work, it would have to recognize the center of mass for objects or else it might just end up spinning them instead of slowing them down. Pretty tricky...

Planet ES

[paco3791]

Send in the Half Section!

Junk Science

[Nefarious Wheel]

Oh my gosh... now you can combine a science degree with an environmental studies degree and get a PhD in Junk Science!

Reminds me of an old saying

[SoulRider]

"You can take the boy out of the trailer park, but you cant take the trailer park out of the boy!"

Re:Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to fl

[Tablizer]

There may, however, be a bit of human waste in the form of excrement flying around

Imagine being the family of the astronaut who dies via high-speed poo? There is hardly a less dignifying way to die......except maybe via Iraqi courts.

Re:Ok, didn't Nasa Tell teh Astronaughts not to fl

[RayMarron]

> > how much is human waist?

> Depending on the human, somewhere around around 32 inches.

After conversion to metric by NASA, that's 1 meter.

Bad astronaut behavior

[EmbeddedJanitor]

You have to admit that NASA is losing in the TV rankings war. This is just a scam to boost viewer interest.

Weightless bitch-fighting.... hand me the beer and peanuts! Send 8 of 'em to space and they could make it into a survivor-style reality TV series.

Re:Bad astronaut behavior

[networkBoy]

Being voted off that island would certainly suck!
-nB

orbits decay right?

[mephistophyles]

I was told in physics class that 'we' (humans) have had to adjust our satellites' orbits and all because a perfect orbit is hard to obtain and relativity gets in the way at those speeds up there. So why don't most of those pieces just burn up in the atmosphere while they're slowly pulled into Earth? Is it because their mass is so little that the pull by the Earth is so small that it's just taking forever for the acceleration to be noticeable or what?

Yeesh

[drix]

First global warming, now galactic crowding? I seriously wish I was born 300 years ago.

Global Warming IS The Solution!

[Ranger]

We need to pump more carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor into the air then our warming atmosphere will expand and put more drag on all the space junk slowing it down enough to re-enter the atmosphere and burn up. Drive those SUV's. Leave your windows and doors open. Raise the thermostat. Don't turn off your lights. Go ExxonMobile, Go!

well duh

[circletimessquare]

he can do whatever he wants

the idea though is to have a chosen path that isn't hypocritical or logically incoherent

but hell, if we're talking nihilism here, why not throw out all meaning and justification?

Re:well duh

[Shiptar]

Hey that's your first display of understanding.

I knew I could get through to you, a little bit of understanding can go a long way to make the world a place where different people can co-exist.

mode parent up Re:An idea who's time has come?

[Fubari]

This is *hugely* interesting.
This looks at the economics of how "space garbage collectors" might be managed.

"Planetes" is an outstanding anime - *very* well thought out for the medium-term future of space development. It has a richly envisioned, deeply layered world w/Power struggles (political, corporate), collapse of petroleum economy, widening divide between 1st & 3rd world economies. It is a Very well crafted series; a rich tapestry woven of thought provoking ideas.

The gui "interface" they designed for the space suits is reason enough to watch it. It is Frickin' Cool!

The story line is Exceptionally well done, too.
(Oh yeah, first rate animation is a bonus; nice to see, too.)

Answer: Light Craft Technologies

[M0b1u5]

Look, I keep beating this same drum over and over again - but the answer to this problem (and many others!) is to give http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/ about a billion dollars to get themselves off the ground (no pun intended).

Corresponding with Liek Miyabo the company principle - he maintains that a pulsed 1 Gigawatt laser will put 1-ton payloads into orbit for cents per kilo. The same "laser beams" can be used to de-orbit space junk. As they come over the horizon, you blast the stuff with Laser light. The light pressure exerted on the junk slows it down, and drops its orbit. Major parts can be bought down quickly, other (smaller) bits can be bought down over months and years.

There is a global database of (known) space junk, and their orbits - so it should be simple math to program idle launch lasers to bombard space junk during down times.

Not only does the launch system allow for de-orbiting space junk, and launching hardy materiel into LEO, but it will also perform the following functsions:

1) Reflected from orbit not pulsed but defocused to illuminate search and rescue locations
2) Reflected form orbit, not defocused: surgical strike weapon capable of slagging your neighbours house without scorching your fence.
3) Bug eyed-alien tamer extra-ordinaire: several pulsed gigawatt class lasers say "Don't fuck with me" on a large scale.
4) Light-sail motor: boost interstallar probes to reletivistic velocities
5) Planet-killing Asteroid fixer: Only 2cm/s velocity change is required to change the orbit of an inbound asteroid such that it will miss the earth, even only 2 years out. Light pressure solves this one too.
6) Ballistic missile defence (REAL - as opposed to make-believe): this system will actually work, instead of merely providing employment for constituents of Senators in affected states.

So, this system actually does multiple things, and all for the same, low-low price, compared to Dubya's BMD program, which is a complete and utter waste of time and money.

My question is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any commons humanity *can't* fuck up?

Space Games

[plnrtrvlr]

Here's a fun idea for space junk...... A handful of satellites to start, say 20, that can alter their orbits to some smallish degree. Arm the satellites with modified 50 cal ammo (the powder would need an oxidizer)..... The satellites have a "master control" at NASA to lock out targeting against functioning satellites and then charge people for the privilege of targeting space debris. They could even give each shot an "accepted targeting range" so that the recoil could be used to help boost the satellite towards the next piece of debris. With a range measured in miles, 50 cal shots would almost always have something within range, even limiting shots taken to only those that would propel debris towards Earth. $500 a shot and each successful "kill" gets the hunter a picture of the impact and a certificate from NASA. The satellite would consist of an ion engine and power source, camera with telescopic zoom, communications (all radar targeting would be done from the same Earth based radar that tracks debris) a gun and about 10,000 rounds of ammo. The only real issues are making sure that targeting doesn't threaten useful satellites and that the recoil from all shots allowed can be used to alter the orbit of the "gun" favorably: these should be fairly reasonable engineering problems. $5 million paid in from "hunters" sitting at their computers to help defray costs... Send the "gun" to a firey death when it's ammo is gone: I'd say it's doable.

How to clear out the junk in LEO

[some guy I know]

Just build a wall from the North Pole to the South Pole that is a couple of thousand miles high.
All of the debris will crash into the wall and fall to the Earth.
Now, there is a problem that satellites would also crash into the wall, but the way to solve that is to build the wall with holes in it, so that satellites can pass through undamaged.
(Put doors on the holes so that debris can't also pass through the holes, and open the doors only when the satellites approach.)
This is such a simple plan; I don't know why it hasn't been implemented.

Chain Gains

[Above]

It worked to clean up the freeways, and gives NASA an excuse to develop faster cheaper ways to get people into space and do space walks.

The question is, is this post Funny or Insightful?

Re:Heh - Already Exists -- "ASTEROIDS"

[Anonymous Coward]

Atari beat you to the punch.. aka Asteroids ;)

Use microwaves to decelerate objects

[KellyDunn]

Microwave emitters can be used to setup standing waves around orbiting objects and induce deceleration. The idea has been tested and was originally proposed to harvest ore from asteroid fields. In this setup ,however, a series of earth transmitters would use phase coherance to modulate the location of a standing wave to within the known location of a piece of junk. By moving the standing wave just a little behind the object the object will decelerate to try to stay within the trough. It would eventually burn up. The beauty of this idea is that transmission power can be very low for each of the transmitters but the cumulative signal at the calculated point is enormous. The stronger the signal at point x, the greater the force that could be applied. The zone of the standing wave would be the wave length of the transmission frequency therefore by using low frequency signals one could move relatively large objects(half meter, ect). There you go humanity, don't say I never gave you anything. And for those that want to say my mumbo jumbo is foobar, the original idea was proposed by nasa....ok, the diaper lady sorta ruined that street cred but....

Three words: Magnetic Roomba Satellite

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm totally serious here. Launch a giant frikkin magnet sail into low earth orbit, unfurl it and just have it zip around. :)

This sounds like a job for...

[Anonymous Coward]

MegaMaid!

Not aerogel, a coil?

[Traf-O-Data-Hater]

Aerogel sounds good for small particles, but would require physical contact with the pieces. I propose a large coil, maybe 1km diameter that has a strong current running through it. This would fly through areas of microscopic space junk. The coil might induce eddy currents in the space junk and slow their orbital velocity, perhaps over many years. Maybe fly the coil at 45 degrees so the particles are directed toward earth. Well I'm sure someone will (pardon the pun) shoot my idea down as bad physics :)

Re:Not aerogel, a coil?

[dpilot]

If not shot down, how about a variation. You're big enough to make the whole thing a tether. At that point, you could put solar cells on the top side, and you'd have power to induce current in the coil. Also at that point, you'd begin reacting against the Earth's magnetic field, and propelling yourself. (See David Brin's "Tank Farm Dyname" short story.)

Re:Not aerogel, a coil?

[stjobe]

You mean Tank Farm Dynamo.

It's guerrilla warfare.

[cyphercell]

"Asked if the satellite's remains would threaten other spacecraft, she asserted that China's policy was to keep space free of weapons."

Let's look again at costs for each space Roomba

[perfessor multigeek]

Okay, I see your point. But the vast majority of the debris is a few grams per piece. So if we allow a device as much as a month to match velocity, a scooper about the size of a chihuahua would do fine.

So, let's spec it out.
- Solar panels
- Batteries
- Radiator surface (PV panels can help with that)
- Brain (should fit on three to ten chips on a board the size of an ipod)
- Inertial guidance package
- IFF
- Antennae, both for communications and for sensing
- Ion engines (one main engine, itty bitty ones for attitude and such)
- Radar (general sensing, see also antennae)
- Laser on a chip (close up sensing)
- Camera on a chip
- Scoop (probably with aerogel inside)
- Storage container
- Magnet (optional but probably worth it)

I'm too lazy to calculate the size of the propulsion package (motors/PV/batteries/whatnot) but the rest could be built by a freshman engineering class at any half decent school in a year, including calculating the ballistics algorithms, for about a thousand bucks. Make it ten thousand to vacuum harden it and package it for launch, add the cost of propulsion, and, including launch cost if ten or twenty go up at a time (three from each school perhaps), and we're looking at about fifty thousand dollars per robot, or less.
Only problems that I see are how "noisy" space would get with all these jobbies puttering about cleaning up debris and pinging every which way and the sh*t fit that the owners of current space hardware, especially the various militaries, would throw at having mere civilians possibly bumping into them and certainly getting close up looks at all their toys.

Looks to me like a plan.

-Rustin

Cheap Fix, Patent Pending... "The Snowball"

[IBitOBear]

Create the following package and send it into retrograde orbit:
1) Take a very thin membrane material (mylar etc) and make a _HUGE_ balloon.
2) Prepare an "inflater" it with a material that will harden into a very sparse, somewhat resilient foam (think "fix a flat" meets sparse Styrofoam) [what is silly string made of? That would be just about the right consistency... 8-)].

Include enough material in item 2 to fill item 1. The resulting matrix should not "pressurize" the membrane, it should just fill it out to its final volume.

When the package is in orbit you do the deed and inflate it. The membrane exists to (A) define the size of the resultant object and (B) offer the object a modicum of structural support as/after the foam hardens and (C) keep the whole thing together if the foam is "shattered". (e.g. debris is _supposed_ to penetrate the membrane and it is most desirable for the debris to then become embedded in the matrix.)

Every impact between the retrograde snowball and the invariably non-retrograde orbiting debris decelerates BOTH objects. The snowball will tend to pick up and retain the impossibly annoying little pieces (a bolt here, a washer there, etc). Larger objects will tend to hole-through the snowball entirely. In both cases energy will be exchanged and both the object and the snowball will drop to lower orbits. The snowball's orbit must decay quickly because the very large surface area needs must interact with even the exceptionally sparse atmosphere in LEO even if it doesn't impact anything. So each gram of mass it picks up will add a negative vector compared to its original orbit.

Meanwhile, every large object that encounters the snowball will be deflected to a lower less stable orbit, or in a worst case into a less circular orbit which must then have a lower altitude at its closest approach and so which must then be slowed by the atmosphere more effectively (etc).

To deorbit _VERY_ large pieces of debris, you deploy the snowball in a non-retrograde, eccentric orbit set so that the desired object overtakes the snowball from behind, or more correctly "in the side". So the snowball is going down \ and the object is going across "-". The desired net effect is to embed the target object in the larger snowball while achieving a much less stable composite orbit "-\". The new composite object has a very large surface area, a more elliptical orbit, and a lower more friction-filled perigee, and game over. These single object killers would generally be more massive and more tuned to their target.

Gravity and friction do the rest.

Given that we track all this stuff anyway, we know where most of the important problematic bits are. We can make several different snowball materials in order to catch different grades/weights of debris. The right starting vectors and materials could "deorbit" all sorts of goodies in a matter of hours.

Since the snowballs themselves are sparse materials with a lot of surface area you get guaranteed burn-up on reentry of the snowball.

Any impact hard/fast enough to shatter a snowball will produce a sparse scattering of material which MUST be greatly decelerated since each fragment had to overcome the tensile strength holding it to the whole, and the whole was in stable orbit and the shattering force was opposing the orbital velocity. So shattered snowballs would fall to earth virtually directly.

There is a tiny probability that a whole-through would punch out a chunk of the snowball which would then be moving at the same velocity as the _new_ speed of the penetrating object. Both the penetrating object and the "chad" would drop immediately to a new (lower) orbit and the drag etc would take over as previously mentioned.

And in the worst case, the filling foam could be made from something with "excellent" sublimation characteristics so that fragments that find peculiar orbits would "evaporate" in a matter of weeks.

The only material challenge is the balloon. You want something has re

Correction: Throw it away, yes. Collect it, no...

[IBitOBear]

See my "snowball" post later in this topic. Getting rid of space junk should be _really_ easy. I didn't do the math there, but the technology to do this exists today and it should be super cheap as well. You just have to think more practically. You have only one goal: junk is gone. The best place for it to go is "down" (back to earth) because that is nearly free.

Now combine that with basic orbital mechanics (lower faster, higher slower; sparse atmospherics; A + -A = 0; etc) and stop trying to match orbits when all you have to do is intersect them without making a mess...

Take a guess, then read this/my other post: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22091 2&cid=17915694

cost/benenit per space Roomba

[perfessor multigeek]

I forgot one thing. How much of a difference would these make anyway?

Let's assume ten thousand pieces of space junk. We'll cut that in half to only include stuff small enough to be grabbable by theses guys and in half again to only address high density orbits. Put it back up a bit to assume that more crud will turn up, 'cause we know that it will. So we'll assume that we're looking at three thousand relevant pieces of debris.

So, twenty robots per launch, three launches per year, half the robots fail. That gives us thirty robots the first year.

So let's assume one recovery per week. I think that given the inevitable clustering and increasing skill at finding paths over time, this is realistic.
That gives us thirty times fifty which means fifteen hundred pieces of debris recovered in the first year of operation.

So, in two years we're done and are ready to address the nastier stuff. All for a total cost of three million bucks. Let's say ten million just to assume the usual government impediments. And assume that it takes four years of collection rather than two. Still looks mighty damn shiny to me.

Anybody got a refutation or is this a very solvable problem?

Anybody? Anybody?

-Rustin

Giant foamballs

[pluton2001]

The basic concept comes from John Barnes' short fiction. Giant, slow-moving foam balls can capture much of the space junk. Let's keep the LEOsphere clear!

Look at Wikipedia, folks.

[perfessor multigeek]

All of this makes a lot more sense if you read the Wikipedia article on space debris. It's got some mighty handy info. A wee bit more useful data than the predictably science-challenged NYT piece.

RTFA, nitwit.

[perfessor multigeek]

Okay, dude, around here we have this quaint custom of reading the post and linked articles before spewing off clueless, pseudo-technical "refutations".

We're not talking vast new research initiatives here. Since I've already laid out the specs more than once in this thread and on this site, I'm not going to do it again here.

I'll just say that since you evidently can't tell the difference between the costs of building and running a robot the size of a breadbox using seventies technology (do you have any idea of how tiny the mass usage of an ion engine is?) and a "space tug", by which I assume you have in mind some vast, multibillion dollar, human-crewed spaceship, you probably wouldn't understand the relevant calculations anyway.

Man, I hate dealing with people without operations experience.

Re:RTFA, nitwit.

[Rei]

That's funny, because my pet peeve is people who spout off about topics that they don't know anything about. A couple news flashes for you:

A) The smaller you make a craft with an ion engine, the worse the efficiency (both electricity/thrust and ISP), AND the higher the percentage of the craft's mass must be dedicated to power collection and conversion. This applies to Hall effect thrusters as well. Bottom line: small ion engines are good for little more than stationkeeping.

B) The difference in delta-V between many debris particles is many thousands of meters per second. Ion engines can take literally years to achieve these kind of delta-V changes.

C) Ion engines are not the nearly-perpetual-motion machines that you picture. The xenon (or other fuels) still gets consumed. ISPs of small engines are often a few thousand sec, which means only one order of magnitude (two at best) better than chemical rockets. However, with all of their electrical deadweight, it's only a few-fold performance improvement. Oh, by the way: the longer you operate them, the more their grids erode. Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance. Even proposed "gridless" designs will still break down, like all spacecraft do.

In short, it doesn't matter if you've said something before if it's wrong. The rest of your concept is even more ludicrous. First off, *YES*, melting things in space takes research. Materials in space behave very differently than they do on Earth. Just a random example: metals in a vaccuum contact weld readily. Lets go into more of your notions. Spraying "molten metal" onto "strips" -- first off, there are many types of metal used, each with very different properties (yeah, melt some Inconel and then separate it -- I dare you). An increasing amount of space junk is from carbon fibre bodies. Even if you were selective to a specific general metal class, the different alloy choices would give you wildly differing spray properties (viscosity, melting point, etc). Now to the funny part: a "spray" separating metal types. That's just rich. Have you ever read anything about refining in your life? There's all sorts of industrial-scale ways to separate chemicals from one another -- fractional crystallization, solution deposition, etc, but "spraying" is not one of them. To paraprase Morbo: "Mass Spectrometers Do Not Work That Way!" They deal in miniscule amounts of material compared to the size of the equipment and amount of energy involved. The output is not a "spray", but a faint trickle of particles (and yes, *plasma*, not gas -- if you don't even know that the difference between gas and plasma is ionization, essential to a mass spectrometer, why are you writing about them?) It doesn't matter what your launch costs are; you're never going to refine with a mass spectrometer. Why do you think that, despite having such a large mass difference,deuterium is separated from hydrogen through hydrogen sulfide adsorption? Why do you think it takes huge cascades of gas centrifuges to enrich uranium just to 3% from 0.7% natural? Should I keep going? It's because *we don't care about getting micrograms of product*. Mass spectrometry is an *analysis tool*, not a refining system, for a reason.

You go on to completely ignore the issue of maintenance and general space assembly costs, just predicting some sort of magical "everything works and never breaks and humans are not involved" world, where somehow an ion-engine tug, magically fully functional but tiny, zips around with essentially no fuel loss, gets thousands of meters per second delta-V in days, never breaks down, and manages to collect junk which is instantly refined through a magical process (all through some mystical meltinc crucible that doesn't care about what the materials are and a sprayer that magically separates elements at relevant speeds (which no industry on Earth is aware of), and the whole thing takes an irrelevant amount of research to build. It's the most preposterous notion I've ever found someone on Slashdot so obsessed with. And that's saying an awful lot.

Re:RTFA, nitwit.

[Retric]

While I agree with most of what your saying consider how far you could go on a ~2 billion per year budget over 20 years. (Not that you would ever "stop" for long but it's a reasonable target.)

Personally I would try and use an ION drive that releases a vary low density foam "pellet's" that impact at fairly high velocity to de orbit large stable space junk. Think two satellites in opposite polar orbits that add ~0.1g pellets to the same object. With every impact pair you just dropped the object's orbital energy. Granted you replace the need for insane delta V's with insane accuracy and even at ~.1g spread over 1 foot area you need a fairly sturdy object but it's not totally impossible. Now the largest problem with this is breaking things into small chunks but...

For smaller objects you could use a several large mirrors to ionize space junk. Yea targeting things would be a huge issue but dumping a few kw/m should ionize most things fairly quickly. At say 1 per week you're at putting a fairly large dent into smaller space junk over time.

Finally for things like large structurally unstable satellites you would need a few high ISP ion drives for de orbiting. Luckaly there are far fewer of these than there are cunks of other stuff.

As to recycling space junk that seems like a tall order but if you consider how much stuff is in geo stationary orbit you have a lot of mass within a small rage of delta V's. So collecting several tons of junk should not be a huge problem. If you heat and spin a large ball / disk you could separate out several useful elements but I don't know how useful this would be. However, you might be able to make some sort of useful impact / radiation shielding from fairly impure chunks of copper etc.

Note: This is not my area but thinking in terms of generic ideas what are your thoughts.

Re:RTFA, nitwit.

[Rei]

That's actually an interesting concept. An ion drive isn't suitable for launching pellets, but a "gun" (be it magnetic, chemical, or simply pneumatic) is. It would take a lot of study to come up with a good pellet that will A) break up the target into small enough pieces, and B) will itself reenter, and pose minimal risk to extant crafts, even if it misses its target. The importance of breakup is that smaller particles have a higher surface area to mass ratio, and are subject to more ionospheric/exospheric drag, in addition to being less individually damaging. But if you only break it up a little bit, you simply render still dangerous particles too small to be tracked. It would take a lot of study on different types of projectiles and different types of targets.

Perhaps, instead of foam, you could fire a composite of small particles in an ice matrix (something like pykrete), or perhaps particles in an hydrated gel (which will, over time in the vaccuum, dessicate and crumble). Both should have customizable lifetimes (due to water (or even alcohol, or other liquid) sublimation), yet hopefully retain enough compressive strength to withstand the forces of being fired.

consider how much stuff is in geo stationary orbit

That's part of the problem: GEO is an unstable orbit, and requires stationkeeping to remain there. Junk inherently leaves GEO, eventually oscillating back and forth in a range of latitudes, with varying eccentricity and Earth distances (which means different velocities).

Re:The Garbage Scow "Toybox"

[NeuralSpike]

Dude, ANY concept is enough to make a manga or anime. You must not watch much anime or read much manga to not know that.

Point defence...

[WoTG]

It's just like the video games... future satellites will require laser based point defence. Zap stuff that's heading their way! Or, if you're of the Star Trek type, then we need to invent energy shields.

Tweaker! (You live in ClearLake, Ha Ha.)

[HornWumpus]

That must be some good tweak if you believe the Injun stories about how long their anscestors lived.

BTW did you know that the old wise men of the Bible lived many many years (some almost 1000). What, you don't believe that one, why not?

When will we learn

[jandersen]

This is the same old story as ever. We keep messing around without thinking about the consequences until it suddenly dawns on us that we should have, at which point it is too late; or almost. In the beginning of the industrial revolution we pumped smoke and poisonous dust out into the local environment until people were choking to death, and still we refused to do anything about it for a long time. In the sixties we saw how pollution affected whole countries with acid rain, dead rivers etc, and yet it took decades of increasing problems before anybody in power reacted. Since then we have continued much on the same track, so now we are in the middle of a mass extinction - the seas are being fished dry, the forests are being cut down, coral reefs are being bulldozed by trawlers etc etc. Not to mention global warming.

So what can we conclude? That humans, after all, are just another dumb animal that reacts to its temporary evolutionary success by destroying the basis for its own existence? What idiocy. What complete and utter, desperate idiocy.

Re:No problem. Use Blu-Tack

[JonathanR]

They should send up large lumps of Blu-tack, which would zoom around and absorb all the bits'n'pieces. Eventually, after enough collisions, its velocity would reduce and then would out of LEO, to be burned up on re-entry.

1KM x 1KM plain wind-sheild in orbit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Install 1KM x 1KM plain wind-sheild in orbit, to deflect debris to pacific ocean or designated fenced 10KM x 10KM garbage dump in middle of Sahara desert.

Max Headroom prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Get out your tin umbrella!

Stylish Ring?

[Appl]

Does this mean we'll eventually get some of those kick ass rings like Saturn style?

A.)I apologize. B.) Now we're getting somewhere

[perfessor multigeek]

*sigh*

This was so much easier when it looked like you hadn't read the JE ;->

Not sure if I apologize that much for my tone. You weren't exactly Mr. Charming in your first response, but whatever.

Okay, now I can see what's going on here and it looks like it can be blamed on my sloppy writing so, I'll assume that that is what we're dealing with here. FWIW, I am now going to have to go back and rewrite the JE because what you think you saw is probably happening with plenty of other folks. Oh well, so be it.

Now, first of all, delighted though I am with the beloved old High Frontier era ion engines, yes, I was assuming the new designs and since I've stated that they would be getting launched four years from now or later, I was both taking for granted the newer designs and treating them as kinda disposable. From what I've seen, part of the problem with many of the ion engines now made, from my perspective is that, yes, stationkeeping is exactly what they're designed for where as I'm think oh, well, if it lasts fifteen or sixteen months, hey, that's good enough for me. Note that I had assumed that half of the robots, in effective terms, would break down so fast that they would be thought of as failures.
so, no, I don't think that they'll be either all hat long term efficient, or free from breakdown, I just treated them as disposable.
In a perfect world, they themselves would eventually (we're talking years here) make it back to some where that they can themselves become raw materials or simply shoot out of orbit. I'ld be satisfied with their not becoming more space junk. And, yes, I do need to address that better.

Okay, thrust. First of all, I, over and over say that the acquisition rates would average a few pieces of junk a month. Yes, you're right, in some cases, the time required would be insane. I'm gambling, from the distribution data that I've seen (such as the Wikipedia article noted above though I've looked a NASA data over the years too) that there are enough pieces that are reachable faster to allow for a first few sweeps that would get things off to a good start. Again, note that I start by writing off half of what's up there as unreachable. Since velocity does, by and large, correlate with altitude, there should be some degree of practicality to grabbing one, then another, then another, along basically the same orbit. I'm well aware that it's looking more and more like Brownian motion up there but the nature of orbits does help. Also, I'm not assuming a dead start but rather some little initial velocity. A one time very small chemical boost as a sort of JATO. Maybe even two or three pencil-sized one time-use chemical thrusters kept around for special occasions. Again, quick and simple is the order of the day.

As for fuel usage, AFAICT, other than antennae and the scoop itself, this little bugger is basically nothing but PV and engine. Kinda different from, say, a communications satellite.

Now, as for processing, yeah, I rushed, yeah I was sloppy. Now, first of all, I was assuming an intial plant in the JE for use with the ISS. In a case like that the dynamics are totally different. If we're talking about a system just for space debris then the order is reversed. First you ship it to the parking orbit, them, whenever you get around to it, maybe years later, you break it down into component materials. I agree, there is some amount of work needed before we're ready to take on much materials breakdown but we don't need to wait for that day to start collecting mass.

That having been said, well, the first technique I mentioned was thermal depolymerization. Or rather, the sorts of related tech that, for example, Purdue just demonstrated. This deals just fine with your issue of carbon fiber and handles much of the preseparation. And since it's all in a few pressurized tanks, afaict, microgravity and vacuum simply aren't that relevant. And, again, this whole frickin' thing is meant to

Re:A.)I apologize. B.) Now we're getting somewhere

[Rei]

From what I've seen, part of the problem with many of the ion engines now made, from my perspective is that, yes, stationkeeping is exactly what they're designed for where as I'm think oh, well, if it lasts fifteen or sixteen months, hey, that's good enough for me.

It's not an issue of "what they're designed for"; it's an issue of the technology. The smaller the engine, the less distance you have for acceleration, the less room you have for voltage upconversion and the lower your dielectric breakdown will be, etc. Smaller engines are inherently going to have lower thrust per amount of electricity consumed, and lower ISP, than larger ones of the same technology base.

thought of as disposable

You're talking about having to collect literally thousands of pieces of debris just to pay for one *launch cost*, and you're claiming that these these things will be disposable and expected to break down?

Yes, you're right, in some cases, the time required would be insane.

Not "in some cases". Unless you're moving your entire bloody refinery around, you need to get all of the junk into a *specific* orbit. It doesn't matter where you put that orbit; 95% of the junk won't be anywhere close to its orbit in terms of delta-V.

Since velocity does, by and large, correlate with altitude, there should be some degree of practicality to grabbing one, then another, then another, along basically the same orbit.

You forget two factors: Orbit inclination and orbit eccentricity. So, no.

Maybe even two or three pencil-sized one time-use chemical thrusters kept around for special occasions.

Just stop and think about the economics of this. It takes an entire bloody stage generally to transfer between an equatorial and polar orbit, or LEO to GEO. You're talking about spending an entire bloody stage to pick up a small piece of junk. Stop and think about this; it's plain ludicrous.

As for fuel usage, AFAICT, other than antennae and the scoop itself, this little bugger is basically nothing but PV and engine.

And voltage upconversion, and ground communications, and ranging (radar or optical), and latching mechanism(s), and space-hardened processing systems, and fuel supply...

Just in case my last post didn't make it clear: the power infrastructure in ion-driven craft is much larger (and heavier) than the engine, and weighs them down. Not just photovoltaics. A PV array might produce a dozen to a hundred or so volts, but ion engines want voltage differentials of tens to hundreds of kilovolts. Let's look at SMART1. It's launch mass was 367kg. Yet of this mass, only 82kg was xenon propellant, and a mere 19kg scientific payload. The rest was general infrastructure. The smaller you get, the *worse* the situation gets.

That having been said, well, the first technique I mentioned was thermal depolymerization.

You've been reading too poorly written articles for the general public and not papers about the tech. TDP liberates (but does not isolate by type) mineral grains from an organic matrix. Not what you're talking about here. The temperatures used by TDP don't even reach high enough to melt most rocketry alloys. Nor is it hot enough to melt carbon fibre. TDP goes up to almost 500C. You exceed those kind of temperatures on liftoff, so you're not going to find much in space that would be subject to TDP. Not that the ball mill that they use for TDP preprocessing be able to grind metals without wearing to nubs.

The reason that we don't use "one size fits all" refining mechanisms here on earth is that, for the few that actually exist, they work in miniscule quantities or with otherwise ridiculous constraints. Actual refining is done using a variety of chemical, electrochemical, and physical means, tailor-made for the product. Titanium sponge is produced first through processing to titanium chloride. Aluminum by electrolysis in a cryolite bath. Steel by blast furnace reduction v

NYT is notorious

[amightywind]

But we can't let any slight against the US, no matter how small or even entirely in your head it might be, go unchallenged

The NYT is notorious for bashing and embarrassing US government institutions under this President. I am pointing out there is plenty of criticism to go around for orbital debris and that the NYT is a dishonest shill of the liberal left. God bless the United States of America.

Re:NYT is notorious

[spun]

The NYT has FAR less bias than Fox News. I'd put it as far left-wing as CNN is right-wing. In any case, it's a good thing nothing in this story really needs an excuse. Because "Well, the frenchies did it too!" is not an excuse.

The NYT is "notorious for bashing and embarrassing US government institutions under this President," because this President has done so many outrageously embarassing things. Heck, I think they haven't gone far enough in uncovering his ridiculous excesses.

I love my country, but I dislike the current administration. Our country was founded by men who questioned authority. I'm more of a patriot than anyone who blindly follows authority.

Re:NYT is notorious

[amightywind]

The NYT has FAR less bias than Fox News. I'd put it as far left-wing as CNN is right-wing.

LOL!

I love my country, but I dislike the current administration. Our country was founded by men who questioned authority. I'm more of a patriot than anyone who blindly follows authority.

You are a defeat craving, leftist subversive. You ought to be flogged and deported to the first socialist country that would have you.

Re:NYT is notorious

[spun]

And you are a troll, trying to get a rise out of me. Fortunately, the country is waking up, and people like you are going the way of the dodo and the passenger pigeon. Your confused and angry lashing about as your paradigm crumbles and you can no longer hide from the inherent contradictions and hypocrisy of your world view amuses and delights me. Fortunately for you, we, the winners, are not as vindictive and violent as your kind are, or you would be up against the wall with a blindfold and a last smoke.

Does it burn that you are no longer relevant? I certainly hope so. When the last of your kind dies off, the sane and normal people will heave a sigh of relief.

Speaking of materials processing...

[perfessor multigeek]

My. How handy. Looks like /. now has a thread on just the sort of broadly applicable materials processing I was talking about. So I've kinda lost interest in writing yet more about it. Of course, since I'm in the middle of writing a book on the subject (oops, did I forget to mention that earlier? my bad), I should be more generous with my time but, well, I'm not.

Back to the ion engine efficiency issue, now that I think about it, yeah, I've been assuming some stuff that probably isn't merited, including possibly using collected mass as fuel. So probably better to look at that issue again. Back when I was doing corporate ops, I must admit that folks kept complaining that I tend to jump from step five to step fifty and assume that everybody else also carried around all the relevant data in their heads and was comfortable deriving the intermediate steps. Made for lots of, "Oh, did I forget to write up this aspect?" Okay. My f*ckup. Yes, you're right, fuel as I describe the system is a huge weakness. And I'm too lazy this morning to address it.

But fundamentally, what I'm suspecting here is that you're taking a whole different view of things. I'm looking at this from a "fast, cheap, and out of control" design approach (except that I'm assuming that fifteen to twenty years qualifies as "a short time") and I have a distinct suspicion that you're annoyed that this doesn't work when you try to spec it out as if it were being done by Lockheed to be approved and run by NASA circa 1992.

You're right. Done as a government contract by Morton Thiokol and specced to run to six sigma standards, the whole idea is insane.

Well, you stick to your world, I'll stick to mine and we'll see who looks wiser ten years from now. Me, I'll go back to packing up my thermocouples and planning my algae tanks and I'll see you around.

-Rustin

The natural order

[amightywind]

Fortunately for you, we, the winners, are not as vindictive and violent as your kind are, or you would be up against the wall with a blindfold and a last smoke.

Do you think so? Your success depends on the likes of, Hillary, Barack Hussein Bin Laden, and John "White Flag" Edwards. When we regain power, as we surely shall, we will go back to abusing you. It is the natural order of things.

Does it burn that you are no longer relevant? I certainly hope so. When the last of your kind dies off, the sane and normal people will heave a sigh of relief.

Rudi, 2008.

Re:The natural order

[spun]

Cool! If I'm right I'm gonna rub your face in it next election. You can do the same to me, if the American Taliban gets re-elected. Of course, unlike your hero, Dear Leader Bush, the American people actually know and understand the phrase "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So I sincerely doubt the good people of this country will bend over and let themselves be sodomized by this pack of thieves, liars and outright traitors again.

As much as you obviously hate freedom and liberty and everythign good our country stands for, why don't you go live in a more authoritarian state such as North Korea? I would imagine you'd be happier amongst people of similar mindset to you.

Re:The natural order

[amightywind]

As much as you obviously hate freedom and liberty and everythign good our country stands for, why don't you go live in a more authoritarian state such as North Korea? I would imagine you'd be happier amongst people of similar mindset to you.

I think you mistake an authoritarian state, for one where there is law and order. It is a point on which white flag democrats are perpetually confused.

Giant Ball of Garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

We just have to launch a giant ball of garbage into orbit therefore all the other space garbage would collide with this sticky mass and become stuck, then when all the space debris is collected we'll just have to launch another giant ball of garbage into space knocking the first into the sun. We wont have to worry about that though because it's not happening for another 993 years.

Re:Aerogel sponge scooping up crud

[HydroPhonic]

Unfortunately the Aerogel, in order to remain in the same orbit as the crud it pursues, would have to orbit at the same speed.

A solution in which the altitude and speed of the ginormous sponge changed dynamically to allow it to gobble up the offending crud would require propulsion of the unit, as well as computing power for guidance. Detection of crud and control of sponge could be handled onboard or remotely - that's mostly an engineering problem...